Why do all mounts have zero armor in Mounts_tables?

[cowbell kid]

I was looking at the table for the mounts in the game files and I noticed that all the mounts have zero armor. If armor is added to this I assuming it adds it to the soldiers body armor and shield if they have one. But shouldn't each mount have a different armor amount? Unarmoured horses/camels/elephants should be zero while cataphracts/armored elephants should have some.
But why isn't this value used? Is it not needed because the soldier is given cataphract armor? Why would CA have that but not use it to differentiate between armored and unarmored mounts.

[alhoon]

I guess because it doesn't do anything at all... except with elephants and wardogs.

[Sebidee]

Well in the game the man and the horse are the exact same individual. Therefore the man's armour counts for both of them.

[Kraut and Tea]

Well in the game the man and the horse are the exact same individual. Therefore the man's armour counts for both of them.

thats kind of a downer.....

do you think if it were differenciated that it would make a difference?

[Sebidee]

thats kind of a downer.....

do you think if it were differenciated that it would make a difference?

I don't see why we would want them to have different armours, what would that add to gameplay? the horse dies and the man lives? That would just be awkward.

[Magnar]

I don't see why we would want them to have different armours, what would that add to gameplay? the horse dies and the man lives? That would just be awkward.

dismount

[Magnar]

I wouldnt necessarily assume it counts the same without testing.

For the enitity, the speed and mass are all derived from the horse entity.

If they work for the elephant entity then i cant see why it wouldnt work for the horse entities also.

[Zwirbaum]

Dismount affects hp though (mount and rider has separate values for that)

[cowbell kid]

Right now armored elephants have a ton of HP but almost no armor because it takes the armor of the rider. It should have less HP and more armor to the mount to balance the two. It's weird to have elephants covered in armor but only have an armor value of 40-50. In addition, they don't get a bonus to armor from the blacksmith/armorer. But then which is better, HP or armor. Since we don't know the exact calculation it would all have to be tested for balance of course.

[Hetairos]

I think its because of this facts:

HP: HP is the one factor which damage is taken from. e.g. a soldier having 50 HP being hit two times with 25 damage dies in two strokes, while an elephant + rider with 1000 HP need much more hits (note that I don't know the HP by heart). So it makes sense to differentiate the unit type by simply adjusting the HP, hence in Rome II the unit entity is mount + rider and not separated from each other.

Armor: Armor is used in the calculation of IF and HOW MUCH damage is applied to an entity and is only one of a handful of variables in that calculation. Since, it makes sense to apply the armor entity to the soldier + mount entity (like the HP) instead of the soldier and the mount entity separately (this would double the calculations involved and is unnecessary to the game experience to me). There is no need for a historic accurate formula if the outcome in game "feels" right so to speak.

And finally, it feels right, because we play with entire units. And since we play Rome II in entire units, partial dismounts would be difficult to implement. e.g. a horse dies and his man dismounts (or injures himself or dies while falling) while by others the rider dies and the horse is left riderless. The fallen could than go and mount those horses. However how to solve this in Rome II. If you suddenly have a hybrid unit of mounts and foot soldiers during fight you can not really control the unit properly anymore.

The only way I can think of improving the system is (+ to prevent that annoying repeat that charge a 100x times) to make mount much more durable during fights, deadlier than foot soldiers in close quarter, but much harder to disengage. Hence, you have to decide when and where to charge and not just be able to charge, run away, charge again, run away etc. If the cavalry has to commit than it would be possible to implement the visuals of riderless horses and mountless riders fighting alongside their mounted counterparts and to have to "reform" first (e.g. soldiers looking for horses to mount first) until they can disengage. Would add more historical and add a new layer of tactical authenticity, but would be wayyy more complicate and even more annoying to most people out there who play this for "arcade", "fun" or "epic battles" purposes?

Anyways, thats why I think armor on mounts is zero since it would destroy the entity calculation, because if armor is too high (armor of soldiers + armor of mount) your unit won't take any damage anymore.

[Magnar]

I think its because of this facts:

HP: HP is the one factor which damage is taken from. e.g. a soldier having 50 HP being hit two times with 25 damage dies in two strokes, while an elephant + rider with 1000 HP need much more hits (note that I don't know the HP by heart). So it makes sense to differentiate the unit type by simply adjusting the HP, hence in Rome II the unit entity is mount + rider and not separated from each other.

Armor: Armor is used in the calculation of IF and HOW MUCH damage is applied to an entity and is only one of a handful of variables in that calculation. Since, it makes sense to apply the armor entity to the soldier + mount entity (like the HP) instead of the soldier and the mount entity separately (this would double the calculations involved and is unnecessary to the game experience to me). There is no need for a historic accurate formula if the outcome in game "feels" right so to speak.

And finally, it feels right, because we play with entire units. And since we play Rome II in entire units, partial dismounts would be difficult to implement. e.g. a horse dies and his man dismounts (or injures himself or dies while falling) while by others the rider dies and the horse is left riderless. The fallen could than go and mount those horses. However how to solve this in Rome II. If you suddenly have a hybrid unit of mounts and foot soldiers during fight you can not really control the unit properly anymore.

The only way I can think of improving the system is (+ to prevent that annoying repeat that charge a 100x times) to make mount much more durable during fights, deadlier than foot soldiers in close quarter, but much harder to disengage. Hence, you have to decide when and where to charge and not just be able to charge, run away, charge again, run away etc. If the cavalry has to commit than it would be possible to implement the visuals of riderless horses and mountless riders fighting alongside their mounted counterparts and to have to "reform" first (e.g. soldiers looking for horses to mount first) until they can disengage. Would add more historical and add a new layer of tactical authenticity, but would be wayyy more complicate and even more annoying to most people out there who play this for "arcade", "fun" or "epic battles" purposes?

Anyways, thats why I think armor on mounts is zero since it would destroy the entity calculation, because if armor is too high (armor of soldiers + armor of mount) your unit won't take any damage anymore.

You keep using the analogy of a horse dying and the rider surviving, but that is not where the split values are needed. Its entirely to do with dismounted vs mounted. A dismounted unarmoured elephant rider should take a lot more damage per hit than an unarmoured elephant rider on a fully armoured elephant. Sure the elephant can still take more hits due to HP, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is that an unarmoured rider on an armour elephant will recieve the same damage as an unarmoured rider on an unarmoured elephant. ie that the armour of the mount is not taken into account and only reflects what the rider wears.

Sure it is possible to adjust the armour for the respective riders to match the armour of the mount but then there is the issue of when they are dismounted (think siege/naval/landings) and having non representative armour values to the units appearance.

Again, the mechanic for a mount being killed and the rider surviving is not the topic of this discussion and does not exist in the game. As such (imo) i dont see how it is relevant to the seperation of a riders armour to his mount.

[Hetairos]

Well, I think you mean something different than I did. As long as the current database mechanic feel right in game than we don't need a sophisticated calculation and complex balancing system. Hence, if you compare an armored and unarmored elephant the HP is more than enough to differentiate the time of death. No need to tweak the HP and the armor value here. One is more than enough. Also because we don't need more calculations in game than necessary. Hence, adjusting the armor of the rider to match the representation of the mount is not of a topic, because you can simply increase the mounts HP. And last but not least, most often the armor of the rider matches the armor of the mount, e.g. cataphract, light cav, armored elephant and so on.

A separated system would only make sense if we had a system where it is possible that the rider and the mount die separately.

Anyways old beans, I think we clarified why mounts do not have an armor value.

[Magnar]

i think ill just have to accept that we will disagree on this and move on.

HP for me does not replace armour as they are 2 different things but i wont go further.

the ideal situation doesnt exist in the mechanics so meh

[Maximinus Thrax]

Moved from Rome II General Discussion.