View Full Version : Charge! The great cavalry debate.
Whilst the cut and thrust of historical opinion on 'The Myth of the Cavalry Charge' thread is quite absorbing it doesn't really help with the problem that exists in the MTW.
So I thought I'd try again and this time concentrate just on the gaming aspect of the problem rather its historical accuracy. After all the point has been made that MTW is not a wargame so we shouldn't really be worrying about historical accuracy anyway.
I am now on my second full campaign having completed Almohad Early. And having started English Early I am even more convinced that something needs to be done about the performance of cavalry in the game.
However, I am also convinced that the problem does not lie with the bonus given to spear/pike armed infantry or with the stats of the Cavalry themselves.
In my Almohad campaign the backbone of my infantry arm was the Almohad Urban Militia. These troops are sword armed and so (barring a bug) they do NOT attract a spear v cavalry bonus. And yet I found after, initial trepidation, that they could be relied upon to massacre any unit of Fuedal cavalry and could even be used attack cavalry frontally and defeat them. And they are not alone, the vast majority of non-peasant infantry can hold its own against cavalry and defeat it.
I have since been able to view the problem from the other side of the fence during a recent crusade to Antoich led by Prince Edward. My Knights Templars have been proving masters of the battlefield against the Turkish peasants and archer units they encountered in the border provinces performing the classic bulldozer charges with amazing success.
However, at Antioch they met two units of Saracen Infantry who I beleive are spear armed but were hidden behind their own peasants so I didn't notice them until too late. The knights rode over the peasants and routed them then smashed into the Saracen's and lost nearly half their number before I noticed what was happening and managed to extricate them. This despite the fact that the Saracens were advancing and were being mobbed by their own fleeing peasants. The knights did get their revenge later when the Saracen's were routed by my Feudal Sergeant's and got rode down to a man by the knights. However, I now only have 54 Knights left.
The impression I get is that there is a general problem in the game balance between Cavalry and Infantry rather than a limited issue between Spearmen and Knights. In fact if anything my experience with low valour bog standard spearmen 'see the Spearmen are Useless thread' suggests that they are extremely vulnerable to cavalry in the game and I have learnt the hard way not to rely on them to hold the line.
My opinion remains that the best way to improve the Cavalry v Infantry game balance is to penalise infantry when their formations are charged by cavalry whilst not stationery and on HOLD FORMATION.
The reason I favour this approach is two fold.
1. It favours all cavalry not just Knights and would reinforce their dominant role on the battlefield by making it extremely risky for enemy infantry to operate under threat from their charge. Thus a player with an infantry only army would be at a distinct disadvantage against a player/AI opponent with a mixed force. It would also encourage the almost standard cavalry v cavalry combat that tended to feature heavily during the opening phase of Medieval battles as both sides seek to drive off their opponents cavalry and gain the advantage. Thus adding a bit more interest to the battle game. Likewise the HOLD FORMATION condition would reduce the effectiveness of the infantry in stopping the cavalry breaking contact after an unsuccessful charge and therefore make it easier for players to extricate their horsemen after a failed charge and present the infantry player with an interesting dilema when faced with a mixed attack by enemy horse and infantry.
2. It adds tactical elements to the battle game that encourage good use of mixed troops. Beefing up the cavalry would encourage MP players to field cavalry only armies. But penalising the infantry only if caught on the move would encourage players to use missile and weak infantry units of their own to try and goad or disrupt the enemy line before committing their horse to the charge. The advantage being that if successful they are rewarded with the classic steamroller effect whereas if they try and charge the enemy cold they still suffer the same penalty they get at present.
I think such an adjust would greatly enhance the role of Cavalry on MTW without turning them into four-legged tanks. It would also add significantly to the tactical aspects of MP and SP battles forcing players to choose a mixed bag of troops and discourage rushes. Clever tactical deployment of cavalry could also be used to delay and pin the movement of the enemy army whilst your own moved into position creating interesting dilema's for players who don't invest in a cavalry arm.
Thus cavalry would dominate the battlefield arm without becoming unstoppable.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Very well...
I will support this vividly. Both ideas are great, and adds to a feeling of tactical ability should one win with the infantry. But still I don't like the anti-charge capability of spears.
Last night I experienced something that could be added to the AUM experience.
I had a unit of Feudal MAA (V1) alone (was lost from the main army fighting further up the line), facing it was a unit of Feudal Knights (I think it was V2)...
Seeing the knights charge at me, I briefly contemplated on doing a countercharge as usual to get the most of it, but I thought it over quickly and desided to put the MAA in Hold Formation as well.
The result was the knight's charge killed a few men, a lot less than normally, my men didn't really kill than many either. But I released the MAA to Engage and saw the knights get killed rapidly.
I lost 32 while the knights lost 29.
From now on I will put a unit in Hold if it is being charged and then release it afterwards....
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
The Yogi
10-25-2002, 17:42
Hear, hear!
This is the way to do it! Heavy cavalry will not win battles on their own, but they will help enourmously in winning the cavalry battle, thus pinning down the enemy infantry. Sound a lot like the way many historical battles went, like Rocroi or Lund. The previous cavalry engagement decided the outcome.
Now that I think about it, this would actually make archers and other ranged units more important in weakening the enemy as the battle become more of a stalemate.
Archers would be great for goading the enemy into charging. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Fearless
10-25-2002, 17:56
Okay!.........Great I go along with everthing that's been said. Now what can be done about it? Would this be an easy mod to do?
Strictly speakng on a gaming PoV...
1) The "bonus against cavalry" is much too widely present I think. There a third up to half of all the infantry units that has it, and it's subject to debate for most of them.
2) Not enough men in each cavalry unit. 20 to 40 is a joke when the infantry numbers from 60 to 100, especially considering that the cavalry is already overpriced.
3) Cavalry TIRE TOO EASILY ! I find totally absurd that a cavalry unit tire faster than an infantry units (not speaking about the special conditions, like in desert).
I think that adressing these three points would greatly enhance the effect of cavalry in the game, without imbalancing it.
Damn does that mean you dont want any historical arguments for improving cavalry http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
I can only agree..Cavalry needs to be improved. As it is right now I have to more careful where I send my cavalry when enemy infantry is around than the opposite.
If cavalry could stop the infantry rush that dominates the game now both missile units and cavalry will be more important.
Even if there is a huge gap between 2 enemy armies its nearly suicide to send in your all cavalry army and flank the enemy.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Whilst the cut and thrust of historical opinion on 'The Myth of the Cavalry Charge' thread is quite absorbing it doesn't really help with the problem that exists in the MTW.
So I thought I'd try again and this time concentrate just on the gaming aspect of the problem rather its historical accuracy. After all the point has been made that MTW is not a wargame so we shouldn't really be worrying about historical accuracy anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with almost all that you have said, both problem definition and solutions. In fact I think that there is only a small part of your statement that I do not agree with. When you say that "I'd try again and this time concentrate just on the gaming aspect of the problem rather its historical accuracy" you are not correct as in my opinion the solutions that you present really improve historical accuracy. That's precisely what I have been defending in the "Myth of the Cavalry Charge" thread. I think this is a great compromise between the cavalry lobby and infantry lobby. Lets join our voices and press the developers to perform these changes.
Cheers,
Antonio
very good points from Didz,
that has my unlimited support too
Quote Originally posted by Fearless:
Okay!.........Great I go along with everthing that's been said. Now what can be done about it? Would this be an easy mod to do?[/QUOTE]
Cant see it done by changing the unit stat file.Best thing to do is to convince the game designers to make a unit balance patch...oops said patch..omg said it again!!
CBR
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Cant see it done by changing the unit stat file.Best thing to do is to convince the game designers to make a unit balance patch...oops said patch..omg said it again!!
CBR
[/QUOTE]
Be careful... Shiro is watching, never know when he will strike... *looking around for suspicious people*
Of course this would make the game more historically correct, no doubt.
I am of the oppinion that is we make an non-historically correct change that changes the style to something more correct I'm all for it. It doesn't matter if the idividual units is a little wrong then, as long as the battle is played out as they were back then. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
So how do we convince the devs to support us???
See it is possible to not use the word 'patch'... GAAAHHH I just used the word 'patch'... GAHHHHH I just did it again!!!
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
Strictly speakng on a gaming PoV...
2) Not enough men in each cavalry unit. 20 to 40 is a joke when the infantry numbers from 60 to 100, especially considering that the cavalry is already overpriced.
3) Cavalry TIRE TOO EASILY ! I find totally absurd that a cavalry unit tire faster than an infantry units (not speaking about the special conditions, like in desert).
[/QUOTE]
Whilst NOT wanting to get into another ongoing battle with you over either of these points.
I don't actually agree with you on either.
2) IMO: The relative size of of a cavalry unit doesn't really matter. In fact I find the smaller 40 man units more useful because they give me much more tactical flexibility. A unit of 120 infantry (I use the Huge Unit setting) can only be facing in one direction so having two 40 man cavalry units actually gives me the option to pin with one whilst flanking with the other whereas an 80 man Knight unit would be limited to a frontal assault.
3) From personal experience I find that cavalry have far too much stamina. I'm afraid I have a habit of using Double-Click far too freely and so my cavalry tends to gallop back and forth all over the place. I do it because I can get away with it even though I know its wrong. By rights I ought to be conserving my cavalry's energy until the decisive opportunity to charge but I find that even with zero energy bars left I can still urge my cavalry into a gallop by frantic target clicking and so I abuse this freedom continuously. I would prefer to see a the energy bar of a cavalry unit almost empty after a single long charge or pursuit and an absolute ban on galloping once it is empty (except if routing). This would encourage players to conserve their cavalry far more than they do at present.
Just my opinion, in the meantime I shall continue the gallop all over the battlefield.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-25-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-25-2002).]
Juan Madsen
10-25-2002, 18:59
Didz,
I agree with you in your opening approach to this thread. The technical discussion about how the different weapons worked in the medieval era is really interesting but does not help in winning battles on MTW.
All around the forum I have read many times people complaining for the low performance of the calvary versus other troops. However, at my current level of experience with the game (25 - 30 battles fought aprox. in MTW but many, many dozens in STW) I do not entirely agree with this. My believe is that calvary does very well what it has to do.
I am currently playing my first serious campaign (started a couple first to see the mechanics of the game), as spanish, in early era.
I am a heart supporter of the combined arms solution when building an army. In fact I like very much to find a standart army or legion (as I like to call them) of 15 units, flexible enough to fight and win every kind of battle on the field. This was the approach I followed in Shogun with great success and so far, in MTW is going fine as well. This is possibly the reason why my thinking is different. Similarly to the roman legions I tend to construct armies were the infantry is the core weapon, and all the rest are on the field to support the infantry who in the end is who will gain or lost the ground.
For me calvary is doing fine in his role. A very important thing in this game is not to make a single arm so powerfull that renders all the other units useless and transforms the game in a match were the main objective is to build the core unit (say royal knights) to win all your opponents, which obviously would be poorer than you in such case.
I think the game has achived very well something that history has demonstrated many times, to achieve success on the battlefield you should combine weapons to create a flexible army. Despite all the complaints in the forum not much people have clearly admitted to have discarded the calvary as a combat unit, although arguments to do so abound in many, many threads and posts.
In my desing of a flexible army (of 15 units) calvary has a role. Tipically 4 of those units are calvary, 2 light and 2 heavy (or so heavy as I can built at least). So far I am very happy with the results. From the very beginning my approach to calvary units has been to use them as sound military theory stablished in the last century (XIX). According to these the main roles of calvary once the battle had commenced were:
- Exploration.
- Cover flanks.
- Reserve (of quick reaction).
- Interdiction and hit&run attacks.
- Explotation of weaknesses.
- Pursuit.
There may be more or someone may disagree with this list but the basic issue is quite correct. These are exactly the same roles I gave to my calvary on every army I build. Thus I hardly try to charge straight to the enemy lines with squadrons of heavy calvary. Yes, we are playing medieval war, but does that means we have to make the same errors?. Whoever that has read military history, and I can tell many of you have done, must recall that releasing the calvary was always a tremendous issue in a battle. When and were to do so has been an extremenly important decision for many generals in real battles. For one very reason, once you send them in full force most probably the success is complete... or the disaster is complete.
During a battle I play a lot with my four units of calvary in the roles described above. I never charged into well formed units. The punch of a calvary charge is tremendous but brief, very brief. Against solid, veterans troopers, they will most probably lose, because they will stand, with whatever weapons they have. But against a weak enemy line... aahhh, that is another history. You can still lose the bet, but on many occasions you will not. If the enemy troops are already demoralising, see their flanks are not protected, etc. the last thing they need is a wild charge of calvary.
Men matter most. Is not only about the weapons, is also about moral versus moral. Choose wisely were to launch the calvary, choose the righ moment, and you will most probably succeed. If not, the moment most problably was not correct or the punch was not strong enough (see below).
Apart from all this I had to accept that heavy calvary in the game could possibly perform weaker than they should. But possibly the problem is not only in the weapons, combact calculations, etc. my god, many good units have only 20 men, good men but 20. They may be elite, but certainly they are not an SAS or SEAL team.
The only use I have made of a royal knight unit has been a disaster, yes, a disaster. That is why my heavy calvary in the early phase of my game are the mounted sergeants, 66 per unit at my current setting. Two units charging make 132 men ridding widdly in flank of an enemy unit. To me these behave much better and results are good enough. I would like very much to hear other opinions on this point.
Finally, Didz, I think your point about putting the infantry in STAND possition is correct. Remenber the infantry squares of napoleonic warfare? I see equivalences of tactics and behaviour here.
------------------
men matter most
Quote Whilst NOT wanting to get into another ongoing battle with you over either of these points.[/QUOTE]
Not wishing a battle on this neither, but I still maintain that there is truth in my complaints ^^
Quote 2) IMO: The relative size of of a cavalry unit doesn't really matter. In fact I find the smaller 40 man units more useful because they give me much more tactical flexibility. A unit of 120 infantry (I use the Huge Unit setting) can only be facing in one direction so having two 40 man cavalry units actually gives me the option to pin with one whilst flanking with the other whereas an 80 man Knight unit would be limited to a frontal assault.[/QUOTE]
Tactically, that's true. But the fact is that 2x20 takes two slots in the battle, while 1x40 takes only one, allowing for another unit to be present. So for big battles, it reduces the number of soldiers.
Moreover, I consider that the price of cavalry units would be more balanced for a twice-sized unit comparatively to now (seriously, compare the 100 byzantine footsoldiers for 175 florins to the 20 royal knights for about 400 florins...).
Quote 3) From personal experience I find that cavalry have far too much stamina. I'm afraid I have a habit of using Double-Click far too freely and so my cavalry tends to gallop back and forth all over the place. I do it because I can get away with it even though I know its wrong. By rights I ought to be conserving my cavalry's energy until the decisive opportunity to charge but I find that even with zero energy bars left I can still urge my cavalry into a gallop by frantic target clicking and so I abuse this freedom continuously. I would prefer to see a the energy bar of a cavalry unit almost empty after a single long charge or pursuit and an absolute ban on galloping once it is empty (except if routing). This would encourage players to conserve their cavalry far more than they do at present.
Just my opinion, in the meantime I shall continue the gallop all over the battlefield.[/QUOTE]
?
We seem to have two very different experiences on battles then...
I noticed the stamina trouble way back when during one battle, I cornered the ennemy up to his own reinforcement area.
I called for reinforcement (which then had all the map to walk through until arriving to the fighting front).
Infantry would arrive with 3 fatigue bars left, while cavalry would arrive with 1 or 2 bars only.
So for the exact same distance at the exact same relative speed, my cavalry tired twice to three times faster.
I would also add that not every unit type should have HOLD FORMATION as an option. Only good, well trained units should be able to do it at all. The basic spearman unit I would not include.
Then this game would play out properly. Heavy cav would smash all but well trained infantry who maintain a defensive formation. Such dense formations could then suffer more from missle fire.
------------------
COGITOERGOVINCO
Quote Originally posted by Juan Madsen:
From the very beginning my approach to calvary units has been to use them as sound military theory stablished in the last century (XIX). According to these the main roles of calvary once the battle had commenced were:
- Exploration.
- Cover flanks.
- Reserve (of quick reaction).
- Interdiction and hit&run attacks.
- Explotation of weaknesses.
- Pursuit.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is that MTW is supposed to be a Medieval game. When I want to play Roman or Macedonian I prefer the Great Battles series for example. And I would prefer Fields Of Glory or Battalia for the Napoleonic era. For most of the Middle Ages armoured cavalry was not used Exploration and just to Cover flanks. It was the main shock troop used to attack the enemy in the main stages of battle.
As you say, keeping MTW as it is is fine for those who want to play Roman... Not for those who want to play Medieval.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
Tactically, that's true. But the fact is that 2x20 takes two slots in the battle, while 1x40 takes only one, allowing for another unit to be present. So for big battles, it reduces the number of soldiers.
Moreover, I consider that the price of cavalry units would be more balanced for a twice-sized unit comparatively to now (seriously, compare the 100 byzantine footsoldiers for 175 florins to the 20 royal knights for about 400 florins...)
[/QUOTE]
The problem is that in SP you have the 960 men limit..there 20 cav units can be useful if you have many 100 men units and you still want to have 16 units. In MP you dont have that limit. Dont know why the designers have done that.
And yes cost of cavalry is insane.. I base that on both historical wages and what miniature wargaming has for costs of different troop types. If I compare the worst infantry (I leave out peasants and just take basic spearmen) with the best cavalry then Lancers should cost about 400-500 florins. That ofc means lots of other non cav units should go down too.. Swiss armoured pikemen should be 350 florins or something.
The problem is that if you want to play MP battles with some heavy units you cant really play with low florins amounts and with the higher amounts suddenly you can give lots of valour to all the cheap infantry units. Thats not balanced.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by Nelson:
I would also add that not every unit type should have HOLD FORMATION as an option. Only good, well trained units should be able to do it at all. The basic spearman unit I would not include.
Then this game would play out properly. Heavy cav would smash all but well trained infantry who maintain a defensive formation. Such dense formations could then suffer more from missle fire.
[/QUOTE]
mmm... My interpretation is that the "spearmen" unit is a kind of Urban Militia but armed with spears instead of polearms. In this way it would have basic training and the men would at least know that they should keep together.
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
mmm... My interpretation is that the "spearmen" unit is a kind of Urban Militia but armed with spears instead of polearms. In this way it would have basic training and the men would at least know that they should keep together.
Antonio [/QUOTE]
Yes I see it the same way. Same low armour (1) and same low morale (0)
And if they are turned into a crap unit against cavalry no one would use them as they wouldnt be good for anything really.
CBR
Coeur De Lion
10-25-2002, 19:36
another HUGE post erm to be honest i couldnt be botherd to read it all and i read half http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
but i think cavary should be better like them heavy knight should easily kill all foot soilders on a charge even spearmen but arfter they have hit they should slighly loose.
------------------
Coeur De Lion
Juan Madsen
10-25-2002, 19:37
Quote Originally posted by Nelson:
I would also add that not every unit type should have HOLD FORMATION as an option. Only good, well trained units should be able to do it at all. The basic spearman unit I would not include.
Then this game would play out properly. Heavy cav would smash all but well trained infantry who maintain a defensive formation. Such dense formations could then suffer more from missle fire.
[/QUOTE]
I fully agree with this. Only trained veteran units should be able to receive such order. To "stand" should be an ability certains can have. Since this units would gain this ability through hard training this should affect the cost of the unit.
------------------
men matter most
I find your whining about exhaustion of cav units surprising. Alan Merc Cav will tire much slower than any other Heavy Cav, I mean come on, Heavy Cav is labeled as Heavy! They have so much armor and weapons on them its diffucult to see how the horses dont tire at all just from trotting. My Alan Merc Cav had 3 energy bars by the time my Khwarazmian Cav was exhausted. Considering after the 2 charges they had made (they were in the same group) I find nothing surprising, yet you complain how horsies tire so fast and are useless. If you dont like that buy lighter Cav instead.
[This message has been edited by MF_Ivan (edited 10-25-2002).]
Dear all
It seems that we are doing the worst that knights can do in a battle: to disperse.
Didz has made a few proposals that would really improve things. These proposals are in my opinion relatively simple to implement. As I see that the big majority of people agree with those proposals, lets not disperse asking for things that not everyone agrees with and which require deep changes in the game engine. Lets use this thread for the purpose with which Didz has created it. Lets join our voices (fingers? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif) to support Didz's changes.
Antonio
which was:
My opinion remains that the best way to improve the Cavalry v Infantry game balance is to penalise infantry when their formations are charged by cavalry whilst not stationery and on HOLD FORMATION.
couldn't agree more...
------------------
http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif
Juan Madsen
10-25-2002, 19:48
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
The problem is that MTW is supposed to be a Medieval game. When I want to play Roman or Macedonian I prefer the Great Battles series for example. And I would prefer Fields Of Glory or Battalia for the Napoleonic era. For most of the Middle Ages armoured cavalry was not used Exploration and just to Cover flanks. It was the main shock troop used to attack the enemy in the main stages of battle.
As you say, keeping MTW as it is is fine for those who want to play Roman... Not for those who want to play Medieval.
[/QUOTE]
I was trying to give recommendations on the use of calvary in MTW, and on battle tactics. Not comparing games or ages.
I agree that, during certain time, armoured calvary was the equivalent or tanks today. Their main use was to give a terrible punch at the enemy lines at the right moment and at the right place. This is true.
The heavy calvary units in MTW can do this, but not if you launch four units totalling 80 royal knights to break a solid line of more than 1.000 men.
------------------
men matter most
Lord of the Isles
10-25-2002, 20:03
I agree with Didz, both in that gameplay is more important to me than strict historical accuracy, and that cavalry needs some adjustment to be able to better compete with infantry.
This was brought home to me last night when I defended Egypt in an SP game, Expert, Early, GA with an Almohad army of 1300 odd (1 Arbalesters, 6 Desert Archers, 4 Muwahid Foot, 2 AUM, 2 Ghazi Inf, 2 Berber Camels, 3 Saharan Cav, 2 Ghulam Bodyguards + a few others) against an Egyptian invasion of 5300. When I reached the battleground (Desert, a corner hill to defend) I found the Egyptians were a 90% cavalry army! And *good* quality cavalry too: lots of Armenian Heavy Cav, Mamluk, Ghulams with some Camels and Saharan Cav thrown in.
I didn't expect to last long once my archers had run out of arrows, so I turned off Fire at Will early and conserved ammunition. Even then all but the Arbalesters were out of ammo after the second wave (I like to keep at least one arbalester unit for defense even in the desert. They become exhausted quickly but even an occasional volley can tip an enemy unit into running away sometimes).
But the green bar held at around 6 times the red one. My Muwahid Foot in particular, but all infantry, were killing those cavalry at an astonishing rate, with minimal losses. My General was 6 star with just one V+V relevant to battle: +2 valour. I had a good army but not superhuman. The Egyptian King was in command, 5 star with no awful Vices or great Virtues.
I eventually broke and routed when down to about 100 men (with about another 300-400 troops, mostly archers, having been withdrawn and replaced. And I almost made it: the deciding point was that the last wave was infantry (some Sacarens, Abyssinian Guards, Nubians in there) which killed more than any cavalry wave had done. I retreated to the Castle with losses of 745, while the Egyptians lost 3400 killed (!) including 700 captives that I butchered (Gah! Head Soup! Gah!).
I may have lost the battle, but given the cost to the Egyptian economy of those 3400 troops, I consider it a victory. And it was just too easy: despite the computer AI attacking fairly directly (just a small amount of the parading-up-and-down in front of my line syndrome) and despite the decent quality of the enemy troops (I killed the Egyptian King on the first wave but very few enemy units ran away quickly in succeeding waves).
I enjoyed the battle mind you, more so than any other defeat I've suffered. Kudos to CA for the fun I had and at least the computer won in the end. But I was amazed at how many losses the cavalry army took. They should have won with fewer IMHO.
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
So how do we convince the devs to support us???
[/QUOTE]
By putting up more and more theads about cavalry (good work Didz) http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
I've said it earlier I think...if we keep bombarding the devs about the problems and also possible solutions based on lots of good arguments from history to game balance and fun then they cant ignore it.
Right now Im more in the mood of just wait for that patch and see the effect of the changes as cavalry will be cheaper..after that its time to mentally prepare the dev to make a unit balance patch http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
hmm said the p word again sorry
CBR
Juan Madsen
10-25-2002, 20:13
1.- I do not think major changes have to be done and if any this has to be very carefully decided.
2.- I am completely sure that the designers though a lot before releasing the game as it now.
3.- Even a small, not well meditated change, can possibly have side effects on developments of the battles, and create a different problem.
4.- Calvary should be used wisely.
5.- There should not be "too good" units, this will create imbalances in the game.
6.- Of all the talking I have seen on the forum about this topic I only support two suggestions:
a) some calvary units POSSIBLY should have more men.
b) the stand order POSSIBLY should be available to certain elite infantry units.
Both points will have an enormous effect without the need to go and redesing all the units of the game.
Comments please.
------------------
men matter most
And my opinion is based on MP experience only really (3-400 battles or something) as I have only played one SP campaign on GA as Byz. Left all Kataphraktoi at home.. a few horsearchers to kill routers was the only cav I had IIRC..lots of nice infantry and some archers was what I used in most battles.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by Juan Madsen:
1.- I do not think major changes have to be done and if any this has to be very carefully decided.
2.- I am completely sure that the designers though a lot before releasing the game as it now.
3.- Even a small, not well meditated change, can possibly have side effects on developments of the battles, and create a different problem.
4.- Calvary should be used wisely.
5.- There should not be "too good" units, this will create imbalances in the game.
6.- Of all the talking I have seen on the forum about this topic I only support two suggestions:
a) some calvary units POSSIBLY should have more men.
b) the stand order POSSIBLY should be available to certain elite infantry units.
Both points will have an enormous effect without the need to go and redesing all the units of the game.
Comments please.
[/QUOTE]
I think that the number of men in cavalry units is Ok. That is not the problem. The problem is one of tactical principle. Right now infantry is able to win in situations where it could not in reality. This makes me prefer the hex-based Medieval 2 as a medieval tactical game. MTW could have joined the best of tactics with the best of fun and the best of graphics. Right now it is unhistorical as a tactical game, it is not fun because people end up with the same bizarre unit combinations (in fact no combination at all) to achieve victory and (specially in MP games), and graphics could be a little better (though I don't care much for graphics compared to tactics).
I don't know how much MP experience you have. Right now if you choose your Roman-style balanced army and another player (in MP) chooses a spearmen-only army you are doomed to defeat. Why? Because your enemy's Speamen will be able to chase your archers, will outnumber and present better weapons/armour/valour than your infantry and your cavalry won't be able to attack the flanks as spearmen on the wings wheel too fast and can even charge while being charged.
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by Juan Madsen:
Comments please.
[/QUOTE]
I dont mind that spears defeats most cavalry while standing still on hold formation. That is not the problem. The problem is that they defeat cavalry while walking or running too and if hit by cavalry in the flank/rear the effect is not big enough..only if the infantry unit is already engaged in combat then its good.
The effect of that is cavalry alone is never really a threat and you can move your infantry army whenever your want and suddenly cavalry is merely a very expensive flanker unit.
Oh yes in MP you can win with an all cavalry army if your opponents doesnt have any spear/pikes units at all.. and it happens once in a while...but just a few spears and the all/mostly cavalry army is in serious problems.
CBR
Mori Gabriel Syme
10-25-2002, 21:06
Didz,
I support your solution whole-heartedly! It would indeed encourage a mixed-troop approach & allow battles to be fought in a more historical manner. Good thinking.
------------------
Others enslave by victory,
Their subjects, as their foes, oppress;
Anna conquers but to free,
And governs but to bless. -- Edmund Smith (Anna stands for England)
Ok, less talk, more action.
Can we all agree that heavy cav are not supposed to guard te flanks and scout, but fight and possibly fight in the middle? Good!
Didz ideas are great and should get all the support we can gather.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Ok, less talk, more action.
Can we all agree that heavy cav are not supposed to guard te flanks and scout, but fight and possibly fight in the middle? Good!
Didz ideas are great and should get all the support we can gather.
[/QUOTE]
I think that Didz was able to join all those who seemed to be in disagreement at the "Myth of the Cvalry Charge" thread. In fact we all agree that heavy cavalry must be powerful enough to be used as a main shock troop. Our only disagreement concerned the extent of this concept, i.e. the situations that would favour or hinder this role of heavy cavalry.
Didz proposals are a good compromise and MTW would be much better if they were implemented.
Antonio
GAH!
The solution is simple! Reinstate the 960 limit in MP battles. That means, the most spear units you can get is 9!
That way, cav units in an army can mean more units than the enemy, giving cav units greater ability to hit without worrying about being shadowed by a linebacker...
The other suggestions sound good too. But, Vanya thinks this alone would make great strides in the right direction...
GAH!
Nial Black Knee
10-25-2002, 23:39
Combined arms, make all your seperate units more effective including Hvy cav. Id just like them to rework the stats of templars.
I don't mind the lower charge but then they should have a better melee. Say something
like 5/6/6 being charge/melee/def. Charge stays 5 melee goes up to 6 to reflect their
dependence and exclusive use of the sword.
Defence goes to 6 to reflect that they always have their shield in front. What do you think?
Well Templars have a chargebonus of 4...
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Soapyfrog
10-26-2002, 00:04
CBR: There is no 960 man limit in single player.
You can field 16 100 man units in one battle for 1600 men.
Vanya is right, if there WERE a 960 man limit, that would actually make cavalry more useful.
Nial Black Knee
10-26-2002, 00:30
KRAXIS Yea your right, sorry, Forgot allready changed mine and looked in the wrong file. But sans that what do think?
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 00:56
Antonio: I dont know how much you know about Medieval Warfare, but evidently its ver little. The Knights WERE the shock troops of the day. The whole point of the big, heavy, knights were to tear apart enemy formations. Do you think they wore 100 lb suits of armor for decoration? Secondly, the ENTIRE problem with units not being balanced is the insane concept CA is doing by making Cav units smaller than spear units. The eintire game is fucked up because spear units are so huge and cheap. In fact if you add up the cost its quite possible to build nearly 1000 spearman for the cost of one heavy knight unit of only 80 guys. CA is trying to do the opposite of Shugon by making Cav not as powerful. I'm really suprised by CA because apparently they know very little about Medieval Warfare as well - the advantage spearman had against Cav had nothing to do with numbers - it was purely tactical (Scots schiltrons). The answer here is simple - give every unit the smae number of men - also I'm tired of playing these small dinky battles with less than 1000 guys - what happened to the "epic battles with more than 10,000 men" that I so looked forward to when reading it on the box? With units such as knights having 200 men possible units will be more balanced and we'll get bigger battles.
querulously
10-26-2002, 01:10
I disagree, frequently knights would come along with vast numbers of supporting troops - who would then not actually fight ! because the knights would fight it out knight to knight.
The relative numbers of knights is not the problem, the problem is the willingness and ease with which we can deploy the other ranks, few of which would be even semi-professional soldiers. There is also the mental problem in that we know the answer to enemy knights is trained spear using units but many medieval factors mitigated against this:
The knights saw themselves as the super unit, they acted on this and so they continued to be this
The army commander pretty much had to use the knights in the leading role (sometimes to a crazy degree) as this was expected
The troops turning up did so as small detachments each led by the knights responsible for bringing them. The knights could cohere to a degree because of historical example and class loyalty/competition but the subsidiary units formed into their respective unit types would be very frustrating to try to use if they were to behave historically in the game
The lesser unit types were considerably less keen to do battle than the knights (depending on circumstance).
Players can and do plan the composition of their armies in a way that was historically impossible.
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 01:27
Yea, your right to some extent. Howeer, the numbers are a problem. In many 100 years war battles the French managed to amass nearly 10,000 knights and only 10,000 peasants. In other words, knights were the backbone of Medieval armies. Also, the Knight could smash anything in his/its path if PROPERLY led. They had inherent disadvantages too - tire quickly, impetous, etc.
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
Tactically, that's true. But the fact is that 2x20 takes two slots in the battle, while 1x40 takes only one, allowing for another unit to be present. So for big battles, it reduces the number of soldiers.
[/QUOTE]
I must admit I had not thought of that but presumably you are talking about MP games. In SP games its not really an issue as the new reinforcement system handles this pretty well.
I tend to start the battle missile and infantry heavy and have the cavalry on the reinforcement list. That way once the missile troops run out of ammo and the peasants have been massacred the cavalry start turning up just in time to run down the last of the enemy.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
Antonio: I dont know how much you know about Medieval Warfare, but evidently its ver little. The Knights WERE the shock troops of the day. The whole point of the big, heavy, knights were to tear apart enemy formations. Do you think they wore 100 lb suits of armor for decoration? Secondly, the ENTIRE problem with units not being balanced is the insane concept CA is doing by making Cav units smaller than spear units. The eintire game is fucked up because spear units are so huge and cheap. In fact if you add up the cost its quite possible to build nearly 1000 spearman for the cost of one heavy knight unit of only 80 guys. CA is trying to do the opposite of Shugon by making Cav not as powerful. I'm really suprised by CA because apparently they know very little about Medieval Warfare as well - the advantage spearman had against Cav had nothing to do with numbers - it was purely tactical (Scots schiltrons). The answer here is simple - give every unit the smae number of men - also I'm tired of playing these small dinky battles with less than 1000 guys - what happened to the "epic battles with more than 10,000 men" that I so looked forward to when reading it on the box? With units such as knights having 200 men possible units will be more balanced and we'll get bigger battles.[/QUOTE]
Richard: Lets not restart the historical debate on this thread. Its still raging on the 'The Myth' thread if you want to pitch in.
This thread was intended merely to look at game play regardless of what may or may not be historically accurate.
Cheers
Didz
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 02:03
I see your point Didz. But MTW battles are fairly realistic - in terms of morale and troop placement. Its a little odd some players liken this to a myth game of goblins and big red dragons when its most obviously geared right down the road of historical accuracy. In fact with a few fixes MTW could become quite an egine of simulation - the real time battles are already good and have alot of possibility for a battle simulation. If you believe this game was designed as another "myth" or D and D game your mistaken. This game was geared right down the road of historical accuracy and has succeeded in many ways, and its failings can easily be corrected in a patch or expansion. PS sorry I couldnt cut and paste your comments I'm new here!
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 02:05
I see your point Didz. But MTW battles are fairly realistic - in terms of morale and troop placement. Its a little odd some players liken this to a myth game of goblins and big red dragons when its most obviously geared right down the road of historical accuracy. In fact with a few fixes MTW could become quite an egine of simulation - the real time battles are already good and have alot of possibility for a battle simulation. If you believe this game was designed as another "myth" or D and D game your mistaken. This game was geared right down the road of historical accuracy and has succeeded in many ways, and its failings can easily be corrected in a patch or expansion. PS sorry I couldnt cut and paste your comments I'm new here!
I would like to point out the fact that if you test same sized (lets say 100 vs 100 or 200 vs 200, etc), valour 0 units against each other then it turns out that they are "well balanced". That is, heavy cavalry beats any infantry except elite "anit-cavalry units" (like pikemen, chiv.sergeants, etc.). It is the unit size and unit cost that ruins this balance. So, while I agree with Didz's proposal the simplest solution would be to increase the size of cavalry units lets say from 40 to 60. This would not make the cavalry invincible (try it out if you dont trust me http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif ), but at least would make them worth to buy as shock troops.
PS. Richard, use the fourth button (with the red arrow) over the posts to quote the post.
[This message has been edited by Cheetah (edited 10-25-2002).]
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 02:32
I agree with you completely Cheetah. They should simply do it like in STW - all units the same size, so its up to the players decision if they should build more of one unit or the other. Unfortunately I think cav were "good" in STW so CA decided to try something different with MTW. All you have to do to create balanced units isnt to mess around with unit size but to mess around with unit FACTORS.
Michael the Great
10-26-2002, 02:43
Wow! that's all I CAN say....
Why r u people talking on these methods when it's clear that we need the charge 2 be MUCH more realistic...I mean,why can I mow down only archers with cav,why do spearmen resisit even from thy flank?
"Breaking formations" must be a much more clear thing...why don't sword units get breaken more easily by cav?
Remember,the charge bonus was is Shogun too,but it happened very rarely 2 actually break an enemy formation...
Sheeshhh.....
Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
CBR: There is no 960 man limit in single player.
You can field 16 100 man units in one battle for 1600 men.
Vanya is right, if there WERE a 960 man limit, that would actually make cavalry more useful.[/QUOTE]
ermm are we playing the same game then? At least in my campaigns I have two limits for my armies: the 16 units limit and the 960 men limit.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
I see your point Didz. But MTW battles are fairly realistic - [/QUOTE]
I agree. But we have it on record from the developers that MTW is not modelled on historical research.
As LongJohn made clear it isn't a wargame it is a Strategy Game based on a Medieval theme. From that point of view there is no reason why it shouldn't include Dragons however, with a bit of tweaking I agree it could produce an accurate model I Medieval warfare.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 03:46
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz:
[B] I agree. But we have it on record from the developers that MTW is not modelled on historical research.
Thats a little suprising, since the MTW battles are quite accurate in some respects. Its also suprising since with a little research they can make both a historical simulation and historical game. In my terms its a wargame, a wargame is anytime its a game and theres war. A "simulation" might be a better term, but I understand what you mean. I mean, the engines there, the inspirations there, lets put it together and make the ultimate Medieval experience!
Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
Unfortunately I think cav were "good" in STW so CA decided to try something different with MTW.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean by "good".
IMO: The only real difference between MTW and STW cavalry is that in STW you know you have to keep your cavalry away from Yari's (spearmen) but can be reasonably sure of beating any other type of infantry except perhaps high honour Warrior Monks and Naginata.
In that respect the tactical limitations of cavalry are much easier to cope with and the Rock, Paper, Scissors principle is much more straightforward to apply.
The big difference in MTW is the preponderance or armour clad none spear infantry which seems to have thrown the Rock, Paper, Scissors system out of kilter. Even armour clad crossbow men can be difficult to beat with cavalry in MTW.
So in MTW you can't rely upon your cavalry beating non-spear infantry because there are a number of other variables to consider. The shear diversity of Infantry and cavalry troops types also makes things more complicated.
So the old principle of keep cavalry away from the Yari is no longer enough.
Nobody is concerned about spearmen beating cavalry on STW because it doesn't throw the game out of balance. There are plenty of other juicy targets for you to aim your cavalry at such as Warrior Monks, Samurai Archers and No-Dachi which though powerful are lightly armoured and so you still get the impression that cavalry were worth the koku. (although personally I only ever bother with Yari Cavalry in my games)
I think the current spear v cavalry debate is being fueled by the frustation we all feel that MTW cavalry does not have a clear tactical role. There are just too few targets for them amongst the mix of armoured and long arm equipped infantry. They seem impotent. Plus I have to note that the AI is much better at targeting cavalry with spear armed infantry in MTW than it is in STW.
I was amazed to notice in a recent Crusader battle in Syria that the AI deliberately detached a unit of Numidian Spearmen in a wider sweep around my position specifically to charge my reserve cavalry line. Nice gamesmanship by the AI but total crap from a historical perspective.
That sort of thing doesn't seem to happen in STW so cavalry have a much easier time.
This is why I think MTW cavalry need their tactical role reinforced by the addition of a 'Cavalry Freeze' factor on opposing infantry. It probably should have been included in STW too but didn't seem important because the game worked without it.
It will certainly be needed for any games based upon later historical periods.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote This is why I think MTW cavalry need their tactical role reinforced by the addition of a 'Cavalry Freeze' factor on opposing infantry. [/QUOTE]
Usually, the less you tweak with the game engine, the better it is, because you don't enter new parameters in the equation.
So I would not really agree with a "freeze factor".
I would prefer to modify the units with the actual tools we have.
Quote I must admit I had not thought of that but presumably you are talking about MP games. In SP games its not really an issue as the new reinforcement system handles this pretty well.[/QUOTE]
Mmh, no, in fact I never played in MP, only SP http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
The reinforcement can bring more units on the battlefield, but still you have to withdraw your unit and wait for the fresh one to enter. And you can't know which one will come for sure (unless you use a very tedious way of cycling through all the units at the starting of the battle). So I still consider it annoying, and I prefer to have my "good army" right on the start.
Quote I would like to point out the fact that if you test same sized (lets say 100 vs 100 or 200 vs 200, etc), valour 0 units against each other then it turns out that they are "well balanced". That is, heavy cavalry beats any infantry except elite "anit-cavalry units" (like pikemen, chiv.sergeants, etc.). It is the unit size and unit cost that ruins this balance. So, while I agree with Didz's proposal the simplest solution would be to increase the size of cavalry units lets say from 40 to 60. This would not make the cavalry invincible (try it out if you dont trust me ), but at least would make them worth to buy as shock troops. [/QUOTE]
Wholefully agree.
Prices/support and battle effectiveness seem to me to already be scaled for a universal 100-soldiers units.
Perhaps a 60 or 80 for cavalry, and 80 or 100 for infantry, but no more differences.
I think that just putting all units at 100 men and removing the "bonus vs cavalry" to some units would greatly improve the balance.
On a side note, I think that arguing "less realism but more gameplay/balance" is a little stupid. As no one was able to conquer the world, I bet that there was never a perfect and invincible army. As no one stayed invulnerable and as any new weapons/tactic was eventually countered, I think that in fact, reality/history was VERY balanced, and so the more realist the game, the more balanced.
In my opinon to improve cavalry. Take away the anity charge bonus that infatry units have when they are charged in the flank or rear. Pikeman should be the only unit really that has high anti charge bonus and only from the front. Also it would be good if units such as chiv/sharg's (eliet spare units) had an anti charge bonus but not every time so that some times the charge broke through and some times it didnt depending on morale and may be a 5% random value as well. Also cav charges should be able to in a wedge formation be able to break long thin formations such as the default layout for men-at-arms 2/4 rows deep. I am not saying all the time but have the ability their for the charge to really hit home when circumstances call for it. The business of spareman chargeing cavalry and holting a cav charge in its place has to stop it is stupid and totally unrealistic.
Cheers Vlad007
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why I think MTW cavalry need their tactical role reinforced by the addition of a 'Cavalry Freeze' factor on opposing infantry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually, the less you tweak with the game engine, the better it is, because you don't enter new parameters in the equation.
So I would not really agree with a "freeze factor".
I would prefer to modify the units with the actual tools we have.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know enough about the game engine to comment on whether the concept of a "Cavalry Freeze" factor would involve major changes to the programming.
However, the impression I get from actually watching the combat is that there a mechanism already in place that creates a similar effect.
I have certainly seen units apparently refuse to move forward under certain circumstances which suggests that there is a mechanism the monitors a units tactical situation and uses it to override its orders and control its movement. There must also be some routine that detects the close proximity of camels to horses and spears to cavalry in order to impose the necessary adjustments.
If such a processes exist to do that then it ought to be possible to tweak those same routines to determine whether an infantry unit is being threatened by Cavalry and either override its movement orders and force to to halt and face the threat or impose a morale penalty on it until the player halts it themselves and puts it into a defensive stance.
In short I suspect that the 'Cavalry Freeze' concept can be acheived using the tools we already have.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Hakonarson
10-27-2002, 04:20
Quote Originally posted by Juan Madsen:
Finally, Didz, I think your point about putting the infantry in STAND possition is correct. Remenber the infantry squares of napoleonic warfare? I see equivalences of tactics and behaviour here.
[/QUOTE]
I can't resist this... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
At Botrodino a battlaion of the Russian Lithuanian Guard insquare CHARGED the French cavalry!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Remember everythign is relative - in Napoleonic times squares could move jsut as fast as lines (the thing that slowed infantry down was the need to stop to dress ranks every so often - columns moved "faster" because they had less need to stop).
A square caught on the move would probably be ridden down just like any other unprepared infantry, but a square could stop and turn outwards very quickly.
The Austrians and Rusians used "Battalion masse" formations to make use of this - a battalion in column threatened by cavalry would stop and turn outweards - the ranks would not be in "correct order" by the old drill book, but they would still present a continuous front with no flant.
As to teh rest of the suggestion - it gets my vote - but let's also increase the morale penalties for haveing enemy to, or being attacked in, flank and/or rear please??
Because I think changing teh combat factor side of thing is only half the problem.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
I can't resist this... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
At Botrodino a battlaion of the Russian Lithuanian Guard insquare CHARGED the French cavalry!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif[/QUOTE]
I find this very hard to believe, do you have any sources?
Whilst, it's true that troops in a square could move and change position and could even do it when threatened by cavalry many of the examples of cavalry breaking squares occured as a direct result of the square trying to do exactly that and so it was normally only done as an act of desperation.
At Waterloo two Hanoverian squares did successfully move forward in order to force the French Cavalry to move back beyond the sunken lane and prevent French skirmishers using it as cover to snipe at them and some accounts refer to this as a charge although in fact it was a steady shuffle and nobody actually came into contact.
In order to move a square has to break formation and open its ranks the manouevres for doing so are drilled and cannot be changed merely to suit the circumstances. Thus the square becomes an open column which is vulnerable to cavalry.
However, Austrian and Russian infantry did use another formation which the Austrians called a Battalion Mass which might have allowed a more rapid advance as it is was basically a very tightly packed closed column rather than a square in which the lateral intervals were rapidly filled by file closers if the it was approached by cavalry. It was designed to combat the light Turkish horsemen that the Austrians faced on their eastern borders.
To an untrained eye such a formation would undoubtedly be called a square, but it wasn't. As for infantry actually charging cavalry, well I have only heard of two confirmed incidents in the entire Napoleonic War of infantry actually crossing bayonets with anything let alone a force of Cavalry and one of those was an accident.
I'd be interested to read your source material as I haven't come across it myself.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
I can't resist this... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
At Botrodino a battlaion of the Russian Lithuanian Guard insquare CHARGED the French cavalry!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
[/QUOTE]
Came across this except in an account by Baron Lejeune but I'm not sure if it relates to the incident you cite.
The Russian artillery from the big central redoubt continued, however, to work terrible havoc in our ranks, which had advanced so boldly within range of it, and the Emperor saw the great importance of getting possession of it. Orders were therefore sent to General Gerard, whose infantry was at the base of the height on which was the redoubt, to take it by assault, whilst King Murat was instructed to support Gerard's attack with a numerous body of cavalry. The manoeuvre was admirably executed, and our infantry, supported by Caulaincourt's cuirassiers and pontonniers, penetrated into the entrenchments.
General Kutusoff, however, who looked upon this redoubt as the key of his position, immediately pointed 100 pieces of cannon upon us, hoping by that means to drive us back, whilst a considerable column of picked Russian grenadiers, who had been hidden at 'the bottom of a ravine behind the redoubt, advanced to attack us. In the struggle the wind, which was blowing strongly, raised clouds of dust, which mingled with the smoke from the guns was whirled up in dense masses, enveloping and almost suffocating men and horses. When at last the thick clouds, augmented every moment by the fury of the combat raging on every side, rolled away, we found that the column of Russian grenadiers had been driven back into the ravine, and that we were masters of the redoubt where the artillerymen had been cut down at their guns.
It about the nearest I have come across to infantry trying to attack a position occupied by cavalry.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
I support Didz solution completely. Cavalry should massacre infantry on the move!
muffinman14
10-28-2002, 01:53
the only calvary that I put in the middle of a battle are Chivilric Knights and Gothic Knights.
The Yogi
10-28-2002, 02:13
I don't think any examples of the Napoleonic era or indeed any other post- or pre-medieval examples are relevant.
Lets face it, the period from the Battle of Adrianople (376 AD) until the Battle of Nancy (1477 AD) is the "Dark Ages" of infantry.
During much of this time, the drill and discipline, the rank and file, the march in step - all the traits of organised, effective infantry - did simply not exist in Western Europe (I'm not sure about the Byzantines though).
So lets restrain our quotes from history to show what infantry could or could not do to examples from the medieval era. Both before and after that period, infantry would be vastly more effective.
Quote Originally posted by The Yogi:
So lets restrain our quotes from history to show what infantry could or could not do to examples from the medieval era.[/QUOTE]
Yes! apologies. Broke my own rule there. This thread is supposed to be limited to game mechanic's only so lets not use any historic quotes at all. Medieval or otherwise.
This thread is just about making the game work better, it doesn't matter what really happened even if we could agree.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Hi,
I agree with Cheetah. One of the changes I've made to Paladin's 1092 mod is to make all units the same size, save for siege crews, napthas and assassins.
Doing so has had a profound effect upon the game and, IMO, greatly increases the accuracy.
My experience on the battlefield now is that cavalry rules the battlefield, UNLESS you have significant numbers of spear equiped troops, combined with archers.
As an example, taking on 4 early royals with 3 spearmen, 7 peasants and 6 archers led to defeat. The 60-man cav units hit my spears and grind them up, eventually breaking them. Cav attacking peasants barely break a sweat, which is as it should be.
Yes, chewing through 60 spears with 60 knights will leave 12-20 knights on the field, but the knights are still effective, while the 20 or fewer spearmen won't stand up for much at all after they rally.
The game feels right, now. It fits the accounts I've read from the period.
Ciao,
V'ger gone
Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
Antonio: I dont know how much you know about Medieval Warfare, but evidently its ver little. The Knights WERE the shock troops of the day. The whole point of the big, heavy, knights were to tear apart enemy formations. Do you think they wore 100 lb suits of armor for decoration?
[/QUOTE]
Where have I disagreed with that???? I only said that knights were not enough against disciplined well-armed static infantry in a frontal assault and medieval commanders usually relied on auxiliaries (e.g. missile troops) to harass the enemy before sending the knights into the fray.
Quote Secondly, the ENTIRE problem with units not being balanced is the insane concept CA is doing by making Cav units smaller than spear units. The eintire game is fucked up because spear units are so huge and cheap. In fact if you add up the cost its quite possible to build nearly 1000 spearman for the cost of one heavy knight unit of only 80 guys. CA is trying to do the opposite of Shugon by making Cav not as powerful.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with the difference in size as a way to model the larger space-per-man needed by cavalry. The problem is that the number of units is limited to 16. So if you buy 16 units of knights your numbers are quite lower compared to a player who buys 16 units of spearmen.
Quote
I'm really suprised by CA because apparently they know very little about Medieval Warfare as well - the advantage spearman had against Cav had nothing to do with numbers - it was purely tactical (Scots schiltrons).
[/QUOTE]
I completely agree.
Quote
The answer here is simple - give every unit the smae number of men - also I'm tired of playing these small dinky battles with less than 1000 guys - what happened to the "epic battles with more than 10,000 men" that I so looked forward to when reading it on the box? With units such as knights having 200 men possible units will be more balanced and we'll get bigger battles.[/QUOTE]
If you give every unit the same number of men, you will end up seeing unrealistic battles because the number of units will still be limited to 16. As to the latter no one can change it otherwise the game engine lags and eventually crashes. So, the best way to improve things is to keep the average troop density (e.g. knights have lower desnsity-per-meter-square than spearmen) and to concentrate on the tactical advantages. The latter are much improved by Didz's solutions.
Antonio
Hakonarson
10-29-2002, 02:17
Quote Originally posted by Michael the Great:
I mean,why can I mow down only archers with cav,why do spearmen resisit even from thy flank?...[/QUOTE]
Last night I started playing the Barbarossa campaign & quiet enjoyed the 2nd batle - I forget the name - you start virtualy surrounded by pesky italians.
whenever I sandwhiched an infantry unit between 2 knights it usually took 15-20 seconds to wipe out every last infantryman - except one general IRC.
It happened 3 or 4 times, the Knights were 40-60 men each, the infantry was either spear or Italian infantry 80-120 men each.
I was impressed - several complete massacres - but I was a bit annoyed because that meant there were no routers to help with the enemy morale collapse http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Hakonarson
10-29-2002, 02:25
Quote Originally posted by querulously:
The relative numbers of knights is not the problem, the problem is the willingness and ease with which we can deploy the other ranks, few of which would be even semi-professional soldiers. [/QUOTE]
In fact the vast majority WOULD be semi-professional soldiers in that they expected to have to fight every now and then and were required to own arms and armour.
But professionalism isn't really important - the Swiss didn't start as professional soldiers, nor the Welsh, while the Genoese crossbowmen at Agincourt were the consumate professionals of the time.
Professionalism in the sense of being paid does not equate to anything else - all it means is you're getting paid. There were professional "peasants" in medieval times - soldiers paid and requierd to be armed with nothign more than a long knife/falchion - called Ribauds their job was to despatch fallen foes and rescuse friends.
forget professionalism as some sort of measure of troops quality in the middle ages - it is irrelevant.
What is relevant is experience at winning, self confidence (morale) and good leadership - when those are lacking nothing makes up for it, and when they are present wonders can be done - one only has to see the effect of Joan of Arc on the 2 sides in the 100 yrs war!!
Until she was wounded outside Paris her mere presence at het start would cause english morale to drop and precipitated a retreat or 2, and similarly raised the French confidence to the point where they began to believe they could win battles.
She never paid the French any more or less than they got before, nor trained or drilled them, she didn't give them new weapons or armouor.
she gave them confidence!
G0THIC-Lobster
10-29-2002, 14:46
In my opinion this is what a cavalry do, Charge and smash the enemy's formation. Of course this might be their weakness but also the strength. And also charge ppl from the rear or flank, its better then just charging them head on. Here are a few examples i find out. I use my kata and charge ppl from the rear againist another cavalry unit and you know, no 1 dies and then when it hits, its kills a lot. But when i try head on, there are usally more causties( don't know how to spell.)
G0THIC-Lobster
10-29-2002, 14:48
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
Strictly speakng on a gaming PoV...
1) The "bonus against cavalry" is much too widely present I think. There a third up to half of all the infantry units that has it, and it's subject to debate for most of them.
2) Not enough men in each cavalry unit. 20 to 40 is a joke when the infantry numbers from 60 to 100, especially considering that the cavalry is already overpriced.
3) Cavalry TIRE TOO EASILY ! I find totally absurd that a cavalry unit tire faster than an infantry units (not speaking about the special conditions, like in desert).
I think that adressing these three points would greatly enhance the effect of cavalry in the game, without imbalancing it.[/QUOTE]
of course they will tired quite easily but, who would charge them towards the enemies from like 90m away. So just walk and then make sure you time the charge right.
Quote Originally posted by G0THIC-Lobster:
of course they will tired quite easily but, who would charge them towards the enemies from like 90m away. So just walk and then make sure you time the charge right.[/QUOTE]
Frankly, this should be an AI task. As an army commander I may not want to know when my units start the quick pace of the charge (unless I want them to charge urgently in which case I want to order them to charge, as it is in the game). I should be able to order an attack, and then the unit leader would decide the best moment to run/gallop towards the enemy.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by G0THIC-Lobster:
of course they will tired quite easily but, who would charge them towards the enemies from like 90m away. So just walk and then make sure you time the charge right.[/QUOTE]
Err... I wasn't talking about CHARGING, just about how the cavalry tire faster than infantry, EVEN IF THEY GO AT THE SAME RELATIVE SPEED !
A horseman should be able to walk/charge longer than an infantryman walk/run.
The fact of the matter is we all agree that cavalry should be more effective vs. infantry, right??
Hakonarson
10-30-2002, 08:13
No - IMO infantry should be less effective vs cavalry!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
OK - it's semantics, but I think the thrust of proposed changes is to de-fang infantry in SOME circumstance rather than give cavalry bigger and brighter bonuses.
Akka -I believe average men and average horses are normally capable of exertion for about the same length of time - but the horse is faster hence covers more ground.
However human athletes have much more stamina than the best horses - no horse in the world can go 26 miles in 2 hrs 20 minutes - they get blown very quickly if pressed too long, and take much, much longer to recover than humans.
Even a relatively "ordinary" human can last longer (more time) than a horse if given a little training, but again teh horse might be able to cover more ground since it ravels faster.
Consider that cavalry in Napoleonic times could be "blown" and useless for the rest of the battle by charging half a mile. Men even loaded with arms and armour would be expected to be able to take that at a slow run and keep going for some time yet - eg teh hoplites at Marathon.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
However human athletes have much more stamina than the best horses - no horse in the world can go 26 miles in 2 hrs 20 minutes - they get blown very quickly if pressed too long, and take much, much longer to recover than humans.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm you better check some times for 100 mile endurance riding then http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
The primary reason for horses being quickly blown is more the rider than the horse I think. The rider charges his horse around on the battlefield busy chasing/killing enemies and suddenly..well the horse is blown. You try and put 30 pounds of armor/weapons on a man and let him sprint and see how long he lasts.
CBR
You may be right CBR but a horse without its rider isn't much use in battle http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
You may be right CBR but a horse without its rider isn't much use in battle http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif [/QUOTE]
...and a soldier without a weapon is of no use in battle.
Both statements are corrects but hardly relevant when we are talking about endurance of horses is it?
CBR
Hakonarson
10-30-2002, 13:40
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Hmm you better check some times for 100 mile endurance riding then http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]
Most of the AERC ones are 2 day events http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
But that's endurance riding - like forced marching, not like running around a battlefield. The horses are carefully paced, fed and watered.
Medievals did similar by having several horses if they could afford them - different ones for riding to battle and riding IN battle.
Quote The primary reason for horses being quickly blown is more the rider than the horse I think. The rider charges his horse around on the battlefield busy chasing/killing enemies and suddenly..well the horse is blown. You try and put 30 pounds of armor/weapons on a man and let him sprint and see how long he lasts.
CBR[/QUOTE]
As I said - about as long a horse can - I've worn 350 lbs of armour, shield & weapon & run around a battlefield - if I try to sprint I get exhausted quickly, but I can sort of lope around at a slow run for quite a while - even at my age!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
If horses were kept to a trot they'd last longer - that's one of the reasons why the gallop was restricted to the last 50 yards (or so), plus the slower pace kept the charge better ordered.
Charging from too far out exhausted the horse too quickly.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Most of the AERC ones are 2 day events
But that's endurance riding - like forced marching, not like running around a battlefield. The horses are carefully paced, fed and watered.
[/QUOTE]
You talked about athletes doing a marathon and said horses couldnt even do the same..thats all. The 100 mile rides can both be a one or 2 day event doing 50 mile/day afaik. The one day events are done at same average speeds as athletes just longer.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
As I said - about as long a horse can - I've worn 350 lbs of armour, shield & weapon & run around a battlefield - if I try to sprint I get exhausted quickly, but I can sort of lope around at a slow run for quite a while - even at my age!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
If horses were kept to a trot they'd last longer - that's one of the reasons why the gallop was restricted to the last 50 yards (or so), plus the slower pace kept the charge better ordered.
Charging from too far out exhausted the horse too quickly.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully not 350 pounds.. old man http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
And just like I said..the rider is responsible for a horse being blown too quickly.
I think horses are too slow and get fatigued too quickly compared to infantry. Too easy for infantry to close even a big gap when playing in MP.
CBR
Quote Akka -I believe average men and average horses are normally capable of exertion for about the same length of time - but the horse is faster hence covers more ground.
However human athletes have much more stamina than the best horses - no horse in the world can go 26 miles in 2 hrs 20 minutes - they get blown very quickly if pressed too long, and take much, much longer to recover than humans.
Even a relatively "ordinary" human can last longer (more time) than a horse if given a little training, but again teh horse might be able to cover more ground since it ravels faster.[/QUOTE]
The difference is, in the game the horses tire twice to three times faster than infantry. Reread my message : for the exact same distance and with the exact same relative speed, my horse units arrived with 1 or 2 fatigue bar left, while the infantry arrived with 3 or 4 bars left.
So perhaps that a horse is as endurant as a human (which I'm EXTREMELY doubtful about), but then why would it be twice more fatigued while he walked for a shorter time ? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif
Hakonarson
10-31-2002, 01:58
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Hopefully not 350 pounds.. old man http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]
Oops - yes I meant 30-50 lbs
Quote And just like I said..the rider is responsible for a horse being blown too quickly.[/QUOTE]
Yes you did - and I'm still puzzling over that - so what?
the rider is responsible for many things - such as getting the horse into close contact with teh enemy - that it would never do "naturally".
That's the whole point of cavalry and I don't see how it relates to the topic.
tonight I'm gonna test the distance vs fatigue bar erlationahip that's been posted.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Yes you did - and I'm still puzzling over that - so what?
the rider is responsible for many things - such as getting the horse into close contact with teh enemy - that it would never do "naturally".
[/QUOTE]
As there is a huge difference between skilled and unskilled riders/commanders and the same with MTW players. Its easy to exhaust your cavalry if you dont know the limitations or just basically is busy concentrating on attacking/killing/routing enemies.
That would have been the biggest reason for cavalry being blown too quickly.. but forget about it....it was only meant as to clarify what I thought of horses and their endurance.
CBR
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.