And that's how the everlasting debate resumes all over again ^^
Many things are said on this topic, most of it is passionnate and inconsistent blabbering. I think the "skill" criteria can't give the full picture of the reality of the schism surrounding this topic, even though it plays a major role. I don't see any toxicity involved in your post, Grozni, you are just showing your thoughts in a reasoned manner.
In my opinion, some of the points you raised are relevant, some others are less. Biased opinions without shade are worthless in such a debate, that's why I'll stick as close as possible to the facts.
The facts I will refer to will mainly be based on the 1.2 NW Patchnote topic :
I will consider that any thing that wasn't changed by this patch remained the same as it was back in 2012. There is a very detailed thread that got posted back in 2012, it is kind of a gem that I recommend anyone reading at least once to have a full picture of NW stats. https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=1108.0
And the Simps are a good team made mostly of players who are used to cav vs cav fights. They got their second kill in 6th round.
Simps have a nice roster indeed, with some NW veterans. But during this match, for some reasons, they underperformed, a lot. The video in itself tends to show it. We did several mistakes during the match, but they missed a large part of the opportunity they had. These things can happen to anyone you know, no matter your skill. I don't think it can be attributed to "Luck", criterias like concentration/team focus/momentum effect would be more appropriate.
One explanation could be their overall lack of experience fighting dedicated heavies, since we represent a minority in the cavalry community, which is less of an inconvenience on our side. All things considered, it's a bit like the syndrome of right-handers versus left-handers in racket sports, no need to go further to show my point.
These changes were lobbied for by certain heavy cav players (who are, by nature of their mentality, always on the lookout for any advantage they can grab) and approved and implemented by FSE, who either have no clue about how their own game works or just didn't give a damn.
Well, I would like you to show me evidences of this lobbying, because I don't remember such a thing back in time. Hussars quickly became the default class when it came to the competitive area, at a point that no other class could represent a challenge (the first CNC was quite of an exception). Lancers are quite an exception in the NW cavalry, therefore it's irrelevant to consider them here.
The "nature of their mentality" part is kinda funny. I mean, light cavalry is meant to be played on its strengths (speed, maneuver), but so does heavy cavalry with its own strengths (weapon reach, body armor, horse hp/armor).
_-reduction in light sabre range (supposedly to fix _ghost length_ issue, which was the worst way to go about it, and it didn't really fix it, nor did heavy swords receive same treatment)
Curved swords always were problematic on Mount&Blade. Since the hitbox doesn't match the texture, it made those swords having "ghost reaches". That's what makes the Native scimitar one of the best one-handed weapons. NW cavalry swords were quite a mess before 1.2, even more for "heavies" swords, whose had length differences depending on the nation you played as.
(not so interesting) Interlude - StoryTime : me bitching about a stupid referee
It was especially problematic when I was playing competitions with my dragoon regiment (8eCC). I remember one competitive match in particular (not the team we faced tho). Knockout match, France vs Prussia, random desert map, no shooting. The referee didn't want to change factions, he asked the other team to join France, and we did not have any other choice than playing the match with short swords on medium horses as Prussian dragoons. Playing with a 105 length sword (regular hussar saber) instead of a regular 114 length sword (French Dragoon's sword) made the game for them, GG WP, you're out.
Back then, light cavalry sword's ghost reach was real. The 1.2 fix doesn't solve the whole ghost reach problem (weird animations still happen from time to time), but it's definitely better as it is regarding this issue.
Hussar swords got standardized from 105 to 101, but so were heavy cavalry swords, whose went down from a maximum of 115 (French Cuirassiers' Swords) to a global 110.
Heavy cav:
-increase in horse maneuver (thereby taking away from hussars the only advantage they had over other classes, also this increases the speed of sword swing if used right),
-increase in hit points (the effect of this in team fights shouldn't need an explanation)
Heavy and medium horses are slightly more maneuverable.
Let's make the statement that the aforementioned buff was a +2 maneuver. If it is so, it's kind of a huge buff to a horse, but considering medium/heavy horses overall weaknesses back in time, I think it was necessary. Though, hussars still have quite an edge on this department. An excellent hussar player is close to unbeatable against any heavy cavalry player on a 1v1 situation, while the antithesis isn't proven yet. The sword speed increase comes with it of course, but following your reasoning, on the "speed" criteria, heavy cavalry speed attack is no match against the hussar's potential speed attack (shorter but faster sword, more WPF in one-handed than heavy cavalry (160 for hussars, 140 for heavy cavalry, 2012 thread).
-> I remind you that WPF makes you swing faster with a weapon, which has an effect on the speed multiplicator linked with the attack (a.k.a. the notification you get on the Native singleplayer), which increases its global damages on target.
In that order.
About the horse hit points, the 1.2 patch was a huge buff. In fact, it was so broken that FSE mitigated it straight away in the 1.2 hotfix, making it an "okay" buff. However, having a couple more hp on your horse doesn't necessarily immunize you from onehits anyway. The horse hit points criteria tends to be less important if you consider "horse size". Heavy horses (108) have a larger hitbox than lighter ones (104).
Consequently, what is the best trade off between tanking one or two more hits before being dismounted, or not having to tank hit at all thanks to smart maneuver ? I'm pretty sure you'll figure it out yourself. ^^
Heavy cavalry has some advantages that turn to be overpowered in some situations, those advantages getting greatly amplified by a strong teamplay and game vision. Their "body" armor (and not their hit points, as a common popular belief tends to claim...) makes them more likely to survive a deadly hit, which is a clear advantage over hussar, whose only ability to lower down received damages is to lower the attack's speed mult by any mean. This means also that hussar gameplay is more likely to be more punitive than heavy cavalry gameplay. Facts.
While a dismounted hussar is generally seen as a dead man on a competitive game, a dismounted heavy can be deadly in a good formation, which is another proof of their versatility.
Though, hussar's ability to maneuver/accelerate/decelerate makes them able to compete with heavy cavalry, and quite brilliantly. We all know here that speed and maneuver are the two key elements that makes a cavalryman a threat. We could agree on adding a third key element : weapon reach. Combine those three on a hussar, and he will become a killing machine. Combine those three on a full-hp-Cuirassier, he will become a panzer on a motorbike (sort of ^^).
When it comes to this tournament in itself, I have the feeling that the current map size (usual CavGF size) -even if it gives quite some space to hussars to maneuver, is ~~very slightly~~ in favor of heavy cavalry formations. It's not game-changing though, and Dragonking said this particular issue will be adressed.
My arguments won't probably change your opinion, and I don't intend to do it. Your truth on this topic is to believe that heavies are way too strong as it is, an opinion shared by most (if not all) light cavalry players. My truth is that hussars remain a solid threat on the cavalry spectrum. But in the end, everyone has its own truth, and we are both right. As soon as different types of cavalry are playable, cavalry gameplay can't be balanced to the perfection. To be more specific, I don't think NW cavalry players would have given their consent to play a Heavy-only Tournament. I have a new names in mind that would have been interested for sure, but when it comes to pride, hussars have nothing to envy to heavies. ^^
No matter what class we play, it turns out the one and only real strength of a group of players relies in the personal skill of its members and their collective ability to play as a group, using their strengths as much as they can while trying to compensate for their weaknesses. This rule applies to you, whether you're playing as Cuirassier or as hussar.
Why are some heavy teams stronger than their pairs against hussars ? Individual skill is important, but moreover, the true difference is based on the management of "game resources" (a.k.a. Heavy Cavalry Sword & Light Horse). Back in the 1erRC, we collectively were rather careless about those game aspects, and we couldn't resist to the best hussars regiments despite having a decent roster.
The Warband cavalry gameplay is all about making your opponent overcommit and do their mistake before yours. Some players tend to do less mistakes than the others, sort of.
A team of 5 excellent and fully-committed players is more likely to win against any other team whatever the nature of the class they play. Well, it doesn't quite apply to NW infantry (e.g: Infantry Guards vs Partisans), but I'm sure you get my point. :p
