Do stirrups exist in Zalanthas?

[Clearsighted]

I have always been surprised by how difficult fighting while mounted is. And the recent combat update made me reflect on it again.

Historically (or at least, in the time that most equates to relative Zalanthas tech), heavy armored and mounted troops were nearly invulnerable and by far, the most dangerous fighters on the battlefield. This was because striking someone from horseback (or kankback or war beetleback) in this case, provided a great deal more force to the blow, and it was almost always at vital regions, such as the head. In contrast, since the legs were always well armored, and the foot soldier was striking upwards, there would be much less chance of harming the rider.

This is why you hear about a hundred knights scattering a couple thousand worth of saracen levies.

Heavy cavalry had its weaknesses of course, but even the Mongols used it to devastating effect, so it was hardly a European only thing.

Yet most of this was owing to the invention of stirrups, since that is what allowed greater force to be used while attacking. Prior to the invention of stirrups, you had to be a lifelong rider to fight very effectively from horseback (such as the Macedonians).

I'd like to see mounted combat have a large damage advantage fighting against someone whom is standing. But I guess that depends on whether stirrups exist in Zalanthas.

[spawnloser]

This has been discussed before, and I do believe the general consensus that was passed down from on high is that the normal trappings of mounted riding do not exist in Armageddon or only do in rudimentary form.  Reins?  Probably.  Maybe a bridal of some sort.  The rest?  Probably not so much.

[Lizzie]

There are saddlebags, therefore there are saddles. That doesn't mean there are stirrups, but there would definitely be saddles. And reins, since there's an echo that specifies that.

L. Stanson

[Agent_137]

There are also saddles, real, honest to goodness, coded saddles.

[Larrath]

There are no stirrups.  There are saddles and reins, and possibly birdles as well.

The three most commonly mounts in Zalanthas are kanks, inixes and erdlu.
A kank has a chitinous shell and probably wouldn't be able to even feel the stirrups.
An inix has a very thick hide -- probably comparable to a rhino.  It won't do much good either.
An erdlu has thin scales; it could feel the stirrups, but they're really not used that often because of their weakness compared to other mounts.  And a pissed-off erdlu is dangerous, too.

The two primary reasons would stirrups are rare are these:
1) Zalanthas tends to have major sandstorms, and a mount might not be able to tell it was being prodded during a storm.
2) Stirrups would be made of bone or chitin, and could break very easily.

[Gimfalisette]

Larrath, you're talking about spurs, not stirrups. Stirrups are the part where the foot rests, which give the rider leverage. Spurs are the pointy part that can be attached to the stirrups and are used to "spur on" the animal.

[Dalmeth]

The real issue is whether or not you can ride with your legs on either side of these mounts.

I don't know how wide kanks and erdlus are, but I awlays imagined riders on inixes sitting as they would on the ground and holding themselves on by some kind of harness.

[Pale Horse]

Stirrups may not exist during this time period of Zalanthas (then again, the just might), but I'm pretty sure that they did in the distant past.  Zalanthas was once an earth-like world, as we all know, and it had a number of mounts and domesticated beasts that just arn't common (or even known) anymore that would have benefited greatly from the use of stirrups.

As I've said before, maybe these stirrups still do exist.  The animals that I'm refering to still do, though you're never going to see them out in the wild on their own.

[jhunter]

Spurs aren't generally attached to stirrups. Usually they are worn on your boots. I have seen stirrups mentioned in game before. It was some time ago and I haven't paid any attention to it recently so I do not know if this is the case still.

[Forest Junkie]

Bridles? Nestled within the mandibles of a kank? I don't think so.

1) Metal is not abundant enough to create bridles.
2) Bone bridles would be snapped too easily.

I envision a rudimentary set of reigns with specific ties depending on the animal in question.

*There are spurs.
*Never seen stirrups. I like the idea though.

[daedroug]

2) Bone bridles would be snapped too easily.

Don't forget stone

[Yang]

I've seen spurs in the past on Kuraci outriders.

[spawnloser]

Bridles? Nestled within the mandibles of a kank? I don't think so.

1) Metal is not abundant enough to create bridles.
2) Bone bridles would be snapped too easily.

You're thinking of the bit, the metal piece that goes through the mouth.  Bridles are made of leather and go around the muzzle.

[Cegar]

Spurs exist, and I am pretty sure I have seen stirrups mentioned in the mdesc of a saddle or two.

[Cegar]

And uh, bits can readily be made out of bone/ivory. A lot of the classy ones are.

[Mudder]

Stirrups are always attached to the saddle, a bridle goes around the muzzle of a horse and the bit through the mouth which attaches to the reins. I dont see why there wouldnt be stirrups on Zalanthas if they have saddles.

[Agent_137]

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi476.htm

The history of the use of the horse in battle is divided into three periods: first, that of the charioteer; second, that of the mounted warrior who clings to his steed by pressure of the knees; and third, that of the rider equipped with stirrups.

Horsemen didn't have stirrups. Without them, they couldn't fight on horseback. Swing a sword, or run a lance, and you fall off your horse. You could get into position quickly on a horse. But then, unless you were crazy, you got off and fought on foot.

If zalanthas DOES have stirrups, the aren't factored into the mount code, that's for sure.

[Agent_137]

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

this is an even better article with empirical evidence.

It states that a high backed saddle is far more critical than stirrups to effecting a lance charge.

Useful, yes. But are they [stirrups] "necessary" for the shock of the charge with couched lance? Not especially. To test the effect of the stirrups, one has only to remove them from the saddle and try the pass without them. I have accomplished many successful passes at the quintain without stirrups, with no appreciative loss in the force of impact.

The stirrups are extremely useful for lateral support, and "standing" in the hand to hand fighting of a melee likely to follow a charge.

But then, he states that, actually, he can do it all bareback. :\

The tendency then, is for some researchers to see the saddle as being necessary for the delivery of the blow with the couched lance. Without the saddle, they believe, the couched lance charge is impossible. To test this, I removed the saddle, and made several repeated passes at the quintain. By utilizing a "Clenched Seat" position, I was able to deliver sufficient force to topple the target and ride on, safe and sound.

Ok, so i stopped reading about 2/3s of the way through, i have work to do, but it seems like shock combat, charging with lances, is possible without strirrup and saddle through great skill. But to continue fighting mounted is incredibly difficult and ineffective without stirrups.

Thus, mounted combat in zalanthas is as it should be, sans stirrups. We already have a charge skill.

[Clearsighted]

The issue though is that there is some ingame evidence that suggests there are stirrups, and if that is the case, combat should reflect it.

It also makes sense from a gameplay perspective. A mounted warrior should have the advantage over a standing one, for all the obvious reasons mentioned in my first post.

[spawnloser]

Your reasons were that historically, heavily armored people on horseback were nearly invincible...is not a true assertion to make.  A lone mounted combatant is by no means cavalry in the sense that the elite cavalry of our historic earth were.  They needed units of cavalry, not individuals, to accomplish what they accomplished.

[Clearsighted]

Your reasons were that historically, heavily armored people on horseback were nearly invincible...is not a true assertion to make.  A lone mounted combatant is by no means cavalry in the sense that the elite cavalry of our historic earth were.  They needed units of cavalry, not individuals, to accomplish what they accomplished.

If you wanted to brutally overgeneralize what I said, then I guess you *might* be able to make something approaching that rough approximation.

What I actually said was that since the invention of the stirrup allows a seated rider to bring great leverage to bear from a raised position, this allows them to inflict much more grievous wounds on those beneath them. At the same time, they can wear heavier armor and move faster than foot troops, owing to being mounted. Lastly, in order to strike a mounted combatant, you are swinging upwards, and hence with less strength, and with a reduced access to vitals (which are more heavily armored anyways), and at any times, are prone to being knocked down by getting too close.

None of that is dependent on needing a unit of elite cavalry.  

In fact, that is why it was considered when jousting (1 vs 1) it was chivalrous to dismount when one party was unhorsed to continue the fight, since it was so one-sided when one person was mounted.

Thus, if stirrups do exist in Zalanthas (which evidence suggests they do), then maybe, it makes sense to allow people to inflict more damage on others whom are standing.

That seems a pretty basic assertion to me and hardly deserves being dismissed as wanting an 'uber invincible god mode'.

[spawnloser]

They dismounted because it was thought to be one-sided.  See, that is a perception which is not entirely true.  Those that did such were trained in a certain style of combat, as were their mounts.  Nowhere in Zalanthas is anyone trained to do these things.  You're thinking too advanced.  In game, cavalry and the elite training given to them does not exist.  Mounted combat is more primitive and done on mounts that are not trained to work with the rider in combat like the horses used in our historic past.  Note that birds, lizards and bugs are not as trainable as mammals, and there are very few mammal mounts in game.

All said, the differences between historic mounted combat and the mounted combat in game lead me, and others before that have voiced similar opinion, to believe that mounted combat should not give the bonuses others think it should.

Really, it looks like people will have to agree to disagree.

[Angela Christine]

Wait, didn't stirrups used to be part of the default description for one type of mount?  I think it was war beetles.  I can't go to the location that sells them and buy one just to check if it is still there or not though.  

According to the docs, war beetle cavalry do exist.  http://www.armageddon.org/general/beasts.html#warbeetle

War Beetle : These large, highly aggressive insects are almost identical to ordinary beetles save in size. Covered in a thick chitin, typically ranging from dark browns to blacks, these beetles boast very powerful mandibles which can deliver hard bites. Though larger and slower than kanks, domesticated war beetles are prized by mercenaries and professional soldiers alike for their thicker shells and overall strength in combat. Large armies often employ units of riders mounted upon war beetles as heavy cavalry in battle.

You can have mounted warriors without stirrups, but I don't think you could have units of heavy cavalry without stirrups or some equivalent invention.


On the other hand, PCs attempting mounted combat tend to fall off all the time at first, so whatever they are using must not be very good.  Oh no, you've attempted to attack a small, harmless snake without dismounting first, on your ass you go!   :roll: Tek help you if you get afflicted with general poison while mounted, because unless you are an expert rider just taking routine damage from the poison will cause you to fall off your mount each time, causing lots of extra damage and generally sucking.  Is that a bug, or do kanks have some psionic ability to tell when their rider is poisoned?



I don't know much about riding, but stirrups don't look like they would be hard to make or use.  So if professional cavalry exists, then they probably have stirrups or something similar, and other people would see the stirrups.  From there it seems like it would be easy for the idea of stirrups to spread and be used by random hunters and cowboys across the known world.  But if people are using stirrups or harnesses, then why do newbies fall off of their kanks so easily?

[Clearsighted]

They dismounted because it was thought to be one-sided.  See, that is a perception which is not entirely true.  Those that did such were trained in a certain style of combat, as were their mounts.  Nowhere in Zalanthas is anyone trained to do these things.  You're thinking too advanced.  In game, cavalry and the elite training given to them does not exist.  Mounted combat is more primitive and done on mounts that are not trained to work with the rider in combat like the horses used in our historic past.  Note that birds, lizards and bugs are not as trainable as mammals, and there are very few mammal mounts in game.

All said, the differences between historic mounted combat and the mounted combat in game lead me, and others before that have voiced similar opinion, to believe that mounted combat should not give the bonuses others think it should.

Really, it looks like people will have to agree to disagree.

I don't really see what there is to agree or disagree about.

It is an established fact that so long as you are capable of bracing yourself, you can swing downwards with more force and accuracy than you can swing upwards. And if these array of exotic animals can be tamed enough to ride on, they can be fought from.

This has nothing to do with elite training. Another example is fighting someone with one person on a raised platform and the other below. Such as say, a castle battlement.  Same thing.

Half of it is already coded, as I assume a mounted rider can wear heavier armor and go further faster then having to walk in it.

So long as stirrups exist in Zalanthas, and so long as someone has an average riding skill, then in an battle with two opponents of equal skill, the mounted one should have a great advantage in inflicting damage. It is currently opposite.

How do elite units or cavalry formations or non-zalanthas training come into this? It's a simple matter of swinging down or up.

Of course, without stirrups, you're not able to brace yourself, and thus, swinging with the force required in combat can be detrimental. But still possible. You just have to be a born rider. Stirrups were sorta the equine equivilant of the firearm to the longbow. I.E, it took 3 generations to train a good longbowman, but a good arquebusier could be trained in an month.

Yet there seems to be evidence that stirrups do exist. And in an game with coded mounts, and IC histories referring to heavy war beetle cavalry, it should be taken into account. Inasmuch as using a shield is coded, or fighting two handed is.

[Nao]

Nowhere in Zalanthas is anyone trained to do these things.

Large armies often employ units of riders mounted upon war beetles as heavy cavalry in battle.

Heavy cavalry exists but noone anywhere is trained in it? You make a blank statement that is simply wrong.

[spawnloser]

Well, have you thought of the fact that a HG standing is still taller than a human on a kank?  Where's the benefit to being mounted there?  Hell, where's the HG's bonus just for using a downswing?

It would take changing a lot of little things to make this truly realistic...and some of the benefits you believe a mounted combatant should receive, I don't think should be all as big as you believe they should be...well, from what it sounds like, at least.

[Clearsighted]

Well, have you thought of the fact that a HG standing is still taller than a human on a kank?  Where's the benefit to being mounted there?  Hell, where's the HG's bonus just for using a downswing?

It would take changing a lot of little things to make this truly realistic...and some of the benefits you believe a mounted combatant should receive, I don't think should be all as big as you believe they should be...well, from what it sounds like, at least.

It is certainly true that the scale is something the immortals would have to personally envision and implement themselves. All I know is that swinging from above inflicts a surprisingly greater damage than swinging from below...and really, I'm sort've a code twink. I like learning all the nooks and crannies and seeing how realistic it is, and how it takes stuff into account, cause it makes me feel more immersed.

And it is possible that it might be size or height dependent. Like not working on half giants or mekillots (same as subdue won't).

But I think if they're willing to code in the fact that swinging a weapon with two hands does greater damage, or holding a shield allows you to defend better, than there really isn't much of a leap of logic.

If it is too complex or difficult to add like a 25% damage bonus, then it is obviously besides the point. But I don't think we should be arguing based on how hard it is to code, since none of us really know unless we're coders.

[Beux]

I think you should be able to train your mounts to guard you while you sleep. Not guard as in not let anyone through, or attack anything that comes near.

Just to...wake you up with their loud raucous if something is approaching. That would be cool.  :oops:

[Tisiphone]

I'd like to point out two things here...

1. A lance charge and 'mounted fighting' are two different things. For the individual. Both are made easier by stirrups (usually), but they entail different activities.

2. Even with stirrups, mounted combat is difficult. Those knights and cavalrymen who were so effective spent their entire lives training how to do it. The techniques are different with and without stirrups, but they're still difficult either way. In fact, one could make a plausible arguement that fighting with stirrups is actually more difficult because:

it allows (read: require - military advances always push the limit) the rider to deal with much more force without being unseated;

during 'close in work', when you aren't charging through rabble but are, rather, cutting them down with your sword (with your horse/kank/sunback/inix kicking/biting/stomping/tailsweeping) it keeps you from kicking those vile infantrymen in the face. A very effective tactic, which stirrups make it hard to do.

I'd also like to point out that you can, effectively, get the same function of stirrups by tying your legs below the knee to the mount. High-backed saddles are much more necessary because the entire concept was 'leaning into' it, getting your vertebrae into an alignment that will avoid you getting whiplash, rather, letting you deliver the force. The saddles act as braces. The stirrups merely helped by creating a three-pointed line with your feet as well, and by acting as platforms whch you could (if you were good) use to push forward at the last moment against.