Yeah I know, I studied his battles a decent amount, quite impressive stuff

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Then obviously they didnt know how to use calvary
Study Hannibal, he destroyed several roman armies, and his calvary was what did it.

Some historians disagree strongly with the notion that cavalry is a decisive factor for most of the really successful historical powers.  A book called "Carnage and Culture" by Victor Hanson addresses the subject really effectively by analyzing nine historical battles (or series of battles) which actually hinged not on cavalry, but on what the author calls "shock" infantry.  His core argument is that western cultures, whose soldiers preferred direct and decisive infantry combat, have often enjoyed victories over other, more maneuver-oriented cultures, even when vastly outnumbered.

Cavalry have a number of telling weaknesses when faced with well-organized, boldly led infantry....  cavalry on Zalanthas may lack some of these weaknesses (since, for example, a kank may be more maneuverable and versatile than a horse).

Also, Hannibals great victories had more to do with his being a strong (and inventive) leader, and his enemies being weak ones, than any particular advantage of cavalry.

What topic?

Yea, it's funny. Every single republican war, the romans are like:
"Hey, lets throw some men at the enemy, lose a couple of battles until we get everything figured out. Then, we'll know the land, not get fucked in ambushes, and then we'll throw MORE men at them. We're the shit!"

Well, I just want to say I like the idea of being able to charge from a room away.

Quote from: "RandomMonkeys"Well, I just want to say I like the idea of being able to charge from a room away.

Nod, because rangers & npcs need more ways to kill from afar.

QuoteSome historians disagree strongly with the notion that cavalry is a decisive factor for most of the really successful historical powers. A book called "Carnage and Culture" by Victor Hanson addresses the subject really effectively by analyzing nine historical battles (or series of battles) which actually hinged not on cavalry, but on what the author calls "shock" infantry. His core argument is that western cultures, whose soldiers preferred direct and decisive infantry combat, have often enjoyed victories over other, more maneuver-oriented cultures, even when vastly outnumbered.

Cavalry have a number of telling weaknesses when faced with well-organized, boldly led infantry.... cavalry on Zalanthas may lack some of these weaknesses (since, for example, a kank may be more maneuverable and versatile than a horse).

Bold infantry will only get so far, but it isnt near the key part of the battle for most fights.  For instance, in the battle of new orleans, the americans were far from bold, they hid their troops, in trees, ground, made traps, and the British were bold, just marching in there, and you see how far it got them  They did the same thing on the battle of the sommes, and were slaughtered.
In medieval warfare, bold troops can have the advantage, but it wasnt the boldness that was the deciding factor, it was moral.  Just marching in and attacking the enemy, will hurt their moral if they dont expect it, and moral was one of the main things in almost all battles.
The thing about calvary, is that if you get attacked by one, the only thing you want to do is back up, get out of the range of its hooves, and the dudes sword/lance, other people see them backing up, so they back up as well, then as the calvary advanve further, you have to run to back up fast enough to get away, that is where their moral takes a massive blow, they are no longer a cohesive fighting unit, but a bunch of individuals.
Infantry can win a battle, but odds are, that most of the enemy troops will escape, and possibly regroup.  With calvary, to run away, is to die, and running is the only choice a single person has.  Only a strong group effort, with brave well trained men, can hold up against it.

Take the wars in the 1800's for instance, the British had 'square' formations, designed specifically to defend against calvary, and if you werent in a square, even a small number of calvary could wipe out a small army.
But since they were closely packed in a square, the artillery didnt have much trouble shooting them, so they would get slaughtered by the artillery.  So even the threat of calvary being close, was enough to basically wipe out companies.

The main evidence of calvary was in medieval times, where the French had knights, the knights could charge almost any infantry formation, and as long as their army held together, and charged all in a straight line, they would destroy armies, with almost no losses to themselves.
Their only real weaknesses, were fortified positions, and british longbowmen.  Fortified positions, basically included spiked walls, lots of small pits, to break horses legs.  But the British longbowmen, basically they could shoot their arrows through a bracelet at a hundred yards, and their bobkin arrows (basically just a long narrow metal tip at the end) could break through any armor, and that would break up the french formations.
But at that time, calvary owned the open grounds (as long as longbowmen werent there, the armor they wore made them almost immune to the typically used shortbow though), to not have calvary was generally to die.[/quote]

For instance, the way Hannibal destroyed the first Roman army (and keep in mind that the Romans were bold, well trained, and well armored troops, and Hannibal's troops, werent very well equiped, or trained) was he attacked the roman army head on, in a long line.  Then he made the troops in his center pull back, and since the Romans believed they were cowardly barbarians, they followed them.  Eventually they had the romans enveloped in a half circle (the Romans still had the advantage), then he charged the roman army (I think it was 40,000 troops) with 5000 calvary from behind, and since the Romans couldnt retreat anywhere, and mounted men have -every- advantage over ground troops in close combat (especially the romans, since they only had short swords) the entire army was slaughtered.

When Hannibal went back to carthage, to defend his homeland, he actually outnumbered the roman infantry, quite badly, but he had a fair bit less calvary, and I believe we all know the outcome of that battle

The main reason why calvary have all the advantages over ground troops, is that
1) You cant get close to the horse, as it is kicking, biting, always moving, and its very hard to get a deathblow on it.
2) You cant really hit the rider well, his legs are usually -very- well armored, since they dont have to carry themselves, and its almost impossible to reach up, and deal a death blow, or even a major blow to a mounted rider, but meanwhile, he can get headhits on almost anyone below him.

I think the charge skill would be good enough, if there was a mounted advantage, I dont think it would be hard to increase the number of leg and foot hits on you, as opposed to body or head strikes, and increase the amount of head/neck hits on your foe (for a master rider of course, a typical rider couldnt even stay on a mount while its jumping around during a fight).  Cause it just doesnt make sense, that if you are skilled in riding, but not a master, your opponent has a higher change of dealing a major blow in your head or neck, I just dont see how that happens, as for most of the beasts/pcs/npcs in the game they are shorter then you while mounted.

We've discussed mounted advantages before, and it is a general consensus that with things the way they are now on Zalanthas, there is not a mounted advantage.

Some changes must take place to make mounted fighting a better situation for the rider.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"and keep in mind that the Romans were bold, well trained, and well armored troops, and Hannibal's troops, werent very well equiped, or trained)

Quote


Quite the opposite, actually.

The roman troops were city-militia types, as they were for the entire republican period. Often they'd send a bunch of veterans home. There were no career soldiers in rome.

Hannibal had some highly trained mercs. Career soldiers.

QuoteThe roman troops were city-militia types, as they were for the entire republican period. Often they'd send a bunch of veterans home. There were no career soldiers in rome.

You understate the Romans, although at that time, they might not have been as good as they were later on.  Not to mention that they have some mercenaries too, and Hannibal didnt have a whole lot, most of his army were good fighters, but not that well trained.  The Roman's were better trained, but they werent really brought up fighting.  But they did have better armor, Hannibal's troops, mostly just had fur, and some had hardened leather, wood was quite common for shields though.

You know what though?  Those are the romans.

I have news for you.

This is Zalanthas.

We aren't riding horses.

We are riding huge fekking beetles and inix for the most part.

And you know what else we have that the Romans didn't have?

Magick.  And sorcerors.  And mindbenders.  And silt horrors.  And psionic-attack gaj.

So like...if this is going to be a discussion on the effectiveness of various earth-based cavalry systems, fine.  Put it in the OOC board.

But I repeat - this is Zalanthas.

Quote from: "Lazloth"

Quote from: "RandomMonkeys"Well, I just want to say I like the idea of being able to charge from a room away.

Nod, because rangers & npcs need more ways to kill from afar.

You wouldn't kill from afar, you'd just be able to start a hand-to-hand battle before the movement delay wore off.  Rangers are not the masters at hand-to-hand combat, and they would have to be mounted to attempt the manuver and therefore suffering mounted combat penalties when the fight started.  It would mainly be useful for hunters who wanted to be able to hunt jozhals or tregils without using up dozens of arrows.  It would give you a chance to engage an auto-flee creature before their flee check.  It isn't like you can set snares for the little buggers.

Archery is a mature ranger's real strength, so one who relied on Charge to avoid ranged combat altogether would be screwing himself in the long run.



AC

QuoteYou know what though? Those are the romans.

I have news for you.

This is Zalanthas.

We aren't riding horses.

We are riding huge fekking beetles and inix for the most part.

And you know what else we have that the Romans didn't have?

Magick. And sorcerors. And mindbenders. And silt horrors. And psionic-attack gaj.

So like...if this is going to be a discussion on the effectiveness of various earth-based cavalry systems, fine. Put it in the OOC board.

But I repeat - this is Zalanthas.

Yeah, as if a massive several ton inix would be worse to ride in a fight, or a half ton kank with a hardened carapace, compared to a horse.  The inix has a extremely tough shell as well.
I doubt the ability to fight mounted matters at all, when dealing with mindbenders, sorcerers, or even silt horrors.  And it is very unlikely that anyone will run into a gaj.
It is obvious this is zalanthas, but that doesnt mean that all of a sudden fighting mounted is worse then on foot.
All of my reasons above of why I stated why mounted riders have an advantage over not being mounted, shouldnt apply even in Zalanthas.

Now honestly what would you rather ride, a horse, or a massive insectoid with an exoskeleton, that has the power to pierce almost anithing with massive pincers?  As if that should be worse then a horse.[/quote]

you know....after three beers, on an empty stomache, and massive amounts of Counter-strike with my buddies, I really don't give a damn.

I prefer enemy territory myself, but you are right, I do need a beer.
*goes to fridge*

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Yeah, as if a massive several ton inix would be worse to ride in a fight, or a half ton kank with a hardened carapace, compared to a horse.  The inix has a extremely tough shell as well.

That's not the point.  The point is that probably no one on this game has ever engaged in any sort of mounted combat of any kind.  I would hazard to guess that only a handful, at most, have any experience with dressage at all.  And if no one here has every used a horse for combat, how can anyone here say that using a kank, beetle, ox, ratlon, suback, or inix would be an ineffective tactic?

Quote from: "Kill4Free"I doubt the ability to fight mounted matters at all, when dealing with mindbenders, sorcerers, or even silt horrors.  And it is very unlikely that anyone will run into a gaj.

I have run into all these three things more often than I would have preferred.  Again, I only brought them up here to show how much of a difference there is between earth and Zalanthas.  We don't have sorcerors, or gaj, or mindbenders, or silt horrors, to the best of my knowledge.  Things are different.  Get over it.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"It is obvious this is zalanthas, but that doesnt mean that all of a sudden fighting mounted is worse then on foot.
All of my reasons above of why I stated why mounted riders have an advantage over not being mounted, shouldnt apply even in Zalanthas.

I don't entirely understand why you are saying this.  I am in -favor- of mounted fighters having advantages.  However, this talent would have an extremely difficult learning curve to overcome, so I can see a dominant rider/fighter coming to his or her full potentioal only after many, many years of experience.  This is fully possible as the code stands now, and I have seen it happen this way in what I would suggest is an appropriate manner.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Now honestly what would you rather ride, a horse, or a massive insectoid with an exoskeleton, that has the power to pierce almost anithing with massive pincers?  As if that should be worse then a horse.

It is irrelevant what I would rather ride, because I am Terran.  I didn't grow up in a world where horses are extremely uncommon, and everyone rides large bettles up and down the streets.  If I was Zalanthan, I would likely ride a kank if I was southern, an inix if I was northern, and a war beetle if I was from Red Storm.

The imms have created this game in such a way, along with the code, to say that "this is how things are."  In this world, mounted combat has certain advantages, including the charge skill, and debating endlessly over Terran history and our own reservations about mounted combat has no relevance whatsoever in my opinion.

If you want an opinion that counts, find a way to transfer yourself into binary and hop into the world of Zalanthas.  Then get back to me, and I might listen.

QuoteThat's not the point. The point is that probably no one on this game has ever engaged in any sort of mounted combat of any kind

From helpfiles.

QuoteThough 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.

also you said

QuoteI have run into all these three things more often than I would have preferred. Again, I only brought them up here to show how much of a difference there is between earth and Zalanthas. We don't have sorcerors, or gaj, or mindbenders, or silt horrors, to the best of my knowledge. Things are different. Get over it.

That doesnt mean anything, I could name a dozen similarities, and earth and zalanthas are a lot closer then you might think.  In fact there are some cultures in earth, that come really close to zalanthas (I mean attitude and resource wise).  Saying a few differences means nothing at all, and I am not quite sure why you did that.

QuoteIf you want an opinion that counts, find a way to transfer yourself into binary and hop into the world of Zalanthas. Then get back to me, and I might listen.

Zalanthas doesnt have a real detailed history like earth does, so it is pretty hard to come up with senarios that might fit an example using only Zalanthas examples.  And any one that I might be able to bring up, would be considered 'too IC', so apparently you will only listen to an arguement that no one is allowed/able to bring up?

kill4free, I don't entirely understand what you are aguing.  You don't seem to have a point.

MY point is that the staff have decreed that on zalanthas, riding happens the way it does, with the effectiveness that is does, with the damage that it does, with the delays that it does.  Why are we even arguing this?

Quote from: "kill4free"That doesnt mean anything, I could name a dozen similarities, and earth and zalanthas are a lot closer then you might think. In fact there are some cultures in earth, that come really close to zalanthas (I mean attitude and resource wise). Saying a few differences means nothing at all, and I am not quite sure why you did that.

Did you even read that?  THEY RIDE HUGE ENORMOUS BEATLES FOR KRATH'S SAKE!!!  Have you ever seen a beetle that was even bigger than your foot?  No.  If you want to, I can come up with a list of about 200 ways that Zalanthas is different than earth.  As for the differences I noted before, I would have to say that they are pretty HUGE ones.  We all know that a DEFILER (something that does NOT exist on earth) pretty much raped all of the known world with the type of force that vastly outdoes any of our nuclear missles.  That one thing ALONE could count for many if not most of the differences, if you take into account possible effects of apocalypse, mutation, etc.

Through all of your "rebuttals", you still have not answered my question:

How can ANY of us know whether or not riding a big assed <insert mount here> is going to be difficult enough to offer a huge penalty to the rider?

QuoteHow can ANY of us know whether or not riding a big assed <insert mount here> is going to be difficult enough to offer a huge penalty to the rider?

Lots of large animals are ridden, like elephants for starters.  Not to mention that it does say they are extremely effective heavy calvary, and are used by armies in the helpfiles.  [Mildly disparaging remark removed]

Now answer this, if they are as effective, and as useful as the helpfiles say, why would any army use them if all they offered was a penalty?

Temper, temper.  Don't start insulting each others.

Im just getting a bit annoyed cause he reads only what he wants to  :?

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Im just getting a bit annoyed cause he reads only what he wants to  :?

Welcome to the internet.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Now answer this, if they are as effective, and as useful as the helpfiles say, why would any army use them if all they offered was a penalty?

k4f, what on god's green earth are you talking about?  

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Lots of large animals are ridden, like elephants for starters. Not to mention that it does say they are extremely effective heavy calvary, and are used by armies in the helpfiles. [Mildly disparaging remark removed]

Um...I never said that they couldn't be ridden!!  Could you please quote me the passage where I said they can't be ridden, or aren't ridden in real life?  Yes, I know people ride elephants, and I know that they were in fact used in real life combat.  Great.  So that only proves my point that huge animals should be able to trample little tiny people with relative ease.

Alright.  Can I assume that we are both -agreeing- that they -should- be effective?  It seems to me that we are on the same side regarding that.

As for the following: "why would any army use them if all they offered was a penalty"

Answer:  they wouldn't.  They wouldn't at all.  It would be a stupid crummy idiot thing to do.

However, certain classes in the game can use mounts with no penalty, once they've trained enough.  In the real world, is that not how things go?  You suck at something when you start (ie that's the "penalty") until you get good enough with it (it that's when you get a "bonus" or "advantage"), and some people will always suck at certain things because they don't have an aptitude for it (ie merchants trying to use a sword).

I am stating my position flat out: certain classes are good at mounted combat once they've practiced it, and should be able to trample enemies with a serious amount of damage.  But this is only after a lot of experience.

Now.

What exactly are you arguing, because I -reaaaaaly- don't see it.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Im just getting a bit annoyed cause he reads only what he wants to  :?

Not true...I'm trying to find some kind of point to what you yourself are writing.