Elemental Forums
I think that longer term, fighting in towns should be revamped so that you have to knock over walls to get to the defenders. However for a short term fix, consider banning mounted troops from being able to attack or defend towns. That would force the building of a different variety of troops, rather than the all-cavalry force that is used now.
I assume you mean banning them from fighting in any city, not just towns? I don't think that this is a good idea or even a short-term fix.
The new patch will decrease the horse/warg production of stables to 0.5 (from 1.0), it will increase the production cost for mounted units, it will put the defending army into defence mode and it will nerf overpowered traits like charge (from +3 Moves +3 Attack to +1 Moves +2 Attack) and impulsive (from going first in combat to +2 Initiative), it will decrease the damage numbers of melee weapons and increase the hitpoints of regular troops (health kits, rations). With the already existing zone of control mechanic where you cannot pass enemy units to bypass the front lines I think this should be enough to make mounted units much, much less dominating and ranged units and catapults much more important.
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.
More armies are also made more important with the change: turn ends for an army after a battle. With this change having more armies are more benefitial (instaed of one supreme stack with super expensive units).
This combined with more expensive horse units (pluss the fact their movement is nerfed with this change to armies), will at least make the strategy of making cheaper none horse armies (or armies combined of infantry and some expensive horse units) alot more plausible.
All this ties together and helps making combined arms more important.
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).
Ya, once 'sword n sorcery' fantasy became mainstream, the hack jobs went to work writing .. still some good stuff though, like you said.
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.
The show is called "Sex and the City" you can't just ban Sarah Jessica Parker from going into towns...
clever alert
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.