A rider and his horse...

[Voigtkampf]

I sure hope not…

In S:TW and M:TW the riders and their horses were one, there was no possibility of killing the horse and leaving the rider alive and vice versa…

The possibility to dismount is also a crucial tactical feature that was practiced many times in real world historical engagements… It should be possible to dismount/remount during the battle as well…

What do you think about it?

[Math Mathonwy]

i think it would be cool, but im pretty sure we'll nver see this implemented. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[The Wizard]

You can dismount cavalry in MTW, but in far too many cases only at sieges. Even though the mounted form usually is better than the dismounted form, it would be nice to complement your frontline with a few foot knights.

Killing the rider but leaving the horse alive is a bit to much for the poor RTW engine to handle, methinks...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Killing the rider but leaving the horse alive is a bit to much for the poor RTW engine to handle, methinks...
And you think well, because you're right. The bond will be kept for RTW. CA cannot allow ressources to be wasted.

I'll explain:

In STW and MTW, horse+rider is a single unit.

If you implemented separation in RTW, you would start with a unit type horse+rider. Then as the battle progresses the engine would have to calculate 2 new units:

-A free horse unit.
-A dismounted rider.

So, the AI would need to calculate at every moment of the battle, the "birth" of these units, and you would have to load the 3D models and textures for these ones during the battle.

It would be soooooo slow. It would bog down ALL types of system... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif


Alternativelly, the models could be separated from the beginning, but they would need tree different animation cycles, instead of just one.

It would be much heavier in AI calculation and load times, although not bogging down the system during the battles. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Dec. 28 2003,04:52)]You can dismount cavalry in MTW, but in far too many cases only at sieges. Even though the mounted form usually is better than the dismounted form, it would be nice to complement your frontline with a few foot knights.
I know we can dismount cavalry before battle in M:TW, I was referring mainly to the dismount/remount process during the battle itself… Often, during confrontations, the riders would dismount if the battle conditions required it or simply if their horses were to worn out to run any longer… This was not possible in M:TW.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] ]Killing the rider but leaving the horse alive is a bit to much for the poor RTW engine to handle, methinks...

And you think well, because you're right. The bond will be kept for RTW. CA cannot allow ressources to be wasted.

First of all, respected fellow knights, I know that the engine in R:TW will be anything than poor…

Respected Lord Aymar has presented some issues, and though it is obvious that the theory and the understanding of how the game will probably work is sound, the fact remains that it is only and just a theory.

Engine being developed by CA is breathtaking, even in its unfinished stages, and I myself could not be as bold to predict its actual effectiveness, of which - I suppose - even the respected developers from CA are not yet entirely sure of. In other words, it’s a killer machine and it can only get much better in the next ten months

Making this feature a part of game is, IMHO, hardly "a waste of resources", and a mere statement that it could not be done because of increased number of variables and too many units to be taken in consideration is, I hope sincerely and to our all benefit, too pessimistic. If the R:TW engine can represent 1000+ 3d soldiers, archers shooting with fiery arrows, catapults tearing down walls, where is the actual problem for representing another 200 or 300 units?

[Ashen]

we can only hope...and believe me, im hoping HARD. Now, they couldnt in time commanders..but essentially thats a year old version of RTW. THe release version will have nearly 2 years of work on it. heres hoping >_< http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif (and waiting)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Making this feature a part of game is, IMHO, hardly "a waste of resources", and a mere statement that it could not be done because of increased number of variables and too many units to be taken in consideration is, I hope sincerely and to our all benefit, too pessimistic. If the R:TW engine can represent 1000+ 3d soldiers, archers shooting with fiery arrows, catapults tearing down walls, where is the actual problem for representing another 200 or 300 units?
First, I didn&#39;t said that the Rome engine was poor.
Second, what I explained is what it is, not what I want it to be.

I just don&#39;t believe CA will bring us that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[The Wizard]

Why? What is the enormous addition to the game? I think that the MTW stuff of pre-battle dismounting was just fine. All it leads to is a slightly cooler gameplay, just a bit more icing on he cake. And a hell of a lot more micromanaging in an already huge battle system.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]It would be soooooo slow. It would bog down ALL types of system...


Quote[/b] ]It would be much heavier in AI calculation and load times, although not bogging down the system during the battles.

I rest my case...

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] ]First, I didn&#39;t said that the Rome engine was poor.

But of course not, respectable Lord Aymar. Wizzy did. And I know he meant it as a joke.


Quote[/b] ]Second, what I explained is what it is, not what I want it to be.

And I understood it just as you said it; I hardly believe that you would be against such a feature if it worked properly. Who would be?

Do I expect this feature to be implemented? Not really…
Do I believe that this feature could be implemented? Quite possible…
Do I hope to have this feature in R:TW? I most certainly do…

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Lord voigtkampf:


Quote[/b] ]Do I expect this feature to be implemented? Not really…
Do I believe that this feature could be implemented? Quite possible…
Do I hope to have this feature in R:TW? I most certainly do…
I share your hopes... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[L`zard]

Something about system requirments comes to mind, eh, gentlemen?

If the entire RTW community was willing to go out and buy new P4/ddr based puters, and guarantee that they&#39;ld buy platinum for sales.........

Well, I&#39;m sure CA would be only too happy to ensure all the &#39;chrome bits&#39; anyone could ask for, LOL

You&#39;ll notice that any word of system requirements is still a bit foggy, eh? Right in there with what the new engine will support for features.........

No doubt, the CA dev sorts and thier overbosses are looking to find out what the player-base has for low end &#39;puters and making decisions based on same.....gotta sell to survive, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Ashen]

i saw a preview from a site (fragland.net) where the writer had been in activsions UK offices and seen R:TW going. I believe he quoted it was running great at full detail on a Pentium 3 1ghz and a GeForce 2.

That likely makes min spec 800mhz with a 32mb 3D card. Somewhere around that. Whether that PC could handle all those variables, quickly enough not to hit gameplay, is debatable.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (L`zard @ Dec. 28 2003,17:26)]No doubt, the CA dev sorts and thier overbosses are looking to find out what the player-base has for low end &#39;puters and making decisions based on same.....gotta sell to survive, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Indeed, those considerations are, from the business point of view, a necessary part of the entire equation, yet it&#39;s questionable how far will they "restrain" themselves and turn down the features, merely because majority of people have "weaker" computers. But if that would be the measure of things, there would be certainly no Half-life 2 or the incredible Doom 3 for that matter…

[The Wizard]

With &#39;poor&#39; I merely meant &#39;hard-pressed&#39;. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Dec. 29 2003,06:13)]With &#39;poor&#39; I merely meant &#39;hard-pressed&#39;. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I know… But not as half as pressed as I intend to press my legionnaires once I get hold of them…

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]But not as half as pressed as I intend to press my legionnaires once I get hold of them…
Indeed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Won&#39;t we all intend to... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[The Wizard]

Indeed.

Not half as pressed as those Romans will be when my hetairoi descend upon them... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Dec. 29 2003,13:56)]Indeed.

Not half as pressed as those Romans will be when my hetairoi descend upon them... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Oh, really? See you MP then, lord Wizzy

BTW, your sig is toooo big…

[The Wizard]

Nooo, it is well-proportioned

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Dec. 28 2003,17:05)]Do I expect this feature to be implemented? Not really…
Do I believe that this feature could be implemented? Quite possible…
Do I hope to have this feature in R:TW? I most certainly do…
Agree, with the exception of #2...

Think this way.

We will be able to control 20 units in RTW. You have 20 units of cavalry (you are Parthian). Then you begin to take losses, some of them horses some riders, and some both.

What happens to the riders?
Will they still be part of the unit? Can&#39;t do that, they are on foot and the rest are on horses... we would just have string of men running around after the unit. Would look stupid.
Will they have their own units? Can&#39;t do that either, you are full in units. Also, what happens if riders falls off from the same unit at different ends of the map? Two units? What about those in the middle?
Will they march off the map? Possible, but odd as most unhorsed warriors fought on on foot. In effect they would just be another horse running off... a piece of eyecandy. And when they had run off... what then?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]What happens to the riders?
Will they still be part of the unit? Can&#39;t do that, they are on foot and the rest are on horses... we would just have string of men running around after the unit. Would look stupid.
Will they have their own units? Can&#39;t do that either, you are full in units. Also, what happens if riders falls off from the same unit at different ends of the map? Two units? What about those in the middle?
Will they march off the map? Possible, but odd as most unhorsed warriors fought on on foot. In effect they would just be another horse running off... a piece of eyecandy. And when they had run off... what then?
True. Reinforces what I&#39;ve said. Although I hadn&#39;t tought about the 20 units limitation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Respected fellow members keep talking about “how would it look”, I keep talking about “could it be done”. We talk pass each other.

I don’t argue about “how” would it look, I have no concrete ideas; that’s the programmers job.

They will put archers on the wall for the first time. They managed to pull it off. Why not this one too? It was common to dismount/remount in actual warfare. They are historical connotations of leaders who lost three or more horses in a battle, and got themselves new ones…

With all due respect, I find little pioneer spirit here…

[Kraxis]

It is not that I disagree that it could be done, but the limitations of the engine would make it impossible to include it.
And no, it wouldn&#39;t look bad... it would look rather cool, but if it has to be kept within the system&#39;s abilities then it is impossible.

So while I&#39;m sure CA could create dismounted riders I&#39;m certain they have discarded the idea because of their own restraints.

[Ludens]

Imagine a battle. You are storming a castle and have a unit of 100 cavalry and 19 other units (20 units).

You dismount them to go into combat. This gives you an extra unit, which can pose problems with the twenty unit-limitation [1]. However, since the unit of horse is unimportant, these would not need an unit-icon in the unit-bar.

This unit of horses is attacked, and twenty horses are killed. Now, horses have a life of their own, so they should run away. How where you planning mangement of horse units? Should every unit of cavalry have his own, non-combat horse handler? And when he is killed, you cannot dismount [2]? What about fleeing horses? You could chase of the horses while the riders were fighting elsewere [3].

No, due to some freak chance all the riders (100) have survived and return to their horses (80) to mount. Problems: How are you going to calculate fatigue [4]? What about the 20 men without horses [5]? Should they be including in the unit (giving you a 80 cavalry + 20 infantry unit) or should they form their own unit (21 units, and this time both of them are important).
For the argument, I&#39;m going to assume the first option, although the second would be possible if one of the unit would withdraw (which would make the game more complex (merging of units, reinforcements)). Can you imagine charging through the gate with 80 cavalry, followed by a small unit of 20 men shouting: Wait for Me This, again, would play hell with fatigue calculation and interface-information about units [6].

Supposing the horses weren&#39;t attacked in the first place and some of the riders were killed in the first engagement, you would have a unit 90 cavalry + 10 horses. What would happen to those horses [7]? They withdraw, or ride along with the cavalry to await casualities of horses? In that case a horse-handler would make it seem less absurd that those horses follow the group into a melee.

So I already count 7 problems, not taken into account that a mounted cavalryman can be killed without killing his horse. What would you do then with the horse [8]?

Now, supposing the horse was killed, but the rider survived (1: unfair, bacause it gives cavalry 2 lives instead of one, 2: unlikely, because when you fall, the dead horse could kill and if not, you would be on the ground, wounded and probably stunned, so your opponent can kill you easily), how would you manage that [9]? Would he fight on as infantry, or try to remount before starting fighting? The last option would require special pathifinding routines for the computer to work out for the men running around in the fight, shouting "A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse"

9 Problems so far.
Furthermore: can dismounted cavarly mount other horses then their own? That would give a rehash from problems 4, 5 and 7, plus another unit of horses to take care of in addition to those the cavalrymen had left behind (ignoring that warhorses could be trained to accept only one rider, and that both the skill as well as the required level of skill in horseriding varies with different units of horses (for example a mounted sergeant could not neccesarily handle a horse of a gothic knight, to name two extremes).

My head is beginning to hurt. I&#39;m not going to write down the other problems I envisage.

Sure, it would make a great feature. But how are you going to manage these things?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Excellent analysis, Ludens http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif


Quote[/b] ]"A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse"
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Dec. 31 2003,05:30)]It is not that I disagree that it could be done, but the limitations of the engine would make it impossible to include it.
And no, it wouldn&#39;t look bad... it would look rather cool, but if it has to be kept within the system&#39;s abilities then it is impossible.

So while I&#39;m sure CA could create dismounted riders I&#39;m certain they have discarded the idea because of their own restraints.
With the restraint that I am not aware of the capabilities of the R:TW engine, and can therefore not make any assumption, I completely agree with you, Lord Kraxis.

I don’t necessarily “demand” that feature; it could go well without, definitely. I always wanted the greatest amount of historical accuracy, but not to the cost of the gameplay, no, sir

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 01 2004,09:41)]My head is beginning to hurt. I&#39;m not going to write down the other problems I envisage.

Sure, it would make a great feature. But how are you going to manage these things?
Now my head hurts too…

Blessed be thou, fellow knight in our common crusade against oversized sigs, but don’t do this to me, ever, ever again

Now, you excuse me while I crawl off and shout “An aspirin A kingdom for an aspirin”

[Kraxis]

Bravo Ludens... That was exactly what I wanted to post more or less, but you did it very well.

I think I have thought up a compromise here.

Unit of cavalry of 100. They dismount in battle (takes time of course) and they leave 100 horses. Horses get attacked, 20 killed. Riders come back, but can&#39;t remount (this is the bad part) in the battle.

Too few riders come back and they can remount leaving the leftover horses to their own devises (marching off or staying put is of little importance). No riders can lose horse underneath and no hose can lose rider.

Basically this gives us the ability to dismount whenever we want to. Dismount the cavalry that can dismount ofcourse. That would be nice.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Jan. 02 2004,08:47)]Blessed be thou, fellow knight in our common crusade against oversized sigs, but don’t do this to me, ever, ever again

Now, you excuse me while I crawl off and shout “An aspirin A kingdom for an aspirin”
:Hands Voigtkampf a painkiller:

Sure, I will never do it again...

Ehh, what, precisely should I never do again?


Kraxis,
So I just have to kill one horse of a unit of hunderd to prevent my enemies precious cavarly from remounting?

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 02 2004,14:07)]So I just have to kill one horse of a unit of hunderd to prevent my enemies precious cavarly from remounting?
Yup...

But the possiblity to remount is a significant step towards better play. As it is now we can&#39;t remount at all.

And how likely is it that the dismounted troops will lose less than their horses (which must be presumed to be near his back)?

[Revenant69]

Hehehe, just to point out how nasty and unpredictable mounted combat was i shall quote Plutarch&#39;s description of the battle of Carrhae (53 BC) which saw Parthian army slaughtering Roman legions under Crassus.

Stuff in brackets is my description to help you understand things http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Mr. Plutarch said:
"...for they [Gauls] laid ahold of the kontoi [lances], and grappling with the men pulled them from their horses, although it was hard to move them owing to the great weight of their armor. Many of them got off their own horses and, crawling under those of the enemy, stabbed them in the belly;
these would rear up in their anguish and die trampling upon their riders and enemies mixed together. But the Gauls suffered most of all from the heat and thirst, to which they were unaccustomed, and most of their horses were destroyed by being driven gainst the kontoi of the enemy."

This is a description of Gallic horse, serving under Crassus, being overrun by Parthian cataphracts.

Now, IF they could implement the stuff that Plutarch was talking about - it would be awesome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif but i am not holding my breath.

Cheers,
Rev

EDIT: Oh, if you wonder where i got this from, then read "Fighting Techniques of the ancient world 3000 BC - AD 500. Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics" by Simon Anglim, Phyllis G. Jestice, Rob S. Rice, Scott M. Rusch and John Serrati

[Voigtkampf]

It was a far too excessive reading, my dear Lord Ludens But, I admit,a well thought one…

Lord Kraxis,
it would be a great thing if we could dismount at all during the battle; personally, if all the horses just ran away, I wouldn’t mind, when they get tired and you suddenly see a unit of spearmen that need some bashing, you dismount and draw your swords and go after them… Silver can do as he pleases, run off and enjoy the wide and fresh meadows…

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 03 2004,01:24)]
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 02 2004,14:07)]So I just have to kill one horse of a unit of hunderd to prevent my enemies precious cavarly from remounting?
Yup...

But the possiblity to remount is a significant step towards better play. As it is now we can&#39;t remount at all.

And how likely is it that the dismounted troops will lose less than their horses (which must be presumed to be near his back)?
Kraxis,

Well, I suppose it is realistic, because you only need to scare the horses (there aren&#39;t any rider to control them), and the enemy is without mount.
But leaving aside that it could be difficult to find out which horses belong to which unit, it seems rather a lot of fuzz about a feature that is not going to be used often and could be partially replaced with the dismount options of MTW.


Voigtkampf,

Oh dear... I think I shall add "verbal diarrhoea" to my Vices & Virtues stat then, shall I?

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 03 2004,04:41)]Voigtkampf,

Oh dear... I think I shall add "verbal diarrhoea" to my Vices & Virtues stat then, shall I?
No. Add +4 dread for merciless torture of captured enemies

"…I have become comfortably numb…"

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Jan. 03 2004,16:26)]"…I have become comfortably numb…"
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 03 2004,04:41)]Kraxis,

Well, I suppose it is realistic, because you only need to scare the horses (there aren&#39;t any rider to control them), and the enemy is without mount.
But leaving aside that it could be difficult to find out which horses belong to which unit, it seems rather a lot of fuzz about a feature that is not going to be used often and could be partially replaced with the dismount options of MTW.
Would it really be that hard to find out which horses were which? I mean the engine could just act like when you move the pointer over a house or something when you try to select the wrong horses. And if you are concerned about the enemy... well why should they know which horses are which?

Personally I doubt I would use it much, I like to ride about.
The only real downside to this would be that any units that were specific against cavalry would be near useless, I could just dismount, then remount when I have defeated the unit.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 03 2004,10:40)]
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Jan. 03 2004,16:26)]"…I have become comfortably numb…"
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Pink Floyd, my dear...

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 03 2004,19:30)]Would it really be that hard to find out which horses were which? I mean the engine could just act like when you move the pointer over a house or something when you try to select the wrong horses. And if you are concerned about the enemy... well why should they know which horses are which?
True


Quote[/b] ]The only real downside to this would be that any units that were specific against cavalry would be near useless, I could just dismount, then remount when I have defeated the unit.
But we are not talking medieval cavalry here. No stirrups Ancient cavalry was basically light cavalry. I don&#39;t think that they would form powerful units (footknights) when dismounted. Which rather defeats the point of dismounting them.



Quote[/b] ]Pink Floyd, my dear...
Ah. I suddenly feel like a cultural barbarian http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 04 2004,05:14)]
Quote[/b] ]Pink Floyd, my dear...
Ah. I suddenly feel like a cultural barbarian http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
Actually, you would be sooner declared one if you knew that line…

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Jan. 04 2004,20:08)]
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 04 2004,05:14)]
Quote[/b] ]Pink Floyd, my dear...
Ah. I suddenly feel like a cultural barbarian http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
Actually, you would be sooner declared one if you knew that line…
??? Not a fan of some of the Waters&#39; dominated stuff?

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 04 2004,05:14)]But we are not talking medieval cavalry here. No stirrups Ancient cavalry was basically light cavalry. I don&#39;t think that they would form powerful units (footknights) when dismounted. Which rather defeats the point of dismounting them.
No, but we have at least the cataphracts... and they would be pretty nasty in a melee I bet.
Well, my point was that you could bypass the anti-cavalry units this way. Even if you lost.

[desdichado]

Well what would an cavalryman do if unhorsed - me I&#39;d jon the nearest friendly unit and not give a stuff how they were armed (if away from fighting maybe look for spare mounts at rear of line but that is getting tricksy).

The AI already monitors each individual soldiers stats etc so why couldn&#39;t it calculate defence/attack etc ratios for an unhorsed cavlaryman in a unit of spears, axemen etc.

Obviously we then have a problem with different graphics for the different soldiers animations required within the same unit but I wouldn&#39;t mind too much if it changed to suit the unit the soldier joined too make life easier on the computer.

Battle, especially historical battles, were nowhere near as ordered as MTW or probably RTW shows so a unit that has taken on stragglers from other units seems quite realistic to me.

Also, giving cavalrymen the chance to fight on again after the horse is killed is not giving them a second chance - there could be some random variable to determine whether they survive the fall etc, this would be more accurate imo.

Whether that is feasible given what the RTW engine is capable of I have no idea but I&#39;d like it.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (desdichado @ Jan. 05 2004,11:25)]Well what would an cavalryman do if unhorsed - me I&#39;d jon the nearest friendly unit and not give a stuff how they were armed (if away from fighting maybe look for spare mounts at rear of line but that is getting tricksy).

The AI already monitors each individual soldiers stats etc so why couldn&#39;t it calculate defence/attack etc ratios for an unhorsed cavlaryman in a unit of spears, axemen etc.
Before we add this feature, we should first make it possible for depleted units of the same type to merge.
After that is possible, we can talk about merging units of different unit types.
Anyway, if I was a cavalryman in an ancient battle, and I had fallen of my horse, I would limp back to the camp try to get a surgeon / druid to look to my injuries.
What do you say? Should I be fighting over there? Hell, there are enough other blokes to do that I&#39;ve had my share of fighting today How do you think I got this wound You go fighting over there Shjeesh

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, if I was a cavalryman in an ancient battle, and I had fallen of my horse, I would limp back to the camp try to get a surgeon / druid to look to my injuries.
What do you say? Should I be fighting over there? Hell, there are enough other blokes to do that I&#39;ve had my share of fighting today How do you think I got this wound You go fighting over there Shjeesh
True. Besides, most of the times when a rider loses is horse, he is seriouly injured, or will be shortly after that (remember Agincourt??). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 05 2004,05:50)]Before we add this feature, we should first make it possible for depleted units of the same type to merge.
After that is possible, we can talk about merging units of different unit types.
Argh
No I beg no

Nowheer have I read of, for instance Roman depleted units that merged in a lull of the fighting. Not even ranks (the way losses are handled in TW)...

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 05 2004,16:28)]
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 05 2004,05:50)]Before we add this feature, we should first make it possible for depleted units of the same type to merge.
After that is possible, we can talk about merging units of different unit types.
Argh
No I beg no

Nowheer have I read of, for instance Roman depleted units that merged in a lull of the fighting. Not even ranks (the way losses are handled in TW)...
True, but then one shouldn&#39;t even think about merging unit of different types, as Desdichado did.

Prince Aymar de Bois Mauri,
What should I remember about Azincourt?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Prince Aymar de Bois Mauri,
What should I remember about Azincourt?
The fact that, most mounted French Knights suffered death, beeing unable to react, stuck in the mud or under their dead horses, just after the first confrontations with the English lines (LB, Billmen, Dismounted Knights & MAA).

[desdichado]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 05 2004,21:50)]Anyway, if I was a cavalryman in an ancient battle, and I had fallen of my horse, I would limp back to the camp try to get a surgeon / druid to look to my injuries.
that&#39;s assuming there weren&#39;t a whole lot of enemies running around - I was talking about being unhorsed and not seriously wounded in battle where "limping" back to the rear is not an option. If I was separated from my unit I&#39;d join the nearest friendly unit until a lull in the fighting.

I think that is realistic. The question is whether it is common enough occurence to be implemented and & is practical to do so.

I also think merging units should be an option. Are you telling me that if a roman unit was depleted to a handful of men they would not have joined another higher strength unit (when the battle took a breather) - they just wouold have kept fighting on? Sounds very inefficient to me and unroman like to me Besides what about the barbarians - they didn&#39;t even have units as depicted in TW.

Agincourt is a good example of mounted knights being easily killed when unhorsed but example is wrong timeframe - heavy armoured knights falling into mud would be easy meat for a peasant armed with a sickle - we are mostly taling about lighter armoured horsemen here - with no stirups to catch their feet when horse tumbles.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (desdichado @ Jan. 05 2004,21:57)]That&#39;s assuming there weren&#39;t a whole lot of enemies running around - I was talking about being unhorsed and not seriously wounded in battle where "limping" back to the rear is not an option. If I was separated from my unit I&#39;d join the nearest friendly unit until a lull in the fighting.

I think that is realistic. The question is whether it is common enough occurence to be implemented and & is practical to do so.

I also think merging units should be an option. Are you telling me that if a roman unit was depleted to a handful of men they would not have joined another higher strength unit (when the battle took a breather) - they just wouold have kept fighting on? Sounds very inefficient to me and unroman like to me Besides what about the barbarians - they didn&#39;t even have units as depicted in TW.

Agincourt is a good example of mounted knights being easily killed when unhorsed but example is wrong timeframe - heavy armoured knights falling into mud would be easy meat for a peasant armed with a sickle - we are mostly taling about lighter armoured horsemen here - with no stirups to catch their feet when horse tumbles.
You are saying that there is a lot of enemies running around and yet there is a lull in the fighting? Perhaps you should specify the situation you have in mind. If I were seperated from my unit with a lot of enemies around, I would just go on fighting, mounted or unmounted. There is no other option. If there was a lull in the fighting, I would try to rejoin my unit. If my horse has died, going to the unit makes no sense and I would go back to the camp. If they way to the camp is cut off, the battle seems lost to me, and I would flee.

I didn&#39;t protest against merging during battle, Kraxis did. I am not pro or contra merging, but I think that if you start to merge units of different types, you should first be able to merge units of identical types.
If your horse is killed under you, your survival chances are bleak anyway. The horse will fall and probably crush you. If you were no or little armor and have fast reflexes, you can escape this. But there were heavily armored cavalry units in the Roman times. Not using stirrups does improve you survival chances. Anyway, you are probably stunned and in an awkward position, so your chances are very, very small, and for a TW-game, they can be IMO safely ignored.

[Kraxis]

It was very seldom that units would become so depleted that they would need to merge with others. And in that case you can be certain they would not merge into one unit. Rather they would still be men of their own units, but &#39;just&#39; fight alongside each other as in most of those cases, they would be in a really bad spot.

The simple fact is that the gameengine doesn&#39;t handle units with more than 200 men easily, if at all. So if man was unhorsed near a unit of 200 something, then we would have a problem.
And personally, I doubt an unhorsed man would just walk over there and await he next development. He would seek out a way to get back to his friends first, if that is impossible somehow he would most likely retreat to the back of the army (a predetermined rallypoint), and if threatened he would finally join any unit around, but more from the protection he would gain rather than a feeling that he needed to do his duty.

[desdichado]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 06 2004,07:10)]You are saying that there is a lot of enemies running around and yet there is a lull in the fighting? Perhaps you should specify the situation you have in mind. If I were seperated from my unit with a lot of enemies around, I would just go on fighting, mounted or unmounted. There is no other option. If there was a lull in the fighting, I would try to rejoin my unit. If my horse has died, going to the unit makes no sense and I would go back to the camp. If they way to the camp is cut off, the battle seems lost to me, and I would flee.

I didn&#39;t protest against merging during battle, Kraxis did. I am not pro or contra merging, but I think that if you start to merge units of different types, you should first be able to merge units of identical types.
If your horse is killed under you, your survival chances are bleak anyway. The horse will fall and probably crush you. If you were no or little armor and have fast reflexes, you can escape this. But there were heavily armored cavalry units in the Roman times. Not using stirrups does improve you survival chances. Anyway, you are probably stunned and in an awkward position, so your chances are very, very small, and for a TW-game, they can be IMO safely ignored.
Ludens,

I was talking about two different situations - merging units when there is a lull in the fighting and unhorsed cavalrymen joining nearby friendly units when unable to rejoin their own unit.

Sorry, yes that question about merging units was to Kraxis - I should have specified. Yes, I agree merging units of same type should be made possible first. I just didn&#39;t want to go too OT and was trying to answer the original question.

Kraxis,

Merging simply for the battle and then splitting afterwards would be perfectly acceptable to me. I would not think a depleted unit would join another permanently, just in the face of the enemy as a matter of survival and necessity and then be reinforced (or not) as a separate unit after the battle.


After reading your posts I agree it is probably not worth the bother - too many unknown variables and there are more important things I&#39;d like to see implemented in the game first anyway - like voice activated commands to save my http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif from an early death.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ Jan. 04 2004,14:29)]
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Jan. 04 2004,20:08)]
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 04 2004,05:14)]
Quote[/b] ]Pink Floyd, my dear...
Ah. I suddenly feel like a cultural barbarian http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
Actually, you would be sooner declared one if you knew that line…
??? Not a fan of some of the Waters&#39; dominated stuff?
Of course I am… Remarkable stuff. But not very culturally enlightened or civilized, general opinion goes… Not mine…

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] ]I was talking about two different situations - merging units when there is a lull in the fighting and unhorsed cavalrymen joining nearby friendly units when unable to rejoin their own unit.

desdichado, I too was talking about two different situations. If there is fighting going on, individual soldiers in TW do not bother merging, they just go on fighting. This is realistic. If there isn&#39;t any fighting, they rejoin their own unit. An unhorsed cavalryman however would cause serious interface- and calculation troubles, as I pointed at in the long post that gave Lord Voigtkampf a headache http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif . Since it is a rare occurance that a horseman survives a fall of his horse during close combat, I think that it can be ignored, to save the developers from the enormous amount of work it would cause.
This is different issue than dismounting cavalry during combat.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 06 2004,06:15)]... as I pointed at in the long post that gave Lord Voigtkampf a headache http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif . Since it is a rare occurance that a horseman survives a fall of his horse during close combat, I think that it can be ignored, to save the developers from the enormous amount of work it would cause.
:fully recovered, but little slow on the left flank, voigtkampf returns to the battle:

Actually, I&#39;m splitting hairs, but horses died on the battlefield very often, while the riders survived to fight on foot - unless they were heavily armored knights that couldn&#39;t get up on their own and would stay laying on the ground until a friend or an enemy would come by to deliver them from their rather embarrassing misery, in one way or another…

Other than that, good arguments, respected Lord Ludens