Horse type

[Kasterjojo]

Does it matter what type of horse you give to your troops to increase speed on the world map?

[Revontulet]

Good question.

I've also wondered if there is any value to the "war horse" v. a non war horse.

for instance, I've acquired some "Purebloods." They have great stats, and require no horsemanship skill to use, but they aren't "war horses."

Does that matter?

[Chaos Laicosin]

^ +1

[Summanus]

It does matter, but I'm not sure how it works exactly. I tried to increase my map speed by selling all my speed 44 horses, but it only increased when I sold the Battanian Ponies - not anything else. Its a very strange and probably not well thought out mechanic.

[Gummiel]

Originally posted by antlucasexe:

It does matter, but I'm not sure how it works exactly. I tried to increase my map speed by selling all my speed 44 horses, but it only increased when I sold the Battanian Ponies - not anything else. Its a very strange and probably not well thought out mechanic.

pretty sure it don't what is more likely is that you had too many horses, giving you a herd debuff, you don't want to have more horses in your inventory than you have non-mounted troops, if you do they will start giving a herd debuff

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by antlucasexe:

It does matter, but I'm not sure how it works exactly. I tried to increase my map speed by selling all my speed 44 horses, but it only increased when I sold the Battanian Ponies - not anything else. Its a very strange and probably not well thought out mechanic.

It shouldn't matter as long as the Horse is actually tagged as a "Horse." Which seems to be Bannerlord's way of telling the player the horse can actually be used as a mount rather than the Sumpter Horse type, which is basically only for cargo.

The reason I say it shouldn't matter is that it's just ridiculous for a game to calculate movement speed based not only on the number of units that have transport mounts but also proportional to the mount's travel speed... An entire mounted army isn't going to be gallumping all over the place through all types of terrain at the fastest movement rate possible for a particular breed of horse... At BEST, the only thing that matters is the horse's stride length at a canter and its stamina, both of which are mutually exclusive in terms of high value numbers.

Nobody is putting an army of Clydesdales under a bunch of peasant conscripts so they can ride the horses to death over a thousand mile journey.

To be honest, the notion that an entire army can be mounted and this is what the player is doing when they have a thousand-bajillion horses in their baggage train is moronic. It's... a stoopid idea. Why TW makes that suggestion can only be guessed at, but I think it's probably a choice made because they couldn't figure out a sensible reason for the player to end up looting their way to having a herd of horses that could nearly outnumber their own troop counts. WTF do those horses end up eating?

"We have five hundred soldiers and a thousand horses and we're going on a Winter campaign campaign against Sturgia."

"What are the horses going to eat?"

"Good question! I don't know... Ask that "Napolio" fellow over there. He seems to be pretty smart."

[Scorpixel]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

"We have five hundred soldiers and a thousand horses and we're going on a Winter campaign campaign against Sturgia."

"What are the horses going to eat?"

"Good question! I don't know... Ask that "Napolio" fellow over there. He seems to be pretty smart."

Attrition could be a thing, would give some advantage to comparatively poorer territiories who could then be actually weaker instead of thriving just as much as mild climate areas in exchange of defensive/economic bonuses or balancing map corners. All places being equal at the exception of 2 or 3 connected villages is bland.

However supply lines do not exist in M&B so we can't have the Paradox mechanic of "taking the fort behind two other forts and a city won't work"

[Revontulet]

Still would love to know what the difference is in the performance of a "war horse" v a regular "horse"

Is it just for the purpose of upgrading certain units which require a "war horse."

I mean IRL a non-warhorse would freak out in combat, right? Doesn't happen here.

[l35794]

Originally posted by Revontulet:

Good question.

I've also wondered if there is any value to the "war horse" v. a non war horse.

for instance, I've acquired some "Purebloods." They have great stats, and require no horsemanship skill to use, but they aren't "war horses."

Does that matter?

War horse and just horse need when troop upgrade and if you have many horse then your capacity grow. And when food is not enough they kill horse auto. And horse give change nothing, any troop's horse and weapon is in module - native or module - sandbox and each troop type have their horse type (not war horse and just horse type, but aserai horse or each) but even you give wrong warhorse-horse that make no change.