Deployable Spikes

[Jacko]

Old old old idea, not sure why it never saw the light of day. Nonetheless, would be fun to see them implemented.

[Ujin]

Although it would look good and realistic on the battlefield, i think it will bring imbalance to the game. Ranged classes are still quite dominant in strat. battles  and , like i predicted , cavalry is already countered by the simpliest teamwork and battle awareness, not to mention countless pikemen and spearmen. I'm sorry but add spikes in strat. battles and you would have archers completely dominate in strat again.

[Glyph]

Although it would look good and realistic on the battlefield, i think it will bring imbalance to the game. Ranged classes are still quite dominant in strat. battles  and , like i predicted , cavalry is already countered by the simpliest teamwork and battle awareness, not to mention countless pikemen and spearmen. I'm sorry but add spikes in strat. battles and you would have archers completely dominate in strat again.

they don't have to be in strat

[Duke]

Somewhat on topic, I was wondering if Polearm users could be given the ability to prop their lance, similar to cavalry couching theirs.

[Glyph]

Somewhat on topic, I was wondering if Polearm users could be given the ability to prop their lance, similar to cavalry couching theirs.

this topic is about that http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,12626.0.html

[Niemand]

I'm usually an archer - but that does not count here.

I would love to see stakes. Not because I hate cav. I hate Cav the same as I hate Polearmers, twohanders, shielders, archers. But not as much as I hate throwers or XBownubs.

Stakes would bring a bit more tactical fun into the game. I would make them more expensive than a siegeshield. maybe 1k more. And they have to have 150% Width of a Shieldwall Think that would be great.

Siege-Shields should, by the way, same as ladders, have more HP. I kill a ladder with one strike of my GLAxe and a Siege-Shield with two. thats boring. they need 50% more HP. at least. Especially ladders are broken by archers before they reach the wall.

[Tomas]

Why not just let people plant single stakes only.  Each Stake takes up 1 slot and you can carry/deploy as many as you have room for.  This way, deploying a wall of stakes is a team effort and a single person bringing a stake to a battle won't really benefit at all.

As for damage I don't think there should be any.  Horses should just rear up and stop as in IRL a horse would not be stupid enough to charge onto something that will hurt them.

[Glyph]

Why not just let people plant single stakes only.  Each Stake takes up 1 slot and you can carry/deploy as many as you have room for.  This way, deploying a wall of stakes is a team effort and a single person bringing a stake to a battle won't really benefit at all.

As for damage I don't think there should be any.  Horses should just rear up and stop as in IRL a horse would not be stupid enough to charge onto something that will hurt them.

it would, if the rider would enforce the animal to charge up to it. a horse wouldn't charge into a group of guys with spears aimed at the horse you say. well it does when the rider enforces the charge, same story, and you are right it wouldn't if it were on it's own, but with the rider, you get it.

[Bjord]

4th time it's been suggested.

[Tomas]

it would, if the rider would enforce the animal to charge up to it. a horse wouldn't charge into a group of guys with spears aimed at the horse you say. well it does when the rider enforces the charge, same story, and you are right it wouldn't if it were on it's own, but with the rider, you get it.

That's not actually true.  If it were true then Cavalry would have always been able to beat infantry squares during the Napoleonic era.  All it would have take was for 1 brave rider to take the risk and make the charge.  The fact is that the horses ALWAYS shied away and refused to charge the wall of men with bayonets.  The only recorded instance of cavalry breaking a well formed square in the entire peninsular war was when a horse was shot just before the point it would have turned away and the then dead horses momentum carried it into the the wall of bayonets forming a breach for other horsemen to charge into.  The other times cavalry managed to break a square were when the square was poorly formed or the Cav had Infantry/Artillery support.

[Glyph]

That's not actually true.  If it were true then Cavalry would have always been able to beat infantry squares during the Napoleonic era.  All it would have take was for 1 brave rider to take the risk and make the charge.  The fact is that the horses ALWAYS shied away and refused to charge the wall of men with bayonets.  The only recorded instance of cavalry breaking a well formed square in the entire peninsular war was when a horse was shot just before the point it would have turned away and the then dead horses momentum carried it into the the wall of bayonets forming a breach for other horsemen to charge into.  The other times cavalry managed to break a square were when the square was poorly formed or the Cav had Infantry/Artillery support.

horses wont jusmp into a solid piece of mass, like a testudo formation but they will charge into some samigos sticked randomly in the ground.(seriously, look it up on wikipedia or something)

[Tomas]

horses wont jusmp into a solid piece of mass, like a testudo formation but they will charge into some samigos sticked randomly in the ground.(seriously, look it up on wikipedia or something)

Only if they don't see the stakes.  Horses aren't stupid, they won't do things they think will hurt them.  Just look at how they train show jumping horses.  Initially the horse will try and avoid even a low jump so they first lie a jump rail on the floor and walk the horse over it.  This proves to the horse that going over the rail doesn't hurt.  Gradually they raise the height of the rail forcing the horse to start jumping, but each time proving to the horse that it doesn't hurt.  Finally they end up with a horse that will jump stupidly high fences but even then if you get the approach wrong the horse will turn away.

How do you propose they prove to a horse that running onto a spike doesn't hurt?

[Glyph]

Only if they don't see the stakes.  Horses aren't stupid, they won't do things they think will hurt them.  Just look at how they train show jumping horses.  Initially the horse will try and avoid even a low jump so they first lie a jump rail on the floor and walk the horse over it.  This proves to the horse that going over the rail doesn't hurt.  Gradually they raise the height of the rail forcing the horse to start jumping, but each time proving to the horse that it doesn't hurt.  Finally they end up with a horse that will jump stupidly high fences but even then if you get the approach wrong the horse will turn away.

How do you propose they prove to a horse that running onto a spike doesn't hurt?

if the horse is confident it can make the jump, it will do so, ofc if ther isn't an easier way. but if the rider forces the horse to make a jump, over in this case stakes, though the horse isn't sure it will make it, it will do it. maybe you haven't succeeded in doing so, but i have, do you think any horse thinks it's nice to jump over a freaking 2m high fence with cold water behind it, no. from what you are stating, a horse would never make a jump like that, though they do.

[Tomas]

if the horse is confident it can make the jump, it will do so, ofc if ther isn't an easier way. but if the rider forces the horse to make a jump, over in this case stakes, though the horse isn't sure it will make it, it will do it. maybe you haven't succeeded in doing so, but i have, do you think any horse thinks it's nice to jump over a freaking 2m high fence with cold water behind it, no. from what you are stating, a horse would never make a jump like that, though they do.

When did I state that horses can't jump 2m high fences with water behind them?  If you read what I say I argue that horses gain the confidence to jump bigger obstacles by first going over smaller obstacles.  This is called training - something which is impossible to do for charging into a sharp object due to its inherently fatal nature.  Or are you saying you can take any untrained horse with the physical attributes to jump a 2m high fence and get it to jump that fence first time every time?

[Glyph]

When did I state that horses can't jump 2m high fences with water behind them?  If you read what I say I argue that horses gain the confidence to jump bigger obstacles by first going over smaller obstacles.  This is called training - something which is impossible to do for charging into a sharp object due to its inherently fatal nature.  Or are you saying you can take any untrained horse with the physical attributes to jump a 2m high fence and get it to jump that fence first time every time?

evey one(except you apperently) knows that a horse will charge into a stake.
and there is no AI for horses ffs, and the point of stakes was to hurt horses.
if what you say is true, and horses wont go to stakes or guys with spears, than why were stakes pointy? BECAUSE HORSES DID RUN INTO THEM FFS!!!