Mounted combat

[Ghost]

RL knowledge;Mounted combat has much more benefits against fightng on foot; Riders have a distinct advangate over infantries.

But in Arm, I dont see many mounted combatters, because the code puts the riders on a disadvantageous position.  Even if you can stay on the saddle, your defenses are lowered and so fighting on a mounts back is not prefferred.

I think there should be some addings to mounted combat.  Maybe there should be jostling skill.  With a long spear, you can start the combat by jostling.  Such as;

>Jostle gith
You begin riding toward a yellow skinned gith
> You thrust your spear to a yellow skinned gith's ribs, opening a large gap.

Or something like you miss.
If you hit, you deal a good damage, and a delay to your oppoent.  If you miss, you delay yourself

And if your opponent is faster than you and attacks you before, you can get a message like;
> You are fighting for your life!

There might be some addings too. Like, if you hit, there might be a chance to trample your opponent to the ground.

And everytime you scrored a hit, there might be a chance to break your spear.

You can even make it from one league away.  Like,

> Jostle gith north



This is one idea about mounted combat.  Another is, there might be a skill of 'mounted_combat' such as, everytime you fight on a mounts back, you use that skill.  And if you improve that skill, it adds to your offence and defense when you are fighting on a mounts back.

And finally, the offense of a rider might be better than an infantry.  The classic D&D rules, says that, if you have a higher ground, you get an attack bonus.  Well, this is all in my mind for now.

[John]

How well can you train a kank to handle battle situations. They're giant-ants. Regardless of what sci-fi says I can't see them trampling people.

Other mounts sure. But they're not as common so I'd rather combat changes that would be more used. Such as height being taken into account in combat

[Quirk]

RL knowledge;Mounted combat has much more benefits against fightng on foot; Riders have a distinct advangate over infantries.

Yes, if you're mounted on a horse and have made the technological leap to the stirrup. No, if you haven't. There's a reason why cavalry didn't play a dominant part in warfare (Alexander apart) until the Dark and Middle Ages - if you don't have some means of keeping yourself atop the horse after an impact or a missed swing and you're trying to fight from there, your chances aren't all that good, particularly if you're not a godlike rider.

And no, I don't want to see stirrups on Arm, nor gunpowder, nor any other technological innovations.

Quirk

[jmordetsky]

Yes, if you're mounted on a horse and have made the technological leap to the stirrup. No, if you haven't. There's a reason why cavalry didn't play a dominant part in warfare (Alexander apart) until the Dark and Middle Ages - if you don't have some means of keeping yourself atop the horse after an impact or a missed swing and you're trying to fight from there, your chances aren't all that good, particularly if you're not a godlike rider.

[jmordetsky]

Yes, if you're mounted on a horse and have made the technological leap to the stirrup. No, if you haven't. There's a reason why cavalry didn't play a dominant part in warfare (Alexander apart) until the Dark and Middle Ages - if you don't have some means of keeping yourself atop the horse after an impact or a missed swing and you're trying to fight from there, your chances aren't all that good, particularly if you're not a godlike rider.

Well stated, I was always curious about the rationality behind why mounted combat would put you at a disadvantage, but that makes sense.

[spawnloser]

Stirrups, I could see...but someone would need to come up with an IC way to figure out how to make them, with IC justification for looking for such a solution in the first place...

On that not, however, does anyone use a saddle when they hop on their kank?  No, not in Arm, which I think is one thing Quirk was touching on, but didn't come right out and say.  You have nothing keeping you on the back of that slippery kank's shell while it's freaking out about combat going on about its head.  You gotta have good balance, good grip with your legs as well as know how to grip, and good riding skills to keep the mount calm enough so that you can stay on its back...the knowing how to grip would come experience, represented by the ride skill as well.  I see no problem with mounted combat as it is right now.  If you wanna do it, get really fucking good at 'ride' and try it out...if you're good enough at ride, you may be able to do it with two weapons out some day.

[Dan]

I've played a successful ranger that was a mounted fighter.

Why has no one brought up the charge skill? It -is- in game for those well-versed with various mounts. I've been attacked and repelled desert elf attacks from kank-back simply by charging them. Fighting someone that is sitting down gives them just as much disadvantage as you have by being mounted.

This is out there already.

[Anonymous]

RL knowledge;Mounted combat has much more benefits against fightng on foot; Riders have a distinct advangate over infantries.

Yes, if you're mounted on a horse and have made the technological leap to the stirrup. No, if you haven't. There's a reason why cavalry didn't play a dominant part in warfare (Alexander apart) until the Dark and Middle Ages - if you don't have some means of keeping yourself atop the horse after an impact or a missed swing and you're trying to fight from there, your chances aren't all that good, particularly if you're not a godlike rider.

Quirk

I see your point, but since we are refering to earth (Again, yuck) I would have to refer to the tribes in asia, They rode bareback, much like the indians of north america.  And they were known as fierce fighters.

[Quirk]

I see your point, but since we are refering to earth (Again, yuck) I would have to refer to the tribes in asia, They rode bareback, much like the indians of north america.  And they were known as fierce fighters.

I'm not sure which Asian tribes you refer to. The Mongols certainly used the stirrup. Going back BC, the Sarmatians, one of the few tribes supposed to have had heavy cavalry i.e. cavalry capable of engaging heavily armed infantry, didn't have stirrups, but they did have a saddle so designed as to provide substantial support for a rider at the moment of impact. The Scythians had neither stirrup nor complex saddle, but relied mainly on their archery at range combined with the mobility of the horse beneath them, as direct combat with armoured infantry didn't favour them, and even at that they were not bareback riders - they used a bitted bridle and saddleclothes. Could you be more specific?

The Indians also seem to me a somewhat dodgy example, as we don't really have many records of their facing armoured infantry, and again as far as I understand they were largely horse archers.

Quirk

[Anonymous]

I personally like things as they are.  There are ways of making mounted combat more effective, but for the most part it is rare.  Zalanthas just doesn't have the proper animals or technology for truly effective mounted combat for the average Joe.  There might be a few exceptions where large animals are used by skilled riders, but for the most part charging into battle on kank back is a bad idea.  I never got the idea that kanks are terribly fearsome animals.  There are earth animals that I am sure have personalities that make them worthless for combat, I don't see why it couldn't be that kanks are simply too jittery for combat.

If you want to do combat on a mount, get a ranger, get a nice large war animal that might not have the range of a kank, and practice, practice, practice, other wise, do what everyone else does and fight on your feet.

[Dan]

Kanks can be used in mounted combat, they are versital and mobile, not the fastest or strongest but they are a basic mount that is widely used. With the right abilities you can be a deadly mounted fighter, this is the way it is right now, in the code.

[Gorobei]

SKILL_CHARGE                                                       (Combat)

  This skill causes a highly skilled rider to attempt to trample an
opponent while mounted on an animal.  Upon success, the victim will be
knocked over and left on the ground (if he/she was not already there).
This leaves the victim prone to attack and disables his/her ability to do
things other than stand.  This skill, while combative in nature, is
primarily available to rangers, half-elves, and expert riders who have a
greater rapport with animals, since such maneuvers require expert control
over the animal.

Syntax:
  charge <target>

Example:
  > charge gith

Notes:
  If your character misses a charge, he/she may lose their balance and
  fall over and thus be in the same unenviable position as the opponent,
  had your character been successful.

  It is impossible to charge while your character is not mounted.

  The size of the mount can make a big difference in the success of a
  charging attempt.

See also:
  combat, ride, guild_ranger, race_half_elf

Delay: after (if success: opponent after)

[Carnage]

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.

[creeper386]

Well, along with Carnage's quote, I beleive I've read Ratlons are commonly used in combat as they are fairly strong footing. There is evidence at least that mounted combat exists.

Now, most likely there isn't too often that there is heavy calvary but that doesn't mean there can't be light calvary. Something like the erdlu would be most likely fairly good. In the lines of hit and run tactics. Which was common with light calvary. Darksun has saddles, I don't know about Zalanthas but it's not uncommon so see people emoting saddles and riegns so if they don't exist that sort of practice should be discontinued. And maybe not stirrups but I could see riding harnesses being invented to keep people on the animal they are riding. A big ant or beetle isn't going to really have any place to stay on well unless you are tied on one way or another. Specially an ant. Sit where the sections come together and you'd likely get squashed as it moves around.

I don't know, I'd imagine some way of being held onto the animals is invented. And mounted combat DOES exist. Ratlons, war beetles and gwoshi are all said to be used in combat mounts. Sure maybe your average kank isn't the greatest as it's fairly slow and bulky, but that doesn't mean that other mounts shouldn't be able to be used in combat.

And after all that, I'm sure after being a ranger for a great long time and riding all over the place you could get by alright. I don't think the charge skill is really much help. I don't know about you, but for the most part the only thing bash does is force the person to stand up before doing anything else, alot of times people tend to fight better when on the ground it seems, certainly don't fight horribly worse. So I don't think the charge command is too much help, but I've never used it so perhaps there is some other side effects like damage or something, SHRUG.


Creeper

[Mr.Camel]

I always drool at the mental image of some raiders charging on erdlu back for some reason...

[Dan]

There are also coded ways to make certain mounts attack. Sunback Lizards come to mind, there was a lengthy discussion some time ago about how to get them to attack.

[Carnage]

There are also coded ways to make certain mounts attack. Sunback Lizards come to mind, there was a lengthy discussion some time ago about how to get them to attack.

Found it: http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=88

Turns out the command is 'pull reins', which activates a prog on certain animals if the rider is in combat and mounted, according to Savak.

[Dan]

Thanks Carnage- I can attest to any disbelievers that a ranger with the charge skill is a very, very dangerous person. Even more so if they happen to be atop a mount with some sort of coded attack. There is coded mount combat in the game. Go for it.

[Armaddict]

Erm, there are some helpfiles that tell a couple animals that are good for mounted combat...

Do we have to list off the less-known ones?  Heh, sorry, now I feel like a nazi.

[Dan]

Nope, that'd be pretty IC. Not sure why Ratlons are even mentioned as combat animals seeing as the one time I saw them I was stripped of my karma for being there and doing some things... eek... EDIT: I meant this first part to mean that I havn't seen them in game outside of one room in the whole game, and have never seen someone riding them. Which should place them as a pretty rare animal. If anything I would rather see at least one mount dealer trading in them. END EDIT.

Anyway, the mounts listed under general information are the common ones.

[jhunter]

I'm at a loss, some people here are saying that saddles are not used...

There are saddlebags in the game, why wouldn't there be saddles?

And if there are saddles, who says they don't have stirrups?

I can neither find, nor have I seen where it says that anywhere in the docs.

I find it hard to believe that someone could even stay atop a shelled creature without a saddle of some sort.

[grog]

stirrups and saddles do not always go together.  Who ever came up with stirrups was something of a genius of his time, I now have to track that down!

[jhunter]

Right, I know that...I'm just saying that if it doesn't say there are no saddles...then I'm certain it doesn't say there are not stirrups either.

[Anonymous]

I think it would be neat and as kanks are giant ants why not make use of there mandibles instead of trampling an opponent being chomped on by something that can lift 60 times its own weight could really cramp a persons style.

[gfair]

I don't know about stirrups specifically, we should ask for a staff opinion on that. I've played reigns and saddle, and see nothing wrong with that.  I've always felt that mounted combat didn't reflect the reality of it in the real world, even without stirrups. There is some speed threshold a weapon has to be travelling at in order to break bone, add a horse galloping at 10+ miles per hour and you don't have to swing nearly as hard, you save a lot of energy. Stirrups or not, there ought to be some sort of equivalent that functions nearly the same, like a handle.

[John]

Stirrups are the things that help you get on a horse, right?

If so I hope to god there are stirrups, because otherwise I'm going to have fun trying to hop on a standing kank (I was a human of average size).

ass -v kank
It appears in adulthood for its race.
It is quite a bit taller than you.
It is many times heavier than you.
A greenish-brown kank is in excellent condition.
A greenish-brown kank looks completely rested.

[X-D]

Used to be all kinds of saddle items in game, still see some now and again, Think though they are not used simply because it is assumed your mounts already have them.

[John]

Think though they are not used simply because it is assumed your mounts already have them.

That and they might be buggy. I know there are some things extremely buggy about mounts (hitch mounts to wagons). This may just be another thing that's buggy

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'm going to suggest that we bring saddles back, likely race specific. But it is, when I think of it, realistic that civilized folks, such as Tulukians and Allanakians, would have access to such. Tribal folk, of course, would likely revel in the fact that they are such better riders, and not make use of saddles.

[grog]

Stirrups are the things that help you get on a horse, right?

Stirrups help you get on the horse, but their main purpose is helping you stay on a horse.  Such as when struck by a large weapon, or when striking someone else with a large weapon.  Amazing how such a little invention changed mounted combat (Get on the back of a large animal, and try to swing a heavy weapon, then have somebody hit you with one.  Try holding on with just your legs, I dare you!)

[John]

Get on the back of a large animal

I'm going to have trouble getting on a standing horse without stirrups, and I'm generally the same size as it, let alone a standing kank which is "quite a bit taller" then me

[grog]

Mounting blocks!!!

[Gorobei]

I think it would be neat and as kanks are giant ants why not make use of there mandibles instead of trampling an opponent being chomped on by something that can lift 60 times its own weight could really cramp a persons style.

Ants can lift 60 times their weight because they're so small.  Kanks definitely can not.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I'm going to have trouble getting on a standing horse without stirrups, and I'm generally the same size as it, let alone a standing kank which is "quite a bit taller" then me ;)

That refers to the kanks length, not its height.

[Angela Christine]

Don't you get some animals, like camels and elephants, sit down for you to mount them?  When I can I usually use "rest" rather than "dismount" it just seems like an easier way to get on and off a giant bug when you are out in the wilderness.  It is also very handy for erdlu, because many kank theives won't be able to mount the erdlu to steal it.  Ha ha!

Some mounts definately DO have saddles.  Last time I looked at a war beetle a saddle was part of it's main description.


AC

[John]

That refers to the kanks length, not its height.

I feel somewhat stupid now with all my emotes  :roll:

[creeper386]

That refers to the kanks length, not its height.

I feel somewhat stupid now with all my emotes  :roll:

I'd still say most kanks are going to be larger at their highest point them most humans are tall in the game. I don't know, may just me but I always imagined them plenty taller. Something like an ant with the height of a belgian nearly.


Creeper is sure he's wrong but it's his world.

[Leonidas]

Yes, if you're mounted on a horse and have made the technological leap to the stirrup. No, if you haven't. There's a reason why cavalry didn't play a dominant part in warfare (Alexander apart) until the Dark and Middle Ages -

Hannibal? Attila the Hun? The Guals? Mythology of the horse in the middle east? Mount played a very crucial role in that time.

Any ways I  use CHARGE shit load when mounted but I using a bow well mounted is a great way of doing it, as you stay far away from the Enemy while shooting arrows from atop your mount. That's how I hunt.

[spawnloser]

Leonidas, most of those you listed were not cavalry but rode horses to the battle and not in it.

[Cenghiz]

I know the history of Turks well. And, as always told by historicians *not sure about the spelling* always remarked that Turks were riders.. It's told that most elite cavalry of Turks even slept on their walking horses. (It's probably exaggaration, of course.)
To sum up, there are about eleven well known Turkish Imperials *again not sure if it's the right word* in the dark ages, all of whose elite force were light cavalry.
Of course I'm not counting on some _large_ tribes like Avars, with those the number reaches to 15 or 16. We have a saying, "At, avrat, pusat." meaning "horse, woman, weapon", three most important things in an ancient Turk's life.

Note: You see, 'woman' is the second in the list. We really did _love_ *chuckle* our horses *wink* in ancient times.