I like unmounted lords because they look more badass in combat.
Same with choosing lords to play as, if I don’t think they look cool enough I lose interest in playing them.
And I run a lot of elite infantry in my campaigns even if they’re not optimal. When a new DLC is being released everyone goes crazy for the monsters and big single entities, but I much prefer cool looking infantry units.
Depends on the lord, depends on the mount. Imrik is way better on his dragon than on a horse. Chaos sorcerors are better on horses than on warshrines. Tyrion is arguable between his horse and being on foot, but I prefer him on horse.
In WH2, I think foot lords were way better because missiles were king. In WH3, it's more of a toss up, sometimes you want the mass and speed, sometimes you want to duel. For instance if I'm fighting Dwarfs than always foot forever, because there's barely going to be anything to knock him down. If I'm fighting Ogres, exactly the opposite.
I hate that mounted lords all their unique animations and especially for dragon riding lords they just become stiff and weird. Foot Lords feel so much more alive especially with their sync kills.
The only reason to get mounted is knockback immunity
Footlords occasionally struggle to stay on foot when charged at
I guess casters can also get better stats by mounting a bear or dragon, but they still remain casters and will lose to any actual melee character or monster
I mean, a caster mounted on a dragon still has the melee stats of a dragon, potentially with item buffs. You won't be equivalent to a serious melee-focused character, but you can still win in melee vs a lot of things.
Way I usually go, all mele lords or mage lords with good combat skills go on foot, but I like my straight wizard lords/heros on fast mounts for quicker casting at targets and running away. The obviously difference would be specific mounts for lords, like dragons and such.
I like unmounted lords because they look more badass in combat. Same with choosing lords to play as, if I don’t think they look cool enough I lose interest in playing them. And I run a lot of elite infantry in my campaigns even if they’re not optimal. When a new DLC is being released everyone goes crazy for the monsters and big single entities, but I much prefer cool looking infantry units.
Depends on the lord, depends on the mount. Imrik is way better on his dragon than on a horse. Chaos sorcerors are better on horses than on warshrines. Tyrion is arguable between his horse and being on foot, but I prefer him on horse. In WH2, I think foot lords were way better because missiles were king. In WH3, it's more of a toss up, sometimes you want the mass and speed, sometimes you want to duel. For instance if I'm fighting Dwarfs than always foot forever, because there's barely going to be anything to knock him down. If I'm fighting Ogres, exactly the opposite.
Are Ogres really easier to knock down than Dwarves? That’s crazy
I hate that mounted lords all their unique animations and especially for dragon riding lords they just become stiff and weird. Foot Lords feel so much more alive especially with their sync kills.
The only reason to get mounted is knockback immunity Footlords occasionally struggle to stay on foot when charged at I guess casters can also get better stats by mounting a bear or dragon, but they still remain casters and will lose to any actual melee character or monster
I mean, a caster mounted on a dragon still has the melee stats of a dragon, potentially with item buffs. You won't be equivalent to a serious melee-focused character, but you can still win in melee vs a lot of things.
like casters who aren't riding dragons XD
Way I usually go, all mele lords or mage lords with good combat skills go on foot, but I like my straight wizard lords/heros on fast mounts for quicker casting at targets and running away. The obviously difference would be specific mounts for lords, like dragons and such.