Cav Collision Mechanics

[lolbash]

隐藏

Please make horse riding harder. It's too easy now. Maybe the horse would do some weird things by itself or jump randomly over dead bodies or just something.

Mate, when the **** did anybody mention anything about realism? The point isn't realism, it's making it so that you don't have to babysit your horse in order to keep it from full retarding it into a wall, that's what the point of horse agency is. And the last time I checked, having my horse stop dead in it's tracks for an avoidable and insufficient reason wasn't fun, either. As for horses tripping if they ram into eachother at full speed, aye, that's for the sake of realism. But it's called realism for a reason, and that is that the alternative makes no sense and looks horrible and clunky, a relic of when taleworlds was 2 people rather than 100+. Horses ramming into things they can't go trough is a problem, and them not being phased at all when they do is a problem also, both of which serve to make cavalry charges that much less amazing to watch and play and have been ignored for far too long.

Having riders steer horses in a way someone with a head would and horses not autopiloting into rocks when left unattended would would be both realistic and fun, and horses tripping and eating dirt when they can't avoid a crash would be delightful icing on the cake

Horse morale mechanics may be a bit overkill, but if implemented for riderless horses only could serve to make battlefields more chaotic and realistic and hey, even fun

Okay lets sum up what you want concerning Cavalry mechanics you want implemented in Bannerlord.

-You want horses to have their own AI to steer away from walls without player imput, taking control away from the player because realism!!!!

-You want riderless horses to have their own AI, which means they are more likely to run around the battlefield and bump players, because it is more realistic!!!! and fun.

-You want to make horse riding even harder, because its "too easy"



Anyone who has played Cavalry in Warband Multiplayer for more than 5 minutes would look at this and call you insane, rightly so because you want to reduce player control of horses, adding even more random chance unpredictable dice rolls for the sake of realism.

Especially this quote

Horses ramming into things they can't go trough is a problem, and them not being phased at all when they do is a problem also, both of which serve to make cavalry charges that much less amazing to watch and play and have been ignored for far too long.

I seriously doubt you have played Cavalry if you think accidently ramming into a wall and breaking horse neck and launching you off and taking damage is a great way to make Cavalry more fun to play.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

-You want riderless horses to have their own AI, which means they are more likely to run around the battlefield and bump players, because it is more realistic!!!! and fun.

Lol wot. This is already in the game. Riderless horses run around on their own. Would you prefer if they just stood still?

-You want horses to have their own AI to steer away from walls without player imput, taking control away from the player because realism!!!!

Yeah, of course any argument looks stupid if you completely misunderstand it and then reframe it to look stupid.

When a moderator (Orion) has to make several pages of posts addressing your infuriating posting habits, and just about everyone you've interacted with has something to say regarding this, it's unlikely that the problem lies with the dozens of people who have you on ignore, or the dozens more who just bypass your posts by habit.

It's okay to be wrong about something, or to see the reason in someone's argument, or even just to disagree politely without having to misrepresent them and post facepalm emoticons. I am consistently wrong about stuff because I think I know more than I do, or am misinformed or whatever. But if somebody stubbornly refuses to be proven wrong on anything, even if they're right, nobody is going to want to talk to them because there's no point. And it's even worse when said person uses a silly slogan to back up their vast array of internally contradictory opinions.
You make good points when you're not being belligerent, but seeing as you really don't know how to back up your arguments properly without getting into weird nitpicky ad hoc ragefits, it might be better just not to post rather than risking getting muted again.

 

[Harmi]

What I care is about balancing the game. The horse AI was for me only to make the horse riding little harder. Also, it's not dice rolling if you know that horse is going to jump if it sees a dead horse or dead man too close. It's just how the weapon called horse works. Just like if you hit a shielder from up with a hammer, he cannot block. Similar kind of mechanic. The horse cannot go without doing something in some situations. Maybe different horses would have different behaviors, just like different weapons have different behaviors. The key is to make a player in a situation that he has to LEARN how to ride a horse. Maybe he would be able to drop down from the horse also if he really is doing everything wrong.

Not just hop into his scooter and run around. He has to learn how the scooter works in different situations. When he has learned and mastered that he can use the horse properly.

Now in Warband, the only difference between horses is their speed and hp...

 

[lolbash]

This is already in the game. Riderless horses run around on their own. Would you prefer if they just stood still?

We are not arguing if Horse AI exists, we are discussing the possibility of increasing the complexity and if it should be included in Bannerlord.  Yes, its annoying and I would prefer that they stay still, for both Singleplayer and Multiplayer.

Yeah, of course any argument looks stupid if you completely misunderstand it and then reframe it to look stupid.

Can you point out which parts I have misunderstood and reframed exactly and explain how I am wrong?

When a moderator (Orion) has to make several pages of posts addressing your infuriating posting habits, and just about everyone you've interacted with...

Wait, what does this have to do with horses in Bannerlord?

Absolutely nothing. You proceed to call me wrong and stupid, without explaining why, then bring up my relationship with Orion on the forums. There has to be a famous word for this.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ad-hominem

Moving on..

What I care is about balancing the game. The horse AI was for me only to make the horse riding little harder.

You and Fortnight are sending mixed messages. Fortnight wants to implement Horse AI because he does not want horses to ram into things, to make horse riding easier.

You want to implement Horse AI, because it makes horse riding harder.

Pick a side and stick with it.

Also, it's not dice rolling if you know that horse is going to jump if it sees a dead horse or dead man too close. It's just how the weapon called horse works. Just like if you hit a shielder from up with a hammer, he cannot block. Similar kind of mechanic.

You are comparing two very different things. Hammers are objects. horses are animals. In your example where you want to make it so a horse jumps when seeing a dead body, how exactly do you want to make the horse run away?

Many Multiplayer games make the bodies of dead people client side, to reduce server load for faster server to client performance. What if you are also playing on low settings and you set corpses limit to 10 bodies? I imagine your immersion be breaking when you see riderless horses randomly getting scared and running into you.

And what about horse direction? Do you want to make it run into a random direction which cannot be controlled by player imput?

The horse cannot go without doing something in some situations. Maybe different horses would have different behaviors, just like different weapons have different behaviors. The key is to make a player in a situation that he has to LEARN how to ride a horse. Maybe he would be able to drop down from the horse also if he really is doing everything wrong.

Just like how I explained the difference between a Horse and the Hammer, Weapons and Horses are not the same.

Weapons do not jump from the ground and stab you randomly when you drop it on the floor. Weapons do not get scared of seeing arrows and slashing the air. Weapons can be entirely controlled by the player, and mastered through skill.

Horses, cannot. And you are arguing to make them even more unpredictable, and it is perfectly balance, because you can just study horse AI in Bannerlord to make sure they do not interrupt you.

I wpuld have agreed, under these conditions;

-The horse always runs away in the direction they are facing, as to remove random chance and players know when to expect where the horse will run and hit.

-Or we can ignore the above option and remove the horse's ability to move when they do not have a rider on top, to reduce randomness entirely and make sure that battles are limited to player skill.

If you argue with these conditions I would have agreed with you, but you are in support of individual Horse AI and having riders fall of their horses, and nerfing them in general, I find it hard to believe that you are arguing for balance of the general state of the game, and much more that you are on the side of

"cavalry is cancer and i hate them please nerf them to uselessness"

Maybe the horse would do some weird things by itself or jump randomly over dead or change its path or just something.

Seriously this smells of "I hate horses i hate horses i hate horses i hate CAVALRY"

 

[Gimli Lockbearer]

Always wanted Cav to be more dynamic in Warband, but playing for years as Cav & Inf, i got used the mechanics of cavalry, (and i think many players fell same and dont want big changes in my opinion) drastically changing its gameplay and making it more realistic won't fit M&B at all, one of the simple reasons is that, people won't like realistic horses, I'm always up for realism in games, but horse collision must not become death sentece to the Rider.

Vikingr has interesting Cavalry mechanics, time to time, running over your enemies in battle will cause you to fall off from yer horse, also in The Deluge mod, when enemy shoots you or hits you with melee weapon and survive, you fall off from horse, which is really good for gameplay, but making it so that your horse thinks by its own durning the battle is interesting yes, but will be hype killing for many players.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

I not want realistic horses after read impression of Rainbow regarding this thing, not will works for M&B at all

 

[Harmi]

You and Fortnight are sending mixed messages. Fortnight wants to implement Horse AI because he does not want horses to ram into things, to make horse riding easier.

You want to implement Horse AI, because it makes horse riding harder.

Pick a side and stick with it.

I've already picked my (own)side and I'm going to stick with it.

You are comparing two very different things. Hammers are objects. horses are animals. In your example where you want to make it so a horse jumps when seeing a dead body, how exactly do you want to make the horse run away?

Many Multiplayer games make the bodies of dead people client side, to reduce server load for a faster server to client performance. What if you are also playing on low settings and you set corpses limit to 10 bodies? I imagine your immersion be breaking when you see riderless horses randomly getting scared and running into you.

And what about horse direction? Do you want to make it run in a random direction which cannot be controlled by player input?

I'm not going into details so much, because it would need testing and polishing to make the reaction work in a similar way in everytime to the same situation. In a game, horses are objects in a similar way as hammers. That's why it's possible to program them to act in some specific way and react to something every time in a similar way. There is no need to add randomness for them, just only some rules which they follow. They already follow some rules. If they go to the wall, they stop. If a player adds more speed, they speed up. The rules are very simple atm. but they can be something more sophisticated.

Just like how I explained the difference between a Horse and the Hammer, Weapons, and Horses are not the same.

Weapons do not jump from the ground and stab you randomly when you drop it on the floor. Weapons do not get scared of seeing arrows and slashing the air. Weapons can be entirely controlled by the player, and mastered through skill.

Horses, cannot. And you are arguing to make them even more unpredictable, and it is perfectly balanced because you can just study horse AI in Bannerlord to make sure they do not interrupt you.

Horses are weapons in a similar way as some vehicles are. You can kill with a horse. Horses atm. are perfectly controlled by the player. I am in my way to make the controls little harder. Not impossible. It is ridiculous that we have in horses atm. all the advantages as we have in cars but none of its disadvantages. If you run to a tree with a car and you are not wearing a seatbelt, you are going to fly through the windshield. With the horse in Warband, you can jump off the cliff or run full speed to a tree and nothing happens. It might even be that only players head hits the tree and he doesn't even lose health. The player should at least drop off from the saddle of his horse.

I would have agreed, under these conditions;

-The horse always runs away in the direction they are facing, as to remove random chance and players know when to expect where the horse will run and hit.

-Or we can ignore the above option and remove the horse's ability to move when they do not have a rider on top, to reduce randomness entirely and make sure that battles are limited to player skill.

If you argue with these conditions I would have agreed with you, but you are in support of individual Horse AI and having riders fall of their horses, and nerfing them in general, I find it hard to believe that you are arguing for balance of the general state of the game, and much more than you are on the side of

"the cavalry is cancer and I hate them please nerf them to uselessness"

Yes, I don't exactly wanna have randomness in their acts. (Some of my comments might sound like that, but I don't wanna have it. It should sometimes look like randomness if you don't know how to ride horse.) I want predictability. It has to be under the control of the player, but it should not be too easy. Riding a horse is not easy. Definitely harder than walking. So why in Mount & Blade it has to be so easy? I don't get it. Dueling is not easy in M&B. So why horse riding has to be easy? Talewords always said that they are not afraid to make the game hard. What's up with the horses then, they are made to be easy and everything else is harder? It's not balanced if one class is complete without disadvantages, it's then overpowered.

Seriously this smells of "I hate horses i hate horses i hate horses i hate CAVALRY"

Yeah, I don't like them, but I don't wanna make them completely useless.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

I like horses but idea of game was making horses more easier to riding than other games from time

 

[lolbash]

I'm not going into details so much

Please do. It is a forum, people here are used to long posts.

I want predictability. It has to be under the control of the player, but it should not be too easy. Riding a horse is not easy. Definitely harder than walking

So do you have any idea in mind on how to implement this?

Assuming that you want to implement horse AI, but you do not want to take the easy way, which is random chance everything, then please detail exaxtly how you want horses in Bannerlord to behave in situations. Otherwise the Developers of Taleworlds are very much going to likely ignore this thread if you keep making statements about how horse should and should not do while keeping multiplayer balance, which is a very diffucult task I can already imagine itself.

 

[Lord Bryggan]

I would like to see horses falling down after huge collisions.  The animation is the same as a horse dying, you just have to add the animation of the horse getting up again I would guess.  Plus I'd like to see players get knocked off their horse if they take a certain amount of damage or their shield gets hit hard enough.  Polearms were designed to dismount knights, plus it would make jousting much more interesting.

 

[Harmi]

I'm not going into details so much

Please do. It is a forum, people here are used to long posts.

I want predictability. It has to be under the control of the player, but it should not be too easy. Riding a horse is not easy. Definitely harder than walking

So do you have any idea in mind on how to implement this?

Assuming that you want to implement horse AI, but you do not want to take the easy way, which is random chance everything, then please detail exaxtly how you want horses in Bannerlord to behave in situations. Otherwise the Developers of Taleworlds are very much going to likely ignore this thread if you keep making statements about how horse should and should not do while keeping multiplayer balance, which is a very diffucult task I can already imagine itself.

The AI would be based on distances of objects from horses. It would be very very simple and Taleworlds would partly be able to recycle some old code from other agents like enemy warriors. If there is a certain thing, let's say "fire", too close to the cheap horse, it would change the horse's behavior. For example, it would automatically change it's speed to the max in trying to get away of fire or if the object is straightforward, the horse would slower its speed. If the fire is in the right side of the horse, the horse would also turn to left. If it's on the left side, the horse would turn to the right. A horse should not be able to react to things that are too far away. Every horse should have an invisible detector element (maybe cube?) that will detect the direction of nearby elements and from that data, the horse would act. If the horse is wounded, it would increase the size of that invisible cube. That would simulate that the horse is scared. It doesn't wanna get hurt anymore. For a healthy horse it would be quite small, I think.

A smart player would try to keep those distracting elements away from his horse to not make it do those maneuvers. The more expensive horse it is, the smaller the effect would be in any of these. (smaller speed changes and smaller turning angle) When the horse hit's something hard. The player should be stunned also or even drop from the saddle if there is enough speed. First law of Newton says that "In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by a force.". So if the horse stops, then the player should still keep moving = drop from the saddle or at least get stunned. Again, the better horse should have an effect on this. (Let's call it a "better saddle effect".)

I've been also thinking, that it might be a completely new skill on players which would maybe be "Taming" or "horse-riding". That would also reduce the punishing effects from the horses and give more control for the player in those challenging situations. Now, I've not completely figured out all the situations where something would happen and what would that be.

 

[wormydowg]

隐藏

This is already in the game. Riderless horses run around on their own. Would you prefer if they just stood still?

We are not arguing if Horse AI exists, we are discussing the possibility of increasing the complexity and if it should be included in Bannerlord.  Yes, its annoying and I would prefer that they stay still, for both Singleplayer and Multiplayer.

Yeah, of course any argument looks stupid if you completely misunderstand it and then reframe it to look stupid.

Can you point out which parts I have misunderstood and reframed exactly and explain how I am wrong?

When a moderator (Orion) has to make several pages of posts addressing your infuriating posting habits, and just about everyone you've interacted with...

Wait, what does this have to do with horses in Bannerlord?

Absolutely nothing. You proceed to call me wrong and stupid, without explaining why, then bring up my relationship with Orion on the forums. There has to be a famous word for this.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ad-hominem

Moving on..

What I care is about balancing the game. The horse AI was for me only to make the horse riding little harder.

You and Fortnight are sending mixed messages. Fortnight wants to implement Horse AI because he does not want horses to ram into things, to make horse riding easier.

You want to implement Horse AI, because it makes horse riding harder.

Pick a side and stick with it.

Also, it's not dice rolling if you know that horse is going to jump if it sees a dead horse or dead man too close. It's just how the weapon called horse works. Just like if you hit a shielder from up with a hammer, he cannot block. Similar kind of mechanic.

You are comparing two very different things. Hammers are objects. horses are animals. In your example where you want to make it so a horse jumps when seeing a dead body, how exactly do you want to make the horse run away?

Many Multiplayer games make the bodies of dead people client side, to reduce server load for faster server to client performance. What if you are also playing on low settings and you set corpses limit to 10 bodies? I imagine your immersion be breaking when you see riderless horses randomly getting scared and running into you.

And what about horse direction? Do you want to make it run into a random direction which cannot be controlled by player imput?

The horse cannot go without doing something in some situations. Maybe different horses would have different behaviors, just like different weapons have different behaviors. The key is to make a player in a situation that he has to LEARN how to ride a horse. Maybe he would be able to drop down from the horse also if he really is doing everything wrong.

Just like how I explained the difference between a Horse and the Hammer, Weapons and Horses are not the same.

Weapons do not jump from the ground and stab you randomly when you drop it on the floor. Weapons do not get scared of seeing arrows and slashing the air. Weapons can be entirely controlled by the player, and mastered through skill.

Horses, cannot. And you are arguing to make them even more unpredictable, and it is perfectly balance, because you can just study horse AI in Bannerlord to make sure they do not interrupt you.

I wpuld have agreed, under these conditions;

-The horse always runs away in the direction they are facing, as to remove random chance and players know when to expect where the horse will run and hit.

-Or we can ignore the above option and remove the horse's ability to move when they do not have a rider on top, to reduce randomness entirely and make sure that battles are limited to player skill.

If you argue with these conditions I would have agreed with you, but you are in support of individual Horse AI and having riders fall of their horses, and nerfing them in general, I find it hard to believe that you are arguing for balance of the general state of the game, and much more that you are on the side of

"cavalry is cancer and i hate them please nerf them to uselessness"

Maybe the horse would do some weird things by itself or jump randomly over dead or change its path or just something.

Seriously this smells of "I hate horses i hate horses i hate horses i hate CAVALRY"

@rainbow dash

My whole problem with all the arguments you have ever made is that..... You have picked this ambiguous  idea of "fun" that is unmeasurable, and you have geared all your arguments to this imaginary state.

You have never even played the game, and yet you argue for balance.

Fun to me is being punished and rewarded on actual merit. Merit that is based on the realism behind that time period.

You argue for the balance of the game as if there is only one optimal solution. You also argue to keep the integrity of multiplayer, but may i remind you... Multiplayer is the most flexible aspect of this whole game.

You act as if there is no spectrum between horse AI and its utility.

And i don't see an issue with making horses as realistic as possible, because cavalry is definitely one of the most OP elements in the game. (Although you can't really argue that they are not OP, you can however argue rather or not this is a bad thing. I will admit there is merit to both sides of that argument. Horses in warband had subtle strengths that gave a significant advantage. )

隐藏

Yeah, of course any argument looks stupid if you completely misunderstand it and then reframe it to look stupid.

Can you point out which parts I have misunderstood and reframed exactly and explain how I am wrong?

When a moderator (Orion) has to make several pages of posts addressing your infuriating posting habits, and just about everyone you've interacted with...

Wait, what does this have to do with horses in Bannerlord?

Absolutely nothing. You proceed to call me wrong and stupid, without explaining why, then bring up my relationship with Orion on the forums. There has to be a famous word for this.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ad-hominem

Actually, that wouldn't be ad-hominem. The argument was an attack on your credibility and ability to understand other peoples arguments, in which Ethos was used to make that argument. Were you actually called stupid? wrong isn't an insult.

隐藏

-You want horses to have their own AI to steer away from walls without player imput, taking control away from the player because realism!!!!

Yeah, of course any argument looks stupid if you completely misunderstand it and then reframe it to look stupid.
(Thesis statement : You misrepresent arguments to make them easier to attack)

When a moderator (Orion) has to make several pages of posts addressing your infuriating posting habits, and just about everyone you've interacted with has something to say regarding this, it's unlikely that the problem lies with the dozens of people who have you on ignore, or the dozens more who just bypass your posts by habit. (Ethos backing it up)

It's okay to be wrong about something, or to see the reason in someone's argument, or even just to disagree politely without having to misrepresent them and post facepalm emoticons. I am consistently wrong about stuff because I think I know more than I do, or am misinformed or whatever. But if somebody stubbornly refuses to be proven wrong on anything, even if they're right, nobody is going to want to talk to them because there's no point. And it's even worse when said person uses a silly slogan to back up their vast array of internally contradictory opinions.
You make good points when you're not being belligerent, but seeing as you really don't know how to back up your arguments properly without getting into weird nitpicky ad hoc ragefits, it might be better just not to post rather than risking getting muted again. (Conclusion)

 

[Roccoflipside]

I would say the biggest thing for me is the horses not running directly into things. I can't remember how many times I'd have almost won a battle, and I'd be watching one of the enemy's last cav units coming from behind, trying to figure out which side he's coming up on so I could block/attack, when my horse runs head first into a tree, I get lanced and die, and we lose the battle. Simplest thing in my opinion would be, instead of having the horse stop and rear, it slips to the right or the left slightly, possibly even with a slight decrease to speed. Running into a wall/fence or something more... solid could possibly lead to the same thing in WB, where the horse stops and rears. This is in no way taking it out of the player's hand.

 

[Honved]

I seriously doubt you have played Cavalry if you think accidently ramming into a wall and breaking horse neck and launching you off and taking damage is a great way to make Cavalry more fun to play.

Take it from someone who plays cavalry (horse archers) in MOST campaigns: adding a bit more realism and responsibility in horse handling, and a moderate increase in the horse's own ability to avoid those situations, whether the rider wants it or not, would most likely be a big improvement in gameplay.  As usual, you've taken a reasonable request for more horse autonomy and pushed it to the extremes, then argued against those extremes, rather than the base argument.

A horse should be able to make small adjustments in advance on its own to avoid an obstacle (the player recognizing those obstacles and turning the horse in advance will avoid unexpectedly having your aim spoiled).  The horse should have a tendency to make larger changes in both speed and direction in the face of impending disaster or impact, whether the rider likes it or not.  Such sudden changes by the horse should be reduced or made more gradual and further in advance with higher riding skill, and being able to make a lance charge or run down infantry without the horse freaking out should require at least moderate skill, or familiarity between horse and rider.  If an impact does occur with a solid object, the horse should take damage, possibly fall, and the rider risk being thrown off violently (both fall chance and damage to horse and rider depending on the speed of the impact, and being thrown off if the horse stays upright depending on skill).  If you screw up badly enough, you should suffer the consequences.

A fleeing horse should more-or-less maintain direction (with some small random variation) unless there's something in its way, in which case it should turn in advance slightly to avoid it.  Once clear of impending threats (people or non-horse animals), the horse should randomly either slow to a walk (until it leaves the field) or stop.

As pointed out, having the horse crash into trees and rocks is unrealistic and NOT fun.  Having the horse behave like a car (it does EXACTLY what you direct, until it can't and things go wrong) is unrealistic, and not much fun in my opinion.  Besides, that also makes the horse a bit too overpowered too easily, because you gain the benefits of a combat mount with ANY horse.  Granted, a highly skilled horseman on a large, powerful mount SHOULD be overpowered, but it should take a lot of work to reach that mark, not be something you gain just by paying the few hundred credits for some tame riding horse and devoting a single point of skill to riding.  That riding horse should be EXTREMELY reluctant to charge into a line of men, and a bit skittish even about running into one lone guy, without proper training of both horse and rider.

Basically, I want cavalry in Bannerlord to BECOME as powerful as in original M&B, not be that powerful from the start, yet be easy to learn for a new player.  That takes a dependence on character skills, and not so much dependence on player skill.

 

[wormydowg]

隐藏

I seriously doubt you have played Cavalry if you think accidently ramming into a wall and breaking horse neck and launching you off and taking damage is a great way to make Cavalry more fun to play.

Take it from someone who plays cavalry (horse archers) in MOST campaigns: adding a bit more realism and responsibility in horse handling, and a moderate increase in the horse's own ability to avoid those situations, whether the rider wants it or not, would most likely be a big improvement in gameplay.  As usual, you've taken a reasonable request for more horse autonomy and pushed it to the extremes, then argued against those extremes, rather than the base argument.

A horse should be able to make small adjustments in advance on its own to avoid an obstacle (the player recognizing those obstacles and turning the horse in advance will avoid unexpectedly having your aim spoiled).  The horse should have a tendency to make larger changes in both speed and direction in the face of impending disaster or impact, whether the rider likes it or not.  Such sudden changes by the horse should be reduced or made more gradual and further in advance with higher riding skill, and being able to make a lance charge or run down infantry without the horse freaking out should require at least moderate skill, or familiarity between horse and rider.  If an impact does occur with a solid object, the horse should take damage, possibly fall, and the rider risk being thrown off violently (both fall chance and damage to horse and rider depending on the speed of the impact, and being thrown off if the horse stays upright depending on skill).  If you screw up badly enough, you should suffer the consequences.

A fleeing horse should more-or-less maintain direction (with some small random variation) unless there's something in its way, in which case it should turn in advance slightly to avoid it.  Once clear of impending threats (people or non-horse animals), the horse should randomly either slow to a walk (until it leaves the field) or stop.

As pointed out, having the horse crash into trees and rocks is unrealistic and NOT fun.  Having the horse behave like a car (it does EXACTLY what you direct, until it can't and things go wrong) is unrealistic, and not much fun in my opinion.  Besides, that also makes the horse a bit too overpowered too easily, because you gain the benefits of a combat mount with ANY horse.  Granted, a highly skilled horseman on a large, powerful mount SHOULD be overpowered, but it should take a lot of work to reach that mark, not be something you gain just by paying the few hundred credits for some tame riding horse and devoting a single point of skill to riding.  That riding horse should be EXTREMELY reluctant to charge into a line of men, and a bit skittish even about running into one lone guy, without proper training of both horse and rider.

Basically, I want cavalry in Bannerlord to BECOME as powerful as in original M&B, not be that powerful from the start, yet be easy to learn for a new player.  That takes a dependence on character skills, and not so much dependence on player skill.

The Witcher 3 was used as an example of why realistic horses suck... But the witcher world is small and cluttered compared to bannerlord. Due to how large the map is in banner Lord, it would be amazing to just guide your horse and not directly control it. It would add a whole new lively element to Calvary.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

[...]

A horse should be able to make small adjustments in advance on its own to avoid an obstacle (the player recognizing those obstacles and turning the horse in advance will avoid unexpectedly having your aim spoiled).  The horse should have a tendency to make larger changes in both speed and direction in the face of impending disaster or impact, whether the rider likes it or not.  Such sudden changes by the horse should be reduced or made more gradual and further in advance with higher riding skill, and being able to make a lance charge or run down infantry without the horse freaking out should require at least moderate skill, or familiarity between horse and rider.  If an impact does occur with a solid object, the horse should take damage, possibly fall, and the rider risk being thrown off violently (both fall chance and damage to horse and rider depending on the speed of the impact, and being thrown off if the horse stays upright depending on skill).  If you screw up badly enough, you should suffer the consequences.

A fleeing horse should more-or-less maintain direction (with some small random variation) unless there's something in its way, in which case it should turn in advance slightly to avoid it.  Once clear of impending threats (people or non-horse animals), the horse should randomly either slow to a walk (until it leaves the field) or stop.

As pointed out, having the horse crash into trees and rocks is unrealistic and NOT fun.  Having the horse behave like a car (it does EXACTLY what you direct, until it can't and things go wrong) is unrealistic, and not much fun in my opinion.  Besides, that also makes the horse a bit too overpowered too easily, because you gain the benefits of a combat mount with ANY horse.  Granted, a highly skilled horseman on a large, powerful mount SHOULD be overpowered, but it should take a lot of work to reach that mark, not be something you gain just by paying the few hundred credits for some tame riding horse and devoting a single point of skill to riding.  That riding horse should be EXTREMELY reluctant to charge into a line of men, and a bit skittish even about running into one lone guy, without proper training of both horse and rider.

Basically, I want cavalry in Bannerlord to BECOME as powerful as in original M&B, not be that powerful from the start, yet be easy to learn for a new player.  That takes a dependence on character skills, and not so much dependence on player skill.

Excellent suggestions. A gradual progression of skill as a horseman, granting more control and options over time, seems the best possibility. It would be authentic to feel yourself becoming better in this way, and also be a good gameplay mechanic for character progression.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

Honved has smarter suggestions, I love them

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

Making horse AI  a little more complex will put more pressure on cpu, right?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Not by much, so long as it's well programmed. If every horse on the map checks what's in front of it every 0.3 seconds and the whole thing is staggered so that no horse checks at the same time, you should notice no dip in frames. Warband has battle scripts which are, no joke, about 10,000 times slower than something like what I described, and all the calculations are done on the same frame. But most people don't notice it.

 

[Firunien]

I can sell you 100 horses to geht the Motion capture in that one right