No horses. Imagine that.

[Jarmo]

Reading the newest installment of Armor and Weapon Design, a plea.

One thing coming to mind is a kind of a what if.

 

Going on a hunch, PE won't include horses and mounted combat.

Because then there'd be need to make mounted combat rules and stuff and lots more animations...

and there's really no huge profit for it anywhere.

 

So... what if the world doesn't have horses? Not just in view, but that they just are completely not there.

 

 

Obviously the lances and such are gone.

I'd guess longer pikes are gone as well, though I don't suppose they were never going to be in anyway.

 

But what else?

Armor and weapon design was driven by the existing reality, the reality being horsemen all around.

What kind of weapons and armor were designed to deal with cavalry, or used by cavalry?

 

Does an army that's not going to face cavalry and doesn't have one, look different than medieval armies did?

[Jarmo]

Also.

Medieval military didn't have to deal with big honkin mountain trolls or wyverns.

What would have been different if monsters had been a big problem?

 

One thing coming to mind, is heavier siege-type crossbows and firearms.

Maybe long pikes and halberds would be darn useful anyway, even without cavalry to deal with?

[Diagoras]

First, whatever you based it on would have to be pretty unrelated to Medieval Europe. Medieval European warfare was so driven by cavalry (shock cavalry in particular in the West) that you can't even remotely approximate it without an equivalent. I'd recommend looking at North and South America and Southern China (pre-widespread adoption of cavalry) for examples.

 

I'd guess longer pikes are gone as well, though I don't suppose they were never going to be in anyway.

 

Pikes would still be around. They're primarily an anti-infantry weapons - the pike formations devastating charge is its main advantage. They were neither defensive, nor primarily anti-cavalry weapons.

 

One thing coming to mind, is heavier siege-type crossbows and firearms.

 

Interestingly enough, European warfare already did this. For reasons that are unclear (though I have a few thoughts of my own), Western European ranged weapons tended to focus far more on power (and thus range, accuracy, and armor penetration) than many other cultures, in which rate of fire was prioritized. Just look at European vs. Chinese crossbows.

 

European forces in the Late Medieval era absolutely had to deal with giant, armored monsters - men-at-arms in plate armor match that description pretty well. And, as expected, they developed powerful crossbows and firearms to deal with them. Thus, the windlass crossbow and the musket - both specialized heavy versions of existing weapons with armor penetration as the driving design consideration.

 

In fact, I'm a little puzzled by the devs thinking in regards to firearms. They seem to be suggesting that shot would be reduced to a "complex curiosity" by the existence of monstrous creatures on the battlefield - but if forced to, shot is exactly what I would use on such creatures! I mean, what's the alternative? A volley of arrows? A pike charge? Send in some zwei hander's to hack at its leg? Musket or even field artillery seems the sensible solution.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Diagoras

[Osvir]

I think you have some good ideas here, though I want to air some of my old ideas regarding Fast Traveling on the World Map. If there are no horses the below wouldn't be possible, unless there is some other substitute creature that can be the "Horse". I am all for "No mounted combat".

Strictly speaking Fast Travel on the World Map:
[Walking] on World Map = 8 hours to the closest location
[Horse*] on the World Map = 4 hours to the closest location
[Flying] on the World Map = 2 hours to the closest location
[Teleport] on the World Map = Instant

* Horse = Fantasy Creature, simply a mount that takes you to the location faster than walking. 

Why would any of these be interesting though? If there are "Events" that run on time, getting there a couple of hours earlier might be something good. In essence: Getting there in time you might be able to save the village, whilst not getting there in time you lose the village.

[Ulquiorra]

Then if you pay me 10 000 i will make you mod for horses hahaha ...

 

In general they don't need to may much animations .... maybe 10 or 30 for characters ... and mayby 10 for houses ... they just don't want to brak a immersion of typical dugeoncrawler game becouse if they add hourses ... you will get more interested in fighing on open grounds not in dungeon ...

 

The project eternity whoud more like mount and blade. not BG or other

[Nonek]

A well trained infantryman could often outpace the cavalry during protracted marches, and certainly when the terrain becomes rough and broken. The upkeep cost of horses was very high as well, with the need for shoeing and farriers, massive amounts of feed (grain ideally,) and the exorbitant cost and maintenance of tack and harness. In a lot of ways the horse would be too time consuming and unsuitable for an adventurers life, better a hardy breed of pony such as those utilised by the old norse, or even better a hardy mule used as a beast of burden.

 

One would theorise that strange magics, cattle, labourers, and maybe even Druid trained animals such as Goats would replace the horse if they were non existent in Eternity, there would also be a massive amount of societal changes inherent in such exclusion, as the horse became synonymous with the nobility and warrior class. Warfare might not have developed among the paths we see either, maybe the phalanx is still a valuable aspect of battle, or the disciplined and heavily armed and armoured legionaire.

 

It's an intriguing notion.

[rjshae]

I'm skeptical that it would be a significant overhead to add mounts for opponents. It shouldn't be any more than a winged dragon, say. The rules shouldn't be difficult; just treat the mounted warrior as a single creature for attack purposes, but track separate damage targets.

[Jarmo]

 

One thing coming to mind, is heavier siege-type crossbows and firearms.

 

Interestingly enough, European warfare already did this. For reasons that are unclear (though I have a few thoughts of my own), Western European ranged weapons tended to focus far more on power (and thus range, accuracy, and armor penetration) than many other cultures, in which rate of fire was prioritized. Just look at European vs. Chinese crossbows.

 

European forces in the Late Medieval era absolutely had to deal with giant, armored monsters - men-at-arms in plate armor match that description pretty well. And, as expected, they developed powerful crossbows and firearms to deal with them. Thus, the windlass crossbow and the musket - both specialized heavy versions of existing weapons with armor penetration as the driving design consideration.

 

In fact, I'm a little puzzled by the devs thinking in regards to firearms.  

 

It's always about what you're up against. Much more and more heavily armored fighters in european theatre than anywhere else.

Not to downplay eastern armor too much, but those were bit of crap compared to european armor.

 

If most of the opponents go down easily enough, it's much better to increase the firing speed rather than ammo power.

The powerful bows and crossbows craze didn't start in europe either until surprisingly late date, after armored knight was already dominant.

 

Likewise, a bit puzzled by the firearm statements so far.

Seems like a game balancing act of some kind, making sure swords and shields stay dominant enough, even if that means downplaying gunpowder weapons.

 

Though, against groups of infantry? Gunpowder weapons, a volley of arrows, or a volley of fireballs?

[Greydragon]

In relation to gun vs mages

 

I would imagine with the existence of powerful magic the role of guns would be reduced in warfare; the heavier siege weapons would be worthless compared to a squad of wide-scale destruction focused elite wizards. No need to lug heavy ballistas or siege cannon when high powered magic is mobile and needs little preparation and no ammunition. Since guns effectively trump traditional magic protection however I would also expect the focus to be on rifles or multi-barrelled pistols; the rifle for long range sniping of the deadly mages before they get a good look at you or the pistol for a barrage of bullets at medium/close range that the mage can't answer. I am assuming that typically magic requires a ritual to attack, whereas a gun is instantaneous.  

 

As for no horses:

There are always alternatives, from oxen to dog carts there is some means of transport. This is a fictional world too, so there would certainly be exotic mounts that fulfil the role of a horse. However I would assume that mounts are not used in combat because of druids and cyphers. If a mounted warrior met one of those as an enemy it would end very badly for him. Scale that up to a cavalry unit and a druid or cypher could probably still do significant damage. Even a mage with a grease-like spell would be devastating; most horses would break a leg slipping at a gallop.

[Stun]

I'm skeptical that it would be a significant overhead to add mounts for opponents. It shouldn't be any more than a winged dragon, say. The rules shouldn't be difficult; just treat the mounted warrior as a single creature for attack purposes, but track separate damage targets.

Yeah, It's not a huge undertaking if we're just talking about mounts for the enemies. Icewind Dale 2 had Goblin riders.

[Gumbercules]

Damn it, I want horsies in the game! And cows and sheep and goats and chickens and dogs and cats and rats and geese and deer and crows and heffalumps and woozles!

 

But seriously, while I would have been fine with Obsidian creating a setting whose inhabitants didn't develop alongside horses or other large beasts of burden, now that they have firmly decided on a late Medieval Europe analogue I think it would be better and easier if they just kept the horses. Wild and domesticated animals would add a great deal of life to the scenery, mounted opponents have already been done in Icewind Dale 2 and wouldn't necessarily be more difficult to create than any unique monsters, and animated models of horses and other animals are already available for purchase on the Unity Asset Store if they don't feel like making them themselves: https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/#/search/horse

[Nonek]

Personally if horses are implemented in the game I would be fine with them being treated just like the car in Fallout 2, fast travel points with saddlebag space for storage.

[Diagoras]

I would imagine with the existence of powerful magic the role of guns would be reduced in warfare; the heavier siege weapons would be worthless compared to a squad of wide-scale destruction focused elite wizards. No need to lug heavy ballistas or siege cannon when high powered magic is mobile and needs little preparation and no ammunition.

 

Is there a reason this applies to firearms, and not to swords and bows and polearms? In fact, wouldn't the existence of cheap, easily used destructive magic basically end all military technology development? What's the point if you can just vomit a fireball out of your hands? Likewise, fortifications would never be developed.

 

I'm guessing the reason that firearms are present is the same reason that the setting mimics Medieval Europe in other ways - magic is magic and technology is technology. Magic isn't a push-button, systematic, and consistent system similar to technology, but rather similar to historical conceptions of magic - and thus not very suitable for widespread military deployment.

[Tsuga C]

Sorry.  All the horses on this continent died out at the end of the last Ice Age. 

[Lephys]

As long as we get to ride velociraptors, everything's fine.

[Greydragon]

 

I would imagine with the existence of powerful magic the role of guns would be reduced in warfare; the heavier siege weapons would be worthless compared to a squad of wide-scale destruction focused elite wizards. No need to lug heavy ballistas or siege cannon when high powered magic is mobile and needs little preparation and no ammunition.

 

Is there a reason this applies to firearms, and not to swords and bows and polearms? In fact, wouldn't the existence of cheap, easily used destructive magic basically end all military technology development? What's the point if you can just vomit a fireball out of your hands? Likewise, fortifications would never be developed.

 

I'm guessing the reason that firearms are present is the same reason that the setting mimics Medieval Europe in other ways - magic is magic and technology is technology. Magic isn't a push-button, systematic, and consistent system similar to technology, but rather similar to historical conceptions of magic - and thus not very suitable for widespread military deployment.

Good point; I was focused solely on guns. With a gun no magic is required to make it capable of felling a mage. Swords and arrows would have a tradition of magical enhancement and there would be tricks for penetrating barriers, just not as directly as a gun. However you also have to assume that the powerful mages while useful are rare enough that they cannot make up more than the core of an army and lack staying power. This would make artillery valid in long term sieges. 

 

Essentially with a gun anyone can kill anyone in combat for the first time in this world's history. The reason people still use swords and bows is for close combat and frequency of fire. You see it all the time with pirates and this part was historically accurate: since guns are slow to reload most fighters carry multiple pistols and a sword/other weapon. If they can prepare, a rifle as well. This is during a time when guns are common and single shot much like that of the Project: Eternity world. For a sword the weakness of the gun, the reload speed, is still exploitable. On an open field it is suicidal, but in a cover situation rushing a gunman while reloading is a valid and effective strategy. 

 

If a man is wealthy they can afford a more expensive weapon with double or rotating barrels, the revolver (and cartridges) are still centuries away (I assume). An adventurer would likely be able to afford/capture one of these more expensive guns in the long term events of the game. So a bow while less deadly to mages in particular is still an effective weapon with multiple uses (fire arrows for example) that can be used three or more times for every gunshot. It is also in the hands of an expert far more accurate due to a gun's haphazard loading method and the smooth barrel (we now use rifling which adds a corkscrew motion to a single bullet to stabilize it in flight). However in massed combat a gun is far deadlier as packs a heavier punch and it adds a psychological element to the fight: fire and a loud noise that can demoralize enemies, particularly in barrages. So the majority of soldiers with guns don't need to be weathered veterans with decades of experience; they can be peasants taught little more than how to shoot and march in order. There is no tradition of magical guns; they are too new. However I would expect that as time goes on eccentric enchanters may turn to bullets as a promising new business opportunity.    

[Adhin]

This may of started off as horses but I love where its going. I don't think a complete absent of horses would change the world much, there are plenty of other animals that can fulfill that role and often have, other then short men racing in circles I guess. I mean the world would have to be filled with animals all cat sized and 'larger then elephants' and nothing in between for it to really impact stuff.

 

As for actually having mounted stuff (I know its not the main topic here) I don't see the need to have a 'system' in place for players. You can always do it for enemies and not have it require extra systems. I know folks love mounts, but they're kinda pointless in a game like this. More so having to deal with 4+ mounts due to party size and... meh. It's just silly. What I don't want to see though is a lack of mounts, and then NO horses or nothing in the world to show that's a thing. That's a lack of environmental detail that kinda kills things for me. "Well the player wont ride them so we wont have them represented in game'. Issue i had with Dragon Age. I don't want to ride a horse in that game, but the fact they're no where to be seen (or cattle for that matter) is just awkward. More so when the lore/story points directly at there very existence.

 

So yeah, I personally don't want mounts in this kinda game (even though I like mounts) and, horses or no, whatever society 'does' use as beast of burden, I really hope 'exists' as something in game so that detail isn't missing from the atmospheric story.

[Ulquiorra]

Horses where killed by Lord Sawyer and then eaten by Avellone the last horsemen

Edited April 7, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Greydragon]

Good points from Adhin. If you are going to have animals and mounts present in a world at least show that they exist in logical situations. A field: cows. It isn't so hard. Even if it is merely a drawing or part of the introduction. Mounts do have major complications for RPGs; it is hard to include them in combat, however the mundane locations should feature domesticated animals beyond a cat, dog or bird. 

 

As for exotic mounts some primitive cultures and species may still use them; say a small humanoid riding an elephant bird like creature into battle, etc. They would be interesting precisely because we can use the strategies that have precluded them from civilized warfare. Say a druid causing a mass panic or chaos effect among the animals. Even a firecracker/grenade/smoke bomb would work as well to startle and disorganize.

[Diagoras]

Good point; I was focused solely on guns. With a gun no magic is required to make it capable of felling a mage. Swords and arrows would have a tradition of magical enhancement and there would be tricks for penetrating barriers, just not as directly as a gun. However you also have to assume that the powerful mages while useful are rare enough that they cannot make up more than the core of an army and lack staying power. This would make artillery valid in long term sieges. 

 

You seem to be constructing an entire, elaborate magic system. That's fine, but I'm not sure how it's going to be related to Project: Eternity's soul-based system, or avoid making the setting a completely unidentifiable civilization completely distinct from the currently targeted Late Medieval aesthetic.

 

Essentially with a gun anyone can kill anyone in combat for the first time in this world's history.

 

This has been the case since someone picked up a rock. Firearms were not revolutionary, they were evolutionary.

 

It is also in the hands of an expert far more accurate due to a gun's haphazard loading method and the smooth barrel (we now use rifling which adds a corkscrew motion to a single bullet to stabilize it in flight). However in massed combat a gun is far deadlier as packs a heavier punch and it adds a psychological element to the fight: fire and a loud noise that can demoralize enemies, particularly in barrages.

 

I feel this statement is a little broad. What kind of bow, what kind of firearm, and what kind of accuracy? Rifles exist in the time period P:E is emulating, and the windage of 15th century firearms was far less of their 18th century descendants - there's a reason that sharpshooters of Late Medieval era used arquebus. And firearms were not really used because of their psychological effects, but rather their fantastic armor penetration relative to any other class of weapon (among other qualities).

 

So the majority of soldiers with guns don't need to be weathered veterans with decades of experience; they can be peasants taught little more than how to shoot and march in order.

 

The same is true of the crossbow and shortbow. In fact, the firearm is far more complex and dangerous a device than either of those, especially in the pre-simplified drill matchlock era. Not to mention that judging any class of weapons by the majority of its users is a bad idea for generalizing to the whole - from that we'd learn that all polearms are useful for little more than poking in formation at another formation.

 

I don't think a complete absent of horses would change the world much, there are plenty of other animals that can fulfill that role and often have, other then short men racing in circles I guess. I mean the world would have to be filled with animals all cat sized and 'larger then elephants' and nothing in between for it to really impact stuff.

 

The horse isn't really replaceable by any other creature in the world. They lack its domesticated state, speed, size, and general suitability for combat and civilian use. Try mounting a deer and charging it through an enemy pike formation, or using a relay messenger system of cows.

 

The first Dragon Age had an interesting take on horseless society. While horses exist, they are nearly totally absent from Ferelden. This results in the training of vicious war dogs that serve a similar (if far less effective) function as heavy shock cavalry: smashing enemy formations and morale. As well as a much less hierarchical society, what with lacking an equestrian class.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Diagoras

[Lephys]

The horse isn't really replaceable by any other creature in the world. They lack its domesticated state, speed, size, and general suitability for combat and civilian use. Try mounting a deer and charging it through an enemy pike formation, or using a relay messenger system of cows.

 

 

Ahh... but would it have been, had horses NEVER existed, and had mankind attempted domestication of deer or cattle or chocobos since the dawn of man?

 

*Chinstroke of Pondrance +1*

[Greydragon]

In reply to Diagoras's dissection of my post I will elaborate:

 

This has been the case since someone picked up a rock. Firearms were not revolutionary, they were evolutionary.

 

This changes the balance of power. This is a situation that could be likened with a revolution; if some random guy can kill a man who yesterday was practically invincible wouldn't the world change, drastically both militarily and politically? An entire upper class would collapse overnight.

 

I feel this statement is a little broad. What kind of bow, what kind of firearm, and what kind of accuracy? Rifles exist in the time period P:E is emulating, and the windage of 15th century firearms was far less of their 18th century descendants - there's a reason that sharpshooters of Late Medieval era used arquebus. And firearms were not really used because of their psychological effects, but rather their fantastic armor penetration relative to any other class of weapon (among other qualities).

I left the statement broad because there are so many different variables and examples to consider. We are dealing, most likely with medieval/renaissance era technology. In terms of accuracy the bow, particularly the longbow would still easily outpace in terms of firing speed. A gifted archer can release a steady stream of six arrows a minute at an accuracy greater than that of an arquebus, the main reason they fell into decline was the training required to master the bow took decades and the gun had better penetration. It could stop a heavily armoured man, by bludgeoning him into submission. Also the psychological impact of guns is not to be underestimated, as it significantly impacts morale. I will not deny the armour penetration of the weapon but only at close range was it able to pierce heavy armour. The longbow was effective at long range. Even in the 16th century their use was still common dying out in the 17th due to the rarity of materials (yew trees were harvested far into Europe by then) and the rapid advances in guns. 

 

The same is true of the crossbow and shortbow. In fact, the firearm is far more complex and dangerous a device than either of those, especially in the pre-simplified drill matchlock era. Not to mention that judging any class of weapons by the majority of its users is a bad idea for generalizing to the whole - from that we'd learn that all polearms are useful for little more than poking in formation at another formation.

However talking about the average user would be beneficial in terms of the game, would it not? Since we'd be running into them. Actually judging a weapon by the majority of the users is a good rule of thumb. Also what precisely was that statement supposed to mean? It is rambling and incoherent. Polearms are a poor choice in terms of comparison; they are used by practically everyone, cavalry to infantry. Perhaps now you could be more specific? Polearms are a far broader topic than bows. Even in terms of use; a halberd for example can poke or cut. There are blunt polearms and some designed for non-lethal use. I will assume you meant the pike? It was indeed used to poke groups of men from another group of men, or guard against cavalry, or act as an impenetrable wall. It was very successful at this; Alexander the Great used it to conquer most of the known world. Your point? Assuming there was one ... 

 

The horse isn't really replaceable by any other creature in the world. They lack its domesticated state, speed, size, and general suitability for combat and civilian use. Try mounting a deer and charging it through an enemy pike formation, or using a relay messenger system of cows. 

 

The first Dragon Age had an interesting take on horseless society. While horses exist, they are nearly totally absent from Ferelden. This results in the training of vicious war dogs that serve a similar (if far less effective) function as heavy shock cavalry: smashing enemy formations and morale. As well as a much less hierarchical society, what with lacking an equestrian class.

 

Isn't replaceable by any creature in the world? Unless of course you count cattle, zebra, donkeys, and a multitude of other animals that may not even exist. We are not talking about Earth here. These alternate species may have been domesticated as long or longer than horses. Also dogs have a long tradition in warfare on Earth; as do many species. As early as Ancient Egypt.   

 

[Jarmo]

 

The horse isn't really replaceable by any other creature in the world. They lack its domesticated state, speed, size, and general suitability for combat and civilian use. Try mounting a deer and charging it through an enemy pike formation, or using a relay messenger system of cows. 

 

The first Dragon Age had an interesting take on horseless society. While horses exist, they are nearly totally absent from Ferelden. This results in the training of vicious war dogs that serve a similar (if far less effective) function as heavy shock cavalry: smashing enemy formations and morale. As well as a much less hierarchical society, what with lacking an equestrian class.

 

Isn't replaceable by any creature in the world? Unless of course you count cattle, zebra, donkeys, and a multitude of other animals that may not even exist. We are not talking about Earth here. These alternate species may have been domesticated as long or longer than horses. Also dogs have a long tradition in warfare on Earth; as do many species. As early as Ancient Egypt.   

 

 

Camels do work as a replacement as long as the climate is suitable.

Given a long history, selective breeding and a lack of horses, there might be thicker fur camels that'd manage in the cooler zones.

 

 

Many animals are simply unsuitable. There's been many attempts to use zebras as mounts, but while there's been individual success, on large scales zebras remain unusable, despite there being obvious benefits in domesticating them. There was a brief amount of thought in Finland/Sweden on using elks as cavalry mounts, but the idea was quickly abandoned (but it'd be pretty awesome in an RPG). 

 

Of course, one can say magic and then it's all possible.

Even without magic, while African elephants are well known to be undomesticatable/untamable, ancient egyptians and carthagenians nevertheless had elephant cavalry, which is a bit of mystery. Rhino cavalry would also be awesome, but I'm sure africans were aware of their awesomeness-potential and still never did anything of the sort, for probably good reason.

[Greydragon]

Camels do work as a replacement as long as the climate is suitable.

Given a long history, selective breeding and a lack of horses, there might be thicker fur camels that'd manage in the cooler zones.

 

 

Many animals are simply unsuitable. There's been many attempts to use zebras as mounts, but while there's been individual success, on large scales zebras remain unusable, despite there being obvious benefits in domesticating them. There was a brief amount of thought in Finland/Sweden on using elks as cavalry mounts, but the idea was quickly abandoned (but it'd be pretty awesome in an RPG). 

 

Of course, one can say magic and then it's all possible.

Even without magic, while African elephants are well known to be undomesticatable/untamable, ancient egyptians and carthagenians nevertheless had elephant cavalry, which is a bit of mystery. Rhino cavalry would also be awesome, but I'm sure africans were aware of their awesomeness-potential and still never did anything of the sort, for probably good reason.

In the case of African elephants it requires a systematic culture of breeding and training, something that is gone today. It would have taken a high degree experience to sufficiently train elephants for warfare. Even so they still carried spikes and mallets to kill the animal as they were prone to rampage or flee without care of which side was in the way. African elephants can be trained; there is at least one famous modern case, the circus elephant Jumbo. 

There are plenty of extinct animals that could have made interesting mounts or beasts of burden, including mammoths and wooly rhino. Thinking out of the box there are plenty of large carnivores that could have made excellent mounts, assuming of course magic. From smilodon and  Kaposuchus saharicus to Megalania and various giant birds, either flightless and those capable of flying after eating a cow whole. Sounds kind of like a Griffin, right? Actually it was an ancestor of the condor, Argentavis magnificens; a bird with a wingspan like a small plane.   

[Jarmo]

Anyway.

 

If we assume a world with mounts and cart animals, horses or otherwise, I'd still say it's not practical to make them appear in-combat.

 

Outside of combat, just standing about waving their tails and heads and generally looking alive, the effort to include mounts, carts, wagons, probably wouldn't be overly great and would liven up  the environment.

 

But in combat. Doing it properly, giving the necessary skills to use mounts, calculate proper attack/damage bonuses for charges, same bonuses on braced spears on footmen. I'd say not worth the effort if most of the game is going to be a dungeon crawl.

 

Simplifying a little, giving the mounts to others but not players, wouldn't be a good idea even if it wouldn't be a huge effort.

If a players see knights on horseback, the players want to ride horses and pierce hobgoblins with lances themselves.

Saying no, it's not for you to ride horses, is a cause of frustration.

 

End result being, the world is slightly more complete but the players are left unhappier for it.

 

NWN and Elder Scrolls players wanted horses, saying "we want horses dammit".

The developers caved in and complied, in NWN 1.69 and Oblivion you can ride horses,

in both cases it's a useless and pretty stupid addition, the horses giving no gaming value.