Non-polearm mounted combat is basically useless

Currently viewing this thread:

kekkuli5

Regular
Yeah and the fact that you can't really go too close to enemy with your horse or you'll get screwed instantly. Even looters fight like swordmasters and stab and hack you down with their makeshift weapons in no time.
 

xThreatx

Veteran
I agree to an extent at least when it comes to the 2h weapon classes I was testing this on my current game due to the fighting stance of using a 2h weapon it has less reach then the 1h equivalents this is painfully evident if you have a sword that can switch between the two using the 1h stance nets you far more reach (though there seems to be a bug that you dont get skill xp)
 

Tommy1984

Recruit
I really like the Heavy Executioners Axe on horse. Its a twohanded weapon with 133 damage and 138 length. I killed once 4 enemies with one sweep with it. But I have to agree that with shorter weapons it can be harder to hit anything.
 

kekkuli5

Regular
I agree to an extent at least when it comes to the 2h weapon classes I was testing this on my current game due to the fighting stance of using a 2h weapon it has less reach then the 1h equivalents this is painfully evident if you have a sword that can switch between the two using the 1h stance nets you far more reach (though there seems to be a bug that you dont get skill xp)

Well actually it's a real thing. Using a longsword in 1 hand lets you reach out further than when using it in 2 hand. Matt Easton from scholgladiatoria talked about this in one of his videos, can't remember which video though.
 

HalfTauter

Recruit
I don't really have a problem hitting enemies from horseback with a one handed. I do have a long one handed swort (an Aserai one, with 120 reach) so that helps, so maybe try getting one of those yourself. Hitting enemies with one handed from horseback is a bit different from Warband, but I wouldn't say worse. The trick is to pick isolated enemies. Kiting around one big stack of enemies and attacking them one for one, like in Warband where you could solo easily 20/30+ sea raiders, are not anymore a viable option. This is because manouvring your horse is a lot harder (horse physics have been, for the better, updated) and the enemies time their attack extremely precise. So go for isolated enemies, make sure you have a lot of speed so you will deal a lot of damage, and hit them close (make your animation all the way down, if that makes sense and go for left one handed attacks). Also try getting the longest one handed sword you can find. Damage is not a problem because you will attack the enemy at full speed providing enough damage boost.
 

Troubs

Recruit
You have to think about the weapons you bring. There are longer one-handed swords in the game. I personally have a few weapons I bring for siege and for field. I also change it up depending on what nation I am fighting.

Find a longer 1H weapon and you'll be fine.
 

Sir Jet

Recruit
This doesnt really bother me. However I disagree with your premise- its not non-polearms that are the problem.

Using 2-handed weapons on foot is essentially a death sentence, especially if its a 1 v 2 or more. Or you're very highly skilled (namely, fast)

Using 2 handed polearms on foot is a death sentence, unless they can be used 1 handed with a shield. Again, unless you're extremely skilled.

Using 1-handed weapons with a shield is absolutely the best way to win fights when you're outnumbered. Just keep the shield up, keep your enemies in a line, and time your strikes.

This means that if you're infantry (and I dont know about you but I'm only on foot when I have to be) a big ass shield and a 1 handed weapon is gunna be your go to choice until you decide to switch to cavalry.

On horseback, because you're high up off the ground, it makes perfect sense to me that you cant hit anything more than a few feet away from you. A longsword has a blade 2.5 feet long... at the most. And mainly those were considered "hand and a half swords" or bastard swords. Most swords would have blades about 2 feet in length.

Anywho, my point is if you want to be melee cavalry, couch your lance. And when you're in the thick of it, don't switch to a one hander, pull out 2 handed axe or 2 handed sword. Or use a polearm that can be swung if you put away your shield (my favorite, this way I can keep some javelins or a bow)

TLDR, 1 handed weapons suck on horseback because horses are tall. Use longer weapons.
 

Bargian

Veteran
i tryed footman with 2h weapon and throwin weapons, now im not playing bannerlord and im waiting for fixes and patches
 

Scarf Ace

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVCM&B
This doesnt really bother me. However I disagree with your premise- its not non-polearms that are the problem.

Using 2-handed weapons on foot is essentially a death sentence, especially if its a 1 v 2 or more. Or you're very highly skilled (namely, fast)

Using 2 handed polearms on foot is a death sentence, unless they can be used 1 handed with a shield. Again, unless you're extremely skilled.

Using 1-handed weapons with a shield is absolutely the best way to win fights when you're outnumbered. Just keep the shield up, keep your enemies in a line, and time your strikes.

This means that if you're infantry (and I dont know about you but I'm only on foot when I have to be) a big ass shield and a 1 handed weapon is gunna be your go to choice until you decide to switch to cavalry.

On horseback, because you're high up off the ground, it makes perfect sense to me that you cant hit anything more than a few feet away from you. A longsword has a blade 2.5 feet long... at the most. And mainly those were considered "hand and a half swords" or bastard swords. Most swords would have blades about 2 feet in length.

Anywho, my point is if you want to be melee cavalry, couch your lance. And when you're in the thick of it, don't switch to a one hander, pull out 2 handed axe or 2 handed sword. Or use a polearm that can be swung if you put away your shield (my favorite, this way I can keep some javelins or a bow)

TLDR, 1 handed weapons suck on horseback because horses are tall. Use longer weapons.
Both historically and Warband, 1 handed swords were some of the most popular weapons on horseback, to the point where it wasn't weird to just not bother with a big cumbersome lance, especially in later time periods. That they aren't in Bannerlord is a flaw of the implementation, not a flaw of the weapon.
There's something wrong with the horseback attack animations or hitboxes which is setting one-handers back.
 

Sir Jet

Recruit
Both historically and Warband, 1 handed swords were some of the most popular weapons on horseback, to the point where it wasn't weird to just not bother with a big cumbersome lance, especially in later time periods. That they aren't in Bannerlord is a flaw of the implementation, not a flaw of the weapon.
There's something wrong with the horseback attack animations or hitboxes which is setting one-handers back.

Actually the poleaxe was the most common cavalry weapon, followed by the lance.

Medieval Europe lances were the most common, but out east it was polearms (namely the moon sword, which was a poleaxe, and other 2 handed weapons)

They only switched to one handed weapons when their polearm broke. And if you think about it, it makes sense to want distance between you and your enemy, especially when youre on a horse that can get away and maintain that distance.

But I do agree with you about warband.
1 handed weapons were the way to go on horseback
 

VincentNZ

Recruit
Yeah I agree that is actually a form of balance, as others pointed out, it is a modified version of rock, paper scissors. In Melee a two-handed polearm is not good. It performs well against cavalry though. A one-handed spear with shield works better and is still decent against cav.
A polearm from the horse is simply great as it will one hit most enemies. A one-handed weapon from horseback is not very good, since the reach is limited. You can still use a shield for extra protection though and slower weapons with higher reach. A 2-hander from horseback, when used with one hand is getting decent results, too.
Now a one-hander with a shield in melee is just plain the best option, you have very good protection and can deal a lot of damage, while also swinging fast. A two-hander, which I have not yet used, might yield better damage numbers, but you lack protection, especially against archers. Yet you can perform well as a frontline hammer to your anvil with consistent high damage, as opposed to polearm cavalry that will need time to set up.
Ranged options work in the same way. Horse Arching is great and all, but ammo is limited and damage scales with armour, while your DPS might be less than in melee. At the same time you are well-protected through mobility. Arching on foot will have high accuracy and DPS, but you are vulnerable. Throwing weapons have very low ammo, but yield extreme damage outputs.
.
So people might argue that all of these changes to the combat dynamics is due to the MP part of this game and I think they might be right. However, I think this is for the better, as it makes people think more about their loadout and along with the leveling and stat system (albeit having issues, too), so that everything plays different and choices have a significant effect. I really like it.
 

Orkmann

Recruit
What I have found recently as the most efficient weapon is the fine steel menavlion. It has 200+ reach, and can be swinged on horseback, which is totally unrealistic. So it is basically like two handed sword, just much better.

Edit: most efficient while mounted, on foot it is terrible :smile:
 

Scarf Ace

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVCM&B
Actually the poleaxe was the most common cavalry weapon, followed by the lance.

Medieval Europe lances were the most common, but out east it was polearms (namely the moon sword, which was a poleaxe, and other 2 handed weapons)

They only switched to one handed weapons when their polearm broke. And if you think about it, it makes sense to want distance between you and your enemy, especially when youre on a horse that can get away and maintain that distance.

But I do agree with you about warband.
1 handed weapons were the way to go on horseback
Poleaxe? Poleaxe?! Do you know what a poleaxe even is? There's no depiction or record of one being used on horseback, and for good reasons!
And yes, they switched to one handed weapons after the polearms broke. That's the key thing here - they broke really frequently, and oftentimes they were just straight up tossed away because they were too cumbersome for the situation. Books like British Sword Fighters 1600-1914 document this very clearly. This cumbersome nature is why quite a few types of historical cavalry didn't even bother with any form of lance or polearm.

For the IRL equivalents of all cultures but the Khuzait, the main non-lance/spear melee weapon is a one-handed sword, mace, hammer or axe. Of course, a cutting-polearm equipped guy is probably not also gonna carry a lance with him unless he goes back to fetch one from an attendant, and the (exceedingly useful) sidearm then will also probably be a form of one-handed sword or mace.
 
I had difficulties using the sword at beggining, but when you understand that you don't have to brush against enemies to get them, it's more simple.
 

Morderian

Recruit
In my opinion mounted combat feels a bit clunky and weird compared to warband especially with 1H Weapons and it influence AI controlled Cav to.
The Main issues for that i see in:
1: Lance length and griping, some lances are too short or griped somewhere in the middle instead of the end which makes their range when couching too short and Ai Cav does rarely use couching at all
2: generall hit detection, sometimes it weird you hit somebody with your lance in the body and kill his horse or your sword passes through someone and does no damage, you can see similar behavior from the AI Cav too this is especially bad with 1 Handed Swords which often dont hit.
3: many AI 1H Cav seems to have way too short swords
4: Character Size: seemingly having a larger then Standard Height has bad influence on mounted Combat as hitting stuff becomes harder with 1H Weapind and you need far longer swords then Normal
5: Weapon length is far too important making things like Maces and axes often even worse too use on horseback as they have a length below 100 in most cases
 
I agree, that non-polearm mounted combat really useless right now. In Warband, you could even decide what to hit, the head or torso of the enemy, now you have to aim completely as low as you can or you will miss.
 

Agnew Hawk

Recruit
I can understand the frustration though I don't personally find it an issue - all it has required for me is to aim "lower" and hit "closer" than what it would intuitively feel correct, and every now and then I do a quick haircut instead of cleaving the neck off. I'm still indiscriminately beating people left and right on horseback, and for me it was just an issue of getting used to it.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I felt the same way, but honestly all it takes is practice and a decent reach. Length 76 maces work worse on this game than they did in Warrant, I will give you that.

Also do not underestimate the power of a 2 hander when you are not trying to solo. I was caught by 32 looters with a party of 10 fresh recruits recently (bought too much stuff at once and it slowed me down), and boy the 2h nord axe did a number on the looters while their attention was focused on my troops.

It is also not entirely impossible to use a 2h effectively when soloing no more than 12 looters, as long as they are not all throwing stones at you. Really the ability to hit more than one enemy at once is pretty sweet, it's only natural that it comes with a trade off in defense.

My main issue with mounted combat right now is sliding enemies. They should replace that with a stagger like it was in Warband.
 
Top Bottom