Damage from falling mounts

[Scarymike]

I searched for other posts on this suggestion but didn't find any - apologies if this has already been brought up.

It seems like anyone whose mount is killed should take some amount of damage from being pitched face first on the ground, let alone having a big dead horse fall on them. Having some experience with riding and horses in general (though I've never had my mount cut out from under me!) I can atest that it would be almost impossible to escape injury in that situation.

Modifers to the damage could be:

1) Your speed at the time of the "dismount".
2) The weight of your horse - (i.e. a charger, being fully armored, would do more damage than an unarmored saddle horse). Maybe "heavy" mounts might do a bit more damage?
3) Whether or not the horse actually hit you. I've seen M&B riders loose their mount and be thrown clear of the horse. I'm not sure how complicated the physics of keeping track of this might be. To simplify things it could be assumed that your mount is going to hit you.
4) Higher levels in the "Riding" skill could serve to mitigate the damage somewhat, as might higher agility.

Seems like something which could be fairly easy to implement and would add more realism to the game.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

 

[Juno]

yeah this would be good a bit fairer

Juno crushed by spirited charger T_T

 

[NikkTheTrick]

All for it! In one fight, I was de-horsed 3 times and still won (I was taking foe's horses after mine went down).

 

[Merentha]

Seeing as how i manage to work this suggestion into almost all of my posts, im all for it Not only should the speed of the mount affect the damage, but the armor worn should also affect the time it takes to rise. Armor should protect from damage, but increase stun. So, if you DO manage to get unhorsed from that charger, the black armor you are probably wearing should lessen the damage, but leave you helpless for quite some time. Would also give a reason for mounted knights to wear nice helmets, if there was a chance they could be killed for hitting the ground without one.

(Oh, and could the black helmet be changed? Having it look like the italian barbute seems really odd to me, given that the black armor appears to be germanic-style gothic harness. A helm that protects the whole face would make more sense to me. Maybe like this http://www.tyrrell-armouries.com/helmets/gothic_sallet2.html or
www.greenknightproductions.com/sallet.gif

[/url]

 

[Sir Prince]

Did someone mention HOOVES?!!! They are supposed to be VERY VERY HARD and a charger with a knight in plate is VERY HEAVY so it should HURT, a LOT. Not recieved 0 damage. And a rider in very heavy armour WOULD have a hard time getting up. And you would be stunned (wind knocked out, bashed your funny bone etc). I have shot khergit horses and seen the rider slide down a hill and get up as soon as he finishes sliding with no aparent hurt.

 

[Daimyo]

I already proposed this idea in the horse hitbox topic. So well, I think it's a great idea, and I'm a great person too. Yeah, me, me, me.

 

[Volkier]

I still think that this will be abused too much... such as deliberately aiming for the horses in order NOT to just de-horse an opponent and charge at him later, but to actually kill both the horse and the rider. It makes the rider's shields useless since a horse is a bigger target, easier to hit, and it will make the separate horse + rider hitboxes useless since the horse will count for both. Yes I agree in reality you will get bruises, scratches and cuts during such incidents. However nothing painfull enough to call 'damage'.

Regarding realism, there have been VERY few incidents written in history where a rider got killed by their horse falling on them. Yes they exist, however riders would jump off a falling horse without any damage at all, get pinned under the horse, or the horse actually gets back up with / without the rider.

My oppinion remains that players with heavy armor can take longer to recover, yes.
Stunned for longer, yes.
Get pinned under a horse and take even longer to recover or be forced to defend themselves in the 'downed' posistion, yes.
Take damage, MAYBE if it is very rare, you are able to remove it completely by upgrading your riding / athletics skill, and other realistic aspects (like the wounded horse getting back up, rider getting pinned etc.) are introduced.
Take damage every single time the horse gets hit, definate NO for me.
It is already enough that if your horse gets killed, you are very likely to get swarmed by 10 enemies from every direction and end up getting owned (unless you are backed up by your men who try very hard to get killed themselves). If you somehow manage to get another horse before that happens, good for you, it just adds to the creativity and realism of the game...

Sorry that I don't agree with this suggestion. I just find that there are plenty other aspects which are just as realistic, but will occur a LOT more often. Furthermore, this goes against the whole point of separating the horse and rider hitboxes in the first place..

 

[DaLagga]

Of course you should take damage. I don't think it should kill someone outright, but it should certinainly hurt, maybe 10-20 damage or so depending on the speed they were traveling. It should take someone without armor at least 3 times as long to stand up after falling, and someone with armor about 5 times as long.

Furthermore, this goes against the whole point of separating the horse and rider hitboxes in the first place..

How so?....... Having your horse fall in battle is totally different than getting a flat while driving a car.

 

[catsoup]

Regarding realism, there have been VERY few incidents written in history where a rider got killed by their horse falling on them.

Ever heared of Superman?? Or gone with the wind? Or the british queen? Genghis Khan died from a wound he got having falled from a horse a year before his death. Falling from a running/jumping horse can kill or atleast, break some bones.

 

[Luthius]

I still think that this will be abused too much... such as deliberately aiming for the horses in order NOT to just de-horse an opponent and charge at him later, but to actually kill both the horse and the rider.

Heard of Agincourt? (spelling errors permitted?)
Most knights were killed because their horses were killed. They simply couldn't get up and got knifed through the slits in their helmets by the longbowmen

Killing the horse is a very valid tactic in war!

 

[Acanthoid]

I am for it. I usually aim at the horses when fighting against 10+ knights. It's a lot easier and with a weapon longer than 120 you can hit them when they ran behind you without taking any damage (because it seems that the riders on those horses dont deliberately try to unmount you, so when they pass behind you and cant reach you they dont even try to hurt your mount).
If they would take damage or be stunned i would not have that much to cleanse when their mounts are done .

 

[Volkier]

I still think that this will be abused too much... such as deliberately aiming for the horses in order NOT to just de-horse an opponent and charge at him later, but to actually kill both the horse and the rider.

Heard of Agincourt? (spelling errors permitted?)
Most knights were killed because their horses were killed. They simply couldn't get up and got knifed through the slits in their helmets by the longbowmen

Killing the horse is a very valid tactic in war!

Agree. But they got killed BECAUSE they could not get up on time BECAUSE they were wearing heavy armor. I completely agree. Heavy armored knights can get a stun of 5-10 seconds in game when their horse is killed before getting up, nothing wrong with that.

And 10-20 damage WILL kill outright, since I don't know about you guys, but unless you run to the nearest town to heal after every fight, or you just take it as it goes (not everybody pumps all their stats into HP). You are also forgetting that real life does not have HP. You are either well enough, wounded/hurt, or dead. By well enough, I also mean a few bruises and scratches that you will sustain should your horse fall. HP however, is the best way (in game) to represent health. But like I said, a few bruises and scratches should not imply as damage.

I am not denying that there was no such thing as death from falling off a horse. I am saying that compared with other things that can happen, the probability of getting hurt is low. I don't mind having such implimented, however I once again repeat that there are other things which are more likely to happen, including the wounded horse getting back onto its feet, person getting stunned / winded or pinned under the horse. No problem if the rarity is as often as a horse getting crippled, it would make perfect sense then. However taking damage EVERY time is just insulting (to the rider and the horse).

An unhorsed opponent ALREADY has a disadvantage over a horsed one, therefore it STILL makes sense to kill the horse to gain tactical advantage. You can't expect your opponent to straight away die or even take enough damage to kill him in the next 'poke' with a pocket knife.

Once again, I have no problem with the person getting stunned for a lot longer. Would make sense.
No problem with the person getting a short 'black out' (screen goes black, or in NPC's case, once again just motionless for 2 seconds or so). Once again would make sense.
No problem with rarely recieving damage (about same probability as a horse getting crippled), and the rarity increasing with your stats / level going up. Would make sense.
Taking damage for every single time for every single person who has a horse fall under them, 110% against it since it would not (at least to me) make sense.

Although some people may think that riders get off too easily after having their horse killed, I personally find it a LOT easier to dispose of such enemies, and chances are they would be killed before I even get a chance to do that. This is practically the same as doing damage to both horse and rider with 1 hit. If those penalties are still seen as minor, could we not be a bit more creative and come up with something which would make more sense rather than just say 'oh lets get a hit on their hp should anything that may very rarely cause hurt happen'

I have stated my oppinion, explained why, did not willingly attack anybody in the forum (sorry if I did, it was an accident) and there is no way anybody can change my mind :

 

[DaLagga]

And 10-20 damage WILL kill outright

Well, if your guy is badly hurt already, it makes sense that falling off a horse would be enough to knock him unconscious. It would make sense if the fall dealt blunt damage, and therefore would never actually "kill" in the game.

You are also forgetting that real life does not have HP. You are either well enough, wounded/hurt, or dead. By well enough, I also mean a few bruises and scratches that you will sustain should your horse fall. HP however, is the best way (in game) to represent health. But like I said, a few bruises and scratches should not imply as damage.

I don't really understand this. Bruises and scrapes DO represent damage, because even minor injuries are going to impair your ability to fight. That is like saying a cut across your hand shouldn't reduce your hp, because in real life its not lethal. Are you going to tell me that if someone fell off a horse, got up and onto another horse and fell off again and repeated that about 10 times he wouldn't be unconscious if not dead? I hope you see my point...

An unhorsed opponent ALREADY has a disadvantage over a horsed one, therefore it STILL makes sense to kill the horse to gain tactical advantage.

Not true, if you're fighting on foot. This is especially noticable in the arena. An unmounted archer is MUCH more deadly than a mounted one. The same thing goes for someone wielding a 2hander, in most cases. Most units fight just as well if not better on foot than they do mounted. One of the few exceptions being lancers. As an archer in the arena, i know for a fact that 2handed wielders are much more deadly on foot. I try very hard not to miss and hit their mount, because on foot they stand a chance of killing me, where as long as they're mounted i can just fire as they get close and their attack is cancelled and they must turn all the way around, by which time they're dead.

Although some people may think that riders get off too easily after having their horse killed, I personally find it a LOT easier to dispose of such enemies, and chances are they would be killed before I even get a chance to do that.

I have noticed that pretty much every one of your suggestions sides with making cavalry more powerful. And all of your statements suggest that you only fight mounted, correct me if i am wrong. That being said, create a foot soldier, and play through it a bit. I am certain your opinions will change a bit.

I have stated my oppinion, explained why, did not willingly attack anybody in the forum (sorry if I did, it was an accident)

Not at all. I realize i may seem a bit harsh with my arguements, but i do not mean to attack you or discredit your statements. You make some valid points...i just see things a little differently than you...on pretty much everything