Some Things (horses, weapon speed, etc)

[Damien]

All right.. this thread is just a compilation of things I -don't- like. Don't get me wrong.. I love M&B.. it's a great game. But there are things I don't like. I doubt most of these things will be changed, but I'd feel remiss if I didn't vent a bit.


1.) Horses suck. For a game called "Mount and Blade" you'd expect to actually be able to play a decent heavy cavalry soldier. But no. Here are the propositions I have for making horses actually useful.

A. Redirect AI attacks higher. Meaning, make it so that the computer-controlled enemies don't simply swing directly in front of them, but rather actually AIM! This way they could AIM -higher- when fighting a person on horseback. Why is this important? Because part of the problem is the horribly unrealistic amount of hits a horse takes.
My position is twofold. The first is that it's totally unrealistic for soldiers to be swinging at horses. Despite popular myth, people did not attack horses on the battlefield with any true frequency. The second argument I have is that it makes the game aggravating as all Hell. I don't like having my horse cut out from under me all the time (when I'm trying to play a mounted character) just because my enemies don't know enough to aim at -me- and not my horse.

B. Give horses an overall higher armour value and more hit points.


C. Make horses far more mobile like they -should- be. Turning a stopped horse and getting it to go again should not be a big ordeal. Horses move very quickly.. especially when men are poking them with sharp objects from behind.


D. Lessen rearing. Horses do not rear at the drop of a hat.. and -should- not. Not only is it unrealistic and silly, but it's extremely frustrating when all someone has to do to completely stop you and make you vulnerable is walk in front of your not-quite-charging horse, thus making it rear and totally stop.. which goes back to point C about horses moving way too slowly after being stopped.


E. SEPARATE my hit box from that of my horse. This was done right in.. .703 (?) but for some reason people were upset that they actually had to AIM at riders instead of horses to kill the RIDERS (go figure ) and the hit boxes were combined again. This is silly. Stabbing my horse in the ass is not going to hurt me. And likewise smacking me with a sword is not going to hurt my horse.


I think if these ideas were implemented, horses would not be -overpowered- but would be relegated to a position of "combat mounts" and not "thing that aborbs hits until it dies." I want to play a MOUNTED Knight, not a Foot Knight that rides a horse until it inevitably dies or gets crippled. Not to mention horses are way too expensive to be buying new ones all the time.

Some might argue that horses are fine. Great. I simply disagree. I think that the horses are entirely useless for anything but a skirmisher/mounted archer type character. Unless you plan to use your horse to AVOID getting close to your enemy.. horses are simply to vulnerable as-is to use them for anything else without buying a ton of them at a time and going through them like a six-pack of beer.



2.) Re-instate the ability to jump multiple times in a row. Some people don't like "bunny hopping.." -- here's an idea.. don't do it. Simple as that. I don't like using axes.. so I don't use them -- I don't demand that they be removed from the game. Not only is a human being more than capable of jumping multiple times in a row.. but there's a more important factor here: Horses. Horses can jump a lot of times in a row. The current 'fix' for bunny-hopping means that my horse is confined to not being able to jump without running for a half a friggin' mile first.. it's totally unrealistic and it can be quite silly.



3.) Armour slows you down way too much. The simple fix is either to have weight have less effect on your speed, or to lower the listed 'weight' for each type of armour. Anyone who has worn armour for period re-enactment will tell you that while armour may wear you down faster, it does not SIGNIFICANTLY slow you down.

But in the game.. I might as well be carrying a weight set on my back for how slow I'm moving. It's absurd. A well-conditioned, physically fit man can move around just as quickly (or nearly so) in his armour as out of it.

Maybe this is a balance issue and armour -has- to slow you down to be fair. I disagree with that assertion. If you CHOOSE to not wear armour.. that's your choice. But complaining about how useless you are because of it is stupid. Of course you're useless you dingbat.. you're running into battle totally unprotected against guys that are very protected.

But a compromise could be met. Just because armour needs to slow you down for balance reasons doesn't mean it has to slow you down -SO MUCH-.



4.) Why are enemy mountain bandits swinging their weapons -faster- than I am? Something has to be wrong when a mid-range baddie can swing a two-hand sword faster than a 30th level character can swing a single-hand sword with a proficiency of 200 in single-hand weapons. I mean.. really now. I'm still struggling to get off two swings as I ride by two opponents that are close together.. while the guy with the greatsword is handing my ass to me with his lightning-fast attacks.



5.) I've brought this up before.. but it bears repeating: My attacks being stopped just because some idiot threw a rock at me is idiotic. Momentum, anyone? Maybe it is realistic (I happen to not think that it is) - but that's immaterial. It's not -FUN- to be raped by three river pirates just because they've timed their attacks in a way to keep you from making a single attack.

Further.. my position is that it's not at all realistic. I can certainly still swing a sword while getting hit. If a person couldn't swing an arm just because someone else had struck them... well most fist-fights would certainly be very one-sided.

A good compromise was proposed in another thread that perhaps attacks that deal 0 damage should not stop your attacks. I further submit that a separate skill would be nice which raises your threshold of damage you can take while still being able to swing your weapon.




Like I said.. I do love the game, but like with any game.. there are things I don't like. The above-mentioned are just the things that NEVER fail to annoy the **** out of me every time I play the game (or nearly so) and I really -hope-, even if I don't -expect-, that these issues are addressed.

And of course.. just my opinion.

 

[MastaSpoof]

amen brother

 

[Sir Prince]

1.) Horses suck. For a game called "Mount and Blade" you'd expect to actually be able to play a decent heavy cavalry soldier. But no. Here are the propositions I have for making horses actually useful.

-No comment

A. Redirect AI attacks higher. Meaning, make it so that the computer-controlled enemies don't simply swing directly in front of them, but rather actually AIM! This way they could AIM -higher- when fighting a person on horseback. Why is this important? Because part of the problem is the horribly unrealistic amount of hits a horse takes.
My position is twofold. The first is that it's totally unrealistic for soldiers to be swinging at horses. Despite popular myth, people did not attack horses on the battlefield with any true frequency. The second argument I have is that it makes the game aggravating as all Hell. I don't like having my horse cut out from under me all the time (when I'm trying to play a mounted character) just because my enemies don't know enough to aim at -me- and not my horse.

-Yes, but it is AHRDER to aim higher sometimes.

B. Give horses an overall higher armour value and more hit points.

-I'll let someone else more knowledgable in this area answer this.

C. Make horses far more mobile like they -should- be. Turning a stopped horse and getting it to go again should not be a big ordeal. Horses move very quickly.. especially when men are poking them with sharp objects from behind.

-The horses DO move quickly... remember there are rocks and branches on the ground in real life to avoid. And it TAKES TIME to get speed up using YOUR OWN LEGS, try it.

D. Lessen rearing. Horses do not rear at the drop of a hat.. and -should- not. Not only is it unrealistic and silly, but it's extremely frustrating when all someone has to do to completely stop you and make you vulnerable is walk in front of your not-quite-charging horse, thus making it rear and totally stop.. which goes back to point C about horses moving way too slowly after being stopped.

-Yes, horses rear a bit easily, but wouldn't you if someone stuck something into you or is right in front of you...

E. SEPARATE my hit box from that of my horse. This was done right in.. .703 (?) but for some reason people were upset that they actually had to AIM at riders instead of horses to kill the RIDERS (go figure ) and the hit boxes were combined again. This is silly. Stabbing my horse in the ass is not going to hurt me. And likewise smacking me with a sword is not going to hurt my horse.

-Ahh, the ass, yes, but if you were hit, the weapon still might have force left, Volkier had a good diagram on this.

I think if these ideas were implemented, horses would not be -overpowered- but would be relegated to a position of "combat mounts" and not "thing that aborbs hits until it dies." I want to play a MOUNTED Knight, not a Foot Knight that rides a horse until it inevitably dies or gets crippled. Not to mention horses are way too expensive to be buying new ones all the time.

-Horse DO get crippled easily sometimes, they don't exactly have steel coats. And they weren't cheap, they cost a lot in money, food and care.

Some might argue that horses are fine. Great. I simply disagree. I think that the horses are entirely useless for anything but a skirmisher/mounted archer type character. Unless you plan to use your horse to AVOID getting close to your enemy.. horses are simply to vulnerable as-is to use them for anything else without buying a ton of them at a time and going through them like a six-pack of beer.

-Maybe you should try NOT charging into the enemy... jsut gonig PAST them.

2.) Re-instate the ability to jump multiple times in a row. Some people don't like "bunny hopping.." -- here's an idea.. don't do it. Simple as that. I don't like using axes.. so I don't use them -- I don't demand that they be removed from the game. Not only is a human being more than capable of jumping multiple times in a row.. but there's a more important factor here: Horses. Horses can jump a lot of times in a row. The current 'fix' for bunny-hopping means that my horse is confined to not being able to jump without running for a half a friggin' mile first.. it's totally unrealistic and it can be quite silly.

- Try bunny hoping yourself, it takes ENERGY to hop.

3.) Armour slows you down way too much. The simple fix is either to have weight have less effect on your speed, or to lower the listed 'weight' for each type of armour. Anyone who has worn armour for period re-enactment will tell you that while armour may wear you down faster, it does not SIGNIFICANTLY slow you down.

- Try wearing armour yourself, muscle man.

But in the game.. I might as well be carrying a weight set on my back for how slow I'm moving. It's absurd. A well-conditioned, physically fit man can move around just as quickly (or nearly so) in his armour as out of it.

-Improve your agility and strength, duh.

Maybe this is a balance issue and armour -has- to slow you down to be fair. I disagree with that assertion. If you CHOOSE to not wear armour.. that's your choice. But complaining about how useless you are because of it is stupid. Of course you're useless you dingbat.. you're running into battle totally unprotected against guys that are very protected.

-Do some research! GOOD research! Not BAD research!

But a compromise could be met. Just because armour needs to slow you down for balance reasons doesn't mean it has to slow you down -SO MUCH-.

- No comment.

4.) Why are enemy mountain bandits swinging their weapons -faster- than I am? Something has to be wrong when a mid-range baddie can swing a two-hand sword faster than a 30th level character can swing a single-hand sword with a proficiency of 200 in single-hand weapons. I mean.. really now. I'm still struggling to get off two swings as I ride by two opponents that are close together.. while the guy with the greatsword is handing my ass to me with his lightning-fast attacks.

- Agility and UNFINNISHED game.

5.) I've brought this up before.. but it bears repeating: My attacks being stopped just because some idiot threw a rock at me is idiotic. Momentum, anyone? Maybe it is realistic (I happen to not think that it is) - but that's immaterial. It's not -FUN- to be raped by three river pirates just because they've timed their attacks in a way to keep you from making a single attack.

-Yes we know we know, it's being worked on.

Further.. my position is that it's not at all realistic. I can certainly still swing a sword while getting hit. If a person couldn't swing an arm just because someone else had struck them... well most fist-fights would certainly be very one-sided.

-There is some good arguments about this somewhere in here.

A good compromise was proposed in another thread that perhaps attacks that deal 0 damage should not stop your attacks. I further submit that a separate skill would be nice which raises your threshold of damage you can take while still being able to swing your weapon.

- Read above comment and find physics lesson on here.

Like I said.. I do love the game, but like with any game.. there are things I don't like. The above-mentioned are just the things that NEVER fail to annoy the **** out of me every time I play the game (or nearly so) and I really -hope-, even if I don't -expect-, that these issues are addressed.

And of course.. just my opinion.

- Danged charter of rights and freedom, good sense, and not taking out your rage on others.

 

[Corto]

I quoted some of your points. Since I totally agreed with some of your arguments I'm not going to comment them at all.

1.) Horses suck.

Not really, no. Personally I've had no problems with the combination of horse & two-handed axe. I guess it depends on the player and his playing style.

B. Give horses an overall higher armour value and more hit points.

Hit points, yes. But since Charger and Warhorse are the only ones actually equipped with armor I think all the other horses should have equally low armor points (at least couple of points for sake of minor collateral damage). But yeah, definitely more hit points to horses, if nothing else!

C. Make horses far more mobile like they -should- be.

This might be a little problematic since AFAIK Ride skill is supposed to not only restrict the available horses but also represent characters ability to control and manipulate horses. If your character have only 1 or 2 in Ride skill, he barely knows how to handle a horse. On the other hand, person with 5 or 6 in Ride skill should be able to handle even the cheapest of horses with great agility.

At the moment the riding skill system is not prefectly realistic, I agree with that. My wild idea to cure agility problems would be to totally separate agility points from horses and take them straight from character's Ride skill. Thus your horse would maneuver and turn as fast and well as your skill provides. Difference between horse types would solemnly lie on armor, hit points and speed only. But that's a little bit radical idea.

D. Lessen rearing.

Wholeheartedly agreed. It is annoying and happens too often.

E. SEPARATE my hit box from that of my horse.

Again, agreed. I don't really understand the logic of this rule. I'm not totally against it: on some occasions slashing damage could actually hit both my character and his steed, but this should happen a lot less frequently than it does now.

Some might argue that horses are fine. Great. I simply disagree. I think that the horses are entirely useless for anything but a skirmisher/mounted archer type character. Unless you plan to use your horse to AVOID getting close to your enemy.. horses are simply to vulnerable as-is to use them for anything else without buying a ton of them at a time and going through them like a six-pack of beer.

Ummmmm... now please don't be offended, but it seems to me that you just have a tendency to handle your horses too carelessly. Not all of them are meant to be bulldozers. I have no serious problems to attack any crowd with Courser/Hunter/Warhorse/Charger and chopping some heads. Of course the "easier" horses like Sumpter/Saddle/Steppe are problematic because of low charge points and the annoying rearing, but I've always considered them to be naturally more suitable for some other work than warfare. That would explain their low points in combat situation. But with little fingerdancing I can surf even with a Saddle horse between enemies easily, since it's not that fast.

Sumpters, on the other hand, are too feeble even for me.

3.) Armour slows you down way too much.

Once again, character speed while equipping heavy armor seems to be Athletics skill limited ability and thus part of game balancing. Unrealistic maybe, but it is balanced. Spending 3-4 points in Athletics skill IMO increases your speed well enough.

But what we really need is a fatigue system so that this speed problem could be totally forgotten. Then Athletics would not straightforwardly affect speed itself, but the stamina to bear the weight of armor. The lighter armor you wear the longer you can run in the battlefield without stopping for a break.

 

[Volkier]

A Regarding A, it was actually sometimes an order from their commanders for the units to kill the horses. (But this was closer to 18th and 19th century, not sure about M&B era). There is a paragraph http://www.vahistory.org/horse_film/script.html <-- HERE about horses in war.

B Well to be honest, just like any human, different horses react differently to pain. It is however, more difficult to bring down a human than a horse, because of their survival instinct. It was a lot more common, for a heavily wounded horse to gallop off to safety with their rider on top, before collapsing of blood loss. Hence why they have saved more human lives, and sacrificed their own for us than any other animal. (I got a few links, but not going to put them up since theres a bit too much and they are too long to read to spot that bunch of incidents. There is even one which had a horse carry off the officer from battle, after having a shell explode under his hind legs (the horses's)) So actually, horses have enough HP, but some objects such as arrows hitting the rump / flank do too much damage to be realistic, while at the same time a neck hit-box can be implimented? You are not supposed to use your horse like a lawn-mower, they are not meant for that (in reality). And horses would not always do something you ask, if they think that your idea is plain dumb. (like asking a horse to jump off a cliff, or impale itself on a spear)

C Well, it is actually true. Horses are able to sprint into a fast canter, and speed up from there (actually what happens in every modern race). With war-horses, I would suppose that their mobility would be similar to that of a modern dressage rider, since dressage originated from military cavalry, having the soldiers control the horse with their body position and legs, rather than hands. I would have to say, that realistically speaking, horses should be allowed to sprint into a canter, be allowed to turn on the spot a lot faster, and be allowed to side-step. They are actually very maneurable animals, and I believe that in battle they would spin around away from points of danger, and defend themselves and riders a bit more. But I there would be balancing issues, since footmen can be a bit more mobile as well.

As for men poking them with sharp objects, it would provoke a reaction from the horse not initiated from the rider. The horse would most likely kick out, and leap forward. Actually I would believe that this is why somebody wouldn't go directly behind a horse and poke him with their sword. Kicking range, surprisingly, can reach over 2 meters.

D Rearing is a defencive action initiated by the horse, OR it could be a playful rear when horses are out in the pasture with one another. Since this is battle, we would assume its the first. It's defencive because since the horse's front legs are flailing around, the people and horses who attempt to come towards that horse would be hit. Its not offencive, because it gives the opponent a chance to move away from the horse, which is what happens in nature. Horses are able to rear several times in a row, thus driving whoever it is that is attacking them away. They can turn on their hind legs during rears, and do little 'jumps' on their hind legs, sideways, forward or backwards, however the movement is very small, hence they would need to go back onto the ground with their front legs to rear again. It is a LOT easier to knock down, or pull down a rearing horse. It is not naturally executed, when like you mention, they have a spear stuck into their chest. It is then an object which they try to get away from by rearing, and at the same time try to 'defend' themselves (once again) from that object. Horses can stand in a rear position for almost half a minute, and can continuously rear with their hooves just touching the ground for a lot longer (normally based on fitness of horse, and is around 10minutes)

Hence the only problem with rearing that I see, is when you have 2 horses 'collide' at a very small angle, almost like brushing against one another. Naturally, the horse would knock into the horse if going from the side, pushing the other horse on the ground. If they are going at a head-on collision, they 'may' rear, but only if both horses feel that the other horse is charging at THEM. This is normally not the case, since they have riders on their back, and even though they may know the riders are enemies, they are more concerned about listening to them and mostly they would bypass one another. (There are a lot less cases of horses both trying to avoid each other in the same direction, because horses are able to tell a lot by the shift of weight, which the other has to execute before moving to the left or right.)

Horses CAN be taught to rear on command however. I would think this was used for 2 reasons. One is to exploit their natural 'defencive maneur', and the other is to swing at the time the horse is going back on the ground, hence the horse's weight as well as the riders, is brought down onto the strike.

E I agree 100%, infact the diagram in the thread prince mentioned, showed WHY it doesn't make sense. You would still have force in the swing, but it would not go at the rider since the force of impact, and especially a charging horse, is a lot larger than the force of the swing.
The diagram also shows that it is possible to hit both, but at a very precise angle. It is pretty much impossible to hit both with a spear, and currently the rider gets hit no matter WHERE the horse is hit, and most of the time vise versa. Doesn't make sense. Thread in question I think is this one: http://forums.taleworlds.com/viewtopic.php?t=5825

As for crippling, to be honest I would really like to see it happen almost EVERY time, since if you wound a horse untill it collapses and can't get back up, it would need a lot of attention and care before you can ride it again. BUT this would only work if you are able to have your horse recover after a while. It makes pretty much more sense to have your 'spirited' horse back to its 'spirited' status. You don't have to put 'lame' for the defect, it can be anything from 'wounded' to 'exhausted' since those are still pretty good reasons why you can let your horse rest, although exhausted horses can still be pushed to thier limit, but they would just collapse at any point of time, and it may be fatal for the horse.

2) Horses would need to take at least one stride before their next jump. However, they can regulate their stride and speed, and actually stop before the next jump. I agree that it doesn't make sense at the moment however - they travel too far before they can jump again.

And to be honest, in my oppinion it would have been easier if you posted ur suggestions regarding horses in http://forums.taleworlds.com/viewtopic.php?t=4693 thread : Would remove the need to repeat yourself

As for humans - do this little experiment. Jump up and down, you would notice you can do that pretty fast without any break. Now try the same sideways, and keep going sideways. You would probably loose your balance. Basically I think having the side-speed equilavent of forward-speed, and the ability to actually move forward and sideways simultaneously, would solve a lot of issues. Jumping can have a few seconds between them, since you are wearing armor, and I honestly doubt that jumping would be very usefull in a combat. You would most likely try to duck, block, sidestep, and probably jump only when you want to do so over a swinging sword aimed at your legs.

3) Last time I checked, encumberance was not implimented. And personally I would be REALLY happy to see armor slowing you down. It would give players a choice of whether they WANT to wear heavy plate armor, but move slower, or they would invest in leather armor, or no armor at all, but for the bonuses of mobility. It would be a variety for everyone to choose from, and would fit DIFFERENT playing styles, other than just one by which everyone is trying to get the best possible armor, regardless of weight and any other negative impacts of wearing armors. There have been cases, where soldiers preferred NOT to wear any armor at all, however I am speaking of caravan escorts and small bands, not the large war-groups, where the battle happened on a field, so you didn't have anywhere to manuer even if you were lighter.

This is actually exactly same as your above point, I think its not the armor which slows u down, but the lack of agility. The game was designed for you to increase speed when upgrading agility, but not to the extent of where you are sprinting as fast as a horse. Thats why you start slow. This may also be the reason why horses move slower, so that horses speed is on par with the humans speed..

To your last sentense, no comment as well. I personally would like to see heavy armor slowing you down a lot more. It gives you AC value of where enemies do 0 damage already, give me one reason why a naked guy should move ALMOST as slow. (and I don't even think encumberance is implimented.. is it?)

4 Raise your skills, agility and get a faster sword, and learn how to take advantage of block. I'm quite happy that you don't start off faster than all your enemies, and actually have to work on your skills if you want to be.

5 I believe implimenting dodgin (by doding I mean normal side-speed combined with forward-speed) this problem can be eliminated. I believe its stupid as well, but people want everything to interrupt everything for some wierd reason. Could be not have a system by which every attack which does less than say 5% damage of your total health would not interrupt your swing? (Same for the enemies of course) It would pretty much make sense in my oppinion. (pain withstand etc)

 

[jrawlings]

Not going to comment on everything, I think previous folks have handled it well.

To the movement speed while wearing armor stuff. It is true, that a person clad in armor can run nearly as fast as someone without armor over VERY SHORT DISTANCES. I'm talking less than 50 meters.

I think that the game should have a fatigue level. So if you decide to wear heavy armor and run like a cheetah, you can do it for all of 50 yards and then you collapse in a pile. Whereas a person without armor could run said distance multiple times. Perhaps if a sprint function was im plimented (suggested before I am sure), you could sprint while in armor and the amount of armor you wear will speed up your fatigue loss. When fatigue level is at 0, you can't move. Also, fatigue would affect your ability to swing your weapons (speed) and therefore, damage you inflict.

Of course, all of this would have to be implemented in the enemy AI as well.


One other thing I'll comment on. I am also annoyed a little about the fact that enemy AI seems to always be faster than me swinging weapons. Granted, I haven't focused on agility, but even when I get it up to 15, I find that most enemies can swing much faster than I can. Sure, those guys that didn't spend 24 points on charisma would have more agility, but a river pirate or a forest bandit? I don't think so.


Finally, the horses. Yes, separate hit boxes are a must. Also, I agree with whoever said it above, don't use your horse as a bulldozer and it will last much longer. The key is to keep it moving at all times and attack those enemies that are on the edge of the herd, not in the center.

 

[Ryuta]

Enemy swings somewhat faster than the main character, or they can re-attack faster than player can.

I'm completely agree with Damien on horse's acceleration. Currently, horses have the accerelation of a bicycle.

 

[dannydeath75]

i only use horses for transport and cover. I foudn a fault in the game that a horse will not take damage if it dosen't have a rider . So what I do is I find a nice, fast horse, get into a good range for my crossbow, hop off and if I'm being hit by ranged attacks, hide behind my horse. OK, using a glitch isn't exactly realistic but hey, it get's my levels up.

This comes incredibly useful aginst large armies. an army of 12 usually has 5 archers, so i melee of their fighters from behind my horse then use my horse for cover while i range the rangers.

 

[jrawlings]

i only use horses for transport and cover. I foudn a fault in the game that a horse will not take damage if it dosen't have a rider . So what I do is I find a nice, fast horse, get into a good range for my crossbow, hop off and if I'm being hit by ranged attacks, hide behind my horse. OK, using a glitch isn't exactly realistic but hey, it get's my levels up.

This comes incredibly useful aginst large armies. an army of 12 usually has 5 archers, so i melee of their fighters from behind my horse then use my horse for cover while i range the rangers.

You mean that the enemy AI footsoldiers don't simply walk around your horse to get to you?

 

[dannydeath75]

i only use horses for transport and cover. I foudn a fault in the game that a horse will not take damage if it dosen't have a rider . So what I do is I find a nice, fast horse, get into a good range for my crossbow, hop off and if I'm being hit by ranged attacks, hide behind my horse. OK, using a glitch isn't exactly realistic but hey, it get's my levels up.

This comes incredibly useful aginst large armies. an army of 12 usually has 5 archers, so i melee of their fighters from behind my horse then use my horse for cover while i range the rangers.

You mean that the enemy AI footsoldiers don't simply walk around your horse to get to you?

the melee foot soldiers walk around yes. enemy horses go wide and round in circles. rangers just fire at the horse pointlessly. it also seems they don't run out of ammo...

 

[Damien]

it also seems they don't run out of ammo...

Enemy archers? They sure do. That's part of my tactic agaisnt the Kergits.. ride around as fast as I can so they keep missing me.. forces them to come in close with swords once they're out of arrows.

Enemy swings somewhat faster than the main character, or they can re-attack faster than player can.

That's what it seems like to me.

I think that the game should have a fatigue level.

I wouldn't be opposed to this. The only thing I'm opposed to is having the walking speed of a turtle with polio simply because I opted to wear something more protective than a bedsheet.

One other thing I'll comment on. I am also annoyed a little about the fact that enemy AI seems to always be faster than me swinging weapons. Granted, I haven't focused on agility, but even when I get it up to 15, I find that most enemies can swing much faster than I can. Sure, those guys that didn't spend 24 points on charisma would have more agility, but a river pirate or a forest bandit? I don't think so.

That's exactly the issue I'm having.. and I tend to focus on Agility as my primary attribute.

Also, I agree with whoever said it above, don't use your horse as a bulldozer and it will last much longer. The key is to keep it moving at all times and attack those enemies that are on the edge of the herd, not in the center.

My problem is that I want to make a heavy cavalryman type character not a skirmisher. Which means I need my horse to be able to withstand occasionally getting surrounded by enemies. Part of the fun of being a knight is riding into a group of poorly-armed conscripts and laying them low left and right while sitting atop your horse with near-impunity.


I'm not suggesting I should be able to simply ride my horse into the middle of a gang of foot-knights and survive.. I am saying that the ease with which horses die is simply pathetic and totally invalidates a valid character concept.

Regarding A, it was actually sometimes an order from their commanders for the units to kill the horses.

Truly. It was a special order though. Every single soldier on every battlefield (as in M&B) didn't, by default, hack away at horses when fighting mounted soldiers.

Well to be honest, just like any human, different horses react differently to pain. It is however, more difficult to bring down a human than a horse, because of their survival instinct.

Not to mention a much thicker hide. That is the reason for my suggestion of giving horses more hit points. It should be a bit harder to actually deal damage to a horse than it is to deal damage to a person.

This is also why I think they should have a natural 'armour value' higher than they currently have.

I would have to say, that realistically speaking, horses should be allowed to sprint into a canter, be allowed to turn on the spot a lot faster

Exactly. I wouldn't mind if this was simply a function of the Ride skill or what-have-you, but even with a high Ride skill and a spirited courser, starting speed and mobility are pretty lame.

Rearing is a defencive action initiated by the horse, OR it could be a playful rear when horses are out in the pasture with one another.

Yes. I'm not saying horses don't rear.. or hardly ever rear. I'm saying they rear -a lot- less in real life than they do in M&B. Especially war-trained horses which would be trained not to 'panic.' To think that a huge war-trained horse is going to freak out and rear just because it kind of came close to running into another horse's ass, or an unarmed human, is pretty ridiculous, in my eyes.

Last time I checked, encumberance was not implimented.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. When I put armour on my character.. he most certainly gets a -lot- slower. I'd call that encumberance.

This is actually exactly same as your above point, I think its not the armor which slows u down, but the lack of agility.

That would be fine at early levels.. but I'm talking about my 30th level character. Agility of 20 or more (22 maybe) and Athletics skill of 6. Yet.. put him in armour and he's barely any faster than he was at first level with 6 Agility and 0 Athletics.

Armour does not slow a human being down nearly that much. It's overkill.

4 Raise your skills, agility and get a faster sword

So proficiency in single-handers of 200, agility of 20, and a balanced scimitar.. and I need to get even more skill and an even -faster- sword?

I'm quite happy that you don't start off faster than all your enemies

I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about a 30th level character optimized for quick sword-fighting here, not a first level welp.

But since Charger and Warhorse are the only ones actually equipped with armor I think all the other horses should have equally low armor points

I just think that horses should have more 'natural armour' than a human being, and thus, should have higher armour values than they currently do. Maybe increasing each horse's armour value by 3-5.

On the other hand, person with 5 or 6 in Ride skill should be able to handle even the cheapest of horses with great agility.

Like I said above.. I wouldn't mind if more realistic mobility for horses was tied to the Ride skill.. I'd just like to see it implemented -in some way-.

Ummmmm... now please don't be offended, but it seems to me that you just have a tendency to handle your horses too carelessly. Not all of them are meant to be bulldozers.

No offense taken.

My argument here is that, in real life, warhorses could be ridden into groups of enemies, plowing through them while the footmen tried to kill the RIDER.

In M&B, by contrast, riding a horse into enemies is murder -- the horse is almost assured to die.

It devalues -real- medieval warfare tactics (which I assume is what M&B tries to duplicate in some fashion) by making a primary tactic for over 1000 years totally useless and suicidal. You can't ride a horse into a group of warriors and start attacking them.. because they'll kill your horse.

Once again, character speed while equipping heavy armor seems to be Athletics skill limited ability and thus part of game balancing. Unrealistic maybe, but it is balanced. Spending 3-4 points in Athletics skill IMO increases your speed well enough.

With Athletics 6, Strength 16 (I think) and Agility 20, my character still moves like a turtle with polio whenever I put 'heavier' armour on him. As a matter of fact, I had to use the unofficial editor to change mail's weight value because of how ridiculously slow it made the character. I can't even imagine how slow plate armour must make you (I don't think I've ever really used it).

The lighter armor you wear the longer you can run in the battlefield without stopping for a break.

I agree, and I think that would be a really elegant solution. A character wearing armour can't run for extended periods like a person without it can. Simple, straight-forward, and realistic without the unrealistic 'armour turns you into a turtle' crap.



Against my better judgement, I'll also go ahead and reply to PrinceScamp's vitriolic post. Someone should give this kid some valium though.

The horses DO move quickly... remember there are rocks and branches on the ground in real life to avoid.

I see.. so a horse.. (1000 pounds of solid muscle) is ginger-stepping and tap-dancing around because he doesn't want to step on a branch or a rock? In a snowy open field? In the steppe?

Are you kidding me?

it TAKES TIME to get speed up using YOUR OWN LEGS, try it

That's sort of the point, champ. I'm not using my own legs.. I'm using my horses legs..

And to point a fact.. on foot my character can stop and go much faster than any horse in the game.

-Yes, horses rear a bit easily, but wouldn't you if someone stuck something into you or is right in front of you...

That depends.. do I weigh over 1000 pounds, have the power in one leg to crush a human skull, and have the training NOT to rear when faced with danger?
You know.. all the stuff that a standard war-worthy horse actually should have?

-Maybe you should try NOT charging into the enemy... jsut gonig PAST them.

So your answer to "I want to be able to play a heavy cavalry soldier that gets into the thick of combat" is "play a skirmisher that stays out of the thick of combat?"

Are you mentally retarded?

Try bunny hoping yourself, it takes ENERGY to hop.

It takes energy to fight too. Maybe we shouldn't be able to do that either.

- Try wearing armour yourself, muscle man.

I do wear armour. Virtually every day, Mr. Poorly-planned-sarcasm.

-Improve your agility and strength, duh.

Do try to keep up. We're talking about a 30th level character with stats optimized for single-combat (i.e. very high agility and strength).

-Do some research! GOOD research! Not BAD research!

So after 10 years of in-depth study of European and Middle-eastern armaments and tactics... apparently I've missed all the 'good' research. So why don't you enlighten me, sparky. What 'research' should I be doing that will prove how 'uber' and 'l33t' the idiot who runs into battle without any armour on can be?

- Agility and UNFINNISHED game.

Well if the game were FINISHED it wouldn't make much sense to bring it up, would it?

it's being worked on.

Really? I didn't realize you were one of the designers. ~can you sense the sarcasm?~

 

[Lobos]

Why oh why wouldn't a footman think of killing the horse in RL?

 

[godjoek]

well there are many reasons to attack a horse but there are also many reasons not to

this doesn't have much point, but i only came on the forums to see what's up and to say something pointless

i don't remember when or the name, but there were swords in japan that were made to cut through the rider and his horse, i saw the picture, i don't know how it was even carried...

so is it me or do lances completely suck?, am i not doing a lance charge correctly?, but even it's spear damage sucks it seems, it always makes me feel special to take 70 from a 15mph enemy lance

and yes the game has flaws, thats why it's not 1.0 yet, but i don't have the time to read or post about all of them

 

[Damien]

If you don't have time to even read what the thread is about and respond to the actual subject of it.. you might want to reconsider posting in the first place.

so is it me or do lances completely suck?, am i not doing a lance charge correctly?, but even it's spear damage sucks it seems, it always makes me feel special to take 70 from a 15mph enemy lance

Lances are extremely powerful (I'm slowly growing to hate them in enemy hands). You're probably not doing the lance-charge correctly. Just equip your lance and run forward (on your horse, of course). Soon enough the character will lower the lance on his own.. this is couching. If you press the attack button at all.. you stop couching the lance.

i don't remember when or the name, but there were swords in japan that were made to cut through the rider and his horse, i saw the picture, i don't know how it was even carried...

No-dachi. A large, two-hand sword. And no, they did not cut through horses, and especially not through rider and his horse. That's a myth. It was simply a big sword that was very occasionally carried in Japanese battlefields, and was sometimes used to attack -riders-. Not horses.

Why oh why wouldn't a footman think of killing the horse in RL?

Many reasons. The first and foremost is personal safety. While you're stabbing at a horse, the rider is swinging his weapon directly at you. So what if you kill his horse? Now you're dead and can't enjoy the victory very much.

Another reason also involves personal safety. A horse is much less dangerous alive than dying. Do you want a creature weighing over 1000 pounds (and that's -without- armour) falling on you? No you do not.

Another reason is practicality, which vaguely relates to the first point. Why would you waste energy attacking the animal when you can attack the thing that's actually dangerous -- the rider. It's wasted effort.

Another reason is the expense of horses. What happens if you get captured and the knight whose horse you killed is still alive? He's going to be ticked. And he's going to make sure he sells you into slavery to pay for his horse rather than let you go home missing a finger or two. Besides even that, it was, believe it or not, simply considered extremely rude to kill a man's horse, not to mention completely dishonourable (killing a 'relatively' defenseless animal simply because you're not man enough to kill the rider?). Is that what you want them to say about you back at the Barracks? They might call you Lobos the Horsekiller -- all men of priviledge will scorn you.. and good luck EVER getting into a position of status where you'd be allowed to ride a horse in the army ... horsekiller. (Modern people tend to scoff at reputation and honour... but these should be important concepts to a society that is based very much on such ideals.)


In short.. you should be far more concerned with killing the rider before he kills you. Attacking his horse is simply a good way to waste your time long enough for the rider to split your skull, even if his horse dies.. you're dead too. Good job, great warrior.

 

[Volkier]

Actually just going to reply to the few pointers I got replied on earlier.

- Horses do NOT have a thicker hide than humans. Infact, their skin is a lot more sensitive and thinner than a humans, in most places. However, their 'flesh' is thicker, and they are able to withstand pain a lot better, and like I mentioned earlier, it seems to be pretty common for a badly wounded horse to die AFTER it galloped to safety.

- Regarding why you would want to kill the horse instead of the rider, well it all depends on your strategy. (I'm sorry, your 3rd argument about the pissed off knight doesn't make sense. Its war, you probably killed his brothers, friends, relatives and so on. People and horses die, thats what happens, so I would only comment on the 1st two)

Regarding personal safety, horses would drop down on their front knees first then collapse to the ground from there, hence you would not be crushed. Everything else, is based on your strategy. For example if the horseman and you are both stationary, you would definately try to parry the horseman's blows, and try to get out of the way or kill the rider. However, if for example you manage to dodge to the back of the horse where your sword can't reach the rider, (the rider can't reach you) and have a split second before the horse goes forward (or kicks out) you would probably try to bring down the horse by slashing at the hind legs. If you are surrounding a horseman, it may also make sense to bring the horse down since it provides the horseman with protection, height and weight advantage. If you have a long spear, and you have a horse charging at you, sure you can try to aim for the rider, but providing the horse's neck is blocking the rider, and the rider has the ability to parry the spear, there is a good chance your spear would miss or the rider parries it, and slices your head off (if they have a sword). Horse is a bigger target, and most likely WILL rear in this situation, unless it is going too fast. There are many other reasons why sometimes you may need to attack the rider, and sometimes the horse. It is war. Certain strategies involved actually killing the horses. All this honor bull**** is good in movies (just as all of the humanitarean rights and the rest of it nowadays). War means you try and survive, by ANY means possible, you don't think about what is right and what is wrong. It is kill first, or be killed, don't ask questions situation. Any person who has been in combat would tell you exactly the same thing. Some, may even feel insulted when you mention 'honor' to them.

Now back to horses, while all of the above is true, it is also true that horses would act more alive in battle. Whereas you are fighting against the horseman, he can 'push' the horse into you (make it side-step into you), knock you to the ground, the horse may bite, kick, twist and turn (and they are trained for that I would think) to give the rider as much advantage as the rider asks from it. Hence 'hitting' a horse is not as easy as it may seem, although it is even harder to hit the mounted rider on top, since he is an even smaller target. Horses would also 'dodge' a spear if it is just planted on the ground. A horse's chest is not much wider than a human's chest, so they would be able to go next to the spear easily (or between two spears pushing them aside) leaving a gap for the rider. This is why counter-cavalry spears were used in tight formations, even in several LAYERS to provide the best chance of hitting a horse. So point is, horses sometimes are as, if not more, dangerous than just the rider on his own.

 

[Ryuta]

Sorry for Damien that current M&B combat system doen't support what charging knight the Queen of Battlefield.

1. M&B doesn't support formation, or timed attack so your charges will be random attack. If your troops could attack in tight, knee-to-knee formation so that there's no escape from your charging lance tips, a half of your enemy would be simply wiped out in the first impact.

2. Since there's no formation, there's no front for formation. Proper formation needs facing and therefore, it has frank and back. As far as I know mounted knights rarely charged to the front of enemy. They rather try to charge at frank, or rare of enemy formation where they are least prepared. Current M&B doesn't do that. In fact, everyone who played archer should know the moment when psychic enemy suddenly turn 180degree and blocked your arrow.

3. It doesn't support fear. Even a horse walking up to you is intimidating. Lots more if it was galloping directly at you and a guy on top of it was holding a weapon and full intention to kill you. most people would simply try to put distance to horsemen as far as they can (I will, definitely). So a horsemen (knights) have better chance to ploughing through enemy infantry. But unfortunately, M&B's fearless men are happy to run in front of your horse and swarm around you without any thought of their safety.

Even in real life, the fate of horsemen, charging unorganised into determined infantry, would be quite similar to what would happen in M&B.

 

[Tarrak]

All this talk about being a heavy cavalryman has little meaning in skirmishes... And we have nothing BUT skirmishes.

Knights couldn't run over several ranks of infantry, one or two ranks perhaps but then either the horse stumbled, broke its legs or just didn't go further. Why should it be any different here? On a Courser and upwards you can easily knock over two people in a row. These are the warhorses of the game, the others are just not trained for war, thus they rear a good deal more. I just can't find the point of the rearing to be very valid when a proper system exist.

In a battle the knights would act together to present a wall of certain death for those two ranks of infantry. This in turn caused one of two things. Either the infantry was increadibly brave and stood, or they were more normal and fled. If the first happened the infantry actually stood a good chance of winning (though far from the 100% sometimes mentioned). If the knights could just run over infantry in several ranks then we would never have had battles like Bannockburn and Courtrai. Especially the latter where the infantry didn't even have large numbers of spears (the infantry HAD to take the impact of the charge).

The rumbling knight is a myth.
He was the most powerful heavy cavalryman, but that doesn't equate to him being able to crush infantrymen in dense groups. Any sensible knight would indeed attack the stragglers, because, as mentioned a few times, his warhorse was increadibly expensive. Why on Earth would the knight risk his horse? All it would take was a single lucky strike and the horse was down, and in a case of charging a dense group it wouldn't need to be a strike but the horse getting its legs tangled up in victims, weapons and armour.

No the knight would only charge when he knew it would be safe to do so against 'inferior' warriors. Against knights he might have been a bit more reckless.
A knight seeing a fellow knight charge into a group and get his horse killed and then complain about it, would likely shake his head or laugh at the folly.

 

[dannydeath75]

Knights couldn't run over several ranks of infantry, one or two ranks perhaps but then either the horse stumbled, broke its legs or just didn't go further.

so your saying if ur ever on a horse in M&B you should jump on your opponents

 

[godjoek]

thank you about the lance thing

and it wasn't a no-dachi, it really was a weapon meant to slice through both rider and mount

 

[Tarrak]

Knights couldn't run over several ranks of infantry, one or two ranks perhaps but then either the horse stumbled, broke its legs or just didn't go further.

so your saying if ur ever on a horse in M&B you should jump on your opponents

??? No... Either don't, or... well don't. In M&B you can actually be lucky to through it all on a nice Spirited Charger, but 6 enemies on a row would be a stretch for even one such.

godjoek, you might be thinking of the Naginata. It wasn't meant to go though both rider and horse. But what it WAS known to be able to was to readily decapitate horses in battle. Since that meant the weapon would still be going, it sounds plausible that a man with a Naginata standing on the left side of the horse would actually be albe to kill both horse and rider if he was lucky.
The Naginata is a polearm. Sometimes mentioned as a curved head spear in the west, and it came in a wide variety of lengths and differing heads. The most likely culprit of our little anti-horse actions would likely be the Shobuzuri type, with a long slender blade (much similar to the katana actually) on a slightly shorter pole. The power of the weapon and the length of the blade would make it possible.
Others had shorter thicker, almost chinese styled, blades. While very strong it would not heavy enough or have a long enough blade o be able to do the feat.
Another possibility is the Nagamaki which is quite similar to the Shobuzuri Naginata, but this time it has a heavier point and a more even curve (the Shobuzuri blade tended to be straight for half it's length), and its staff was rather shorter. It wasn't very popular as it had lost most of the advantage a normal Naginata held; reach, which would hamper it against horsemen. But it was powerful and should ahve been able to do it if it got the chance.