No mount when using 2h weapons

[Dreepa]

Was wondering if this a decision taking purely due to animation constraints or if it's a gameplay design decision.

Kind of weird.

[screamingpalm]

yeah no Gandalf riding Shadowfax I guess...

[Malaficus Shaikan]

Originally posted by Dreepa:

Was wondering if this a decision taking purely due to animation constraints or if it's a gameplay design decision.

Kind of weird.

My vote is laziness.
My proof:
We dont have blowpipes, trowing knives or ices scrapers like we did in the previous games.

[Dreepa]

Maybe it's due to consoles. Having to deal with limits on RAM and such.

[Blanch Warren]

It's accurate and it's probably also more balanced. Requiring firm footing, the use of two handed weapons on horseback apart from the lance is largely an Asian tradition, making use of flails or spear halberds, not giant ass warhammers or giant ass claymores.

You can make up the difference in combat by throwing in a ranged attacked or sprint.

[IDDQD]

Holding a two-handed sword while on horseback is unrealistic.

[Gundalf]

I guess the idea is to make 2 handers stronger than Lances, with the tradeoff of not being able to use mounts.

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Dreepa:

Was wondering if this a decision taking purely due to animation constraints or if it's a gameplay design decision.

Design decision I suspect. Since you only get the one attack with a two handed weapon there's no trade off between attacks and action points; you'd be quite easily capable of sticking the hero on a mount with a charge bonus, running halfway across the battlefield and still hitting a target for maximum damage.

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

the use of two handed weapons on horseback apart from the lance is largely an Asian tradition, making use of flails or spear halberds, not giant ass warhammers or giant ass claymores.

It was used in Europe too. Paulus Hector Mair for example has several techniques for using a longsword with two hands on horseback. There's also examples, particularly in Eastern Europe, of two handed sabers and cavalry glaives (albeit the latter probably originated in Asia). It's likely rare in Europe simply because it's largely redundant; the main point of a two handed weapon on foot was to deal with pikemen and heavy armour; generally cavalry would avoid engaging the former and the lance, at least when used from horseback, is generally a superior weapon for the latter.

[NeonHaggis]

There is the weapon type 'Lance' that can be used while mounted.

[Lordofriva]

Originally posted by NeonHaggis:

There is the weapon type 'Lance' that can be used while mounted.

This. Meaning it's a gameplay choice. You will most likely balance differences between the weapon types.

[Blanch Warren]

Originally posted by archonsod:

It's likely rare in Europe simply because it's largely redundant; the main point of a two handed weapon on foot was to deal with pikemen and heavy armour; generally cavalry would avoid engaging the former and the lance, at least when used from horseback, is generally a superior weapon for the latter.

Well, you just described it making sense.

[Dinvan]

Originally posted by IDDQD:

Holding a two-handed sword while on horseback is unrealistic.

History would disagree, quite violently in fact.

It was not common, but it is in fact realistic and has historical president.

Also, we cast magic and summon demons and ♥♥♥♥ in this game, holding a two handed sword on horse back is not even close to the most unrealistic thing in this game.

[LukanGamer]

exactly countless needless downgrades and likely just not thinking more then anything.

[LukanGamer]

Originally posted by Dinvan:

Originally posted by IDDQD:

Holding a two-handed sword while on horseback is unrealistic.

History would disagree, quite violently in fact.

It was not common, but it is in fact realistic and has historical president.

Also, we cast magic and summon demons and ♥♥♥♥ in this game, holding a two handed sword on horse back is not even close to the most unrealistic thing in this game.

Don't forget the most obvious thing this copium person forgot, about 99% of the mounts are not even horses and include things like dragons...
(Also would not relate their horses to ours for most part any ways as otherwise a stray arrow would kill them or the go crazy with fear non stop instead oof holding perfectly still and charging bravely which make wielding w/e a hell of a lot easier).

[Dreepa]

Plz stop with the realism. We're levitating over water while throwing fireballs leading an army of talking frogs and moles. C'mon.

But the point about it being a 1 of 3 action cost attack that can charge is something I can see. Could be too strong.

[Rhalius]

Originally posted by LukanGamer:

exactly countless needless downgrades and likely just not thinking more then anything.

How can it be a downgrade when heroes in AOW3 could not even be dismounted or use two handed weapons?

I do agree that maybe it should be possible to wield on a mount, I'd welcome the possibility but understand it might not have happened for balance.

My leader with a two handed sword did massive damage with fully upgraded melee skills. It's always good to consider the ceiling. And she did not even have any special weapon yet.

With all damage skill upgrades + an epic weapon, that could get pretty insane. Maybe even more so if the hero uses a major transformation.