Organized dismount, dismount, unhorse, mount and emergency mount option option

[The Crooked Philosopher]

I wonder is it possible for 0 AD to implement such feature because there's two future faction who have a weak infantry roster?

The key features of organized dismount, dismount, unhorse, mount and emergency mount option:

1. Cavalry (primarily lancer and melee cavalry) receive a large shield and increase of armor.

2. Cavalryman who choose to dismount instead of organized dismount will not receive a shield on the game and armor increase.

3. A hero was the only person who have the authority to consent an organize dismount.

4. A rider receive a slightly higher hit points than any other infantry when dismount.

5. A rider or hero must return to his horse mount in order to mount on horseback.

6. A chariot soldier (except for scythe chariot) or hero ride on chariot like a cavalryman must return to the chariot where he belongs in order ride on chariot.

7. If the rider was killed during a battle, the horse mount remains alive and player was able to sell it on the market for a reasonable price or if the enemy have the horse they could sell it in their market too.

8. Chariots can return to the nearby facility where the designated unit was created and receive a retraining where the chariot receive a soldier but not for certain heroes who ride on chariots.

9. For deceased heroes who died in battle when fighting on foot, their horse mount or chariot should return to the nearby facility where hero training was available as a means to regain the training cost (for example: 40 percent of the training cost) of the deceased heroes, for heroes ride on chariot such action was to eliminate the population burden that player bear. If the enemy captured the horse mount or chariot of the deceased hero and sent to the nearby hero training facility, they could gain the deceased hero's entire training cost multiplied by two. As for player who have captured the enemy's hero horse mount or chariot also gain the enemy's hero entire training cost and multiplied by two where the enemy gains.

10. There a certain percentage where hero or cavalry may unhorsed due to lack of stirrup and fear factor generate by certain creature, for example: elephants, camel (campaign only) as they suffered an unhorse they may loose thirty to forty percent of hit points. A hero who have suffered unhorse should mount on his horse mount as soon as possible to avoid becoming an easy target..

11. If a rider was forced to flee, he could gain the horse mount of his companion or a deceased companion by clicking emergency mount button. If a group of dismounted rider must retreat but lack of horse mount, emergency sharing is a good option but only for temporary until they reach a safe place to dismount the rider who have lost his horse mount. A hero who have lost his horse mount or chariot was able to use the emergency mount and gaining a horse mount to reach safety but it doesn't mean he did not require a replacement horse mount or chariot. A rider could use enemy horse mount too as long as the enemy leaves his horse mount unguarded.

12. If the horse mount or chariot was killed by enemy, the rider and the chariot soldier should go to the nearby facility where training of the designated unit was available (for example: dismounted or unhorsed Hetairos must go to the fortress to receive a replacement horse if the horse mount was killed but he could do it at any player's own fortress as near as possible) to receive a replacement horse or chariot.

Edited May 29, 2012 by The Crooked Philosopher

[feneur]

A separation of rider and horse is very unlikely. Most importantly because it would add unnecessary micromanagement, without adding enough value in turn. Had 0 A.D. been a turn-based game or a war game rather than a war/economy RTS it might have been another thing.

[feneur]

i think the Hero must be only unit that can dismount and mount.

Even less reason to do it imho. Then it would be almost the same amount of work, but just used for a limited number of units.

[feneur]

They count as cavalry heroes

[daudbinbutrus]

A separation of rider and horse is very unlikely. Most importantly because it would add unnecessary micromanagement, without adding enough value in turn. Had 0 A.D. been a turn-based game or a war game rather than a war/economy RTS it might have been another thing.

Agreed! My analysis:

Pros:

Cavalry could help gather.

Cavalry would cost less to replace.

Cons:

Being on the front line, you could get attacked at any moment and be at a huge disadvantage.

Cavalry would essentially become three units in one--horse, footman, and rider

Too much programming

Too many stats to deal with

Too much to manage

Nothing for the horse to do

Too much animation

Too many options

What do you do with a horse now that it's rider is dead?

Why would you want to separate a horse from his faithful friend? It's glorious to go down together

I think the idea of having cavalry perpetually mounted is they are always ready and are fast. You take away their readiness and swiftness, and you got a weak footman and a horse with nothing to do. This game is about preparing for attack/being attacked at the front lines. Having too many soldiers unprepared is a bad idea (not bad if this was more turn-based though).

[feneur]

Yeah, the thing to remember is that this is a game That means that a great many things will not be directly included, but rather symbolized through more abstract things. For example the things The Crooked Philosopher mentioned about capturing horses can be seen in part as symbolized by the loot that you get when enemy units are killed. Directly it might just be an increase of resources, but looking at what it means it includes everything from direct loot (i.e. stuff) to more abstract concepts like capturing horses and sending them home and quipping them again and putting units on them etc. you could of course abstract things even more and just have statistics, but that would not be a fun game Generally speaking, of course there are people who enjoy statistics and numbers as well I do think RTS is a good middle ground between the number crunching/knowledge heavy strategy games and tactics games (and further on action/adventure/FPS games) in that there's room both for thinking and action. It does mean that it's probably the genre where people disagree the most about how in-depth things should be though