They do complain, and even Henrik doesn't like it and it's on record that the goal is to avoid the single-race model of the last game. It ain't MO1 anymore Rhodri. Anyone can see there will always be meta builds, but there needs to be significantly more than just 1 meta build. It has to feel like genuine options to be interesting.
Henrik is not infallible and has been on record saying many things. Several things even against your position in this discussion and several things for. One would argue that the only thing Henrik's opinion is good for is to try and encourage anyone he's talking to at that specific point in time; That's what Henrik does, he manages people and tries to spin perception to be positive towards him and the company without ever really doing anything. That's why it it always seems like he's contradicting himself.
Point: You're not really presenting an argument that means much of anything by bringing Henrik into it. Obviously this ain't MO-1 anymore, and lacking any time, will, or desire to really participate in MO-2, I cannot say with any firsthand experience what the future holds for this game, however if you continue down this path without accepting the cynical reality of SV's track record in handling "balance" or just how specious the concept is, you'll only see this turn into a visually beautiful disaster like MO-1 was.
It IS a balance issue when one unit has all of the advantages. The "more types of terrain" that a foot can theoretically better hold are.. the ocean... and standing on top of a rock. Neither are really that applicable. Any decent lykiator was always able to climb over or around anything else, and if it was an MA or an MM, they didn't even need to, they could just open fire from wherever they were sitting, and ride around the angles of cover. That's the trouble for me. Mounteds had the advantage of mobility, dead stop. They had the speed, the damage, the extra health, and they rarely felt like they couldn't push a location that anyone would realistically be in. Foot were great for sieges (at least once the walls are actually breached) but the majority of MO fights are not sieges. They're mostly awkward small skirmishes and 1 on 1 wrestling a knife in the woods.
Infantry were better at holding caves too, buildings, forests, really anything that could restrict movement. Infantry is a weaker build compared to cavalry and relies on coordinated cohesive group formations. That's the reality of fighting, and I'm not just talking about using real world examples.
Mounted players didn't have "extra health" and it makes arguing with you all the less appealing when you make such a disingenuous take on that. Mount and player HP were ALWAYS separate entities and required player skill or magic to hit a player hitbox over the larger mount hitbox.
I won't accuse you of lying, but don't argue in bad faith as if I'm stupid because we both know that claim of "extra health" is false. They did have speed (due to mobility of a mount) they did have increased damage (due to velocity/momentum and primary/secondary skills related to mounted fighting) and while it did give them a distinct advantage over infantry, their advantages could be mitigated and countered intelligently; which you acknowledged already over the SEVERAL times I've described them in this thread and others.
If they can make mounts actually feel like they aren't magic go-karts, then yeah sure, be faster, whatever, but we need to have more terrain areas that are altogether shitty for mounteds for that concept of balance to be legitimate. So there's places that a charge or an escape will work, and places it won't. So it doesn't constantly feel like mounteds just have the run of the place.
They were never "magic go-karts" and again blatantly exaggerating like this when we BOTH KNOW BETTER, insults my intelligence and comes off as you arguing in bad faith as if I hadn't been a part of this game and community and watched literal cycles and waves of players and combat trends since the launch of 2010 up until now. I've seen it all man, I've heard every argument in the book, and I've watched as mounted combat went from decent, to barely useable, to almost impossible to use, to actually kinda good, to OP AF, and back to decent (to which I lost track after early 2017.
I've watched every trend in foot fighting and magic and so on and so forth up until the day I stopped playing. I have seen people come and go and people bitch in both directions.
As for your comment about terrain not necessarily being conducive to anti-mounted play.. I am actually inclined to agree, and I think a lot of the gripes against mounted playstyles would have been resolved had there been stronger terrain options, but that rounds back to SV's shitty attempt at world building, only managing to push Myrland, Sarducaa, and newb island in their 10 year run. The world was mostly flat wasteland and it was easy to breeze through it on a mount. (something the lore supported as far as Myrland and the central steppe goes)
The good news is I think this might be true this time around anyway though as the forests are significantly denser, and there's some real rocky terrain in MO2 right now.
Well then maybe there's some hope yet in SV having learned some actual lessons.
