Re-balancing the horse unit to increase survivability

[Wintermute]

It would perhaps increase your defensive percentage by 20%.

so my 40% def on grass becomes 60% by hiding behind my horse? It's like my own personal castle! For cavalry! I'll make sure to lug my horse around with me wherever I go!

[mbabuskov]

I'm sorry, but a balanced recruit is always better as the cavalry might have it's strengths, but it also has weaknesses (among the more expensive scouts, moderate defense, and pierce vulnerability), and so I'm quite skeptical of your idea.

So yeah, a replay would be good indeed.

Here it is (attached). It's 2vs2 multiplayer game, and it shows some important cavalry tactics:

- don't rush to kill as much as you can
- retreat to heal whenever needed
- keeping villages to yourself is more important than killing enemy units
- sometimes is better to leave a slow enemy in the middle of nothing, while he gets to some of your units, they would heal and be prepared

To wrap it up: one should play using the good points of cavalry which is high mobility and relatively high HP. BTW, I did try this tactics without my leader having leadership and it just didn't work out. Leadership is what gives cavalry the edge and allows them to kill at least one unit per turn (which makes it easier to get rid of archers or some other problematic unit).

[Wintermute]

Here it is (attached). It's 2vs2 multiplayer game, and it shows some important cavalry tactics:
BTW, I did try this tactics without my leader having leadership and it just didn't work out. Leadership is what gives cavalry the edge and allows them to kill at least one unit per turn (which makes it easier to get rid of archers or some other problematic unit).

It would also 'not work out' on any of the 2v2 maps included in the game. The replay you posted is of a random map, and there are AI's involved. Either of those to points would be enough to nullify this strategy in a normal game on a balanced map.

On the other hand, when playing on a largish, random map with enough grassland (or with AI involved) sure going cav heavy could work.

[anakayub]

I was just about to submit the post...

^^ Yeah, what Wintermute said basically is the same as what I was about to post.

[mbabuskov]

Well, now, cavalry is not a balanced unit, so it maybe wouldn't excel on a balanced map. But on maps with enough grassland, they do - just like elves in the forest or dwarves in caves or mountains. My point is not that horse units are over too powerful, just that they are not under-powered (as that is what this thread is about).

IMHO, increasing the 'survivability' of cavalry units would make them too powerful (at least for the price of 17 gold). OTOH, knights cost 23, and I don't see they make up for that much. Maybe it's just that cost should be reduced and none of the features changed.

[Edward V Riley]

It would perhaps increase your defensive percentage by 20%.

so my 40% def on grass becomes 60% by hiding behind my horse? It's like my own personal castle! For cavalry! I'll make sure to lug my horse around with me wherever I go!

Apparently, your brain is geared only for sarcasm, or you'd realize that this was a common light cavalry tactic. While you're on castle terrain, you're visually exposed on the battlements, whereas behind your horse, your head is exposed only. Plus, it being defensive, your head would be also be behind the horse as well.

However, the horse would be exposed instead, opting for a chance at losing the mount. Perhaps then the horseless horsemen becomes a spearman.

[anakayub]

Cheer up.

Considering that the thread was/is generally heading towards a user-made mod direction, there's nothing wrong with injecting a bit of humor.

[Wintermute]

Apparently, your brain is geared only for sarcasm, or you'd realize that this was a common light cavalry tactic. While you're on castle terrain, you're visually exposed on the battlements, whereas behind your horse, your head is exposed only. Plus, it being defensive, your head would be also be behind the horse as well.

My intent was not to offend you with sarcasm, so I am sorry for that. I merely was attempting to point out the problem with the rather large in-game effect you were proposing - not the idea. I am well aware of the tactic of mounted units dismounting for a variety of reasons. My point still stands: if horses are so great to hide behind, why did people build all of those castles? Perhaps 60% defense on grassland is a bit too good...

P.S. I don't understand why you can't find this funny! It's a horse! All other technical issues aside, why would it be as good as a castle? Perhaps if your proposal was more through, taking into account the fact that the unit would no longer have some of the great resists that it currently enjoys, etc. I would have responded differently, but 2mp for a 50% increase in the unit's defense? May as well put up signs on the battlefield: BYOH!

[peet]

Apparently, your brain is geared only for sarcasm, or you'd realize that this was a common light cavalry tactic. While you're on castle terrain, you're visually exposed on the battlements, whereas behind your horse, your head is exposed only. Plus, it being defensive, your head would be also be behind the horse as well.

This is a tactic that was adopted by cavalry after guns had been in existence for some time. The US cavalry used to do this.

But in Wesnoth guns are only used by dwarves and the guns they have look pretty primitive. So I don't think that cavalry would use this technique in Wesnoth.

However, I don't think you've ever seen the battlements of a castle up close. You are only exposed on the battlements if you want to be. There are "merlons" that are designed for archers to hide behind, so they can be hit only when they are also trying to shoot at something while looking through the "crenels."

This combined with the height of the battlements makes a castle wall much easier to defend from than while ducking behind a horse.

Have a look at this link for more info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlement

Peet

[TrashMan]

Besides, if you're hiding behind a horse won't the enemy shoot the horse?
And then you're left with a cavalry without horses on a open field - useless.

[Edward V Riley]

Besides, if you're hiding behind a horse won't the enemy shoot the horse?
And then you're left with a cavalry without horses on a open field - useless.

You missed my addon to the "hiding behind the horse bit". However, the horse would be exposed instead, opting for a chance at losing the mount. Perhaps then the horseless horsemen becomes a spearman.

To me, the loss of movement points is far more vital than the negligible defense you'd gain, coupled with the fact you may lose your horse. You're not losing 2mp, but 4. 2 to implement the tactic, and 2 more to remount. I was adding the elven rider to the equation, which, to me, is one of the most underrated units in Wesnoth. I've seen countless threads on the "uselessness" of the elven rider. I, on the other hand, love these almost unrestricted units that are the best hit and run raiders Wesnoth has to offer, not to mention a great village grabber. The only thing is you have to be patient to level these units up.

Perhaps 20% is too much of a defense advantage, but 10% isn't that much to ask.

Yes, WIntermute, I found your sarcasm inappropriate. Why? It's not constructive, and is often used in lieu of a tangible argument. If you'd responded with something similar to the previous paragraph, I'd have respected your input.

In the SOuth Guard, once you enter the caverns, your horse commander goes without his horse, and becomes a different unit entirely. So there is precedent in Wesnoth for "losing" your horse.

The US cavalry of your example was copied from the american Indian, regarded by many to have been the finest light cavalry in the history of combat. They used this tactic when they were first armed only with bow and arrow and tomahawk but later managed to get a few rifles.

The tactic was also used extensively by others in history. Scythia, Huns, Mongols, Cossacks, and Impi just to name a few.

Perhaps a combat unit missing is the bow riders. Using short, curved Hungarian bows this was basically a mounted range unit geared for hit and run, not the charge. ANother is the mounted spear. This is where the units, armed with a spear, would rush forward to within spear throwing range, halt the horses, throw the spear, then turn and withdraw to get another spear.

I've seen posts about including cavalry in the horseman examples, but the cavalry units are balanced right so should not be included.

[Aethaeryn]

Note: This is an idea (that's what this forum is for), if it is good split it to a faction thread for "The Riders."

I know this won't be mainlined because people are against major changes most of the time (and for good reason, balancing is tough), but that concept would make a fun user-made cavalry faction. The ability to dismount to a parallel set of units would compensate for cavalry weaknesses (taking away a chunk of HP and mobility to have a defensive bonus in certain terrains and to have no pierce weakness). This can already be done (CABD) in WML, especially with custom right-click options new in 1.4.

The KISS way I would propose doing dismounting is simply to have a separate lvl 0 (no ZoC) horse unit that is standard and cannot promote. The Riders would behave a special way - every unit they have can mount on a recruited lvl 0 horse unit or dismount if they are already on a horse, which turns them to the equivalent infantry and spawns a lvl 0 horse unit next to them. A riderless horse only has 6 MP as opposed to 7 (heavy cavalry), 8 (standard cavalry), or 9 (perhaps a light hit-and-run cavalry), has no ZoC, and is essentially either cannon-fodder or a mount for another infantry unit. The HP of the horse is low, but it is added to the other unit when mounted.

This faction would have about 8 recruitable units, but really they would simply be equivalents of each other. For instance, if there was a spearman and a horseman (though original units would be better for this faction, even if they use art as placeholders at first), the spearman would be the equivalent of the horseman, the only difference is the HP, mobility, and resistance to pierce. That way, the spearman could mount a recruitable horse to become a horseman, or a horseman could dismount (spawning a horse in the hex next to him) to get a spearman.

If this idea is good, I could come up with a tree pretty easily, but I might need help on some of the trickier WML and the art. With their play style, they would be somewhat a cross between Loyalists and Drakes due to their mobility.

[Vendanna]

Note: This is an idea (that's what this forum is for), if it is good split it to a faction thread for "The Riders."

I know this won't be mainlined because people are against major changes most of the time (and for good reason, balancing is tough), but that concept would make a fun user-made cavalry faction. The ability to dismount to a parallel set of units would compensate for cavalry weaknesses (taking away a chunk of HP and mobility to have a defensive bonus in certain terrains and to have no pierce weakness). This can already be done (CABD) in WML, especially with custom right-click options new in 1.4.

Have you ever tested a cavalry faction? the units may be vulnerable to pierce, but the high movement (think around 8-10 that usually cavalry has) makes them overpowered on large maps, not to say leadership on them its awesome. and in the end its a pain of balance on short maps.

For comparison, only using the high movement with normal fighter traits (5-3/8-2/4-4) the units are more unbalanced than the devling from EoM (era of myths) and to boot, they are very useful into retreating or pass through enemies defenses/scouts.

The KISS way I would propose doing dismounting is simply to have a separate lvl 0 (no ZoC) horse unit that is standard and cannot promote. The Riders would behave a special way - every unit they have can mount on a recruited lvl 0 horse unit or dismount if they are already on a horse, which turns them to the equivalent infantry and spawns a lvl 0 horse unit next to them. A riderless horse only has 6 MP as opposed to 7 (heavy cavalry), 8 (standard cavalry), or 9 (perhaps a light hit-and-run cavalry), has no ZoC, and is essentially either cannon-fodder or a mount for another infantry unit. The HP of the horse is low, but it is added to the other unit when mounted.

First try your units without the "dismount" mechanic, and see if they really needed it, also mount on a lvl 0 would require some weird wml.
That actually makes your units needs to be killed twice for the cost of one or a lowly lvl 0 horse gold cost, not to say that by dismounting you could remove the horseman weakness and get a very powerful spearman (first strike) and turn into a killing machine when you need one.

The tree is very easy, I even did one and I tought exactly as you, an hybrid of loyalist with drakes movility (and gold cost) in the end I found them terribly fast because take into account that while mounted movetype is very limiting, their high movement allows them to take the initiative or even cover two fronts (something that may be even harder for drakes in some maps)

Anyway, where is the fun if you don't try it by yourself? it may be fun to play, but take into account that your opponent may get fustrated due to the potence of cavalry.

what where the units I tested? these:

- Cavalryman (loyalist unit as is)
- Horseman (loyalist unit as is)
- Horsebowmen (used elvish graphics for it, tought you can use the EoMagic archer rider) mounted movetype.
- Mounted mage [Mage stats with mounted move type]
- Breaker [a cavalry unit with ambush] usually to lead the charge and break between units.
- lvl 2 Commander (leadership) (from the horseman)

You could even use that campaing hero unit with a mace, for use against undeads or using impact.

In the end, even with that puny 40% everywhere they play as drakes.

[AI]

Heh, I had the same idea, I'm writing up some code for it atm.

Here's my horse archer tree:

-Horse Archer
9MP
scimitar
bow
levels to heavy cavalry or skirmisher

-heavy cavalry gains mace, risistances (same as cavalryman) drops to 8MP. levels to cataphract

-cataphract replaces mace with war hammer (which is both impact and pierce)

-skirmisher has skirmisher (wow, obvious), 10MP and HIT_AND_RUN: ranged attacking costs 1MP, unit can use remaining MP to retreat.

[irrevenant]

Okay, this thread appears to have just become a general grab-bag of ideas having anything to do with horse units.

As far as I can see, the original poster failed to make a case that increasing survivability was a good thing. As such, I'm locking this thread.

Feel free to open a new thread for any of the tangential ideas worth pursuing (eg. horse archers).