Horses

[Fred187]

Just an idea that came to me, I don't know what you guys think, but I'm pretty sure this has never been done before; what if horses where to be considered seperate to their riders? So, when one dies, the other can still live on (the rider would lose some health when their horse died due to it collapsing on them). So, if a rider survives the death of his horse, he can fight on foot, or find a new mount. If the horse survives and it's rider, it would become sort of wild, but wouldn;t attack, or run away from people. And, rather than hunting it, any foot soldier would have the ability to mount it (irrespective of team). When "wild", the horse might wonder about a little, but not very quickly, or very far. There could maybe be a similar system for artillery pieces, by which the artillery/seige weapon can be destroyed seperately from it's crew (and vice versa) then they can fight, or crew another piece. What d'you guys all think?

[Mythos_Ruler]

"Sparta: Ancient Wars" does something like this. Usually a cavalryman is killed, but his horse lives and you can then place an infantryman on the captured horse. I dont think we'll be doing things like that for 0 A.D. Such a feature is better for RPGs and such games, whereas we want to focus on mass battles and skirmishes.

[Fred187]

I didn't know it had been done before. Was it any good? It should be possible to do without really detracting from the pace of battles. I can see that it might be difficult to implement well, and you're all obviously busy with other, more important things. Do you thing this could go on a "future possibilities" list, or can you not really see it working?

[Aeros]

As most things like this that you've always wondered about, its neat, but not as cool as you'd think, and after seeing it done half a dozen times you don't care anymore

I do however like nifty little delves into realism like this and if its plausible would consider them for the campaign, I think its great to be able to have units mount and dismount and aside from an animation it doesn't take much more work than that.

[Marcus Marius]

It would not be realistic to see a roman swordman who never be on a horse become a great cavalryman.

[Condundrum]

I think its a good idea... I've thought about this one myself. I think it would be easy to add in, as long as you didn't over-complicate it with a hundred "what ifs" ...

I think if you simply had it so that if a horse is killed first, then the rider is thrown and suffers some sort of health loss. If the rider is killed first then just simply have the horse run around losing health until it dies. (maybe it could cause injury to units it comes into contact with)

I think doing it that was adds that slight bit more realism without over complicating, having the horse die removes worrying about having other units mount it etc, but adds to the game by creating a real, unpredictable atmosphere to battles. It would be frustrating having some of your own units trampled by a horse going mad, but may make u think more tactically about where you send cavalry.

Also I like the idea of the horse automatically losing health and dieing because then you wont end up with a stack of horses running around - which would be pointless.

Okay I just wrote way too much for that =P

[Apomonomenos]

I think this would be a good idea, but in a different way.

There will be wild horses, and Stabled horses. Each civ. starts out with 1 Mare and 2 Stallions, and there will be other wild horses that can be captured by Villagers and brought back to the nearest or tasked stable. Each horse will have a certain amount of speed, hit-points, Armor rating rating etc. and after researching "husbandry", all horses born in captivity will have better stats (according to parentage, so players can do selective breeding or have a button on which horses to breed so not to waist to much time: Example, there are two stables and a player wants one stable to have fast horses and another to have strong horses, so he clicks a button on the stable selection screen and all horses that have the best in what ever i needed will go to that certain stable. Example for that, villagers get a herd of horses and most are fast so most of them will go to the stable designed for fast horses without the player having to do anything. This can also apply for training soldiers, which type of soldier to train). After researching Husbandry, players will be able to go to an Armory and research Horseshoes and Chain Barding Armor, such as other armor for soldiers.

[Belisarivs]

Although I like your idea, it simply doesn't fit here. You are attempting to make Settlers from this game.

Please understand, its emphasis lies in military so much, that they put immense amount of work into research of military of that age. I've never seen such accuracy in commercial projects. Even RTW sucks compared to 0AD of it comes to realism of units composition.

Its planned to be AoK style military RTS. Player will not bother with selecting mares and stallions and breeding them when enemy is upon him.

While it would be cool to have larger horses for heavy cavalry and mares for light, representing fact, that stallion is stronger to carry armour and armed rider while mares were cheaper and perhaps faster, it isn't hood idea to put in too much micromanagement into game.

Especially for multiplayer when victory depends on quickness, strong economy and cunning tactics and such micromanagement would draw too much attention.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yeah, too much micro with Alex's idea. However, we do have gaia horses and some civs can capture horses and corral them, giving cavalry bonuses, much like a "relic" from the "Age of..." series, specifically like "Age of Mythology". We liked the "relic" gameplay feature, but implemented it into the game design in a way to better represent historical fact.

[Justinian]

@ Belisarius: Isn't one of RTW's criticisms that it was so inaccurate.

@ Mythos : It sounds alot like RoN, where horses are a strategic resource, a bonus if you will, and having them made your cavalry tougher (I think). It also gave you food and gold but I like the bonuses more.

[Belisarivs]

Yes. Whole Total War series are cursed by inaccuracy.

See Rome: Total Realism mods and so. Also MTW2 needs some Realism mod terribly. Until then I don't find it worth playing.

[Thijs_Razor]

For barbarian factions like the Germanic tribes it would be a nice feature to capture horses or just dismount to fight on foot. Germanics much preferred fighting on foot rather than fighting on horseback. The horses were primarily used to ride to a battle and to do raids or simply put: horses were used for their mobility.

Just my input...

[Belisarivs]

I've read, that Germanic cavalry was of good quality. Caesar himself preferred to hire them rather than Gallic cavalry.

I wouldn't put in capturing horses. Making it into game would cause delay of release of 0AD.

I think same about dismounting, but it would be cooler feature. So I'm not against it.

However, how would it work? Could they remount again? I think, that after dismounting they let their horses to run away and so couldn't mount again.

If they could remount, it would be same as capturing horses (technically), so I would (actually, developers would, but I'm speaking for myself) have to be for both features or against them. Hm, then I would be against them as I can't wait for 0AD to be released.

[Thijs_Razor]

Hmmmm I recall the same thing, but I really don't know why, because Germanics were heavily infantry oriented. Perhaps Caesar preferred German cavalry because they were more fierce than the 'femine' and soft(er) Gauls?

However I do recall that they rode on 'mere ponies', and thus they would've been light cavalry meaning mobility.

Still it's an option to include dismounting/capturing horses or not. Of course the horses shoudn't be running away after dismounting. I dunno how long it's gonna take for the game to be released...

Edited April 24, 2008 by Thijs_Razor

[Justinian]

Maybe it's time to start thinking about 0AD pt.2.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Sure man. Make a thread about Part 2 and we'll be glad to talk ideas.

[Thijs_Razor]

Great idea, one question though

Will part two really be 0-500 a.d.?

I'm asking this because the early empire is totally different from the late empire in appearance of Roman and barbarian units etc.

Perhaps dividing it into 0-300 and 300-500 would be more suitable?

Okay heavily off-topic btw

[Apomonomenos]

I screwed my idea with too much info, but maybe we could have a mare stable and a stalion stable, mares make scouts because they run fast, but don't have much hitpoints and stalions can make heavy cavelry because they can hold heavier armor.

But that still seems too much for just the same unit type.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Great idea, one question though

Will part two really be 0-500 a.d.?

I'm asking this because the early empire is totally different from the late empire in appearance of Roman and barbarian units etc.

Perhaps dividing it into 0-300 and 300-500 would be more suitable?

Okay heavily off-topic btw

Here's a little tidbit for Part 2. This is extremely tentative, since planning for Part 2 is only in its extreme early stages - real planning for Part 2 will begin in earnest after release of Part 1. But, anywho, we plan on having two Roman factions for Part 2: Western Imperial Romans, which will take us up to Constantine and will include the stereotypical "Roman Legionnaire", and the Eastern Imperial Romans, which will cover the early Eastern Empire and late Romans with which comes all the chainmail and barbarian influences.

[Apomonomenos]

Maybe you should work on Part I and then add part II after Part I's done. Then the game will be done faster, and with the fans busy playing the team can work on Part II.

[Mythos_Ruler]

lol... That's the plan, m8.

[Apomonomenos]

So will there be two types of stables or one or varies from faction to faction etc.?

[Justinian]

Pardon?

[Caesar]

Nice thoughts, but in all honesty does anyone here really want to be fretting about which horses to breed when the enemy army is slaughtering your villagers and decimating your army? A lot of the ideas here to improve accuracy are nice, but much of it is impractical and would seriously interfere with gameplay. If many of these things were put into the game players would be so beset by many minor matters that they wont be able to focus on military strategy which is what this game is really about. You cannot combine RTS, RPG and City-building into a single game.

[Kimball]

I agree. Micromanagement can only go so far, even in an RPG. Like if you forget to brush your teeth they'll rot and you'll always have mouth pain. More realistic, yes, but terrible for gameplay.