[0.8][balance] Horse/warg usage for trained units

Quoting ,

I am of the opinion that either the number of horses/wargs you get per turn should be decreased or their cost for trained units should be increased. Currently, if you build even a single stables, you will have so many horses that by turn 100 you won't even care anymore about your horse number (and you can trade them to AI without a source of horses for absurd amounts of money). No other resource is like this - crystal is in dire supply almost all the time, and is exceedingly hard to get in decent quantities, and metal is only about half the problem (as it is much easier to use up).

Right now, every single game ends up with a surfeit of wargs or horses in your inventory and they're so plentiful that a single source can supply your entire army forever. If it's not like that for crystal or even metal, this seems unbalanced.

Yup. I think they should be reduced to 0.5 horse/warg per turn and the 2nd level stables be brought back to give 1 per turn for the maps where you can only find 1 resource.

Successfully updated karma reason!

+1, or one adds a size mechanic, meaning that you get less Cavalry per squad than infantry. This would give infantry a distinguished role.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree that they should be made considerably more rare. I am swimming in horses and wargs and so is the AI.

Successfully updated karma reason!

1. There is another use for horses and wargs that should be implemented. Allow heroes to trade items between each other from anywhere in your empire. The cost would be in wargs or horses (your choice) for the item courier to use as he runs back and fourth. This would happen instantly (within the same turn) since each turn is a season.

2. I also like the idea that a unit made with horses or wargs is a size smaller. Very good idea. As it stands now there is no reason not to build every unit as a mounted unit which really detracts from unit flavor and variety.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

Horses really need to be pared down. No problems with the resource being frequent, but it should be .1 horse/turn normally, .25 with the advanced building, and it should require animal husbandry before warg riding.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Agreed.

But alternatively, I wonder if they could be switched from a produced resource into a cap. For example, allow a stable to support two trained units being upgraded with horses. 1. It prevents the glut and 2. It would cut down on unit design clutter.

The rationale is that mounts age/wear out and need to be replaced hense a stable can only support a set number of cavalry units.

Alt alt, mounted units require a per season mount resource wage in addition to gildar.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

i know this thread is about the value of horses and wargs but i asked myself lately, which is the counter to mounted units?! for archers it should be shield-wielder......for mounted units it should usually be spearmen.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Historically, the issue with horses was that they drink a lot and eat a lot of stuff.

Especially in a post apocalypse like world, getting the food/water for those horses would be very difficult.

I dont even want to think about the real life implications of using carnivorous wargs as mounts.

Of course Horses could also forage better...

I think a good solution to horses is to decrease the number of guys if you pick horses, for example, if you have cooperation, you could have 4 normal foot guys or 3 horsemen. This would give infantry better damage output and staying power, while the horsemen would be fast, but apart from the initial charge propably less damaging.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Honestly at this point I'd almost rather they just take horses and wargs out of the game as a resource. While making them a cap seems like fair option, it seems like really it would have a small effect. Any good sized kingdom would still have enough of a cap to field an army of two, which is all most players make anyway, you'd still have no reason to build non-mounted units over mounted units, all it seems like it would really do is hurt the AI (since they build the big armies anyway) and the AI doesn't need anything holding it back. So maybe just take them out as a resource.

As for an actual balance/counter for mounted units, I think one thing that they should do is split up lances and spears/pikes. They are different things, and used differently and right now the game treats them the same.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You could also make a counter to horses, pikes comes to mind or maybe have a upkeep cost to mounted units. Like 0,25 per rider or something like that. 4 man unit would consume 1 upkeep per turn, this would make cavalery something rare and special.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Zarkis,

reply 3

I agree that they should be made considerably more rare. I am swimming in horses and wargs and so is the AI.

Yeah. Again, compare to crystal, which you can't get enough of. I mean, in my current game, I have 4 crystal quarries and still a severe shortage of crystals, whereas I have exactly *one* stables (not even a ranch) and I have never wanted for horses yet.

Quoting Xerberus86,

reply 7

i know this thread is about the value of horses and wargs but i asked myself lately, which is the counter to mounted units?! for archers it should be shield-wielder......for mounted units it should usually be spearmen.

The way that LH is currently structured, there are no units that are specific counters to others, or weapon types. While I think it's perfectly fine for LH not to adopt a weapon triangle or even a "bonus damage against this with this weapon type" (which oddly I think they DID have in FE: I distinctly remember crag spawn being weak to blunt), I think they need some deterrent to mounting every single unit. It limits your choices, it limits diversity, and I don't think any army that wasn't assembled by the horse lords of Rohan was made entirely of mounted soldiers.

Successfully updated karma reason!

horses wear off over time...its unlikely to ride same horse for 100 years (units looks immortal byitself due regeneration mechanics)

some upkeep cost shoud balance this, like 0.06 horse turn per horse used (0.36 per company) (3 company will drain over 1 horse per turn, exact value can be balanced, but this will return infantry units to game, player\AI simply wont be able to maintain many mounted units.

same with iron and other resources

+3

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting sharpxe,

reply 12

some upkeep cost shoud balance this, like 0.06 horse turn per horse used (0.36 per company) (3 company will drain over 1 horse per turn, exact value can be balanced, but this will return infantry units to game, player\AI simply wont be able to maintain many mounted units.

Oh, an upkeep cost, I like this. Good suggestion! Like many things, upkeep costs stop spamming.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting animageous,

reply 13

Oh, an upkeep cost, I like this. Good suggestion! Like many things, upkeep costs stop spamming.

Upkeep for mounts is too complex (especially if you get the skath/pony/spider mounts). The better way is to limit how fast you earn them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ashbery76

Join Date 02/2002

+36

Even in Frogboys AAR he had all warg forces.It hurts immersion in my view.

Successfully updated karma reason!

One thing I have never understood, why do mounted units get a bonus doge vs. ranged attacks? It doesn't really make any sense, realistically they should be taking penalties to doge vs. ranged attacks or even just to doge in general. Bigger target = easier to hit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Mightypeon,

reply 8

Especially in a post apocalypse like world, getting the food/water for those horses would be very difficult.

It's not so bad, almost everyone died! Plenty of free grasslands!

Quoting animageous,

reply 11

The way that LH is currently structured, there are no units that are specific counters to others, or weapon types. While I think it's perfectly fine for LH not to adopt a weapon triangle or even a "bonus damage against this with this weapon type" (which oddly I think they DID have in FE: I distinctly remember crag spawn being weak to blunt)

I agree that there shouldn't be direct counters in this game. If there are counters they should be functional as opposed to statistical. Blunt did more damage to crag spawn because there was 3 physical damage types, and they had less blunt resistance. Mounted units should have less bonuses towards spears if anything.

Quoting iamaddj,

reply 16

One thing I have never understood, why do mounted units get a bonus doge vs. ranged attacks?

Despite being a turn based game. They're a lot faster than an unmounted soldier, making them harder to track and hit with a bow or magical staff bolt.

Halving their production rate would be fine, but adding upkeep costs and complicating the process is a pain. Maybe make the technology to produce the 2nd tier buildings its own technology at the end of the mounted line.

I always thought that being mounted in battle could require a perk in the unit design. A mounted unit without this perk will be unmounted in battle. Allowing your armies to maintain mobility on the world map. But if you want the most out your units perk slots for a purpose focused unit you'd have to have them unmounted in battle. The warg bonuses are great in battle and I would spend a perk slot on them. For horses I may leave this perk off if I want a more defensive unit.

Having a lot of mounted units is not something so unbelievable. But the ease at which we can mount all our units and get nothing but befits is, to me, a little silly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Now that you can upgrade troop size the best way to balance horses would be to remove them from the regular resource mechanic and add a limit on the number of units you can have based on number of resource nodes. For example, one horse node with the basic building means you can recruit one troop unit with horses. An upgraded horse node means two units. Doesn't matter how many individual figures are in the unit, and no racking up resources for later. You either have to upgrade the unit, lose it in battle, or disband it before you can build another (assuming you don't capture more nodes or build a second level building.

Edit:

Having a lot of mounted units is not something so unbelievable. But the ease at which we can mount all our units and get nothing but befits is, to me, a little silly.

Realistically the problem with horses wasn't a feeding problem until armies became so big they couldn't forage for themselves, and needed horses for more than just fighting or scouting roles. Yeah horses added some logistical problems, but they were largely a problem of where the army was based, not while the army was on the move. Granted that isn't really simulated in a basic upkeep system, but that doesn't change the fact that there isn't really a basis for a significant cost in upkeep.

The real problem with horses (in the real world) was availability. Not only were horses used for just about everything you could think of, horses bred for war required a lot of extra training and care while growing up and had little return on investment outside of war due to that training.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The question then becomes how many horses should each node support. I don't understand this mechanic anyways, horses die just like people in fact they die faster so they need support just like people do in cities. Each horse node then becomes a horse "city" per se supporting a limited number. If you had it set up that horses were a non stored global resource for each node of say 15 horses initially and 20 when upgraded you could only ever build 3 units of 6 horse each and have 2 left over horse units for future use if you find another node. That is unless you had a bunch of horse resource nodes then it starts getting silly with those numbers and you would have to tone them down. This also acts as a HUGE limiter in the game of make everything mounted later in the game which it should not be, horses take a LOT of resources especially an army of horses. Then you don't have to add a support cost to the horse units just additional training time and you have the horse problem solved.

By the way if this does not make a lot of sense I am sorry I have not had a lot of sleep, finals are coming for me .

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Schweiz,

reply 17

Despite being a turn based game. They're a lot faster than an unmounted soldier, making them harder to track and hit with a bow or magical staff bolt.

But that's not really true in either real life or in how the game works. Yes, mounted units are faster than units on foot and that's already reflected in the game, they get bonuses to movement and initiative, that's already a huge bonus. But mounted units aren't a whole ton more "dogey" than a guy on foot, they are still a much bigger target, which has always made them easier to hit with ranged attacks.

You might, and even then I would argue with you, be able to make an argument saying that mounted archers, or troops using hit and run tactics are some how more dodgy then other troops. But hit and run isnt really in the game and mounted archers kind of suck and aren't really the issue here. The issue is that mounted troops, i.e. heavy cav, making frontal attacks , have no counter, and those troops should be easier, not harder to hit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nerfing horses would slow down the game too much and that would be very boring.

Stopping the turn after a battle already has a bad slowdown effect. Why make it worse?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like the idea of reducing the horse gain per turn. The bottom line is that if you want to produce a lot of mounted troops, you shouldn't be able to do it with just one resource node.

I pretty much skimmed over the thread, but any of the suggestions of upkeeps and limiters have the issue that what if you lose a resource node, what then? How would it affect the existing troops? Negative upkeep would make troops lose their horses because they can't be renewed? You could be over the limits with more mounted troops that are actually allowed? You'd lose the excess mounts? Solutions like these just create additional problems, I think.

Reducing the horse/warg/whatever you get per turn would be much more straightforward solution, and would make the said resources much more valuable and important. It would also allow more situations where a player can have 'limited mounts', instead of just 'no mounts' or 'tons of mounts'.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with the thought line of reducing the output down to .25/stable and bringing back the 2nd level stable (to .5), but put it deep in the tech tree.

Changing it to a Civ 5 style (capped output) for a single resource doesn't work, given that all other resources in the game are built up over time so we should keep to that style. It also opens up many other issues (lack of the resources/etc) that would need work, but for a single resource it doesn't make sense to go that way.

Other changes that can be made:

remove the ability to 'defend' for mounted units. That gives foot soldiers a boost vs. mounted as they'd be given the 'dig in' ability for better defense and dodging.

Increase the number of horses/unit required from 1 to 2. So a company would require 8 horses rather than 4. This is fairly historical as armies would need extra mounts due to them getting worn down in battle or from scouting missions.

The bonuses mounted units give should also be adjusted. Frankly, I can't see much reason to take a horse over a warg, given the removal of encumbrance. Even worse is the War Horse, as it's not really that much better.

I'd like to see the war horse get +2 defense/model, but drop 50 points on the bonus vs. ranged. It would also be nice for it to get an armour offset bonus as war horses were bred for carrying heavier troops. The Wargs +initiative bonus would need to be removed as it is currently the unit that can be used for plate armour the best as it directly counters the initiative penalties from armour.

In exchange, I'd give it more of a dodging bonus.

On top of that, mounts should be given an armour proficiency requirement maximum. Plate mail for Warhorses, Chain for horses and wargs then whatever else for the fantastical mounts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem comes from the immersion factor in that horses are alive whereas rocks aren't. You can store rocks forever.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting halmal242,

reply 24

The problem comes from the immersion factor in that horses are alive whereas rocks aren't. You can store rocks forever.

You can also breed horses forever.

Successfully updated karma reason!