BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Daycryn on August 13, 2011, 02:28:01 PM
-
Nobles should be able to purchase and ride horses, in general. They would decrease travel times, but only if the player has no unit (army units travel slower than a lone horseman); they could require food or grazing time, be of a variety of different breeds (mostly just description/flavor differences), etc. Horses might be purchasable by adventurers and priests too. But will cost a pretty penny, mostly beyond the reach of any adventurer. Infiltrators couldn't ride horses since they're not stealthy/blend-in-able. Horses could die if not fed properly, or in combat, and maybe nobles on horseback could gain a small leadership improvement in battle. Horses maybe could have names and descriptions (i.e. Blue, a spotted palfrey) which might be visible in battle or scout reports.
Thoughts?
-
Nobles should be able to purchase and ride horses, in general. They would decrease travel times, but only if the player has no unit (army units travel slower than a lone horseman); they could require food or grazing time, be of a variety of different breeds (mostly just description/flavor differences), etc. Horses might be purchasable by adventurers and priests too. But will cost a pretty penny, mostly beyond the reach of any adventurer. Infiltrators couldn't ride horses since they're not stealthy/blend-in-able. Horses could die if not fed properly, or in combat, and maybe nobles on horseback could gain a small leadership improvement in battle. Horses maybe could have names and descriptions (i.e. Blue, a spotted palfrey) which might be visible in battle or scout reports.
Thoughts?
Nobles already travel faster when they have no (large) unit -can't give you exact data.
The rest sounds like great roleplay - go for it!
-
I've always RPed my characters as being on horse. Walking is for peasants.
They would decrease travel times, but only if the player has no unit (army units travel slower than a lone horseman);
You already travel slower if you have a large unit.
they could require food or grazing time, be of a variety of different breeds (mostly just description/flavor differences), etc.
Meh, I'm not sure I want to spend hours grazing my horse every day. That's not extremely interesting gameplay.
Horses might be purchasable by adventurers and priests too. But will cost a pretty penny, mostly beyond the reach of any adventurer. Infiltrators couldn't ride horses since they're not stealthy/blend-in-able.
Infiltrators aren't ninjas. My infil regularly leads large units in battles. I can't check right now, but I think nothing forbids them from leading cavalry.
Horses could die if not fed properly, or in combat, and maybe nobles on horseback could gain a small leadership improvement in battle. Horses maybe could have names and descriptions (i.e. Blue, a spotted palfrey) which might be visible in battle or scout reports.
That could be nice as flavor, but it mostly duplicates the captain mechanics.
-
Thoughts?
No thanks. Sounds like a lot of busy work, for little to no return.
-
Well, you don't need to "spend hours grazing your horse," it would just be clicking a button. Much like taking care of your unit; repairs, training, resting troops, treating them to entertainment. None of those mechanics is "extremely interesting" in itself, but it all adds to the experience. And yeah, you could roleplay the horse instead of having it be a feature. You could roleplay resting your troops too... Meh. I rescind the suggestion. ???
-
I'm just not that interested in horses. Well-trained metal killing machines like my unit on the other hand...
-
That sounds like something for when we expand BattleMaster to make it more appealing to girls.
And maybe there can be a whole horse-breeding mini-game, and you can race your horses and bet on them...
...Or, y'know, not, because, like Indirik says, it's a whole lot of work for no real gain. 99% of the time, people are already roleplaying their nobles as being on horses, even when they're with their units. It's pretty much just standard.
-
We most kill all horses. They poop on my driveway and they generally stink! Join the resistance! Down with the horses!
-
I dunno. I kinda like the idea of being able to...customise my noble a bit. Buy a nice horse, maybe an axe as a weapon, a suit of plate armour with a fancy helmet. I know I can RP my character as having these, but it's different actually seeing these things on my info page. Just like it's nice having "Captain Rudel" with his own place on my info sheet, rather than just RPing him.
If nothing else, it'd provide a money sink for those with too much gold.
-
That sounds like something for when we expand BattleMaster to make it more appealing to girls.
And maybe there can be a whole horse-breeding mini-game, and you can race your horses and bet on them...
...Or, y'know, not, because, like Indirik says, it's a whole lot of work for no real gain. 99% of the time, people are already roleplaying their nobles as being on horses, even when they're with their units. It's pretty much just standard.
Could try being less of an !@#$%^&. Just saying, there are better ways to say no.
-
you know... it's not a question of horses or not.. but how many horses.
they usually have a few for travelling, a few for fighting, etc..
-
Could try being less of an !@#$%^&. Just saying, there are better ways to say no.
Just saying, there are better ways to say 'there are better ways to say no'.
xD
-
That sounds like something for when we expand BattleMaster to make it more appealing to girls.
And maybe there can be a whole horse-breeding mini-game, and you can race your horses and bet on them...
...Or, y'know, not, because, like Indirik says, it's a whole lot of work for no real gain. 99% of the time, people are already roleplaying their nobles as being on horses, even when they're with their units. It's pretty much just standard.
Yeah, horses are so girly. ::) Come on.
99% of the time people roleplay their nobles on horses? Really? I think that statistic is 87.5% completely made-up.
I don't know how you're defining "real gain" here. What's the real gain of having a captain with a name and everything? That captain is so girly an idea too, I mean he has a name, what's next, a barbie playhouse? ;) If 99% of the time characters have horses, wouldn't that be a good reason to introduce them to the game, instead of a reason not to? Horses are kind of important in the Battlemaster type universe. Most of us play knights, after all. Knights have horses. It's arguably what makes nobles nobles; they can afford horses, and sitting up high on their horse they tower over the common people. But yeah. Girly.
-
That sounds like something for when we expand BattleMaster to make it more appealing to girls.
We are losing players, no harm in trying to attract a new audience. ;D
-
mmm, private sermons :P
-
Yeah, horses are so girly. ::) Come on.
99% of the time people roleplay their nobles on horses? Really? I think that statistic is 87.5% completely made-up.
I don't know how you're defining "real gain" here. What's the real gain of having a captain with a name and everything? That captain is so girly an idea too, I mean he has a name, what's next, a barbie playhouse? ;) If 99% of the time characters have horses, wouldn't that be a good reason to introduce them to the game, instead of a reason not to? Horses are kind of important in the Battlemaster type universe. Most of us play knights, after all. Knights have horses. It's arguably what makes nobles nobles; they can afford horses, and sitting up high on their horse they tower over the common people. But yeah. Girly.
You mean the Captains that improve our units and earn experience over time, yeah no idea what the real gain might be. Like most the people I RP with, yes we do assume we already have horses, several in fact since I don't like to wear out my powerful war horses while marching to the front, and marching on foot is for peasants.
-
You mean the Captains that improve our units and earn experience over time, yeah no idea what the real gain might be. Like most the people I RP with, yes we do assume we already have horses, several in fact since I don't like to wear out my powerful war horses while marching to the front, and marching on foot is for peasants.
Also, if we lose a captain, no big deal. I've had a +8 captain before, think I ever knew his name? Couldn't care less. He didn't require *anything* from me, and that's how I liked him.
Feeding the horse? Please, I have enough dull buttons to press already.
-
You mean the Captains that improve our units and earn experience over time, yeah no idea what the real gain might be. Like most the people I RP with, yes we do assume we already have horses, several in fact since I don't like to wear out my powerful war horses while marching to the front, and marching on foot is for peasants.
Horses could provide benefit. And obviously (it should be obvious, but Chenier sez no) you wouldn't be forced to "feed" a horse as if it were an electronic pet. Hell, if it dies, as a noble you can always just get a new one. I'm not proposing anything ridiculous here.
Consider this. Before Captains were introduced, I and many other players I knew roleplayed captains amongst our troops already. Does this make the introduction of them as a game mechanic not a good idea?
Well, captains aren't essential, you can lose one, no big deal. Same with horses. But for those players who like to squeeze every advantage out of their troops, captains are a nice thing to have. For those players who like to cut down on travel time - and get small advantages to leadership akin to characters holding certain Items - horses could be a nice thing to have too.
Especially since we all agree, almost all our characters have horses.
(Although I RP'd a good number of soldiers (my Hero, back in the day) as marching to battle amidst the foot soldiers, just for the sheer badass bonus you get by wading into a melee.)
-
(Although I RP'd a good number of soldiers (my Hero, back in the day) as marching to battle amidst the foot soldiers, just for the sheer badass bonus you get by wading into a melee.)
There is a difference between fighting on foot, and marching all the way to the battlefield on foot :) That aside things like items and weapons, which is were I would place "horses" have deliberately left vague by Tom, with the exception of the unique items.
-
Could try being less of an !@#$%^&. Just saying, there are better ways to say no.
Thats Anaris for you my friend.
-
Consider this. Before Captains were introduced, I and many other players I knew roleplayed captains amongst our troops already. Does this make the introduction of them as a game mechanic not a good idea?
But captains have a game mechanic purpose other than just giving extra strength. They incite characters to safeguard their unit to keep the good captain they have; they reduce unrealistic suicidal charges.
For those players who like to cut down on travel time - and get small advantages to leadership akin to characters holding certain Items - horses could be a nice thing to have too.
But Carts already exist to cut down travel times, and I don't see how you should get a leadership advantage.
I'm not saying I am against horses as flavor, I wouldn't really mind. I just don't see what they bring exactly.
-
Leadership advantage because the unit's leader is on a horse, and therefore highly visible to the men he commands. This helps with all battlefield command, control and communications really.
Horses could be just like captains: basically a name with a few game mechanics changes. Being on a horse presumably helps with leading cavalry. But it's plenty plausible to have one's horse killed from underneath you, with archer fire and loads of infantry. Every time your horse survives, you keep it's bonuses, maybe you increase your jousting skill. (I know you can increase jousting skill currently when leading cavalry. This would simply apply to whenever the character has a horse.)
You might find yourself valuing your horse more than your captain. And that's how things ought to be in Battlemaster-verse! Commoners are common; horses are pretty beasts.
And, being on horseback increases your characters damage output whenever that's calculated. For Heroes, I think? For Adventurers too but... horses ought to cost a bit of gold, and be purchasable as Paraphernelia. Adventurers normally ought not to get them (but maybe can steal horses...?)
I am really just tossing the idea of horses as relates to the medieval noble/knight person out there. Horses were pretty important, much like cars but also like battlefield weapons. There's a scene in Henry V where the French knights are all sitting around, bragging about their horses. We could RP that sort of thing here, but it depends on players agreeing what the horse(s) was(were) like when if there was a simple number in-game the only disagreement can be between the characters.
-
There is a difference between fighting on foot, and marching all the way to the battlefield on foot :) That aside things like items and weapons, which is were I would place "horses" have deliberately left vague by Tom, with the exception of the unique items.
I'd rather not have horses as another paraphernalia like carts or banners. But, having horses as a type of unique item could be interesting. Wouldn't be any more of a hassle than any other unique item.
-
Now we're asking for animals... can we have oxen? You know, for the carts. It were oxen pulling it, not horses. Ktnxbye.
[endsarcasm]
Seriously though: just roleplay this stuff. No need for even more coding, as it brings little to nothing extra to the game. I already roleplay my nobles riding horses. Even my infantry rides horses. It's the power of roleplay.
-
Well again, we could have just said "eh, just roleplay it!" to a *lot* of current (and good) game mechanics, but this seems to me a game that enjoys creative and fun little new features.
With horses your travel time is decreased. If all your infantry rides horses the entire unit might travel at least twice as many miles per day. If you're a noble you can choose to ride a horse or not, but if you don't you travel slower. All of which is best handled by some simple mechanics rather than pure roleplay, IMO.
I think it could easily add something to the game. It's part flavor, part gameplay change. If you and your infantry really do all have horses (in-game), or you're all cavalry, you ought to get significant movement bonuses compared to foot soldiers. You could still RP the details. Maybe you have a spotted brown palfrey.
(As for ox-drawn carts, the drawback with going there is .. they're cows. Whereas nearly every depiction of medieval (or a variety of timespans really) nobility has them riding horses. And this makes sense because of the warrior based society following the Roman Empire's collapse, which turns out to be so much like other warrior societies for example the Mongols: No one cares what oxen you have, but being a horse owner and rider is a status signifier.
So I don't think having individual oxen is worth it. Though it is interesting to think of carts as being (specifically) ox-drawn. They would make at best something like 10 miles a day. You could slaughter the cow and get meat... that might be something to consider for the new economy and resource system. :P)
-
With horses your travel time is decreased. If all your infantry rides horses the entire unit might travel at least twice as many miles per day. If you're a noble you can choose to ride a horse or not, but if you don't you travel slower. All of which is best handled by some simple mechanics rather than pure roleplay, IMO.
Once again, this already exists. The name for this is carts. You can think of them as horse-drawn carts, if you like.
-
Once again, this already exists. The name for this is carts. You can think of them as horse-drawn carts, if you like.
That's not the same thing at all. You can't use "carts" as cavalry nor does riding in one give you anything like the mobility of a horse and rider. It's similar, yes kind of in that both carts and horses (as mounts) use beasts of burden. But otherwise it's not the same thing.... see my arguments above concerning the symbolism and importance of a man's horse.
-
Can I have warhounds then?
They would be unleashed at the start of the battle and then kill or wound half of your enemies before your men get there. Plus break the enemy's formation.
You could feed and pet them and teach them new tricks.
-
Well again, we could have just said "eh, just roleplay it!" to a *lot* of current (and good) game mechanics, but this seems to me a game that enjoys creative and fun little new features.
Can we have?
- Customized armour.
Customized weapons.
Customized women.
Customized estates.
Customized in-game family emblems.
Inter-family marriages.
Different sorts of currency.
Different dialects used.
Customized temples.
Cultures determined by game code.
Archers shooting fire arrows.
All sorts of horrible diseases than can strike you down.
Old Roman ruins.
Ships we can recruit and/or build.
Character-related moodswings.
Dwarfs that are court jesters.
RP-related ideas that need to be fixed in game code.
No. I think your only chance right now is convincing Tom how brilliant it would be to add yet another option to the game, making it even harder for new players to understand how it all works, while it barely brings any return because practically everyone who wants to have a horse just roleplays he has a horse.
Want to travel faster? Get yourself 10 scouts.
-
You don't need to pay anything special for captains, they just come and go with your unit, and require no attention whatsoever. You are proposing horses that we must *buy*. Then everyone would have to buy them to not be disadvantaged compared to others. In the end, nobody would travel faster than anyone, and we'd all be shorter on gold.
-
Perhaps modeling the horse like the captain. Every noble has one. It has a name (random or chosen by the character). It has some descriptors (breed, appearance). Perhaps it automatically improves over time (better bonuses). If a noble is injured in battle there is a chance their horse dies. Or the horse ages and loses bonuses and eventually dies. The horse is then replaced by a new horse. Optionally, a character can choose to purchase new horses with varying bonuses. Perhaps even own multiple mounts which may give increased bonuses. Even training might provide quicker access to bonuses. All this extra is optional and costs time and gold (purchase and upkeep). Bonuses could include better travel times for the noble, increased combat ability for the noble, increased moral for a nobles units, etc...
A setup like this requires no extra effort on a players part but allows one to spend gold and time to potentially gain an advantage. I would probably rather spent the time/gold recruiting and training troops. Others may be big horse fans. Perhaps this kind of approach would work for everyone as long as the time/gold required for the bonuses gained are equal to or less than what could be gained by simply doing what we already do - recruiting and training troops.
-
If this ever becomes a feature, I want an option to turn it off so I don't have to deal with horse crap.
-
Captains perform a useful purpose, with bonuses that affect the troops a noble leads in various ways. But captains take absolutely no effort on the part of the player. You don't have to go hunting for them, you can't buy them or hire them, you don't have to pay them, they take no effort whatsoever on the part of the player. They can be completely ignored by the player, and they will still do their job.
A horse, that every noble in the world probably has multiples of, and would only ever be noticed by another merely by their conspicuous absence, is something that would very little to nothing to the game. Being able to/having to spend hours caring for your horse? Isn't that what grooms/squires are for? And in return you get some kind of traveling bonus for when you don't have a unit to lead? You a;ready get a travel bonus when you're not leading a unit, because you're assumed to be traveling fast and light, because you have horses. Kind of like cavalry units travel faster, because they have horses. If we were to give a horse travel bonus, we'd actually have to slow down everyone who was traveling without a unit and didn't have a horse. And then we have to worry about horses dying, and having to buy new ones, naming our horses, being able to buy multiple horses for multiple benefits, etc. etc.
To be honest, I can't see Tom ever adding any kind of game mechanics to deal with something as mundane as a horse. "Pets" of all kinds are a rejected request. I think that horses would almost certainly fall under the heading of pets.
-
when advy->noble...
You will also need to spend 20 gold on a noble's garb, a horse and other necessary items.
-
"Pets" of all kinds are a rejected request. I think that horses would almost certainly fall under the heading of pets.
Damn. I was just going ask that if this is implemented we could get a choice of various steads; specifically: I want to ride a dragon.
Think we could get dragon steads instead of horses?
-
Damn. I was just going ask that if this is implemented we could get a choice of various steads; specifically: I want to ride a dragon.
I've seen enough hentai to know where this is going.
-
It depends, Black or Pink dragons?
-
Captains perform a useful purpose, with bonuses that affect the troops a noble leads in various ways. But captains take absolutely no effort on the part of the player. You don't have to go hunting for them, you can't buy them or hire them, you don't have to pay them, they take no effort whatsoever on the part of the player. They can be completely ignored by the player, and they will still do their job.
A horse, that every noble in the world probably has multiples of, and would only ever be noticed by another merely by their conspicuous absence, is something that would very little to nothing to the game. Being able to/having to spend hours caring for your horse? Isn't that what grooms/squires are for? And in return you get some kind of traveling bonus for when you don't have a unit to lead? You a;ready get a travel bonus when you're not leading a unit, because you're assumed to be traveling fast and light, because you have horses. Kind of like cavalry units travel faster, because they have horses. If we were to give a horse travel bonus, we'd actually have to slow down everyone who was traveling without a unit and didn't have a horse. And then we have to worry about horses dying, and having to buy new ones, naming our horses, being able to buy multiple horses for multiple benefits, etc. etc.
To be honest, I can't see Tom ever adding any kind of game mechanics to deal with something as mundane as a horse. "Pets" of all kinds are a rejected request. I think that horses would almost certainly fall under the heading of pets.
By your logic oxen are pets as well. Perhaps we shouldn't have ox carts for transfering food between regions. Can't have pets now, can we?
-
It depends, Black or Pink dragons?
I've always roleplayed my dragons as being red. I don't see the game mechanic advantage of setting color as a coded choice, unless it relates to some characteristics.
One possibility would be to allow infils with green dragons to hide in woodland regions, and blue dragons on coastal regions, etc.
But generally speaking, I think the new estate system should come first.
-
I've always roleplayed my dragons as being red. I don't see the game mechanic advantage of setting color as a coded choice, unless it relates to some characteristics.
One possibility would be to allow infils with green dragons to hide in woodland regions, and blue dragons on coastal regions, etc.
But generally speaking, I think the new estate system should come first.
You're a funny guy ;)
-
By your logic oxen are pets as well. Perhaps we shouldn't have ox carts for transfering food between regions. Can't have pets now, can we?
Can you hire oxen?
Does your character page keep track of how many oxen you have?
Do you have to feed your oxen?
Does the game track the cute little nicknames you give to your oxen?
-
Now that you mentioned pets, I have this REALLY awesome idea! So, characters have the option to tour the wilderness in search of strange creatures. When they find one they can throw an enchanted orb at it and, if they are lucky, capture the strange creature in it.
Once they poses such a creature they can have their creature do battle against the creatures other nobles have caught. Over time the creatures will level up and gain power. There should be a variety of different creatures that each have unique traits.
Characters can catch a variety of the little beasties thus forming a unique team of pet-warriors that they can use to battle the other characters teams. Or, one could be more of a collector. After all, you "gotta have them all!"
-
Can you hire oxen?
Does your character page keep track of how many oxen you have?
Do you have to feed your oxen?
Does the game track the cute little nicknames you give to your oxen?
Yes, as a lord, if I last recall. They carry food on carts to nearby regions.
No. I have others to do that for me.
No. Why should I, the stableboys handle that.
No. I can RP that.
-
Yes, as a lord, if I last recall. They carry food on carts to nearby regions.
No. I have others to do that for me.
No. Why should I, the stableboys handle that.
No. I can RP that.
No, you cannot "hire oxen". You can send out ox carts. There are no individual oxen that you have to hire.
Horses, like oxen, are assumed to be there. You don't have to manage them, you don't have to name them or hire them or feed them or do anything with game-buttons for them—but if you RP yourself as having one, then you have one. It can have a name, and a personality, and you can RP yourself feeding it, and buying that feed with a few coppers, or even silvers if you're particularly fond of it.
But we're not adding horses as a separate paraphernalia object. There's not enough benefit to be gained from it to justify the work involved.
-
Yes, as a lord, if I last recall. They carry food on carts to nearby regions.
Don't be ridiculous.
-
In my mind, you hire the oxen as part of the carts, therefore you are hiring the oxen. No, not individually, but where did I state "I only hire one oxen, and nothing else with it"?
By the way, I agree that horses should not be paraphernalia, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to make sure you guys use actual arguments that are based on logic, not just "It'll make the game more girly".
-
By the way, I agree that horses should not be paraphernalia, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to make sure you guys use actual arguments that are based on logic, not just "It'll make the game more girly".
Apparently, I need to use more sarcasm markers.
-
In my mind, you hire the oxen as part of the carts, therefore you are hiring the oxen. No, not individually, but where did I state "I only hire one oxen, and nothing else with it"?
Your argument had no more validity than trying to claim that the game should let you buy and track individual pieces of armor because "Hey, I can hire infantry, and infantry wear armor and carry, so I'm really already buying armor and weapons, so therefore I should be able to got to a weaponsmith and commission him to make me a katana and wakizashi to go along with the dual-wield skill that we therefore must add to the game!"
-
What do ox carts have to do with equipment, mind you? Also, note my comment about not arguing for it to be paraphernalia.
-
Because the fact that the carts you hire to carry food include a pair of oxen is as relevant as the fact that the soldiers that you hire are wearing breastplates. Thus, saying that you "hire oxen" when you ship food is equivalent to saying that you "buy breastplates" when you recruit soldiers.
And yes, I know that you're playing devil's advocate. That's fine. But the logic you are using to state your argument could be easily extended to argue that we need to model the purchase and details of everything from the type of stone we use to build fortifications all the way down to the style and decoration of the salt cellars on our banquet tables.
-
To be fair, adding named horses as Unique Items seems reasonable and interesting. Only the naming scheme would need to be changed; the requirement for repairs can be seen as requirement for the unique saddle.
-
Because the fact that the carts you hire to carry food include a pair of oxen is as relevant as the fact that the soldiers that you hire are wearing breastplates. Thus, saying that you "hire oxen" when you ship food is equivalent to saying that you "buy breastplates" when you recruit soldiers.
And yes, I know that you're playing devil's advocate. That's fine. But the logic you are using to state your argument could be easily extended to argue that we need to model the purchase and details of everything from the type of stone we use to build fortifications all the way down to the style and decoration of the salt cellars on our banquet tables.
There, see! That's how you deconstruct an argument.
-
But we're not adding horses as a separate paraphernalia object. There's not enough benefit to be gained from it to justify the work involved.
Sooo.... there's still hope for dragons?
-
Only as long as they are not Pink or other girly colors.
-
Because we want more players, but girls aren't allowed!
-
Because we want more players, but girls aren't allowed!
Yes...no girls in this clubhouse!
-
Yes...no girls in this clubhouse!
I distance myself from these dangerous ideas. I welcome women into our most wonderful gaming society. Oh btw, Vellos' link to that stat-site showed that most people logging in to BM were... women. Yeah, I think the stats are wrong, honestly. :)
-
Well, tbh, we've warned them all to stay away from you.
-
Closing this thread.
a) it has ventured off-topic
b) your character is already assumed to ride a horse, the first few comments were right on target.