Mounted infantry (for strategic mobility, not battle)?

[Maklodes]

I think most of us are expecting dismountable cavalry in this game, following the lines of Shogun 2, Napoleon, Empire, etc. I'm wondering about mounted infantry. Would it be appropriate for the time period to mount infantry on horses/mules/ponies? I'm thinking it would be neat if that were possible. They'd usually fight on foot by default, but if caught in an ambush, they might start mounted and might be really, really terrible cavalry. (They can't ride very skillfully, their horses may not be warhorses, etc. Maybe they are (rightly) too afraid of falling out of the saddle when riding at a gallop to even chase routers?) Perhaps it could be something like a weapon/armor upgrade, but they'd get horses instead of new armor? (It would cost something to provide horses (even if they're not warhorses), and increase maintenance for fodder/grooming/etc, so this particular upgrade would best be removable somehow if they become garrison units or the like.)

Thoughts? Think we'll see it?

[Gugg]

Well, I don't think we'll see it. This is my honest opinion. First off I don't think it would be very usefull to have a unit that could mount horses in the game just to transport troops. And if the soldiers can't ride skillfully they might as well run, as it probably wouldn't go too fast. And what's the use of armor and weapon upgrades if they can't attack anything? So nope on that one.

[Sun Jetzu]

Well, I don't think we'll see it. This is my honest opinion. First off I don't think it would be very usefull to have a unit that could mount horses in the game just to transport troops. And if the soldiers can't ride skillfully they might as well run, as it probably wouldn't go too fast. And what's the use of armor and weapon upgrades if they can't attack anything? So nope on that one.

yea I agree, I cant think of any real reason to have infantry be mounted besides getting them somewhere faster and also having a great charge bonus. The only way I would like this if all cav could dismount. I wanna fight with my armored cataphracts to be on foot! lol

[Yayattasa]

Running is tiresome, just saying.

[Maklodes]

The point is to rapidly move between cities and such. It would be essentially useless for custom battles, but for campaigns, it might be good to speed up the rate that you can get from Carthage to Alexandria (say), so that you could take enemies by surprise.

[Gugg]

The point is to rapidly move between cities and such. It would be essentially useless for custom battles, but for campaigns, it might be good to speed up the rate that you can get from Carthage to Alexandria (say), so that you could take enemies by surprise.

This contradicts what you said in your first post. Except the part where they are caught in an ambush. And when going somewhere from A to B regular infantry soldiers marched on foot. So still a no from me.

[Ichon]

I hope we see this and I am surprised anyone would think it was useless. The difference between arriving 1 minute earlier and without much stamina loss compared to arriving late and already out of breath/tired is pretty good one. Not to mention the cost factor where you might get the speed of cavalry at lower cost of real cavalry and ability to fight in rougher terrain than most cavalry.

[Gugg]

I hope we see this and I am surprised anyone would think it was useless. The difference between arriving 1 minute earlier and without much stamina loss compared to arriving late and already out of breath/tired is pretty good one. Not to mention the cost factor where you might get the speed of cavalry at lower cost of real cavalry and ability to fight in rougher terrain than most cavalry.

I struggle to state my real opinion because I don't understand if the OP (no offence!). In his first post he mentions it as if he wants it on the battlefield. In his response to my post he speaks of it as it would be implemented on the campaign map. Could the OP please give a more proper explanation. Probably this is really, really obvious to everyone else.

[Maklodes]

I struggle to state my real opinion because I don't understand if the OP (no offence!). In his first post he mentions it as if he wants it on the battlefield. In his response to my post he speaks of it as it would be implemented on the campaign map. Could the OP please give a more proper explanation. Probably this is really, really obvious to everyone else.

Okay. The primary benefit of mounted infantry over regular infantry would be on the campaign map. However, I mentioned the possibility that, if they were ambushed during a march, they might start the battle mounted (because they wouldn't be ready for battle), with their mounted status likely adding an additional vulnerability (at least until they dismounted, got into a close-order infantry formation, etc). The start-battle-mounted-when-ambushed feature isn't really necessary. It would just be an additional feature to simulate being caught unprepared. I suppose it might also be possible to mount the infantry during regular, non-ambush battles if this were implemented, but it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

[spartan_warrior]

Did any cultures really use mounted infantry during this era? I first examples of mounted infantry I can think of were some of the Germanic kingdoms during the migration period and early middle ages.

[Destraex]

Did any cultures really use mounted infantry during this era? I first examples of mounted infantry I can think of were some of the Germanic kingdoms during the migration period and early middle ages.

The spartans certainly did in the persian era. I think the 300 may even have been an advanced mounted infantry party ??

I know the germans had cavalry that dragged light infantry around with them.

Beyond that I cannot remember any mounted infantry that did not act as cavalry.

[Sabre120]

While I kind of like the idea OP, I think features such as forced marching on the Campaign map might make the idea obsolete.

[Gugg]

Okay I changed my opinion. Campaign = usefull, Normal battle = useless. I also agree that this might be cool with the forced march option.

[spartan_warrior]

Okay I changed my opinion. Campaign = usefull, Normal battle = useless. I also agree that this might be cool with the forced march option.

Well if this is just on the campaign map it could easily be modded. All that would need to be done is change the unit's campaign map movement points from what infantry usually have to that of cavalry. That way they would move in the campaign map with the range of cavalry but when they fight a battle they are infantry. For balance purposes they would need to have a higher upkeep and perhaps a smaller unit size then regular infantry.

[Argon Viper]

I can't think of any unit in history (aside from dragoons and mechanized infantry, but these came much later) that used mounts primarily for mobility as opposed to their other advantages on the battlefield. I'm sure we'll see cavalry that can dismount (it's not like your butt is actually glued to the horse...), but I can't see them including a cavalry unit in the game whose only purpose for having horses is moving around. Unless of course someone can think of an example of that.

[Gugg]

I can't think of any unit in history (aside from dragoons and mechanized infantry, but these came much later) that used mounts primarily for mobility as opposed to their other advantages on the battlefield. I'm sure we'll see cavalry that can dismount (it's not like your butt is actually glued to the horse...), but I can't see them including a cavalry unit in the game whose only purpose for having horses is moving around. Unless of course someone can think of an example of that.

Yes, I have the same problem.

[Yayattasa]

I can't think of any unit in history (aside from dragoons and mechanized infantry, but these came much later) that used mounts primarily for mobility as opposed to their other advantages on the battlefield. I'm sure we'll see cavalry that can dismount (it's not like your butt is actually glued to the horse...), but I can't see them including a cavalry unit in the game whose only purpose for having horses is moving around. Unless of course someone can think of an example of that.

It happened all the time in Antiquity. As an example, phalangites would sometimes arrive on horseback to the battlefield.

[Strategos Autokrator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_X_Equestris

The name Equestris was applied after Caesar mounted legionaries from the Tenth on horses as ruse to parley with the German King Ariovistus in 58 BC.

[Gugg]

Hmm, well I guess that solves it then

[Ichon]

Mounted infantry were not uncommon and there are even reports of something I doubt we will ever see in a TW game but would be quite cool- cavalry giving a 'lift' to running infantry who basically held part of the saddle and thus ran much faster than otherwise. I've actually done this with horses and behind car and it is pretty fun. Basically it is like taking giant hopping steps but allows to cover ground quickly with far less energy expenditure.

Using mounted infantry in battle was less common but there are still several reports in sources- riding to the battle and then dismounting to fight with horses tied up in camp or something was regular occurrence but as below shouldn't give campaign map advantage and would increase costs so does not make sense to represent.

I don't think cavalry will move faster on campaign map... at least I hope they won't unless it is 100% cavalry army which only some steppe people might field. Horses still need time to graze and most knights(aristocrats) did not travel around for months without servants who would not be riding. It would be weird to see a group of Macedonian cavalry by itself moving 1/3 faster than infantry.