[Suggestion]Changes to Rhodok and Nord cavalry

[Moss]

I've yet to see a dedicated thread for this, so I thought I'd get one going.

Rhodoks and Nords aren't traditionally cavalry factions, however in multiplayer they need cavalry to be able to play CTF and Conquest fairly, and to work to disrupt and distract the enemy (as any player of the factions can tell you, you stand a much better chance of victory if the enemy cavalry doesn't hit you all at once). It's clear that the cavalry is needed, but the implementation seems a little off.

The current set up gives you what is essentially slightly weaker versions of Swadian men at arms, or Khergit Lancers. They don't really have a unique identity on the battlefield and their identical, yet handicapped, play style puts them at a distinct disadvantage to the other factions horsemen, their armour is weaker, their lances are shorter and their skills are lesser.

With that in mind, I think it might be an idea to look at how we can make Nord and Rhodok cavalry more unique, useful and funner to play.

Nord Scout:
A light skirmishing horseman. The Nords have neither the military tradition, nor the quantity of horses to raise heavy cavalry. Instead their horsemen fill the role of scouts, able to quickly move around the battlefield and engage with enemy troops when needed. They are able to harass enemy infantry and archers with throwing weapons and skirmish with enemy cavalry, peppering them with darts, axes and spears to keep them from overwhelming their infantry allies. For melee they carry spears and swords which allow them to be a threat once their throwing weapons have been exhausted.

Equipment-
Throwing weapons.
Light/Medium armour.
Small shields.
One handed swords/Spears (Not lances).
Saddle Horses and Hunters.

Rhodok Skirmisher:
Like their neighbours to the north Rhodoks have little tradition for horsemanship and do not raise large numbers of the beasts. However speed is a useful ability for any army and as such small contingents of horsemen are kept within the ranks. Mostly fulfilling the roles of scouts and skirmishers, Rhodok Horsemen ride into battle with light crossbows with which to harass enemy troops.

Equipment-
Hunting/Light Crossbow.
Light/Medium armour.
Small shields.
One handed swords/Spears (Not lances).
Saddle Horses and Hunters.

Concepts like these fulfill the roles of the unit (swift movement on CTF and Conquest, ability to disrupt and distract the enemy on other game modes), allow Rhodok and Nord cavalry to be an effective force on the battlefield, but stick to the general feel and concept of the factions. What do other people think? Would you like there to be changes to how these two units work? What ideas do you have that might make them more fun to play?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

\o/

One thing though, based on their geological position, should they get some access to steppe horses as well?

 

[Septus]

I like the idea of skirmishers, you could possibly even not give them spears, this way this makes their factions stick to their niche more, any horseman with a spear plays the same, remove the spear and they have a whole different play style.

One last note, the nord skirmishers should not have throwing axes, their faction has enough of those, but javelins are good.

With this setup, the horse combat will be much more about maneuverability, and less about head to head charges, the lancers will have to chase down the skirmishers if they are using thrown weapons, which as long as you dont give the nords and rhodoks coursers, should be ok.  If they are using melee weapons, they will need to devlop new tactics to face the lancers, they will need to learn to get to the side or behind and then it could end up with the skirmishers chasing the lancers.

It very well could be that this would make the game way too unbalanced and will need to be changed back but i still think we should try it out for like a month.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Your Spanish like Jinte seems like a pretty good idea.

 

[Aendor]

I like the idea of Rhodok horsemen having light crossbows.  Would add some flavour.

 

[true soul]

Only Nords really have inferior cavalry, sorry I mean lances.

I would like to see some more uniqueness to each factions cavalry and their weapons, but as of now anything less than a heavy lance is a joke. Maybe if the lance(and perhaps pike to balance) becomes more expensive, cavalry would use swing weapons in the earlier rounds when gold is low. The factions would then make use of their default weapons like the vaegir axe.

I really would not support mounted crossbowmen.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

The Vaegir use clubs as one handed weapons I believe . Do you mean the bardiche? As for the cost of a lance, historically speaking I think they were quite cheap compared to a sword or a mace.

 

[Moss]

I like the idea of skirmishers, you could possibly even not give them spears, this way this makes their factions stick to their niche more, any horseman with a spear plays the same, remove the spear and they have a whole different play style.

I figure that the spears are sufficiently small enough that they can't effectively be used against cavalry head on (longer reach of the lances means that they don't stand much of a chance), they'll still work well enough against infantry, but the short range means you're taking a big risk trying to get close enough to get a hit in, especially if they're carrying polearms of their own.

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Couple points:

Light horsemen are really skilled at horsemanship, much better than your average knight.  It is all about high-skilled maneouverability & control of speedy warm & hotblooded horses, which usually requires a lifetime of training.  You need quite an extensive horse tradition to raise light cavalry.

Jinetes are superb horsemen,  the ancestors of the modern Spanish rejoneador, some of the world's best horsemen.  If you've ever seen rejeonadors in action in a bullfight (look it up in Youtube if you're interested), their horsemanship is jaw-dropping.  Skirmishing horse isn't the kind of thing a "non-horsey culture" like tthe Nords or Rhodoks can be expected to produce.

"Non-horsey cultures" tend to produce heavy horsemen - usually from just throwing a saddle on a workhorse - larger, more muscular, less maneouverable, slower and easier to control.

Rhodok & Nord horse should be little more than heavy mounted infantry.  They shouldn't be able to do much more than transport from A to B and trample.  I say take away swift coursers, steppe & hunters, and limit them to saddle and warhorses. 

And don't take away their spears. A dehorsed Rhodok cavalryman should become pretty close to an infantry unit.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

I like what I read. Historical lesson for the win!

 

[Septus]

So nords get mounted infantry with very slow, well armoured horses, they can focus on two handed weapons from horse back. But i think the Rhodoks could still use the mounted crossbowmen, essentially just a crossbowman on a horse, not light cavalry, they could also have the option of javelins, jarids, and darts. They could have saddle horses and hunters, and not get the armoured horses or the fast maneuverable horses.

 

[alh_p]

These are good ideas, I'd go for the Saddle horse & Hunter as options for both Nord & Rhodok though. Putting anything like a Nord Veteran on a Warhorse spells "imbalance" in bloody axe slices in my mind.

I also think light cross bow equiped Rhodok scouts is a great idea. Give them low horse archery skill and they might act more as scouts and dragoons (at a push) -which sounds much more Rhodok to me than cavalry skirmishers.

For both i think they should have a mximum armour upgrade of something equivalent to light mail.

Neither of these troops should be expected to do more than scout about, pick off stragglers and disrupt the enemy.

 

[Corvid]

I would love to see the Rhodok horseman being a lighter mounted crossbowman.
Would do wonders supportwise for the Rhodok lines intercepting khergit horse archers and being a pain in the neck behind Swadian or Nord heavy infantry while the ordinary Rhodok infantry kills them of.
Slightly heavier than the khergit horse archer and about as worthless at shooting.

As for the Nords cavalry.
Why not just remove the current cavalry and give their ordinary infantry the option of buying a heavy horse at a ridiculous price?
Would fit and pricing should ensure that there aren't too many of them.

 

[Tibertus]

Couple points:

Light horsemen are really skilled at horsemanship, much better than your average knight.  It is all about high-skilled maneouverability & control of speedy warm & hotblooded horses, which usually requires a lifetime of training.  You need quite an extensive horse tradition to raise light cavalry.

Jinetes are superb horsemen,  the ancestors of the modern Spanish rejoneador, some of the world's best horsemen.  If you've ever seen rejeonadors in action in a bullfight (look it up in Youtube if you're interested), their horsemanship is jaw-dropping.  Skirmishing horse isn't the kind of thing a "non-horsey culture" like tthe Nords or Rhodoks can be expected to produce.

"Non-horsey cultures" tend to produce heavy horsemen - usually from just throwing a saddle on a workhorse - larger, more muscular, less maneouverable, slower and easier to control.

Rhodok & Nord horse should be little more than heavy mounted infantry.  They shouldn't be able to do much more than transport from A to B and trample.  I say take away swift coursers, steppe & hunters, and limit them to saddle and warhorses. 

And don't take away their spears. A dehorsed Rhodok cavalryman should become pretty close to an infantry unit.

Don't know where the hell you got this information, but it's incredibly wrong, so incredibly wrong. Knights were trained pretty much from the age of 6 to ride, and especially trained in mounted combat. They also trained extensively in foot combat as well and were unequaled in skill with swords. Warhorses weren't Clydesdales, they were muscular, but I'd say more wirey than what people think. Warhorses averaged 15 hands IIRC. That isn't big at all. They were trained to carry armor and a knight, maneuver quickly in combat, kick, bite, and stamp and were usually the result of extensive selective breeding. It takes a considerable tradition of husbandry to produce a warhorse.

 

[Corvid]

Don't know where the hell you got this information, but it's incredibly wrong, so incredibly wrong. Knights were trained pretty much from the age of 6 to ride, and especially trained in mounted combat. They also trained extensively in foot combat as well and were unequaled in skill with swords. Warhorses weren't Clydesdales, they were muscular, but I'd say more wirey than what people think. Warhorses averaged 15 hands IIRC. That isn't big at all. They were trained to carry armor and a knight, maneuver quickly in combat, kick, bite, and stamp and were usually the result of extensive selective breeding. It takes a considerable tradition of husbandry to produce a warhorse.

Less romantic ideals and more facts please. I would require references on that before I even start to take that seriously.

As for the training for the knights I have no idea where you think you got your information but anyone claiming all knights trained since 6 to become the perfect soldiers without peers when it comes to swords... No... Simply no...
The only thing distinguishing a knight from the common soldiery is that he was mostly highborn and had money to buy better gear.

As for warhorses... No horse maneuver quickly with barding and a knight in armor ontop.

 

[Aitchison]

I'm very much in favour of the Rhodok cavalry being a dragoon type unit. You could possibly give them a heavier crossbow, one that cannot be used on horseback with a basic melee weapon to force this use of the unit. However I also like the idea of a light crossbow to use while mounted. Perhaps they could have both options. Either way I think they should be limited in melee (not completely useless, just enough to make melee not their main purpose).

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Don't know where the hell you got this information, but it's incredibly wrong, so incredibly wrong. Knights were trained pretty much from the age of 6 to ride, and especially trained in mounted combat. They also trained extensively in foot combat as well and were unequaled in skill with swords. Warhorses weren't Clydesdales, they were muscular, but I'd say more wirey than what people think. Warhorses averaged 15 hands IIRC. That isn't big at all. They were trained to carry armor and a knight, maneuver quickly in combat, kick, bite, and stamp and were usually the result of extensive selective breeding. It takes a considerable tradition of husbandry to produce a warhorse.

Knights may be trained from 6, but light horsemen were born in the saddle.

Anyway, you're gonna have to be a bit more precise about who, where & when you have in mind, or else we're talking at cross purposes or have the same men in mind.  It's all about relative.

Heavy horsemen are just supposed to drive their horses forward and hit, not weave & dodge.  As a result, heavy horsemen require a lot less training & horse skill than a light horsemen.  That's a simple fact.  Who do you think spent more time in a saddle, a Flemish knight or a Cossack lancer? 

Or, simpler yet, go to a modern bullfight and compare the skill of the heavy picador with the light rejoneador, and tell me who is the better horseman   (Note: not for the faint of heart: Worthless picador, Lovely rejoneador)

Thus with breeding.  Heavy horse are bred to stand and take hits, not maneouver & speed.  Although varying over time, the relative sizes are decipherable between cultures.  Normans were much better horsemen than Franks or Saxons, and correspondingly, their horse lighter & speedier than the latter.

Sit down and make a list of what you'd consider "horsey cultures" and "non-horsey cultures", and then decipher whether their cavalry emphasized light or heavy, whether their horses are bred small or big, relative to each other.

 

[Septus]

i think we are getting off topic, this is a game discussion not a history lesson, personally i find the history very interesting, but we need to focus on balancing the cavalry and making them more unique. Like i said, the nords could be a very heavy cavalry culture, just ride a random horse with a lot of armour on it, not worrying about speed or maneuverability. Rhodoks could be a culture than just jumps on a farm horse and start shooting a crossbow from its back. neither culture would require a lineage of good horses and this fits in with their stories. Nords are about heavy hitting not about the trickery of riding horses, they just use them for a little extra mobility. Rhodoks are a militia nation, they dont have time to breed horses, the swadian are charging down the valley at them, just grab your crossbow and jump on your plow horse and start shooting.

 

[RF Nigth]

they could hire good Mercenarys?

Ore nords having conections whit Manhunters
And Rhodok have conection whit forestbandits

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

i think we are getting off topic, this is a game discussion not a history lesson, personally i find the history very interesting, but we need to focus on balancing the cavalry and making them more unique. Like i said, the nords could be a very heavy cavalry culture, just ride a random horse with a lot of armour on it, not worrying about speed or maneuverability. Rhodoks could be a culture than just jumps on a farm horse and start shooting a crossbow from its back. neither culture would require a lineage of good horses and this fits in with their stories. Nords are about heavy hitting not about the trickery of riding horses, they just use them for a little extra mobility. Rhodoks are a militia nation, they dont have time to breed horses, the swadian are charging down the valley at them, just grab your crossbow and jump on your plow horse and start shooting.

Well, farmhorses are usually bred on the bigger side.  Plough-pullers are muscular, not dainty.

I don't really have complaints about your suggestions.  I think they're good.  Heavy Nord horse - i.e. infantry transport - fits the faction.  I am a bit more wary of your Rhodoks.  I like your mounted crossbowman, but I'd draw the line at javelins & darts (which suggests greater skill).  Neither should possess 'skirmishing' or peculiar horseback qualities, but really just conceived as mobile infantry & xbow units.

Again, my concern would be to make sure a dehorsed Rhodok able to stand as a regular footman (whether infantry or xbow), and not be so "cavalry-special" to make them incapable of taking on that role when dismounted.  As long as they can do that, I'm fine.  I'd take away their lances, but I'd allow them spears.