Archers vs Cav

[ziegenpeter]

I really like how the battle engine of EB is balanced but there is one thing I'd like to aks: Shouldnt archers do more damage against cavallery? I mean a horse is a big and mostly soft target and a few arows are possibly enough to take it down...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Despite the penalty they get versus cavalry, I have always found that cavalry seems to die exceedingly faster than infantry from any sort of missile fire. If given further bonuses, the archers will simply slaughter horsemen.

[DaciaJC]

Despite the penalty they get versus cavalry, I have always found that cavalry seems to die exceedingly faster than infantry from any sort of missile fire. If given further bonuses, the archers will simply slaughter horsemen.

This has largely been my impression as well. Cavalry are especially vulnerable when they are running away from the missile fire. I've taken down quite a few units of bodyguards in those instances.

[soup_alex]

Funny, every time I try ordering my archers to shoot fleeing/retreating enemy cavalry, the horsemen seem to turn in the saddle and catch the missiles (those that don't fall dramatically short) with their shields... at least, that's my impression, given the apparent effectiveness of this tactic in my own hands. I just wish my bodyguard cavalry were as resilient! (nowadays when I see a group of enemy archers or javelinmen, etc. preparing to fire on my (ahem) "regrouping" heavy cavalry, I quickly order the cav. to halt and march a few paces back towards the shooters, to give them a chance of catching those missiles with shield (rather than horse's arse))

[Rhyfelwyr]

Whenever I get the chance I focus missile fire on cavalry, it seems to be much more effective against them. I love marching into a town square from several sides with javelinmnen, and then unleashing all the volleys at once... I've never seen elite cavalry die so quickly. :skull:

[Atraphoenix]

Whenever I get the chance I focus missile fire on cavalry, it seems to be much more effective against them. I love marching into a town square from several sides with javelinmnen, and then unleashing all the volleys at once... I've never seen elite cavalry die so quickly. :skull:

Elite ones armed their horses too. I use my elite cavalry to lure and deplete enemy archers' amno. then my own archers makes the real killing. In fact AP arrows must kill even elite, just remember what English Longbowmen did Feudal French Knights in Hundred Year's War.
but I do not know it is for historical accuracy or game balancing EB archers are underpowered in comparison to other mods of RTW and the original RTW.
In RTR and RS archers are death machines but in EB you have to use them from flanks or rear to make an effect. Of course pandadapoi and gasatae piece of cake for them.

[antisocialmunky]

Horses are big targets and missiles always have a lethality of 1 when it makes a successful roll against armor.

[Atraphoenix]

It is surprising fact that in EB horse archers have more range than foot archers and most foot archers have less amno. so with current game play foot archer have only the advantage of number against HAs.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Historical reality seems to rather portray a complex picture of cavalry opposing lightly armed troops. The fact is that archers were often stationed to protect spear-bearers against horsemen. A hail of arrows could put a cavalry charge to a dead halt.

Horsemen are what I'd call, from a tactician point of view, a composite unit of higher tactical risk. If something goes wrong, it will affect the dynamics of equestrian warfare. If all goes right on the other hand, cavalry will pay off the risks with interest and become crucial in order to decide the battle. We could compare them, in economical terms, to stocks of higher risk.

This even applies to cataphracts, if not especially to cataphracts, due to their dense, knee-to-knee serried and columned formations, and sensitivity to heat-loss and fatigue. Tactical conditions are very important to consider. No unit is inherently better than the other.

[ziegenpeter]

...English Longbowmen did Feudal French Knights in Hundred Year's War.

Funny this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaZ6pQiYclo&feature=PlayList&p=7D275C7266843E03&index=0&playnext=1
made me write the initial post. If you dont have the time to watch it: It basically says, that longbows werent really AP (as also shown by some other tests*) but if the cav charges and the horses are shot the whole charge becomes a mess (riders break their neck from falling, the 2nd line will fall over the dead bodies and so on)

* as soon as I find the link for the test ill post it. Its a 250 lbs crossbow vs. plate

[Atraphoenix]

but in game we have no depth of realism for them, just encircle enemy with HAs then after amno finished send cataphracts against tired enemy army.
we do not have amno camels that supplied parthian HAs or poisoned arrows that so long as they hit the enemy there is no chance to recover from that hit.

[Atraphoenix]

Funny this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaZ6pQiYclo&feature=PlayList&p=7D275C7266843E03&index=0&playnext=1
made me write the initial post. If you dont have the time to watch it: It basically says, that longbows werent really AP (as also shown by some other tests*) but if the cav charges and the horses are shot the whole charge becomes a mess (riders break their neck from falling, the 2nd line will fall over the dead bodies and so on)

* as soon as I find the link for the test ill post it. Its a 250 lbs crossbow vs. plate

check the sipahi bow though its link abandoned from youtube.
ottomans used them more decades than Europe. They had AP, and much more faster to reload in comparison to muskets. Though I doubt it, time frame of EB had AP bows :book:

[satalexton]

do crossbows count? the Sinae used crossbows in firing lines to repel charging cavalries...

[Nachtmeister]

Not too long ago but before the forum crash, Watchman posted something very interesting on this topic... IIRC, the point was that those medieval English (Welsh) archers were so effective against the armoured knights because their armor consisted mainly of mail, not plate.
The bodkin arrow head was long but small in diameter, thus it could penetrate the rings of the knights' mail armor without having to actually punch through the metal.
With early plate armor, arrows might have sometimes found their way to weak spots due to impurities in the iron used but most of the time they would have been stopped unless they hit some spot not covered by armor.
Later plate armor was sometimes even capable of repelling rifle bullets ("schuss-echt"), but that was rather around the timeframe of the German-French wars...
When I fight against nomadic factions, I field slingers against the cataphracts and archers against the unarmored enemy units. Even when severely outnumbering the enemy, a height advantage is absolutely necessary to win those missile-battles.

[ziegenpeter]

Well you can possibly kill someone in full plate with a pink pixie wand but the problem is that there are always so many factors that cant be counted in in a video game.



When I fight against nomadic factions, I field slingers against the cataphracts and archers against the unarmored enemy units. Even when severely outnumbering the enemy, a height advantage is absolutely necessary to win those missile-battles.

Slingers vs catas? How can a stone or max. lead bullet punch through armor?

[A Very Super Market]

They aren't supposed to punch through armour, although it isn't impossible. Rather, they use blunt trauma and internal bleeding to kill the target. The percussive effect that plate armour has simply exacerbates this effect.

[ziegenpeter]

Hmm, lamellar is very stiff, so I doubt you could harm cataphracts with slingers.
btw: couldnt find the word "excaberate". what does it mean?

[A Very Super Market]

Slingers in-game are fairly overpowered in this regard, but the point still stands. There is always the head to hit.

[ziegenpeter]

Of course

when you have cheated, pointy eared Legolas-slingers. :clown:

[A Very Super Market]

It is simply probability. If you have a 100 fairly accurate slingers firing into a dense formation of Cataphracts, would you be surprised if at least one got knocked on the noggin?

[ziegenpeter]

It is simply probability. If you have a 100 fairly accurate slingers firing into a dense formation of Cataphracts, would you be surprised if at least one got knocked on the noggin?


No.
Especially considering the cataphracts' typical knee to knee formation.

[Tristuskhan]

btw: couldnt find the word "excaberate". what does it mean?

Typo for exacerbate, I suppose.

[A Very Super Market]

A horrendous typo, good sir. I'll be fixing it now.

[ziegenpeter]

A horrendous typo, good sir. I'll be fixing it now.

I'm not shure if this is sarcasm but I wanted to point out that even exacerbate wasnt ringing any bells since english is not my mother tongue.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I really like how the battle engine of EB is balanced but there is one thing I'd like to aks: Shouldnt archers do more damage against cavallery? I mean a horse is a big and mostly soft target and a few arows are possibly enough to take it down...

A horse is a very big target. From the side.

But from the front, a horse is a much smaller target.

And a horse galloping toward you is hard to hit because the range is changing so rapidly, and it's hard to get exactly the right elevation with your bow, and release the arrow at exactly the right moment. Elevation (aiming above the target so the arrow drops down onto it) is very hard to get right with a rapidly oncoming target. At least until the range gets quite low, then its a lot easier.

With targets moving away from you, its easier to judge the range, and there's less fear since you're not about to be overrun.

So cavalry should be hard to hit from the front, easier from the rear, and very easy from the flanks.

I think EB has the balance right.

[A Very Super Market]

No sarcasm. I just sprinkle stuff like that around my posts for no real reason. :P

[Watchman]

For the record, unarmoured horsies *are* worth -1 to the unit's armour score in EB...

[Nachtmeister]

Hmm, lamellar is very stiff, so I doubt you could harm cataphracts with slingers.
btw: couldnt find the word "excaberate". what does it mean?


I'm not shure if this is sarcasm but I wanted to point out that even exacerbate wasnt ringing any bells since english is not my mother tongue.

In this case: "Die Wirkung verstärken"

Lamellar armor may be stiff - but the *blunt* sling bullets utilize just that.
As soon as they hit a spot where the armor lies relatively close to the body (helmet, limbs, lower torso, upper torso - just about anywhere not in-the-middle-of-the-chestplate) and thus has little room to "react"/dissipate the impact force, the stiff armor will just transfer it over to the body, which is, as no stabbing or cutting but rather crushing is involved, called "blunt trauma". It can break bones and it can burst inner organs (Milz, liver, kidneys...).
Somewhere on this forum someone posted that well-tossed sling bullets were capable of smashing shields, so I would assume they are much more lethal than what you see Ewoks using in Star Wars VI.

[Drewski]

Here's a thought...why wouldn't an arrow that didn't penetrate armor ALSO cause similar massive trauma damage? The arrowhead wouldn't be as large as a stone, but surely would be travelling faster than if "thrown" from a sling. The Kinetic Energy of a missile is (mass * velocity squared)...showing that velocity has more relative damage effect than mass...e.g. A small rifle bullet causing massive damage / fatal injury.(yes and a bullet also produces shock wave damage, but that isn't the point here)

The Kinetic Energy has to be dissipated somewhere.

I'm interested if anyone has an explaination for this...

[ziegenpeter]

In this case: "Die Wirkung verstärken"

Danke. Leo.org könnte mir zum glück auch schon helfen ;)



Lamellar armor may be stiff - but the *blunt* sling bullets utilize just that.
As soon as they hit a spot where the armor lies relatively close to the body (helmet, limbs, lower torso, upper torso - just about anywhere not in-the-middle-of-the-chestplate) and thus has little room to "react"/dissipate the impact force, the stiff armor will just transfer it over to the body, which is, as no stabbing or cutting but rather crushing is involved, called "blunt trauma". It can break bones and it can burst inner organs (Milz, liver, kidneys...).
Somewhere on this forum someone posted that well-tossed sling bullets were capable of smashing shields, so I would assume they are much more lethal than what you see Ewoks using in Star Wars VI.

No. the stiffer an armor the more blunt blows are deflected. If you hit someone in a plate armor with a mace he will certainly be less harmed than someone in ringmail. Of course stiff armor does not absorb the energy, but its just to thin (compared to a gambeson) to be an "absorbative" armor. I dont want to say that wearing a lemellar you are invunerable to blunt damage but imagine a sling bullet hitting the chest part of this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/8/83/K%C3%BCrass.jpg. It wont do anything.
but

the stiff armor will just transfer it over to the body[/I]
seems illogical to me because stiff armor is made to not transfer any energy.
and

Lamellar armor may be stiff - but the *blunt* sling bullets utilize just that.

Sounds to me like "the stiffer the less effective vs. blunt dmg".

I hope you got my point, I'm very tired so I apologize if my post is a bit confusing.

[Nachtmeister]

Yes, I got the point, thanks - and you are right, THAT suit of armor will not give a damp fart whether you lug sling bullets at it or not - it is visibly schussecht (has been tested at point-blank-range and proven impervious to a rifle bullet). See the dent? Very expensive...
But then, the concept of plate mail is not to be stiff but rather to be rigid. That way, ALL force exerted on it will be transferred - but distributed evenly along the entire inner surface. Thus, it will also be dissipated. Now lamellar armor may be better than a suit of quilted cloth or even chain - but it would certainly suffer from hits by multiple slings. Its mobile parts might well bend and break from the impacts. That does not mean that it will give way to the first hit of course. It somewhat depends on how good the Parthian blacksmiths were - for instance, a good Katana sword you can bend to more than 90° and it will just spring back into its original form, whereas a bad/not authentic one will just break or remain bent. Same goes for lamellar armor plates only I don't know which were authentic here - good or bad ones. There are worlds of differences between proper weapon steel and simple iron.
Then there's also the sheer impact force to be considered, whether the shot penetrates or not - it will exercise a strong "shove" - possibly toppling the rider off his horse. If this happens, the advantage of heavy armor turns into a disadvantage and he will very likely break some bones if not his neck from falling.
Either way, Parthian cataphracts are horrible to face in combat.

[Watchman]

Eh, even solid steel plate usually deforms under strong impact to some degree. It just has a quite high "elastic tolerance" level - it takes a lot to *permanently* deform it; but rather less to *transmit* unpleasant levels of kinetic energy through it, which is one of the reasons breastplates and helmets tended to have some "standoff" clearance from the body proper, and some kind of fairly substantial padding (normally strong enough to serve as light flexible armour by itself, padded or just very thick cloth and thick strong leather/hide being the typical solutions) was pretty much by default worn underneath.

Lamellar doesn't have nearly as good stopping power as solid plate, and while quite rigid nonetheless retains at least a degree of flexibility (as the individual lamellae can still shift slightly relative to each other in the lacing), though its overlapping character presumably does help distribute the force of impact somewhat.

This is incidentally (AFAIK) the physics explanation for why maces and similar heavy "mass" weapons were ever so universally popular for smiting heavily armoured opponents - they just plain produce enough brute impact energy to more or less pulp the guy inside his armour. Battle accounts describe horses being felled with one well-placed blow, heavily armoured veterans flatly refusing to engage mace-armed enemy cavalry, and one Arab account describes a missed swing with one of the "superheavy" all-metal maces that eventually became popular among elite cavalry in the Middle East hitting the opponent's saddle cantle - and knocking both the saddle and the rider clean off the horse...


Here's a thought...why wouldn't an arrow that didn't penetrate armor ALSO cause similar massive trauma damage? The arrowhead wouldn't be as large as a stone, but surely would be travelling faster than if "thrown" from a sling. The Kinetic Energy of a missile is (mass * velocity squared)...showing that velocity has more relative damage effect than mass...e.g. A small rifle bullet causing massive damage / fatal injury.(yes and a bullet also produces shock wave damage, but that isn't the point here)

The Kinetic Energy has to be dissipated somewhere.

I'm interested if anyone has an explaination for this...Eh, from what I know of it sling bullets easily rival arrows in "muzzle velocity" and moreover at least the oval lead shot type (something of a widespread, though not universal, standard wartime ammunition) is actually aerodynamically rather more effective and rather less suspectible to the effects of crosswinds and what-have-you. The things can actually punch rather deep holes in bodies much like the later musket balls - the Romans at least devised a specialised surgical instrument for extracting them...

Moreover, I'm pretty sure they at the very least rival and probably exceed most arrows in weight, and certainly in *density*.

Though, I remember seeing it mentioned late-Medieval and Early Modern sources state that as-such nonpenetrating hits from crossbow bolts (which are heavier and more compac than common arrows) could leave a warrior bruised all over under his armour, so the effect certainly isn't unheard-of - it's just that most arrows don't have the mass and sheer energy to have meaningful "blunt-trauma" effects if they fail to get through armour.

[Drewski]

Eh, from what I know of it sling bullets easily rival arrows in "muzzle velocity" and moreover at least the oval lead shot type (something of a widespread, though not universal, standard wartime ammunition) is actually aerodynamically rather more effective and rather less suspectible to the effects of crosswinds and what-have-you. The things can actually punch rather deep holes in bodies much like the later musket balls - the Romans at least devised a specialised surgical instrument for extracting them...

Moreover, I'm pretty sure they at the very least rival and probably exceed most arrows in weight, and certainly in *density*.

Though, I remember seeing it mentioned late-Medieval and Early Modern sources state that as-such nonpenetrating hits from crossbow bolts (which are heavier and more compac than common arrows) could leave a warrior bruised all over under his armour, so the effect certainly isn't unheard-of - it's just that most arrows don't have the mass and sheer energy to have meaningful "blunt-trauma" effects if they fail to get through armour. I'll go with that :thumbsup:....having done a quick bit of digging around, I think I always over estimated the velocity of an arrow, never having fired one...

[Drewski]

This astonished me ...
The sling was likely mankind's first, true projectile weapon. It generally consists of two cords and a pouch. These cords are held in one hand and a projectile is placed in the pouch. The length of the sling provides greater mechanical advantage than one's arms. Projectiles can be slung over 1500 feet (450m) at speeds exceeding 250 miles per hour (400 kph). my bold and Italics.

Source : http://www.slinging.org/

A 60g+ Lead Pellet hitting you at 250mph+....ouch, that's going to hurt...

[Watchman]

Well, there's a reason slingers were such popular auxiliary troops. Bows are better for everyday hunting though, being easy to use even in thick bushes and woods and involving little sudden movement wont to spook alert prey animals, which is AFAIK why slingers tended to be recruited more from farmers and herdsmen who commonly employed the weapon to chase away animals (birds from sown fields and predators from herd animals) and occasionally add something to the pot...

[Drewski]

Well, there's a reason slingers were such popular auxiliary troops. Bows are better for everyday hunting though, being easy to use even in thick bushes and woods and involving little sudden movement wont to spook alert prey animals, which is AFAIK why slingers tended to be recruited more from farmers and herdsmen who commonly employed the weapon to chase away animals (birds from sown fields and predators from herd animals) and occasionally add something to the pot...

Very true. It was the Velocity and Distance that astonished me..I'd always assumed EB's slingers (roughly 175m av) was an accurate max effective range, and the release speed would be lower. Apparently though (admittedly after only an hour or twos reading) Slingers FAR outreached Archers in distance. The wiki article even mentions 600M as a range !?

Anyways, I'm about 600m off topic by now, so I'll shut up, as interesting as it is ~;)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Slingers FAR outreached Archers in distance. The wiki article even mentions 600M as a range !?

Anyways, I'm about 600m off topic by now, so I'll shut up, as interesting as it is ~;)
You have to remember the factor of effective range. An arrow flies relatively slowly, usually in an arc through the sky and gravity helps it quite a bit as well. The arrow is already piercing and it has the fletching to help it out in flight. The bullet relies on nothing but the kinetic energy, as evidenced by its speed. The sling bullet has to go fast to cause damage. An arrow does not need to go as fast.

[Watchman]

Though, obviously, at any longer range slingers "lob" their shots too (as incidentally do firearms users, just to a lesser degree although the difference is minimal with low-velocity blackpowder guns)...

But yeah, arrows *do* have the usual benefit of pointy things that lodge themselves in your innards without too much trouble if given half the chance. Though AFAIK they're pretty ineffective at long ranges. Not sure how well sling bullets retain their energy over long distances, though I would imagine they're better aerodynamics-wise. OTOH I've read witness descriptions of musket balls feeling like strong punches at long distances, but then again smoothbore muskets have absolutely horribad ballistics...

[Nirvanish]

Sorry if I take this in another direction but the sling vs. bow talk reminds me of a modern comparison between the Kalashnikov and the M16. While both guns are similar in many ways they fire rounds which act very differently.

The Kalashnikov fires a 7.62x39mm round.
Bullet weight: 8-10g
Velocity: 2,104-2300 ft/s
Energy: 1,480-1,519 ft-lbf

The M16 fires a 5.56x45mm round.
Bullet weight: 4-4.1g
Velocity: 3,070-3,100 ft/s
Energy: 1,303-1,325 ft-lbf

At long ranges the 5.56 with its smaller slug(giving it lower energy) and higher velocity tends to pierce on impact rather than dispersing its remaining energy. Because of this it sometimes happens where an unarmored person may even remain standing after being shot.

At long range the 7.62 on the other hand tends to expend its remaining energy rather well. While it does not have near the penetration of the 5.56, its impact will deal greater damage as a result of its higher energy and lower velocity.

This comparison to me always seemed simliar to that of the sling and bow. While the arrow excels at damaging light targets where it can penetrate and hit vital organs(plus introducing plenty of bacteria if the target survives). It is often near useless when being shot at a rigid armor which will simply deflect the(usually) sharp, light projectile. The sling bullet on the other hand(depending on its size) will not cause near the penetrate but will(with its greater weight and surface area) expend more energy on its target.

Sorry if this seemed a tad bit redundant or off of the original subject.

On another note.
I'm glad to see your return Watchman, I always enjoy reading your posts.

[antisocialmunky]

That's a fairly well known criticism of the 5.56 round. That bullet replaced the 7.62 because of data on average engagement ranges and the ability to carry more rounds. At any rate, the ideal way is to get the bullet to fragment or tumble inside the target - questionable under international law(can't intentionally design and field a that explodes inside a person).

Either way, the main issue is the ability to expend energy in a traumatic way inside a target. Arrows do it by trying to bleed the target to death or hit a vital organ while sling bullets smash everything. Both are equally good at what they do.

[Watchman]

Then again, the shift to the "short" or "reduced" assault-rifle calibres came about specifically on account of the old full-powered rifle rounds (still used in MGs, sniper rifles and the heavier "battle rifles" or "heavy assault rifles") being *excessively* powerful for the ranges infantry firefights actually mainly happen in, with all the associated issues of excessive recoil (painfully obvious in early full-auto-capable automatic rifles like the German FG42, AFAIK) and munition weight...
(Note, incidentally, that "7.62" by itself is more than a little vague - there being a rather major performance difference between the short Soviet 7.62x39mm round and its big 7.62x54mmR big brother, or the comparable 7.62x51mm NATO...)

Far as I'm aware of the 5.56mm NATO kills people dead inside its intended engagement envelope just fine - as long as it's fired from a barrel long enough to actually provide the required muzzle velocity ergo energy. Which isn't nearly always the case given the popularity of shortened carbines.

[satalexton]

can't intentionally design and field a bullet that explodes inside a person

:clown: who else other than me is thinking of the slugga/bolter? dakka dakka dakka! :clown:

[Macilrille]

This has gone OT it seems...

5.56 has smaller lethality than 7.62 (both the NATO versions), empiry shows that.

Many factors are in play though, one often overlooked is that a wounded man takes up more resources than a dead one.

A dead one you bury, say a pryer and move on, hoping it is not you next.

A wounded one needs first aid, transport back to field aid station, treatment there, transport back to hospital, hospitalisation for a while, retraining or pension... that is a lot of resources and as far as I know that did play in when NATO chose its new standard caliber for its major confrontation with the WAPA.

If you like to play tactical games with modern-ish or modern weapons, try Shrapnell Games' free WinSPWWII and WinSPMBT. I love them:clown:

[ziegenpeter]

Yes, I got the point, thanks - and you are right, THAT suit of armor will not give a damp fart whether you lug sling bullets at it or not - it is visibly schussecht (has been tested at point-blank-range and proven impervious to a rifle bullet). See the dent? Very expensive...

Thats why I posted it. ;)


point-blank-range and proven impervious to a rifle bullet). See the dent? Very expensive...
But then, the concept of plate mail is not to be stiff but rather to be rigid. That way, ALL force exerted on it will be transferred - but distributed evenly along the entire inner surface. Thus, it will also be dissipated. Now lamellar armor may be better than a suit of quilted cloth or even chain - but it would certainly suffer from hits by multiple slings. Its mobile parts might well bend and break from the impacts. That does not mean that it will give way to the first hit of course.

I cant see where you make the precise semantical line in this case between stiff and rigid, but I agree. But from my own experience I guess its probably rather the leather strings tearing.

It somewhat depends on how good the Parthian blacksmiths were - for instance, a good Katana sword you can bend to more than 90° and it will just spring back into its original form, whereas a bad/not authentic one will just break or remain bent.

This is even true for european swords. I always do "Halbmondbiegen" ("crescent bending") before purchasing a sword.



Either way, Parthian cataphracts are horrible to face in combat.

Thats why they are are my favorite soldiers of all eras and cultures...:2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

:clown: who else other than me is thinking of the slugga/bolter? dakka dakka dakka! :clown:Eh, sluggas just shoot hefty chunks of metal. (Or death rays or w/e, these being Orks...) Their owners aren't really the sort to engage in the kind of engineering necessary to mass-produce what military jargon usually calls SAPLE (Semi-Armour-Piercing Light Explosive) shells...

Bolters, OTOH, are basically big-ass full-auto gyrojets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet). Obviously, the writers got just about everything possible about that kind of weapon dead wrong (what with the ubiquitous references to their heavy weight, high recoil, loud noise etc.), but this being WH40K (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefugeInAudacity)...

[Nachtmeister]

Bolters, OTOH, are basically big-ass full-auto gyrojets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet). Obviously, the writers got just about everything possible about that kind of weapon dead wrong (what with the ubiquitous references to their heavy weight, high recoil, loud noise etc.), but this being WH40K (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefugeInAudacity)...

I liked the second URL, although I do not see where it is connected to WH40K.
The "Bolter" as used by the "Space Marines" uses cased cartriges...
Thus, I assume that it is a combination of explosive and subsequent rocket propulsion - which is what
the illustrations of the rounds here (http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter) got wrong.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=162&pictureid=1509

Note the extractor slot on the side of the bolter...
Another conceptual failure is it's impractically elevated position relative to the barrel - the expended cartridge case would remain within the weapon for a longer duration than necessary if ejected at a upward-diagonal angle, encouraging jamming and probably keeping down the maximum attainable rate of fire... But an extraction slot it is and I have seen illustrations of spent cases coming out of blazing boltguns of all kinds, I believe it was somewhere in my WH40K 3rd edition rulebook. Something involving Ultramarines engaged in mutual penetration with the Tyranids.

[Watchman]

The second link has much (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Warhammer40000) to do with 40K. :yes:

Bolters blazing away in DukeNukem-esque fountains of spent shell casings is pretty much a longtime staple in WH40K art, and IIRC actually tried to explain away in some of the fluff text. (As mentioned already, a gun that spits out rockets has zero need for such...) But, like, whatever. It's 40K; realism has *no* business in it and Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) is literal.

...anyway, I believe we've gotten a tad sidetracked here.

[Nachtmeister]

...anyway, I believe we've gotten a tad sidetracked here.

True, my apologies.
After some browsing and checking cross-links I have come to truly (begin to) appreciate that site though - thank you very much for sharing!

Back on topic, I find the "hetairoi" cavalry to be unusually tough, almost impervious to anything but masses and more masses of spear infantry (even levy phalanx infantry takes roughly 40-60% casualties in one on one head-to-head city-street encounters...). Could be due to my recent campaign switch from KH to Saba though; hoplites would seem to be the natural hetairoi-counter unit and thus I would not have noticed the potency of that particular cavalry type in previous campaigns.

Cautioning advice seems to be in place when dealing with Indian longbowmen: They once slaughtered a unit of Baktrian early bodyguard cavalry (which I had charged head-on into them).

Otherwise - yes cavalry has a tendency to be THE counter to any missile units... But I prefer it this way as opposed to vanilla RTW where archers were omnipotent destroyers. Used with some skill and as a modest auxiliary component of armies archers are still very useful - but they are no longer the answer to every possible battlefield challenge.
I normally use them as skirmisher and phalanx countering units. They are also quite capable of killing off light horse archers and luckily so far the nomad AI factions have not been over-doing it with heavier mounted units, keeping their armies decently "mixed".
When situations arise where the enemy army "camps" on the battlefield, waiting for me to advance first, I use archers and especially slingers to reduce their numbers a bit before going at them; this is especially important when facing the above mentioned hetairoi and it *works*. Just don't expect to decimate them with three volleys from one unit of archers when they come charging straight at you in a field battle; this would probably not reflect reality well anyway.

[Watchman]

Once when I was playing the Hai I got pretty practiced at wiping out invading Seleukid stacks mostly with archers and slinger with some spearmen and horse along to mop up the remnants and see off enemy cav.

Then the buggers started adding Syrians into the expedition batches and suddenly life got difficult. Turned out those buggers actually *do* have enough missile resistance (especially in loose order atop a hill) to win missile duels with slingers, and the AI was clever enough to cover them properly so I couldn't easily blitz them with FamiCav and junk. (Though that may have been the unofficial AI formation mods at work, too.)

Had to start improvising new SOP tactics kinda fast to keep the attrition-war balance positive there...

[antisocialmunky]

I liked the second URL, although I do not see where it is connected to WH40K.
The "Bolter" as used by the "Space Marines" uses cased cartriges...
Thus, I assume that it is a combination of explosive and subsequent rocket propulsion - which is what
the illustrations of the rounds here (http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter) got wrong.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=162&pictureid=1509

Note the extractor slot on the side of the bolter...
Another conceptual failure is it's impractically elevated position relative to the barrel - the expended cartridge case would remain within the weapon for a longer duration than necessary if ejected at a upward-diagonal angle, encouraging jamming and probably keeping down the maximum attainable rate of fire... But an extraction slot it is and I have seen illustrations of spent cases coming out of blazing boltguns of all kinds, I believe it was somewhere in my WH40K 3rd edition rulebook. Something involving Ultramarines engaged in mutual penetration with the Tyranids.

Therefore to achieve maximum killage in EB, we should paint all the projectiles red...

Those Astartes Argyraspides won't know what hit them!

BRILLIANT!!!!

[Aemilius Paulus]

Once when I was playing the Hai I got pretty practiced at wiping out invading Seleukid stacks mostly with archers and slinger with some spearmen and horse along to mop up the remnants and see off enemy cav.

Then the buggers started adding Syrians into the expedition batches and suddenly life got difficult. Turned out those buggers actually *do* have enough missile resistance (especially in loose order atop a hill) to win missile duels with slingers, and the AI was clever enough to cover them properly so I couldn't easily blitz them with FamiCav and junk. (Though that may have been the unofficial AI formation mods at work, too.)

Had to start improvising new SOP tactics kinda fast to keep the attrition-war balance positive there...
Same here. Whenever the AI armies have more than two units of slingers/archers, my life gets difficult. Especially given my zero tolerance for casualties.

[Watchman]

Oh, it's not like they hadn't brought slingers and archers along before. It's just that since those weren't decked out in scale and shields like the Syrians, they were way easier to bury under arrows and bullets...
It's specifically that resiliency that sometimes makes the blighters such a tactical headache.