Mounted Combat: some simple enhancements?

[brytta.leofa]

Rah, have you played much with mounted combat?  Are you happy with it?

I've played rangers. I don't think mounted combat very well approximates what fighting someone on a mount would actually be like, unless the mount is just standing still while they sit atop it and hack at you. Like much of our combat code, I'm not very happy with it.

So, I'm aware--and you should be, too!--that this is Rahnevyn's informal, off-the-cuff comment, not an official staff position.  You think that's gonna stop me from trying to hijack some Moral Authority here?

Here's what I understand the current situation to be when you're mounted and fighting:
- It's hard to avoid getting hit.
- With the charge skill, you may be able to knock down and possibly injure an opponent.
- The only way to represent any advantage of being mounted is to charge as often as possible--but, oddly, you sacrifice your ability to flee if you fail.

I have a series of suggestions, starting with what I hope would be the easiest to implement:

(1) Represent the status of the animal: moving or not

When a mount is ridden into a room at run, or after a successful charge, set a flag and start a ten-second timer.  While the flag is set, give the rider's strikes a serious strength boost (divided by charge skill, probably), and remove the rider's defensive penalty.  After ten seconds without running around or making a charge, clear the flag-- he's a sitting duck again.

Also, when the running flag is set, make it significantly harder, based on the rider's skill, for the victim to flee.  I know this sounds overpowered; I think I make up for it in #2 below.

The number one benefit of this, other than Yet Moar Twinky Rangerly Goodness?  We'll see mounted combat sprawling across multiple rooms, mounts wearing out quick in a battle, and more complicated, terrain-based tactics.  Oh, speaking of tactics--

(2) Create defenses against calvalry

Two notions here:
- It should be nearly impossible to attack a skilled infantry unit armed with long spears.  Make charge difficult when the victim is wielding a spear, halberd, or other long pointy weapon and has a good skill level with it.  A perfect charge may knock him down, but most charge attempts will fail.  Critical failures?  The mount throws his rider, and has a chance of running away.  Really critical failure?  The mount is mortally wounded and the weapon breaks.
- Caltrops.  You can walk a mount across 'em, but running into a room with them is...hazardous.

(3) Weapon choice matters...a lot

- Short weapons (halfsword and below) should be unusable while riding...unless the opponent is also riding, if you want to get that fancy.
- Long weapons--spears and such--should be basically unpenalized.  Stickin' is stickin'.
- Medium weapons require some skill in riding to be useful; otherwise, you'll get this dreaded message:
The tall, muscular man lands a solid slash on your leg.
You try to slash at the tall, muscular man, but can't reach him from your mount!
- At low riding skills, aim of ranged weapons is seriously compromised.  Up to middlin' riding skill, it's all but impossible to shoot anything while your mount's IS_RUNNING flag is set (see #1).

What I primarily want to see represented is that a highly trained, fast-moving rider is hellaciously deadly to unprepared infantry, but also can be easily stood off with proper weaponry or preparation.  Note that there are no extra commands or skills here (I guess there's a new object and a script required to make caltrops work); it's simply adding conditions based on weapon type and movement.

I'm no combat code expert...to the extent that I'm criticizing, I'm doing it based on limited experience and on what bits are published in the help files.

Thoughts?

[Fathi]

Overall I'm in favour of the idea of improving mounted combat to something like your approximation.

However, on the flip side, I worry it might be a bit much for new players. There's already a million and one ways to get your newbie hunter/warrior PC killed... having the equivalent of "your weapon refuses to move!" might discourage and piss off a lot of new folks and/or lead to their untimely deaths.

I know Armageddon is not designed to be (nor would the pbase ever want it to be) "newbie friendly," but I'm wary of making combat more one-sidedly deadly than already often is.

[Clearsighted]

Historically, the mounted fighter was the most dangerous foe on the battlefield. Owing to many factors, not least of which had to do with the fact that the mounted warrior was not only swinging downwards at their opponent's head and neck, and often with heavily armored legs and vitals out of reach, but the sheer mass their mounts were able to put behind their blows when charging.

In Armageddon, the only thing that comes close to even the faintest lip service of this, is a maxed out ranger, in very specific circumstances.

[SMuz]

Hmm.. another complex one. Here goes..

I'd agree with the first one, though. It sounds nice and gives you a single, powerful strike. Also, you could simulate what cavalry would do, but entering combat, fleeing, charging into combat again, fleeing again... but I'm afraid that it could be abusable.

Speed should be the main factor, mass the secondary factor. An erdlu would greatly increase the damage done from a hit. The slower war beetles and sunback lizards would be much less effective because they're slow, but will give a bit of an advantage because of the mass.

Spears.. are not very useful against mounted opponents, unless it's in a group. Big swords are exceptionally useful. If you want to try it, take a bike and try charging at a guy with a stick. See whether he hits you more swinging the stick or stabbing it at you. Now try again against 5 people stabbing a stick at you. In Arm, it's rare for any characters to go around in a formation.

For mounted characters... yes, using a small weapon would be extra detrimental. You also shouldn't be able to use a weapon two-handed on the mount, which leaves you with maces and swords as the ideal weapons. Sorry, but I'd have to say that spears are tough to use on a mount as well.. mainly because you won't have a lot of maneuverability to jab it properly. Again, if you want to test, try jabbing while sitting atop a moving chair. Then try again while standing - there's a noticeable difference.

All weapons used atop a mount should have a decent strength penalty, because you don't swing weapons with only your arm.. a real warrior swings a sword from his foot. At best you'd be swinging your sword from your hips, which gives you less power. This will be countered by the fact that you'll hit the head, neck, shoulders, and body much more often. Mounted combat has always been deadly because of the speed bonus and the fact that the infantry will be hitting the cavalryman's foot while the cavalry guy has a good shot at the head and neck.

But really, from what I've seen in the game, most Zalanthan mounts just aren't suited to Earth-style mounted combat for the simple fact that they're about the same speed as a normal human. A guy on top of a war beetle will actually be easier to hit, because it's not charging past you like a horse does.

[Gunnerblaster]

For the most part, I am pretty satisfied with mounted combat.

I still like being more vulnerable to taking more hits - But something I would like to see is a better chance at getting head and neck hits, since most blows delivered by a mounted combatant will be angled downwards against non-mounted combatants.

Beyond that, I like the way things are.

[Clearsighted]

Hmm.. another complex one. Here goes..

I'd agree with the first one, though. It sounds nice and gives you a single, powerful strike. Also, you could simulate what cavalry would do, but entering combat, fleeing, charging into combat again, fleeing again... but I'm afraid that it could be abusable.

Speed should be the main factor, mass the secondary factor. An erdlu would greatly increase the damage done from a hit. The slower war beetles and sunback lizards would be much less effective because they're slow, but will give a bit of an advantage because of the mass.

It's not really the speed that determines the damage. At least inasmuch as they're capable of breaking into at least a gallop.

It's the mass of the animal being put behind the stroke, or in the case of medieval western knights, the lance, that made it so devastating.

[SMuz]

Speed is a major factor too. The thought of someone on a sunback or a beetle walking into battle with a lance is not very threatening. With a run, it would be a bit more of a threat. Medieval knights combined speed and mass - which is why you don't see poor peasants riding oxen into battle.

I'm not sure how fast most mounts really are, but they don't seem much faster than a dwarf.

[WarriorPoet]

Zalanthan fighting techniques don't really lend themselves to massed cavalry tactics, being more in the line of combat between individuals and small groups, rather than hosts. A lone horseman isn't much of a threat to a lone spearman. It's when cavalry and dragoons mass that they're a serious threat to foot, and then only if you can convince man and beast to charge headlong into a wall of spears or bayonets, or to savage the fleeing during a rout.  Look at the British in India. The Mahrattas would raise a hundred-thousand horse and still get firmly trounced by a fighting line of stolid infantry a tenth their size.

So I wouldn't like to see mounted combat beefed up too terribly much, on the level that PC's usually engage in, though I'd like to see more options than charge. Mounted archery and light, javelin-armed cavalry seem more in line with Zalanthan tactics. Skirmishers and the like, rather than armored 'horse' for melee in the desert.

While we're on the subject, sort of, I would like to see high-end mounts come with maintenance issues. Feed, water, doctoring and the like. Twenty coins for a few years in the stable is a hell of a deal for a lizard that weighs a ton. I would also like my erdlu to go wild in the melee with it's sharp beak.

[jhunter]

I would love to see mounted combat become a more viable technique. In either the current game or in 2.0

[Clearsighted]

Zalanthan fighting techniques don't really lend themselves to massed cavalry tactics, being more in the line of combat between individuals and small groups, rather than hosts. A lone horseman isn't much of a threat to a lone spearman. It's when cavalry and dragoons mass that they're a serious threat to foot, and then only if you can convince man and beast to charge headlong into a wall of spears or bayonets, or to savage the fleeing during a rout.  Look at the British in India. The Mahrattas would raise a hundred-thousand horse and still get firmly trounced by a fighting line of stolid infantry a tenth their size.

So I wouldn't like to see mounted combat beefed up too terribly much, on the level that PC's usually engage in, though I'd like to see more options than charge. Mounted archery and light, javelin-armed cavalry seem more in line with Zalanthan tactics. Skirmishers and the like, rather than armored 'horse' for melee in the desert.

While we're on the subject, sort of, I would like to see high-end mounts come with maintenance issues. Feed, water, doctoring and the like. Twenty coins for a few years in the stable is a hell of a deal for a lizard that weighs a ton. I would also like my erdlu to go wild in the melee with it's sharp beak.

Heh. Not going to turn this thread into a historical debate, but still, comparing India's cavalry to its experience against Wellington's 19th century British Infantry, is probably not the best example to relate to Zalanthas.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

A very simple fix to the current situation would be making nearly every attack strike waist-up for the mounted person, and waist-down for the unmounted person. Half-giants would be exempt from this. Despite the attrition of fighting mounted, this might create scenarios that encourage mounted combat.

[RogueGunslinger]

A very simple fix to the current situation would be making nearly every attack strike waist-up for the mounted person, and waist-down for the unmounted person. Half-giants would be exempt from this. Despite the attrition of fighting mounted, this might create scenarios that encourage mounted combat.

How about torso and up/waist and down?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Well, whatever. Heh. The point being that while you may not be as maneuverability on mounts, the height advantage is a real thing. I'd like to see half-giants get this same sort of thing.

[Is Friday]

Well, whatever. Heh. The point being that while you may not be as maneuverability on mounts, the height advantage is a real thing. I'd like to see half-giants get this same sort of thing.

Not that it really matters. Just about anyone taking a decent hit from a half-giant is getting knocked out.

[Ammut]

As someone who practices mounted combat frequently, I do think at this point it is underpowered.  The only saving grace of mounted combat is the charge ability which is very helpful for rangers since they don't get kick/bash/disarm from the start like warriors do.  Still, the echo about charging your enemy and trampling them seems a bit misleading to me (after all, it's basically the bash skill but for mounted units, right?).  I've never been trampled by a horse or other large animal before, but I would imagine it would leave me with broken ribs/appendages and possibly a concussion.

I do like the ideas presented by the OP, I just don't know how to make mounted combat better than it already is without nerfing an entire group of people.  Perhaps giving them a bonus to hit the waist or torso upward for the time being and seeing how that works?

[Gunnerblaster]

Maybe just a slight change in the echo for a successful charge?

Instead of getting the 'trample' echo, why not simply something like:

Code Select Expand

You charge into <sdesc>, knocking it/him/her down!

or

Code Select Expand

You charge at <sdesc>, but miss!

I also think that non-mounted combatants attacking mounted opponents should recieve bonuses to landing blows to waist/legs/feet locations while recieving penalties to head/neck/arm locations. The coded possibility of hitting the torso should be left, as is.

[FantasyWriter]

Maybe just a slight change in the echo for a successful charge?

Instead of getting the 'trample' echo, why not simply something like:

Code Select Expand

You charge into <sdesc>, knocking it/him/her down!

or

Code Select Expand

You charge at <sdesc>, but miss!

I also think that non-mounted combatants attacking mounted opponents should recieve bonuses to landing blows to waist/legs/feet locations while recieving penalties to head/neck/arm locations. The coded possibility of hitting the torso should be left, as is.

I concur on both notes.

[jhunter]

Maybe just a slight change in the echo for a successful charge?

Instead of getting the 'trample' echo, why not simply something like:

Code Select Expand

You charge into <sdesc>, knocking it/him/her down!

or

Code Select Expand

You charge at <sdesc>, but miss!

I also think that non-mounted combatants attacking mounted opponents should recieve bonuses to landing blows to waist/legs/feet locations while recieving penalties to head/neck/arm locations. The coded possibility of hitting the torso should be left, as is.

I concur on both notes.

Yes. But no bonuses either way against an unmounted hg. On a side note, I'd like to see height play more of a part in hit location overall. I cannot stand seeing a half-giant hit in the head by halflings and dwarves.

[Mechafish]

Nevermind, read that wrong...

[Jingo]

On the flipside, we don't want to make rangers much more powerful than they are. I don't think we want to make a ranger of equal expierience any better in and outright fight than a warrior without charge and a high ride skill, etc.

What I really want to see is more diversification in mounts.

Some powerful war-mounts for mounted combat. And some pack mounts, sneaky mounts and fast mounts, etc.

This has been implemented to a degree, but not as widely as I would like to see.

[Ammut]

I agree that rangers should not be made warriors once they are mounted.  As far as mounted combat goes (along with charge), there could be a few code changes to make it more realistic.  More choices as far as mounts go would be great, or at least have different types of them:

>list
1) a combat-trained war beetle
2) a stealthy erdlu
3) a quick sunback lizard

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I don't think simply changing the hit location ratio will over-power rangers in a heads up battle, by any means.

[Dahomey]

I don't think simply changing the hit location ratio will over-power rangers in a heads up battle, by any means.

A bash/kick/reel having a chance to knock the mounted combatant off. Thus better use of two-handed weapons against mounted combatants.

[SMuz]

Rangers are outdoor warriors, they should be quite good out in the wilderness, enough for 7-day ranger to beat a 7-day warrior. I don't think a major tweak is necessary, just no likelihood to hit feet, and lowered chance to hit the legs. I'd hate to see that on HGs, though. I do not want a half-giant bashing my dwarf's head in with a log while I stab his toes with a powerful spear.

I'm not fond of different details on mounts. Lol, "stealthy erdlu" and "quick sunback lizard" reminds me of Diablo.

I'm all for more unbalanced realism with mounted combat, but I'd like to see more negative details put into mounts if they're going to be more powerful. More maintenance. Mounts should be a luxury item, like IRL. You have to pay to feed them for every IC day you're online, they poop all over the place, and they get hurt in battle as well, meaning that an experienced cavalry guy will have to spend a lot of 'sid on a strong mount and strong armor for it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Dig that.