ap for cavalry charge?

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Many persons said that the EB2 units stats are quite different to EB1...
So, what about cavalry charge?
Is still that "high lethality+ap" system to increase charge s effectiveness?
I personally disagree with "ap" point, because every heavily armoured units suffer an excessive disadvantage from this.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I brought this up in relation to EB1 a while back. Foot mentioned the fact that cavalry will automatically put away their lance after the charge in the M:TW2 engine making those stats moot when melee commences. However I wonder about horse archers who have the lance as a secondary weapon. How will that be represented?

[The General]

Lightly armoured horse archers will get butchered in melee whether they had kontoi with which to bash legionaries' skulls. Heavier, armoured horse archers, I'd think, would've had swords, axes or maces as 'secondary' melee weapons, and thus having them possess an AP kontos should not be too much of a reality breach as far as unit balancing goes, methinks.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I was talking about ap in stat_pri and stat_pri_attr (charge weapon), not secondary weapon.

For example:
type hellenistic cavalry molossianagema
dictionary hellenistic_cavalry_molossianagema ; Molosson Agema
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier hellenistic_cavalry_hetairoi_molossianagema_ponitclatebodyguard, 20, 0, 1
mount saddle horse heavy
mount_effect elephant -1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, very_hardy
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 5, 34, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, piercing, spear, 180 ,0.38
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 11, 18, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.11
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 12, 13, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -1
stat_mental 16, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 3990, 998, 112, 358, 3990
ownership thrace

So the ap(armour piercing) in pri weapon increase the effectiveness of charges.
But, in this way, the heavily armoured infantry units takes an excessive disadvantage.

[Prussian to the Iron]

well, if only the lance and initial charge had ap...it makes sense: a long stick with a metal tip at the end coming at you at about 30MPH is going to either:

A) go clean through your armor and out the other end of you or the armor
or
B) knock you the hell down and put you out of the fight for a while.

either way its represented the same: a dead guy.

[The General]

I was talking about ap in stat_pri and stat_pri_attr (charge weapon), not secondary weapon.

I, too, was talking about the AP given to lances.

[JMRC]

First, it's important to note that cavalry in this time period is not used as in later times. Alexander the Great didn't use them in head-on charges against prepared infantry, he always charged from flanks or rear. In Carrhae, the Parthian cataphracts, with all their armour, aborted an attempt to charge the legionaries' lines, as soon as they closed ranks.

In EBII, cavalry will die in close range and under missile fire unless it routs the opponents by charging into the rear or flank. If they don't rout the enemy unit, then quickly disengage them.

I don't think we will use "ap" just for the sake of giving extra-power in the charge, because the charge bonus by itself is already good enough. The main reason, for me, to use "ap" in lances, axes, hammers, sling stones, elephant tusks, and other heavy hitting weapons, it's to make their deadliness more equivalent against any kind of target, heavily armoured or not. In other words, a cavalry charge is equaly deadly against armoured or unarmoured men; another example is a large stone thrown with incredible speed by a sling: it will crush any man's body parts regardless of armour. Obviously, some factors like dexterity get into play, but we already have an EDU value for that, so this is purely about the armour stat.

As for the spearmen, giving varying degrees of spear bonus against cavalry (with highest for the phalangites) will turn them into cav killers, so cavalry should stay clear of them until the right moment.

In fact, our greatest problem will be the weak AI, which doesn't have these values into much account and will charge headlong into the phalanxes. I remember in RTW, having to desperately keep rotating my phalanx to try to present the front to a cav unit, which kept circulating around, waiting for the flank. It doesn't happen in MTW2, because medieval cav was owner of the field, so they charged anyway, anywhere, anytime.

[Ca Putt]

btw In EB1 you (actually It's the only thing the AI is good at) can rotate Phalanxes while they have their sarrisas down and thus the opponent has to circle around the phalanx with cavalry in a one on one(cav vs phalanx).
In M2TW "Phalanx" formations are not remotely as steady as In RTW anyway the EB team managed to create an all new Phalanx formation for EB2. Will this formation be able to turn while engaged like in EB1?

[antisocialmunky]

That ability is made null by the fact that phalanxes can literally spin around.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

In other words, a cavalry charge is equaly deadly against armoured or unarmoured men.


mmmh... really?

[JMRC]

mmmh... really?
Yes, because the result is the same: the victim gets killed or incapacitated. Maybe an armoured target may have higher survival chances than an unarmoured against a stampede bristling with spears, but in game terms we don't distinguish between killed and incapacitated.

[Prussian to the Iron]

well, honestly you have to take into account that not every spear is going to hit spot-on, so if you have armor on, you could definitely be looking at some horrible injuries to your arms/legs, most likely multiple breaks.

but like he said: game doesnt distinguish between dead and knocked out.

[Gray_Lensman]

<snip>

but like he said: game doesnt distinguish between dead and knocked out.

I sometimes wonder if the game actually does distinquish between dead and knocked out, but only after the battle concludes. Quite often, the number of men in unit cards is higher after the end of battle processing than during the game battle implying that some were "knocked out-of-the-fight" during the battle but restored after the battle was over.

[The General]

I sometimes wonder if the game actually does distinquish between dead and knocked out, but only after the battle concludes. Quite often, the number of men in unit cards is higher after the end of battle processing than during the game battle implying that some were "knocked out-of-the-fight" during the battle but restored after the battle was over.

... A number of casualties are healed after each battle (which is influenced by several ancillaries and traits in EB), but I don't believe they're just "knocked out" opponents, since casualties to missile units have the highest chance of being healed post-battle.


EDIT: LOL thats pretty funny!! we posted almost the same thing at the same time!
The same very minute, indeed.


Nice banner you've got there, JMRC. :book:

[Prussian to the Iron]

that is because of surgeons saving a portion of them.

I'm sure there is some sort of script that would tell you the percentage. I'm guessing that you can only be healed if you were hit by arrows or horses maybe.

EDIT: LOL thats pretty funny!! we posted almost the same thing at the same time!

[DaciaJC]

since casualties to missile units have the highest chance of being healed post-battle.




I have often wondered about this. From my observations, it appears as though units that take casualties in the beginning in the battle tend to have more troops healed than units fighting and suffering losses later in the battle. I really haven't noticed any differences when considering the type of casualty.

[A Very Super Market]

For me, units that take the most casualties heal the most. Or maybe the ratio is simply constant.

[DaciaJC]

For me, units that take the most casualties heal the most. Or maybe the ratio is simply constant.

I assaulted Mediolanum (sp?) today. I had a full-strength (eighty troops) unit of Appea Gaedotos mercs in my army. All of them perished in the fight. They took part in the battle only after the walls had been cleared (which took a whopping twenty minutes). In the end, only two of them out of an original contingent of eighty were healed.

[antisocialmunky]

Its random.

[The General]

I have often wondered about this. From my observations, it appears as though units that take casualties in the beginning in the battle tend to have more troops healed than units fighting and suffering losses later in the battle. I really haven't noticed any differences when considering the type of casualty.

I see a pattern where missile units tend to heal the most. Horse archers, archers and skirmishers who only took missile fire themselves, and also melee units who took missile casualties (this is quite noticeable when playing a 'barbarian' faction good many of whom tend to carry javelins).

For example, in a recent campaign (I tend to play awfully sporadically these days) my Cretan archers tended to lose 3-8 men as casualties in every battle, but everyone were healed after the battle was over. This occurred in four consequent battles over several turns.


I assaulted Mediolanum (sp?) today. I had a full-strength (eighty troops) unit of Appea Gaedotos mercs in my army. All of them perished in the fight. They took part in the battle only after the walls had been cleared (which took a whopping twenty minutes). In the end, only two of them out of an original contingent of eighty were healed.

Troops (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Troop)?

[Fluvius Camillus]

Will cavalry charges be like from MTWII?

For example in MTWII:

If you have a group of chivalric knights and position them in the most stretched formation, then charge a idle group of dismounted feudal knights, the whole group is likely to die completely.

Will this also happen with EB equivalents (like cataphracts full charge on a group of Swordsmen)?

~Fluvius

[geala]

First, it's important to note that cavalry in this time period is not used as in later times. Alexander the Great didn't use them in head-on charges against prepared infantry, he always charged from flanks or rear. ...

This is not totally true. Look at Issos where Alexander charged headlong against the new heavy Persian infantry.




I don't think we will use "ap" just for the sake of giving extra-power in the charge, because the charge bonus by itself is already good enough. The main reason, for me, to use "ap" in lances, axes, hammers, sling stones, elephant tusks, and other heavy hitting weapons, it's to make their deadliness more equivalent against any kind of target, heavily armoured or not. In other words, a cavalry charge is equaly deadly against armoured or unarmoured men; another example is a large stone thrown with incredible speed by a sling: it will crush any man's body parts regardless of armour. Obviously, some factors like dexterity get into play, but we already have an EDU value for that, so this is purely about the armour stat.

...

I concur mostly but cannot restrict myself :wink: to grizzle a little bit about the sling stone part. Heavy stones were probably scarcely used because of very low range. The common glandes weighted between 20 and 90 g, by far the most findings were between 30 and 50 g. That is the usual weight of an arrow too. The velocity was probably no greater than that of arrows shot from stronger bows, resulting in a similar energy. Sling projectiles were dangerous but not exceptionally dangerous for armoured troops.

[Cute Wolf]

If you have a group of chivalric knights and position them in the most stretched formation, then charge a idle group of dismounted feudal knights, the whole group is likely to die completely.
~Fluvius

Which Game..... Plain Vanilla M2TW EDU or After Kindom EDU? If there was Plain vanilla, the Dismounted feudal Knights got a really awful defense value. I still remember 13,3 attack and 21 defense, compare that with 13,8 attack and 16 defense chivalric knights, take the cav bonus vs infantry (+4 if I correct)... and you got nothing wrong, the swordsmen will die, but they won't all die instantly, except the cavalry had a really nasty chevrons. Something is rather different with Kingdoms EDU, as Dismounted Feudal knights is now at 11,3 attack and 16 defense. And those Chivalrics had 11,7 attack with 17 defense. It was sure that the dismounted knights will be mauled down to the death in single set of charge and quick finishing (especially the Ritterbruders or Marshall of the Templars, they are really Killing Machine).

[Cambyses]

My observation is that its troops who are killed early on by missiles that are most likely to be healed. ie when you send that throw away unit to lead the assault on a city and it gets wiped out, then it is most likely to recover casualties, while the heavy troops you send in at the end to finish things off, are the worst hit.

On topic, surely one of the main features in regard to damage caused by a cavalry charge is the closeness of the order of the infantry that is charged. ie they will go straight through skirmishers/light infantry and cause far more damage to such a unit, while heavy infantry will act more like a wall.

Agreed that a lance will be literally just as effective against an armoured man than an unarmoured one. However, a cavalry charge against a unit of skirmishers should be a lot more effective than against heavily armoured infantry. If the engine doe not model this correctly, then maybe stats could be modified to assist. Incidentally, is the effect of an AP lance that lightly armoured "barbarian" infantry are more likely to survive a charge than heavier "civilized" troops if total defence value is equal but armour is less?

[Ca Putt]

does AP not mean that the armor value is halved?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

does AP not mean that the armor value is halved?

Correct. Units with heavy enough armor, such as cataphracts and TABs will still be successful against AP units oftentimes simply because halving a 20 armor rating still leaves 10 armor, roughly the same as units like Theurophoroi.

[Ludens]

On topic, surely one of the main features in regard to damage caused by a cavalry charge is the closeness of the order of the infantry that is charged. ie they will go straight through skirmishers/light infantry and cause far more damage to such a unit, while heavy infantry will act more like a wall.

Agreed that a lance will be literally just as effective against an armoured man than an unarmoured one. However, a cavalry charge against a unit of skirmishers should be a lot more effective than against heavily armoured infantry. If the engine doe not model this correctly, then maybe stats could be modified to assist.

In R:TW the problem was that a single soldier was as able to resist a charge as an entire formation, so open formations were far more resistant against charges than they should be. You couldn't fix this without breaking something else: either cavalry ploughed through both open and closed formations, or it stopped at both open and closed formations. Maybe it works differently in M2:TW, but I don't think so.


Incidentally, is the effect of an AP lance that lightly armoured "barbarian" infantry are more likely to survive a charge than heavier "civilized" troops if total defence value is equal but armour is less?

Yes. AP halves the armour value, so if total defence is equal the soldier whose total defence value is derived less from the armour suffers the least. However if other defence values are equal units with more armour will do better. Extra armour does not make troops more vulnerable to AP weapons, unless it comes at the cost of other defence values.


This is not totally true. Look at Issos where Alexander charged headlong against the new heavy Persian infantry.

But that's such an unusual exception that many historians believe something else took place. The Kardakes were not prepared, Wiki says that Alexander sent the hypaspists in first, and so on. My own theory is that the Kardakes were thrown into disarray by the Agranians appearing on their flank: the difficult terrain and Persian skirmishers were supposed to protect it, but the Agranians had little trouble with either.

[miotas]

The injured vs. killed thing is actually present in M2:TW, it is represented in the prisoners taken. Men killed will be counted as dead, and men injured will be prisoners.

[A Very Super Market]

Err, no. Enemies you kill after the battle is won are counted as prisoners.

[antisocialmunky]

In R:TW the problem was that a single soldier was as able to resist a charge as an entire formation, so open formations were far more resistant against charges than they should be. You couldn't fix this without breaking something else: either cavalry ploughed through both open and closed formations, or it stopped at both open and closed formations. Maybe it works differently in M2:TW, but I don't think so.

Something like that though if they do that, you can just run your cavalry through and hit them in the butt. If you have proper support shock infantry for your cav, they'll think twice before going loose.

Of course, this is the MIITW AI we're talking about so I doubt any of this will matter.:wall:

[Prussian to the Iron]

Err, no. Enemies you kill after the battle is won are counted as prisoners.

uuuugh!

ok to clear things up:

in M2, any prisoners you take (represented by an icon with a number in the bottom right corner of your screen; a man behind bars) are men your units have "killed" while those men were routing. however this applies to any units, even arty. so if you have an enemy general who is routing, you can hit him with a trebuchet shot and still capture him.

of course, the fact that you can only ransom prisoners one time and then they are dead is kinda stupid, but still.

if you have cavalry and want to capture prisoners but the entire enemy army is routing, you can choose to continue the battle and chase down the routers. note that higher-tier units are worth more money, and generals are worth several thousand, kings 10's of thousands.

[Cute Wolf]

uuuugh!

ok to clear things up:

in M2, any prisoners you take (represented by an icon with a number in the bottom right corner of your screen; a man behind bars) are men your units have "killed" while those men were routing. however this applies to any units, even arty. so if you have an enemy general who is routing, you can hit him with a trebuchet shot and still capture him.

of course, the fact that you can only ransom prisoners one time and then they are dead is kinda stupid, but still.

if you have cavalry and want to capture prisoners but the entire enemy army is routing, you can choose to continue the battle and chase down the routers. note that higher-tier units are worth more money, and generals are worth several thousand, kings 10's of thousands.

At first, I think that "prisoners" only apply to any unit you got in Melee routers-hunting, I have experience when I decide to shower them with crossbows, and only a some men sent as prisoners, but when my Sergeants ride them down, I got many prisoners.

But the very big problem..... the AI soo rarely accept to pay the Ransom though, even if he was their last king, so, to save the ai from certain premature suicide, my generals is usually grow more chivalry, even if dread in my opinion, are more useful.