Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« Last 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.
22
General Discussion / Soldier Experience
« Last post by cenrae on June 18, 2017, 10:53:30 AM »
I remember a long time ago Tom said when soldiers got around 20 experience their survival rate greatly increases.  Has anyone experimented much with soldier experience? When do you think it's best to train into calvary or say plate for example?
23
Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« Last 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.
24
Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« Last 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.
25
Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Suggesting a new training and troop type system
« Last post by De-Legro on June 18, 2017, 05:28:46 AM »
I like the general idea, but I would personally tie it to some of the proposed changes to the combat engine. Once troops can have defined roles and tactics upon the battle field it makes sense that you train them into those roles. You do not take troops trained to march in a phalanx like formation, give them some light missile weapons and just expect them to fulfill the role of skirmishers.
26
Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« Last 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.
27
Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Last post by silvershot on June 18, 2017, 05:20:39 AM »
Sure, but other cultures didn't see them or need to care about them. In real life you can see the loadout of other troops and designate them as per you own cultural norms or needs.

I do agree generally that at least larger realm types and sovereign realms are probably good enough (Duchy and above, perhaps, excepting sovereign baronies, counties and marches). Associating a cost with loadouts might also help mitigate it. I know I'd at least be willing to spend credits on naming some unit types, though I'm just a Count. I can definitely understand the counter-argument to the concept.
28
Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Third slot overhaul
« Last 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.
29
Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Last post by De-Legro on June 18, 2017, 04:41:18 AM »
Well, the world did have basically a ton of names for basically the same loadout for awhile...

Sure, but other cultures didn't see them or need to care about them. In real life you can see the loadout of other troops and designate them as per you own cultural norms or needs.
30
Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Last post by silvershot on June 18, 2017, 04:36:28 AM »
Nope, mostly I was thinking about the fact that we simply don't have a concept of "units" in the game, and that it would be nice for them to exist, sort of an extension of the request to be able to name groups. It also ties in with Andrews idea of NPC captains and the like.

Loadout names are something that was requested early on and rejected by Tom. I think his concern was having 4000 different names for what amounts to the same troop type. If I recall correctly I was one of the people asking for it. Personally I would think about tying loadouts to realms if we where to have them.

Well, the world did have basically a ton of names for basically the same loadout for awhile...
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10