horses?

[De-Legro]

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.

[Chenier]

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.

[Daycryn]

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.)

[De-Legro]

(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.

[Shenron]

Could try being less of an !@#$%^&. Just saying, there are better ways to say no.

Thats Anaris for you my friend.

[vonGenf]

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.

[Daycryn]

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.

[Sypher]

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.

[Fleugs]

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.

[Daycryn]

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.  )

[vonGenf]

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.

[Daycryn]

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.

[Lorgan]

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.

[Fleugs]

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.

[Chenier]

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.