Fighting Mounted

[Synthesis]

You know, just on a lark, I decided to compare fighting mounted with two weapons to fighting unarmed....

So, I go out into my unfriendly neighborhood wilderness and find a rather unthreatening critter, hop off the old mount, raise my dukes, and proceed to box it into submission.  Holding my own after several minutes, only getting grazed a couple of times, but only landing a graze in return, I hop back on the mount, pull out the pigstickers, and continue to assault the mostly harmless critter.

Lo and behold...graze...nick...nick...nick...VERY HARD...graze....Granted, I was landing hits now, but this isn't the problem...the problem is...this mostly harmless thing was hitting -me- more...while I'm perched atop an 8 ton beast and wielding weapons to fend it off.

So my question is...why is fighting mounted more dangerous than fighting -UNARMED-?

(Note: I have a -very- good riding skill. Can ride dual-wielding, the mount never throws me in combat, and never backs away when I try to mount during a fight, so this is -not- a factor in the equation.)

I think someone needs to take a look at the defense modifiers for mounted combat, and see if they might be a -bit- too harsh.

[Cyrian20]

I have to agree on this. Take this into consideration.

Ancient calvery was feared for many reason (flanking stamina when they engage etc...) and one of them was the fact the men could often fight very well while mounted. While I don't think you should get any bonus while fighting mounted, and have no problem with a modifier. I think if I am a half-elven ranger mercenary that literally loves his mount like family then he should be quite comfortable atop it and have little if any modifiers.

Maybe a review of the penalties might be a good idea, currently I see nothing wrong with my char having a hard time. but if some 20 day ranger comes at me I should fear him a little because he can run up on me with his mount. instead of being like once he gets close enough I will attack and beat the hell outta him before he dismounts.

[Sokotra]

I'd also like to see this changed eventually... I'm not griping or complaining, but I think it would make things more realistic and interesting once these sorts of things (like two people on a mount) were changed/implemented.  This would probably be a bear to tackle, so I can understand the problems with coding it.  

Just for the sake of discussion, I'd actually like to see people have an ADVANTAGE while fighting when mounted if their ride skill is high enough.  This seems like it would realistically reflect things like the advantage of mounted cavalry etc.  If you were not very good at riding then you should take some fairly moderate penalties when being attacked.  Then say.. progressively as you got better - eventually becoming an average rider - then you might be able to defend yourself pretty well with one weapon or shield with an actual advantage of being up on the mount and perhaps out of harms way to some extent.  Once you became very proficient as a rider, able to use two weapons while riding and not falling off, then I think it is time that you had a pretty badass advantage against an opponent - able to trample them while attacking at the same time or skewering them with your spear as you galloped around them.  Perhaps certain weapons, like pikes or whatever, could help to defend better against mounted warriors or offer you a higher chance to dismount them - putting them on the ground and at a disadvantage for a time.  

This gives me mental images of Braveheart, when he rides into the room of that noble and brutally smashes his head with a mace or morning star. Or an angry rider taking his revenge out on his enemy, riding into a tavern - smashing tables and sending people running.  It is hard to escape something like that when you are the target.  Kanks and other mounts might actually be given more respect in the game than they are now.  Yeah, I know.. I'm sure we already got enough people running into taverns and stabbing people in the head.  :roll:  Like the original poster said, it just don't seem right when you are a good rider and an average critter or even a gith is able to run up to you and start the slaughter so easily.

Like I said... there are obviously alot of factors to consider if this were ever to be coded.  Maybe a few simple tweaks in the way it works now would be a step in the right direction.

[Spoon]

You can't duck and weave when you're sitting on a mount. I think it makes perfect sense that you get hit more often.

[HardCarbon]

In the Runequest systems  you added the mount's size to your own when calculating your damage bonus.

 The Mounted guy is striking down and might hit the head more often.. the fellow on the ground will mostly be striking at the legs.

 Ramming someone with an multi ton bug.. implimented..

 You can wear lots of armor and not worry about staggering about in it. (You hope).

 On some of the really big mounts you might be able to mount a Howdah to house a second person who would be protected sort of like someone inside a wagon.   Example for 2 large you could buy a War beetle with an armored Howdah (not removeable to make the code simpler).   You'd have the rider as normal out in the open.. and inside the howdah an archer or someone you want to protect.

 Some aggressive mounts (sunbacks and war beetles come to mind) might take an occasional swipe at who ever you were fighting.  (an extra attack like the claws and razors based on your riding skill).

[Dalmeth]

You can't duck and weave when you're sitting on a mount. I think it makes perfect sense that you get hit more often.

No, it doesn't.  On a mount, you have a much better chance of hitting your opponent, so most people tend to back off for fear of getting, you know, killed.

Here's a few ideas for incorporating some changes into mounted combat :

First, make it so a bash against a mounted opponent won't result in you falling down yourself.

Second, give people wielding with both hands a spear or polearm a defensive bonus against mounted riders.

Also, make it so that mounts that aren't so good at combat are even less so with these changes, making it so that only the best riders can use them without getting thrown in combat.

[Spoon]

There's no evidence to back up your point, Dalmeth. Assuming everyone will strike less at a mounted target isn't going to cover everything. Someone might fight like a complete nutcase and just charge in no matter what they're fighting, for example.

I'm more up for having attacks on mounted targets simply hitting the mount instead of the rider a percentage of the time instead.

This, then, makes mounted fighters more powerful as strikes against them will be split between both themselves and their mount. Obviously this wouldn't be 50/50, and the attackers skill would most likely be taken into account.

I still, though, think that mounted fighters should somehow be represented to be far less agile than fighters on foot (as they already are).

[Yokunama]

You can't duck and weave when you're sitting on a mount. I think it makes perfect sense that you get hit more often.

Hit more often - Yes
Mortaly wounded by a day old scrab - No

[bloodfromstone]

As someone else mention, there is evidence to back up Dalmeth's point. Mounted fighters were feared historically because of how much more effective a soldier became once mounted. This may not mean that they could suddenly dodge arrows, but since our combat code isn't that in depth, dropping their defense is a representation of them not being as effective.

For all realism, a mounted fighter should be more badass. For gameplay value, I'd like to see a skilled fighter receive no minuses. Just me, though.

[Yokunama]

As someone else mention, there is evidence to back up Dalmeth's point. Mounted fighters were feared historically because of how much more effective a soldier became once mounted. This may not mean that they could suddenly dodge arrows, but since our combat code isn't that in depth, dropping their defense is a representation of them not being as effective.

For all realism, a mounted fighter should be more badass. For gameplay value, I'd like to see a skilled fighter receive no minuses. Just me, though.

Yea, I'd hate to see everyone mounting up just for the combat bonus.

If there is a change in conserning mounting combat, I'd like to see it give mounted warriors a chance in combat against your average fighter. Perhaps a slightly better chance to flee and the ability run through/over people blocking exits as well.

[Dalmeth]

Yea, I'd hate to see everyone mounting up just for the combat bonus.

If there is a change in concerning mounting combat, I'd like to see it give mounted warriors a chance in combat against your average fighter. Perhaps a slightly better chance to flee and the ability run through/over people blocking exits as well.

Why not give them bonuses?  People did it in real life for centuries!  Why?  Because attack bonuses for things like being on a mount would suck.

All I'd like to see is the penalties removed.  Also, I'd like to see a wider rift between the behavior of a combat mount and your regular transportation mount.  Make it nigh impossible for even a seasoned rider to fight for long on a kank.

Though, if you really insist on the combat bonus, then I'd say make it so that spears and polearms have an absolute advantage against cavalry.  It would reflect how armies fought in real life quite well, I think.

Lastly, in response to Spoon, the amount you get hit in a fight is not wholely dependent upon how well you can dodge.  A large part of it is how well you can keep your opponent at bay with your offense.  In real life, if you force your opponent into constant defensive action, you've probably already won.  It's just a matter of time before they start to tire.

[Rindan]

Personally, I like that people dismount to fight.  I think everyone jumping off their mounts and going for long knives, daggers, and very close and gritty close combat weapons suits the game just fine.  

To me, it is pretty easy to reconcile the fact that you suck on a kank.  A kank is not a horse.  You might have an advantage fighting on a horse, but what about fighting off of an ox or a donkey?  There is a reason why people don't ride into battle on ox or a donkey, despite the fact that these animals are large.  They don't ride into battle on these creatures because these creatures are absolutely worthless in combat.  They are far more likely to freeze, run away, or simply throw you off then give you any sort of advantage.  It seems safe to assume that a kank is more like a donkey or an ox then it is like a horse.

In my mind, a kank is simply a slow and dull creature.  It is good at plodding along in straight lines.  It beast that scares easily.  Even if it doesn't scare, in battle it can't maneuver, it is slow to charge, and in general makes you a dead easy target.

Inix are big and slow creatures.  Sure, an Inix charge might hurt, but other then charging, it has no ability to maneuver.  Anyone riding atop an inix can't possibly reach their target.  Fighting from an inix is more like fighting from an elephant.  An elephant can charge, and you can shoot arrows from it, but you can't actually fight from it.

The only animals that make any sense for people to be able to fight off of are war beetles, sun backs, and erdlu.  Even then, they might never be as easy to control in combat or as effective in combat a horse.  I would be in favor of these animals giving a bonus to combat if ridden by someone of much skill.  Other wise, I can swallow that riding into battle on Zalanthas equivalent of a donkey is pretty much suicide.

[Cale_Knight]

If I'm a medieval footman and a mounted knight bears down on me, I have to strike at a target above my shoulder, drastically cutting down on the amount of force I can bring to bear against him. Meanwhile, the knight is not only cleaving downwards, but has all the forward momentum of the horse added to the power of his swing.

Hence, the reason a mounted soldier is better able to defend against attacks is as much because of his opponent's inherent disadvantage as his own advantage.

[Agent_137]

right rindan, though i would say a sunback, erdlu, and war beetle might be more effective than combat than a horse because they are naturally predators.

Personally, i'd just like to see a more intricate and realistic mounted combat system. I have faith the immortals will make it sensible, if they ever get the bug up their ass to take it beyond it's current simplistic status.

[HardCarbon]

Personally, I like that people dismount to fight.  I think everyone jumping off their mounts and going for long knives, daggers, and very close and gritty close combat weapons suits the game just fine.  

To me, it is pretty easy to reconcile the fact that you suck on a kank.  A kank is not a horse.  You might have an advantage fighting on a horse, but what about fighting off of an ox or a donkey?




In my mind, a kank is simply a slow and dull creature.  It is good at plodding along in straight lines.  It beast that scares easily.  Even if it doesn't scare, in battle it can't maneuver, it is slow to charge, and in general makes you a dead easy target.

Inix are big and slow creatures.  Sure, an Inix charge might hurt, but other then charging, it has no ability to maneuver.  Anyone riding atop an inix can't possibly reach their target.  Fighting from an inix is more like fighting from an elephant.  An elephant can charge, and you can shoot arrows from it, but you can't actually fight from it.

The only animals that make any sense for people to be able to fight off of are war beetles, sun backs, and erdlu.  Even then, they might never be as easy to control in combat or as effective in combat a horse.  I would be in favor of these animals giving a bonus to combat if ridden by someone of much skill.  Other wise, I can swallow that riding into battle on Zalanthas equivalent of a donkey is pretty much suicide.

 Sunback and warbeetles are known to be war mounts...  horses (on this world)  heh.. if you see one you will know their purpose in life.


 Way I see it the code gives every disadvantage of being mounted.. but none of the advantages save having a beast of burden.

I think the interesting questions are...

1) Does the staff think a skilled mounted combatant should have an edge over a dismounted one?
2) If yes.. based on what skills?
       ride  == charge and perhaps having the beast attack if a war beast.
       kick  Rake for foe with spurs (if worn)
       piercing  first round damage boost..
       slashing  chopping  perhaps to hit.
       thrown/archery.. shoot and move?  (that would be ugly)
       etc etc

 3) How much of an edge and against what sorts of foes?  Size of mount + size of rider +/- agility of mount vs critter ??  ((a half giant on a warbeetle who charges a rat (and hits) is going to just leave a smear))

[jstorrie]

I don't think mounted combat should be easy. I do agree, though, that it may be a bit too difficult, even for experienced riders. The penalties could be lessened somewhat.

[Dalmeth]

I don't think there should be any penalties aside from the chance of being thrown, which should only get worse if you aren't riding a mount bread for combat.

[COGATO]

Rangers---Small penalty to combat...less likely to be thrown.
Others---Pentalty to combat...end up on your ass more often than not until you are an expert...

Shortly put...leave all others how they are....make it easier for rangers.

[Delirium]

Live a long time and experiment with mounted combat.

It's not quite as bad as many are making it out to be.

It could be better.. but it's not THAT bad.

[Dan]

It already is better for -experienced- rangers. Quite a bit.

[Delirium]

It already is better for -experienced- rangers. Quite a bit.

I don't disagree, but there are coded limitations on what you can do versus what you should be able to do.  Convincing your mount to attack your target as well, for example.  Naturally if your mount got blood-raged it would take a very, very experienced rider to convince them to flee as well..

[Dan]

Using charge on an opponent more than often will place them on their ass for you to attack. Either giving you time to ride away and shoot your arrows, or to equal the footing for a melee battle. With the right mount, charge is a deadly skill. I think that those who think mounted combat is lacking for rangers should experiment some more with such things.

[Manhattan]

cavalry? dude...zalanthas isn't earth.
HaHHAHHhahahAHahahahAHA!!!!

[Cyrian20]

cavalry? dude...zalanthas isn't earth.
HaHHAHHhahahAHahahahAHA!!!!

Swords, spears, armor. All basically fit into the same realm as a calvalry type tactic, Come on you don't think a horde of singing northerners wouldn't be a little scared staring at a unit of militia mounted on inix?

[Grey Area]

If anything, Zalanthan cavalry would be even more effective. Horses are relatively soft and squishy, and notoriously prone to falling over when struck with sharp objects. Riding beasts in Armageddon are naturally armoured out the wazoo, and come pre-equiped with a variety of claws and mandibles.