Please restore horse & horseman hitbox

[Khalid ibn Walid]

While normally in favor of making the game more difficult rather than less, I find the complete separation of horse & horseman hitboxes a bit too, um, irritating. There should be some overlap, perhaps not as great as in 0.632, but at least some areas where a swing can hit both horse & horseman.

I could live with the separation if a hit on the horse actually did something to the horse's stride (e.g. cause it to accelerate, or rear, or veer in a direction). But the way it is designed currently, if you hit out at the horse, that doesn't affect the perfect timing of the horseman's swinging weapon coming for your head.

The hitbox separation severely diminishes the incentive to attack horses with melee weapons while on foot. Instead, it encourages the footbound to focus on missile weapons and their pansy fighting style () (or some even sillier behavior like jumping-and-swinging ).

P.S. - Besides, nothing is more discouraging than sacrificing a few hitpoints to bring down a horse, and suddenly find the horseman pop up from the fall fully fresh and ready to murder you. Quite unrealistic too.

 

[Ingolifs]

It's not really a seperation, i just think once you hit a horse, your attack stops. The old situation with the horse was like being aboe to hit two enemy soldiers in one hit. It shouldn't really be possible.

Yeah, I miss being able to annihilate both horse and rider in one blow from my bearded axe, but the old hitbox setup meant that there were various other anomalies occuring. For instance, you could kill both horse and rider with one crossbow bolt, and sometimes an arrow would hurt the horse, but it wouldn't stop at the horse, but continue on and hurt an ally.

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

It's not really a seperation, i just think once you hit a horse, your attack stops. The old situation with the horse was like being aboe to hit two enemy soldiers in one hit. It shouldn't really be possible.

Yeah, I miss being able to annihilate both horse and rider in one blow from my bearded axe, but the old hitbox setup meant that there were various other anomalies occuring. For instance, you could kill both horse and rider with one crossbow bolt, and sometimes an arrow would hurt the horse, but it wouldn't stop at the horse, but continue on and hurt an ally.

I fail to see why you don't think that should be "possible".

If you swing an ax or shoot a crossbow at a charging rider, you can and should be able to hit both horse & horseman. The swing of an blade or the trajectory of a missile doesn't come to a abrupt full stop just because it suddenly comes into contact with something fleshy. Just ask JFK.

What shouldn't be possible is for the horse to not break stride on being hit. Heck, half the point of having a mace in melee combat was precisely to "stampede" horses.

The double-hit is reasonable to make foot vs. horse melee worthwhile. Otherwise combat will gravitate towards the extremes of archer vs. horsemen.

 

[Ingolifs]

The problem with the old system was that it generated a couple of strange bugs. Like that one i just mentioned about the arrow that hurts the horse, but goes through it and hurts a teammate. As far as I can figure out, that occurence is inseperable from other occurences where you can hit both the horse and rider at the same time, meaning you can't change one feature without changing the other.

 

[armagan]

Actually I can make it such that hitting a horse consumes arrows/missiles but not melee attacks...

 

[svart]

This is actually much more realistic this way.
In ancient times spearmen actually aimed for the horse rather than the cavalier himself, a fighter wearing plate and falling on his back would be very vurnable (like it is now), would take quite some time to get up, and could even get critically wounded from the fall.

 

[Narcissus]

Actually I can make it such that hitting a horse consumes arrows/missiles but not melee attacks...

Is that something that is wanted, though?

I liked the old ability of hitting both rider and horse ... but mostly that is because of the advantage that gave me.

I do see how in a melee attack ... both could be hurt.

I'd say go with it, Armagan. Just my vote.

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Actually I can make it such that hitting a horse consumes arrows/missiles but not melee attacks...

I think that is an excellent compromise!

 

[Ingolifs]

Actually I can make it such that hitting a horse consumes arrows/missiles but not melee attacks...

I think that is an excellent compromise!

What do you mean compromise? It's perfect.

 

[catsoup]

well, i like very much it the way it is now! I'd like to have the choice if i want to kill the rider or the horse.

 

[Jhaerik]

You would still have the choice.

Just gets old seeing 40 horses standing around......

 

[Daimyo]

Maybe this problem could be solved if we really have ways to defeat cavalry, like tha many times debated "couched pike" while on foot.
I agree tough that this new method works very badly. Maybe a nice addition (something I've always wondered why was never implemented) is to deal some damage to the rider when the horse falls. I mean, falling from horseback when on full gallop can outrightly kill a man or severely maim him.
Think about Cristopher Reeve.

 

[Jhaerik]

Ungodly annoying is more like it.

Sure to you guys that are always on a horse, its no biggy.

Step off that ctrl-x gotten charger for a moment and fight cavalry, you will see it gets old having to kill the horse before the rider. Jumping for attacks in possible of course, but neither realistic, or practical.

Please vote in the poll I posted.

 

[Ilex]

No! We don't want this! Understand?

There is a reason people didn't aim at the horse when they could aim at the horse rider. But meh: "Lets aim at the legs so we can kill both".

 

[barbaros]

Maybe a nice addition (something I've always wondered why was never implemented) is to deal some damage to the rider when the horse falls. I mean, falling from horseback when on full gallop can outrightly kill a man or severely maim him.

I completely agree. And rider shouldn't be able to stand up immediately after falling from horseback.

 

[SimonForsman]

Maybe a nice addition (something I've always wondered why was never implemented) is to deal some damage to the rider when the horse falls. I mean, falling from horseback when on full gallop can outrightly kill a man or severely maim him.

I completely agree. And rider shouldn't be able to stand up immediately after falling from horseback.

yeah, and horses should react to being hit , (rearing , trying to move away perhaps)

 

[yehrom]

In this case,
it would be nice that blunt's damage are consumed,
like swing's damage without a certain speed-bonus.
Only piercing's damage may surely shoot the both, isn't it ?

A little slash in 0.632 was too much powerfull, I think.
This move need a good cinetic to be really effective.

 

[Daimyo]

A projectile propelled by a bow or xbow can realistically hit both horse and horseman.
A xbow bolt may even go *through* a person and hit another one if sufficiently near.

 

[Jhaerik]

Very true, people tend to only see things in black or white. Those shades of gray can tend to be beyond them. Usually saying something is impossible shows, for the most part, ignorance, and sheer lack of imagination. Improbable is a much better term. Sure, make the hitbox overlap tiny, but its obviously possible to hit both. I mean how can you possible make a slashing motion at a horses side, do damage, and not hit the leg. Please, do explain yourself.

 

[yehrom]

Not correct for an arrow,
and in particular condition only for xbow...
At low range, this can fired though 2 same 3 light-armored man for heaviest xbow, sondern not against really armour,
and not if target is at a certain distance.

I mean besser for the game having draw/trow object consumed against horses.
------------------------------------------------------------

I mean calculate projectiles damage between or though horse and his cavalier will consume engine's ressources for a so little result.