Idea: How a bout an extra weapon slot on a horse?

[MacPharlan]

I was just thinking it would be nice to have access to an extra weapon slot while mounted. Makes sense from a logic point of view, you could have a bow, quiver, sword or such strapped to your horse. While mounted whatever weapon you have in that slot would cycle with your other slots, but not if unmounted.

Thoughts?


MacPharlan

 

[Tibertus]

Probably a bad idea, even if it does make sense.

 

[Kevlar]

Only need 3 slots as cavalry : Lance,Sword,Shield. Whats the point in having 5, shield,shield,shield,shield,lance?

I actually rather see less slots overall in the game so it becomes more diverse and not everyone is a jack of all trades.

 

[Amroth]

That brings into question if the horse dies, are you still able to retrieve the weapon that is equipped to the horse.

 

[Tibertus]

Only need 3 slots as cavalry : Lance,Sword,Shield. Whats the point in having 5, shield,shield,shield,shield,lance?

I actually rather see less slots overall in the game so it becomes more diverse and not everyone is a jack of all trades.

I agree, three slots would be far better. You'd get rid of multiple shields and stacks of throwing weapons most likely, and force people to work together. The only problem is that crossbowmen would no longer be able to get shields. Maybe bolts or arrows should be limited to thirty and be included with the bow or crossbow.

 

[Apthorpe]

Isn't cavalry already powerful enough?

 

[Arch3r]

Only need 3 slots as cavalry : Lance,Sword,Shield. Whats the point in having 5, shield,shield,shield,shield,lance?

I actually rather see less slots overall in the game so it becomes more diverse and not everyone is a jack of all trades.

I agree, three slots would be far better. You'd get rid of multiple shields and stacks of throwing weapons most likely, and force people to work together. The only problem is that crossbowmen would no longer be able to get shields. Maybe bolts or arrows should be limited to thirty and be included with the bow or crossbow.

There was a topic about that, instead of having 4 normal slots I'd rather have 3 slots and 1 ammo slot.

 

[Henk]

Then you could just aswell put extra Arrows under your hat and in your pants so you have 5 slots ....

Nah this won't work.

 

[eric virgo]

Is there a sticky about ideas/suggestions for warband?

If not I shall post it here.

Spears need an overhead attack. You know the one I am talking about. The one where you hold the spear over your head and thrust downwards. We can keep the thrust attack as it is (mouse click + down) and have mouse click + up to do the "St. George slays the dragon" attack.
It makes sense and it would be very useful even when on horseback... to slay those bastards that come closer than they should.

I am trying to find a image. I'll edit later

here

You can use the animation of throwing javelins too. It's just that the weapon never leaves your hand.

 

[Hethwill]

"I actually rather see less slots overall in the game so it becomes more diverse and not everyone is a jack of all trades."

This.

If cav, 1 extra slot while horse is alive - only weapons or ammo. If it dies, bye bye equipment. ( imagine it breaks under the horse whatever )

 

[MacPharlan]

I dont see it as a waste, especially in the calvary/lance area, I would even say you would have to drop a weapon to access the slot. So drop the lance to pull out a bow for example.


I personally would like to use it for a different type weapon (e.g. a blunt weapon, or such) that I want to switch to instead of  my main weapon. This would be very useful if they added the ability to 'lose/drop' your weapon, pull out another.

I am looking at if from the realism side, a horse should be able to carry something for you. If the horse dies you lose it or have to go stand by your horse to swap that weapon out.


Of course I am also looking from the point of the single player game

 

[Badun]

Then you could just aswell put extra Arrows under your hat and in your pants so you have 5 slots ....

That wouldn't make much sense though, and yes I realise that you're being sarcastic.

As for the idea itself, I think that an extra slot could be made available for heavier horses (hunters per say), that way cavalry wouldn't be too overpowered.
Its not a really important thing to have though, cavalry is already powerful enough with couched lancing, and an occasional horse kill.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

"I actually rather see less slots overall in the game so it becomes more diverse and not everyone is a jack of all trades."

This.

I'd go along with one less slot, as long as the first set of ammo (arrows and bolts) went in the same slot as a bow or crossbow.

 

[Alec{zacool}]

I think 3 slots would be best.

I don't think that "historically" crossbowmen or archers would be able to afford to get a bow or crossbow, heaps of arrows or bolts, a sword, AND a shield.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

I don't think that "historically" crossbowmen or archers would be able to afford to get a bow or crossbow, heaps of arrows or bolts, a sword, AND a shield.

So?  It's a game, which implies that the crossbowman player wishes to be supplied with the necessary tools to have fun.

 

[MacPharlan]

Nor did they have a horse!

We are the rare freak mounted warrior, if you can afford a horse and sword I think you can get the rest.

 

[Sabutai]

the original slots are fine. Don't ruin the game.

 

[WhichDoctor]

Totally agree, three slots would be better. Every player having a potential choice of three weapons and a shield or to weapons and two shields leads to most of the players becoming fairly general. It would be more interesting if people had to specialize more and it mite even encourage teamwork a bit. This would have to include the idea of the bundling of arrows/bolts with bows and crossbows though.

As an even more extreme idea you could have the slots divided up into weapon types. For example you could have one main weapon slot allowing any weapon, one secondary slot only allowing smaller 1h weapons, and one shield slot. And of course grate long axes would take up all three slots 

Edit: This would solely be for the multiplayer of course. In the singleplayer its being able to be so generalized that makes battle so interesting.

 

[Kleidophoros]

I think 3 slots would be best.

I don't think that "historically" crossbowmen or archers would be able to afford to get a bow or crossbow, heaps of arrows or bolts, a sword, AND a shield.

Well "historically" crossbowmen usually had a buddy to cover them with pavise while they reload.

I also suggest 3 slots plus 1 ammo slot.

 

[daVolterra]

If from the beginning someone would specify what you can put in your slot (one for shield, two on the belt, for your weapons or arrows, and one on the back - extra weapon, bow or crossbow) then making extra slots on horse, one extra weapon, or extra arrow, would be ok.

Specifying what you can put into slot is good idea. No more 2 shields, halberd and lance on one dude.

By the way... why do you think shield was a expensive thing? Its just a piece of wood. In XV century shield costs 10 grosches, cheap sword costs around 40 grosches.