• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

"Footmen on horses" should be as fast as cavalry and be able to carry one more animal.

Users who are viewing this thread

mortache

Recruit
It makes absolutely no sense that a cavalry unit can be twice as fast as a footman on a horse while dragging two mules or cows around (unless I am mistaken about it). That means they're faster AND they get additional carry weight from a pack animal. A vast amount number of cultures used horses, camels etc for transport and then dismounted to fight in the battles. I see no reason why they should be any slower than cavalry units on the map. This should do a lot to equalize the cavalry vs non-cavalry armies.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
They aren't twice as fast, its like twenty peecent faster.

And Cav don't think cav can handle an extra animal. Its ride one, herd one
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
And Cav don't think cav can handle an extra animal. Its ride one, herd one
If anyone can confirm or deny this I'd like to know. I also think it's ride 1 handle 1 but I think this only because I've read so, I don't really know. I just look at the stats to determine if I need to sell/store some animals or not.
 

Spinozart1

Knight
if it can be of any help, I ran some tests a while ago and resumed it in a table:

dismounted human0 mule1 mule2 mules3 mules4 mules
0 horse5,05,03,52,01,0
1 horse6,06,04,53,02,0
2 horses6,04,53,02,02,0
3 horses4,53,02,02,02,0
4 horses3,02,02,02,02,0
Of course it will vary depending on active perks.

The base rule is quite simple, you don't suffer any penalties and keep a speed bonus if you respect the following rule:
1 dismounted human + 1 horse + 1 horse/livestock

So if you have 20 footmen + yourself dismounted, you can carry:
42 horses OR 21 horses + 21 cows (or whatever is considered as livestock).

If you have 20 cav and you are mounted:
21 horses OR 21 cows (or whatever is considered as livestock)

Calculation code available here
 

LyonExodus

Recruit
If anyone can confirm or deny this I'd like to know. I also think it's ride 1 handle 1 but I think this only because I've read so, I don't really know. I just look at the stats to determine if I need to sell/store some animals or not.
Cavalry units can only take care of 1 inventory horse or animal while foot units can take care of 2. Like Apocal said handling 2 animals while you are already riding ain't easy if speed is what you want.
after you get free from prison if you are on an horse you are kinda forced to discard some horses but one to reach max speed.
 

mortache

Recruit
They aren't twice as fast, its like twenty peecent faster.
I meant that they can give twice as much speed boost which doesn't make sense to me. Both are riding horses for travel. The cavalry probably has heavy barding on his horse making it actually slower.
 

LyonExodus

Recruit
so to clear any misconceptions:

100 foot units and 200 horses is 6.03 speed.
100 Cavalry and 200 horses is 5.35 speed
100 Cavalry and 100 horses is 6.61 speed

the numbers may be inflated by perks but still, there is quite a difference
 

mortache

Recruit
Y
so to clear any misconceptions:

100 foot units and 200 horses is 6.03 speed.
100 Cavalry and 200 horses is 5.35 speed
100 Cavalry and 100 horses is 6.61 speed

the numbers may be inflated by perks but still, there is quite a difference
Yep this is what I was talking about. There is no reason why 100 foot units on horses shouldn't also move at 6.61 speed, at least when they have riding higher than 10 i.e able to ride proper horses.
 

LyonExodus

Recruit
Y

Yep this is what I was talking about. There is no reason why 100 foot units on horses shouldn't also move at 6.61 speed, at least when they have riding higher than 10 i.e able to ride proper horses.
ehm... balance of on the map party speed?
also a non trained guy may have never seen an horse before. horses are expensive to maintain today, imagine back then, and not everyone was raised by farmers who breed or used them for draft.

It makes sense in my book, it wouldn't if both speed were the same
 

Poddicus

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Have you ever ridden a horse irl
There is a huge difference between an experienced horseman and a newbie
 

Spinozart1

Knight
I just noticed I have misread the topic.
so to clear any misconceptions:

100 foot units and 200 horses is 6.03 speed.
100 Cavalry and 200 horses is 5.35 speed
100 Cavalry and 100 horses is 6.61 speed

the numbers may be inflated by perks but still, there is quite a difference
Interesting.
ehm... balance of on the map party speed?
also a non trained guy may have never seen an horse before. horses are expensive to maintain today, imagine back then, and not everyone was raised by farmers who breed or used them for draft.

It makes sense in my book, it wouldn't if both speed were the same
+1
 
Have you ever ridden a horse irl
There is a huge difference between an experienced horseman and a newbie
This, while I agree that they should use a horse and still be able to herd the same amount as cavalry, I dont think they should travel as fast. Riding is a skill, cross country riding isnt easy especially for long periods if your not used to it on your legs. Let alone some people just cant tell a horse what to do to begin with.
 

Earth Dragon

Sergeant
There is also the matter that infantry are geared to fight on foot and cavalry are geared to fight on horseback. Cavalry can suit up and are good for the day, if they so choose, while those infantry may not have equipment that is set up to easily fit on that horse, and could even be in a situation where they’re armor isn’t fully on. It’s a limited platform. It’s not a damn truck where you just throw your stuff in the back strap it down and call it a day.

Having infantry on horseback a little slower then fully trained cavalry is just taking account of all the little extras that aren’t covered inherently and is extremely appropriate.

Last I checked, you still get the 20 carrying capacity for those horses as well, where as I’m pretty sure the Cav “combo” no longer gives you an extra 20 for being on a horse.
 

Lord Dio

Recruit
It would be nice, if you prefer mounted travel but prefer unmounted combat, that when a battle begins your horses are corralled behind your position on the battlefield. Kind of like when a Caravan is ambushed.
 

AngryPanCake

Regular
Have you ever ridden a horse irl
There is a huge difference between an experienced horseman and a newbie
Hello,
I agree with your assessment. A non trained person riding a horse is nowhere close to keeping up with a trained horseman, especially while dragging another horse/mule.
Furthermore, dragging a cow behind you will slow you down a great deal!

Thank you,
APC
 
I would also much prefer that an infantry man + 1 horse would have the same mapspeed as a cavalry.

Not because of realism but simply because I would prefer to decide on the composition of troops based on what I would like to fight with rather than what gives me a strategic edge on the map.

And lets be honest. It wouldnt really be a case of "I want overpowered infantry without having to live with the downside".

So, thumbs up, even if we might not agree on the reasoning.
 

Earth Dragon

Sergeant
I would also much prefer that an infantry man + 1 horse would have the same mapspeed as a cavalry.

Not because of realism but simply because I would prefer to decide on the composition of troops based on what I would like to fight with rather than what gives me a strategic edge on the map.

And lets be honest. It wouldnt really be a case of "I want overpowered infantry without having to live with the downside".

So, thumbs up, even if we might not agree on the reasoning.
Except the cost to acquire cavalry is so much more. You are literally paying for the extra map speed. There are also perks that can massively bridge that gap, and the right combination of perks can have you moving much faster through forests with “mounted infantry” versus a cavalry army, which moves significantly faster in open expanses in the east and south.

Part of what makes a good sandbox game exciting is risk vs reward and pros/cons choices. Cavalry are expensive and wasted on sieges, but move quickly on the map and offer more tactical options. Infantry move slower but are cheaper to produce, and the Mount/footman combo generates more carrying capacity.

And let’s not forget that you don’t just expend one horse on the entire line, you expend two horses when training from scratch, and hiring mounted troops with a horse is quite a bit more expensive as well.

So please, do not turn this into every other game where there is an “obvious” choice and 100% foot soldier armies are strictly better then mounted ones all because a handful of players wanted the upsides both had to offer wrapped into one. I don’t think you were being fully honest on the bullet point, even though you claimed you were. Do you want to get to the siege faster? Or do you want to use the more cost efficient troops?
 
Except the cost to acquire cavalry is so much more. You are literally paying for the extra map speed. There are also perks that can massively bridge that gap, and the right combination of perks can have you moving much faster through forests with “mounted infantry” versus a cavalry army, which moves significantly faster in open expanses in the east and south.

Part of what makes a good sandbox game exciting is risk vs reward and pros/cons choices. Cavalry are expensive and wasted on sieges, but move quickly on the map and offer more tactical options. Infantry move slower but are cheaper to produce, and the Mount/footman combo generates more carrying capacity.

And let’s not forget that you don’t just expend one horse on the entire line, you expend two horses when training from scratch, and hiring mounted troops with a horse is quite a bit more expensive as well.

So please, do not turn this into every other game where there is an “obvious” choice and 100% foot soldier armies are strictly better then mounted ones all because a handful of players wanted the upsides both had to offer wrapped into one. I don’t think you were being fully honest on the bullet point, even though you claimed you were. Do you want to get to the siege faster? Or do you want to use the more cost efficient troops?
There was a time where it was a pain to find warhorse. Buts costs...costs are trivial.

They could increase recruitment costs by a factor of 5 and it would still be trivial.
 
Top Bottom