marching speed and cavalry

[Pycckuu]

After reading this thread over at TWC, i have realized that it might work really well in RTW.
In short, according to that thread, a large enough cavalry force will slow down that army because of the ammounts of supplies that horses need to consume.
In my opinion, if the marching distances of a certain army were implemented based on the army's size, and its infantry to cavalry ratio, it could force the player to use the more or less realistic troop loadouts. Basically, it should be something similar to this:
1. Small armies march alot further per turn because they need less supplies and are more mobile in general.
2. An army with a large cavalry force should move slower, and (if possible, of course) each stack of cavalry will reduce the marching distance by some ammount.
3. Non native armies should suffer marching penalties when they are in the desert or snow. Once again, the more horses there are, the slower they would move.

If this is possible, it may make the game more realistically balanced in terms of cavalry use.


What are your thoughts on this?

[Shrapnel]

It sounds great! But I would think that say if you had a smallish force of about 3 cavalry units travelling alone, then it should be normal cavalry speed.

[Bouchious]

doesn' the effect of realism become different with different unit sizes? so units would have to be set to one size??

[Steppe Merc]

Nope. Steppe cavalry were hardly slowed down by large amounts. They didn't bring a bunch of supplies, their horses lived off of the steppe. And hardly any army, with the exception of pure steppe forces (even Parthians almost always had infantry) had an all cavalry army.

[Dago]

For making the game more realistic the armies should be able to march from Spain to Germany per turn because one turn is 6 months that would be realy realistic.The cavalry especialy light should be able to march even further.

[Shrapnel]

Yea, the time it takes to get from one place to another is rediculous, it takes about 2 turns (1year) to get from the middle of Italy to the top!

[Pycckuu]

Nope. Steppe cavalry were hardly slowed down by large amounts. They didn't bring a bunch of supplies, their horses lived off of the steppe. And hardly any army, with the exception of pure steppe forces (even Parthians almost always had infantry) had an all cavalry army.

Then the steppe factions can recieve bonuses in the movenent, maybe. This would help to make each faction feel more unique, ala Shogun, instead of "you get horsemen with pointy hats, we get the ones with purple shields!" deal.

On a side note, i am wondering if this is even possible?

[Spongly]

To be fair, the time scale is pretty bizarre, but better than MTW - I remember in Viking invasion it took about a decade to march from York to the south coast of England -a feat that Harold Godwinsson managed in 5 days!

[cunctator]

Then the steppe factions can recieve bonuses in the movenent, maybe. This would help to make each faction feel more unique, ala Shogun, instead of "you get horsemen with pointy hats, we get the ones with purple shields!" deal.

On a side note, i am wondering if this is even possible?

A non steppe faction also has no problems finding food for their horses in the steppes. A steppe army marching through a desert will face the same supply problems as any other army.

[Shrapnel]

I think that the high-quality cavalry and invantry units should travel farther than the normal ones, and also do you think that Diplomats should have horses? I mean it makes sense, they would not awlk everywhere.

[Temple]

Wether or not the diplomat animations have horses is kinda irrelevant. They already move faster (ie. longer on the campaign map) than any other unit, so I would suspect that they ride. Though, when you think about it, the whole concept of having a single diplomat running around conducting all your business with a country is kinda unrealistic, so we can safely assume that the diplomats of RTW are symbolic of diplomatic relations..

As for the steppe factions and horses, they might very well have had no difficulties on teh steppes, but as they moved into unknown terrain it became harder and harder for them to support their horses. Both the Huns and Mongols were slowed down when they left the steppes, and found grazing grounds to be mroe scarce than they were used to.

I like the idea of movement being relative to army size, but I doubt it can be done.. Something like that would almost certainly involve hard-coded elements of the game.

[Steppe Merc]

Temple, yes they were slowed down when leaving the steppe. That said, the steppe is a very large place, and nomadic based armies did have successes outside of the steppe. Was it harder? Certiantly, just as all civilzed people have found it harder to fight in the steppe against steppe tactics.

[sharrukin]

A non steppe faction also has no problems finding food for their horses in the steppes. A steppe army marching through a desert will face the same supply problems as any other army.

That's logical but not really true as the steppe pony doesn't require quality grains to thrive which most other types of horses do. Also the steppe cultures had enormous herds of horses and would frequently switch from one animal to another greatly extending the speed at which they could move and the range.

A steppe army would have a real problem in desert due to the numbers of animals they usually have but the lower feed requirements for the steppe mounts would help a little.

[Steppe Merc]

Rember, Chinggis did cross the Gobi. But not many armies fought or marched in true dessert at that time, I believe.

[sharrukin]

Rember, Chinggis did cross the Gobi. But not many armies fought or marched in true dessert at that time, I believe.

I didn't mean to suggest they couldn't cross it. I am just not sure they would be much better at crossing a desert than say a Chinese army who also crossed the Gobi as well on occasion.

[Copperhaired Berserker!]

Right, I see Steppe said that Steppe tribes were fast even with a HUGE calvary army, will why don't you make it that steppe tribes's calvary doesn't use that rule.

[Ano2]

The eaisest thing to do regarding unrealistic movement speed is to split the year into 4 turns ala Shogun Total War.

[lilljonas]

Ano2: to make the movement/time ratio somewhat realistic, it's more like 1 turn=1month. But then, there's already a problem that the campaign ends too quickly, making every year 12 turns would make most campaigns last less than a decade or two! ;)

[Temple]

But with the added problem of building the Colloseum in five months or something..

Turn time that low, though realistic for troop movement, would make building stuff either ridiculously fast or so slow it would make playing the game no fun at all. Imagine waiting 24 turns for your barracks to finish..

[Ano2]

I know my solution wasn't more realistic, however its more realistic than the current system. But I agree games would take forever and be boring. Perhaps.

[GoreBag]

Ano2: to make the movement/time ratio somewhat realistic, it's more like 1 turn=1month. But then, there's already a problem that the campaign ends too quickly, making every year 12 turns would make most campaigns last less than a decade or two! ;)

Doesn't the campaign end after a certain number of years, not turns?

[Ano2]

I think he might mean in regards to how long it takes him to steamrole through the map. No problem for me, I take my time :)