horses balanced in reverse, good or bad?

[bravesirknight]

I've noticed horses are very much steeply balanced in reverse now, so that low end are fast and maneuverable, high end simply have armor and little else to write home about. Personally, it's annoying. Maneuverability is too powerful, so that an enemy guy on a basic steppe horse (with 37 speed and 41 maneuver) is GREATLY able to outrun a spirited charger with (41 speed 37 maneuver) and other faster horses too. The problem seems to be that with lower maneuver your horse can't line up an attack that connects in time on a horse with higher maneuver, thus making any other advantage worthless in horse vs. horse.

What's really confusing here is the horses that cost less and require less riding skill are coming out ahead. Yep, you get less maneuver the more you pay. Am I missing something? Does anyone use warhorse or charger anymore? I can't see the point if half the enemy is on cheap horses circle strafing and laughing at you.

 

[Erwin]

Yeah, a horse not covered in iron plates runs better than one that is. Big surprise there.

 

[TheMageLord]

Its speed that makes you lag behind them. The warhorse/charger are great for busting enemy infantry, you can ride right through them with little worry of being unhorsed, and cause a lot of charge damage. Trying to ride through infantry lines with a less armored horse like a courser will likely get you unhorsed and mobbed. But their speed makes them better for chasing down horse archers and mounted units. I carry a spirited hunter and a spirited warhorse. I find chargers a bit too slow, and the warhorse is plenty armored enough to ride through infantry lines. The hunter I use when fighting khergits or other cavalry-heavy parties, and the warhorse for infantry heavy parties like the Nords.

Seems well balanced to me. It requires choice instead of 1 horse being the best and all the rest useless in comparison.

 

[Packrat]

Hunters are faster than steppe horses, and nearly as maneuverable, if you are a lancer and are about to face Kerghits than swap mount and try to jab them with your lance and you can generally make a good account of yourself.

If you accidentally go into combat with your charger instead, then poke a Kergit off of his horse with your lance and steal it!

 

[Lyx]

Gotts agree with most of the replies, since i'm not a fan of the "hierachic" style of equipment abilities (so, the entire equip-line being designed for the player to get better and better equipemt). I prefer a more tactical selection of equipment, where some things are good in one area, where other things are good in other areas. Thus, its no surprise that i actually like the changes, which the threadstarter criticizes (i'd even go a little step further than the devs did).

I usually carry a heavy and spirited hunter with me, a spirited courser and a spirited charger. Gives me the ability to choose the optimal mount, depending on which enemy i'm facing. Early in the game when cash is a bottleneck, i typically try to get a heavy hunter as fast as possible, because its so versatile, affordable and "rideable" with just 3 in riding. As others already said, this for good is no longer just about "what is better" but about "what is best for a given purpose".

 

[Packrat]

Definitely, the only sub optimal mounts for combat are saddle horses and sumptor horses, all of the others have a purpose.

Chargers are for head on hammer blows against infantry, they are slow and unwieldy but almost impossible to bring down and crush footmen under hoof. Also really expensive.

Warhorses are cheaper, a tad faster and more flexible, but less able to simply plough through packed infantry formations. Probably better for cavalry vs cavalry situations though.

Hunters can run over scattered foot and take a few hits but are not suited for head on heavy combat. They are however relatively affordable and fast. Excellent for combat against other cavalry or for fighting light/ill ordered infantry

Coursers are extremely fast, nothing can catch them in a straight race, but they are not cheap and are extremely vulnerable. The best choice for horse archers if you are a good shot given nothing can catch them, not great for anything that involves getting close to people though with their speed a ride by strike is a one hit kill.

Steppe ponies are very very maneuverable, cheap, and an excellent choice for horse archers or dancing around stabbing people in the face with a lance. Hunters and coursers can run them down in the straight, but they can jink out of the way if well ridden. You need to pay attention to use one to its full though and they go down fast if you do make a mistake.


Your ride skill can make a huge difference of course, along with "spirited" versions of said horses. A high level character with Ride 8+ can outrun knights on warhorses while riding a charger for example, a spirited courser with Ride 10 is some kind of mutant rocket horse. On the other hand a lame courser ridden by somebody with ride 2 can probable be run down by a knight on a hunter, which gets painful fast.

 

[Lyx]

One way how one could make the saddle horse and sumpter horse more useful, would be like this:

Both have the advantage of being ridable even with only 1 riding skill.

Now, if the saddle horse would stay as slow and vulnerable as it is, but become more maneuverable so that it can outmaneuvre every other horse, then that would make it something special, even though its disadvantages stay a problem.

The sumpter horse on the other hand, could get more hitpoints and just a little bit more amour, so that it is a more "durable" alternative to the saddle horse.

 

[Darian]

The whole point of the sumpter and saddle horses is that they're cheap, poor-quality horses more suited to carrying goods than bearing a knight. They are deliberately outclassed in every respect by superior horses.

 

[hayabusa12]

One way how one could make the saddle horse and sumpter horse more useful, would be like this:

Both have the advantage of being ridable even with only 1 riding skill.

Now, if the saddle horse would stay as slow and vulnerable as it is, but become more maneuverable so that it can outmaneuvre every other horse, then that would make it something special, even though its disadvantages stay a problem.

The sumpter horse on the other hand, could get more hitpoints and just a little bit more amour, so that it is a more "durable" alternative to the saddle horse.

dont like that idea. we need some sort of second rate, inexpensive horse to carry around the ale and pork.


EDIT: darian beat me to it.

 

[Lyx]

The whole point of the sumpter and saddle horses is that they're cheap, poor-quality horses more suited to carrying goods than bearing a knight. They are deliberately outclassed in every respect by superior horses.

Why do we need two of them then - besides of aesthetics? The thing is: there is a significant gap between the saddle/sumpter horse, and the other horses - since we currently have two for the same purpose, why not use one of them to close the gap?

 

[hayabusa12]

okay then, upgrade the saddle horses and sumpters, and add another horse with ball-like stats called "pack horse".

 

[Captain Innocuous]

The whole point of the sumpter and saddle horses is that they're cheap, poor-quality horses more suited to carrying goods than bearing a knight. They are deliberately outclassed in every respect by superior horses.

Why do we need two of them then - besides of aesthetics? The thing is: there is a significant gap between the saddle/sumpter horse, and the other horses - since we currently have two for the same purpose, why not use one of them to close the gap?

So you want less choices? Why do we need a sword of war and a great sword? Why do we need axes AND swords? Because differences are awesome, even if they don't change much. I learned that from a car commercial. 

 

[Asen]

There is no reason to simplify the saddle horse and sumpter into one breed.  Keep them in--they're like two crap models with different balance.

Simplification for its own sake is no virtue.

 

[Shik]

Actually there are already differences between sumpter and saddle horses.

Sumpter horses have 20 more hp, saddle horses are better in all other stats.

Really, they are just cheap horses for people with low riding or low money.

Saddle horse is a low level riding horse, acceptable in battle, sumpter horses are just pack horses really, but can be used in battle. (albeit they suck.)

 

[Merentha]

Use coursers or steppe horses to chase down light cavalry and warhorses or chargers to ride down and disrupt infantry.  There's no deliberate balance there, its just that warhorses are going to be slower, less maneuverable, and harder to ride than a horse that's not bred and trained to deal with running into lots of men with sharp pointed things. 

 

[Erwin]

If anything, I'd like to have MORE horses. I mean, look at Band of Warriors. They have draught horses that actually look the part, with thick legs and everything, and slim nimble geldings. More variety in both color and attributes would also be good. Horses aren't clones of each other.
Neither are swords, for that matter. I don't think I have in all my life seen an RPG in which weapons and armor aren't mass-produced, uniform and indistinguishable. The only thing that comes close are the pirate games by Akella, where ships of the same class actually differ slightly in attributes. M&B has the potential with its modifiers, but it's not quite there yet either.

 

[Riptokus]

I never noticed the difference between horses. They all look the same as they slide spitted down my Ashwood Pike.

But varity is good. Speed versus reach is a major factor in the consideration of my weapons.

Not in my armor though. Even in the lightest armor can I move back fast enough to only ensure I fight just one foe at a time. The extra armor is necessary to prevent getting swarmed, since I seem to have this habit of stopping a swing if hit for 0 HP damage.

 

[Saber Cherry]

Actually there are already differences between sumpter and saddle horses.

Sumpter horses have 20 more hp, saddle horses are better in all other stats.

Really, they are just cheap horses for people with low riding or low money.

Saddle horse is a low level riding horse, acceptable in battle, sumpter horses are just pack horses really, but can be used in battle. (albeit they suck.)

Comparing the heavy versions (and IIRC the difference between normal versions is the same):
Sumpter horses have +10 more HP, +3 armor, +1 charge, -5 speed, -3 maneuver.

I always give Heavy Sumpter horses to high-party-skill NPCs because they are very durable, and they can't sprint into combat ahead of everyone else and get killed.  I wouldn't say they suck in general, but they're no good for lancers.  Still, you are better of on ANY horse than dismounted, so I think nice, durable Sumpters are really pretty comparable to Riding and Steppe horses...  but slightly cheaper.  It's not until Hunters that anything is unambiguously better.

 

[Theo]

Personally I use spirited coursers to chase down steppe bandits or khergits; against horse opponents there is much smaller change you get unhorsed so no need to invest HP, unless it is really long battle ahead. (if you get couched lanced, then it doesn't much matter which horse you have)

Charger when you need to blow through infantry lines and can't allow get unhorsed.

I always give Heavy Sumpter horses to high-party-skill NPCs because they are very durable, and they can't sprint into combat ahead of everyone else and get killed.

Nice tactic, yea if you give them coursers they just speed away to their swift doom


(just like sword sisters do -.-)

 

[Jericho]

Anyone else notice that your mount seems to rear up a lot easier? Or that it takes a little longer to get your mount going
again after coming to an abrupt stop? - (I happen to like that particular change since it seems more realistic.)

IMHO the collision reaction of two horses should be tweaked a bit so that the heavier (i.e. more armored) horse "pushes" aside
smaller horses (making them rear up). As it is now a steppe horse can cause a charger to rear up when they collide which
seems utterly absurd to me.