Charge Skill

[jhunter]

My point is you are making assumptions that stirrups do not exist with no  -concrete- evidence to back it up.

I'm not saying I think there are stirrups, I'm not saying I think there aren't.

I think it's something that the imms need to decide and let us know at this point.

[Bestatte]

I suggest that stirrups do in fact exist in Zalanthas. My supportive evidence is the fact that riding boots exist. The function of riding boots is that their heels are made in such a way to fit in stirrups. Without the heels being designed to serve this purpose, the boots would be some other kind of boots, and not specifically riding boots.

So there. Nya.

[jhunter]

You've got a good point there Bestatte.

[grog]

They could also be riding boots in the same way that some people have ponytails.   Because it gives us a visual image OOC for something IC.  

And if they were IC riding boots, then maybe they are called that because they have a spike on the side that you can stick into a kank shell to keep herself on the fecker?

[Kill4Free]

Then one might as well carry a dagger, and stan the kank in the back to get it to move faster, and yet, somehow, I dont think that will work out too well.

[Armaddict]

It was noted that Rome didn't have stirrups.  I'd like to note that they also had an effective cavalry.  So, if they indeed didn't need stirrups, neither should we.

Mounted fighting is something I've thought about a lot, ever since playing here.  The constant argument of 'earth vs. zalanthas' never tires.  I do, however, feel that with significant skill with an animal, especially a 'war mount', one that is bred for combat, a mounted opponent should be a guy you don't want to deal with.

But you're all thinking too directly.  We do -not- want to put uber bonuses on mounted fighting, otherwise that's all we'll see.  Getting a mount is just far easier on zalanthas for the common man than it was in earth's history.  So there is a balance issue that has to be taken into account.

As to the charge skill, I've had very little exposure to it.  If it -does- work just like bash, as in the damage is minimal and it doesn't even stun the target...it really -will- need to be revamped.  I understand the need to keep things fair, but considering that it's a fairly hard skill to get for most people, as well as the factors involved...a toned down 'charge' shouldn't exist.  It's a pretty brutal skill, realistically.

[Tamarin]

Having used charge myself, I can tell you it's great, and that it doesn't need to be tweaked at all.

[Kill4Free]

Charge is basically bash  With the penalty that you have fight mounted afterwards with the charge delay.

Although It does make rather cool setups for emoting.

[Armaddict]

You say with a penalty of fighting mounted afterwards.

You have to do plenty of mounted fighting to -get- the skill.  If it's a penalty to be mounted fighting for your character, and not his style, then how'd you get the skill?

[Kill4Free]

I said the penalty of mounted fighting, as compared to fighting on the ground.  Dismounting and fighting on foot, is almost always better, and if you are a master rider, you are just as good mounted as on foot.  Im not sure on the damage charge can do though, I do know it does some stun, as I was charged by an inix before, but for the most part, it isnt really a pratical move.

[Marc]

Fyi, there are saddle AND stirups IG.  While I know the former are represented with objects, the latter are represented in the descriptions of certain mounts and other items.  Unless those are changed (and they haven't been for a LONG LONG time) or the immortals say something definitive I'd have to say stirups exist.  Whether they are widely used is another debate.

[Tamarin]

but for the most part, it isnt really a pratical move.

You are -extremely- mistaken.

[EvilRoeSlade]

You are -extremely- mistaken.

I've spoken with people that disagree with you completely.  Personally, I think you should either add some supporting facts to your arguement or stop being contradictory.

Bash is a worthless skill because it doesn't do what it advertises in the help file.  That is, it doesn't transfer the skill's delay to your opponent if you use it succesfully.  The end result is that a skill which clearly seems to be coded to stop people from fleeing makes it even easier for them to flee if you use it succesfully, since they can stand up and flee three rooms away before your delay ends.

In my experience, charge is just like bash except you are mounted.

[Tamarin]

I have been charged by a mounted PC, and and lost all my stun points to be completely knocked out.  So yes, it is a useful skill.

[Kill4Free]

I was charged by a wild inix, and I only lost a handful of stun.

[Armaddict]

Congrats.

There is a randomness factor to add into this, as well as how high the skill is, and -probably- the type of mount used, as well.

Me, personally...I'd use the charge skill even if it was -identical- to bash because it makes a fighting style.

I don't just go for max damage.  I go for a certain style that makes sense for my character.  Usually, I already know what weapons my characters will use before I enter the game, based on his background and character concept.

I don't just shop around for 'dude!  That item looks like it does so much damage!'

The only varying factor to this, is strength.

[Xygax]

As noted in another thread today, I'd like to see the minute discussions of mechanics reigned in (so to speak.)  This thread is close to being locked.

[Tamarin]

Agreed.  Lock it up.

[Agent_137]

Yes, Rome had an -effective- calvary, but that's all. It wasn't great, it wasn't fantastic, and it wasn't the key to roman military power. Repeatedly, their calvary took a backseat to their footmen. And only sometimes would it defeat the enemy calvary, and then flank the enemy footmen.

The calvary did win some bouts with other nations' calvaries, but I don't think they had saddles, either.

You can ride bareback, you can fight bareback, but it damn sure isn't as easy as with a saddle.

[Angela Christine]

So, I was wondering about the charge skill.  You get your mounting running at something, and knock it over.  Great.  But right now it just seems like another way to bash, when it could be a bit more.

What do people think about adding in directional functionality?  So, for example, you could charge tregil north.  I would envision that if you did that, it would first set your mount to running.  Your mount would then run north, charging the critter.  For most things, I guess this wouldn't be that useful, but for fleeing creatures...at that point if you fail your charage, the critter flees.  If you don't fail your charge, a further check of the critter's speed vs your mount speed and your charge skill vs the critter's flee skill is done.  If you fail, the critter still flees.  If you don't fail, the critter is knocked to the ground instead of fleeing.

I see this basically as a way to run something down.  As most fleeing critters seem to be small, running them down on your mount would seem to me a possibly effective strategy, moreso than running after them until their movement points drop to zero would suggest.

I like it!    It would be at running speed, so you would lose more stamina than walking, but not all your mount's stamina.

If successful, the critter is on the ground and normal combat ensues, just like if you charge a critter in the same room as you.

If you fail to hit the critter, then they get their normal flee check if they are an auto-flee creature.  

If you fail to trample the creature and it is not an auto-flee creature, then normal combat ensues.  

For the sake of balance and sanity, charging a creature from far away (adjacent room) should be a more difficult feat than charging from nearby(same room).  The pounding of hooves (or equivelent) is more likely to alert the prey.  The fact that you are going at top speed for a long sprint may also make it harder to manuver if the bunny hops a few feet to the left at the last minute.  Making distance charging a little more difficult than local charging means that not only is your chance of missing the target higher, but your chance of being thrown on your ass is also higher.  With bad luck you wind up on your ass,  you just had the breath knocked out of you (under a movement delay so you can't stand instantly)  and you are slightly dammaged/stunned, while the target either flees or attacks you -- neither is a good situation.  It would be a risky manuver, as it should be.


Mounted combat would also benefit enormously by returning "pull reins" perhaps under a different command name since pull sometimes gets confused with quivers.  A command that lets trained mounts do minor combat tricks.  It isn't a decisive advantage, but it is damned stylish.  Especially the echos when you do the trick outside of combat.

* * *

On a related note, we could consider running bash and running subdue.  You basically charge at full speed toward the enemy, and throw yourself at him.  I suppose it is more like a "tackle" than bash or subdue.  If you succed you are both on the ground, and you have the target subdued.  A partial success would leave you both on the ground.  A failure would leave you both standing (you misjudged and ran past the guy) and a critical failure would leave you alone on the ground with your face in the dirt, while the other guy is still standing.


Distance doesn't matter:
I wouldn't worry too much about distance, distances are kind of fluid, because the "room" system is artificial outside of buildings.  Code wise you have point blank range and REALLY, REALLY FAR AWAY.  You can't charge from 40 yards away, because that isn't a distance the code understands.  A wilderness room may be a mile or a league accross, but that doesn't mean that you are a mile away from the guy in the next "room".  You might be on the very western edge of your room, and he might be on the eastern edge of his room, so you are only a couple feet apart.  If we really assumed that we were always a league apart, then throwing a spear at a guy in the next room would be practically impossible and foolhardy.  Even Superman would have trouble shooting an arrow two or three rooms away (6-9 miles) no matter how good his bow is, because not only would it be almost impossible to propell the missile that far, your accuracy at that distance would be nil -- normal arrows just can't preform under those conditions.  So we fudge the distances to make long-range manuvers possible.

AC

[Kill4Free]

Yes, Rome had an -effective- calvary, but that's all. It wasn't great, it wasn't fantastic, and it wasn't the key to roman military power. Repeatedly, their calvary took a backseat to their footmen. And only sometimes would it defeat the enemy calvary, and then flank the enemy footmen.

Actually, time and time again, calvary were part of the key to winning battles, as even a relatively small amount, could route massive amounts of infantry, once their formation was broken up.  Their only weakness, was that they couldnt attack fortified positions, or infantry that were in a solid formation, thats why other infantry were used to break them up.  Numbers of infantry didnt really matter, only really highly trained infantry, or infantry that were well prepared, could hold against them.
Even, say, 5000 calvary, if they broke through the defenses, could route 4,5 times that many men.
The time when they stopped being effective, and one of the most important parts of war, was after the longbow was invented, as calvary just got slaughtered at that point, far before they could reach their targets.

[EvilRoeSlade]

As noted in another thread today, I'd like to see the minute discussions of mechanics reigned in (so to speak.)  This thread is close to being locked.

I'd like some clarification on that.

[Agent_137]

Actually, time and time again, calvary were part of the key to winning battles, as even a relatively small amount, could route massive amounts of infantry, once their formation was broken up.  Their only weakness, was that they couldnt attack fortified positions, or infantry that were in a solid formation, thats why other infantry were used to break them up.  Numbers of infantry didnt really matter, only really highly trained infantry, or infantry that were well prepared, could hold against them.
Even, say, 5000 calvary, if they broke through the defenses, could route 4,5 times that many men.
The time when they stopped being effective, and one of the most important parts of war, was after the longbow was invented, as calvary just got slaughtered at that point, far before they could reach their targets.

Alright, maybe post-republic, but not -during- the republic, which is what I'm studying now. The only strategy they had during the republic was (at best) attack with a long line, have the middle fall back, and then have the sides flank the enemy (and calvary can come help too, if they survive their engagement).

[Kill4Free]

Then obviously they didnt know how to use calvary
Study Hannibal, he destroyed several roman armies, and his calvary was what did it.

[Agent_137]

Then obviously they didnt know how to use calvary
Study Hannibal, he destroyed several roman armies, and his calvary was what did it.

Hannibal was the shit, Rome only won when they finally refused to engage him, and then just wear him down until they could attack carthage and make him go home. Flammius, or something, was the Roman Consul's name who came up with that plan.

Kind of like what George Washington did with the continental army. Keep the filthy redcoats on their toes and ready for battle, but never give battle.

See? And some people say history is worthless. There are too many modern parallels . . . best to learn from past mistakes than repeat them.

Ok.... back to topic. Heh.