Even with all the changes in the patch, mounted troops will be superior to unmounted troops. Your top stacks will all be mounted if you can afford it just because they can get around the map faster. If I'm using archers or mages, they will be mounted just so they do not slow the rest of the stack on the map, not for any tactical gain when fighting.

Banning them from city fights places a real drawback to any type of mounted troop. Plus (OK this is the real concern!) they do look stupid fighting indoors.

Indeed, IF you can afford it. The game has to change so that putting your troops on mounts should be a concious strategic decision and the changes in the next patch will go in the right direction. I say lets see how it works out and if it is not enough they can add more things like increased wages for mounted troops or even increased damage of troops carrying spears against mounted units, two additions that seem very sensible both from a common sense and gameplay perspective.

I don't really see how banning them completely from city fights is a sensible approach. It will swing back from the excessive use of mounted units to almost no use of mounted units. We need a strategic balance of army composition, not a limitation. I also don't agree that they look stupid when fighting in a city, you don't fight indoors but in the streets, marketplace.

Hey, I was watching Conan The Destroyer just yesterday.  I saw Conan's group and the King's guard riding through at least two towns, and Grace Jones threatening several villagers on horseback before she rode out on her steed.

The townsfolk wisely scurried out of their way.

Yeah, the first one was better, but the second one is still quite enjoyable, even after all these years.  Certainly better than some of the fantasy/sword & sorcery garbage Hollywood has pawned off on us of late (with many exceptions of course).

Someone has to be the responsible one here. Conan The Destroyer is among the worst movies ever made, and just as bad as the schlock made today. It only has the halo of 'enjoyable schlock' due to it being so associated with its own time period. I'm not saying you can't like it, but don't you really enjoy it for reasons other than its actual merit as a well-told story?  

I love the first Conan. Only watch Destroyer if you are ready for some serious shlock. 

To answer your last question--of course!  Olivia d'Abo is well worth a viewing.    And then add in Wilt Chamberlain, Grace Jones, Andre the Giant, and Pat Roach (he's the stuntman who famously appeared in the first 3 Indiana Jones movies, famous for his fight with Ford around the airplane in Raiders)?  Crazy.  And I should  The soundtrack is good, as in the first movie.  It helps give the movie a bit of credibility.

clever alert