Riders or warriors?

[Natmus]

I have been wondering about the relative merits of using riders and warriors. Apart from the fact that a pure-horse army moves about a square faster than an army which has warriors in it, is there any difference between the two types of soldiers?

I could imagine that riders get a modest bonus when fighting in plains, for example, while warriors would get a bonus fighting in forests. Maybe warriors should get the bonus in strongholds too, but the counter argument could easily be that riders automatically would dismount inside a stronghold.

On the same line of though, what is your favourite composition of an army; all riders, all warriors, a 50-50 mix or what?

[Matija]

I prefer riders only, but rarely I am able to give 2500 of them to a lord, so after recruitment ends, I fill his army with soldiers.

There was a case or two that made me suspect that an army of riders only fights better. But occasions to verify it being so rare, it still remains only a suspiction.

[sparrowhawk]

Riders fight better than warriors overall, though as the hit "range" of warriors and riders overlap slightly, a one-day battle may see better results for warriors. Over time though, riders will get the better hits in.

To test this fully, you need to have the same number of riders and warriors assigned to the lord, and they must be of the same strength/energy.

[Perun]

I prefer rider-only armies as well, especially in eary stages of a game, when recruiting speed is essential.

When a game matures, I don't really care what soldiers I have as long as there are plenty of them, preferably 2500 total.

I agree with different factors for different army types on different terrain, as that adds much spice to the game. It should be even more diverse than now, IMHO.

[sparrowhawk]

At the moment, the terrain type does not affect battles (except if there is a garrison in a stronghold of course, in which case defenders get an attack bonus)

I was thinking of implementing the lowering of rider abilities in the battle engine - thanks for reminding me.

I would also have added mountains to your list of strongholds and forests. What do you think?

[Matija]

I think horses should still matter in strongholds, since they can make sorties.

Or, perhaps, the terrain sourounding the stronghold would determine how much of a factor the riders make: full if sorrounded by plains (like the Keep of Blood), or none, if forrests are all around (like the Citadel of Dreams).

[Ringthane]

Agree with both: I favour equality in mountains, but defenders could have a slight bonus.

[Matija]

Maybe defence factors could be individually assigned to strongholds, so some would be easier to defend then others. And those factors could take lord's race into account, so the fey, for examole, would get a higher bonus at a forest citadel than other races.

[sparrowhawk]

Matija said:

Maybe defence factors could be individually assigned to strongholds, so some would be easier to defend then others. And those factors could take lord's race into account, so the fey, for examole, would get a higher bonus at a forest citadel than other races.

That would actually be quite easy to do, just adding a bonus field to the lord record (strongholds are implemented as static lords with a few special characteristics such as ownership), then including the bonus in the battle calcs.

What do others think of this idea? I could see that Gorgrath, Kor, Ithrorn, Shimeril might have the highest bonuses, with Gloom and Dregrim the lowest? Personally, if we implement this, I would prefer the bonuses to be quite low, otherwise citadels could be too hard to capture.
Bonuses could be increased by spending gold to improve defences, but up to a maximum amount of course.


Also, should bonuses change after capture, to reflect damage done during an assault, etc?