[Developer Diary 1] 2.0 Sneak Peak: Rhodok Troop Tree

Users who are viewing this thread

Geredis

Squire
As Possut promised HERE, we have for you all today a sneak preview of the troop trees we are working on.

Today, we will be explaining the Rhodok's tree.  The Rhodoks, as we all know, excel as infantry, with their strong spears and crossbows in Vanilla.  This will not change: the new Rhodok armies will be packed with polearms and ranged weapons of all flavours.  Spearmen will remain the core of the army, with the majority of the Rhodok's depth in the unit trees coming from spears, pikes, and halberds.  Crossbows, and later muskets, will make up the core of the Rhodok's missile forces, though they do have skilled skirmishers, guerillas, and even longbows which they use to great effect, if one chooses to invest the time and money into training the, as they are deep in the skirmisher tree.

Rhodok cavalry,  however, are now more than a token mercenary force, spawned as they are from swordsmen, whom have a predictably shallow tree of their own to work with.  The basic Rhodok cavalry unit is the Scout, to be used as a fire-and-forget unit, as it were, sent charging across the battlefield to engage the enemy's cavalry in a bid to buy time for the Rhodok infantry formation and heavier cavalry to settle into an appropriate position while on the defense.  On the assault, these Scouts are useful to harry an enemy's flanks as the infantry advance under the cover of bows and crossbows, the pikes and spears pushing the enemy back as halberds amongst the ranks do the real killing.

Of course, Scouts aren't the only Rhodok cavalry unit.  There is also a traditional knight tree, clad in full plate and carrying a lance with which to charge an enemy.  These knights later evolve into either the Cuirassier, a heavily armourd horseman that does away with the lance in favour of the sword and a brace of pistols to be used during the charge.There is also the Demi-lancer, who keeps the knight's lance but does away with much of his armour, preferring to wear an open helmet and a half-plate armour, where the thick metal covers only the rider's torso.  Each have their place in the battlefield, with the Cuirassier best used in a charge against infantry where their two pistols can break a hole in the enemy lines which their swords and bulky horses can easily exploit.  The Demi-lancer, on the other hand is ideal for a counter-charge against enemy horsemen, their lances and armour making them an ideal anti-cavalry force.  It should be noted that aside from a Demi-lancer's lack of personal armour, unlike the Cuirassier and Knight, his horse is likewise vulnerable, emphasizing speed.

The Rhodoks, aside from their heavy cavalry line that stems from the Scout, also have a Light Cavalry line that does likewise, intended to supplement and carry out many of the same roles of the Scouts.  These Light Cavalry can be upgraded into either the Caracole Cavalry, pistol-armed cavaliers wearing breastplates and carrying pistols that are ideal for mixing in with the Demi-lancer to add a bit of firepower to the charge.  These pistoleers differ from the Cuirassiers in that Cuirassiers carry just their two pistols and their swords: absolutely no spare shot, once a Cuirassier's pistols are discharged, they have only cold steel to rely on; the Caracole cavalry are designed to ride towards the enemy, discharge their pistols, and constantly whirl and circle around the enemy formation, firing their pistols at them at close range.  These Caracoles, themselves powerful enough, can be side-graded into the matchlock-wielding Dragoon.  They are even lightly armoured than the Caracole, primarily in just a cuirass and helmet, and while they can be used as cavalry, they cannot fire their firearms while on horseback, and thus are designed to be an elite mounted light infantry reserve, kept in the rear and rushed to a trouble-spot before dismounting and fighting as infantry.  When the fire is put out, they can mount up and either advance to the next trouble spot, or run down the enemy as light cavalry.

Rhodok crossbowmen will be divided into two types: "Light" and "Heavy."  The "Light" crossbowmen go into battle lightly armoured in leather,
carrying a shield which they can use to set up a defensive position with.  The "Heavy" crossbowmen do away with the shield, preferring instead to use heavier crossbows with even more power.  These are also, predictably, somewhat better armoured, wearing either chain mail or a plate cuirass for protection.  A Heavy Crossbowman can be upgraded into the Arbalester, who in addition to being well armoured is ideal for both taking and defending in sieges, carrying the most powerful versions of the crossbow.

The "Light" crossbows can be upgraded after a while into gunpowder-wielding units.  However, these handgunners, carrying incredibly inaccurate hand cannons on long poles, are novelty weapons at best until they gain sufficient experience that they are upgraded and can use matchlocks.  These guns are easier to aim and far more powerful than the hand cannons used by handgunners.
 
Ohh, a developer diary? Fancy! :grin:
Dual pistols? :O

Good read, I just can't wait for the final release of this mods... But I guess I'll have to try.
 
NaimaR said:
Ohh, a developer diary? Fancy! :grin:
Dual pistols? :O

Good read, I just can't wait for the final release of this mods... But I guess I'll have to try.

I don't think it was meant as "dual wielding pistols", I think it was meant as having 2 pistols loaded, though no spare shots, so they can shoot while charging in and when in the thick of battle being out of shots and then using their melee weapon.

Anyway for OP

Sounds good, quite interesting.
 
How would that work though? Can you actually make guns that work without having a stack of bullets in your weapon slots?
Or will they just give them a stack of 2 bullets?
 
There proppably should be little more information about Rhodoks melee infantry.

Few words about cavarly.
If  we talking about 16th century (in 17th century only polish winged hussars used heavy lance) , then both Cuirassier and Demi-lancer were melee oriented heavy cavarly wearing  three-quarter or half-armour mounted on unarmoured horses, the main diffrence was armament (pair of pistols for Cuirassier and heavy lance for Demi-lancer).
IMHO there shouldnt be difference in arrmor and horse bettween Cuirassiers and Demi-lancers.

About  caracole,  the caracole tactics wasnt about "whirl and circle around ", instead it  was deep organized  formation,  with cavarlymen firing pistols in ranks.
The Pistoleers and Caracole Cavalry should differ form other cavalry only by using guns as primary weapons (much better firearm skill) , and  probably better gunpowder equipment (for example arquebus ot harquebus instead of pistol).

About the "absolutely no spare shot" , IMHO until the heavy lance is not brokable, then there is no sense in making single use pistols. If we were able to make couch heavy lance brokable (one use only) then for balance reasons we could make "one discharge" pistols.

 
NaimaR said:
How would that work though? Can you actually make guns that work without having a stack of bullets in your weapon slots?
Or will they just give them a stack of 2 bullets?

The guns are loaded with bullets when ya spawn, so for the "one shot per gun" deal, just not adding bullets and that's handled.
 
Waldzios said:
There proppably should be little more information about Rhodoks melee infantry.

More shall be coming on those in time.  This is just a teaser and overview.  Further diaries, aside from offering more insight to the unit trees of other kingdoms, will also look more in depth eventually at each unit type.

Few words about cavarly.
If  we talking about 16th century (in 17th century only polish winged hussars used heavy lance) , then both Cuirassier and Demi-lancer were melee oriented heavy cavarly wearing  three-quarter or half-armour mounted on unarmoured horses, the main diffrence was armament (pair of pistols for Cuirassier and heavy lance for Demi-lancer).
IMHO there shouldnt be difference in arrmor and horse bettween Cuirassiers and Demi-lancers.

We have a difference between the demi-lancer and cuirassiers armour and horse for two reasons.  In my research, I have found that there was a rather noticeable difference in regards to the level of personal armour worn, with cuirassiers favouring personal protection.  The matter of the horses, perhaps can and will change: we shall see about that, but I think we're misunderstanding each other when it comes to the term "armour" here.  Demi-lancers will have horses that are completely unbarded in any way.  The Cuirassier will ride in on horses that are less barded than a knight's, perhaps a plate for its head and a plate for its breast.  The fully barded Gothic plate warhorse will not be present except in the form of the aging feudal knights, which will factor in, but more heavily in the Swadian unit tree.  Aside though from the research, this is a game, and sometimes thigns need to be sacrificed for that.  In this case, and this is a lesser reason than the one I've mentioned, armoured horses offer another distinction between the Demi-lancer and Cuirassier from a distance when it can be difficult to distinguish between half, three quarters, and full plate.

About  caracole,  the caracole tactics wasnt about "whirl and circle around ", instead it  was deep organized  formation,  with cavarlymen firing pistols in ranks.
The Pistoleers and Caracole Cavalry should differ form other cavalry only by using guns as primary weapons (much better firearm skill) , and  probably better gunpowder equipment (for example arquebus ot harquebus instead of pistol).

Some things have to be sacrificed at the expense of game mechanics, and the orderly charge-shot-fan-reform pattern is just almost impossible to model appropriately in M&B at the moment.  That, I suppose, begs the question of why to even bother separating cuirassiers and caracole cavalry, and you hit it right on teh nose: these pistoleers have an excellent firearms skill, a bag of shot, and their swords are very much secondary weapons at best.

About the "absolutely no spare shot" , IMHO until the heavy lance is not brokable, then there is no sense in making single use pistols. If we were able to make couch heavy lance brokable (one use only) then for balance reasons we could make "one discharge" pistols.

Just because lances aren't breakable is not an excuse to give the Cuirassier and similar shot-armed shock cavalry units an unlimited amount of firepower, which is what a bag of shot essentially does since battles rarely last long enough in my opinion to make ammunition a factor, unless you're defending at a siege.
 
Aside though from the research, this is a game, and sometimes thigns need to be sacrificed for that.  In this case, and this is a lesser reason than the one I've mentioned, armoured horses offer another distinction between the Demi-lancer and Cuirassier from a distance when it can be difficult to distinguish between half, three quarters, and full plate.

I understand the research part , historically looking its possible to find many variants of demi-lancers and especially currasiers, but its hard to find comparable examples form the same region and time span.

But remember that in game realms these are 2 units form the same nation, probably the same tier level too, so IMHO it will by natural that as two version of modern (in game realms) , professional heavy cavalry, from same military tradition, they should share some equipment and tactic concepts.

Just because lances aren't breakable is not an excuse to give the Cuirassier and similar shot-armed shock cavalry units an unlimited amount of firepower, which is what a bag of shot essentially does since battles rarely last long enough in my opinion to make ammunition a factor, unless you're defending at a siege.

The unlimited amount of firepower would be bad (i though about amount of shots comparable with throwing weapons), 
but cant really see how in terms of game mechanics will be possible to make one-shot pistol any effective,
i mentioned lances because  the one-shot breakable lances will still have some one-hit one-kill possibilities, 
one-shot pistol would need some serious script changes  to force AI troops to  shot in really close range and achieve some hits.
 
Or you could just give it 100 accuracy, 200 damage and the ability to penetrate shields?
... But then, what would happen if a player got his/her hands one one of those guns, and combined it with a pouch of 31 bullets?
 
Waldzios said:
The unlimited amount of firepower would be bad (i though about amount of shots comparable with throwing weapons), 
but cant really see how in terms of game mechanics will be possible to make one-shot pistol any effective,
i mentioned lances because  the one-shot breakable lances will still have some one-hit one-kill possibilities, 
one-shot pistol would need some serious script changes  to force AI troops to  shot in really close range and achieve some hits.

That's true, but in my experience, if you give a gun a low enough accuracy rating, they do close to very close ranges before firing.  And when it comes to lances, well, they basically are one-use weapons and may as well break given the fact that most AI cavalry don't retreat then recharge, and lances are useless due to their length in the melee.

Now, as to regularizing the appearances, in keeping with everything, I'll try to find some contemporary pieces, but my examples so far have been mostly Armada period (late 16th Century), and there's still been a rather noticeable difference in personal armour between the demi-lancer and cuirassier.  And as I said, the use of armour on horses is as much a cosmetic way to recognize things at long ranges as anything else.
 
Waldzios said:
Snip IMHO until the heavy lance is not brokable, then there is no sense in making single use pistols. If we were able to make couch heavy lance brokable (one use only) then for balance reasons we could make "one discharge" pistols.

Your thinking of Tournament Lances not war/battle ones, if you think a lance broke on impact (the whole point of them breaking is to reduce damage inflicted, the opposite of what you want in a battle).
It is true though that lances where only really used in the first change, but that don't mean that it was only used vs 1 guy per battle.
 
Your thinking of Tournament Lances not war/battle ones, if you think a lance broke on impact (the whole point of them breaking is to reduce damage inflicted, the opposite of what you want in a battle).
It is true though that lances where only really used in the first change, but that don't mean that it was only used vs 1 guy per battle.

I know there really was differences between jousting (made for effective, very visual crushing on contestants shields)  and war lances (the knight ones) , but not as big in conception of use, both were breakable.

The lancer, using stirrups, in relatively heavy armor, charging (gallop) heavy horse (sometimes heavy armored) ,  hitting enemy with few meters long wooden stick,  the lance have to broke if the lancer have to stay in saddle  (its just physics :smile:), there is no other way.

The lancers in battle where able to charge few times, but only after returning on positions and taking new lances in place of old ones.

I hate talking in english about lances, there is only one word for "lance", in polish for example then is big difference between words "lanca" and "kopia". 
The lance as "lanca" or light lance in game is spear-like weapon, able of trusting and limited fencing, but not realy make for couching.
The lanca  as "Kopia" or great lance in game, is long (even 5,5m long (about 19foot)) , one use only,  thrusting only  ,couchable polearm weapon.

 
Waldzios said:
Your thinking of Tournament Lances not war/battle ones, if you think a lance broke on impact (the whole point of them breaking is to reduce damage inflicted, the opposite of what you want in a battle).
It is true though that lances where only really used in the first change, but that don't mean that it was only used vs 1 guy per battle.

I know there really was differences between jousting (made for effective, very visual crushing on contestants shields)  and war lances (the knight ones) , but not as big in conception of use, both were breakable.

The lancer, using stirrups, in relatively heavy armor, charging (gallop) heavy horse (sometimes heavy armored) ,  hitting enemy with few meters long wooden stick,  the lance have to broke if the lancer have to stay in saddle  (its just physics :smile:), there is no other way.

The lancers in battle where able to charge few times, but only after returning on positions and taking new lances in place of old ones.

I hate talking in english about lances, there is only one word for "lance", in polish for example then is big difference between words "lanca" and "kopia". 
The lance as "lanca" or light lance in game is spear-like weapon, able of trusting and limited fencing, but not realy make for couching.
The lanca  as "Kopia" or great lance in game, is long (even 5,5m long (about 19foot)) , one use only,  thrusting only  ,couchable polearm weapon.
I never really looked at it from that prospective. I just love that lanced damage :grin:
I'll take a look at the code and see if I can't assign lances 'hp' so they break after so many hits(more than one.. because well. I would be pissed if my lance broke after one use) But i'll look into it and see what i can do. :smile:
 
doc82nd said:
Waldzios said:
Your thinking of Tournament Lances not war/battle ones, if you think a lance broke on impact (the whole point of them breaking is to reduce damage inflicted, the opposite of what you want in a battle).
It is true though that lances where only really used in the first change, but that don't mean that it was only used vs 1 guy per battle.

I know there really was differences between jousting (made for effective, very visual crushing on contestants shields)  and war lances (the knight ones) , but not as big in conception of use, both were breakable.

The lancer, using stirrups, in relatively heavy armor, charging (gallop) heavy horse (sometimes heavy armored) ,  hitting enemy with few meters long wooden stick,  the lance have to broke if the lancer have to stay in saddle  (its just physics :smile:), there is no other way.

The lancers in battle where able to charge few times, but only after returning on positions and taking new lances in place of old ones.

I hate talking in english about lances, there is only one word for "lance", in polish for example then is big difference between words "lanca" and "kopia". 
The lance as "lanca" or light lance in game is spear-like weapon, able of trusting and limited fencing, but not realy make for couching.
The lanca  as "Kopia" or great lance in game, is long (even 5,5m long (about 19foot)) , one use only,  thrusting only  ,couchable polearm weapon.
I never really looked at it from that prospective. I just love that lanced damage :grin:
I'll take a look at the code and see if I can't assign lances 'hp' so they break after so many hits(more than one.. because well. I would be pissed if my lance broke after one use) But i'll look into it and see what i can do. :smile:
Well be careful with that, because if you think about it, it would be really annoying to be stabbing a punch of unarmored peasants and then have your only weapon besides your crossbow break. (which you used up all your bolts killing the other calvalry)
He is right about the tournament lances, they were meant to break on impact, but actual "lances" that were used for real combat were no toys that broke, unless maybe you were to hit a really solid shield at a bad angle, and even then just think of the force behind a several hundred pound animal running at lets say 30MPH could easy pierce a shield.
 
Ehm, well, even if the "real" lance never broke (which it, you know, did); if the lancer hit their target and actually pierced a human body... are you telling me that they magically yanked it out and retrieved it while moving lots of mphs on the horsie?

Physics sort of dictates that they had to let go of the lance unless they wanted to stop while the horse and saddle kept moving (with a lot of unpleasant consequences to follow).

To be honest, once you hit (code it to be lost after one-two kills or something) with a couched lance, it should be spent, period. If you stab with it, or a lighter lance/spear, it would obviously not break often or at all.
 
The Profileth said:
He is right about the tournament lances, they were meant to break on impact, but actual "lances" that were used for real combat were no toys that broke, unless maybe you were to hit a really solid shield at a bad angle, and even then just think of the force behind a several hundred pound animal running at lets say 30MPH could easy pierce a shield.

Hehe, lets assume the lance not splintered.
It will no doubt  pierce a shield and even the one that hold it, but what then,
even if the hands of lancer arent broken :smile:  (Newton's third law of motion) and he isnt pole vaulting :smile: , how he is going get the lance from impaled body, will he ride forward with the body on lance (some kind of bloody shish kebab) or he find time to stop horse and try get lance back. 
Then even if nothing of this happen, what to hell the lance after the initial charge can be used to, its to long and heavy, only way is to drop it and use secondary weapon.

Daergarz said:
To be honest, once you hit (code it to be lost after one-two kills or something) with a couched lance, it should be spent, period. If you stab with it, or a lighter lance/spear, it would obviously not break often or at all.

Exactly :smile:
 
Yes they would probably get stuck in the people and yes they did break, but that was NOT my point my point was that if you are trying to use a lance against unarmored peasants and lets say they are running away from you, then when you stab them in the back the lance should not break, that was my main issue, because most calvary used swords or other weapons to fight on horseback after the first initial charge because as you said lances were not meant for long term fighting specially with the amount of weight they must of had.
(also you mentioned neutons 3rd law, but that would only break his hand if he was hitting a brick wall, if he is hitting a moveable object such as a person then the 2nd law is the most fitting )
Newton's Second Law of Motion:
The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
 
The Profileth said:
if you are trying to use a lance against unarmored peasants and lets say they are running away from you,
Unarmored peasant running 30mph, scary little one :smile:, IMHO the knight lance was to expensive to use it against some running peasants

The Profileth said:
then when you stab them in the back the lance should not break
No one talking about stabbing in back, yes lance should not break after some stabbing or something like this, but we talking about charge with couched lance.
You probably not talking about knight lance, your theories are  true for later (18th-20th century light lance), or some ancient over-head trusting lances,
but with the knight lance you weren't able to do much fencing (stabbing and other tricks), you keep it couched under you arm and ride straight to enemy positions in full gallop.

The Profileth said:
(also you mentioned neutons 3rd law, but that would only break his hand if he was hitting a brick wall, if he is hitting a moveable object such as a person then the 2nd law is the most fitting )
Dont understand, you suggesting that physics laws of motion  apply only to walls :grin: , not to moving objects?
 
Couched lances should "break" after one use, because I don't believe that they would break since they were a knights weapon and were well made to break so easily, but it would get stuck after you impaled someone, but the spears shouldn't break. So if you really want to you could have a lance and spear combo, I ofcourse am alright with the awlpike which is my first and primary weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom