Dismounting Knights?

Provost Harrison · July 4, 2001, 06:20

I was looking through one of the videos of the E3 stuff (the Czech one) and noticed at the end of the video that there was a knight placed next to a city. However he clicked on it and it appeared to become a standing unit. The knight certainly hadn't moved anywhere from what I can tell. I am not too sure what was happening here. It could be that the knight unit can mount/dismount, or he could have joined it to a stack that was already there...intriguing...

Rollo_CH · July 4, 2001, 07:48

I never saw that video..(too slow connection to bother to download)

Could be he dismounted for a defensive posture? In Civ2 and SMAC you could order units to defend (rest after a battle) a key-position. It could be an animation for that, because it should be wise for a cavalry to dismount before they "dig" down.

Dr Strangelove · July 4, 2001, 10:13

I seem to recall that knights were occasionally used dismounted. Agincourt comes to mind. So why not allow the knights to dismount?

Grumbold · July 4, 2001, 10:21

If Civ III were to cater for lots of units I'd be all in favour of many forms of (dis)mountable units. Knights spent more time dismounted beseiging castles than they did fighting on horseback. However I think that might make knights too powerful an all-round weapon.

Rasputin · July 4, 2001, 10:38

all comes down to how complex you want thegame to become...

Provost Harrison · July 4, 2001, 10:58

Not necessarily. Perhaps the same methods could be used for artillery, which could be towed around and have no strength until they are set down in the battlefield ready for action.

Rasputin · July 4, 2001, 11:04

IMHO would make the game too much like a simulation instead of a game.. Syd has tried to keep a lot of stuff abstract as the game is meant to be a civ building game not a war simulation...

Military units represent concepts more than the real thing .. if you know wha ti mean

KrazyHorse · July 4, 2001, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I seem to recall that knights were occasionally used dismounted. Agincourt comes to mind. So why not allow the knights to dismount?

Didn't the dismounted French knights get slaughtered anyway?

Mahdimael · July 4, 2001, 14:40

It depends how close to real-life war history they want to be. From the fall of Rome until firearms became standard (in the West), the mounted warrior was king of the battlefield. An oversimplification, perhaps, but it fits with the spirit of the game.

I think the dismounted knight probably was just a unit animation. After you move him, he dismounts.

Swissy · July 4, 2001, 14:44

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Didn't the dismounted French knights get slaughtered anyway?

Actually it was a special circustances. There had be a heavy rain the preceeding night. The English, heavily outnumbered 4-1, defended a a narrow fields flanked by woods on each side. The combination of narrow frontage and muddy field made the French knights easy targets for the English longbowmen. Some atempted to dismount and press home the attack, but the French armour was unsuited for dismounted combat as the French knight was probably the most heavily armoured fighting man in the world at the time. Agincourt was a case of overestimation by the French and then a failure to adapt to the situation. If they had sent the crossbows and men at arms in first we may be talking of a great French victory.

Kenobi · July 4, 2001, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Swissy

If they had sent the crossbows and men at arms in first we may be talking of a great French victory.

I think the first wave of French troops were crossbowmen, but they were shot to pieces crossing the field by English longbowmen before they could get their crossbows into range. It's also worth noting that the English prepared the ground with spikes and pits to slow and knobble the cavalry.

Another excellent example of dug-in English infantry annihilating French cavalry...the French in general, actually.

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers!"

Darkknight · July 4, 2001, 20:31

I think it could be just a change in which unit is displayed.
If he was dismounting there would probably be at least a short animation but with this it just flicks straight from before to after.

KrazyHorse · July 4, 2001, 20:36

That's the least comprehensible picture I've ever seen.

Provost Harrison · July 4, 2001, 20:45

You really have to watch the video to see what I mean. It is right near the end. It could be just flicking through units I suppose. Who knows.

Hey, when Civ3 is available and we all know the game, we will have to laugh at those who guessed preposterous things, and applaud those who recognised things that were in. I hope most of mine fall in the latter category

MORON · July 4, 2001, 21:46

dismounting? Whatever....

Sabre2th · July 5, 2001, 15:15

I'm afraid I have to agree with MORON on this one.

DarkCloud · July 5, 2001, 15:34

-Wouldnt a dismounted knight be a swordsman?
-A different unit entirely?

Well, it seems Firaxis is doubling up on units by giving them special bounuses whether they are mounted or not...

Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS · July 5, 2001, 15:51

Not a bad idea, but units don't dismount.

Jeff

KrazyHorse · July 5, 2001, 15:52

Oh well...

Dr Strangelove · July 5, 2001, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Didn't the dismounted French knights get slaughtered anyway?

It was the English knights who dismounted, then drove the butt ends of their lances into the ground making an impenetrable wall. The French knights who made it throught the hail of arrows from the English longbowmen and over the muddy area were forced to turn back. The front waves of the French knights ran into the rear waves, unhorsing many of the French knights, who were then set upon by English infantry and dismounted knights.

Urban Ranger · July 6, 2001, 04:32

Ah, Monty Python and the Holy Grail