The cavalry has insufficient impact.

[KnifeAg]

The cavalry's impact damage was too low, and the horse's impact was not true. The fact is that even small horses weighing only 200 to 300 kilograms running at full speed (40 to 50 kilometers per hour) are powerful enough to strike a person and cause serious injuries. If a person is hit by an adult horse running at full speed (40 to 50 km / h) and weighing 1,000 to 1200 kg, he must die on the spot. In the game, the collision damage of the horse is very low, less than one tenth of the life value, which is very untrue. It is recommended to increase the impact damage to 3 times the current damage, try to restore the power of the actual cavalry charge.
骑兵的冲撞伤害太低了，马的冲击力不符合事实。事实是，即便是体重只有200至300公斤的小型马全速奔跑（40至50公里每小时）的冲击力足以将一个人击飞并使人重伤。如果人被一匹全速奔跑（40至50公里每小时）体重1000至1200公斤的成年马撞到必然当场死亡。而在游戏中马的冲撞伤害很低，不到生命值的十分之一，这很不符合事实。建议提高冲撞伤害到现在伤害的3倍，尽量还原现实骑兵冲锋的威力。

 

[hruza]

The cavalry's impact damage was too low, and the horse's impact was not true. The fact is that even small horses weighing only 200 to 300 kilograms running at full speed (40 to 50 kilometers per hour) are powerful enough to strike a person and cause serious injuries. If a person is hit by an adult horse running at full speed (40 to 50 km / h) and weighing 1,000 to 1200 kg, he must die on the spot. In the game, the collision damage of the horse is very low, less than one tenth of the life value, which is very untrue. It is recommended to increase the impact damage to 3 times the current damage, try to restore the power of the actual cavalry charge.

That's all nice and good, but you forgot Newton's 3rd law of Physic: "For every action, there is equal and opposite reaction".

And this is how Newton's 3rd law works on horses colliding in to people:



That horse had to be put down later because of the injuries it have suffered during collision and fall. "Cavalryman" ended up in the hospital.

So if cavalry's impact damage is too low, so is the infantry's impact damage on horses.

Cavalry can already push through densest formations of infantry making cavalry effective enough, we don't need unrealistic "impact damage". Horse was means of transportation, it wasn't battering ram. Cavalry have weapons to kill infantry, not their mounts.

 

[froggyluv]

That horse had to be put down later because of the injuries it have suffered during collision and fall. "Cavalryman" ended up in the hospital.

That horse finished the race after stumbling WITHOUT its Rider. So the decision to put her down was after the fact -the Horse could still perform while 'in action'

 

[hruza]

That horse finished the race after stumbling WITHOUT its Rider. So the decision to put her down was after the fact -the Horse could still perform while 'in action'

Good luck fighting with armies of horses without riders that have to kill all their horses after every battle.

 

[KnifeAg]

I hope to see the spectacular scene of a large cavalry charge defeating the infantry. Of course, I also hope to see the Macedonian pike phalanx's resistance to cavalry.

 

[froggyluv]

Good luck fighting with armies of horses without riders that have to kill all their horses after every battle.

That wasnt a Warhouse. It was a racehorse with no understanding of a human in its path at full speed. Im a grappler but also a sprinter when i was younger -can i translate those two skills into a good tackler -yes pretty well. Would a pure Sprinter survive a collision with an unsuspecting civilian in their midst the way an American Football player could..? No. Not built nor trained for it.

 

[eddiemccandless]

That's all nice and good, but you forgot Newton's 3rd law of Physic: "For every action, there is equal and opposite reaction".

And this is how Newton's 3rd law works on horses colliding in to people:



That horse had to be put down later because of the injuries it have suffered during collision and fall. "Cavalryman" ended up in the hospital.

So if cavalry's impact damage is too low, so is the infantry's impact damage on horses.

Cavalry can already push through densest formations of infantry making cavalry effective enough, we don't need unrealistic "impact damage". Horse was means of transportation, it wasn't battering ram. Cavalry have weapons to kill infantry, not their mounts.

While this is true, there is no denying that the "well oiled" cavalry behavior we have now is just awkward an not realistic. Cavalry charge should hurt more, although not as much as the OP suggests I would say, and cavalry should actually get stuck in blobs of infantry in order to balance that imo.

 

[hruza]

I hope to see the spectacular scene of a large cavalry charge defeating the infantry. Of course, I also hope to see the Macedonian pike phalanx's resistance to cavalry.

You can go watch some Hollywood movies or play game from Total War series. Because they invented the spectacular scenes of a large cavalry charge defeating the infantry.

Just recently I had a good laugh about it when I discovered that "famous" French cavalry charge against English longbowmen at the battle of Agincount have never happened and French knights have charged English line of foot ))

But I do agree that those cavalry scenes in Hollywood movies and Total War games look good. They just don't not use real horses and real people. Other then for tricks.

 

[Bramborough]

Fully agree with hruza's reply post above. That collision can be almost or even fully as traumatic for the horse/rider as for the pedestrian (especially if that pedestrian happens to have a spear). Lol, be careful what you wish for...you just might get it.

There's another gameplay element here: Let's say collision impact were really made the way OP appears to desire. Then any equipped weapons become secondary...the horse itself becomes the primary weapon. Just mount up on your starter Sumpter and go run over people. Job done. Realistic? I dunno...I don't pretend to be an expert on medieval warfare. Good gameplay mechanics? I don't think so.

There's such a thing as "too much realism".

I think they've got it about right, a nice blend of realism and gameplay. Far better than in Warband, where most obstacles, including small groups of footmen, can bring your galloping armored warhorse to an instant dead stop. Clearly, they didn't want to replicate this in Bannerlord, and it's one area I think they've been successful. The gameplay price paid for that more realistic mobility and fluidity is that you can't just mow through enemy foot ranks completely taking out troops with horse alone. You can run through and disrupt ranks, shield walls, knocking down archers and then distracting their fire when they get back up, etc. As a Warband veteran, I think it's a pretty decent balance.

 

[hruza]

While this is true, there is no denying that the "well oiled" cavalry behavior we have now is just awkward an not realistic. Cavalry charge should hurt more, although not as much as the OP suggests I would say, and cavalry should actually get stuck in blobs of infantry in order to balance that imo.

Yes, but it's less awkward and more realistic then to see cavalry charge sending men in armor flying as if they were tennis balls.

I would love more realistic cavalry in MB, but I also realize that it would require much more complex AI, both of the individual horseman and tactical one. And that would come at the cost of the performance -you couldn't be able to fight such large battles.

I do understand problems devs have faced when designing cav AI in the game, where you have bots that use simple turn towards and run to the target logic and you have to somehow balance between realism and something that is going to work in the confines of the computer game. And I appreciate that they did not went simple "horse as a battering" ram road.

Cavalry behavior in Bannerlor is better and more realistic then it was in Warband.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Cavalry behavior in Bannerlor is better and more realistic then it was in Warband.

It definitely is not a simple issue, but I do not agree on this one, I actually preferred it the way it was in Warband. But I suppose to each their own, there really isn't a way to quantify objectively which works best so it boils down to a matter of opinion.

To be precise: everything but the collision with troops is better in Bannerlord. But the collision just feels very unrealistic to me (I am not even necessarily talking about the damage, I am talking about troops sliding aside when you run them over with your horse).

 

[KnifeAg]

You can go watch some Hollywood movies or play game from Total War series. Because they invented the spectacular scenes of a large cavalry charge defeating the infantry.

Just recently I had a good laugh about it when I discovered that "famous" French cavalry charge against English longbowmen at the battle of Agincount have never happened and French knights have charged English line of foot ))

But I do agree that those cavalry scenes in Hollywood movies and Total War games look good. They just don't not use real horses and real people. Other then for tricks.

I have played the "Total War" series, watched many movies of ancient cavalry fighting infantry and consulted historical books. As far as I know, cavalry suppression of infantry was not invented by games or movies. In ancient times, infantry could only effectively suppress large-scale cavalry assaults by using a pike phalanx. I hope that I can experience the thrill of massive cavalry hitting infantry in the game, and I also hope to experience the joy of infantry lance phalanx to restrain the cavalry in the game

 

[hruza]

That wasnt a Warhouse. It was a racehorse with no understanding of a human in its path at full speed.

And that woman wasn't warrior in the shieldwall preparing himself to face enemy charge.

Im a grappler but also a sprinter when i was younger -can i translate those two skills into a good tackler -yes pretty well. Would a pure Sprinter survive a collision with an unsuspecting civilian in their midst the way an American Football player could..? No. Not built nor trained for it.

Well here's the bummer, Medieval "Warhorses" were smaller and lighter then the racehorse on that video. Horses did not became this big until modern times. The best Medieval warhorses were not much larger then large modern pony. And this horse have collided in to a single unarmed woman. You are talking about those small Medieval warhorses colliding into masses of men with sharp pointed sticks.

 

[hruza]

To be precise: everything but the collision with troops is better in Bannerlord. But the collision just feels very unrealistic to me (I am not even necessarily talking about the damage, I am talking about troops sliding aside when you run them over with your horse).

Well, let me cite something then:

What can be observed in re enactments is that horses will gravitate towards a perceived gap in the formation facing them, however small, and will (delicately but irresistibly) shove aside the infantrymen both sides of the gap (experiment done 2015 between the mounted Timetrotter crew and assorted legionary infantry at Augusta Raurica, and at Tournoi XIII; ref. also Bachrach, Carolingians, p. 95

Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages

So, that sliding aside might be exaggerated in the game for gameplay purposes, but might not be so unrealistic in principle.

 

[froggyluv]

Well here's the bummer, Medieval "Warhorses" were smaller and lighter then the racehorse on that video. Horses did not became this big until modern times. The best Medieval warhorses were not much larger then large modern pony. And this horse have collided in to a single unarmed woman. You are talking about those small Medieval warhorses colliding into masses of men with sharp pointed sticks.

Well definitely shorter not necessarily lighter as the medieval Destrier was believed to have been powerfully built with a wide jaw and musculature. thats like saying a Pitbull is a smaller, lighter version of dog than a tall Afghan -Pitbulls and animals like that ie Badgers, with wide jaws/skulls are far more built for battle. Not fair to say it was like a modern day pony at all.

 

[Bramborough]

Well here's the bummer, Medieval "Warhorses" were smaller and lighter then the racehorse on that video. Horses did not became this big until modern times. The best Medieval warhorses were not much larger then large modern pony. And this horse have collided in to a single unarmed woman. You are talking about those small medieval warhorses colliding into masses of men with sharp pointed sticks.

I think that's true. But the same was probably true of people as well. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've recently read that the average height of a western European Crusades-era knight was probably around 5'3" (Civilization of the Middle Ages, Kantor, 1993 edition...which made that same exact point about smaller warhorse size too). And these were likely the best-fed & physically developed folks in the population at large....average peasants converted into militia or light infantry/archers (i.e., the cavalry's preferred targets) would've been smaller still.

 

[hruza]

Well definitely shorter not necessarily lighter as the medieval Destrier was believed to have been powerfully built with a wide jaw and musculature. thats like saying a Pitbull is a smaller, lighter version of dog than a tall Afghan -Pitbulls and animals like that ie Badgers, with wide jaws/skulls are far more built for battle. Not fair to say it was like a modern day pony at all.

Destrier is not a breed. It's occupation. Horse breed as we know them today did not exist in medieval times. Anything could have been destrier. As for their build, no they were not powerfully build, they were of medium build. See the link I have posted above, there are data collected from archaeological and artistic sources cited inside and even those obtained by measuring surviving horse armors in museums.

 

[hruza]

Well definitely shorter not necessarily lighter as the medieval Destrier was believed to have been powerfully built with a wide jaw and musculature. thats like saying a Pitbull is a smaller, lighter version of dog than a tall Afghan -Pitbulls and animals like that ie Badgers, with wide jaws/skulls are far more built for battle. Not fair to say it was like a modern day pony at all.

Northern European men living during the early Middle Ages were nearly as tall as their modern-day American descendants, a finding that defies conventional wisdom about progress in living standards during the last millennium.

"Men living during the early Middle Ages (the ninth to 11th centuries) were several centimeters taller than men who lived hundreds of years later, on the eve of the Industrial Revolution," said Richard Steckel, a professor of economics at Ohio State University and the author of a new study that looks at changes in average heights during the last millennium.

Steckel analyzed height data from thousands of skeletons excavated from burial sites in northern Europe and dating from the ninth to the 19th centuries. Average height declined slightly during the 12th through 16th centuries, and hit an all-time low during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Northern European men had lost an average 2.5 inches of height by the 1700s, a loss that was not fully recovered until the first half of the 20th century.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040902090552.htm

 

[froggyluv]

Destrier is not a breed. It's occupation. Horse breed as we know them today did not exist in medieval times. Anything could have been destrier. As for their build, no they were not powerfully build, they were of medium build. See the link I have posted above, there are data collected from archaeological and artistic sources cited inside and even those obtained by measuring surviving horse armors in museums.

"The most well-known horse of the medieval era of Europe is the destrier, known for carrying knights into war. However, most knights and mounted men-at-arms rode smaller horses known as coursers and rounceys. ... Mares were the preferred war horse of the Moors. They also were preferred by the Mongols. " -Wikepedia Medival horses

"The word destrier does not refer to a breed, but to a type of horse: the finest and strongest warhorse. These horses were usually stallions, bred and raised from foalhood specifically for the needs of war. The destrier was also considered the most suited to the joust; coursers seem to have been preferred for other forms of warfare.[6] They had powerful hindquarters, able to easily coil and spring to stop, spin, turn or sprint forward. They also had a short back and well-muscled loin, strong bone, and a well-arched neck. From medieval art, the head of the destrier appears to have had a straight or slightly convex profile, strong, wide jaw, and good width between the eyes.

The destrier was specifically for use in battle or tournament; for everyday riding, a knight would use a palfrey, and his baggage would be carried on a sumpter horse (or packhorse), or possibly in wagons." -Wiki

 

[9yearsago]

Problem is horse impact only pushes infantry to sides, they are rarely knocked down to the ground which is unlike Warband. They are not stunned when they got hit by a horse either, it just pushes them left or right and deals 2 to 3 damage. Try knocking looters down with your heavily armoured imperial charger at full speed, does nothing.