Listed below is an older mounted combat-related topic which held many good ideas that I would like people to examine. While we're "fixing" Charge to be more realistic, why not take a step back and look at how Mounted combat is handled period. You want realistic? Well I've never seen anyone use a dagger while mounted on a horse - I've seen spears and long, two-handed swords and clubs. Maybe we should rework the advantages and disadvantages to fighting while mounted.
Mounted Combat: Some Simple Enhancements (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,34494.0.html)
Mounted against Non-Mounted:
- Mounted has higher % hit rate against arms, neck and head.
- Mounted has decreased % hit rate against legs, feet, wrists and waist.
- Non-Mounted has higher % hit rate against Mounted feet, leg, waist, and wrists.
- Non-Mounted has decreased % hit rate against arms, neck and head.
- % hit rate against body remains same for Mounted and Non-Mounted.
Quote from: brytta.leofaHere'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).
I'm all for a change that makes mounted combat more balanced, whatever it may be.
Definitely down with that.
Giving an increased chance to strike the head or neck would be vastly powerful.
QuoteGiving an increased chance to strike the head or neck would be vastly powerful.
And there's nothing else in the game that's vastly powerful at all. Definitely not on 0-karma classes. Right?
Quote from: Armaddict on July 01, 2009, 06:12:04 PM
QuoteGiving an increased chance to strike the head or neck would be vastly powerful.
And there's nothing else in the game that's vastly powerful at all. Definitely not on 0-karma classes. Right?
I was just making an observation. No need to get snarky.
Quote from: Synthesis on July 01, 2009, 06:16:23 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on July 01, 2009, 06:12:04 PM
QuoteGiving an increased chance to strike the head or neck would be vastly powerful.
And there's nothing else in the game that's vastly powerful at all. Definitely not on 0-karma classes. Right?
I was just making an observation. No need to get snarky.
My bad. I honestly really can't tell with you at all. XD
Quote from: SMuz on February 21, 2009, 02:08:18 AM
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.
The bolded sections are to counter the higher % to hit the upper body locations.
So mounted combatants will have a lower % to pull off much more damage then a 'Solid' strike for experienced mounted fighters.
What about stabbing weapons like spears, and others yet like flails?
Those can generate a pretty good bit of force without needing your legs.
Damn, imagine:
** A long spear giving a bonus to damage in a charge (perhaps unique messages indicating the spear in use)
** Spears working effectively against mounted combat.
** Short swords, morning stars and hatchets working best with mounted combatants.
** Wielding a spear and unseating a rider that attempts a charge (based on the skill of the rider charging and the fighting ability of the victim wielding the spear)
** Mounted combatant vs. mounted combatant. If there were unique advantages/drawbacks to mounts, this could be epic.
Maybe this all sounds cheesy. I personally think it'd be badass.
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on July 01, 2009, 07:43:24 PM
Quote from: SMuz on February 21, 2009, 02:08:18 AM
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.
The bolded sections are to counter the higher % to hit the upper body locations.
So mounted combatants will have a lower % to pull off much more damage then a 'Solid' strike for experienced mounted fighters.
So...what's the point?
Quote from: Synthesis on July 01, 2009, 08:24:05 PM
So...what's the point?
Make mounted attacks weaker to where your not viciously piercing them on the head every hit.
If players who prefer mounted combat are going to lose something mount-oriented, shouldn't we atleast get something back? Balance things out instead of just saying, "Hey, that skill could be used pretty abusively so we're going to knock it down a couple pegs."
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on July 01, 2009, 09:16:58 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on July 01, 2009, 08:24:05 PM
So...what's the point?
Make mounted attacks weaker to where your not viciously piercing them on the head every hit.
If players who prefer mounted combat are going to lose something mount-oriented, shouldn't we atleast get something back? Balance things out instead of just saying, "Hey, that skill could be used pretty abusively so we're going to knock it down a couple pegs."
I think you missed my point: if you give an increased % chance to hit the head or neck, but then nerf the damage, the expected value of the damage remains about the same. So uh, you really haven't changed anything at all.
Quote from: Synthesis on July 01, 2009, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on July 01, 2009, 09:16:58 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on July 01, 2009, 08:24:05 PM
So...what's the point?
Make mounted attacks weaker to where your not viciously piercing them on the head every hit.
If players who prefer mounted combat are going to lose something mount-oriented, shouldn't we atleast get something back? Balance things out instead of just saying, "Hey, that skill could be used pretty abusively so we're going to knock it down a couple pegs."
I think you missed my point: if you give an increased % chance to hit the head or neck, but then nerf the damage, the expected value of the damage remains about the same. So uh, you really haven't changed anything at all.
Stun damage?
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 01, 2009, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on July 01, 2009, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on July 01, 2009, 09:16:58 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on July 01, 2009, 08:24:05 PM
So...what's the point?
Make mounted attacks weaker to where your not viciously piercing them on the head every hit.
If players who prefer mounted combat are going to lose something mount-oriented, shouldn't we atleast get something back? Balance things out instead of just saying, "Hey, that skill could be used pretty abusively so we're going to knock it down a couple pegs."
I think you missed my point: if you give an increased % chance to hit the head or neck, but then nerf the damage, the expected value of the damage remains about the same. So uh, you really haven't changed anything at all.
Stun damage?
It doesn't matter what kind of damage it is: if you increase the probability of causing it by a factor of 2, but nerf the damage by a factor of .5, the expected value is the same.
You're forgetting that neck/head shots deal out more stun damage Synthesis. Therein lies the advantage to fighting mounted as proposed by Gunner.
Great, just what we need, another reason to use bludgeoning weapons?
Well, it looks more realistic. If you can attack with your weapon during a charge, the momentum from the charge would offset the strength penalty. And with the charge nerf fix, it makes more sense too.
I don't know if fighting on mounts has a reach penalty. It should. And maybe some penalty to fighting two handed.
And yeah, unseating a mounted combatant would be awesome, especially if it gets more powerful :D Do you charge towards that dwarf with the spear, hoping to get a nasty shot on his head, or risk getting knocked off your mount?
I'm all for adding some more advantages to go along with the disadvantages of fighting mounted. If this were done, I would also want certain mounts to be codedly preferable for such things and certain ones to be useless or mediocre for mounted fighting.
I would also want to see it something that warriors can get eventually through the branching system and not just a ranger exclusive. So, where rangers might start out being the only ones who can do it effectively, eventually warriors with the right training can do so also. They might not get charge specifically, or be able to ride while holding two weapons, but they would be able to fight mounted in every other aspect against a mounted ranger. Just it it would take a warrior longer to get to that point.
I would also definitely like to give advantages to fending off attacks from a mounted attacker or hitting them, if you have a weapon with a longer reach.
Quote from: Synthesis on July 01, 2009, 11:47:52 PM
Great, just what we need, another reason to use bludgeoning weapons?
Spears and axes take off stun too.
I personally think bludgeoning weapons take off waaaaay too much stun, but that belongs in another thread.