is horseback fighting a must?

[Uriel]

I've tried horseback archery, charging with lances or just fighting in melee and it never quite seems to work the way I want it to. Horse movements are unpredictable and my aim becomes wonky the second I don't stand perfectly still.

Is it viable to simply not use a horse in battle? I don't mind using cavalry in my army in general, it's just that I myself don't want to ride a horse, but I don't know if it's "expected" for me to ride a horse in terms of intended gameplay difficulty.

[Syllabus]

It's just something you need to get used to.

Building a foot-character is possible, but it makes things that much more difficult. So being on horseback is not a 'must,' but it's usually what people do for an extra challenge.

[Bastila Shan]

Its optional. You can also just dismount from your horse and fight on foot.

[Wigglesbury]

I always go in foot and you can work with it. Just try to fight in a river if one is available or a clump of trees. If not and it's regular cav. fight at the top of an incline. If it's mounted archers you're pretty well hooped.

[Sentient_Toaster]

In some maps, dismounting is forced (e.g. hideout attacks, and also gang fights). In very constricted urban maps, or in a siege battle, you might start out riding to an initial position and then spend the rest of the time on foot.

On battles where you do want lots of troops still mounted, you could have cavalry go off on their own while you stay with the infantry, but this will mostly be appropriate if you march your whole army close to the enemy (or they to you) so you can still keep an eye on the cav and give them appropriate orders. AI cavalry also don't seem to be that efficient at meleeing infantry either AFAICT (e.g. often riding past but missing fleeing looters) so if you're not personally mounted, there will probably be more enemy survivors.

Mounted melee is pretty tricky. You need to aim the camera quite a bit downwards when attacking footmen, attack in advance (to account for a bit of delay and how fast you're going), and weapon length makes a big difference. e.g. a 100+ length cavalry sword will be easier to hit with than an ~80-length mace, and a 220+ length spear gives you even more reach at the cost of being very awkward close up.

[Syllabus]

Never mind the army composition. The character build itself, is very different.

High athletics, higher ranged weapon stats, polearms and lengthy weapons, and light armor. The character turns up very different from your usual preference when you really decide "I'm fighting on foot this time."

[katzenkrimis]

If I fought without a horse I wouldn't be able to command the battlefield properly.

It'd be a disaster.

You need to be mobile.

[Cuddlefission]

Basically, if you don't want to do horseback fighting directly, you need a more command oriented approach. Focus on moving your troops efficiently, and avoiding getting into the scrum if you can.

A horse can still be very useful for this - as it gives you a higher vantage point to see what's going on, and lets you move around more easily. On the other hand, being on foot lets you duck into your own lines for cover against arrows or enemy cavalry raids. So it's a tradeoff.