Weaponz

Notice how nothing (except Axes) gives an initiative bonus. Notice how nothing is immune to counter attacks.

Maybe horses/wargs could make units immune to counter attacks instead? Maybe spears are the only weapon that still gets a counter attack vs a mounted user? (Spears +1 counter attacks vs mounted units?)

As far as magical staves ... possibly even wands ... I think little to no weight, very low attack, some dodge, some initiative, and a moderate amount of spell mastery/ spell resist.

Decent, starting level MAGICAL staff = 3 attack, +2 initiative, +5 spell mastery. 0 weight. (1-handed)

A high end MAGICAL staff = 5 attack, +4 initiative, +15 spell mastery, +10 spell resist, +5 dodge, +10 ranged dodge. 0 weight. (1-handed)

Whereas normal, non magical staves ... something like 4 or 5 attack, +2 initiative, 5 weight, and then later 10+ attack, 10 dodge, +4 initiative, 10 weight. (2-handed).

Mundane staves 2 handed ... Magical staves 1 handed.

Shield slot can be used by a magical bracelet instead of a shield ... bracelets can either increase damage, decrease tactical mana costs, or increase spell resist/ elemental resists.

Not to be a stickler, but .. plate doesn't really protect you versus blunt very well. In fact many weapons were designed to be blunt simply to counter the plate. Heavier plate was never used dismounted for the most part because of it's cumbersome weight. In truth you were much better suited wearing chain.  -5 protection from blunt! Mehehe.. 

Side note : I think that the projectile damage for mage units needs a buff. They can't compete with the bows, and even the latter bow has elemental damage on them.  More so if you get the faction perk for the last bow set. Ignores 50% of armor... 

I think that spears vs mounted is a definite inclusion. Has to be a downside to being mounted, and historically, that was it. 

That has been said many times, blunt weapons like hammers and maces and flails were middle age response to plate armor, but the devs will tell you "fantasy games is not realistic", which is okay by me.

However, you are not correct about the weight of the plate armor, all the battle armor used by a mounted knights was designed with mobility in mind - and indeed, trained warriors were able to run and fight in it quite well, and of course mount another horse given opportunity.

If you think about it, it's only logical - the horse was relatively vulnerable (even though armored too), and the common tactics of the infantry was to use polearms against the horse's legs or body, not speaking about arrows. If the horse fell, and the knight would not be able to rise and continue fighting, his armor would be just an expensive death trap.

The overly heavy armor was the tournament armor, designed to minimize accidents during tournaments, but nobody sane would take that into the field.