06-05-2002 11:27									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I strongly got the impression from the design document that combat would work like a slightly bulked up EU model of combat. This is one reason I gave the probability ability a bizarre look. I figured the point of this system was that you could rapidly roll through 10 rounds, and being able to stop things in the middle short of retreat orders (which could be set up in advance to further speed things up, or just require you to click when you want to stop in battle and slow things down)...

Now I love Heroes II & III, but I'm not sure it'll work for this system- for starters, with no heroes to cast spells in battle, that massively reduces the strategy & fun right there (ignoring the probability ability, which is hardly fun and really more annoying). Also units have less cool special abilities, and more to the point seemed designed to fight automatically. Have you ever played Imperialism or Imperialism II? That had a Heroesy type battle-board, but stripped down units like you have. And the battles weren't that interesting for the most part. Don't fall into that trap.

So, all archers fire at all infantry/pikemen/whatever in the front row of the other side. Then all cavalry on both sides charge. Then the infantry thwack each other. Repeat, until one side retreats or surrenders.

	06-05-2002 17:48									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Two quick points.

Since there is magic in the game, how will this be incorporated into combat? Will there be fantastic monsters a la HoMM? Will spellcasting be permitted in combat?

Another point relates to terrain. If my readinf is correct there currently are no rules governing slopes (including cliffs). Slopes are very important though because the units with higher elevations gain significant advantages (at least in real life).

	06-05-2002 18:01									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

As the game stands magic can only be used by one faction (The Wizards), and although it can be used to kill units, via Pestilence, i don't think it can directly influence combat (no heal or direct-damage spells, for example). There aren't any magic-using combat units, although again they might be included later ... the game will be built-up one step at a time and many of the future steps are shrouded in mystery.

Like I said, the general lack-of-magic might change (I'd like it to ) as the game develops, but since the project is just trying to get off its feet at the moment then things are inevitably gonna be pretty simple.

Fantastic monsters? Well ... we were talking at some point about the possibility for creating more faction-specific stuff such as Fate Cards and Units. Although fantastic monsters don't really fit into any of the other factions' stories they could very well be included for the Wizards.
The potential to include lots of weird and wonderful creatures is greater in any eventual sequel (ideas currently fermenting in Vel's head ), but since that is a looooooong way off it hasn't come up much (if at all) so far.

Also, the ability for the player to choose to use certain Fate Cards at certain points in the game (including combat) could be considered a type of magic. Details of Fate Cards to be announced when we know what they are ...

	06-05-2002 18:06									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think there should be a combat bonus for advantages in numbers just as there are defensive bonuses.

For example, with two equally equipped armies with the same number of troops on (lets say 100) an open field you would expect similar casualties on both sides (lets say 25). If I change the scenario and have one army of 100 and one of 150 the casualty ratio will change significantly so that by the time the first army has lost 25 men the second army will have only lost 12. So now the battle becomes even more one sided (75 vs 138) instead of the 75 vs 125.

The reason for this (and it still applies in modern combat) is that with a manpower advantage one combatant can defend while his partner attacks.

Essentially the principle of concentration of force at a tactical level.

I'm not sure how this could be employed in a game but its something to consider.

	06-05-2002 18:06									#35
	Suffering from ads?

Couple 'o questions:

Will there be moral & experience factors for your troops which modify their combat results?

Also, I remember an old Civil War game that I had in high school (which, overall, wasn't very good) that had skill and initiative stats for each general (example: N. Bedford Forrest, 8/8). Thus, if you gave Mr. Forrest a bunch of happy, experienced troops (experience and moral were both 1-10 figures too), he could probably kick the hell out of an army twice the size commanded by George McClelland (4/1). Will your leaders have modifying effects on combat results, or just function as a MM tool?

Finally, if you have magic in the game, shouldn't spellcasters have the first move (before archers)?

-Arrian

	06-05-2002 18:19									#36
	Suffering from ads?

SpencerH: shouldn't that just happen automatically, without the need for specific bonuses?
Because an army of 20 Infantry would have 20 chances to score a 'hit' (roll 8 or less on a 20-sided dice) they would almost- always score more hits than an army of 10 Infantry (with only 10 chances to hit). This means that the larger army is likely to hit more, therefore inflicting more casualties and making the differential in army-size even more pronounced.
Or did I miss your point?

Arrian: Moral and Experience? ermm ... I dunno actually, but if there isn't then it doesn't mean to say there won't be . It's a good idea, but of course is yet one more thing that will need to be coded and balanced. I'd like to see the game included it at some point.
The General issue? ahh .. something that is actually in the game. If you take a peak at the Core Rules (you mean you haven't yet? ) you might see that, although very few specifics have been worked out yet, there is a commitment to that in the rules. One example is a general of the Fury faction who gives a +1 attack +1 defence modification to all Cavalry in the army he commands ... another general gives a bonus to Influence each turn IIRC.

	06-05-2002 18:57									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I've looked at the army/unit component specs, and there is an experience attribute for each and every unit. Thats the good news.

The bad new is that not only does experience not affect combat, but units don't even gain experience from combat.
But don't worry, as Stoo said this is going to be in with a later version.

	06-05-2002 19:09									#38
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet SpencerH: shouldn't that just happen automatically, without the need for specific bonuses? Because an army of 20 Infantry would have 20 chances to score a 'hit' (roll 8 or less on a 20-sided dice) they would almost- always score more hits than an army of 10 Infantry (with only 10 chances to hit). This means that the larger army is likely to hit more, therefore inflicting more casualties and making the differential in army-size even more pronounced. Or did I miss your point?

Its not quite the same thing. In civ type combat we have an I hit you, you hit me kind of contest. In your example one army has 20 and the other has 10 chances to hit.

The advantage of more troops in reality is that it becomes, I hit you-> you cant hit me-> I hit you again. Which might convert in your example to 20 vs 8 (rather than 10) chances to hit.

	06-05-2002 19:38									#39
	Remove this text

Hmmm...an interesting point!

I think though, that this is further complicated (and on purpose) by the notion of the tiered combat system.

Let us say, for example, that I have ten units, and you have twenty. Mine are ten archers, and yours are Mercenaries, but you have no money to pay for a bounty, and my archers are sitting fortified, or have other bonuses which give them effectively +3 on their attack values.

In this case, I have far, far fewer troops, but they've got almost twice the chance of hitting, and as they attack on the first tier of combat, your troops would be killed before they even got to roll (let's say that in round one, I kill off 4 of your mercenaries...then the battle is essentially 16:10, since your four dead guys don't get to fight back).

-=Vel=-

	06-05-2002 19:52									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i'd love to see an improved ctp2 stack/combat system

	06-05-2002 19:57									#41
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The benefit of numbers only comes into play once that unit is actually in combat rather than moving forward. My 20 units would not benefit while under bombardment but once in contact would benefit.

PS the archers should loose then tiering advantage while in contact with an opponent. Its hard to shoot a bow when someones swinging a sword or ax at your head.

	06-05-2002 20:14									#42
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx ::nodding:: I see what you're saying Og, and I like the analogy....a good one indeed! Now, to address the point brought up earlier regarding making use of actual battlefield strategies (flank, envelope, hold ground, overrun, etc). Could we perhaps make use of "cards" to deliver generally scripted forms of battlefield attacks? What I'm thinking here is that we could come up with several "forms" of attack, make a cross reference chart (ie - what happens, Attack and Defense value wise if I attack to overrun you, and you choose to hold your ground at all costs?)....the computer could calculate the different effects of the various strats we select, adding in modifiers for the presence of a leader, and we could perhaps even grant the unique leaders in the game "experience points" such that one leader might excel at making flanking attacks, but be less successful when ordered to hold his ground at all costs, and this could be reflected via combat modifiers for the troops under his command. -=Vel=-

Hi folks,

A couple of random ideas. Dunno if they're much good but I thought I may as well chuck them into the melting pot!

Make your armies a bit like the Civ 3 Armies. Each army gets a blank roster sheet with say six 'company' slots. In turn each company gets 3 'brigade' slots (military buffs out there will no doubt pick more appropriate terms ), and a 'leader' slot for the general.
The player can load up the roster as he sees fit. Unlike Civ 3, the composition of the army can be changed/upgraded at will (at a suitable place, like a barracks or whatever)
The roster is a blank one size fits all thing. So you can stick together a couple of light cav brigades for a quick scouting force, or put together a full on invasion force with archers, heavy cav, the works.... its up to you.
In combat each 'company' moves as a separate entity on the battle field. So the player has a maximum of six units to move around. Each of these units of course is made up of three brigades, so each company may be a mixed force, thats OK in most circumstances, or a 'stack of doom' of one particular unit that will kick ass in some circumstances but be chopped apart in others. Each company may also have an attached general, who can give bonuses to that particular company as described by others.
I think this would give plenty of tactical variety if the player wanted to direct everything hands on. For auto resolution, you issue the army as a whole a general order - 'defend at all costs', 'hit and run', 'overrun' or whatever. Each company in the army gets a score for *each* sort of tactic, depending on how it is put together. The scores are added up to give an overall attack and defense value for the army to be fed into whatever combat determining equation you're using. So in principle any army can try and use any strategy, how successful it will be at a given strategy depends how it is made up.

Battles take place on the main map (square/hex based?). At the start of a battle, the map zooms in to one square and the fun begins. Of course if that square is being used for resource harvesting then you are going to get a lot of scared peasants in the way to be saved or slaughtered

Companies are depicted as *groups* of soldiers if possible. I know its way early in the design stage to be concerned with graphics but this would make the combat a lot more epic, rather than the Civ style one figure against another. Plus each group can have a flag - shows presence of general and if a hit point system is being used, this can correlate to the number of soldiers in the group.

Ooops got a bit carried away there and went on for longer than I intended. My apologies if this is all old hat or is (inadvertently) lifting well known concepts from other games.

cheers,

Rich.

(Can't code, can't draw, can make the odd suggestion.)

	06-05-2002 20:38									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The six slots plus leader groupings are similar to what is used in the RTS "Kohan". Although they give the impression of unit flexibility, I'm not sure they're really much better than the civ system if you're trying to achieve a level of tactical combat realism between civ and say "shogun".

Does anyone remember "Lords of the realm II"?

	06-05-2002 22:31									#44
	Suffering from ads?

Hi BigRich ... thanks for those ideas!

As far as the organisational aspect of the military in this game is concerned, and using your terminology, I can say that we don't currently have any 'company' slots for the armies. I like the idea of breaking an army stack down into what are effectively smaller armies. The current system doesn't allow for that (mostly for simplicities sake, and also 'cos we didn't think of it ), but the army instead has several slots to assign to whatever type of unit they want to ... I forget how many, but it's less than the total number of unit types available, thus creating strategic decisions.

	06-05-2002 22:42									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Now that I have divulged my one and only idea. (Sorry guys my creative juices are drying up - old age and all. Ugg that kinna sounds nasty.)

I'm still interested in what you all intended for Generals and Great Artists (Governors). Specifically what kind of special abilities the leaders possess.

I like the way MOO2 implemented both generals and governors. A governor for example could have positive effects to morale/drone quelling, increased food, industry, trade, money, science, (magic). Likewise they could have negatives as well.

For a generals (hopefully yall like my idea of tactical resolution being available only to forces with a general) I would assume specials talents would include:

Better offense
Better Defense
Better mobility (mounted units)
Better mobility (foot soldiers = mounted units)
Better ability to rally troops = Battlefield rallying equating to damage to unit is halved as stragglers reform into unit formation
etc. etc.


Thoughts guys?

Og

P.S. By the by coolio web page over at Candy's Bra.

P.P.S. I would also advocate that leaders exist for a finite time depending on magic tech discovered(longevity spells), race etc. This means use them or lose them. Afterall they are mortal you as the faction God are not.

	07-05-2002 03:02									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Generals, generally speaking, boost combat values... I think there'd be a severe combat imbalance with doubled movement, but other options for generals are very possible. I suggested battle formations earlier, but generals could also have an increased sight range, decreased movement terrain penalties, or other non-combat abilities that could still significantly aid the force they were in.

As for non-military leaders, I'm not exactly sure how they would be generated. Now that I think about it, I'm not exactly sure how either leader would be created... combat leaders currently either come free at the beginning or are generated through fate cards. Without getting into the debate of "are historical figures born, or made?" I would be interested in hearing what people think would be the most balanced and enjoyable way of generating leaders.

	07-05-2002 04:51									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Thoughts on armies, leaders, fate stuffages, and other things combat related:

The way I visualize it in my head, the army is the basic unit of battle in the game. The troops IN the army pretty well could be said to represent the "hit points" of the army ( 1 unit of whatever = 1 "hit point" for the army in question).

In Civ/EU, when battle is joined, it is a passive affair, from the perspective of the player. You move your guys toward some badguys, they start slugging it out, and someone is eventually left standing.

That's not very engaging, and I would not even consider that manner of combat resolution a measure of last resort. The big thing about our combat engine is the multi-tiered approach, which BEGS for combat interaction....the real trick though, is to make that interaction interesting and engaging to the player.

There have been a lot of good ideas fronted thus far, so let's see if we can begin to gel what we've got into a cohesive whole and see what the beast might look like on-screen.

Minimalist approach:
two rival forces meet on the main map, in the same territory. A battle display box pops up for order giving. If there is no leader present, a 'default' (generic) leader is assigned to the force. Said leader has at least some minimal understanding of battle tactics and whatnot, but he's probably not very good at anything. If you have a leader, then the leader will have expertise in certain types of attacks.

Step one, in combat resolution:
Overall strategy for the current round is chosen (via popup?)
(Flank, hold, envelope, overrun, general advance, etc)

If MP, the player with the most experienced leader selects his strategy last, and has a % chance of intel (some indication of what strat the other guy selected....call it the difference between the two leaders' experience levels or something)

If SP: The human player always selects his strategy first.

Step two, in combat resolution:
tactics for the current round are chosen. This is down on the tier level (will the archers execute precision strikes or no? If so, who will they target? Is the cavalry prepping for a charge, or making a standard attack? That kinna thing) - again, this could be handled via popups and/or be pre-defined by the user ahead of time).

Step three, in combat resolution:
The attack is resolved...step two is where the "dice are rolled" and the strategies chosen from step one are cross referenced with each other to provide bonuses to a/d values according to the cross reference chart.

Step four, in combat resolution:
Losses taken, option to withdraw presented to either side it applies to (in the case of attacking a neutral territory, the neutrals do not have the option to withdraw).

Repeat till the battle is won.

Advantages: Pretty easy to code. All the "action" takes place on the main map display, with interrupts and orders issued via popups to the main display. We can also build in an option to "keep everything the same and press the attack" such that the combat would continue to the bitter end using the previously selected commands unless specifically interrupted by either side.

Disadvantages: popups can get tiresome, and there's no active control at the unit level with regards to units. This could limit some of the Fate Card possibilities that could impact specific units....or at the very least, make their impact difficult to spot/guage effectiveness.

****

Another option:
Battle Map zoom

When battle is joined, the main map vanishes, to be replaced by a hex-drawn battle map with armies squaring off at opposite sides of the map. This is more graphic intensive and requires two things to make it look good. Good unit animations, and attention to the battle map itself (terrain effects at the tactical level - High ground, levels of fortification for dug in defenders, etc).

Rather than relying on a "tiered" system as we have outlined for the core rules of the boardgame version, we could assign each troop type an initiative rating, movement rate, attack value, armor value, damage per attack, each unit would have a set number of hit points, and experience (gets better for surviving battles), damage range, etc. Leaders could be assigned to a particular "stack" and provide their leadership bonuses TO the stack assigned to, or perhaps have a command range, such that their full bonus would apply to all stacks in range, and leadership effects would fall off outside of that range.

Advantages: Combat could be controlled to an exquisitely fine degree....individual units could be placed for maximum effect, and we could do without the "general strategy" selection, cos the units themselves would be moved and positioned to execute those same effects by each player. If the battle map is large enough to really allow maneuverability, and if attention is paid to terrain effects, this could give a quite engaging combat experience. Would make Fate Card implementation easy (similar to hero spell casting in homm).

Disadvantages: Could lead to game mechanics driven strategies as opposed to battlefield strategies. Take a while to code properly, more graphics intensive. Unless we had a really good AI for autocombat, each piddly battle would have to be fought out manually, which could get tedious.

***

Others? I'm sure there are more that encompass many of the ideas here, but my back's killing me and I'm gonna go lay back down with the icy hot...UGH

-=Vel=-

	07-05-2002 08:51									#48
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Vel,

To answer your question, I have never played any Talonsoft games. The combat resolution system is something I have tossed around for some time.

Some more questions. Will there be a large number of combat units or just a small number of them? Are the units fixed in strength (the modern organisation) or variable a la Europa Universalis?

	07-05-2002 09:23									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hey UR!

On my way to bed, but first...an answer to your questions!

The number of different *types* of combat units is relatively small (Infantry, Pike, Mercs, Skirmishers, Archers, Cavalry), but the total number that could appear in an army is...well, anybody's guess, but those numbers could get quite large.

Units are of variable strength, per tech advance (increasing tech levels see an increase in a/d values of units across the board, in addition to providing special abilities (ie - infantry, at some point in the game begin to gain abilities similar to cav (beginning with gaining the "initiative" special, and eventually able to execute charge/flank manuever)).

-=Vel=-

	07-05-2002 13:44									#50
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet Hi BigRich ... thanks for those ideas! As far as the organisational aspect of the military in this game is concerned, and using your terminology, I can say that we don't currently have any 'company' slots for the armies. I like the idea of breaking an army stack down into what are effectively smaller armies. The current system doesn't allow for that (mostly for simplicities sake, and also 'cos we didn't think of it ), but the army instead has several slots to assign to whatever type of unit they want to ... I forget how many, but it's less than the total number of unit types available, thus creating strategic decisions.

No problem and thanks for the feedback!

Some degree of strategic decision in building your army sounds great! From SpencerH's post I'm not sure how well my ideas would work - heck if they've been tried before, there's no point redoing them if they don't. However it pans out though, I'm still in favour of lotsa figures on the battlefield and armies that can be updated and rearranged!

Rich.

	07-05-2002 17:14									#51
	Tired of ads?

Dont let me put a damper on any ideas!

Kohan uses a different unit organization than other RTS games. In some ways its better and others worse. I'm just providing some feedback for you all to consider. Its easy enough to get a copy of the game and look at the structure.

The same with Lords of the realm II. It was a turn based strategy game that used the concept of provinces with simple decisions about food, happiness, and what weapons (soldiers) to build. It also had a pop-up combat screen that included many of the concepts that are being discussed for CB' such as the terrain features in the pop-up. The best part was assaulting and defending castles. It was actually pretty good for its day (~civ2)

Another possible use for the "General" units is to give them a chance to change unit orders in combat, with more experienced leaders able to order more changes. An army with a low ranking officer would only be able to set their unit commands prior to the battle (that could be done with unit groupings, formations, and way-points). Rather than an all or nothing approach to leadership you would develop your leaders through succesful combat.

Civilian leaders could be developed the same way, with advancement dependent on civic projects or happy people.

	07-05-2002 23:11									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Dont let me put a damper on any ideas! Kohan uses a different unit organization than other RTS games. In some ways its better and others worse. I'm just providing some feedback for you all to consider. Its easy enough to get a copy of the game and look at the structure. The same with Lords of the realm II. It was a turn based strategy game that used the concept of provinces with simple decisions about food, happiness, and what weapons (soldiers) to build. It also had a pop-up combat screen that included many of the concepts that are being discussed for CB' such as the terrain features in the pop-up. The best part was assaulting and defending castles. It was actually pretty good for its day (~civ2) Another possible use for the "General" units is to give them a chance to change unit orders in combat, with more experienced leaders able to order more changes. An army with a low ranking officer would only be able to set their unit commands prior to the battle (that could be done with unit groupings, formations, and way-points). Rather than an all or nothing approach to leadership you would develop your leaders through succesful combat. Civilian leaders could be developed the same way, with advancement dependent on civic projects or happy people.

Great Idea Spencer. Leaders need the ability to increase in experience and abilities. This is one of the huge draws of RPG and to a similar extent games like SMAC etc.. One can identify with a leader and potentially role play them and feel a sense of accomplishment as they increase in ability.

New abilities improve existing ones etc. all make the game more prone to One More Turn Syndrome.

	08-05-2002 10:05									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx The number of different *types* of combat units is relatively small (Infantry, Pike, Mercs, Skirmishers, Archers, Cavalry), but the total number that could appear in an army is...well, anybody's guess, but those numbers could get quite large.

In which case, you might want to develop how each of these units work: how they attack, defend, move, affect each other in a sort of combined arms way, etc.

For example, the Skirmishers might be lightly armed and armored, giving them movement bonuses in difficult terrain. Perhaps, say, they are the only unit type that can cross certain impassable hexes. Further, due to their specialised training, they can effectively hide in terrain, making them invisible to enemy units. They gain bonuses striking at the enemy units' flank and rear. Perhaps they have a first strike ability when attacking certain ways. They can't stand up to frontial attacks by heavier units, but they can decimate archers if they attack with surprise.

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Units are of variable strength, per tech advance (increasing tech levels see an increase in a/d values of units across the board, in addition to providing special abilities (ie - infantry, at some point in the game begin to gain abilities similar to cav (beginning with gaining the "initiative" special, and eventually able to execute charge/flank manuever)). -=Vel=-

Looks like you need to carefully delineate the various abilities. If infantry starts to gain cav abilities, what will that make cav units? What is their purpose then?

	08-05-2002 18:11									#54
	Inflate your Upload Space

Hmmm....an excellent point, UR. Initially I saw the game progressing to the point where cav were largely obsolete, but your comment has given me an idea.....will be noting some changes to the core rules doc soon....

-=Vel=-

	08-05-2002 18:25									#55
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Looks like you need to carefully delineate the various abilities. If infantry starts to gain cav abilities, what will that make cav units? What is their purpose then?

The only cav ability that is not generally also demonstrated by infantry that I can think of is speed of maneuver. The "shock" value of cavalry is really more to do with the speed of the attack rather than some intrinsic value of cav. There are many instances of inf armies in history (for example the Swiss pikemen of the 14th to 16th centuries) that made use of "shock" in this way.

	09-05-2002 08:26									#56
	Suffering from ads?

I agree that it is the speed of the mounted units which gives them their abilities. It also seems that the sight of large animals charging induces fear if not panic in their opponents. People, esp. untrained ones, want to get out of the way.

	09-05-2002 09:13									#57
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Phobos and Deimos - Fear and Panic, the dogs of war.
Very powerful on the battlefield.

	09-05-2002 18:12									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I agree that there is a perception that one factor to include with calculating the effects of a calvary charge is fear and panic, ie "shock value". I wonder whether its overplayed though. Is there really more shock value to being charged by mounted units as opposed to 10000 blue-painted, screaming celtic warriors? My guess is that the "shock value" ascribed to mounted units has come about because thats what they were used for. It seems reasonable to suggest that 100 horse would have more "shock value" than 100 foot though, and maybe thats an important point.

	09-05-2002 18:24									#59
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH I agree that there is a perception that one factor to include with calculating the effects of a calvary charge is fear and panic, ie "shock value". I wonder whether its overplayed though. Is there really more shock value to being charged by mounted units as opposed to 10000 blue-painted, screaming celtic warriors? My guess is that the "shock value" ascribed to mounted units has come about because thats what they were used for. It seems reasonable to suggest that 100 horse would have more "shock value" than 100 foot though, and maybe thats an important point.

In my opinion, a definite yes - on the shock value of cav over screaming celtic warriors. At least for heavy cav. These horses are *big*, they're most likely armoured in some way and then you've got an armoured warrior on top with a big pointy stick. Having ridden some pretty big sized horses, I can tell you that a couple hundred heavy cav is going 1. to make the earth shake, and 2 be pretty damn hard to stop. Add in a pointy stick coming at you at speed and thats a pretty good recipe for shock value.

Rich

	09-05-2002 18:33									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by BigRich In my opinion, a definite yes - on the shock value of cav over screaming celtic warriors.

Yup. There's a reason riot control police everywhere still favours horses.