Garrison cavalry

[Yekaterina]

Hi all, I would like to propose some changes to garrisoning units, please hear me out:

1. Allow cavalry to garrison in infantry barracks and vice versa.

This would be useful and perfectly reasonable.

2. Allow cavalry to garrison in towers.

The rider can tie his horse under the tower while he climbs up.

3. Do not allow Sword units to garrison in fortresses and towers.

To prevent turtling, especially considering that many civilisations do not have catapults.

4. Melee units don't increase arrow count of defensive buildings.

Again, to counter turtling.

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 hours ago, Helicity said:

Hi all, I would like to propose some changes to garrisoning units, please hear me out:

1. Allow cavalry to garrison in infantry barracks and vice versa.

This would be useful and perfectly reasonable.

2. Allow cavalry to garrison in towers.

The rider can tie his horse under the tower while he climbs up.

3. Do not allow Sword units to garrison in fortresses and towers.

To prevent turtling, especially considering that many civilisations do not have catapults.

4. Melee units don't increase arrow count of defensive buildings.

Again, to counter turtling.

 

 

We removed it because it was not logical in many cases.

 

In the same way it is not logical to remove swordman from fortresses or towers.

[Yekaterina]

16 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

We removed it because it was not logical in many cases.

Why is it not logical? Humans (especially the riders and caretakers of the horses) can enter the cavalry barrack. The infantry barracks also should have enough space inside for a horse to stand in there.

17 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

In the same way it is not logical to remove swordman from fortresses or towers.

This is not a matter of logic but an act to counter turtling. Some players spam towers and fortresses in their base then hide swordsman inside. This is impossible to siege for civilisations without catapults, and is just a waste of time in general. I can argue that only ranged units  should be able to shoot from the towers, since the swordman only carries a sword, how does it shoot?

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 minutes ago, Helicity said:

This is not a matter of logic but an act to counter turtling. Some players spam towers and fortresses in their base then hide swordsman inside. This is impossible to siege for civilisations without catapults, and is just a waste of time in general. I can argue that only ranged units  should be able to shoot from the towers, since the swordman only carries a sword, how does it shoot?

sorry but no. turtling almost does not exist in 0 A.D.
and we are not going to remove logical coherence just because of that.

and putting a horse in a tower is not logical either.

 

-when soldiers defend a tower it is also an abstraction of other attacks made by infantry, such as throwing rocks or boiling oil.

if they hide swordman they mean they are smart.
and it's perfectly logical, besides you can use infantry inside the Rams.

it's not going to accommodate personal preferences. not without a strong logical-gameplay argument.

it's not going to accommodate personal preferences. not without a strong logical-gameplay argument.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Just now, Lion.Kanzen said:

civilisations without catapults,

sword infantry and cavalry can also finish them off.

 

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

is just a waste of time in general.

that's what turtle tactics is all about, if you can't take them there is a button to give up or you can think about using another tactic.

the way to balance the game is not by removing or banning things.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I can already imagine the memes making fun of our game.

[borg-]

I agree with the opinion @Leão.Kanzen

[causative]

Quote

Some players spam towers and fortresses in their base then hide swordsman inside. This is impossible to siege for civilisations without catapults

You just need to have a lot of your own units guarding several rams. Then the swordsmen will die before they can kill all the rams.

Edited April 18, 2023 by causative

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@Helicity it’s also possible to repair rams in the middle of the fight, get ram damage upgrade and hack armor upgrade. Pikemen are great for repairing rams because their damage contribution is negligible, so anything else they can do while tanking damage is quite significant.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

If you want to alleviate "turtleing", which does exist and can be a little annoying although not hugely problematic, directly address the problem:

• slightly increase ram hack armor.
• change building arrows behavior and/or damage.

just addressing the symptoms as you have suggested would result in inconsistencies and further problems.

[Yekaterina]

Very well, I drop the not allowing garrisoning sword proposal.

But, what about the rider tying his horse under the tower while he climbs up a tower? Surely there isn't anything illogical about that?

@BreakfastBurrito_007 @real_tabasco_sauce

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Horses garrisoning in barracks and infantry garrisoning in stables isn’t illogical, but I feel somewhat indifferent about the gameplay effect.

As for horses in towers: op

towers would be easily captured by horses who could then garrison to deny resources in an enemy base.

[Atrik]

38 minutes ago, Helicity said:

But, what about the rider tying his horse under the tower while he climbs up a tower? Surely there isn't anything illogical about that?

But then can the horses be killed? The garrisoned cavalry would become it's infantry equivalent? (trolling)

Edited April 18, 2023 by Atrik

[Lion.Kanzen]

38 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Horses garrisoning in barracks and infantry garrisoning in stables isn’t illogical, but I feel somewhat indifferent about the gameplay effect.

that isn't what I affirm. I affirm the towers and the soldiers matter. The barracks and horses is more affordable.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

57 minutes ago, Helicity said:

But, what about the rider tying his horse under the tower while he climbs up a tower? Surely there isn't anything illogical about that?

In real life cavalry did not participate in sieges, they could kill you or steal your horse according to this logic.

 

It was impractical, the major combat happened with infantry and soldiers armed with missiles.

[Lion.Kanzen]

 I recommend reading Flavius Josephus and the siege of Jerusalem.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[Gurken Khan]

52 minutes ago, Atrik said:

But then can the horses be killed?

I feel it's unfair that cav can't get their horsies into the towers while traders can take their animals inside.

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I feel it's unfair that cav can't get their horsies into the towers while traders can take their animals inside.

imagine horses climbing stairs and ladders.

[Yekaterina]

What about: let the riders stay inside towers, then let the horses be tied onto the tower below. The enemy can choose to shoot the horses. If their horse dies, the rider becomes an infantry.

[Grautvornix]

My personal preference would indeed be to let only infantry man towers and fortresses. Ranged infantry could possibly provide an additional arrow bonus if that is not too complicated too implement.

I would also tend to basically garrison infantery in barracks and cavalry in stables - nothing wrong with that I believe.

However - I like your idea to separate rider from horses! This could also be an interesting complication to the game :

- corrals (!) could train horses
- barracks train infanterymen
--> garrisoning horses and infanterymen in stables could train cavalry of the respective type (range, spear, sword etc.)

I am aware this would be a major change to game mechanics, add more micro management, and will most likely turn out to be quite complex to implement. It could however add another dimension in game economy (like in the early settlers games, sorry my background). Just  dreaming a bit...

Best regards,
Grautvornix

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, Helicity said:

What about: let the riders stay inside towers, then let the horses be tied onto the tower below. The enemy can choose to shoot the horses. If their horse dies, the rider becomes an infantry.

Ways to complicate the gameplay.

The work of the developers.

I know these ideas about, 2 alphas and returns everything as before.

[AIEND]

All I can agree with is your first point. It is true that cavalry could be quartered in infantry barracks and infantry in cavalry barracks as there was plenty of room for both.

[alre]

on both what? are we still talking about a fictionous ancient world were barracks were a thing?

ok so these "barracks" had room for horses. nice.

[borg-]

17 hours ago, Helicity said:

What about: let the riders stay inside towers, then let the horses be tied onto the tower below. The enemy can choose to shoot the horses. If their horse dies, the rider becomes an infantry.

Adds a lot of unnecessary complexity

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 19/04/2023 at 4:00 AM, alre said:

on both what? are we still talking about a fictionous ancient world were barracks were a thing?

ok so these "barracks" had room for horses. nice.

For most civs, you're right, but the Romans did have barracks an they had areas for both infantry and cavalry. But if folks want "realism" then it stands to reason that any unit except elephants and siege should be able to "fit" into any building. Just something to consider.