Where are my horses hoves?
 

I was wondering, how come lighter cavalry tends to be lacking a hoof attack, yes they are lighter but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have one. I had always thought it represented the trampling effect horses in warfare had, such as pushing back enemies and trampling the odd person down. Since it's impossible to give them the Trample ability because it'd pretty much make all horsemen the same. Perhaps a 'Light Hoof' attack could be given to lighter calvary and only do 8 nsta dmg and possibly a -1 to attack.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

Try the Conceptual Balance Mod, report back.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

Only trained war horses can make use of their hooves as attack in battle.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

In the CB mod, all horses are given hoof attack, something which some people have had issues with. However I like the idea.

I think what would be better is if the horse hoofs, did less damage, but had the do more damage to smaller beings ability. This would make it seem like a mini trample.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

imho iCH is right and the CB mod, Juzza and Dr D are wrong on this one (bad change)

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

I would also agree with Ich.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

Well, solution is obvious. Some horses should not have hoof attack - why would horse archer train his horse to trample. Other horses should have it. Just like it is now.

But by same reconning, light cavalry should be MUCH cheaper. Nomadic horse archers had often remounts - their lifestyle made it possible for each free man to feed many horse - contrasted to Westerners, where it took a village to pay for a few knights.

Right now, horse brothers, for example, are way too expensive. They should be barely more expensive than tribal archers.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

I'm ok with it either way, but I would prefer horse archers simply being cheap, not having the distinction between normal hoof and warhorse hoof, because it introduces another complication for adpating mods to work with CBM. Some cavalry should clearly have strong hoof attacks though - effectively any trained warhorse,.. and most people would agree that light cavalry in basegame are a total ripoff.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

Agreed with everything here...

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

That's where light hooves would balance things out a bit. Also we aren't thinking of horse archers here, horses trained for horse archers wouldn't ever need hooves for combat, but light cavalry, I just don't see why not.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

As the only way to represent horse efficiency in battle are the hooves attack, I think they should all have various degrees of it, as in CBM. Normally, a cavalry charge as a huge impact on the cohesion of a unit, which is not represented in Dominions.

Hum, think about it, would you like to be the chap directly facing a 4 to 5 hundred kilos beastie charging at 50 km/h ?

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

I think that being mounted increases action points and defense, doesn't it? Balancing is another thing to discuss.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

Depending on what part of history we are talking about, any horse that can support human weight might be considered a heavy horse. Why do you think chariots were such a big deal way back when? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

Not true. The heaviest horses (800+ kg) were arguably never used as warhorses.
Eastern horse archers used horses incongruous with Westerners idea of what a
full-size horse is. Chengis's people rode on horses that were under 500 kg.
Even the fully armored knights of the middle ages only used medium (by today's
standards) horses, as the heavy draft horses of the time were not agile enough.

Given that Dominions mixes time periods, we should assume that all kinds of
horses exist at the same time - from light weight Arabians to heavy Friesians.
It does not make sense that a horse archer will use or train his horse as a
battering ram.

But I wonder whether there is any point in talking realism. In Dominions, horse
archers are a joke, while in Earth's history, they were the bane of everyone and
everything, until the advent of firearms. Yeah, armchair generals will tell you
that Alexander somehow defeated them, and that a combination of pikes and longbows
would have crushed them... whatever.

Speaking purely from a balance perspective, horse archers either should be
drastically reduced in price, or get a 'skirmish' command - advance until in
range, then retreat from closest enemy while reserving points for a shot.
It makes no sense to give them melee abilities. They would never engage, for
example, heavy infantry.

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

Oh, yes they will, when a wizard casts Touch of Madness on them! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Where are my horses hoves?
 

Tuidjy ... skirmish command ... drool ... drool ...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

\'Skirmish\' command
 

This does not sound like something that would be TOO hard to
implement. And it would not be too powerful, either. We may
not have firearms, but they'll be eating lightning bolts
before they can overrun the world :-)

Re: \'Skirmish\' command
 

Hi, everybody!

All types of cavalry thoughout history which have been used in an assault role (i.e., all cavalry which were not used as archers/skirmishers) have been very powerful while charging. That is to say, while moving/delivering the first (and in some cases, subsequent (Macedonia's Companion cavalry and the Brinhentin of the Gauls, among others, were adept at not only delivering a single blow at the end of their charge, but several)) hit(s), cavalry would smash into and destroy the cohesion of any infantry troop (barring, of course, those which were able to either impale the horses on pikes/spears, or use makeshift weaponry to imitate that effect, e.g. the Romans and their use of pila (javelins) dug into the ground as makeshift spear walls).

But when their [the cavalry's] momentum is broken... They lack the agility and tactical mobility of regular footmen. That's why cavalry oftentimes would break off, form up, and charge again (and again and again, etc...).

Now, when the cavalry hit the infantry, the horses, while not necessarily using their hooves, would certainly cause some havoc on their own. I see the "Hoof" attack of the horses in Dominions as a rough (and forgive my improper usage of the word) translation of the multiple charges that cavalry would execute when they broke off from melee combat (which they, as we all know, are unable to do in the Dom3 battle engine).

To summarise: Hoof attack simulates the whole horse's movements, not just its forelegs'. All horses should, in my humble opinion, have a Hoof attack, which will be weaker for lighter horses.

Edit: Minor rephrasing, minor additions to clarify some grammatical errors.

Re: \'Skirmish\' command
 

A skirmish command would be perfect for light cavalry.

Horse archers are expensive, and I've never seen much use for them in Dom, except those reasonably tooled up for melee as well. I guess they're pretty versatile with a high mapmove, though, if you want to dash armies around quickly.

I do think that hoof attacks for light cavalry is very unrealistic though. Light cavalry were never used as shock troops. Even heavy cavalry are overrated. There's barely a battle in history where there was a decisive cavalry charge against infantry which won the battle.

In the ancient era heavy cavalry were used to drive off light infantry and defeat the opposing cavalry on the wings, not to charge heavy infantry.

In the medieval era, knights were used as shock troops. However, they were successful because the infantry of the era were unprofessional, so tended to be both disorganised and of poor morale, who could be broken up. Whenever knights attacked infantry with resolve and cohesion, the infantry were comfortable winners (e.g. Bannockburn, Battle of the Golden Spurs, lots of battles with the Swiss). The myth of knight superiority is added to by the fact they were essentially the ruling classes, who ensured that their performance and skill was emphasised or exaggerated when historians and poets spoke of their deeds.

Re: \'Skirmish\' command
 

You are underestimating charges. Both battles you're mentioning involved really
long spears (pikes) as well as disciplined infantry. And the Swiss were famous
for using them.

Without pikes, standing up to a heavy horse charge would be suicide, no matter
how disciplined the unit. And course, the only thing that pikes are good for,
against horse archers, is impersonating a pin cushion.

Firearms/longbows protected by pikes is what ended cavalry's reign, and mobile,
accurate field cannons eventually beat that combination.

Re: \'Skirmish\' command
 

You can have a look at Byzantine tactics. The Cataphract was their battlefield equivalent of a knight, but they did not carry out full-frontal charges. They were dual armed, bow and lance. If the enemy closed ranks to protect against a potential charge, they used bows. Similarly they used the cavalry more for flank envelopment, not as a frontal shock force. Therefore their tactical doctrines suggest they did not consider it wise to chuck heavy cavalry at an opponent who was not frail.

A full charge from knight was devastating, and commanders went to lengths to minimise the chances of receiving such a charge. However, against quality infantry - pikes or not - a frontal charge was also very painful for the knights. Historically, virtually every time knights charged heavy infantry it was done because the enemy was considered to be low quality, disordered or close to rout.

Re: \'Skirmish\' command
 

This is exactly the interpretation taken by the CB mod. While other interpretations are also very reasonable, this one has the advantage of being good for balance.

Re: \'Skirmish\' command
 

Thankyou Arcaani thats the point I was trying to get across int he first place. I just couldn't word it as well as you.