Charge Skill

[SRB]

Things in game can't just fly out of left field with the squirrelmaster.  There has to be something to bring it on, as opposed to a random appearance and 'wow, now it exists!  Yay!'

I agree.

[Intrepid]

Continuity is what you make of it.  It can simply be a skill that's come
about recently, developing from simpler techniques.  It can be a skill
that has come into the mainstream that has always existed.  And,
heavens forfend, it could even be a skill that has always been in
the mainstream, just being implemented now.  Ic is not the same as
ooc.

What happened to actually mudding as part of a creative exercise?
Where is your imagination?  Why is the above paragraph something
I had to tell you?  Is the first time you have ever played a roleplaying
game?

I don't mean to sound rude, I'm just trying to figure out why a game
design matter as this is being turned down just because you can't
wrap your mind around the concept of graceful implementation in a
currently running game.

[Armaddict]

It's not that I don't comprehend it.

I don't -agree- with it.

Based on what I've seen in seven years of playing this game, mounted combat is not -ready- to be brought about.  It's rarely even been -contemplated-.  For it to be implemented now would be it just spawning out of nowhere, a bit of sandspawn knowledge.

And yes.  I have role-played before.

[Agent_137]

Screw you guys, I'm doing it myself IG. Just wait, you'll all be jealous because I'll have this ub3r l33t calvary and you'll all be sucking wind on foot.

[jhunter]

For it to be implemented now would be it just spawning out of nowhere, a bit of sandspawn knowledge.

Not true...it's in the documentation.

War Beetle : These large, highly agressive 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.

[RunningMountain]

I havn't read much of the thread, but since we're all talking about mounted combat.  Here's some ideas.

-Mounts should get hit when it's rider goes fighting people on it, it's not that hard to move away from the rider attacking you and just lodge your axe in the kanks head is it?  And it sucks doing this.
The rider attacks you.
kick kank
change opponent kank.

I think you should be able to change opponent kank even if it isn't fighting you but the rider is, essentially it is in combat with you because it's so close.  

-I love the idea for being able to pull people off their mounts, maybe the bash command could do it, or it branches from subdue or something.

-Looking over the thread briefly I think that mounted combat should be dangerous, you can die pretty easily if you fall off a horse/kank/inix whatever and hit your neck the wrong way, you can break bones if you are thrown from a mount, and this should happen in game.  If you're going to take the risk of fighitng mounted you should get positives and negatives, I do believe mounted combat is superior to fighting melee with someone, because realistically you can just charge over someone and trample them underfoot over and over, or charge by and attack them before wheeling around.  However if you take note, mounted combat can also screw you over, demonstrated beautifully in Braveheart when 300 Heavy-horse charged to their death.  So it's a question of how much realism you want put into it.  You want more bonuses to fighting mounted? Fine if your going to put in bonuses so charge tramples people and they take 10d10 damage, then the subdue skill should be expanded so you can be ripped off your mount with a simple shove, or if you are thrown you can break your neck and die instantly?
I like it the way it is right now, but things can always expand if you argue about it enough, I think.

-RM

[Disgruntled Cavalier]

Not true...it's in the documentation.

Damn straight. After reading that early on, I had one character with the goal of becoming some kind of mounted warrior. After carefully equiping himself with a warbeetle, heavy armor and a huge fucking polearm, he set off to see who wanted some heavy cavalry.

Turns out nobody really did, and even then he was faced with the ridiculous prospect of charging off into battle on his warmount, then politely dismounting and getting stuck in with the other infantry. Why? Because no matter how long he lived and trained, he'd still get his ass handed to him if he tried to fight while mounted.

So yes, I'd love to see some changes to mounted combat.

[jhunter]

Turns out nobody really did, and even then he was faced with the ridiculous prospect of charging off into battle on his warmount, then politely dismounting and getting stuck in with the other infantry. Why? Because no matter how long he lived and trained, he'd still get his ass handed to him if he tried to fight while mounted.

Right, even though ICly it's supposed to be possible, used and effective. The code doesn't support it and people are making those decisions based on the OOC knowledge that it doesn't.

[Armaddict]

I admit, since it's stated in the documents, that -does- pretty well nullify my arguments.

However, I'd be more inclined to say that it's a discrepancy in the game documents, as there have been in the past (and that have been changed).  Not a real discrepancy, just something that was -intended- to be that way, but it didn't end up that way.

The reason I say that is that in the major conflicts I've seen, there has been -no-...none, zero...representation of mounted soldiers.  Not even in an npc 'unit of mounted soldiers'.  It is also not highly recognized by -either- of the clans, in-game, that are known for their military knowledge and research.

I'd need a staff opinion to clarify on the way things should be before I continued...but I still say that with zero thought and representation of it, not even thought of it by any mind in the game world...it would still be way more unrealistic than the lack of mounted combat in itself to have the knowledge and sudden practice of it by various groups suddenly 'spring up' out of nowhere.

I dunno, really.  *scratches his head*

[wizturbo]

I agree with AC.  If your good enough at riding, you should receive NO penalties in combat for being mounted.  A ranger/half-elf/mercenary with excellent riding skill, should fight just as well mounted as they do on foot.  Thats my feelings on it.

[Rindan]

I personally tend to agree with Armaddict in that mounted combat is never represented in the mass combat that occurs.  There might be exceptions to this, but they are pretty rare exceptions.  If mounted combat takes place, it is pretty rare.  That is still not a perfect argument against it though.  It simply could be something that was over looked that can be added after the fact.  However, before you go ahead and do that, I think you would first need to reconsider the entire balance of a mounted person fighting a person on foot.  Namely, you then need to recode weapons so that they work appropriately.

It is all well and good to give a guy on a kank a bonus or the ability to run me down while I am wielding my dagger, but it is very different when I am armed with a ten foot spear that can merrily use the force of a charging rider to impale themselves.  Sure, riding down on some sucker with a knife might be easy, but it would be damn near impossible to ride down on a firm warrior with a spear planted into the ground.  So, if you are going to make calvary suddenly have an advantage, you also need to allow for all of the counters that would be developed to deal with that advantage – namely getting a nice long spear, planting it into the ground, and inviting the mounted sucker to charge into it.

Personally, I don't a need to go to such lengths.  Eh, maybe if they ever redo the combat system it would rock if they put in considerations for weapon reach and such, but until then you are talking about a lot of special coding to kludge in something that has extremely little history in Zalanthas.  Calvary is not desperately needed, and it is no challenge to explain away the lack of calvery in Zalanthas.  I can think of a horde of reasons why Calvary might in Zalanthas might be nearly useless, or at least used only used by archers.  The mounts could be too skittish in serious combat (yes, even the war mounts), they could simply suck at maneuvering and be unable to ride down on a human that simply steps out of the way, they could be too apt to want to fight or run themselves and throw off their rider.  There are a plethora of possible explanations as to why Calvary isn't common despite mounts being common.  It is a lot easier to come up with a reason to not use Calvary then it is to recode all weapons to work properly with it.

[Kill4Free]

I personally tend to agree with Armaddict in that mounted combat is never represented in the mass combat that occurs.

Thats because there is no reason to be mounted, as if you are mounted due to the penalties almost any master rider will get (with the exception of a ranger and half-elf) you will more likely die, and do less damage on your way down.

I am armed with a ten foot spear that can merrily use the force of a charging rider to impale themselves. Sure, riding down on some sucker with a knife might be easy, but it would be damn near impossible to ride down on a firm warrior with a spear planted into the ground. So, if you are going to make calvary suddenly have an advantage, you also need to allow for all of the counters that would be developed to deal with that advantage – namely getting a nice long spear, planting it into the ground, and inviting the mounted sucker to charge into it.

That is true to an extent, there are ways for mounts to avoid long weapons, but how many pc's, or even npc's do you see in the game with polearms, or longspears, or pikes?  I played this game for nearly 8 months, and I saw one NPC with a polearm.  The next closest is a short stabbing spear, which isnt much better then a mid sized sword.

You wouldnt have to recode all the weapons, to do this, just take into account the reach check of a weapon.  And a change like that to compensate for better calvary, will make it so armies will actually have to have polearm groups to defend against charges.

Right now you are basically saying
"Mounted combat shouldnt be good, because there are weapons which have an advantage over it"

There are weapons which have an advantage in almost any type of combat, but it is unlikely everyone would have those weapons, or carry those weapons around with them.
[/quote]

[moab]

The long-haired hippy rides in from the west, mounted on a black-scaled inix.

The long-haired hippy nicks you with his longsword!

The long-haired hippy rides to the east, mounted on a black-scaled inix.

Your feel the burning poison in your blood and suffer!

====
Maybe just coding mounted warriors so they can flee combat without many (or any) penalties would be enough.  And reasonable, I think, expect when in combat with other mounted riders?

[Kill4Free]

Im not sure, but I dont think there is a bad flee penalty, I am not sure about that though.  And you dont have to be mounted to hit and run either.

[Bestatte]

I'm not sure I see any problem with mounted combat. It isn't as effective as unmounted, but we already knew this before creating our characters. I might not be able to take down a tarantula, but I get a kick out of jabbing my steel-tipped wickedly sharp spear down on a jozhal from atop my tamed mekillot - then whacking it with the back of my deadly-sharp silt-flyer-clawed gloves when it jumps up in its attempt to bite my nose off.

For me, it's just the sheer fun in making up these emotes that explain WHY I'm sitting on the mount while smacking around the littler critters. I don't need to be uber to do that. I just need to be capable of staying on top of the damned mount. And so far I'm having no trouble doing that, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

[Kill4Free]

Im not saying I want mounted fighting to be uber, I am saying that I want it to have some advantages, as opposed to only disadvantages.

[SRB]

Im not saying I want mounted fighting to be uber, I am saying that I want it to have some advantages, as opposed to only disadvantages.

It does have advantages:

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.

That is an extremely useful skill. I have seen it kill several times. We do not need to have cavalry fighting overpowered, lest we suddenly have everyone and their brother fighting atop scuttling bugs and lizards as if they are extremely nimble stallions bred for combat.

[Intrepid]

I will add one last point to this thread before running for my life:

You don't have to have all the skills your class/guild shows.  The
choices for character creation, while they can fit everything you
have in mind for this concept, might not be always fit.  Ie, not
everyone who chooses the assassin class does so for backstab.
Some people simply wanted a couple of skills from the list.

If the charge skill appears on your list and you are an elf, will
you ever be using it?  Doubtful.  You can safely ignore any
skill you would never use and treat it as if it does not even show
up on your skill list.  Our pcs are much more than our score,
skill and stat commands, after all.

[EvilRoeSlade]

The reason I say that is that in the major conflicts I've seen, there has been -no-...none, zero...representation of mounted soldiers.  Not even in an npc 'unit of mounted soldiers'.

You are wrong about that also.  I have seen NPC units of mounted warriors.

[Kill4Free]

SRB, it is a usefull skill, but is it better then using kick/bash/disarm when you arent mounted?
I never tried using a high level of those skills, so I dont really know, but I dont think it is as close.

[Tamarin]

It is neither better or worse.  It is different.

[Rindan]

Thats because there is no reason to be mounted, as if you are mounted due to the penalties almost any master rider will get (with the exception of a ranger and half-elf) you will more likely die, and do less damage on your way down.

I was say specifically in terms of HRPTs.  City wide invasions, as far as I have ever seen, never included mounted warriors that fought mounted.  That is not to say that there are not mounted NPC warriors.  I actually have seen those, but they are more the exception and not the rule.

That is true to an extent, there are ways for mounts to avoid long weapons, but how many pc's, or even npc's do you see in the game with polearms, or longspears, or pikes?  I played this game for nearly 8 months, and I saw one NPC with a polearm.  The next closest is a short stabbing spear, which isnt much better then a mid sized sword.

You wouldnt have to recode all the weapons, to do this, just take into account the reach check of a weapon.  And a change like that to compensate for better calvary, will make it so armies will actually have to have polearm groups to defend against charges.

There is no 'reach check' currently built into weapons.  This means you have to go back to each weapon and manually recode it.  Think of the five trillion weapons in Armageddon, then the joy of deciding if they are useful or not against a mounted warrior and recoding them such.  Further, you then need to add in more code so that during combat there is some checking to determine if the weapon with the long reach is fighting against someone that is mounted.  You are no longer talking about tweaking bonuses and penalties.  You are talking about getting into the guts of the combat code.

As to the point that there are few people with pole arms... that is exactly my point.  The game is not built with mounted warriors in mind.  There are very few weapons that currently out there that make sense for a mounted warrior to use, and very few weapons that make sense to defend against a mounted warrior.  If suddenly a mounted warrior becomes a danger, people are going to start snatching up longer weapons, especially when traveling the wastes.  The fact that the game has a very limited quantity of such weapons is something that would have to be fixed.

Right now you are basically saying
"Mounted combat shouldnt be good, because there are weapons which have an advantage over it"

There are weapons which have an advantage in almost any type of combat, but it is unlikely everyone would have those weapons, or carry those weapons around with them.

No, I am saying that if you are suddenly going to give a noticeable bonus to a specific weapon or combat style, you also need to give a notable bonus to the specific weapon or combat style that counters it.  Imagine if Armageddon didn't have archery and shields.  One day they decide to put in archery.  You can't just put in archery.  You also need to put in shields.  Well, mounted combat is the same.  You can't just throw it in.  If you are going to throw in mounted combat, you also need to put in the appropriate counter to it.

My point is that you are either going to have to just give mounted combat a big old fat combat bonus and ignore the potential counters to it, or you are talking about a major code change.  Hey, I would love it if they went through and recoded combat from the ground up, but guess what?  It isn't going to happen unless half a dozen imms developed a sudden strong distaste for their own real lives and a sudden infatuation with going through the 15+ year old tangled mess of Armageddon code.

[Agent_137]

Good assessment, Rindan. How about we just put this on the list of things we want for the new revamped combat code that might show up in 5-10 years along with everything else we want from our poor but effective combat code?

[Kill4Free]

No, I am saying that if you are suddenly going to give a noticeable bonus to a specific weapon or combat style, you also need to give a notable bonus to the specific weapon or combat style that counters it. Imagine if Armageddon didn't have archery and shields. One day they decide to put in archery. You can't just put in archery. You also need to put in shields. Well, mounted combat is the same. You can't just throw it in. If you are going to throw in mounted combat, you also need to put in the appropriate counter to it.

I never wanted to make mounted combat godly, I just wanted to give it an advantage, sort of like the advantage axes have, or piercing weapons, they have their disadvantages as well, and neither really has a counter.
I do believe that the length of the weapon is involved in the fights, but then again bigger weapons weigh more, and it might have been due to that.
And it isnt like mounted combat is comming outta nowhere, there is a history of it in Zalanthas, but it just isnt very popular, because there is almost only disadvantages in almost every aspect of combat while mounted.  I think that there should be a change, like what AC's first post said, and it makes sense realistically, and it wouldnt be too hard to put in.

[Rindan]

I never wanted to make mounted combat godly, I just wanted to give it an advantage, sort of like the advantage axes have, or piercing weapons, they have their disadvantages as well, and neither really has a counter.
I do believe that the length of the weapon is involved in the fights, but then again bigger weapons weigh more, and it might have been due to that.

Length and weight of weapon have no effect in a fight.  You can code a weapon that weighs as much as a kank and hits like a feather duster.  It might seem like there is an effect in place, but it is really the people who coded the weapons doing a good job at making sure that weapons shit hit slow but hard actually hit slow but hard.

As far as axes and piercing weapons, they do have advantages and disadvantages.  Some armor protects against chopping, some protects against piercing.  If I were to fight against an army of axe wielders, you better believe my armor would change to void the power of their weapon as much as possible.  Armageddon does in fact take into consideration your armor type and the weapon it is facing.