Fighting Mounted

[Synthesis]

Regarding charge:

Every time I've used the charge skill successfully, the target critter has stood back up a heartbeat before my charge delay wore off, which means that riding away isn't even an option.

Regarding experience:

If you're a -very- experienced ranger, you're not going to notice the combat modifiers much, because the parry skill regularizes your defense capability, and your weapons skills are so good that you don't notice the ridiculous negative modifiers that -are- there, unless you're fighting something that has an offensive capability that is on par with your non-modified defensive ability.  Most rangers max out their ride skill within a few days of playing time (unless they join the Byn or never actually ride their mounts), so what you're seeing isn't a matter of riding experience, it's a matter of your proficiency with your weapons and at fighting in general.  Again, if you dismounted, you'd be much, much better than mounted.  Currently, there are -no- advantages to fighting mounted other than 1) Charge (which doesn't seem to me to be all that useful, but I'll admit that my skill level isn't very high with this particular skill) and 2) Being able to ride away from the fight and launch arrows back toward a command-delayed opponent.  Now, the second "advantage" isn't really a coded advantage of mounted combat at all, just a tactical advantage to the situation (and then, only if you're good with your archery skill).  The first, I'll have to wait a while and see.

But, to restate my original point...right now, you seem to suffer more penalties in hand-to-hand combat while you're mounted than you do when you're completely unarmed, which to me seems just a bit excessive.

[Spoon]

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

While not the most in-depth answer in this thread, I agree with Manhattan.

Everyone keep making references to medieval cavalry ie. extremely heavily armoured men with big poles on warHORSES.

I don't know much about ancient history, but as for medieval, I do know that warfare fought in this way didn't pop up until around the eleventh century. Armies beforehand only used horses to transport warriors to battlefields, much like everyone does in Arm at the moment.

Of course, I don't want to rub out mounted fighting completely, but I like the idea of mounted warriors being the lightly armoured scouting types, not the bullet-proof walking tank types.

I can't remember all the things I learnt at college, but I suggest people do a little research into medieval history to see how many aspects could in no way fit in to what we know as Armageddon.

[Boggis]

Heavy cavalry was developed historically as a way to deliver a massive first time strike on ranks of infantry with the aim being to force them to break ranks (where they could be picked off more easily) and to deliver a psychological blow to the enemy which might force a rout. Against lightly armoured and ill-equipped peasant soldiers such tactics could be extremely effective. Before the development of heavy cavalry armies generally used light cavalry on the flanks of the main attack to mop up scattered troops or engage targets of opportunity that arose.

The importance of heavy cavalry declined however as tactics were developed to nullify cavalry's first strike advantage. If the infantry lines could be held massed together cavalry would be bogged down and in a melee massed infantry vs. cavalry would almost always result in only one winner. In addition the arrival of longbow archers on the battlefield reduced the ability of cavalry to deliver a massive first blow as they could be engaged at distance and their numbers whittled down before reaching the massed infantry. A weak cavalry charge stood a less chance of breaking the infantry ranks and winding up instead in fatal melee.

Zalanthas has longbows vs. armour that cannot withstand the same kind of blows that steel can, pikemen, disciplined troops unlikely to break ranks too easily as they are a full-time army compared to conscripted peasants, mounts that are for the most part not as maneuverable as horses, etc. It doesn't seem likely to me that cavalry charges would have developed as part of military doctrine on Zalanthas as they wouldn't be effective in my opinion. At best they might use erdlus or sunbacks as light flanking cavalry units to mop up stragglers, engage small formations, etc. in the way that ancient cavalry was used. I wouldn't mind seeing the ability to fight successfully mounted on these small creatures be implemented where you would at least not be penalised once you were a skilled enough rider.

[Dalmeth]

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

I can't remember all the things I learnt at college, but I suggest people do a little research into medieval history to see how many aspects could in no way fit in to what we know as Armageddon.

http://www.armageddon.org/general/beasts.html

Drop to the bottom of the page and read the entry for "war beetle."

Whether you like it or not, cavalry are already a part of the lore of this game, even if the code makes such things a pain.

I personally would love to see mounted riders have some advantages that are a bit more inventive than a simple combat bonus to defense or offense, but I can't think of anything at the moment.  However, if any such advantages are given, I'd like them to be countered by an unmounted opponent using a long weapon, like a spear or a halberd.

Oh yeah, and the invention that allowed mounted combat (stirrups) was brought into the eurpopean continent by an invading asian people.  I can't remember whether it was the Huns or the Mongols, but I'm pretty sure it was some other culture that is generally more obscure.  It might have been Magyar or something, but alot of asian nomads came around after the fall of the roman empire, so I could have just as likely confused them with someone else.  I'd give it the time frame of 400 AD to 600 AD.

[Spoon]

They were horse archers, and you're right in that it was both the Huns, Mongols, and pretty much everyone else from central Asia. They didn't fight up close at all, but instead used hit and run tactics with shortbows (which would be cool to see more of in Arm).

Thinking about it now, I do like the idea of heavily armoured fighters on war beetles being pretty much the nastiest thing anyone could face, but I jumped to the conclusion that people were talking about fighting on kanks and inix, which are essentially pack animals.

Though, I haven't much in game experience of it, I think the problem might possibly not be in the code but be in the IG society. Does anyone really train in mounted combat? I'm sure people could reach an extremely effective level of skill if it was integrated into the current military training of houses/mercenary groups.

[Sokotra]

I think everyone has brought up some good points... rangers are not too bad when they become rather proficient with mounted combat, but I'm still not sure it is completely realistic. (shrug) Also, it is obvious that it would not be realistic for anyone to become an instant badass and jousting expert once they mounted a kank with a weapon in their hand.  There may also be some concerns of balance if things were to be changed.  Lots of questions would come up like, for example, what kind of NPC's that are out in the wastes would be riding mounts and which ones would be equipped to defend themselves against mounted attackers? I don't have the time to sit here and take an in-depth look at it, but I'm sure there are plenty of other things that could be debated if there was a significant change.

But, again, just for discussions sake or if things were able to be tweaked just a little without causing major change throughout the gameworld... Maybe the penalties against an average rider could be toned down significantly and perhaps a small advantage could occur on behalf of the rider once they became more proficient with mounted combat.  I think a kank would be about as good as an average riding horse as far as combat goes, depending on the skill of the rider, and other beasts like war beetles would obviously be better.  I could be wrong, but the natural armor of a kank also seems a bit weak... their fighting skills seem halfway decent but I think maybe a few more blows should be bouncing off of those chitinous shells.  Also, we are talking about 1 on 1 combat for the most part here, I would assume... or small group combat maybe... at least for the time being... and not the intricacies of mass battle tactics which would probably differ slightly when it comes to cavalry and such.  Oh yeah... and I would think that warriors should be better at this sort of thing than they are now.  Even though rangers have the advantage of being better with a beast, the warrior has the advantage of using the weapons more efficiently - so maybe it should even out a little more for them and some other guilds/subguilds...?

[Rindan]

"I think a kank would be about as good as an average riding horse as far as combat goes"

A kank is a Zalanthas donkey.  Anyone who rides a kank into battle deserves the ass kicking that they have coming as they plod into battle atop a slow and stupid creature.  It doesn't matter if you are a super ranger, don't ride your kank into battle.  Maybe throw a few arrows off its back... but do not ride the damn thing into battle expecting any sort of advantage other then being an easy target to hit as you plod along.  A kank is not the swiss army knife of beasts.  It is a pack mule and nothing more.

Now, as to war beetle and sunbacks, has anyone ever actually tried using one of these in combat with a ranger of high skill in riding?  All the antidotal evidence in the world about Zalanthas pack mules being terrible in combat doesn't address if war mounts are of any use.

In my opinion, it should work like this.

Kanks:  Utterly worthless to fight off of.  It is a pack beast meant to travel long distances and nothing more.  Fighting off a kank is like fighting off of a donkey.  The only thing it is good at is running away in a straight line, and even then, there are animals that can do even that better.  A kank might be a rangers best friend, but it is for a kinks endurance in traveling the open wastes, not its utility as a war mount.  A soldier riding a kank into battle would be laughed at.  A kank Calvary charge into any unit of any experience is a suicide run.

Inix:  Inix are like kanks, but bigger.  Everything that is true about a kank is true about an inix.  The only difference is that an inix is much bigger.  An inix might be useful for trying to trample down an opponent, but when it comes down to it, an inix is just a dumb pack beast.  If a kank is a donkey, an inix is like an ox.

Sun backs and war bettles:  These are animals born and bred for mounted combat.  Both are predatory beasts which mean that they won't shy away from a fight or plod along stupidly like a kank or inix.  The disadvantage with this creatures is that they might try and override the commands of their rider in battle in favor of their own combat instincts, which are not terribly useful when faced with an armed humanoid skilled in war.  With a skillful rider though, these beasts do end up having an advantage on the battle field.

[Sokotra]

Speaking of sunbacks, and this is not to disagree with you Rindan beacause I think you have some very good points there, but why would such a predatory beast bred for combat (sunback) be so slow and tire so easily.  Maybe I should be asking the staff this one, because I would like to see sunbacks used a lot more... or maybe it is just that they are bred for fighting while standing still and not quick to move any distance.  If this is not the reason (and perhaps this has already been discussed before) but it would be nice if sunbacks were more made a little more useful, if they already aren't... which seems to be the case.

[joyofdiscord]

Do they really move slowly?  Last I knew, movement delay was based on movement speed, and your mount didn't affect it (although everyone pretty much agreed that it should, it is a coding matter at the end of the day).

Also, cheetahs, for example, are predators that can move FAST, but they also tire really quickly.  They will lose a race with most of their prey if the chase lasts more than a few brief moments.  They have to sneak up close enough to allow that brief burst of extreme speed to do them any good.  I think quick tiring is pretty realistic given the behaviour of many real world animals, where sprinting and short bursts of speed have to be traded for endurance.

[Tarx]

You know, I never thought of kanks like that.  That helps a lot, explains a lot too.  Thanks!

[Rindan]

Speaking of sunbacks, and this is not to disagree with you Rindan beacause I think you have some very good points there, but why would such a predatory beast bred for combat (sunback) be so slow and tire so easily.  Maybe I should be asking the staff this one, because I would like to see sunbacks used a lot more... or maybe it is just that they are bred for fighting while standing still and not quick to move any distance.  If this is not the reason (and perhaps this has already been discussed before) but it would be nice if sunbacks were more made a little more useful, if they already aren't... which seems to be the case.

For the exact same reason that a lion has absolutely no endurance next to your average herd beast.  Very few predators go long distances.  Most predators are built for stealth and/or very short burst of speed.  For most predators, if the pray gets away in the first few moments of the chase, the simply save their energy and wait for another meal.  A sunback will never have the endurance of a forager like a kank.  

You simply need to decide what is worth more to you.  Do you want a creature that can walk half way around the known world without rest, or do you want a creature that you can ride into combat on?  In zalanthas, it is one or the other.  Seeing as how the desert is easily as deadly as anything you might have to fight, most people simply get a dumb beast that can walk forever like a kank and dismount to fight.

[Sokotra]

Right.. that's pretty much common sense.  The only problem seems that you might never make it to combat or your mount will be too tired to fight... so maybe a kank would be better anyway.  The thing with Sunbacks that really bothered me back in the day was moreso the lag in movement, but that has been a while so it could have been changed since then.  You couldn't outrun someone on foot, it was so slow.  If it hasn't been changed, I think it would be great to reflect the idea of it being a predator capable of short sprints or something more that would make up for their weaknesses.

[sarahjc]

Things I would like to do with a mount (no, not those things):

Edited for stupidity.

New Weapons Skill: I will call it Mounted Bludgeon.

Have better use of Bludgeoning weapons on a mount. Flails, Clubs, Axes, Hammers - Especially Flails and other swinging weapons made specifically for range.

A Warrior Skill

[IntuitiveApathy]

"I think a kank would be about as good as an average riding horse as far as combat goes"

A kank is a Zalanthas donkey.

Kank : These large insectoid creatures, not wholly unlike gigantic ants, are commonly used as beasts of burden for riding and packing. They are both strong and quick for their size, eat relatively little, tend to be hardy, and when food is plentiful and younglings nearby certain drones produce a highly nutritious honey on relatively little supplied water. In the wild they form loose clutches, but survive well independently. As such they are favored for domestication by most of the nomadic desert tribes.

Sure sounds a lot more like a horse than a donkey to me.

And have you ever tried to fight a kank - domesticated or wild?  How about an inix?  These things are able fighters and can defend themselves if required - equating them to modern-day Earthly foraging herbivores isn't a good comparison.  A better comparison might be to think of them like a triceratops, where instead of horns and a spike tail, they have shells, jaws, claws and mandibles.

Anyway, I've always been of the 'make the mounted penalties less onerous so people might actually use it' camp.  Animals that are more suited for combat might a) give less of a penalty than others or b) give a bonus to either the combatant's skill/damage or be able to assist in fighting.

ps. the problem with the charge delay (the comparison between the charger and the charged) is similar to the problem with the bash delay - it's not uncommon for the basher to still be in command lag while the bashed almost instanteously stands up..

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

I've always wanted to see mounted combat fleshed out more (read: made possible) in Zalanthas. The arguments for maintaining the status quo have never been particularly convincing, in my opinion.
"Mounted combat just isn't Zalanthan." So? Our concept of what is "Zalanthan" and what isn't is constantly changing. Back in the days of yore, it was perfectly "Zalanthan" for your Rukkian mantis to go pick up some steel longswords in Ptar Ken. I don't find New Tuluk to be particularly "Zalanthan", but it's still there, no matter how much I bitch and moan. It's up to the staff decide what is and isn't "Zalanthan".
Basically, I refuse to dignify any argument that boils down to "I like it, so you're wrong".
"The history and usefullness of mounted combat on Earth is disputed." Oh, please. Almost all of history is disputed. Everything about the ancient cultures are disputed, the causes of the American Civil War are disputed, even the Holocaust from only a few decades ago is disputed. The fact is, cavalaries were used. They might not have been wildly effective, but there was something there, enough of an allure, for people to attempt to use cavalaries for hundreds of years. I'd just like to see mounted combat become a possibility in Zalanthan war tactics; it doesn't have to be the bread and butter of combat, and it probably shouldn't.
(By the way, the Mesopotamians used donkey or mule-drawn war chariots in battle)
"Zalanthan animals probably aren't well-suited to mounted combat." This to me is probably the strongest argument for remaining the status quo. It's true; it's not easy teaching your pet tarantula or your pet iguanna a trick. And, seeing as how the physiology and habits of most Zalanthan animals are a complete mystery to us, it's probably best to err on the side of caution and assume that these beasts of burden are not capable of doing anything besides shitting themselves in combat.
My rebuttal? It's a fantasy game. We have sorcerors and demons and elves and animals that shouldn't even be able to stand up under their own power. Is it that ridiculous, impossible, and utterly asonine to suggest that maybe one of the several species of rideable animals might be useful in mounted combat?
"Mounted combat is already possible within the current code; try playing an experienced ranger sometime." This one is hard to argue against; not everyone has played an experienced ranger with maxxed ride, charge and parry. I will say, however, that while mounted combat might be feasible on an individual level, it's still not feasible (or perhaps even possible) within some kind of military organization. Anyone wishing to ICly form or train a unit of mounted soldiers is faced with the daunting (not to mention awkward) OOC proposal of hunting down and recruiting only highly experiencd rangers for his or her unit. Usually, there are not enough "master rangers" in the game at one time to flesh out a fighting unit. Also, most of these highly experienced rangers will probably be out hunting wild beasts, exploring ancient ruins, or leading their tribe across the desert- basically, those that could fulfill the role have absolutely no IC reason to do it.
I think the game, overall, would benefit from having it at least be possible for some one other than "master rangers" to be adequate at mounted combat. Obviously I'm just stating my opinion here, but I think it would be cool to have a House-trained warmount commissioned to a seasoned footsoldier, and that soldier eventually groomed into being a reasonably effective cavalry unit. Not only do I think this would be completely bitchin', but I don't think it'd be wholly unrealistic, either.
I had more to put here, including my personal suggestions on how to make mounted combat possible but not overpowering, but I find myself short on time. In summation, I would prefer it if we simply took the "risk" of making mounted combat a feasible possibility in combat.

[Rindan]

And have you ever tried to fight a kank - domesticated or wild?  How about an inix?  These things are able fighters and can defend themselves if required - equating them to modern-day Earthly foraging herbivores isn't a good comparison.  A better comparison might be to think of them like a triceratops, where instead of horns and a spike tail, they have shells, jaws, claws and mandibles.

A donkey can kick most people's ass.  Pun.  Seriously though, if a donkey decides to put its foot through you, you are going to be hurting.  If an ox decides it wants to hurt you, it is going to hurt you.  Most large mammals can kick a human's ass.  I wouldn't want to rid most large mammals into combat.  The ability for a beast you are riding to inflict pain isn't what makes it valuable in combat.  A horse isn't used in combat for its ability to kick and send its hoof through your head.  It is used in combat because you can convince an extremely very well trained horse to ride at a creature that clearly has intentions of inflicting harm upon it.  On the other hand, you can not jump atop an ox and convince an ox to ride into a wall of spikes.  This is why we use ox to drag things around instead of riding them into battle, despite their size and vastly improved strength and protection over a horse.  It isn't a very large stretch of the imagination to think that a kank or inix operates in much the same manner.  If these creatures have the mentality of an ox or a donkey, they are worthless in combat.

Personally, I am all in favor of giving sunbacks and war beetles a boost if they truly are worthless in combat.  I would be very much against giving kanks a boost.  The last thing in the world I want to see is a ranger suddenly having the combat abilities of a warrior if he is sitting atop a kank.  If a ranger is sitting atop a war mount, I can buy that he is suddenly much more powerful.  If a ranger is sitting atop a jack of all trades, walk across the known world without resting, out run everything, then go eat a warrior because I am mounted kank, that is just silly.  Kanks are pack beasts.  Kanks are for going very long distances holding a load.  They are not war mounts.

[Arabian Nights]

Personally, I am all in favor of giving sunbacks and war beetles a boost if they truly are worthless in combat. I would be very much against giving kanks a boost. The last thing in the world I want to see is a ranger suddenly having the combat abilities of a warrior if he is sitting atop a kank. If a ranger is sitting atop a war mount, I can buy that he is suddenly much more powerful. If a ranger is sitting atop a jack of all trades, walk across the known world without resting, out run everything, then go eat a warrior because I am mounted kank, that is just silly. Kanks are pack beasts. Kanks are for going very long distances holding a load. They are not war mounts.

I totally agree with this. Make sunbacks and war beetles more worth using for combat reasons. Then it will make people choose...instead of just going with kanks because there's no coded point in using the other ones vs. a kank. Make it so you have to give up a good pack animal and travelling mount to get a mount that is far more superior in combat situations.

[X-D]

And ratlons and gwoshi and a couple other less well known mounts.

[Synthesis]

Okay, I think people are going way off on a tangent when it comes to what I orginally posted about.  To clarify things once more:

1.  I am not suggesting that rangers (or anyone else, for that matter) should get a -bonus- to combat for being mounted.

2.  I -am- suggesting that the current -penalties- should be reduced.

If the current penalties were simply reduced (I'm sure it boils down to something as simple as changing a -10 to a -5 or something like that) across the board, everyone would see the same effect, and the same balance would exist, simply at a higher combat effectiveness for -everyone- who's fighting mounted.

Regarding mount effectiveness:

A kank weighs in the area of 40 ten-stone, and stands about as tall as an elf.  This translates into about 8 tons and 7 feet.  No, they may not be the most maneuverable of beasts, but they are extremely large, and the rider will be sitting very high.  Now, as someone pointed out previously, to hit someone above your head is an inherent disadvantage, just as to strike downward is an inherent advantage.  Attacking from the front of a person mounted on virtually any Zalanthan mount would be very stupid: that's where the bitey pieces of the mount are, and you wouldn't want to try jumping over a kank's mandibles to attack someone.  From the sides, the mounted person has an advantage: striking or blocking downward, against blocks or strikes upward (see above).  Which means that a mounted individual is essentially vulnerable only from the rear.

Now, maneuverable beasts may be fast enough to negate this vulnerability, and this could provide the justification for 'war mounts' to be more effective.  However, to reach a rider from the rear end of the kank, when it's pretty clear that people ride on the midsection, you're going to have to have a very long weapon, or you're going to have to jump up on top of the kank, because at 8 tons, I'm assuming that (like ants) a kank's rear segment is going to be -quite- long.  So by this analysis, a kank-rider shouldn't be incurring any defensive penalties at all, and perhaps should gain bonuses.

(Of course, none of this holds true when fighting against half-giants...but I'll just leave them out of consideration.  Similarly, I'm not considering combat in mass formations, because no such code really exists on Armageddon yet, so it would be silly to speculate as to how being mounted would affect it.)

Now, as I said...bonuses are -not- what I'm asking for.  But if you want to follow a logical analysis of one-on-one combat mounted vs. foot, I think the best conclusion is the above.  Obviously rangers would then have an upper-hand on warriors in non-command combat.  However, I'd like to remind you all that warriors still have the 'killer app': disarm.  Due to weight considerations, people only carry around so many weapons, and someone with a good disarm skill can dispose of those weapons -very- quickly.  Additionally, if you're mounted...guess what? You can't reach the ground to pick up your disarmed weapons! Oops!  So warriors will still have a very significant advantage over rangers, regardless of whether or not the ranger is mounted.

[Nao]

even erdlus are supposed to be bred for fighting. erdlus. So why not breed kanks for fighting?

donkeys aren't that different from horses. You couldn't ride the average horse into battle, either, they would shit and run, maybe remember to try and drop their rider off in the process. Horses are extremely easy to scare, they need special training. The reason you don't ride an ox into battle is  that they are slow. they can't really run because they are heavy and have been bred for their meat (as work animals) and not for running. Why depend on an ox when you can have a horse, anyway? Same with donkeys. if they had the physical ability to run and carry someone heavy (maybe with even heavier armor) into battle -sure, why not, they could be trained just fine.  but donkeys are usually pretty small and jsut not made for running, especially not with something heavy on their back.
kanks are supposed to be quick for their size, and they have been bred as mounts and pack animals for a long time. Maybe more like camels... Camels can run with soemone on their back, are a little more awkward than horses but you could definitely ride a camel into battle if you wanted to. you wouldn'T have a great advantage over foot people... you'd sit a bit higher and harder to reach while your opponen would be easier to hit on the head. then again even with a well-trained camel you'd have a hard time moving it quick enough to avoid all the blows.

yes, penalties should definitely be lowered for high skill levels... maybe even removed completely from a high skill level, plus maybe a small damage bonus for the head/high up thing...

If you cn train a mount to trample an opponent to the ground, you should be able to train it to react to you in battle and not throw you off. it would be REALLY hard to teach a horse to run anything over... If your mount doesn't get scared when charging, normal battle should be easy for it.

[Larrath]

An erdlu is essentially a larger, scaled ostrich with a very sharp beak and insane claws.  It's a freaking monster.
A kank is an oversized ant, which is fast for its size.  Its size being close to, say, maybe a very tall limousine.  Kanks aren't -that- fast, but they're good at maintaining their speed.  They're definitely not dexterous enough to make any quick turns, and sitting on one is probably pretty uncomfortable.  I really imagine the kank's bloated shell getting in the way for anyone trying to make some downward strikes.

Additionally to this, we have the matter of game balance.  Kanks are by far the best mounts already - give them combat capabilities?  Nuh-huh.

Also, I don't see why mounted combat should be more of a ranger thing and not a warrior thing.  I strongly doubt any rangers would do any hunting at all while riding some animal, while warriors are all about those fancy combat manuevers.  Especially if we're talking humanoid vs. humanoids, I really see this as more for warriors and less for rangers.

Either way, an erdlu is far more vicious than a kank as far as natural weapons are considered.  Erdlu are insane.

[UnderSeven]

I've long since thought the mounted combat here was ridiculous.  

It's easier to hit mounted people?  BS it is.  It would be if mounted people would stay in one place, but have you ever watched video's of what charges looked like?  A mounted person, if giving the option didn't hold their horse in one place, they tried to charge past you, trample you, nail you a few times with their farther reach (thanks to height) and power (added from the speed of the horse).  Hitting them as they went by was not 'easier' because they couldn't weave, because they would be charging past.. and infact OVER you quickly.  

Armageddon's coded combat system doesn't allow for mounted combat to be near what it is supposed to be and I don't think anyone who defends it is thinking this through all the way.  

Though I'm not blaming anyone, not the staff, not the game, not even the code.  This would not be easy to code and besides that it would be fairly unbalancing.  On top of that, I doubt very many creatures on arm are like horses.  

My suggestion would be make the charge skill much harder to obtain and much harder to get good at, but make the higher levels of it allow a charge to be initiated from a room away.  Or make it work like Carru charge does.  

If you were in a mounted fight where you were and they weren't seriously, would you stay within reach of them or would you ride out of reach, charge at them as hard and fast as you could, intending to RIDE THEM DOWN (as in run them over while whacking them) and out of reach again.  How the hell can someone justify the guy on the ground being able to hit that mounted combatant easier?

That is why mounted people were feared.

[IntuitiveApathy]

And ratlons and gwoshi and a couple other less well known mounts.

I fully intend to ride mansa into combat one day.

/derail

It's easier to hit mounted people? BS it is. It would be if mounted people would stay in one place, but have you ever watched video's of what charges looked like?

I completely agree with this sentiment.  If I were riding merrily along on my kank and some gith jumped out at me, I'd be spurring that damned bug on as fast as I could to out of the way.  Then I'd either a) continue to run away or b) turn the thing around in the distance and ride back at the gith.  Doing either one doesn't require a whole lot of manuverability - you're mostly riding in a straight line towards where you want to go.  

I would totally agree that if I was just sitting on my kank in place, I'd sure have to have a manuverable mount in order to not have the guy on the ground just run around and cut me to pieces from the side or behind.  But why the hell would anyone actually do that if they had a choice knowing that would be the result?  (which is of course the case now due to the current code, hence why everyone and their dog gets off their mounts as quickly as possible, which if you imagine the scene in your mind seems pretty damned ridiculous)

I would agree it may be harder to get an animal, especially if it is a flighty one, to charge at something that may harm it.  But we really don't know, beyond looking at wild examples of Zalanthan creatures, which are naturally flighty or natural fighters.  My argument was that kanks actually belong more in the latter group - wild kanks in fact don't panic and run away from you, and will defend themselves if attacked.  If you consider wild Earth horses, they are in fact flighty and tempermental, but people have managed to train and breed them throughout history to be less so, to be suitable for combat.  So why couldn't kanks be similarly prepared?  

Anyway, I don't particularly care if kanks aren't made out to be great fighting mounts.  I just care if all mounts are made less crappy for mounted fighting and if some mounts are made better than others, that's just fine by me.  And if the staff decide to introduce a new breed of kank that has been properly bred and trained to fight, that's cool too.  But I call dibs on mansa.

As a side note, I also agree that a calvary manuever such as charge should be the providence of the warrior, while getting a mount to assist one in combat with its own prowess and natural weaponry should be the providence of the ranger.

[Fragmented]

Ehh, I'm delving into petty semantics here. If a kank weighs 40 ten-stone, that makes it about 400 kilos. That's around 880 lbs. Nowhere near 8 tons. A halfgiant can weigh as much as 90 ten-stone. That's 1980 lbs. Anyways, just thought I'd clarify that. I don't picture kanks as being -that- big (8 tons, or as someone else compared, a tall limosine)

[Delirium]

In response to something posted somewhere on this thread and those who are saying warriors should be better at mounted combat than rangers:

Warriors can already disarm, bash, and kick.  Disarming people of all their weapons in a few minutes flat is not only downright annoying and hard to justify realistically but it's entirely possible even if that ranger could otherwise skewer you and make you cry for mommy.  Don't even get me started on the kicktastic shit, watching those who haven't a prayer of touching that character in straight-up combat defeat them by spamming kick and kick alone.

At least charges atop a mount have visible drawbacks and an actual lag penalty, unlike certain other moves.

People that complain that rangers are better than warriors or that warriors are better than rangers just haven't learned how to use the strengths of their class to their advantage.  Warriors are the kings of melee and destroying shit, and rangers are the kings of using the desert to their advantage.  It makes sense that rangers, handling mounts day in and day out, would be better at mounted combat than warriors.  Overall, though, mounted combat could stand to be made more useful.