Rename the types of horses for historical accuracy

[HangingDragon]

I notice some historical names are used for the types of horses, such as Sumpter, Courser and Charger. There are a few other names as well taken from English history. Here's a list:

Sumpter - You have this one. A Sumpter is basically a sturdy pack horse and no real knight would ride one in battle.

Palfry - A ladies horse really. Trained to have an easy gait so it was favoured by wounded knights while travelling. However it has no combat training and is not much good in a fight.

Rouncy - The basic knights riding horse. Lighter and faster than the heavy set chargers, the Rouncy was generally combat trained and often used by mounted warriors who were not stricktly knights.

Charger - Already included in the game. The Charger was a true knight's horse. Heavy set and good for a lance charge. Andelusian (sp?) chargers were most favoured.

Courser - Already included. Used by knights for hunting and highly prized, especially the Irish Coursers. Fast and easy to turn. Basic combat training but primarily a hunting horse.

Destrider - An uber-charger. The destrider are massive versions of the more common Charger. Favoured by knights who could afford the high pricetag as it could smash aside lesser horses like the Rouncy

Nag - Basically a useless horse. I guess the Swaybacked version of the horses covers nags well enough.

Oh, you have already included the Steppes horses which is cool.

The game has such a nice historical feel it would be great to see the old terms in use.

 

[jackyjkchan]

agreed

 

[The Pope]

If this kind of thing is being put in nomad sabres probably should be renamed to yatagahns.

 

[Maelstorm]

Considering that the game doesnt take place in real-world, it is not really necessary to do this imho.

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Aren't palfreys & rouncies just light & heavy saddle horses?

 

[HangingDragon]

Aren't palfreys & rouncies just light & heavy saddle horses?

No, not really. It comes back to their training. A Palfry is useless in a battle but a Rouncy will do ok. They are types of Saddle Horse, but there would be a definate difference in the Armour and Charge ratings.

 

[BobG]

Considering that the game doesnt take place in real-world, it is not really necessary to do this imho.

In my opinion, if you're going to use real terms to refer to these things, then they should be done properly. Someone who knows what a courser is should know what they're getting when they see one in the game. Either that, or all of the names should be fictionalized -- but that makes it harder for players who do know their horses to adapt to the game, so I see no reason to go that far in this case.

Mind you, I don't see any problem with the names already in the game. As the initial poster pointed out, coursers, chargers, sumpters and steppes are already more or less correct in the game. The other horses in the game -- warhorses, hunters and saddle horses -- seem to be just using more generic terms for what those horses are, and that's something that could maybe be improved, but I don't think it would be a disaster if they were left alone either.

 

[Aethelwyn]

It sounds like the suggestion is really to rename the Saddle Horse as Palfry, the War Horse as Destrider, and add one new one -- the Rouncy.

Do I summarise correctly?

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

No, not really. It comes back to their training. A Palfry is useless in a battle but a Rouncy will do ok. They are types of Saddle Horse, but there would be a definate difference in the Armour and Charge ratings.

If the palfrey is "useless in a battle", why does it need to be in the game?

At any rate, couldn't we say the "differences" between palfrey & rouncy are already reflected in the heavy & regular saddle horses? What would be gained by adding new category? Is there such a thing as a heavy palfrey?

As for the Charger & Destrider, isn't that already sort of included? I mean, it sounds like it would be a simple matter of renaming our "War Horse" a "Charger" and letting the current "Charger" be renamed "Destrider". Or is the warhorse a different category altogether?

 

[okiN]

If the palfrey is "useless in a battle", why does it need to be in the game?

Why do sumpters?

 

[BobG]

The way I see it, a horse's suitability for combat is sort of already built into the game, or at least it could be. Ideally of course, a horse not trained for combat would freak out, or do whatever horses do when it's out of its element and a lot of scary people with bright weapons are milling around it shouting. But at the very least, as happens right now, the horse can rear if it runs into an enemy rather than charging through them. That alone would make the horse poorly suited to combat, since as we all know, if your horse gets stopped in the middle of a throng of enemies, you're in trouble, since they all get free shots.

 

[Destichado]

Why do sumpters?

For the same reason the medievals use them -increased travel speed.


I would eliminate the difference between Charger and Destrier, as anything in battle that wasn't a Destrier -especially in late period as they grew rarer and less useful- was a Courser, and the medievals didn't use "charger" when they spoke of horses. That's my only real beef.

Add that rouncys were generally lighter in build and body than coursers (we really ought to switch the courser with the hunter in the game, and call them courser and rouncy instead), and that palfry's were wonderful for anyone who wasn't martial in nature (great lords, the elderly, merchants, priests, some town or county officers) and not *just* women, and we're in agreement.

Nice to see someone else who knows horses and history.