Skip to Content
 

comparing different horse movement

6 replies [Last post]
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 06:03
Anonymous

//...........................................................................................//
ordinal order from the oldest to newest

1.chess horse move...
2 straight square and 1 diagonal square, fixed move.
letter L formation move , no more, no less.

2.table top war game horse...
more or less , 12 inches move forward
disparity are cause by table or terrain rule.

3.roman wargame horse move...boardgame is 9 X 9 square
2 square maximum, 1 square minimum.
allowed not to make any move at all, stand by rule.
but the direction are any or all point of direction.
ex: forward, sideward, backward , ( diagonal within moves )

4.horse race game...
5 square move maximum forward.
with allowable 2 diagonal square move,any time it wish,
inside the 5 square movement rule.

5.DD Chariot Race.
i do not have permission to post,see his rule for information.

6.Empire Chess.
see the latest post for detailed information.

//......................................................................................................//

Top
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 09:06
#1
Jebbou
Jebbou's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
comparing different horse movement

Good morning Raddulay,

I think that looking at a horse unit alone is not relevant, you need to compare it to other types of unit, and/or need to look at the movement mechanics of the game. In a game where you could chose between horse, car, or train, the horse would be the slowest of units. In a game using Action Points (AP), all units could move one square, but horses could spend less AP to do so. The relation between the horse and the terrain type depends also on the game mechanics. For example, a horse moving in a swamp could only move as much as an infantry. In a game with only horses, I would suppose each horse could have its own caracteristics. Thus, horses could move differently, with varying acceleration, endurence and top speeds.

If we are speaking of a wargame, the attack of the horse will vary according to the same rules (units comparison + game mechanics). It could also vary depending on what is riding the horse. Is a knight, musketeer and macigian riding the horse?

I have seen numerous games where a horse/tank can move two spaces, and infantry one space. Alhouth it is easy combination, representing well the horse/tank mobility advantage over foot troopers, I think it is not difficult to push this a little further, and come up with something original. I think this option can be valid if you want to keep movement simple, and focus on another aspect of your game.

Regards,

Jeb

Top
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 14:42
#2
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
comparing different horse movement

I think it's allright to compare how horses move in various games, but we might have to make an assumption that a "regular" unit in any of those games moves similarly in all those games, which is sort of a complex assumption, but maybe can be done if you keep an open mind about the variability from game to game.

So maybe the point here is to look at how different games (or types of games) treat 'augmented' movement. That is to say "how does a horse move relative to another unit?"

In Chess it moves a set number of spaces (2 one way and 1 another) and it jumps over other pieces (a key point that raddulay didn't mention).

In war games they move 12", which I presume is farther than a regular unit (infantry or whatever).

In raddulay's Roman Wargame it appears that horses move 1 or 2 spaces in any direction, which I presume is 'better' than a 'basic' unit, which probably only moves 1, and maybe in a limited direction.

In a Horse Race game it's a tough call because presumably all the contestants would be horses, so there'd be other rules involved.

So I think the point of the thread is this- How much better should Horse movement be than, say, movement on foot?

Or more generically, if you have Basic units and units with Augmented Movement (vehicles in a war or race game, characters that fly in a Superhero game, etc), what should the difference in movemetn rules be?

- Seth

Top
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 15:47
#3
Jebbou
Jebbou's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
comparing different horse movement

My following thoughts do not apply to area movement, but rather to cell or hex movement.
Units with Augmented Movement would logically move at least twice the distance of an infantry. But I think one should use common sense when designing units, and then resort to test play for balance. I do not agree with facing all directions though. A squad of men should "turn" more easily than a fast moving car or horse. And to see a squad of horses running two cells backwards would seems very odd to me. Another issue that could arise is: a fast moving unit could crash in an obstacle, thus being damaged in the process.

I suppose the "turning" mechanic would change depending on the scale of the board. If a cell represents a province, then a turning restriction rule could be left aside. Or Turning could represent the ability to quickly move to defend another border of the province the unit is in. Then fast units would have a facing advantage. If a cell represents 10 meters, then I would be the oposite. Footmen could easily turn, and fast moving units moving at fast speed would experience difficulty to turn.

Regards,

Jeb

Top
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 16:35
#4
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
comparing different horse movement

The fact that units CAN move faster doesn't necessarily mean that they ARE MOVING faster. Although I agree that a person sitting still in a car can't turn the car around as fast as a person on a horse, who in turn can't turn the horse around as fast as a person on foot.

However, the question may not be 'who can turn around the fastest' but 'can the unit turn around fast enough?'

In other words the facing thing, as you say, depends on the scale of the game, and weather or not it matters which direction the unit is facing while not actually moving.

I tried to make a car racing game before, and with regard to turning I did it like this:
On a hex-based board you could drive to any of the three hexs you are 'facing'. Driving straight ahead doesn't change your facing, but driving ahead-right or ahead-left adjusts your car's facing so that the hex you came from is always directly behind you. It seemed to make sense to me. If I added Horses (for example) to that game, maybe I would allow them to turn their facing 1 'notch' before moving to represent better maneuverability. So the same rules would apply, only they can rotate first.

- Seth

Top
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 23:05
#5
Trickydicky
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
comparing different horse movement

I think when considering a units movement rate, the terrain variables (if any) must also be considered. Tanks are often simply to large to fit through a densely forested area without drastically decreased movement. Very few horses can climb or descend the kind of incline,decline that a foot soldier could. So if you want your game to be that in depth and realistic, which granted makes it a lot more complicated, the terrain must be taken into account for each of the different units movement rates. This could also offset any fabulous movement bonuses that the augmented units have on flat terrain. It could greatly change the strategy of a war game.

Top
Sat, 09/25/2004 - 09:16
#6
Anonymous
comparing different horse movement

Trickydicky wrote:
I think when considering a units movement rate, the terrain variables (if any) must also be considered. Tanks are often simply to large to fit through a densely forested area without drastically decreased movement. Very few horses can climb or descend the kind of incline,decline that a foot soldier could. So if you want your game to be that in depth and realistic, which granted makes it a lot more complicated, the terrain must be taken into account for each of the different units movement rates. This could also offset any fabulous movement bonuses that the augmented units have on flat terrain. It could greatly change the strategy of a war game.

//.....................................................................................................//
the roman III boardgame was presume to be a desert.
that why i use the chariot,it is almost impractical to use it in tropical terrain
no True History War use it , hope you understand my answer.

if no. 1 board , no.2 and no. 3 are combine together to play
a brigade size number of player pieces...an ADD-ON Terrain are Use.
it is not Fixed on the board, so it could make variation on the next game.
So the terrain rule will be Applied...Like the Wargame World.
It use Terrain Rule.

If the horse can move 2 square on flat terrain.
it can move only 1 square upward a hill.
if a foot soldier move 1 square, it can only now make 1/2 square.

see the film the Braveheart, in the 2nd major Battle.
the Cavalry , do some retreat move, but it is really an arranged.
Flanking Counter Offensive against the enemy First Line Soldier.

please , i mean no harm...when the horse make backward movement...
it does not mean it moves on it"s back.

the roman wargame III priciples of move...

means that each move are a Command From the Regimental Signal Corps
//....................................................................................................//

actually i try to put some rule on my bgdf.UP LOADS.
but when i try to see it from outside, it says you are not authorized.
if i can not read it myself, how can i say see the rule on http://bgdf...
like what i read from other post.

i hope some question are answered.
//.....................................................................................................//

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut