Bang per buck: Melee cavalry

[andrewt]

Isn't mass and speed inversely related, though? I don't have the time right now to check the formula but they could cancel each other out.

[Doug-Thompson]

Well, that was loads of fun.

The numbers below use Miracle's formula, with lapses:

1. Armored upgrade potential was left out, for now.
2. Desert Bonus too.
3. The added factors for being Muslim, Spainish, Portugeuse or Danish are not in there yet.
4. Jousting and swordsmen are left out for now.

Also, there are no Mongol/Timurid melee cavalry on this list. I'm working on it.

=========

Keep in mind several things here. This is not a "best to worst" list. This is a fighting value per unit of money estimate.

Adding in an armor-piercing secondary weapon made big differences in the final outcomes.

While valid points have been raised about morale being somewhat subjective, it is also very important. A formula that includes some indicator of that value is more accurate than one that leaves it completely out.

Speed and mass may have an inverse realtionship, but at worst including them both will do no harm while leaving them out might make some difference.


Unit name, "Bang per Buck"

Elephants, 643.01
Quapukulu, 188.62
Christian Guard, 186.84
ME Late Bodyguard, 182.63
Royal Mamluks, 180.84
EE Late Bodyguard, 175.80
Greek Bodyguard, 170.09
NE Late Bodyguard, 168.17
SE Late Bodyguard, 168.17
Conquistadores, 167.98
Norman Knights, 167.98
EE Bodyguard, 163.72
NE Bodyguard, 160.85
SE Bodyguard, 160.85
Hussars, 159.75
ME Bodyguard, 159.57
Teutonic Knights, 158.73
Knights Hospitaller, 157.77
Knights of Santiago, 157.77
Knights Templar, 157.77
Polish Knights, 154.36
Chivalric Knights, 149.99
E Chivalric Knights, 143.42
Tsars Guard, 142.62
Polish Guard, 141.04
Serbian Knights, 138.89
Serbian Hussars, 136.93
Royal Banderium, 134.55
Crusader Knights, 133.52
Huscarls, 127.90
Demi Lancers, 126.41
Noble Knights, 125.19
Gothic Knights, 123.97
Lancers, 117.83
Mamluks, 115.16
Famiglia Ducale, 114.92
Druzhina, 106.58
Armored Clergy, 103.42
Imperial Knights, 102.46
Polish Retainers, 101.96
Kataphractoi, 98.86
English Knights, 95.79
Sipahi Lancers, 90.93
Latinkon, 90.63
Portuguese Knights, 79.35
Feudal Knights, 77.58
Mailed Knights, 76.47
Granadine Lancers, 74.69
Mercenary Frankish Knights, 74.65
Armenian Cavalry, 73.16
Gendarmes, 66.80
Albanian Cavalry, 61.61
Stradiots, 61.61
Broken Lances, 58.35
Kwarizmian Cavalry, 54.45
Alan Light Cavalry, 49.50
Italian Cavalry Militia, 48.90
Mercenary Knights, 43.49
Mercenary German Knights, 41.39
Byzantine Lancers, 40.96
Mounted Sergeants, 39.17
Arab Cavalry, 38.42
Italian MAA, 34.02
Condottieri, 31.64
Bedouin Cavalry, 29.76
Border Horse, 25.95
Tuareg Camel Spearmen, 21.67
EE Cavalry Militia, 14.64
Greek Militia Cavalry, 13.54
Scouts, 10.10
Merchant Cavalry Militia, 9.61
Hobilars, 6.94

[Shahed]

GREAT work !
How do you feel this compares to your orginal list and how is it superior ?
BTW Royal Banderium are Hungarian Nobles I assume ? Just noticed Quapakulu are top of the list.. wow.

[Phog]

Wow.....that was a tough read.

Thanks guys for doing all the math and figuring for the rest of us that absolutely suck at math. Doug-Thompson and Miracle, well done! My brain would have been pudding after all that. Great work guys and quite a handy list. There are many Cav units listed that I haven't had a chance to try at all, mostly bacause I play strictly SP and don't really mess around with the custom battles.

Time to delve it that a bit.


- Phog

[Phog]

Can't edit my posts yet *grumble* *grumble*

Never shoud have let my old username lapse....oh well.

Anyway! Question, in your research which Cav units stand up better than most in sustained meele? And did better meele stats affect their charge attack rating at all?

And you don't have to do any math for this one I am just looking for opinions.


- Phog

[Doug-Thompson]

How do you feel this compares to your orginal list and how is it superior?

It simply takes so many more factors into account. Whether it takes them into account correctly is what the debate should be all about. However, there is a rational basis for each of the estimates in Miracle's formula, at least.

I think the first, simple list overstated the value of cheap cavalry. Cheap cavalry make very good router chasers, but don't have the all-round value of the knight units. The second formula looks much closer to being right in my highly subjective judgement. For instance, notice how much lower Arab Cavalry is on this list. I love Arab Cavalry, but realize that it is successful largely because it ususally attacks units already softened up by Mamluk archers, at least in my campaigns in my campaign.

Having a mace may be overvalued in this formula. Or not.

The formula should include a discipline modifier. Also, I'm tempted to make "highly trained" a 1.1 modifier along with "very hardy," but need to hear from Miracle first.

BTW Royal Banderium are Hungarian Nobles I assume?

They are Hungarian, but a knight unit available in the Late era.

Just noticed Quapakulu are top of the list.. wow.

That's mainly because of their mace, and many other fine qualities.

=======

@Phog

I'll get back to your questions ASAP, but have to make some concessions to real life now.

[Shahed]

Fantastic. I think we may eventually have a new combat rating for all units ! But this is a great start.
I'm happy if we have it for cavalry only (lol).

[Foz]

Personally I think you can never arrive at the perfect and complete formula, specially given the criteria in the initial suggestion (terrain etc).

I definitely agree. One big problem with the concept is that the value of a unit is dependent on what you are using it for. Not only can most units perform in various roles (and not all players will utilize all possibilities for any given unit), but tactics comes into play as well. For instance if one favors HA tactics and the associated micro management, it could certainly be said that for him HAs likely have the best bang for buck. However if one is not inclined to use them, does not use them particularly well, or has stronger gameplay in other facets, then immediately the "bang per buck" of a HA unit is diminished. A good rating system across units with different possible roles is simply not going to happen because there is no common ground to base the "bang" part on, as each player's "bang" from each unit varies with their play skill and style.

As a further illustration of the role difference of units, consider two heavy cavalry examples. On the one hand there is the Mailed Knight - the other, the Norse War Cleric (listed as Armored Clergy). They both fall in the 7s category by the first method (OP), however most of the time I'd say Norse War Clerics are considerably better to have. They trade in the formed charge mechanic to instead get an AP melee attack, and 5 points more defense. That pretty much makes them a premier cav unit for survivability. That in turn means they are ideal as mobile flankers, and also for city fighting since they have stats that benefit them most in protracted melee. Mailed Knights on the other hand would be more of a hit and run type unit, as protracted melee gets very dangerous to them. Similarly they are at their worst in city streets, where crowding and tight corners usually break up any charge attempts. How can a rating system overcome such role differences? I don't believe it really can, since the matter is so subjective. I would instead recommend that a fair equation be determined for each tactical unit class - something like Light Cav, Heavy Cav, Light Ranged, Heavy Ranged. Instead of being by weight for ranged cav, I really intend the difference to be whether or not they are good for melee combat as well as ranged, since that is really where the tactical difference lies - Heavy should be understood to be melee-usable and include that as part of the rating, where Light Ranged would only include ranged combat related stats. I really do think an apples-to-apples comparison is the only way to get good information out of this idea, as the apples-to-oranges comparisons I was discussing earlier will always be tainted by which of the two each player likes more in the first place.

As an extension of that, then we won't have simply developed some kind of ranking of cavalry in general - we'll have ranked the cavalry from most to least bang for buck in each different tactical category, which could then actually help players decide on new factions to play based on what tactics are best suited to their style or preference.

[IrishArmenian]

Yeah the Italians can build Militia Cavalry too but only from Large Cities. To get a HB master's guild in the early/mid game you need to be able to build cavalry from Minor Cities.

No, you can get a small guild in a large city.

[Doug-Thompson]

Can't edit my posts yet *grumble* *grumble*

Never shoud have let my old username lapse....oh well.

Anyway! Question, in your research which Cav units stand up better than most in sustained meele? And did better meele stats affect their charge attack rating at all?

And you don't have to do any math for this one I am just looking for opinions.


- Phog

Foz is right. All these numbers will result in a cavalry guide that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each unit with the benefit of comments based on gameplayers' experiences with them. For now, I'd refer you to Foz' comments on Norse War Clerics, a unit for Denmark.

I thought about dividing units between categories — router pursuers, hit and run, hit and stay — but there are too many types. It would be better to look closely at the characteristics of each. If some categories become apparent after that, fine.

I'm not abandoning Miracle's formula, however. I think it provides a very valuable basis of comparison between similar units.

[Doug-Thompson]

One obvious thing was left out of the formula: Hitpoints. Bodyguard units and elephants have more than one hitpoint. This should double the score for bodyguards, for instance.

======

Phog:

You asked what the best cavalry was for sustained melee. One good indicator is: What units can survive it?

Here's the cavalry ranked by best overall defense stats, best to worse and excluding bodyguard units. Note the high rank of the Norse War Clerics.


Tsars_Guard
Norse War Clerics
Quapukulu
Royal_Mamluks
Conquistadores
Norman_Knights
Polish_Knights
Chivalric_Knights
Polish_Guard
Crusader_Knights
Noble_Knights
Christian_Guard
Teutonic_Knights
Knights_Hospitaller
Knights_of_Santiago
Knights_Templar
E_Chivalric_Knights
Serbian_Knights
Royal_Banderium
Huscarls
Lancers
Imperial_Knights
Kataphractoi
English_Knights
Portuguese_Knights
Feudal_Knights
Mercenary_Frankish_Knights
Armenian_Cavalry
Mercenary_German_Knights
Hussars
Serbian_Hussars
Gothic_Knights
Mamluks
Druzhina
Sipahi_Lancers
Latinkon
Gendarmes
Italian_Cavalry_Militia
Mercenary_Knights
Italian_MAA
Condottieri
Famiglia_Ducale
Polish_Retainers
Mailed_Knights
Granadine_Lancers
Merchant_Cavalry_Militia
Broken_Lances
Kwarizmian_Cavalry
Alan_Light_Cavalry
Byzantine_Lancers
Mounted_Sergeants
Arab_Cavalry
Elephants
Demi_Lancers
EE_Cavalry_Militia
Scouts
Albanian_Cavalry
Stradiots
Tuareg_Camel_Spearmen
Greek_Militia_Cavalry
Bedouin_Cavalry
Border_Horse
Hobilars

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: Missile resistance

One thing that's always interested me, the HA nut, is how well a unit survives missile attack.

Here's melee cavalry units, excluding bodyguards, ranked by Armor + Shield, best to worst. Note the really lousy showing for Kwarizmian Cavalry, which has lots of armor but no shield:


Mercenary_German_Knights
Quapukulu
Polish_Knights
Chivalric_Knights
Portuguese_Knights
Italian_MAA
Condottieri
Tsars_Guard
Armored_Clergy
Polish_Guard
Noble_Knights
Imperial_Knights
English_Knights
Mercenary_Knights
Greek_Bodyguard
Christian_Guard
NE_Bodyguard
Knights_of_Santiago
Knights_Templar
Lancers
Feudal_Knights
Latinkon
Merchant_Cavalry_Militia
Conquistadores
Norman_Knights
Crusader_Knights
Teutonic_Knights
Knights_Hospitaller
E_Chivalric_Knights
Serbian_Knights
Royal_Banderium
Kataphractoi
Mercenary_Frankish_Knights
Armenian_Cavalry
Gendarmes
Italian_Cavalry_Militia
Royal_Mamluks
Gothic_Knights
Polish_Retainers
Huscarls
Hussars
Serbian_Hussars
Sipahi_Lancers
Granadine_Lancers
Byzantine_Lancers
Mamluks
Druzhina
Famiglia_Ducale
Mailed_Knights
Broken_Lances
Mounted_Sergeants
EE_Cavalry_Militia
Scouts
Kwarizmian_Cavalry
Arab_Cavalry
Alan_Light_Cavalry
Demi_Lancers
Greek_Militia_Cavalry
Elephants
Border_Horse
Hobilars
Albanian_Cavalry
Stradiots
Tuareg_Camel_Spearmen
Bedouin_Cavalry

[Doug-Thompson]

Melee cavalry with an anti-armor bonus:

Albanian Cavalry
Armored Clergy
Druzhina
English Knights
Gothic Knights
Huscarls
Imperial Knights
Kataphractoi
Mamluks
ME Late Bodyguard
Mercenary German Knights
Quapukulu
Royal Mamluks
Stradiots
Teutonic Knights

CORRECTION: This post originally included Mercenary Knights. Mercenary German Knights have the bonus, but Mercenary Knights don't.

[Doug-Thompson]

Most devastating charge:

Lots of knight units have a devastating charge. Only two, however, have a top-flight charge and the most powerful mace with anti-armor bonus that's available for their secondary, melee attack. These are Gothic Knights and Teutonic Knights, and only the Teutonic knights have a defense value high enough to really get the value out of staying in the fight.

The maces for these two units also have a high enough base attack value to make them very worthwhile for killing non-armored units.

ME Late Bodyguard, Quapukulu, and Royal Mamluks have a slightly less powerful charge and an equally powerful mace for melee.

English Knights, Huscarls and Imperial Knights are the next ones down on the list in this particular category.

The result should be a powerful charge followed by serious rapid killing of what's left. If the charge doesn't break the opponent, the mace should.

Charge and charge again

"Pumping" by charging, withdrawing and charging again is a common tactic. For some units, it might be the best way to survive combat.

English Demi-Lancers are apparently the ultimate example of this. They have an excellent charge bonus and what is, by knight standards, poor defense because of their lack of a shield. Broken Lances are a little better.

Frustratingly, Gothic Knights are also less-than-great in the defense category. They need to stay in melee to get the benefit from having a mace, but don't have the defense for it.

And I still don't have figures for Mongols and Timurids.

[Shahed]

Great stuff !

[Guru]

Excellent!

-- Guru

[Phog]

Thanks for the info Doug.


- Phog

[Doug-Thompson]

[Edited consumer warning: Scrap this theory. Didn't work. See post #60.]


Alt-Charge

Miracle's formula gives a bonus of 3 to a unit with a secondary melee weapon that has an anti-armor bonus. That figure's pretty conservative when attacking the best units. If I understand correctly, having the bonus means that the opponent's armor is effectively halved. Armored swordsmen, for instance, have a base armor figure of 8, making the anti-armor bonus worth 4.

Even with that conservative figure of 3, there are still eight melee cavalry units that apparently should charge with their secondary weapon instead of their main spear when first attacking a well-armored unit. Here they are, in order of how much difference it should make:

Russian Druzhina
Mercenary Albanian Cavalry
Italian Stradiots
Byzantine Kataphractoi
Egyptian Mamluks
Turkish Quapukulu
Muslim factions' Late Bodyguard
Egyptian Royal Mamluks

Note that Norse War Clergy and Huscarls are honorary members of this category, since they don't have secondary weapons.

The margin with the conservative figure of "3" is so close on Gothic Knights, English Knights, German Imperial Knights, Mercenary German Knights and Teutonic Knights that Alt-Charging should get serious consideration against well-armored targets, at least until somebody with experience about this comments otherwise.

[Shahed]

Have'nt got M2 installed at the moment, or I would test it. You'd have to run a test e.g Armored Swordsmen vs Druzhina, just walk them in and see what happens. This would have to be performed against S&S, pikes, 2Hs and spears.

[Doug-Thompson]

You can't just walk them, though. You need a charge because the secondary weapon gets a charge bonus too.

[Shahed]

Sorry, I always say walk in when I mean don't lance charge.

[andrewt]

Just curious, what pushed Christian Guard to the top of the list. I've yet to get these in my Moors campaign but I've always thought of them as same price but a bit inferior to the order knights. I don't have the stats with me atm, though, so my recollection could be wrong.

That list just made me sadder that I got Qapaluku and Janissary musketeers too late in my Turkish campaign. I pretty much owned Egypt and Byzantine with Sipahis and crap. I finished Byzantines off with Janissary heavy infantry and Hashishim. I was mostly cleaning up when I got the Qapakulu and Janissary muskets and I only got to field a few of them in battle.

[Doug-Thompson]

Just curious, what pushed Christian Guard to the top of the list. I've yet to get these in my Moors campaign but I've always thought of them as same price but a bit inferior to the order knights.

Speed. Miracle's formula puts a big emphasis on speed. Christian Guard isn't fast, but the Order Knights are a bit slower.

[Doug-Thompson]

Hit and runners

Some units can charge in, kill a bunch of archers and then get away from pursuing knights. Here they are:



Truly fast melee cavalry

Albanian Cavalry
Stradiots
Alan Light Cavalry
Border Horse

Faster than Feudal Knights, body guards and Order knights

Christian Guard
Conquistadores
Norman Knights
Hussars
Serbian Knights
Serbian Hussars
Crusader Knights
Huscarls
Demi Lancers
Mamluks
Druzhina
Polish Retainers
Sipahi Lancers
Latinkon
Mailed Knights
Granadine Lancers
Mercenary Frankish Knights
Armenian Cavalry
Broken Lances
Italian Cavalry Militia
Byzantine Lancers
Mounted Sergeants
Arab Cavalry
Condottieri
Bedouin Cavalry
East European Cavalry Militia
Greek Militia Cavalry
Scouts
Merchant Cavalry Militia
Hobilars

[Foz]

Thank you Doug-Thompson that is exactly the kind of role-based ranking that I had in mind. It's really useful to have lists that tell you which units are best suited to what tasks. Perhaps you would want to go one step further and put the charts into a unit-by-unit format? Like, list a unit, and then give its rank overall in each of the role categories. From there you could assign colors to go with the ranks... like green for the best 1/3 of the units, yellow for the middle 1/3, red for the lower 1/3. So, basically the idea would be a unit guide, but instead of listing stats, you list different battlefield uses the unit might have, and list the unit's suitability to each task. Granted there will be a bit of subjective analysis, but you are likely very qualified to give it after compiling such detailed rankings of the various facets of the cav units. The green/yellow/red rank would then serve as a quick guide as to whether a unit is great at a given job, average, or poor, and IMO that format would be amazingly helpful to the most players. Perhaps it could be organized by faction, or eventually planned to be sortable by any category imaginable... but we can think about that after you decide if you'd like to pursue the Cavalry Tactical Use Field Manual in the first place. The name could be changed, but that one sounded good when it just came to me, so I had to blurt it out lol

[Doug-Thompson]

Thank you, Foz.

I'm probably going to write another unit guide and go by faction. It seems most players choose a faction rather than what unit they want to use. And even the ones who base their decisions on a unit they like are not going to be swayed by somebody else's "grade" for that unit.

[Doug-Thompson]

How much does mass matter? Are speed and mass truly offsetting, as has been suggested?

There are serveral units with a powerful charge and normal speed, but they all have a mass of 1.75 rather than the "heavy horse" mass of 2.

In this "fast for a knight" category, we have:

Moorish Christian Guard, mercenary Serbian Knights and English Demi-Lancers. All have the most powerful attack-with-charge available, but have less mass than the other "13 attack plus 8 charge bonus" cavalry.

Spanish and Portugese Conquistadores, Sicilian Norman Knights, Hungarian and Polish Hussars, mercenary Serbian Hussars along with Crusader Knights have very respectable "13+6" charge attacks and normal speed and, again, 1.75 mass.

Next come the "10+8" bunch: Polish Retainers, Latinkon and Broken Lances. Huscarls get mentioned here too because their 11+4 charge gets an anti-armor bonus. (That unit gets mentioned a lot. It's starting to intrigue me.)

Then there are three truly fast units: Albanian Cavalry, Stradiots and Alan Light Cavalry. They have even less mass — 1.25 — but greater speed and a primary attack + charge score of 16.

It's all downhill from there.

=======

I realize that this thread appears far afield from the original question of "combat value per florin," but a vital part of calculating price is knowing what you're paying for. For example, if a charge is faster, then there is less chance to avoid or disrupt it. That makes this particular question relevant. Also, assuming that basic physics are applied in this game, you get far more force out of increased velocity.

[Shahed]

Good work Doug. The way you've gone right into this is very admirable.

Well I can just tell you what I think, and it's not based on anything but playing.
I'm not sure velocity is greater than mass in this game. In fact I'm reasonably convinced it isn't.

[andrewt]

Well, I meant speed as in be able to manuever faster, charge faster then get out faster. I don't think speed gets a bonus to charge potency like mass does. When I meant offsetting, I meant the easiest units to flank and charge with also have the weakest mass bonus to their charge.

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: Alt-charge and speed

Ran some Russian Durzhina into some feudal knights again and again. Tried it with regular charge, then alt-charge. Alt-charge number were grim: Few survivors left in all but one case where the enemy captain was killed early. Grassy fields, normal-normal, etc.

There might be something to alt-charge against very heavily armored infantry, but for now consider it an unproven theory.

==========

As for speed, andrewt, I understand the distinction you're making: Giving the enemy less time to react, etc. I was just wondering about the other "physics-based" possibility.