Subdued Animals in C2C discussions

[Sparth]

TB, I respect your opinion but current implementation of Horseman unit in C2C is just wrong. 6 (Horseman) vs 4 (Early Chariot) its uncorrect. As you says early horse units was used as scouts, commander mounts, etc. In simple - rare and elite unit. But now when you have horses in early game you have power unit rollover on other land units.

As for historic arguments. First historical records says about chariots which was pulled by onagers (wild donkeys). Archeological sites in central Asia says in that time horse was already domesticated as meat animal. Wild horses was much smaller than moder horses but I belive they can be rided (Przevalski Horse breed is similar in size to Mongole Horse breed), but size its one thing and bending psychic of the animal to riding its another thing. I belive its much easier to teach animal to pull cart/chariot then ride on them. You need many generations of selective breeding until you have docile animal which let you ride on them. Native Americans ride on "wild" horses which ancestors was already been domesticated by central asiatic steeppe people.

Solution? Make Horseman 4 , make him National Unit (10), add some more restrictions like in terrain fighting and should be ok.

 

[sunrisereader]

i agree that the early horseman is to strong for its place in the tech tree.
I agree with weakening them to 4 str, but maybe turn them in a fast skrimisher with early withdraw.
To weaken all early mounted units i sugest moving the riding school from animal riding to leisure and the stable and saddle maker(early horseman used blankets) to horse breeding.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I am fine with moving the Riding School to Leisure but I would also split it into 2 with the other Dressage School where Knights become available.

I am not happy with our over abundance of horse related techs and think some could be combined or replaced. Saddle would be a good candidate for a tech.

Well, since you are pretty much in charge of the mod now and it fixes both a gameplay and a realism issue...

Part of the problem is that my current instinct is to abandon C2C completely and start from scratch! I would like to try out a different approach to Cultures, perhaps using a "corporation" basis rather than the resource basis we use. I would also like to have them require earlier Cultures rather than just resources/terrains.

Failing that I would keep Canine and Animal Domestication but replace all the other Domestication technologies with a set of National Wonders that require the animal resource. The more of the animal resource the cheaper the cost of the National Wonder. The reason for replacing them is that they are application of the Animal Domestication not a new branch of knowledge/way of doing things.

Perhaps I would rename Animal Riding as Saddles and put it down the tech tree near Plough/Plow. You could still build a weaker horseman if you had the National Wonder. They would upgrade to a stronger unit at saddles.

 

[JosEPh_II]

i agree that the early horseman is to strong for its place in the tech tree.
I agree with weakening them to 4 str, but maybe turn them in a fast skrimisher with early withdraw.
To weaken all early mounted units i sugest moving the riding school from animal riding to leisure and the stable and saddle maker(early horseman used blankets) to horse breeding.

@both Sparth and sunriserreader,

C2C has been down this path already at least twice in it's development. You are just repeating C2C history with these suggestions. Horse at 6 is the outcome of Both attempts to change mounted units. It is the early chariot that is 1 str too weak same as the early Archer chariot (they should've been str 5).

To counter early horse men all is needed is spear. But when TB made the throwing Promos it changed and obscured the counter Spear used to have to horse or elephant or llama or deer or .......all the other mounted units the Mod can generate.

Another recent problem is that the path to getting alternate mounted units to counter horse and elephant had become too difficult to get. This has eased a bit in the last 3-4 months.

So I have to disagree with both of you on your reasoning and rationale. And some of the "historical references" are a bit off too.

You are trying to reinvent the wheel here for the 3rd or 4th time on a system that actually works.

JosEPh

 

[Sparth]

@both Sparth and sunriserreader,
C2C has been down this path already at least twice in it's development. You are just repeating C2C history with these suggestions. Horse at 6 is the outcome of Both attempts to change mounted units. It is the early chariot that is 1 str too weak same as the early Archer chariot (they should've been str 5).

Its fine for me if increase early chariot anc chariot archer to 5, but what with normal chariot which already has 5?

 

[JosEPh_II]

Its fine for me if increase early chariot anc chariot archer to 5, but what with normal chariot which already has 5?

Next chariot level is str 6, not 5, unless someone changed it in the past week.

JosEPh

 

[Sparth]

Next chariot level is str 6, not 5, unless someone changed it in the past week.

JosEPh

Yes its 6. My mistake

Ok then we changin Chariot Archer and Early Chariot to 5?

 

[JosEPh_II]

Yes its 6. My mistake

Ok then we changin Chariot Archer and Early Chariot to 5?

While I'm not a modding team member I would not mind seeing it happen.

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

@both Sparth and sunriserreader,

C2C has been down this path already at least twice in it's development. You are just repeating C2C history with these suggestions. Horse at 6 is the outcome of Both attempts to change mounted units. It is the early chariot that is 1 str too weak same as the early Archer chariot (they should've been str 5).

To counter early horse men all is needed is spear. But when TB made the throwing Promos it changed and obscured the counter Spear used to have to horse or elephant or llama or deer or .......all the other mounted units the Mod can generate.

Another recent problem is that the path to getting alternate mounted units to counter horse and elephant had become too difficult to get. This has eased a bit in the last 3-4 months.

So I have to disagree with both of you on your reasoning and rationale. And some of the "historical references" are a bit off too.

You are trying to reinvent the wheel here for the 3rd or 4th time on a system that actually works.

JosEPh

Spears are still the primary counter to horses. Quite solidly in fact, with a +100% bonus against mounted making them one of the strongest countering units in the game.

Throwing units are actually weak against them and have nothing to do with countering mounted units at all - other way around in fact, mounted have a combat bonus against throwing and ARE throwing's natural unit based counter.

However, in a strange twist, early spears can upgrade to throwing units (Javelins - not sure about atlatls but maybe) which should be avoided if you don't want to lose the anti-mounted nature of melee polearm fighters. The upgrade structure sits there begging you to make this bad move for a long time before better spears open up.

I've always been tempted to change that but it does seem to make some sense given that it's a shift from melee to throwing with basically the same weaponry. At some point we might want to sever that cross-upgrade path though because I think it might be very bad for the AI.



As for the GAME based point of imbalance, I can simply say:
1)Elephants and Mammoths offer far greater imbalance than horse riders.

2)That's kinda a fun aspect of the era. Spears are still necessary but only the fact that they are fairly cheap to build helps to balance them as you can expect to lose one of 2 to take down a mounted unit. Thing is... anything else is just hopeless. The main thing is that their % modifier against mounted is still very high but weaker since there isn't as much native strength to bonus.

3)Chariots do suck still. I'm all for beefing up the ones that have been left behind. There's a lot to say about the role of the chariot and how, in some ways, they actually do strike a hard to find sense of balance in the way they are, but I think they clearly need to be made stronger. Always wanted to do that, make them flat out stronger but also make them weaker when off of a tile with any route (give them bonuses by the route they are on perhaps... something along those lines. Make them the powerhouses of the roadways only.)

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

3)Chariots do suck still. I'm all for beefing up the ones that have been left behind. There's a lot to say about the role of the chariot and how, in some ways, they actually do strike a hard to find sense of balance in the way they are, but I think they clearly need to be made stronger. Always wanted to do that, make them flat out stronger but also make them weaker when off of a tile with any route (give them bonuses by the route they are on perhaps... something along those lines. Make them the powerhouses of the roadways only.)

They should be good on all flat terrains. The Celts used them effectively against the Romans and all the others used them effectively in the field.

 

[Thunderbrd]

That would be easy then. Make them strong in general but penalize them tremendously on non-flat terrains and features, the more un-smooth, the worse the penalty.

 

[Taxman66]

That would make them even more worthless. I've never generated a map with enough flat open terrains that would make it so that the (above proposed chariot changes) could be neutralized simply by going around the rare open/flat terrain squares.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I did not say open. The Celts used them in forests for example. Flat means not hills or peaks.

 

[Taxman66]

For the record of your argument, points 4 & 5 are the most important. However, historical evidence does show that when horses were ridden in combat (note not horses ridden in general), that they so outclassed chariots that chariots become immediately obsoleted and all but disappeared from future battlefields (on a culture/area by culture/area exposure basis).

Note: I'm not really trying to continue an argument where we are not going to convince each other. Just thought it fair to include a rather important point.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

For the record of your argument, points 4 & 5 are the most important. However, historical evidence does show that when horses were ridden in combat (note not horses ridden in general), that they so outclassed chariots that chariots become immediately obsoleted and all but disappeared from future battlefields (on a culture/area by culture/area exposure basis).

Note: I'm not really trying to continue an argument where we are not going to convince each other. Just thought it fair to include a rather important point.

Ah ha, so they came after chariots. Otherwise chariots would never have been.

 

[Noriad2]

After reviewing a bunch of articles online, it seems that the subject (which was first: chariots or cavalry?) is hotly debated.

The earliest horses were quite small and domesticated as food animals and later work-animals. It took many centuries of breeding to get bigger horses.
Chariot pulling is less demanding for pony-sized horses (or donkeys) than carrying a rider, especially if that rider wears heavy armor. A horse can carry up to 30% of its own weight, while a horse can pull up to several times its own weight.

War chariots were invented in 2500 BC in central asia, and in 1200 BC it was spread all over Asia (also Egypt).

While horses were probably ridden 4500 BC and possible 6000 BC, the earliest use of cavalry was that of horse-mobile warriors: they used horses to move around but dismounted just before combat. Mounted combat without saddles and stirrups was impractical. The earliest evidence for fighting while sitting on a horse dates back to 1200 BC but it may have happened earlier.

The earliest evidence for mounted archery was 9th century BC.
Eventually, chariots were completely replaced by cavalry.

So my tentative conclusion is that DH is right. Chariot warfare preceded mounted warfare. But what was earlier: chariots, or horse-mobile warriors that fought on foot, is unclear.

texts reviewed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cavalry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_tactics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_archery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_tactics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot

 

[Thunderbrd]

For the record of your argument, points 4 & 5 are the most important. However, historical evidence does show that when horses were ridden in combat (note not horses ridden in general), that they so outclassed chariots that chariots become immediately obsoleted and all but disappeared from future battlefields (on a culture/area by culture/area exposure basis).

Note: I'm not really trying to continue an argument where we are not going to convince each other. Just thought it fair to include a rather important point.

Ah ha, so they came after chariots. Otherwise chariots would never have been.

Horsemen mounted with the aid of saddles and reigns would clearly be more effective than chariots and chariots would be more effective than horsemen mounted without such aid. The question is if mounted combatants existed before those inventions and there really seems to be no reason why there wouldn't have been.

After reviewing a bunch of articles online, it seems that the subject (which was first: chariots or cavalry?) is hotly debated.

The earliest horses were quite small and domesticated as food animals and later work-animals. It took many centuries of breeding to get bigger horses.
Chariot pulling is less demanding for pony-sized horses (or donkeys) than carrying a rider, especially if that rider wears heavy armor. A horse can carry up to 30% of its own weight, while a horse can pull up to several times its own weight.

War chariots were invented in 2500 BC in central asia, and in 1200 BC it was spread all over Asia (also Egypt).

While horses were probably ridden 4500 BC and possible 6000 BC, the earliest use of cavalry was that of horse-mobile warriors: they used horses to move around but dismounted just before combat. Mounted combat without saddles and stirrups was impractical. The earliest evidence for fighting while sitting on a horse dates back to 1200 BC but it may have happened earlier.

The earliest evidence for mounted archery was 9th century BC.
Eventually, chariots were completely replaced by cavalry.

So my tentative conclusion is that DH is right. Chariot warfare preceded mounted warfare. But what was earlier: chariots, or horse-mobile warriors that fought on foot, is unclear.

texts reviewed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cavalry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_tactics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_archery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_tactics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot

I don't see our current 'rider' units to be 'cavalry' exactly. More that they were a combination of fairly chaotic (non-regimented) skirmishers taking strikes from horseback and those that simply used horses to get into the right fighting positions.

If we are to envision them entirely as the latter, we should adjust them so that they are ALSO melee, reduce their strength by a point, slightly reduce their pursuit, and give them the capacity to gain defensive terrain bonuses and allow them fortification.

This would make them more akin to Mounted Infantry (some of those steps should still be taken for other units like mounted infantry itself to reflect this change in mechanic.)

 

[oldnooob]

Horsemen mounted with the aid of saddles and reigns would clearly be more effective than chariots and chariots would be more effective than horsemen mounted without such aid. The question is if mounted combatants existed before those inventions and there really seems to be no reason why there wouldn't have been.


I don't see our current 'rider' units to be 'cavalry' exactly. More that they were a combination of fairly chaotic (non-regimented) skirmishers taking strikes from horseback and those that simply used horses to get into the right fighting positions.

If we are to envision them entirely as the latter, we should adjust them so that they are ALSO melee, reduce their strength by a point, slightly reduce their pursuit, and give them the capacity to gain defensive terrain bonuses and allow them fortification.

This would make them more akin to Mounted Infantry (some of those steps should still be taken for other units like mounted infantry itself to reflect this change in mechanic.)

Volkara put mounted horsemen into AND and ended up with a line of super uber mounted horsemen that becomes more powerful with each upgrade. I would hate to see C2C go down this road as it is very annoying to edit out these uber units with every update.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Mounted Infantry are in RoM. We and AND inherited them.

All this is off topic bye the by.

 

[Yudishtira]

How's this for an idea?

An improvement, that you can build in domestic or neutral territory. While a tile has this improvement on it, it will always be neutral territory.

I thought it might be called "Game Preserve". The reason is of course to ensure something for hunters to do in renaissance and later (since they can't lead stacks of death anymore...) If necessary, the improvement could also increase the spawn rate, so that an animal was showing up at least every 5 turns or so (adjusted for gamespeed so this is marathon or snail).