Quote:

That was a ladder party game. Raaman, stonewall, pagaesus, all are good players.

Avg. being 1700? I'm 1900, and I had some stiff playing to do to be able to keep up. I doubt any of the players in there were lower than 1850.

Well I think in that game, the Spanish player was basically wiped out in the rush, so maybe it isn't totally fair to use that as an example.

Everyone knows that Lancers have their use. However, the issue here is not that, but the fact that Uber is claiming that Lancers are decisively better than other cavalry and that they even own heavy infantry.

That wasn't the point. The point was, muskets are used often.

Also, in the second game (which you were not in) the spanish player sent 6 lancers early in fort, but they got slaughtered by a measly amount of about 8-10 muskets.

I saw some later on, but they got owned too. He resorted to pikes after that, cuz he needed a meatshield for his falcs which were being bombarded with cossacks and hussars.

Mist your just mad becuz i dotn respond to YOUR posts. I read every1 elses, but yours, so i really wouldnt bother replying to any thread i make =D

Thanx The Bob. Bob made a good point. I like Lancers EARLY fortress. Maybe i should have defined my post title more, cuz every1 just auto-flames without even giving any notice to the Lancers usefullnes.

6 Lancers along w 10 pikes and 2 Falcs is extremly hepful, w Caballero they are awesome IMO.

THEY DO BEAT HI w Caballero. they just do. Try it.

In large numbers HI will beat Lancers but i aint engaging 6 Lancers into 15-20 Muskts. Ill use 2 falcs for that while pikes protect and Lancers go kill some villies or something.

Mist dont reply to my post unless you want other people to read them, come play me on ESO, u know my name, any day.

uber you can only say they beat musks

others proof they dont beat musks

i dont believe you

Quote:

I've messaged you for the past 5 days. You're never there, or you just refuse to reply.

Quote:

I tried it. You don't need to ignore my tests. I did them. I proved you wrong.

Quote:

5 hussar shipment is better for raiding than 6 lancers.

Also, if you aren't engaging your lancers in they enemy, what use will they be then? You can simply use hussars if you're not attacking HI, because hussars are better than lancers than everything else.

The irony you create with your posts is amusing.

And no, I have a right to reply to your posts. Nice try defending yourself by telling me not to post here.

Its called a forum for a reason.

Mist i have no idea what you said, but keep trying lol.

Shild, A Lancer beats a Vet musk 1 v 1, 2 v 1 reg Musk lose to Lancer, 2 v 1 vet Muskt beat Lancer, WOWWWOWOWOW, thats fu*kin CRAZY!

You can argue this all day, but the point is usefullness in the game not on Paper.

I did happen to see some1 said 5 hussar shipment, Spain doesnt get 5 Hussar only get 4. Id rather have 6 Lancers all day.

6 Lancers under 8 min is effective no matter what, your opponent isnt gonna have 15 Musks at 8 min unless he is going for an all out colonial rush/kill, with a really slow fortress, or he FF an sent 11 Musks as first or second fort shipment. If that happens 2 falc > 11 Musks, and i always send falc before Lancer.

I think alot of the people in this post hate on Lancers becuz they never use them, if you got wins with them, and they did good things for you in game, you would have a diff opinion.

EDIT: The only reason that Lancers lack late game is becuz of how good the falconet and HC's are. They are very good at killing infantry, which negates the usefullness of Lancer, so i can agree that late game they are a waste, and i dont tend to make Lancers late game.

[This message has been edited by ub3r (edited 04-05-2006 @ 04:44 PM).]

"In large numbers HI will beat Lancers but i aint engaging 6 Lancers into 15-20 Muskts. Ill use 2 falcs for that while pikes protect and Lancers go kill some villies or something."

you just changed your whole argument.
OH, NOW THEY ARE GOOD AT RAIDING.
you just keep changing everything that you can think of to help defend yourself.
well guess what, ITS NOT WORKING.

we all know that lancers beat light infantry.
we all know lancers DO NOT beat heavy infantry, but put up a good fight.
we all know lancers do not raid as well as other cav.
we all know lancers are not as fast as other cav so they are JUST A LITTLE BIT WORSE at beating artillery.
we all know lancers lose to cav.

ok? that is all we are saying. if you would just agree or something for once...
so stop arguing with everything we say and make a lame excuse why we are wrong...and then when you know you are wrong do not say something that we all know is even more wrong to back it up (see the quote).

oh, and if you do not want to be flamed, DO NOT post in a forum. every single post someone can make can be flamed. some people just dont want to waste their time flaming it.

Quote:

There's kind of a big difference between, "These units can be useful," and, "These are clearly the best cavalry!" I'm sure you understand the nature of the reaction you received.

The basic issue is, lancers are not as great as you've originally purported them to be. Please concede this. In essence, you already have, since you've abandoned that argument and began talking about the much more valid use of lancers in a ff-like game situation.

By the way, you've being childish and moronic by simply ignoring all of Mist's posts. You only add to your own ignorance by doing so.

Steve - "you just changed your whole argument.
OH, NOW THEY ARE GOOD AT RAIDING.
you just keep changing everything that you can think of to help defend yourself.
well guess what, ITS NOT WORKING."

?

When did i say they are good at raiding? I must have a bad memory or cant read my own words cuz i never seen it. Why do i have to defend myself when its my opinion? Everyone has something to say about something, not every1 is going to agree with or like me, and i can accept that.

Steve you just put words in my mouth to make my arguments seem less believable. What facts have you posted? What decent argument have you put up besides piggybacking every1 elses posts to make your own seem legitamate. I could care less if some1 flames me, its only a forum about aoe3.

Some of you people take this gaming shit way too serious, all this topic was about is the damn Lancer usefullnes. Lighten up and let your arguments be known in a constructive way. This thread got so many flames some1 told me to kill myself lol.

ZAK - There's kind of a big difference between, "These units can be useful," and, "These are clearly the best cavalry!" I'm sure you understand the nature of the reaction you received.
The basic issue is, lancers are not as great as you've originally purported them to be. Please concede this. In essence, you already have, since you've abandoned that argument and began talking about the much more valid use of lancers in a ff-like game situation."

Ub3r - "Age 3 Lancers can be extremely devastating if used properly"

I said that in the original thread topic post, before any1 said anything, so what are you talking about when you say i abandoned my argument?

My argument is still here and going, and has been since the first day i posted this thread. They are still my fav cav, reguardless of comments or facts said to me.

I already agreed they get owned by other cav, i agreed they are kinda useless late game, other than that there is nothing else for me to agree apoun.

I havent been reading Mists posts for some time now. I have been ignoring his replies before this thread, and will continue to do so, thanx.

[This message has been edited by ub3r (edited 04-05-2006 @ 07:44 PM).]

well i guess my "drop the argument" post didnt work out well.

"Steve you just put words in my mouth to make my arguments seem less believable."

yeah thats exactly what im doing. im writing down stuff i think you are saying but just happen to be what you are really saying, if you would read my post actually.
no, im not doing that.
notice how im using quotation marks?

Ub3rs startting post- "In conclusion, the Lancer can definetly be considered the best cavalry unit in the game"

Ub3r now- "They are still my fav cav, reguardless of comments or facts said to me."

hmmmm...looks like a difference to me.

"What facts have you posted?"

you are in no authority of facts to even say that. let me ask the same question, What facts have you posted?

"I already agreed they get owned by other cav, i agreed they are kinda useless late game, other than that there is nothing else for me to agree apoun."

notice how you said that AFTER we told you they do?
wait, wait. oh yeah, i posted no facts.
i guess, i cant say this unless i put this down here.

"Lancer vs Hussar - Lancer is better"
"Lancer vs Curriaser - Finally the mighty Curriaser. The Curriaser is obviously a better unit, but the Lancer is alot more cost effective. However massed Curriasers are wtfpwnbetter than mass Lancers. They are about even i would say."
"Lancer vs Dragoon - This can be argued, im not going to get into it, its like apples and Oranges, but i like Lancers usefullnes alot better."

yeah...it doesnt look like you thought they "got owned" by other cav in your title.

"When did i say they are good at raiding?"

right here

"In large numbers HI will beat Lancers but i aint engaging 6 Lancers into 15-20 Muskts. Ill use 2 falcs for that while pikes protect and Lancers go kill some villies or something"

also, you just killed another part of your argument with that.

"i agreed they are kinda useless late game"

compare that with this.

"This one is close, but Lancer is way better late game, with Garroshita, and Caballero, and 1 combat card, Lancer has 500 soemthing hp 30 hand attack x 4, which is like a Hackapell vs Infatry, with double the health almost."

^that doesnt look like "kinda useless" to me, in your opinion, it sounds like Lancer > All other cav, late game.

"What decent argument have you put up besides piggybacking every1 elses posts to make your own seem legitamate."

yeah....see that, and then notice how you have been going after me more than everyone else, because to make yourself seem that you are arguing very well you have to go after the person that is contributing the least.

you want me to post stats? i will. i just didnt think i wanted to waste valuable time on getting stats to overthrow your pointless argument.

flame me.

Quote:

KingSteve nailed it:

Quote:

And now, you're saying more along the lines of them being useful under 8 minutes (making their window of opportunity less than 2 minutes), as opposed to being "the best cavalry unit in the game." Do you see the difference?

I wish an admin would close this thread. all the points have been made and it's nothign but a flame fest now.

Vs ottomans theyr pretty damn good early game. If hes coming with abus guns that is. Jannys wont kill them that fast and they rape abus'

Ub3r, it is damn obvious that you made all these claims in your first post, saying that lancers are better late game, saying they beat UHLANS and COSSACKS (lol), and that they are a better unit than WW (again, lol). Now you've backtracked after realising none of these are true and it's just whittled down too "I don't care what the facts say, they are still the best in my opinion", will you just accept that? None of this "oh it's my opinion" crap.

Steve you had a couple good points, but the way you present your arguments is really confusing, thats why i get your posts mixed up.

Lancers w Caballero, age 3 combat and RG upgrade are NOT USELESS. However reg Lancers in post age 3 game are useless.

With all those upgrades the Lancer is WAY better.

They have 32 hand attack x4 against infantry. Which is 128 damage each hit to all infantry. Thats pretty damn good.

Reg Lancer 20 hand damage x 3 vs infnatry, is lack luster after 8-10 min.

Thats what i was getting at. They are most usefull early, in early fort, but after that they start to become useless BECAUSE OF CANNONS. However will all of them upgrades they work just as good as a cannon IMO. 128 hand damage to infantry is sick, with just 5 of them they are dealing almost 1000 damage in 1 cycle to infnatry which is cannon esque.

Steve - "yeah....see that, and then notice how you have been going after me more than everyone else, because to make yourself seem that you are arguing very well you have to go after the person that is contributing the least."

Not really i went harder at Mist and ZAK, you knew what you were getting yourself into when you started to argue the subject down w me, you said it yourself earlier in the post.

Shizzle yes, you are def right, 6 Lancers with 2 falcs and 10 pikemen can stop almost all Otto advances.

EDIT: Adam wtf u talkin about? Lancer is def better than Cossack late game, considering Cossack doesnt get RG upgrade. Uhlan is a little closer but i still think FU Lancer is better than FU Uhlan, Uhlan is paper thin health.

I also think FU Lancer is better than FU WW. WW is way too expensive with too much pop, all they do good is kill cav, and act as meatshield. Lancer is also better than WW early fort IMO.

[This message has been edited by ub3r (edited 04-06-2006 @ 03:01 PM).]

Ub3r, if you read even any of this, let it be these two sentences. Go check out post #80.

Quote:

I can then safely assume your opinion doesn't mean much. For one, its been refuted umpteen times. Second, you yourself admit you're not very experienced.

Quote:

One musket? I will always have double the muskets you have lancers. Lancers take 2 pop, fool. Muskets take one. Muskets are exactly half the cost of lancers.

The 11 musket shipment solidifies this statement. You get 6 lancers. 11 muskets beat it. Even though 11 muskets are cheaper than 6 lancers (11 pop vs 12 pop, and 1100 res vs 1200 res, not to mention the 1200 is weighted heavily with about 40% coin compared to 25% coin for the 1100 res for muskets.)

Quote:

Your dear open showed that 2 to 1 musket ratio to lancers is what it is. He showed that in a 2 to 1 ratio, muskets are more res and cost efficient. My tests, which were earlier than his, showed the same. You, being a hypocrite, failed to see that and simply posted your opinion after reading one sentence of both of our posts.

Quote:

Hypocrite. Let me quote you. And how you've said "OH DAMN LANCERS ARE THE BEST WTF THEY PWN"

Quoted from ub3r on 3-27-06 at 8:20 PM EDT:

Post title.

Quoted from ub3r on 3-27-06 at 8:20 PM EDT:

Opinion my ass. So the rest of your post wasn't facts? That can't be opinion unless the rest of your post is opinion. If the rest of your post is hard fact, then that statement is as well. Since you claim that statement is an opinion, doesn't that mean the rest of the claims about lancers owning all other cavs are opinions too?

Quoted from ub3r on 3-27-06 at 8:20 PM EDT:

You just said cuirs are a better unit overall, (including "obviously") and massed, they are better. So how on earth are they even?

Quoted from ub3r on 3-27-06 at 8:20 PM EDT:

Its already been said: cossacks cost one pop, and are the most pop effective unit in the game. I don't need to send cards to make cossacks better. I can send support units instead, or res cards, and your lancers will die.

Quoted from ub3r:

No other cav needs it.

Quote:

Thats in industrial. We all know guard musketeers will own RG lancers no matter what you do because guard musketeers are way better. They also get more adv. arsenal upgrades than lancers do. You even said yourself most games are won in fort. Here's a quote.

Quoted from ub3r:

So, most games are won in fort? Then why do you even bother with RG upgrade? It seems like you like changing your view every other day. Its pretty old.

Also, spanish will die in industrial. If you need to rely on getting to industrial to make your lancers "WTFPWN" then thats pretty sad. A spanish player should win in fort. Or die.

Lancers become redundant once you start using cannon extensively. That comes in Industrial when field guns and HC come into play. What the hell does a lancer do that a HC or field gun can't? Field guns and HCs can take down buildings, kill LI+HI, and slaughter mercs. Lancers...can kill LI, break even or die to HI, get slaughtered by other cav, and make tiny little, unnoticeable dents in cannons.

And, I thought you said you only used the lancer shipment? And you don't make lancers? Then what the hell is up with going on about RG? I wouldn't waste all those cards/upgrades on a unit you use strictly from shipments. Want proof you said that? Here.

Quote:

Since you probably didn't read any of this, kudos to my long post. I'm glad I did it, because it'll prove how really self centered you are.

Mist i dont know anything you said, but i bet it was a valiant effort.

I did read the begining, and im a 1789 player now =D.

Also one reason my cuetech is really low is becuz almost all of my games were 2 v 2 playing w random people. I dont nurse my accoutn so i can have l33t cuetech and win % i play for fun.

I would still play you online Mist i dont care how high your cuetech rating, at the end of the day its all peanuts anyway.

Someone made an awesome point earlier about people sweating there cuetech ratings (*cough* Stophon *cough*). Its great being good at an RTS PC game, i give all you 2000+ cuetech-crazies credit. However your really not better than anyone for it on a personal, or knowledgable level.

This post is like the enegizer bunny, its just keeps going and going. Thanx Mist for making the post that much longer with your half page effort, even tho i didnt read it =D

Quote:

I message you whenever you're online at the same time I am. You either ignore me, or are always are in windows/in a game.

Its not like I'm a point hunter, either. I do play people my skill, not much lower.

I only play QS when I need to level up my HCs

Quote:

One musket? I will always have double the muskets you have lancers. Lancers take 2 pop, fool. Muskets take one. Muskets are exactly half the cost of lancers.

The 11 musket shipment solidifies this statement. You get 6 lancers. 11 muskets beat it. Even though 11 muskets are cheaper than 6 lancers (11 pop vs 12 pop, and 1100 res vs 1200 res, not to mention the 1200 is weighted heavily with about 40% coin compared to 25% coin for the 1100 res for muskets.)

Quote:

Your dear open showed that 2 to 1 musket ratio to lancers is what it is. He showed that in a 2 to 1 ratio, muskets are more res and cost efficient. My tests, which were earlier than his, showed the same. You, being a hypocrite, failed to see that and simply posted your opinion after reading one sentence of both of our posts.

Quote:

Hypocrite. Let me quote you. And how you've said "OH DAMN LANCERS ARE THE BEST WTF THEY PWN"

Quoted from ub3r on 3-27-06 at 8:20 PM EDT:

Post title.

Quoted from ub3r on 3-27-06 at 8:20 PM EDT:

Opinion my ass. So the rest of your post wasn't facts? That can't be opinion unless the rest of your post is opinion. If the rest of your post is hard fact, then that statement is as well. Since you claim that statement is an opinion, doesn't that mean the rest of the claims about lancers owning all other cavs are opinions too?

Quoted from ub3r on 3-27-06 at 8:20 PM EDT:

You just said cuirs are a better unit overall, (including "obviously") and massed, they are better. So how on earth are they even?

Quoted from from ub3r on 3-27-06 at 8:20 PM EDT:

Its already been said: cossacks cost one pop, and are the most pop effective unit in the game. I don't need to send cards to make cossacks better. I can send support units instead, or res cards, and your lancers will die.

Quoted from ub3r:

No other cav needs it.

Quote:

Thats in industrial. We all know guard musketeers will own RG lancers no matter what you do because guard musketeers are way better. They also get more adv. arsenal upgrades than lancers do. You even said yourself most games are won in fort. Here's a quote.

Quoted from ub3r:

So, most games are won in fort? Then why do you even bother with RG upgrade? It seems like you like changing your view every other day. Its pretty old.

Also, spanish will die in industrial. If you need to rely on getting to industrial to make your lancers "WTFPWN" then thats pretty sad. A spanish player should win in fort. Or die.

Lancers become redundant once you start using cannon extensively. That comes in Industrial when field guns and HC come into play. What the hell does a lancer do that a HC or field gun can't? Field guns and HCs can take down buildings, kill LI+HI, and slaughter mercs. Lancers...can kill LI, break even or die to HI, get slaughtered by other cav, and make tiny little, unnoticeable dents in cannons.

And, I thought you said you only used the lancer shipment? And you don't make lancers? Then what the hell is up with going on about RG? I wouldn't waste all those cards/upgrades on a unit you use strictly from shipments. Want proof you said that? Here.

Quote:

[/mist]

Nice quote, zak Gotta love it.

Ub3r, check post 80. Its got some nice info there.

About lancers.

Dying to muskets.

[This message has been edited by LO12DS_Mist (edited 04-06-2006 @ 04:56 PM).]

"Not really i went harder at Mist"

yeah, saying, "i never read mist's posts" is going real hard at him.

thread = closed.

Steve you wish you were a moderator huh?

That felt good doing the little closed thing.. too bad it didnt work.

I really dont know what you were trying to get at?

I was saying i went harder at Mist, in terms of putting my time in effort to respond to him. To no avail, i just dont read the long posts he post anymore, i do read the short ones.

ZAK good try friend, i still didnt read it.

I dont know whats wrong with you guys, but liek i said 8476347856 times its an opinion.

BTW Mist one last thing, your Muskateer argument is HYPOTHETICAL. Unless you constantly scout, and happened to see my shipped Lancers, you could either make 12 Musks, or ship 11.

Ok.. now if i avoid your Musks all together, and engage them with falconet or Highlander you are going to either run, or fight and die.

This is what makes up the game, this is the stuff that cant be argued, and THIS is YOUR specialty when it comes to arguments on these forums. Which amounts to speculation and your opinion, which is why i dotn read your loooonng posts.

Lancers pwn Otto, Dutch, Russian, Port special units in early fortress, and are very good upgraded late game with up to 130 damage to infantry. < My Opinion

*waits for more crying*

EDIT: Im actually good with this thread. It was fun, it was a pleasure arguing with you gentlemen, see you in another thread =D

[This message has been edited by ub3r (edited 04-06-2006 @ 07:36 PM).]

Quote:

you read it but by not having anything to back up your "opinion" you lost the debate

Quote:

see this kinda thing is a problem - so many times have i seen a bad player saying that they are fantastic because clearly all experts are either noob-bashers or because its their allies that let them down

face it ... if you were a better player your rating would be higher and bad allies can only be blamed for so much

Quote:

how does you getting your ass handed to you prove whether or not lancers are good? all it proves are that you can(t) beat some dude who may or may not be in your hemisphere

Quote:

OH MY GOD! DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT HIM SUCKING AT A GAME MEANS WE SUCK AT LIFE?!?!?!?!?! jesus i have only heard that cop-out like three times a day since before i was born

Quote:

dude we know you read it stop emphasising how you didnt read it - there is no way a thread gets this many posts when only really 3-4 people post in it and one doesnt read what others say O_o

Quote:

That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't you read it?

I submit that you're full of shit. You've read plenty; you simply refuse to respond to it under the cover of not having read it. Why don't you read it? I don't know; I don't care. Some of the best points are in Mist's posts, and your phailure to respond to them makes this debate hit a wall: you keep restating the same disproven fallacies, and we can't do anything because you won't accept the arguments that have already been presented. Probably because there's no way to respond without a, "Shit, I guess I'm wrong."

Quote:

That's beside the point. The point is, you claim lancers beat HI, and the fact is, they DO NOT.

Quote:

That's not an opinion. You don't know what an opinion even is, apparently.

What that is is a purely objective statement. It could be right or it could be wrong; it is NOT a matter of opinion.

Which is exactly why youc an stop saying, "OMFG its my opinion, stfu," then hypocritically continue to futilely defend yourself, because you're not expressing opinionated ideas, but arguable statements. "Lancers are my favorite cavalry" is an opinion. "Lancers are the best cavalry," is not.

Quote:

What're you trying to do? Hide your ass even more?

Crying...lmao.

Well done ub3r. Idiot of the week. Maybe month. Lets see how long it lasts, maybe it'll get to a year.

I just played 2 games with Mist, 2v2 won against him but also won with him, yay

I play with Spanish and lancers are good, but only good. I'm more of a dragoon fan when it comes to cavalry. I would go into details but really I can't be bothered so meh...

edit/ and don't attack each other in arguments, just go play each other on ESO!

[This message has been edited by NAT (edited 04-06-2006 @ 08:23 PM).]

Ok, I've been keeping a close eye on this thread and probably should have closed it earlier I have to agree with tster:

Quote:

Also, it seems to me, ub3r, that you will no longer support your opinion and points in this thread.

Quote:

I will be much quicker to close next time if you continue to choose to simply ignore another forumer's posts solely because you disagree with him.
Closed