Might & Fealty Community

Questions, Conduct, & Feedback => Conduct & Design Discussion => Topic started by: Constantine on June 10, 2017, 01:28:59 PM

Title: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 10, 2017, 01:28:59 PM
I've had this idea for a while and decided to write it down after seeing Demi's javelins thread. My suggestions are somewhat broader and reach far beyond javelin tweaks so I decided to start a new thread.

My idea is that third slot items should be less "flat bonus" and more "fiddly, cool tech stuff".

Proposed qualities:
Shield: reduce defense bonus, 50% chance to ignore the first wound in combat (destroy it if it happens)
Horse: no defense bonus, reduce attack bonus, 50% chance to ignore two wounds in combat (destroy it if it happens)
War horse: reduced attack and defense bonus, 50% chance to ignore three wounds (destroy it if it happens)
Javelin: greatly reduced damage, but if target has a shield or horse equipped 50% chance to instantly destroy those instead
Short swords: A bit stuck here. Second attack with reduced power?
Also maybe add "ladder" items for those bloody sieges.

Well, you got the idea. Thoughts and comments are welcome.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: willy on June 10, 2017, 01:43:52 PM
+1 for the whole idea, except about cavalry. I think currently they kill fleeing enemies at a higher rate (or they should), which is the perfect effect. Probably already a defense/offense boost for war horses.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 10, 2017, 01:55:22 PM
Yes, they already have a def/off boost and I suggest to decrease it. Everything else (like speed and scariness) stays the same. But perhaps 2 and 3 wounds is a bit too powerful, so let's go down to 1 and 2 respectively.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 14, 2017, 11:02:41 AM
My current thinking is to scrape the slot system entirely and allow far more free form equipment loadouts.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Foxglove on June 14, 2017, 02:06:20 PM
I like that idea. The divisions of items between the equipment slots have never really made that much sense to me. For example, why can't you have a sword, a shield, and a horse? You're using a broadsword from the back of a horse and not falling off? That's impressive. Why can archers carry shields when it would look ridiculous for a bowman to be walking along holding a longbow in one hand and a shield in the other? The only way I've ever been able to rationalize the longbowman with a shield is that they plant the shield in the soil and stand behind it to fire their longbows.

A more free form system would be great. You want to have soldiers who wield two swords? Go on then. You want to have riders with sword and shield? Fine.

However, I can see that all of that would need a huge rebalancing of the entire equipment system and some way to prevent a free form combination such as broadsword, platemail, shield, warhorse, being stupidly overpowered.

It would also be great if the equipment system had some actual logic to it that prevented combinations of equipment that would either never be possible in real life or just wouldn't make sense. For example, halberd and horse; platemail and longbow; horse and longbow; etc. 
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Andre on June 14, 2017, 02:54:39 PM

Agreed that it should be more freeform. I'm thinking possibly some kind of weight or mobility system to equipment aswell? I mean certainly using a broadsword, plate, shield and warhorse is possible, but the biggest immediate problem I can think of is that if you do fall off it would be quite difficult to get back up I imagine, certainly ontop of the horse but possibly even on your feet. And for other things such as possibly having several weapons, a shield and plate, it is possible but the soldier would certainly have a more difficult time moving around and they would also get tired quicker.

I wouldn't say horse and longbow should be impossible, not sure if it is possible to shoot a longbow from horseback or not, but even if it is you can at the very least use the horse to get to and from battles.


I also wouldn't say wielding halbers on horseback should be impossible either, as far as I am aware halbers and similar large two-handed weapons could very well be used on horseback. This game also doesn't really specify what exactly the weapons are either as far as I know, so a halberd could very well be a shorter than you imagine aswell.


In general I wouldn't limit combinations at all, possibly all I would do is maybe add some negatives to some items, like maybe a negative to ranged in heavier armor or something. Because as far as I am aware plate was still fairly manouverable and you were fully capable of using a bow with it, main reason people in plate didn't use bows was because plate was used by knights and wealthy individuals, and bows were peasant weapons.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Andrew on June 14, 2017, 03:06:39 PM
Hence the 9 slot system.

Dual wield? Do it.

Mounted with shield? Go.

I mean, if you wanted a halberd on a horse, who am I to say you have no style?

I'm not against penalizing combos that don't really work logically, though, like plate and bows (not crossbows), for instance.

I also would like to add more options in general, just because players should be able to flavor their soldiers to however they want.

And item durability.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on June 15, 2017, 03:21:00 AM
Hence the 9 slot system.

Dual wield? Do it.

Mounted with shield? Go.

I mean, if you wanted a halberd on a horse, who am I to say you have no style?

I'm not against penalizing combos that don't really work logically, though, like plate and bows (not crossbows), for instance.

I also would like to add more options in general, just because players should be able to flavor their soldiers to however they want.

And item durability.

Plate had nothing to do with why knights did not typically use bows. It was a cultural thing, as bows were seen as cowardly or of lower status than other weapons.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 15, 2017, 04:24:34 AM
Plate had nothing to do with why knights did not typically use bows. It was a cultural thing, as bows were seen as cowardly or of lower status than other weapons.

How's don't allow you to personally take noble prisoners for ransom, which is often a big goal for knights. It is also simply largely a waste. Mounted knights need to be ready to charge at opportune moments, dismounted knights need to be marching as infantry to make best use of their heavy armour.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 15, 2017, 11:16:17 AM
I mean, if you wanted a halberd on a horse, who am I to say you have no style?

I'm not against penalizing combos that don't really work logically, though, like plate and bows (not crossbows), for instance.
Halberds on horseback - makes perfect sense.
Longbows with heavy armour - doesn't work logically.
Mind blown.


It's either we allow all kinds of fantasy/exotic combinations or we keep a set of more or less conservative restrictions, because it's gonna be really controversial and arbitrary otherwise.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Andre on June 15, 2017, 01:04:14 PM
Actually it does make a certain amount of sense. While using a longbow in Plate is perfectly possible as far as I know, atleast if you remove your gauntlets. It would still be even a bit more difficult to do so than if you had say only leather armor or chainmail.


And as I said, historically people have used two handed and quite large weapons perfectly well on horseback.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 15, 2017, 02:32:07 PM
Actually it does make a certain amount of sense. While using a longbow in Plate is perfectly possible as far as I know, atleast if you remove your gauntlets. It would still be even a bit more difficult to do so than if you had say only leather armor or chainmail.


And as I said, historically people have used two handed and quite large weapons perfectly well on horseback.
Yes, historically polearms were used on horseback. Not halberds though.
But the question is what's more difficult: using a longbow in heavy armour or effectively wielding a halberd on horseback?
Anyway it is not even about difficulty but about soldiers being allowed to equip said combinations of items.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Andre on June 15, 2017, 02:36:56 PM
Halberds can and were used on horseback aswell as far as I am aware, and other similar weapons that are also large and not purely for stabbing.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 15, 2017, 02:46:43 PM
Halberds can and were used on horseback aswell as far as I am aware,
You are simply wrong.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on June 16, 2017, 01:52:59 AM
You are simply wrong.

You sure about that?

(http://www.votran-daiviet.org/images/Vo-Tran%20Dai-Viet_Kich-Ki_RL03.jpg)

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9d/18/db/9d18db5c83c7ba53cdde944928638712.jpg)
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 16, 2017, 09:31:18 AM
First picture - that's a spear. Second picture - not a combat situation, the guy is travelling.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: silvershot on June 16, 2017, 03:12:21 PM
I like that idea. The divisions of items between the equipment slots have never really made that much sense to me. For example, why can't you have a sword, a shield, and a horse? You're using a broadsword from the back of a horse and not falling off? That's impressive. Why can archers carry shields when it would look ridiculous for a bowman to be walking along holding a longbow in one hand and a shield in the other? The only way I've ever been able to rationalize the longbowman with a shield is that they plant the shield in the soil and stand behind it to fire their longbows.

A more free form system would be great. You want to have soldiers who wield two swords? Go on then. You want to have riders with sword and shield? Fine.

However, I can see that all of that would need a huge rebalancing of the entire equipment system and some way to prevent a free form combination such as broadsword, platemail, shield, warhorse, being stupidly overpowered.

It would also be great if the equipment system had some actual logic to it that prevented combinations of equipment that would either never be possible in real life or just wouldn't make sense. For example, halberd and horse; platemail and longbow; horse and longbow; etc.

Well, shields can be strapped/slotted over one's forearm; a buckler would generally be required to be held. A shield approximately the same size as a buckler could theoretically be worn while actually using a bow. Furthermore, especially in regards to crossbowmen, options such as a Pavise to use as cover.

Longbows can feasibly be used from horseback, but not likely with typical horse archer tactics and probably with less efficiency in trade for greater mobility (and likely survivability). I know this is generally more eurocentric, but Samurai used a type of recurve longbow from horseback. I imagine that mounted longbowmen would generally maintain formation and fight more or less as their unmounted variants would.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Velrun on June 16, 2017, 03:44:29 PM
Well, shields can be strapped/slotted over one's forearm; a buckler would generally be required to be held. A shield approximately the same size as a buckler could theoretically be worn while actually using a bow. Furthermore, especially in regards to crossbowmen, options such as a Pavise to use as cover.

Longbows can feasibly be used from horseback, but not likely with typical horse archer tactics and probably with less efficiency in trade for greater mobility (and likely survivability). I know this is generally more eurocentric, but Samurai used a type of recurve longbow from horseback. I imagine that mounted longbowmen would generally maintain formation and fight more or less as their unmounted variants would.


Sure they could, but were they ever? Its not a matter of what can or can't be done, but a matter of the best use of scarce resources. I don't believe the game properly accounts for this yet. For example horses are a logistical pain in the arse, or at least the horses used by European, the steppe pony is a completely different case. Given the effort needed to supply them in the field, you made sure they were used in the most efficient manner possible, which was not mounting longbow men.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: silvershot on June 16, 2017, 05:43:40 PM

Sure they could, but were they ever? Its not a matter of what can or can't be done, but a matter of the best use of scarce resources. I don't believe the game properly accounts for this yet. For example horses are a logistical pain in the arse, or at least the horses used by European, the steppe pony is a completely different case. Given the effort needed to supply them in the field, you made sure they were used in the most efficient manner possible, which was not mounting longbow men.


The French used mounted bowmen like dragoons; that is to say, they rode into position, dismounted and fired. I'm sure there were also mounted crossbowmen that did the same. Why not with longbows? It's a pain in the arse; it's feasible to shoot them from a (stationary) horse, just like it was theoretically for any mounted crossbowman or archer or someone with some form of a firearm. A longbowman on a horse probably would dismount to fire for optimal effectiveness.

We know Japan did it with (compound) longbows at the very least. It might not be appropriately reflected in the game, but its feasible. Mechanically, it should probably be weaker than what you'd expect of eastern mounted bowman tactics but it should still likely be some boost to effectiveness. A shortbow can fire while moving, a longbowman can't. But if you can quickly get something powerful like longbowmen or crossbowmen into a strong position, why wouldn't you?

There's a lot that will be pretty ahistoric about M&F anyway, and at least this counts among feasibility. That fielding horses is not more of a challenge is another matter entirely; even then if it's feasible I'm not sure it should be disallowed. It'd just be costly and perhaps not as effective in most circumstances.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on June 16, 2017, 09:24:13 PM
First picture - that's a spear. Second picture - not a combat situation, the guy is travelling.

No, that's not a spear. Not a halberd either, but not simply a spear. Second, how do you determine that is merely a person travelling? Third, are you saying this with any prior experience, or are you just speaking out of your gut feeling for how medieval things should be? Because there are a lot of things that people believe are medieval that either aren't, or were used differently than they think.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 17, 2017, 02:17:37 AM

The French used mounted bowmen like dragoons; that is to say, they rode into position, dismounted and fired. I'm sure there were also mounted crossbowmen that did the same. Why not with longbows? It's a pain in the arse; it's feasible to shoot them from a (stationary) horse, just like it was theoretically for any mounted crossbowman or archer or someone with some form of a firearm. A longbowman on a horse probably would dismount to fire for optimal effectiveness.

We know Japan did it with (compound) longbows at the very least. It might not be appropriately reflected in the game, but its feasible. Mechanically, it should probably be weaker than what you'd expect of eastern mounted bowman tactics but it should still likely be some boost to effectiveness. A shortbow can fire while moving, a longbowman can't. But if you can quickly get something powerful like longbowmen or crossbowmen into a strong position, why wouldn't you?

There's a lot that will be pretty ahistoric about M&F anyway, and at least this counts among feasibility. That fielding horses is not more of a challenge is another matter entirely; even then if it's feasible I'm not sure it should be disallowed. It'd just be costly and perhaps not as effective in most circumstances.

English longbow men rode to battle, but I can't recall an example of them riding once in battle, not even for the purpose of maneuvering. Recall that horses are a valuable asset and take time to replace. Unless you can confer significant advantage from placing them at risk you simply don't do so. Matters changed in the later period as horses slowly become comparatively more common. Look at the early meaning of dragoons for example, infantry that rode to battle for logistical reasons and left the horse with the rest of the camp baggage to fight.

The reality is archers on foot can out shoot horse archers. They are smaller targets, have a greater rate of fire and generally better range. For example crusaders used massed crossbow men to counter turk horse archers, China's reliance on extremely large archer formations was a direct counter to the nomad forces they faced. There is evidence to suggest that even the feared Mongol horse archers would dismount when they expected to engage in a protracted archery exchange, shooting from a rather unique sitting position.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: silvershot on June 17, 2017, 09:02:04 AM
English longbow men rode to battle, but I can't recall an example of them riding once in battle, not even for the purpose of maneuvering. Recall that horses are a valuable asset and take time to replace. Unless you can confer significant advantage from placing them at risk you simply don't do so. Matters changed in the later period as horses slowly become comparatively more common. Look at the early meaning of dragoons for example, infantry that rode to battle for logistical reasons and left the horse with the rest of the camp baggage to fight.

The reality is archers on foot can out shoot horse archers. They are smaller targets, have a greater rate of fire and generally better range. For example crusaders used massed crossbow men to counter turk horse archers, China's reliance on extremely large archer formations was a direct counter to the nomad forces they faced. There is evidence to suggest that even the feared Mongol horse archers would dismount when they expected to engage in a protracted archery exchange, shooting from a rather unique sitting position.

Well yes, I directly cited dragoons.

Here's a modern version of the Japanese style:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Yabusame_01.jpg)
It's a slightly different design than the European longbow, but it is still a longbow.



Mounted crossbowmen were used in two variants as early as the 13th century; lighter, weaker crossbows where they'd be able to reload on horseback, and heavier variants where they'd shoot once and engage with swords. Those were predominantly German and Scandinavian.

However, the Battle of Blanchetaque supposedly had English Longbowmen (or perhaps just bowmen) firing from horseback while fording (or against  a fording) Picardy militia. I'm not saying it was common, but there are a few accounts of it.

Additionally, French Military reforms had horse archers (granted not longbowmen) fight in a /late/ dragoon style. They still fire from foot, but they did more than just ride up to the rear of the battle line, dismount and fight on foot. However; it was a dragoon style. Thus they like fired from foot, but perhaps engaged in melee combat on horse, (as ranged seems unlikely) in order for the late dragoon comparison to make sense. Dragoons, of course, were trained in both infantry and cavalry tactics and fittingly -- were named after the firearm the french used for their dragoons.

I'm not trying to say that Europeans definitely fought with bows or longbows from horse all the time, though there /are/ a few instances but they are few and far between. Most just rode  horse into battle as you said; some later adopted other tactics probably as horses began to become more common.

I think it could translate easier into the game, especially once range is involved. Mounted longbowmen/archers would perhaps get to fire a round sooner (or at least just before) their infantry counterparts. Mounted Crossbowmen (unless a light variant is added) would fire a single volley and either: fall back to reload (miss a round of combat) or begin to fight in melee. That is, if the game wishes to be Eurocentric.

If we want to include tactics from Africa, Asia and everywhere between, then at the very least Japan fought with a type of longbow designed for horseback fighting. Horse archers biggest trouble could have theoretically been European terrain, but I don't know as much about that -- I'm drawing from old discussions and videos I've watched.

Let me be clear: I don't think that Longbowmen on horses should be running  circles around the enemy, peppering them to death. I'm 100% for nerfing the combination in some regard. I think most loadouts should have some weakness -- whether numbers (because they're too damn hard to train or too damn expensive and time consuming to make the equipment itself) or that certain types of equipment impart penalties when used with others.

It's just that there appear to be examples in at least Europe and Asia, and M&F already seems to have a few instances of stuff that's unlikely or uncommon but still feasible... and it's feasible, if not perfectly amazing/useful. Unless a general fighting style is established, or the developers step in and say "we're adopting more of a <culture> style for fighting as a rule" or cultures begin to have more than flavor impact, it's going to be rough.

I mean, heck. A polearm like a halberd is probably a bit rough to use on Horseback; we can make them stop using it, make them have penalties, or just imagine they're a polearm better designed for horseback usage. If pikes make it in -- they're certainly too long to be used from a horse in any useful manner. I'd expect to see men dehorsing themselves when their pike gets stuck against the earth or a rock... Of course, the Macedonian companion cavalry used a shortened sarissa, but it was like a light lance or heavy cavalry spear at that point more than anything else.

Do we use our imagination a bit, to allow some weirder combos (the especially unfeasible ones)? Do we outright make anything that's feasible but unlikely? Do we make it impossible to use unfeasible combinations, or just penalize them even more heavily to draw folks away unless they find a niche use case?
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 17, 2017, 05:00:07 PM
No, that's not a spear. Not a halberd either
Moving on.

Second, how do you determine that is merely a person travelling?
By looking at the picture and not trying to interpret it dishonestly.
[/size]

Third, are you saying this with any prior experience, or are you just speaking out of your gut feeling for how medieval things should be? Because there are a lot of things that people believe are medieval that either aren't, or were used differently than they think.
What experience? Experience of living in medieval times?
We know how halberds were used at this point. It's not like the jury is still open whether they were used on horseback. We know that is not their purpose and when you are engaged in a potentially lethal activity you make sure to use effective equipment.


It's a slightly different design than the European longbow, but it is still a longbow.
You can not compare this bow to a European longbow just because they are both "bows" and look kinda "long".
Unlike this japanese bow European lonbow requires massive drawing power and you simply can not reliably use it on horseback.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Andre on June 17, 2017, 07:47:46 PM
Maybe you should read up a bit before saying that halberds can't be used on horseback Constantine? First off, as far as I know Tom has previously pointed out that the weapons aren't anything specific, an axe could be a small hatchet or a large woodcutting axe, a halberd could be standard european halberd or more of a glaive or more of an asian variant (many of which were specifically on horseback or even on elephants), and while sure, those weapons may not be axes like a halberd, they are still similar and they could very well be the type of weapon used. 


And the same goes for longbows, if you put a longbow on a mounted soldier it may very well be a bow designed to be used on horseback.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 17, 2017, 11:58:43 PM
Maybe you should read up a bit before saying that halberds can't be used on horseback Constantine?
I will gladly consider the sources you can provide.
First off, as far as I know Tom has previously pointed out that the weapons aren't anything specific, an axe could be a small hatchet or a large woodcutting axe, a halberd could be standard european halberd or more of a glaive or more of an asian variant (many of which were specifically on horseback or even on elephants), and while sure, those weapons may not be axes like a halberd, they are still similar and they could very well be the type of weapon used. 
Naginata is not a halberd, okay? It was not designed for the same purposes as the halberd, they are completely different and can't be grouped together just because they are polearms of vaguely same length.
Weapons may be not specific for the purposes of flavour, but if we are to add onto these weapons certain qualities to emulate their historical use (i.e. halberds being strong against heavy cavalry and heavy troops in general) we must also use them in historical manner.
And the same goes for longbows, if you put a longbow on a mounted soldier it may very well be a bow designed to be used on horseback.
Which should nowhere close to English longbow in drawing power.
Mounted archers are just worse at shooting people down than normal archers which is correct both historically and in terms of game balance.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 18, 2017, 03:53:52 AM
Well yes, I directly cited dragoons.

Here's a modern version of the Japanese style:

It's a slightly different design than the European longbow, but it is still a longbow.



Mounted crossbowmen were used in two variants as early as the 13th century; lighter, weaker crossbows where they'd be able to reload on horseback, and heavier variants where they'd shoot once and engage with swords. Those were predominantly German and Scandinavian.

However, the Battle of Blanchetaque supposedly had English Longbowmen (or perhaps just bowmen) firing from horseback while fording (or against  a fording) Picardy militia. I'm not saying it was common, but there are a few accounts of it.

Additionally, French Military reforms had horse archers (granted not longbowmen) fight in a /late/ dragoon style. They still fire from foot, but they did more than just ride up to the rear of the battle line, dismount and fight on foot. However; it was a dragoon style. Thus they like fired from foot, but perhaps engaged in melee combat on horse, (as ranged seems unlikely) in order for the late dragoon comparison to make sense. Dragoons, of course, were trained in both infantry and cavalry tactics and fittingly -- were named after the firearm the french used for their dragoons.

I'm not trying to say that Europeans definitely fought with bows or longbows from horse all the time, though there /are/ a few instances but they are few and far between. Most just rode  horse into battle as you said; some later adopted other tactics probably as horses began to become more common.

I think it could translate easier into the game, especially once range is involved. Mounted longbowmen/archers would perhaps get to fire a round sooner (or at least just before) their infantry counterparts. Mounted Crossbowmen (unless a light variant is added) would fire a single volley and either: fall back to reload (miss a round of combat) or begin to fight in melee. That is, if the game wishes to be Eurocentric.

If we want to include tactics from Africa, Asia and everywhere between, then at the very least Japan fought with a type of longbow designed for horseback fighting. Horse archers biggest trouble could have theoretically been European terrain, but I don't know as much about that -- I'm drawing from old discussions and videos I've watched.

Let me be clear: I don't think that Longbowmen on horses should be running  circles around the enemy, peppering them to death. I'm 100% for nerfing the combination in some regard. I think most loadouts should have some weakness -- whether numbers (because they're too damn hard to train or too damn expensive and time consuming to make the equipment itself) or that certain types of equipment impart penalties when used with others.

It's just that there appear to be examples in at least Europe and Asia, and M&F already seems to have a few instances of stuff that's unlikely or uncommon but still feasible... and it's feasible, if not perfectly amazing/useful. Unless a general fighting style is established, or the developers step in and say "we're adopting more of a <culture> style for fighting as a rule" or cultures begin to have more than flavor impact, it's going to be rough.

I mean, heck. A polearm like a halberd is probably a bit rough to use on Horseback; we can make them stop using it, make them have penalties, or just imagine they're a polearm better designed for horseback usage. If pikes make it in -- they're certainly too long to be used from a horse in any useful manner. I'd expect to see men dehorsing themselves when their pike gets stuck against the earth or a rock... Of course, the Macedonian companion cavalry used a shortened sarissa, but it was like a light lance or heavy cavalry spear at that point more than anything else.

Do we use our imagination a bit, to allow some weirder combos (the especially unfeasible ones)? Do we outright make anything that's feasible but unlikely? Do we make it impossible to use unfeasible combinations, or just penalize them even more heavily to draw folks away unless they find a niche use case?

You are missing my point, look at when things like dragoons existed. Predominately we are talking later medieval periods when industry and agriculture is far better established, in other words when horses become more of a commodity since the requirements to breed them in large numbers exist. Now if we look at stables in M&F and the slow rate of breeding and more importantly the tiny storage capacity, to me that suggests much earlier periods where even pack horses whom are unsuited in temperament to take to the battle field are relatively expensive. So the question is not if it is technically possible to mount troops for dragoon style engagement, the question is what are we trying to replicate and do such tactics make sense in that setting.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: silvershot on June 18, 2017, 05:18:07 AM
You are missing my point, look at when things like dragoons existed. Predominately we are talking later medieval periods when industry and agriculture is far better established, in other words when horses become more of a commodity since the requirements to breed them in large numbers exist. Now if we look at stables in M&F and the slow rate of breeding and more importantly the tiny storage capacity, to me that suggests much earlier periods where even pack horses whom are unsuited in temperament to take to the battle field are relatively expensive. So the question is not if it is technically possible to mount troops for dragoon style engagement, the question is what are we trying to replicate and do such tactics make sense in that setting.

Right, and the French using mounted archers in a dragoon style BEFORE GUNPOWDER WEAPONS somehow doesn't fit that?

The Halberd itself only really came into usage worth mentioning in the 14th and 15th centuries... The Crossbow was only prominent in Europe starting sometime around the Battle of Hastings in 1066... That's still generally borderline High Middle Ages.  How early are we talking? The equipment used in M&F largely fits into the later Medieval era. I know we're supposed to suspend some disbelief, but then perhaps it's better to call something like the Halberd a polearm or something equally generic. Crossbows and halberds in particular don't really fall into the Early european middle ages in any significant manner without suspending a lot of belief.

M&F is ahistoric as it is, as it currently exists, and uses Late Medieval equipment. If the cost of horses are the reason why you think "dragoon style" archers don't fit, then make that the reason why they're less effective. The reasoning here amounts to "Well horses were expensive so they didn't do it at that time so you can't now" even though they did do it later, some time before the onset of the increasing popularity of gunpowder weapons. I thought Tom generally wanted to leave feasible options available to the player; whether that makes them a good option is an entirely different story.

If you want to define a period and general cultures to base M&F off of, then go ahead and do that. If you want to make a new map where the default culture is different depending upon where you settle, then do that (because it also seems like there's a lot of euro-centric arguments being made in general). if it's because you think it's hard to balance, then state that. Or we can acknowledge that different aspects of M&F match to different eras, particularly compared to the the different 'parts' of the European Middle Ages.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 18, 2017, 05:26:28 AM
Right, and the French using mounted archers in a dragoon style BEFORE GUNPOWDER WEAPONS somehow doesn't fit that?

The Halberd itself only really came into usage worth mentioning in the 14th and 15th centuries... The Crossbow was only prominent in Europe starting sometime around the Battle of Hastings in 1066... That's still generally borderline High Middle Ages.  How early are we talking? The equipment used in M&F largely fits into the later Medieval era. I know we're supposed to suspend some disbelief, but then perhaps it's better to call something like the Halberd a polearm or something equally generic. Crossbows and halberds in particular don't really fall into the Early european middle ages in any significant manner without suspending a lot of belief.

M&F is ahistoric as it is, as it currently exists, and uses Late Medieval equipment. If the cost of horses are the reason why you think "dragoon style" archers don't fit, then make that the reason why they're less effective. The reasoning here amounts to "Well horses were expensive so they didn't do it at that time so you can't now" even though they did do it later, some time before the onset of the increasing popularity of gunpowder weapons. I thought Tom generally wanted to leave feasible options available to the player; whether that makes them a good option is an entirely different story.

If you want to define a period and general cultures to base M&F off of, then go ahead and do that. If you want to make a new map where the default culture is different depending upon where you settle, then do that (because it also seems like there's a lot of euro-centric arguments being made in general). if it's because you think it's hard to balance, then state that. Or we can acknowledge that different aspects of M&F match to different eras, particularly compared to the the different 'parts' of the European Middle Ages.

Which is why I referred to similarities within the game and the tactics of a period, rather then push the entire game into a period. I noted the relative scarcity of horses in the game world, thus extrapolated their value and compared that to tactics used by Europe when horses where likewise scarce. Now that scarcity in game could be because we only track mounts that are fit to be cavalry mounts, and Andrews proposed equipment changes might mix things up, but to me at the moment, given the small numbers of horses we have at our command for troops, it seems implausible that any military commander would be using them for tasks other then pure cavalry.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: silvershot on June 18, 2017, 09:57:32 AM
Which is why I referred to similarities within the game and the tactics of a period, rather then push the entire game into a period. I noted the relative scarcity of horses in the game world, thus extrapolated their value and compared that to tactics used by Europe when horses where likewise scarce. Now that scarcity in game could be because we only track mounts that are fit to be cavalry mounts, and Andrews proposed equipment changes might mix things up, but to me at the moment, given the small numbers of horses we have at our command for troops, it seems implausible that any military commander would be using them for tasks other then pure cavalry.


And for that you'd like to remove it? It sounds like conventional cavalry should offer something more in this world than horse archers, if that's the desired route. Decrease hit chance, factor in ammunition count (for a battle), range (eventually), limit the armor an archer can wear on a horse or invoke an increasing penalty for armor above leather, reduce damage, significantly increase training time... A lot of these could still offer them a place on the battlefield against certain armies but possibly make them less desirable than conventional cavalry.

If it was generally a waste to risk a horse for an archer in combat, then make it one! But I guess getting rid of it all together is easier.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 18, 2017, 10:24:08 AM

And for that you'd like to remove it? It sounds like conventional cavalry should offer something more in this world than horse archers, if that's the desired route. Decrease hit chance, factor in ammunition count (for a battle), range (eventually), limit the armor an archer can wear on a horse or invoke an increasing penalty for armor above leather, reduce damage, significantly increase training time... A lot of these could still offer them a place on the battlefield against certain armies but possibly make them less desirable than conventional cavalry.

If it was generally a waste to risk a horse for an archer in combat, then make it one! But I guess getting rid of it all together is easier.

I never spoke of removing existing horse archers, whom are in the vein of Mongol and Turk horse archers. I argued against creating a system within the the combat engine for dismounting of infantry or archers within the field of battle.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on June 18, 2017, 08:56:16 PM
I never spoke of removing existing horse archers, whom are in the vein of Mongol and Turk horse archers. I argued against creating a system within the the combat engine for dismounting of infantry or archers within the field of battle.

Why? Even Pre-Marian Rome had mounted infantry. Mounted infantry has existed since the beginning of warfare, before dragoons were formed.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 19, 2017, 12:27:51 AM
Why? Even Pre-Marian Rome had mounted infantry. Mounted infantry has existed since the beginning of warfare, before dragoons were formed.

Whom just as I mentioned rode to battle, but did not as dragoons do remount during battle for tactical purposes. Hell the Roman infantry you refer to didn't even ride the horse, they clung to the saddle of cavalry units.

I am all for equipment that speeds marching timrs of non cab units, I argue against specific changes to the battle engine to simulate rapid redeployment of said forces during the battle.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: silvershot on June 19, 2017, 06:41:35 PM
I never spoke of removing existing horse archers, whom are in the vein of Mongol and Turk horse archers. I argued against creating a system within the the combat engine for dismounting of infantry or archers within the field of battle.


My apologies, I think I just misunderstood you. Yes, I agree. But I didn't expect that sort of change anyway; more just modifying the effectiveness of a longbow + horse to simulate any of the following:

1) It's a long bow specifically designed for use on Horseback (like Japan) where it loses draw power
2) It's a european longbow style, which is just damn hard to use on horseback (though not technically impossible, just not all that useful)
3) They act as dragoons; so they don't really get as much of a defensive benefit versus a short bow who can stay mounted, or cavalry who can stay mounted. In the current system, I imagine that's like reducing the defensive bonus. With the proposed changes that may factor in range, they could just get into range sooner -- maybe not a good use of horses, because they're more likely to be lost and don't provide much of a defense boost for the longbowmen, who are going to be the first to get into range anyway. I wasn't expecting ACTUAL mechanics for mounting and dismounting... That'd be super difficult to implement. Just something loosely abstracting it.

Appropriately weakening mounted longbowmen really could fit into abstracting any of these cases. I'd definitely like to see mounted longbowmen generally inferior than most other options, but maybe someone will find a place for them.

I hope that clarifies my view, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 19, 2017, 11:56:55 PM

My apologies, I think I just misunderstood you. Yes, I agree. But I didn't expect that sort of change anyway; more just modifying the effectiveness of a longbow + horse to simulate any of the following:

1) It's a long bow specifically designed for use on Horseback (like Japan) where it loses draw power
2) It's a european longbow style, which is just damn hard to use on horseback (though not technically impossible, just not all that useful)
3) They act as dragoons; so they don't really get as much of a defensive benefit versus a short bow who can stay mounted, or cavalry who can stay mounted. In the current system, I imagine that's like reducing the defensive bonus. With the proposed changes that may factor in range, they could just get into range sooner -- maybe not a good use of horses, because they're more likely to be lost and don't provide much of a defense boost for the longbowmen, who are going to be the first to get into range anyway. I wasn't expecting ACTUAL mechanics for mounting and dismounting... That'd be super difficult to implement. Just something loosely abstracting it.

Appropriately weakening mounted longbowmen really could fit into abstracting any of these cases. I'd definitely like to see mounted longbowmen generally inferior than most other options, but maybe someone will find a place for them.

I hope that clarifies my view, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.

Hmm I have previously spent hours and days trying to find any comparison of draw strength for Japanese longbows vs English, so far as I can work out no real evidence exists to support either side of the argument, and runs into various topics like just how important is draw strength, what type of arrow is being used, velocity vs impulse etc. It would seem the question of comparisons of range and killing/penetration power is really an unknown.

If I was to consider implementing your list, I would also want to add things like recursive vows and compound bows so that you have a far more effective "short bow" option. Then again we need to rename short bow anyway since it is a D&D designation that has little correlation to real world weapons.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Constantine on June 20, 2017, 02:12:20 AM
Do we really need to overcomplicate though? I don't think we need half a dozen bow types, each with distinctive stats. Two types would be more than enough: a very strong bow that can't be used on horseback and a weaker versatile bow. Doesn't matter if they have D&D names or not.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 20, 2017, 02:29:11 AM
Do we really need to overcomplicate though? I don't think we need half a dozen bow types, each with distinctive stats. Two types would be more than enough: a very strong bow that can't be used on horseback and a weaker versatile bow. Doesn't matter if they have D&D names or not.

Why? Why can we not have powerful bows on horse back?
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Andre on June 20, 2017, 02:31:50 AM
Well if we go by what De-Legro said then we would only have four bow types, with one being the crossbow. Longbow, Compound Bow, Recurve Bow and Crossbow. Though I don't think compound bows would really fit though right? Seems more logical to have Longbows, Recurve bows and Crossbows.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 20, 2017, 02:42:46 AM
Well if we go by what De-Legro said then we would only have four bow types, with one being the crossbow. Longbow, Compound Bow, Recurve Bow and Crossbow. Though I don't think compound bows would really fit though right? Seems more logical to have Longbows, Recurve bows and Crossbows.

I probably mean composite bows not compound bows. My list currently is

Self Bow
Long self bow (or just longbow)
recurve bow
composite bow (my understanding is almost all composite bows are recurve bows, but not all recurve bows where composite)

Also wondering if there is any benefit to having multiple sized crossbows.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: Andre on June 20, 2017, 03:20:40 AM
Why not just go with the recurve bow then and skip the composite bow if almost all composites were also recuverves?


And I don't think adding different crossbow sizes will do much. Beyond maybe a ballista that could either be some kind of construction that you can build several off once that is implemented, and which can then be used by archers. Or maybe a weapon that makes the user a permanent militia unit which can't be mobilised maybe. What you can add however would be the repeating crossbow, that might be worthwhile.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: De-Legro on June 20, 2017, 05:37:34 AM
Why not just go with the recurve bow then and skip the composite bow if almost all composites were also recuverves?


And I don't think adding different crossbow sizes will do much. Beyond maybe a ballista that could either be some kind of construction that you can build several off once that is implemented, and which can then be used by archers. Or maybe a weapon that makes the user a permanent militia unit which can't be mobilised maybe. What you can add however would be the repeating crossbow, that might be worthwhile.

At the moment size doesn't matter, but if/when factors like range and fire rate are added it well might. Also light crossbows can be armed using arm strength alone, and thus are suitable for use on horse back, while heavy crossbows are not.
Title: Re: Third slot overhaul
Post by: silvershot on June 20, 2017, 07:07:29 AM
Hmm I have previously spent hours and days trying to find any comparison of draw strength for Japanese longbows vs English, so far as I can work out no real evidence exists to support either side of the argument, and runs into various topics like just how important is draw strength, what type of arrow is being used, velocity vs impulse etc. It would seem the question of comparisons of range and killing/penetration power is really an unknown.

If I was to consider implementing your list, I would also want to add things like recursive vows and compound bows so that you have a far more effective "short bow" option. Then again we need to rename short bow anyway since it is a D&D designation that has little correlation to real world weapons.

Excellent point... I don't know enough about the Japanese bows, other than some conjecture that they've slightly less penetration power. I'll try to see if there's any merit for it. (Could just be justification for tradeoffs between mounting and foot, or in reality I'm just curious now).