Will Heavy Cav be able to trample?

[OranjeSun]

topic says it all. If any of you have played BFME2 you'll know what I mean.

However, that may not be realistic, correct me if Im wrong, before the stirrup a horseman could be easily thrown off his horse due to the impact. Not 100% sure on that though

BTW 0AD is looking great. I check in every few months to see whats goin on

[FirePowa8]

If so, hopefully it's not almost completely useless, as it is in AOE3.

[Matei]

Great timing - we're actually just about to release a showcase on trampling and other features . Currently heavy cavalry can charge and trample units around them while doing that, though there aren't any graphical effects yet (people flying and stuff). Hopefully it will be more useful than AOE3's suicidal trample, though against certain formations, trying to charge into the front would be a very bad idea.

[Titus Ultor]

Trampling before the stirrup, from a historical standpoint, is just a matter of your equipment. A group of Roman equites would not be able to do the medieval knight approach of leading with a long lance, due to the lack of the stirrup. However, by holding onto the reins, an ancient warrior armed with a light spear and small shield could certainly charge into a group of enemies and inflict some sort of damage upon them. It's probably not the most effective use of cavalry at this point, but it is still possible and still lethal.

[Paal_101]

The Macedonian and Roman heavily cavalry would routinely run down single or small groups of enemy combatants, it has been shown on several tombstones. Plus in close combat a horse would easily knock down men on foot while the wounded could not avoid taking the full weight of a horse. As for intended tactics of trying to trample enemy troops, no. But trampling is inherent to cavalry warfare through history, even before the stirrup.

[superman]

i think charging should be made more effective that in AOE3 where it is suicide to think of putting the unit in trampling mode, but not so good as in BFME2 where you can destroy whole armies just with trampling i hate when someone does thet find a way to make trampling efective against scattered units, and of course make units take damage when trampling, so that pokemen give more damage when being tramplet than archers

And just to let you know: i will be checking in to see whats going on every month. 0 A.D rocks

[Dnas]

Does this answer your question?

http://www.wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=10066

[OranjeSun]

Sure does, thanks! Just checked back and saw that showcase

[Mythos_Ruler]

Here's how I'd like to see cavalry: Generally their standard attack values should be on par with the attack of an infantry unit of the same general type. For instance, a Cavalry Swordsman's attack should be roughly equivalent to an Infantry Swordsman; a Cavalry Archer's attack roughly equivalent to an Infantry Archer's. What would make Cavalry worth spending the extra resources on would be their speed; to outflank enemy formations and for scouting; and their ability to Charge and use Trampling effects.

Ideally, a player would not send his squadron of Cavalry Spearmen headlong into the massed Infantry Spearmen of an enemy Phalanx - this should be suicide for the player's Cavalry Spearmen. Rather, the player should outflank the slower Phalanx and attack it from the sides and rear where it is most vulnerable, most likely forcing the enemy to break his formation (losing the bonuses of this formation) in order to deal with the new threat to his rear.

Cavalry should also be good for chasing down enemy Infantry Archers, Infantry Javelinists, and Infantry Slingers. Cavalry should die to direct hits of arrows as easily as does Infantry Units when directly hit, but the trick is Cavalry should be harder to hit. These are the types of things we want to accomplish with the game... true strategy and tactics based on true battlefield mechanics. Why do Infantry Archers get beat by cavalry? Not because of some arbitrary paper-rock-scissors attack bonus, but because cavalry are harder to hit with arrows and archers have a minimum range (like Skirmishers and Onagers in AOK), making them easy prey to fast moving enemy units (like enemy cavalry). Why do melee Infantry units suffer to ranged units? Because they are slower and are easier to hit with arrows, slinged bullets, rocks, and javelins. These are simple battlefield mechanics that lend themselves to the RTS genre pretty well, but aren't explored very well in commercial RTS games (I am looking at you Ensemble Studios).

Edited June 7, 2006 by Mythos_Ruler

[Wijitmaker]

That was a mighty fine tid bit of information from Mr. Michael D. Hafer about our design philosophy. Pay attention lads.

[Aztec_Brave]

These are simple battlefield mechanics that lend themselves to the RTS genre pretty well, but aren't explored very well in commercial RTS games (I am looking at you Ensemble Studios).

You have to admit that it works pretty well: it's simple for your avgerage player, it's easy to balance and it still creates enough sense of realism to avoid total absurdity (now, does anyone remember the Empire Earth balance system that only compared units based on their form of attack, whether arrow, pierce or melee, totally ignoring whether they were cavalry or had range or whatever. That was bad.

The cool thing is of course, that 0AD doesn't have to care about selling as many copies to average gamers (in fact, you're average gamer will probably be more likely to get the game anyway as he won't have to spend time looking for a serial key and a crack), but can finally try out something totally new without a publisher complaining about it being bad for business.

Good luck balancing this though, it looks like it will be one hell of a job.

[Wijitmaker]

it's easy to balance and it still creates enough sense of realism to avoid total absurdity

I guess it depends on your definition of the absurd and the totally absurd. An anti-cannon class cannon is a pretty absurd (if not totally absurd) rock/paper/scissor unit class.

[Titus Ultor]

Very true.

Speaking of Empire Earth, I remember that games balancing system. It was really completely absurd, but it made it somehow fun. I even bought Empire Earth 2. Now that one is a horrible game.

[Mythos_Ruler]

An anti-cannon class cannon is a pretty absurd (if not totally absurd) rock/paper/scissor unit class.

How true... how very true. I assume you are talking about AOE3. The funny part is, through testing, it's been found that standard cannons counter other cannons almost as well, yet are far more versatile.

Cory, about EE2 - that truly looked terrible from the first screenshots.

[FirePowa8]

EE2 was dreadful... there was so much useless tosh packed into the game (weather and poorly made territories, as examples) that even with about a trillion units, it just wasn't fun to play. Not to mention that it looked awful in comparison to AOE3 and almost every other game on the market when it was released, the graphics weren't much better than the originals.

Anti-cannon artillery in AOE3 has been completely useless since ES botched up the patch with uber light cavalry that can defeat just about anything.