You quite liberally use the term "completely wrong". To clarify, I am referring to attacking people on foot. The horrible attack animation often ensures your sword will sweep right above your target head instead of aiming lower. 1-H is actually pretty good in close quarter mounter combat because at least your attack animation hits at the right level.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
SP - Battles & Sieges Non-polearm mounted combat is basically useless
- Thread starter ssssnake
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
You quite liberally use the term "completely wrong". To clarify, I am referring to attacking people on foot. The horrible attack animation often ensures your sword will sweep right above your target head instead of aiming lower. 1-H is actually pretty good in close quarter mounter combat because at least your attack animation hits at the right level.
Not sure what you're using, but all i use from horseback is a sword. I have to use longer ones, but i use them. You can even use two handers from horseback now. And especially once you get into the horse crunch...that sword becomes pivotal.
Edit: if the blade you're using is less than 100, it's too short to be effective. From horseback i always use a 110+ sword and i ahve zero trouble hitting infantry. It's far easier in first person mode too. The 3rd person camera skews angles a bit and you'll miss hits that you'd swear you were close enough for.
Edit: if the blade you're using is less than 100, it's too short to be effective. From horseback i always use a 110+ sword and i ahve zero trouble hitting infantry. It's far easier in first person mode too. The 3rd person camera skews angles a bit and you'll miss hits that you'd swear you were close enough for.
I can try first person and see if it improves. my 1H sword length is at least 110
yea if you're only using 3rd person then no wonder you're not hitting. If you compare views, the camera FOVs are very different, and it deff. skews stuff. I can be on a wall fighting someone and if im in third, ill miss someone. Its great for situational awareness, but when its time to fight, its first person all the way.
Have you guys tried maces?
I'm going to be honest and say that initially, I thought I just sucked with 1-handed swords. Couldn't hit a thing. Got okay with them, but noticed that even with a 120-length sword, I'd frequently watch the blade literally pass through the target without connecting.
Then I started a new game and had a 1-handed Spiked Mace with a measly 56 length... And I was hitting every swing, even ones I thought I should miss.
That's what really leads me to believe that the attack animations/hitboxes for 1H swords on horseback are just broken.
I'm going to be honest and say that initially, I thought I just sucked with 1-handed swords. Couldn't hit a thing. Got okay with them, but noticed that even with a 120-length sword, I'd frequently watch the blade literally pass through the target without connecting.
Then I started a new game and had a 1-handed Spiked Mace with a measly 56 length... And I was hitting every swing, even ones I thought I should miss.
That's what really leads me to believe that the attack animations/hitboxes for 1H swords on horseback are just broken.
Good analysis- the game is still EA and has a few flaws in mechanics and wrong stats but overall the design makes sense in most ways and I think it will work better than WB which in some ways was too low brainer. From my own testing hitting anything from most horses with less than 90 length is extremely hard and gets easier as the length scales up- I find the sweet spot at 160-180 but that is a personal preference.
Someone else pointed out the Desert steppe hoses are significantly shorter than most other horses and I tested it out... you can actually it from them with length 70 weapons almost as consistently as 90 on the taller horses so... that was actually pretty cool and a good job of modelling.
Bannerlord is not Warband... not everything like the weapon lengths and skill levelling is the same. Pay attention to what works for you in this game- not what used to work. I think most people will have a general idea what they liked to play as in WB- you should land close to that just with guessing in Bannerlord and within an hour or two of play have a pretty fine-tuned system if you go with Bannerlord not keep trying to make what you did in WB work.
That's very true. It's especially absurd when you stop and think that you've got a higher chance of taking damage from a basic foot soldier than a maxed out cavalryman in my experience. I can't think of a time an enemy sword cavalryman has actually hit me, but looters with clubs nail me on a pass frequently enough to be majorly annoying.
Once we go back to period of 500 BC and 1000 AD, a notable period of time, the single most prominent melee weapon of a cavalryman has been the sword. Greek companion cavalry, west roman equites, east roman comes, anglic war chariots, alani horsemen, persian camel riders all of these favoured one handed melee weapons, swords or axes mostly, precisely because spears and lances could break and leave the warrior with... you guessed it, with only their secondary weapon, a sword or an axe.
Out of all polearms, spears and lancae were the uncontested favourites.
Pollaxes didn't come into picture before the turn of the 14th to 15th century and by then it was an infantry weapon wielded by armored combatants to defeat other armored combatants.
Look.
I understand that the sword was probably really common amongst cavalrymen. Infact... I know it was. But it simply wasn't the most common primary weapon used by ancient cavalry. It might have been, if you're specifically JUST talking western cultures (Roman, Greek, Persian, Briton, etc) or even more modern cavalry (Civil war cav typically used pistols and a cutless) but it absolutely was not the most common PRIMARY weapon cavalry used throughout all of human history. In fact - the flail was more common than a lance - if we're talking the crusades. The crossbow was the most common cavalry weapon - if we're talking ancient china.
But the simple fact is the most common weapons used by ancient peoples using horses as transportation is 1) 2-handed polearms. (Lances, Spears, Haldberds, Poleaxes). 2) Bows
You said it yourself - the reason swords were popular was because spears and lances broke.
That would mean the sword is a BACKUP. They'd prefer another ****ing lance. It's safer. Your enemy is further away. It's the same with bows - If I'm riding a chariot I'm going to shoot every damned arrow I brought before switching to my polearm - and I'm going to use the **** out of that polearm before I switch to a sword. I'm on a damned chariot - they can't hit me with their swords unless I'm trying to hit them with mine.
Also, the primary weapon of Alexander's companion cavalry was the lance. Specifically the xyston, a double ended cornel-wood lance.
Roman equites used an extra-long sword (machaira) or broad sword (spatha) but also relied heavily on javelins (so much so that they brought three quivers of them - and used them as lances when need be)
The Roman Cataphracts primary weapon was the lance.
Starting from the EARLIEST Achaean Chariots introduced to Greece - The spear was the primary weapon.
Alani horsemen carried shield and spear into battle.
Persian Dromedarii used the spear as a primary weapon.
I'd list my sources, but I really don't care enough to put any more time or energy into this. Just know that saying "Swords were the most common weapon of cavalry" is wrong. It isn't, no matter how much you want it to be. It doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
There are many good weapons to choose from that are good on horseback, not just polearms. I've used many of them. We actually need some smaller polearms that are useful on foot with a shield, and the perk tree needs to be changed because there is a lot of useless stuff in it, such as more couch damage when couch already one shots everything even without the perks.
And I disagree that polearms should only be useful for horseback. Infantry in the high middle ages almost exclusively used polearms as battle transitioned from traditional tactics to gunpowder use, and there are many units in the game that use polearms. We just need some tweaking.
And I disagree that polearms should only be useful for horseback. Infantry in the high middle ages almost exclusively used polearms as battle transitioned from traditional tactics to gunpowder use, and there are many units in the game that use polearms. We just need some tweaking.
Last edited:
My issue was with calling halberds or pollaxes cavalry weapons, which they definitively were not.
I can, will and provably do say that swords were more prevalent cavalry weapons, because every single mounted warrior carried a sidearm.
Not every mounted warrior used spears or spear -like polearms. On this there is no doubt.
As to the PRIMARY weapon, many mounted warriors in history did carry swords and axes as primary weapons, but their number was not large.
Spear has been the single most prevalent and popular primary weapon throughout human history from the earliest flint work weapons, to the late renessaince, be it cavalry or infantry.
I'd make a comprehensive list of sources, but being the learned fellow that you are, you probably already know them by heart.
Damned straight. Thank you. Lol.
The spear has killed more humans than probably any other weapon. It deserves respect. Pointy sticks ftw.
This.
You don't understand how lances work.
Lances are disposable weapons that break easily. They're also large, cumbersome things. They're extremely situational as a result, and holding one can quickly become very detrimental. Any long pole weapon on horseback simply isn't any good in the more chaotic situations that cavalrymen frequently found themselves in. If you'd ever held one, you'd understand why immediately.
This is why swords and other shorter weapons were carried. They weren't just "backups", they were the best possible option in many situations. This is also why it was highly common in later periods for cavalry to be armed with nothing but swords. They are simply more convenient weapons, and in the type of combat they generally faced, more useful than a lance. Even the dedicated lancers frequently ditched (or threw) their lances and drew swords!
Go to the smithy. Look up two handed maces. Look for maul with long handle. Jobs done. Try it.
Doktor Barber
Recruit
axes: no ****... you have checked their length right?
swords: again its length get one with 105 length or more and its fine just dont charge and a guy using a spear and expect to win
:polearms: its almost like that was literally the main weapon of historical cavalry for a reason
Smith past 50 and you can craft serviceable one and two hand swords.
Two handed swords require a press of the X key to be used one handed on horseback (looks badass), but the best weapon on horseback for me is the LONG GLAIVE with no shield.
It's a side slashing samurai naginata, and dedicated horse killer. Only found in the east.
Brings back the Warband feels without the bump-slash.
Two handed swords require a press of the X key to be used one handed on horseback (looks badass), but the best weapon on horseback for me is the LONG GLAIVE with no shield.
It's a side slashing samurai naginata, and dedicated horse killer. Only found in the east.
Brings back the Warband feels without the bump-slash.
Last edited:
