First Strike for Pikeman?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Well, if they carry anti-cavalry pikes (very long, but less maneuverable), yes, but if they are using versatile pikes so they can use them against infantry, no (the ones in wesnoth I think are of the second type).
I don't agree about there's no heavy cavalry in the game... ¿what's the grand knight then??? Perhaps it doesn't have heavy armour (don't know) but it looks exactly like heavy cavalry (and has high hit points, high attack, .... just like heavy cavalry would have).
I don't agree about there's no heavy cavalry in the game... ¿what's the grand knight then??? Perhaps it doesn't have heavy armour (don't know) but it looks exactly like heavy cavalry (and has high hit points, high attack, .... just like heavy cavalry would have).
The main point was, we don't care about realism, we care about making a good game. So even if heavy cavalry could charge the pikeman before his lance comes into play (which i'm not sure of, since Darth Fool and you have conflicting views on it), no one cares.. it has (or should have) no relevance on the way the game is designed.SteelP wrote:Well, if they carry anti-cavalry pikes (very long, but less maneuverable), yes, but if they are using versatile pikes so they can use them against infantry, no (the ones in wesnoth I think are of the second type).
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
Now I was just talking about pikes with Darth Fool, not about Wesnoth. I already knew your opinion.
You should say ... "we like the idea of first strike, but what you're proposing is too complex". But "we don't care about realism"??????
What's the point of pikemen getting first strike then?we don't care about realism
You should say ... "we like the idea of first strike, but what you're proposing is too complex". But "we don't care about realism"??????
The point IMO has nothing to do with realism. The reason is that the Spearman tree did not have enough contrast. So it was gameplay-based, not realism-based.SteelP wrote:What's the point of pikemen getting first strike then?
And we do care about realism some: just enough to let it mean that first strike would be used instead of some other ability (after all first strike is not that complicated in comparison to some other possibilities).
Wose's wood is very light, flexible and strong, therefore it is used to make spears, pikes and halberds. Which are bigger than our world's spears, pikes and halberds, yet have the same weight. Therefore being as manuveaurabskbjk (I forgot how to spell it and I don't care, if you get halfway the word you can guess the rest) as our spears, pikes and halberds.
Therefore, horsemen shouldn't be charging spearmen and the alikes, they should be charging those archers, cavalries and generals...
-Shundread
Therefore, horsemen shouldn't be charging spearmen and the alikes, they should be charging those archers, cavalries and generals...
-Shundread
Have you seen the "Breda's rendition" paint (AKA "Las lanzas") by Velazquez? or Rembrant "Nightwatch" Those are normal infantry pikes. 4 - 5 metres or more. The use of a longer calvary lance seems a bit ... interesting. (yes, longer lances where used sometimes... but no knight will ever try to charge infantry using pikes even if he has 1 meter longer lance, as the lances where longer to be used vs other calvary)SteelP wrote:Well, if they carry anti-cavalry pikes (very long, but less maneuverable), yes, but if they are using versatile pikes so they can use them against infantry, no (the ones in wesnoth I think are of the second type).
I don't agree about there's no heavy cavalry in the game... ¿what's the grand knight then??? Perhaps it doesn't have heavy armour (don't know) but it looks exactly like heavy cavalry (and has high hit points, high attack, .... just like heavy cavalry would have).
But the point is that 1st strike seems a fit skill to those units, and it is fun and make things interesting.
This thread should be closed now.
Why should it be closed?
I already agreed that it should be a first strike for pikemen (I never said it was wrong, but also said that perhaps for reali.... purposes it shouldn't have it against some units)
Now we were just talking about pikes, weren´t we? is it forbidden?
We also agree that pikes, halbs, ... should frighten anyone mounted on a horse, and having less hp and attack, that's the only way.
Anyway, I don´t think the pikes used on Wesnoth are of the same Historical period than the ones you're talking about... in 1600 an more, they were used on tight formations of lots of rows of pikes (so a enemy attacking one of those formations would face 5 or more pikes for every enemy in front of him), but earlier (middle ages) I don´t think they were that large (because the formations they were used in had not so many rows of pikemen).
I was thinking about a special attack for cavalry... if they kill a unit using the lance (not the sword), then they occupy their position... perhaps it could be interesting tactically (and dangerous); I even think that if they kill the unit they are charging they should have another attack but it would be quite unbalancing... poor dwarves. Anyway, I don´t know why I keep proposing ideas, I always get the same answer
I already agreed that it should be a first strike for pikemen (I never said it was wrong, but also said that perhaps for reali.... purposes it shouldn't have it against some units)
Now we were just talking about pikes, weren´t we? is it forbidden?
We also agree that pikes, halbs, ... should frighten anyone mounted on a horse, and having less hp and attack, that's the only way.
Anyway, I don´t think the pikes used on Wesnoth are of the same Historical period than the ones you're talking about... in 1600 an more, they were used on tight formations of lots of rows of pikes (so a enemy attacking one of those formations would face 5 or more pikes for every enemy in front of him), but earlier (middle ages) I don´t think they were that large (because the formations they were used in had not so many rows of pikemen).
I was thinking about a special attack for cavalry... if they kill a unit using the lance (not the sword), then they occupy their position... perhaps it could be interesting tactically (and dangerous); I even think that if they kill the unit they are charging they should have another attack but it would be quite unbalancing... poor dwarves. Anyway, I don´t know why I keep proposing ideas, I always get the same answer
this ability has been proposed before. It has not been rejected exactly...SteelP wrote:I was thinking about a special attack for cavalry... if they kill a unit using the lance (not the sword), then they occupy their position...
Anyway, in order to do this for horsemen you would need multiple attack specials for the same attack, which is not currently supported by the engine.
(and there are cavalry in the game that don't have lances, so don't call horsemen cavalry.)
-
Eponymous-Archon
- Posts: 558
- Joined: February 1st, 2004, 6:17 pm
- Location: New Jersey, USA
Um, cavalry are the guys who ride horses.Dacyn wrote:(and there are cavalry in the game that don't have lances, so don't call horsemen cavalry.)
If you're referring to units, yes, there are Horsemen and Cavalrymen, who are not the same units (though they may share an image right now).
The Eponymous Archon
There aren't any units called "Cavalrymen". They are called "Cavalry".Eponymous-Archon wrote:If you're referring to units, yes, there are Horsemen and Cavalrymen,
And the Horseman and Cavalry trees are completely different (including images), so IMO it is just confusing to refer to Horsemen as cavalry, even though it may be correct.
About realism...
Usually, the first thing us, as game designers, should do, is decide the kind of in-game effect we want. Then we should look for a way to implement it in a way that makes sense to most of our target players (and ourselves).
What 'makes sense' is often based on realism. It is also largely based on other works in the genre - games, movies, and books in particular.
For instance, in making a fun game, we want units to have strengths and weaknesses. Now from a pure gameplay point of view, we could choose any unit to have any strength or weakness against any other unit -- and make the 'perfect' mix of strengths and weaknesses. However things that make intuitive sense are important too.
That is why pikemen are good against horses. They were so historically, and are so in many games. It's something that just 'makes sense' to almost all players.
That is why armored units are typically weak against fire. It 'makes sense', and is 'realistic' that armor would not shield against fire.
That is why pikemen now get 'first strike' -- we searched for a way to make the units better and more distinctive, and a way that 'makes sense' is to give them first strike. It works well in the game.
However, we do not generally go 'the other way'. That is, we do not say "this should be realistic, and in real life blah blah blah so let's put it in the game."
So to summarise, the sequence for adding things to the game is,
(1) decide gameplay changes are needed; (2) find something that is 'realistic' that implements these gameplay changes.
Saying "heavy cavalry in real life could hit pikemen first, so they should be able to in the game" is going the other way, namely
(1) find something 'realistic'; (2) decide because it is 'realistic' it should be in the game; (3) implement it.
and this is NOT the way we should go. If you were trying to implement a simulation, sure. But we're not.
David
Usually, the first thing us, as game designers, should do, is decide the kind of in-game effect we want. Then we should look for a way to implement it in a way that makes sense to most of our target players (and ourselves).
What 'makes sense' is often based on realism. It is also largely based on other works in the genre - games, movies, and books in particular.
For instance, in making a fun game, we want units to have strengths and weaknesses. Now from a pure gameplay point of view, we could choose any unit to have any strength or weakness against any other unit -- and make the 'perfect' mix of strengths and weaknesses. However things that make intuitive sense are important too.
That is why pikemen are good against horses. They were so historically, and are so in many games. It's something that just 'makes sense' to almost all players.
That is why armored units are typically weak against fire. It 'makes sense', and is 'realistic' that armor would not shield against fire.
That is why pikemen now get 'first strike' -- we searched for a way to make the units better and more distinctive, and a way that 'makes sense' is to give them first strike. It works well in the game.
However, we do not generally go 'the other way'. That is, we do not say "this should be realistic, and in real life blah blah blah so let's put it in the game."
So to summarise, the sequence for adding things to the game is,
(1) decide gameplay changes are needed; (2) find something that is 'realistic' that implements these gameplay changes.
Saying "heavy cavalry in real life could hit pikemen first, so they should be able to in the game" is going the other way, namely
(1) find something 'realistic'; (2) decide because it is 'realistic' it should be in the game; (3) implement it.
and this is NOT the way we should go. If you were trying to implement a simulation, sure. But we're not.
David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming