Horses - major update?

[Gauteamus]

Horses: Adds so little to the game when compared to other things, yet takes so much effort.

What? Vogt Gessler himself being biased against chivalry? Allegory goes de fenestra!

[Flocke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_archer

That doesn't explain why one should be more accurate while riding a moving horse. Accuracy is pretty much what marksmanship is.

sorry it tooks a while to edit my post

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3581&p=38662#p38662

[Delamore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_archer
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3493&p=38100#p38100

mounted archery was an effective tactical system and i think that should be honoured with a bigger boost to marksmanship.

Wiki says: Marksmanship increased accuracy with bows.

my intention was that mounted archery should not do more damage but if you have the "horse combat" skill or maybe an extra "mounted archery" skill you should have a good benefit representing the effectiveness of this weapon in combination with the mobility of a horse.

The word marksman does not appear once in that wikipedia page, also Jorb never said that it made them more accurate in that post either.
The whole concept of mounted archers is "Hey you move fast and shoot" you don't give them an entirely unrelated bonus.

[Potjeh]

If anything, being on a horse should give penalties to attack skills, to balance the increased mobility. Probably a whole new skill, "horsemanship", is needed. If your horsemanship is lower than your unarmed (how does that even work on a horse?), melee and marksmanship, they should be decreased while you're mounted. Maybe a bonus to melee if horsemanship is higher than melee, but definitely not for marksmanship.

[Flocke]

i can understand your point of view with regard to accuracy, but are you stronger with or without a horse?
in my eyes you are stronger with a horse, but does that justify a damage bonus? and how can that be implemented in this game?

i don't think so. in my mind it's more a tactical bonus and not a damage bonus, as jorb said in his post:
"Light cavalry, mounted archers. That's where it is at. Fire and movement."

how can this be better represented in this game as with a better marksmanship?

[Delamore]

i can understand your point of view with regard to accuracy, but are you stronger with or without a horse?
in my eyes you are stronger with a horse, but does that justify a damage bonus? and how can that be implemented in this game?

i don't think so. in my mind it's more a tactical bonus and not a damage bonus, as jorb said in his post:
"Light cavalry, mounted archers. That's where it is at. Fire and movement."

how can this be better represented in this game as with a better marksmanship?

Uh, you move faster to avoid melee fighters from catching you?
You know the entire bonus of mounted combat in real life?

[Potjeh]

There's a world of difference between a damage bonus and an accuracy bonus. Combat skills are all about accuracy. I can guess that some sort of damage bonus is needed for melee, to represent additional force that horse's speed adds, but I really don't see how it would affect arrow damage in a noticeable way.

Besides, mounted archery will be overpowered as is, there's really no good reason to make it even better.

[CG62]

God I hope we don't have lances for Cavalry
*glances at Mount & Blade*

[Flocke]

If anything, being on a horse should give penalties to attack skills, to balance the increased mobility. Probably a whole new skill, "horsemanship", is needed. If your horsemanship is lower than your unarmed (how does that even work on a horse?), melee and marksmanship, they should be decreased while you're mounted. Maybe a bonus to melee if horsemanship is higher than melee, but definitely not for marksmanship.

remember the knights at the medieval, they were unbeatable on their horses. you want to give them a penalty because of their increased mobility. i think that's wrong, mobility is an advantage not a disadvantage and there are no fireweapons in this game, so i think on a horse you are the most powerful person in this game and the idea to balance this advantage is the wrong way.

but yes, unarmed combat doesn't work on a horse. that should indeed get a downgrade then. i mean sure if you fight against a bear you can "knock his teeth out", but try that with a boar or rabbit...

[CG62]

If anything, being on a horse should give penalties to attack skills, to balance the increased mobility. Probably a whole new skill, "horsemanship", is needed. If your horsemanship is lower than your unarmed (how does that even work on a horse?), melee and marksmanship, they should be decreased while you're mounted. Maybe a bonus to melee if horsemanship is higher than melee, but definitely not for marksmanship.

remember the knights at the medieval, they were unbeatable on their horses. you want to give them a penalty because of their increased mobility. i think that's wrong, mobility is an advantage not a disadvantage and there are no fireweapons in this game, so i think on a horse you are the most powerful person in this game and the idea to balance this advantage is the wrong way.

but yes, unarmed combat doesn't work on a horse. that should indeed get a downgrade then. i mean sure if you fight against a bear you can "knock his teeth out", but try that with a boar or rabbit...

Knights were far from unbeatable. Spears > Horses any day of any week of any year.

Knights had advantages due to their armor, mainly. They wore enough of it to require a special breed of horse strong enough to ride.