I'd prefer the option
I personally used "melee from horseback" quite a bit in "Odyssey" with a spear etc... on Bounty hunters etc.... I believe it also gave a damage bonus like attacking from behind. Also man on horse versus man on foot has usually ended up in the former's favour
Again it comes down for me of removing a feature that, although it looked a little clumsy, worked as intended and was fun Using a weapon when mounted also a little more believable than "rein whipping"
UltimatePowa 61 posts
This gradual rise in the dominance of infantry led to the adoption of dismounted tactics. From the earliest times knights and mounted men-at-arms had frequently dismounted to handle enemies they could not overcome on horseback, such as in the Battle of the Dyle (891) and the Battle of Bremule (1119), but after the 1350s this trend became more marked with the dismounted men-at-arms fighting as super-heavy infantry with two-handed swords and poleaxes. In any case, warfare in the Middle Ages tended to be dominated by raids and sieges rather than pitched battles, and mounted men-at-arms rarely had any choice other than dismounting when faced with the prospect of assaulting a fortified position.
Is this what you're referencing?
In that case, it's pretty accurate that we don't have mounted combat in this, albeit, maybe just occasional mounted combat would be nice.
You can still fire arrows from horseback though, that's a valid tactic for hunting, it's what I do.
KinkOfTheIll 1 posts
I, for one, really miss horse combat, as I used it a LOT in previous games either to just slash through a patrol on a road with or without finishing the combat, quickly get some resources from passing by animals on my way, or put a couple hits in on a stronger enemy before being forced to unmount.
No, cutting through deer and bear while galloping to get some hide is not realistic at all, but then again neither is jumping from a high tower into a haystack with tons of armor and weapons in your infinite pockets without breaking a bone...
We can always find examples as to how it could be explained by actual warfare tactics from the times etc., but let's be honest, the decision to take this out of the game has nothing to do with that, as the game is no RDR2 willing to risk annoying players any chance it gets to push realism (in some of it's aspects at least, and which I can also enjoy to some extent).
My bet is that they thought it would be more balanced to force us taking on zealots "as intended" vs letting us initiate combats on horseback, except it just takes some player agency away, prevents from trying to take on higher level enemies by using less frontal tactics, although I don't really know why it would bother them since there is no longer a big xp boost from that with the new skills system anyways. Yes horse combat has allowed me to get through Origins a bit faster, but I still put 260 hours in it, so, maybe just let me have my fun ?
And it's all the more annoying because enemies do attack you on horseback, if I am not mistaken, which takes away any historic realism claims...
The game has a lot of flaws right now, and will probably not see half of them fixed. A lot of things bother me, like treasure looting bugs, camera issues etc, some are real game design 101 problems like the fact that some treasure locations are visible on the map but only become accessible after a certain mission, which leaves you looking for a puzzle to solve or a cave entrance for hours and feel like a complete fool, unresponsive movement and problems with the parkour mechanics, no short swords, no loadouts/quick weapons switching, using R3 click for Odin's view, or the hidden-but-not-working-anyway option to mask player screenshots on the map, but the one thing that I can't stand, the one problem I would want to see solved (but probably won't), the thing that keeps me up at night and has me ranting about, the reason why I might even go with a cardboard sign in front of Ubisoft Montreal's mostly empty because of the pandemic building to strike a one-man-protest about if it wasn't getting cold and I hadn't better things to do is the lack of mounting combat.
I'm frustrated about it.
Not cool !
I especially miss mounted melee with the "bushwackers" - they jump out, I instinctively hit attack and I kick a guy ;-(
Agree there's a lot flawed and a lot I'm enjoying. I came to Odyssey and Origins late in the day so I guess a lot of improvements had been made by the time I got them.
Come on Ubisoft - give us the option - I want to hunt boar with a spear as Odin intended
pesto. 152 posts
+1 on wanting horseback weapons back. It’s such a small thing but it feels like the game is incomplete somehow without it. You’re more vulnerable on horseback but can do more damage, it’s a glass cannon.
TheNorfolkian 446 posts
@ubi-keo Can you please pass on to the developers that with the Siege of Paris expansion, it makes even less sense for Eivor to still not use melee weapons on horseback? Seriously, Eivor sees heavy cavalry attacking him with spears in Francia, but doesn’t put two and two together to start using his own spear on horseback? It’s almost silly if it wasn’t frustrating.
Karmachaositgp 90 posts
On launch I was expecting mounted combat too probably like most players but all they gave us was a useless kick. Sure now with an upgrade update we can use a bow(which the aiming for that is still messed up and randomly jerks around for no reason) on mounts but still very lacking especially more so now with mounted attacking enemies. Another dumb decision by ubisoft!
ImaginaryRuins 418 posts
@lemmie88 The thought that shooting arrows or wielding a melee weapon on horseback is a "skill" that Eivor the Wolf-kissed, the reincarnation of a special someone, and a Viking veteran no less, needs to learn in her adulthood, simply is hilarious.
While I have never really needed to engage enemies while riding a horse in my 340 hours of playthrough, I would appreciate it if Eivor can use her melee weapons on horseback in the future - to farm iron ores better than a pathetic slow kick to crack open the ores.
TheNorfolkian 446 posts
@bielik01 Imagine the brainstorming session at Ubisoft when they decided to not allow melee weapons...
“So, should we allow melee weapons on horseback?”
“No, that’s not historical, even though that’s exactly what we did for the games that took place hundreds of years before this one.”
“Well, what do we do instead?”
“Eivor can kick people and animals... that sounds like what a Viking would do.”
“Wait, what about the horse, can’t it kick too?”
“No, horses don’t know how to do that... they only know how to gallop and step on stuff. We can have the horse ram breakable things like a boar, because pigs and equines are totally the same thing.”
“Great! Let’s do that.”
Later in the session...
“Hey, check this out! We can give players an armor that makes Eivor look like Sauron!”
“I see no problems with this... send it out!”
wSmk 34 posts
Fight enemies who are sitting on the horse, not interested. Causes:
- The enemy's horse is immortal..
- The health of such an enemy is overstated. It takes too long to kill, even if you hit all the vulnerable spots.
MetalDawn71 10 posts
I agree with this. When I played the Siege of Paris, I went up against one of the Frankish Nobles. Gerswinda, a heavy cavalry on horseback. I wished that I could even the odds a bit by getting on horseback and attacking with a sword or a spear of some sort instead of kicking! I even tried that. I got knocked off by her spear. Trying to hit her with a sword or one of my abilities, was like trying to hit a fly with a fly swatter. Each time she hit me with her spear, it took nearly half of my health. It's very frustrating. You could make using melee weapons for Eivor a skill?
@thenorfolkian Not forgetting Eivor can shoot a bow on horseback better than a Mongolian Trick-shot Steppes Rider! Shouldn't be surprised I guess.... one handed swords.... na let's give them great swords a few centuries early for authenticity;-) Ubisoft please learn... if it's not broke, don't fix it!