So I've been reading through various posts, and I came up with a great idea (imo) for mounts.....
There should be multiple types of mountable animals you can train for your units in the game. From the basic (Horses, Wolves, etc.) to the more exotic (Giant Snakes, Wurms, Mammoths). In order to obtain these mounts several things must happen first.
You must first reasearch a basic "Animal Riding" technology. This technology only appears if you know about the existance of a ridable animal in the wild or in use by another faction.
Once you have trained the technology, you must than build a "stable" structure in one of your cities, and send a pioneer (which consumes the pioneer) to capture the animal. Once you have captured the animal and have it stabled, you can do more advanced research in how to best control that kind of animal- "Horesback riding" "Wurm Riding" etc. before you can make a mounted unit.
What this would accomplish is allow for more diversity amongst races, and differences between games. If you've never even seen a horse, or any other mountable animal you shouldn't be able to consider making mounted units. This would also make it so different games, different factions have different mounts really giving each game some unique flavor.
You can mod in stuff like these.
Just to add, but mounts are planned anyways. I'm not sure on how much variety is planned, but if they've been listening to the foum they better have bear calvary
Tormy - The point of posts like this is for discussion amongst each other to hopefully come up with some good ideas for the developers to use in the core game. Of course stuff like this can be modded in down the road - we are discussing ways of improving the core game.
Myles- What do you think of the actual system I proposed? Having to first find the mount, than research it...
One of the things I always hate about some strategy games is X faction always has horses, Y faction always uses Camels, etc. - Even if they are starting in a place where that animal wouldn't naturally be. With a system like this, you wouldn't have horsemen if you weren't near horses, etc. -- Once you have them you could breed them and make more for your armies, but you can't start from nothing....
I wouldn't mind if certain mountable resources only appear for certain factions ... or appear differently for different factions.
For instance ... a "Snake Den" would be a monster lair for most factions ... and have to be destroyed/explored after killing the Cobras (well, or they could farm for experience, but still ... only way to get any gold/items is to loot the snake den).
Meanwhile, a Certain Civ has natural peace with the snakes, and has Access to the tech "Snake Husbandry" which is available in Civilization (only to them) in the same location as Animal Husbandry for most people (or horse riding) ... and it allows them to 1) be at peace with wild snakes 2) allow mounted units to use snakes and 3) build a stable over a snake pit for +X snakes per turn.
Same could be said for a Dragonfly nest, a Drake cavern, a Wyrm burrow, an Eagle's Roost, or a Griffon Weyr.
Perhaps some Factions automatically have access to the tech (it will always appear as a green tech at X level after X tech),
And for some factions starting near a particular den will increase chances of it showing up (low chance/rare)
and for other factions will never have access to the tech (either no chances or extremely rare/ through trade).
Personally I think that most factions should have no chance, a couple have a mild chance, and only one faction guaranteed to have the tech (one faction for each mount).
Monster factions could split Dragonflys, Snakes, and Drakes, while Human Factions could split Griffons, Eagles, and Wyrms. Probably Gildar get Wyrms, Procipinee gets Griffons, that other human faction (same race)gets Eagles ... with all human factions having a low chance to get access to either Eagles or Griffons.
Perhaps Capitar gets Armadillos and Tarth gets either Wolves or Dolphins.
In any case ... these specialty techs first availability is a tier or two higher than horsebackriding, and the Improvements to get the special mounts are more expensive, cost more maintanence (the improvement and each unit built with such a mount), and you get maybe 1 per turn. (wolves would be 2 or 3 per turn, Dragonflys maybe 2.... while horses are like 4 or 5).
I think the only difference from what your suggesting and whats planned is that you want the resource to be had before doing the research. I personally think either way is fine, though I think the current plan is that you build stables on the resource rather than in the city. With the way Elemental is being setup, races won't always have X mounts or even X units since they must be designed before being built - no faction inheriantly has horsemen.
Each special mount-type should have its own unique technology.
Upon researching this technology, wild versions of this animal are no longer hostile.
Animal dens, which spawn hostile foraging parties (an attacking group of snakes or spiders), ARE the resource. You can build a stable on such a den after technology is researched. Upon building a stables, foraging parties are no longer created (instead go into your domestic pool). Such improvements will be more expensive, and cost maintanence ... unlike normal stables.
Exactly one faction will have guaranteed acess to any one special mount ... although some special mounts might not have a Parental Faction, so these mounts might have tech only by random, only by having a city nearby, or only through quest (IE the golden Wyrm).
IF Horseback Riding can be first available Green @ tier 4, then Specialty riding is Yellow @ tier 6 and green @ tier 7.
Some creatures can always eventually be tamed by determined factions closely related to the parent faction (Eagles, Griffons, and Wargs are ALWAYS red tech for non parental Human factions, starting at tier 8 @ the earliest) (Snakes, Dragonflys, and Drakes are always red tech for non parental Fallen factions, staring tier 8 @ the earliest).
Some creatures are parental race exclusive, and can only be gotten by other races via trade (Gildar-> Wyrms, Capital-> Armadillos, Dark Elves-> (Fire)Salamanders)
examples of Quest only mounts might be stronger versions (dire Wargs, golden Wyrms) or exceedingly rare things (Treants, Golem Cars)
examples of mounts requiring settling in specific terrain type could be Mammoths (ice), Scorpions (desert), or Elephants (jungle)
Anyways, I don't expect such a broad diversity to make it into launch ... but at least 3 or 4 interesting "Special Mounts" would be cool, and maybe another 1 or 2 accesible via quest.
All I'm saying is, I want to ride Velicoraptors into battle, thats all I'm saying.
Well, maybe the more Docile "Mega Raptor" ... normal velociraptors are just too deadly. I'd steer clear of them with my Sovereign, in the hopes of not losing the game. Sovereign + Raptors = tiny Sovereign bits across the ground
http://drmcninja.com/comics/2006-04-143p13.gif
Allow me to make my argument about the raptors
I didn't really the like way Civ-4 handled horses... this is similar to what was proposed above. In Civ if an enemy takes out your horse resource (which may be far from your cities) you suddenly can't make more horsemen.
Once you catch an animal, you should be able to breed them in your cities. Perhaps a bit of both worlds? If you consume a pioneer you can create a "stable" on the actual tile, which would then allow you to build a city Stable for that animal. Once you have them in your cities if you lose the original tile, you get less of them (the "wild" stables should allow you to produce more per turn than the city version), but are still able to create them since you are breeding them in captivity.
Not at all ... youll have as many horses available as you have stockpiled. Sure, if you used your last horse, then without any horse stables you won't get any more horses ... however if you have say 20 horses when your stables are captured, you can still make 20 more horse riders.
Buying horses from allies, and marketplaces, would also help.
Ok but think about this...if you have 20 horses, wouldn't it make sense that instead of using them for mounted cavalry, that you would let them breed and make more horses so down the line you could have lots of mounted cavalry, instead of just a few?
Wasn't it basicly confirmed that we'll have a variety of mounts?
I thought it was confirmed.
Pretty much.
Bear Cavalry! Ho!
On the subject of raptors, I can only say:
but see, those 20 horses are in your stables ... the distance is only abstracted. Yes, I know it makes for Linear birth rates among livestock ... but I think I'm ok with that in order to lessen the impact of getting such a resource early
(linear benefit vs being able to rapidly expand your horse production)
rapidly expand seems like something Zerg should be doing ... not a herd of horses.
Well if 5 turns = ~1 year, than in say 30 turns that means 6 years has passed - you would have been able to turn those 20 horses into 50 or more in that period IRL if you had any skill at breeding. I'm not saying that in-city stables should produce anywhere near as many of a mount type as the wild variant (at least not until possibly late game with specilized technology). Say if the wild version produced 4 horses per turn, the in-city one would produce 1.
That actually gives me another idea which would make things interesting, which would be to cap the total number of a mount you could have (outside your armies) based on the number of stables built. If that was the case you could also base your reproduction rate on the total number of animals you have. If you have 50 horses, you'd produce twice as many per turn than if you had 25- this would be balanced because you'd have a maximum cap on how many you could have - You would either have to start signing them out to your armies, or you would lose any new ones made that turn.
we will see ... personally im none too thrilled with the idea, however I don't see anything wrong with the idea other than having lots of Stables being built in cities ... I suppose that could add to customization.
I think it all depends on how integral (important) horses could become. I suppose with your style we can choose between a Mongol Hoarde an more civilized cities (low tech cavarly hoard vs commerce and science buildings). Again, it all just depends on how things fit together. Im not writing it off, although I would like to play 1Z with horses being a normal strategic resource just like Iron Ore. (instead of a breedable one).
///
Okay, im gonna give your idea a shot. Wild Stables +4 horses per turn, every 4 horses stockpiled = +1 horses per turn, one Wild Stables can hold 40 horses. To build a City Stables you need 5 horses, these horses are consumed in the production of a City Stables. City Stables produces 1 horse per turn, and increases horse limit by 20.
You can build a Wild Stables in an empty, flat plains tile with no adjacent Building or Resource, and it consumes 20 horses in its construction. Produces 4 horses per turn and increases total Horse Limit by 40.
How does this sound?
City Stables would have 2 gold per turn Maintanence, and cost 2 net food, alot of wood, and alot of gold, to build (in addition to 5 horses).
Building an additional Wild Stables costs 2 net food, some wood, and some gold. (in addition to the 20 horses). A "horse herd" will appear along with the Wild Stables. If the Stables is destroyed, the Herd will be wiped out as well. (only herds costing net food will be destroyed in such a manner, natural herds will not)
(A horse Icon should also exist inside the City Stables graphics)
only Natural herds will be indestructable. Domesticated "breeding" herds will be wiped out if their Stables is destroyed.
You've got it pretty close. In my version, you can't build Wild stables unless there is already a herd there- - this way there is a limit on how many mounts you can have (based on the number of cities you have). This would prevent 3 things- #1- players making stables in obsure places to "hide" their herds and always have access to mounts, #2- it would keep a reasonable cap on the total number of mounts you could have (preventing a player from ammasing a huge stockpile that would give them nearly unlimited horsemen), and #3- would help prevent everyone from having every type of mount. Since you have a limited ammount of space in your cities, you would be limited in how much space you have for stables. It would also give more emphisis on protecting your wild source of the resource (we want them to still be valuable).
I can only say that your correction is an improvement upon my interpretation of your idea.
Definitely only allow extra stables to be built within cities. I still say they should consume a certain amount of net food (a little less than a house?)
Personally I don't think Alternative(Fantasy) Mounts should have buildable Stables beyond their natural Supply (Griffin Lair). However, if Stables (for say Drakes or Scorpions) were buildable in cities, they should be at least three times as expensive, using at least three times as much net food, and at least twice as large (taking up at least twice the amount of space in a city).
Perhaps the specifics of a Fantasy Mount's stables could have different costs depending on the amount (different costs, different sizes, and different production rates) ... Fantasy mounts should be more expensive by at least two fold (preferably four fold) and of course much rarer.
For instance ... in a large plain their might be 4 wild herds of horses in a vast plains region, each of which give +4 horses per turn via stables, in addition to +1 horse per turn for every 4 horses stockpiled. To build a wild Stables requires 50 wood and 50 rigma. An inner-city stables costs 2 net-food, 1 city square, 100 wood and 100 rigma, as well as 1 rigma per turn in maintanence. (wild stables allow +40 maximum horses, city stables allow +20, and you start with a natural base maximum- default of 10)
Meanwhile in a long mountain range there might be 1 Griffin weyr that allows itself to be domesticated (the rest are permanently wild, if there even are any other weyrs). To build a wild Weyr Stables would cost 100 wood, 50 stone, 80 rigma, and 2 gold per turn maintanence. Such a Stables would provide +2 griffins per turn. The maximum number of supportable Griffins within a stable is 20. Personally I think that should be it, only possible source. However, if you wanted to build a Weyr in a city it would consume 4 net food, 150 wood, 100 stone, 200 rigma and a maintanence of 4 gold per turn ... only providing +1 griffin and a global +10 maximum griffins. Griffins stockpile (if there was actually a large enough maximum for this to matter) would provide +1 griffin per turn for every 20 griffins ... however to see this effect you would have to reach a maximum of at least 30 or more, and even then its a minor detail because the rate is so low.
Essentially, you wouldn't be able to make a hoard of griffon riders unless you devoted the majority of your empire to it, Specialized in Griffon Riding (and the economy to support the expensive endeavor).
Personally I think global maximums for X mount should be enforced on all active units. Essentially, if you have a global maximum of 50 horses, and you already have 50 horse riders, your stables aren't making any more horses. I think this would decrease the unrealistic "need to spend". But take it all with a grain of salt, we don't really need maximums under the initial system anyways.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
