What if mounts were a resource?

[Jotari]

What if there were no mounted and unmounted classes? Mounts are just something you buy and equip to your characters at base. There could be several different types and subtypes that focus on different stats and they could die in battle from sustaining too much damage. I'm sure it's an idea many of you have probably casually considered before. From a gameplay perspective it would help to close the gap between mounted superiority by turning it into a resource management but in terms of aesthetic I think you could be losing something by removing the classes. Anyway thoughts, opinions and feelings etc.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Jotari

[MCProductions]

Berwick saga did this, but I haven't actually played it so I don't know if it was implemented well or not.

[Magical Glace]

Anything that helps close the gap between what's good and what's bad and balance the game is a-okay in my book

English: Yeah, this is something I'd approve of for the sake of balance. I wouldn't mind if some classes were taken out, except Pegs, since for the most part mounted classes were "X foot class + Horse".

It's worth noting though, you can't just ride a horse off the bat. It does take some practice. So maybe have the unit need a certain level/a paid training regimen to unlock the function for that unit?

[Mango Giamatti]

It seems like an interesting mechanic, and it'd be cool to see it in a game.

I'm not sure if it would help balance too much though. This doesn't change the fact that a unit with a mount is in most cases better than a unit without a mount. Mounts still rein supreme, and you'll probably be gluing your best units to a mount. This mechanic would have to be coupled with maps which encourage you switch up who gets the mount.

[Jotari]

It seems like an interesting mechanic, and it'd be cool to see it in a game.

I'm not sure if it would help balance too much though. This doesn't change the fact that a unit with a mount is in most cases better than a unit without a mount. Mounts still rein supreme, and you'll probably be gluing your best units to a mount. This mechanic would have to be coupled with maps which encourage you switch up who gets the mount.

Well the difference would be that its a better unit that you've had to make a resource investment in. Like say given a unit Boots or a good skill. You've made a good unit but it's costed one of your items to do so. You might want to give it to your best unit or you might want to give it to a unit whose struggling to make them better. Point is the balance is there because it's something the game provides and can be equally attached to whomever you choose. Instead of just getting a unit who is plainly better than its contemporaries from the get go. Also as I proposed in the OP if the mounts could die from sustaining damage then it would make it a resource that you have to risk. Unequipping a mount and giving it to someone else would also allow you to modify your army's set up to suit the chapter's needs (like giving it to a weaker unit on an easy chapter to level them or giving them to a stronger unit on a chapter your struggling with).

[Alastor15243]

I wouldn't like this, honestly, if it made mounted units objectively better than non-mounted ones, because frankly I like un-mounted units a lot (though I do like mounted units too) and I hate it when they give a promoted lord a horse (Leif at least had a really cool mounted class to back it up, but the attack animations for mounted units in that game were so lame compared to the absolutely epic footsoldier ones. Compare Junior Lord Seliph to Knight Lord Seliph's criticals).

[NekoKnight]

Eh, I like the class difference as they are now. We already have boots for giving some people extra movement.

If they want to balance mounted units, add more terrain that hinders mounted movement or ballistas to threaten fliers.

[Sasori]

I do think cavalries need a bit of a change. They're generally amongst the top units with many advantages such as being one of the only classes with tier one weapon triange controll, great move and sometimes even great stats to go along with it.

I don't know if I like the idea of horses as recourses though. It sounds like a bit of a radical change and it would remove the horse classes we have now.

Personally I would change horses by focusing on their weaknesses and perhaps adding one or two. Deserts, forests and cavalry slaying weapons aren't common enough to give horses any trouble so more horse unfriendly map design might help. Perhaps an anti cavalry class would also change a thing or two? A hoplite or camel based class could get skills based around giving horses a hard time. It would give them something to look out for when they charge ahead with their surperior movement.

[Crixler]

I've been a big fan of this concept for a long time now. I'm kind of leaning towards mounts being a skill that must be equipped, rather than an item, however. I feel like taking a precious skill slot is a bigger deal than taking a precious inventory slot. This would help keep mounts in check a bit, I think.