See THIS ;)

[cegorach]

something interesting to see.:yes:

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/DOUBLE1.jpg
https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/DOUBLE2.jpg
https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/DOUBLE3.jpg

And what do you think about that unit ?:egypt:

[caravel]

Superb, I take it the musket is just part of the unit animation wheras the pike itself is the weapon?

[cegorach]

NO. These are two different animations combined together.


Musketeer is a HORSE however weird it sounds :laugh4:

[Don Esteban]

So the unit represents a combined arms unit with Pikemen defending the musketeers ?

[cegorach]

Yes, though it is rather a kind of peculiar experimental unit which appeared in England rather than a real pike and musket formation, still should be interesting to play, especially with ONE more note - if you 'dismount' them they fight as longbowmen...:book:

[caravel]

NO. These are two different animations combined together.


Musketeer is a HORSE however weird it sounds :laugh4:
Wow, I can see it now. sorry I wasn't looking closely enough. Two units together! So you've used the "horse" part as the musketeer as one and the man part as the Pikeman? Two animations combined so that when it's attacking or charging the "man" part, is active with it's pike, when performing the standing shoot it's the "horse" part that is pointing the weapon etc?

[cegorach]

For now they are both active all the time (this way the 'horse' allows things such as mixed units of musketeers - some in hats, some in morions and other wacky ideas), but it can be done this way.
I will probably do it this way for Ragusan Militia.

Unfortuanatelly the 'horse' cannot carry any weapons or use...a horse on its own - just think if he could - a pikemen who has a 'horse', who has a #horse' who has a 'horse' etc.:inquisitive:

[cegorach]

A word of warning.

Such unit will suffer when fighting in woods ( the existence of the 'horse' causes that) and you will hear horse 'sounds' even without any.

Fortuanatelly it will not become cavalry if you do not want it to be one, so it still has numerous uses.:2thumbsup:

[caravel]

Yes, and it will be susceptible to the penalty when attacked by other anti-cavalry units will it not?

[cegorach]

No, that factor is defined by the word INFANTRY/CAVALRY/ARTILLERY you know where.:beam:

The existence of the mount onlyadds the inherited advantages/disadvantages it has e.g. you can make desert infantry using invisible camel based mount...

[Adrian II]

Good grief, this is a nice change from the usual canon fodder, though to me as a non-modder this is some sort of voodoo.

Anyway, I am sure Martok would be eternally grateful if you could build a unit of 500 camel-mounted culverins that fire elephant droppings at the enemy.
:juggle2: ~:)

[Vladimir]

Neat! Good research.

[caravel]

No, that factor is defined by the word INFANTRY/CAVALRY/ARTILLERY you know where.:beam:

The existence of the mount onlyadds the inherited advantages/disadvantages it has e.g. you can make desert infantry using invisible camel based mount...
Of course! Then your only problem is the occasional neigh? :laugh4:

Well done. :bow:

[Aenarion]

That's an amazing looking unit cegorach :2thumbsup: It is interesting how you managed to combine two different animations in the same unit to give more variety.

Great piece of work! :yes:

Thanks, :bow:
Aenarion

[Martok]

Wow; that's impressive, cegorach. :2thumbsup: Was this sudden inspiration, or is it something you'd wanted to try out for a while now?


Anyway, I am sure Martok would be eternally grateful if you could build a unit of 500 camel-mounted culverins that fire elephant droppings at the enemy.
:juggle2: ~:)
:laugh4: :laugh4:

[cegorach]

Inspiration.

I thought - why not use this lousy mount entry for something...

Exactly the same kind of sudden idea I had when I tried to 'dismount' infantry and artillery, and it worked even better.:2thumbsup:

[naut]

Very cool.