Countdown to 268 B.C. v1.98 for WARBAND (updated 6/3)
- Thread starter ealabor
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
ultimaratioregum
Veteran
some thoughts-
how about adding region-specific horse types to the units? for example, the britons get crappy, low-hp horses(as I understand it, the crappiness of their horses is what led them to use chariots), whereas steppe peoples get a light(archer) and heavy(armored) horse. Slightly lower charges, higher speed and maneuverability than native, higher hp(to simulate the vast endurance advantage). Nabateans, nubian cavalry and high tier ptolemaic/seleucids can have arabian horses(extremely high quality breed even today)
Europe- I don't think gallic cavalry was anything to write home about. I see plenty of mention of them used as auxiliaries, but never anything about them making any decisive difference.
Germans, however, are mentioned by caesar as having very high quality horsemen, and I believe german cavalry were often used as personal bodyguards. the colder climate would favor larger horses.
italy- roman cavalry were the redheaded stepchildren of the ancient world. Give them crappy horses. If roman players want good cavalry, they can hire mercenaries, just like the real ones did.
Spain- we associate modern spain with good horses, but does this predate the moorish introduction of the arabian? beats me.
as for the greeks, I assume horses of any decent quality were expensive and rare, seeing as the territory is unsuitable and even lords fought on foot.
macedon- obviously phillip and alexander had good melee cavalry, although I'm not sure where their horses came from. I'd assume from well abroad
how about adding region-specific horse types to the units? for example, the britons get crappy, low-hp horses(as I understand it, the crappiness of their horses is what led them to use chariots), whereas steppe peoples get a light(archer) and heavy(armored) horse. Slightly lower charges, higher speed and maneuverability than native, higher hp(to simulate the vast endurance advantage). Nabateans, nubian cavalry and high tier ptolemaic/seleucids can have arabian horses(extremely high quality breed even today)
Europe- I don't think gallic cavalry was anything to write home about. I see plenty of mention of them used as auxiliaries, but never anything about them making any decisive difference.
Germans, however, are mentioned by caesar as having very high quality horsemen, and I believe german cavalry were often used as personal bodyguards. the colder climate would favor larger horses.
italy- roman cavalry were the redheaded stepchildren of the ancient world. Give them crappy horses. If roman players want good cavalry, they can hire mercenaries, just like the real ones did.
Spain- we associate modern spain with good horses, but does this predate the moorish introduction of the arabian? beats me.
as for the greeks, I assume horses of any decent quality were expensive and rare, seeing as the territory is unsuitable and even lords fought on foot.
macedon- obviously phillip and alexander had good melee cavalry, although I'm not sure where their horses came from. I'd assume from well abroad
ultimaratioregum
Veteran
huh. nothing I've read on hannibal singled out anyone as being decisive aside from the rearmed african infantry and the numidian cavalry.
ultimaratioregum said:
You must have read about a different Cannae then, because it was the Iberian heavy cavalry which punched through on the Roman right side, swung around and destroyed the Roman leftside, thereby freeing up the Numidians to join them in pinning the Roman rear.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html
- Status
