Campaing map: Strategic Movement

[Hurin_Rules]

One of the great benefits of cavalry is their speed of movement. On the tactical (battle) map, this is reflected in their higher movement speeds. On the strategic (campaign) map, however, this is ignored.

I know RTW is using a new campaign map, but I wonder if they have considered addressing this. I think the most basic way of doing this is to allow cavalry to move two land regions rather than just one per turn (Heck, you can ride all the way from paris to Constantinople in a year, if you have to, though that would be unbalancing in game terms). If the campaign map allows it, it might be cool to even include different rates of movement for infantry units. The Romans legions were famous for thier ability to march long distances. On the other hand, one of the reasons the legions eventually disappeared was because they were too slow to reach threatened frontier areas; cavalry was much better at plugging gaps in the limes.

Any other suggestions on how this could be done?

[DrHaphazard]

Didn't we already have this discussion? Searching...

[FOUND] - A Suggestion, All cavalry armies..... (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=8515;hl=cavalry+moving+faster)

I dont remember what was said however, so ya might want to read into that.

Ya know what i was just thinking? Seems like the "fog of war" if implemented for this game would keep you from seeing where other armies are located (unless of course you have a spy nearby.) So you could use cavalry in the game (as they were used in reality) to find and track the movement of enemy stacks.

This seems like a reasonable use of the "cavlary faster than infantry rule." But was cavlary used in the scouting capacity way back then? I can't see why not but perhaps they weren't.

If this were true how close would you have to be to "find" an enemy army? Hmm now that i think about it i think its more likey that you will use some type of spy unit to locate passing armies. Perhaps cavalry units up close might help you determine the size and/or makeup of the army.

Oh well just specualting...

[Hurin_Rules]

Thanks for the link... I'll check it out.

To answer your question, yes, cavalry was routinely used for scouting in the ancient and medieval worlds.

[Hakonarson]

Strategic speed has little to do with how the soldiers aer monuted - rather it is limited by how fast the baggage and accompanying families, supplies, etc can move.

Sometimes forces took a few days rations to head off somewhere fast - only taking what they could carry themselves, but for the most part all armies moved at walking speed.

[Hurin_Rules]

Maybe for modern armies, yes. But medieval armies often lived off the land-- they didn't need gasoline, bullets, gunpowder, spare parts, etc. Before gunpowder and mechanized armies, you could get away with this a lot easier. That's not to say armies usually did without any supplies, but that you really could leave your supply lines with far fewer difficulties. The English armies in France during the 100 years war simply did away with supply trains altogether for extended periods, living off the land (and terrorizing the population). Also, Roman armies, when moving within the empire, did not have to worry about supply as much. They just had to make it to the nearest town or roman fort and they'd be fine.

[Hakonarson]

Certainly Roman armies could move among pre-prepared supply bases, but the rest of yuor assumptions are generally innaccurate. Medieval armies rarely "lived off the land" - and when they did it certainly wasn't for long.

English armies in the 100 yrs war often are characterised as raids (chevauchez??) and ended up starving and suffering hugely from dysentry - as at Agincourt for example. And they utterly destroyed the land they marched through in the fashion too - so that effect has to be noted.

Ancient armies did need all sorts of things - food being the main one - both for men and animals. But also leather, cloth, metal, arrows, sling bullets, blankets, etc. And of course water.

Even when any army was living off the land time still had to be taken to gather supplies from 'round and about.

Napoleon got it pretty much right - but then his version of "living off the land" involved a very complx organisation spread out even in enemy territory to stockpile supplies (yes, in enemy territory&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif in advance, and failed outright in places like Spain and Russia. Indeed after the superb army of 1805-6 had been largely retired or killed or diluted by later levies he never really did it again.

But back to the Roman era - the search for provisions could often lead to battles in all eras -

Check out this site - it is Caesar's African Wars (http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/african.html), and has several little vignettes of how armies fought, moved, and relied upon supplies.

Chapter 20 is good for the kinds of things an army needed, and chapters 65 and 66 for a sharp action to secure grain (the chapters are quite short - jsut a paragraph or 2 each, so it's not a massive read http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif)

[AvramL]

even if they were living off the land (usually not a very effective option; look at the state of Henry V's army at Agincourt) an army, even ancient, would still have much baggage and equipment to lug with it, cavalry as well (everything from spare equipment to shovels). As a result, most of the time armies moved the speed at which their slowest elements moved, ofcourse troops (usually cavalry) could head off for short periods to serve reconaissance needs etc. But this was a bit dodgy and as a result ancient armies often had very poor reconaissance abilities, fortunately their opponents were usually equally hindered.

[Hurin_Rules]

I understand what you're saying, but ancient and medieval armies were still much less dependent on supplies than modern ones.

"English armies in the 100 yrs war often are characterised as raids (chevauchez??) and ended up starving and suffering hugely from dysentry - as at Agincourt for example. And they utterly destroyed the land they marched through in the fashion too - so that effect has to be noted."

The effect is noted, and was often intended. It was a tactic medieval armies exploited. Dysentery is more the effect of poor sanitation and was suffered by all medieval armies-- even the ones with elaborate supply trains. What I'm saying is that medieval armies were fundamentally different from the slow moving, canon-laden, baggage-bound armies of the 18th century. They could move swiftly when they had to and still reach the enemy in reasonable fighting shape with all they needed in terms of equipment.

"Ancient armies did need all sorts of things - food being the main one - both for men and animals. But also leather, cloth, metal, arrows, sling bullets, blankets, etc. And of course water."

Sure, but most of those things could be carried by the individual soldier on his back or horse-- Legionaires weren't called 'Marius's Mules' for nothing.

Of course, an army 'living off the land' is going to suffer to some extent. But the point is that they could do it if they had to. The First Crusaders marched from France to Jerusalem. They suffered horrendous casualties, but they did it in under 3 years-- and they fought most of the way.

My central point is that if RTW is to have armies moving on interior lines, cavalry at least should be able to move long distances. In enemy territory you might have to go slower, but the movement in MTW is VERY unrealistic. You can march from Wales to Scotland in less than a month; you could ride it in a week. In the game it takes 2 years. You could EASILY ride a horse from Rome to London in under a year-- if you went hard you could do it in a couple of months. In the game it takes 6 years.

[Hakonarson]

They were called Marius's Mules because he made them carry all their own gear and ditched most of the huge baggage train that had built up following most Roman armies - so they were fulfilling the role they'd made mules carry out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Even in the space of a generation the Roman army had a change from being baggage-bound to something probably a little better - but not too much because there was only so much a legionary could carry - the rest still had to be carried in a baggage train.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I don't think it matters anyway, as Cav speed is only notieable in the short timeframe of tactical battles. I imagine it will balance out over the yearly or seasonal turns of the strategic game.

[Parmenio]

The nomadic culture of the Mongols certainly meant that their cavalry armies could move very swiftly from one end of the empire to the other through uncontested terrain. (Each rider owned 4 horses and ate slept and relieved themselves from the saddle.) I think this speed of march was probably generally true of many of the horse archer armies that shared a semi-nomadic culture through out history such as the Parthians.

The Byzantines field army was entirely cavalry I think, with infantry considered being inferior only good enough for garrison duties, since they couldn't keep up with the horsemen and knights.

That said, there were some highly organised infantry armies, that could also force march swiftly through uncontested terrain, and as a general rule the smaller the force the less cumbersome it was.

The nature of terrain made a huge difference, even if it wasn't contested. Mountains were generally considered impassable in Winter, while major rivers might be in flood during spring and require the construction of bridges or fleets at other times of the year. Unexplored/unknown lands might require the services of local guides and the neutrality or favor of the local population.

The use of harassing tactics by small enemy forces could slow the march of an army to a crawl or force them to retire to a defensive position if they lacked a effective cavalry or smirmish screen.

[Leet Eriksson]

Well romans did use mounted scouts to scout the terrain and such(the arabs used a similiar tactic that had a unit of cavalrymen ahead of the army by several miles).But cavalry faster than infantry?dunno,whats the use of cavalry alone without infantry support when they enter battle?

[Parmenio]

Quote[/b] (faisal @ Aug. 03 2003,15:27)](snip).But cavalry faster than infantry?dunno,whats the use of cavalry alone without infantry support when they enter battle?
Historically, horse archer armies were deadly in open rolling terrain, where it was impossible to close with them until they wanted you to. I think I remember one instance when an entire Roman army was taken prisoner by the Parthians after it had been forced into a defensive square and had it's supply lines cut.

That said in Total War, they often fare badly simply because the game doesn't work that way.

[Hurin_Rules]

The battle you are talking about is the Battle of Carrhae, 54 BC I believe. 20,000 Roman soldiers killed, another 10,000 captive. All at the hands of bands of lightly armed horse archers and a few heavy cavalry.

[jLan]

Faisal, as the Mongols proved, an army of all cavalry can still crush most armies if used correctly.

The crusaders had to hire Turcopoles to deal with the mamluk archers in battle - simply because they did not have fast enough horses to catch them, and the mamluks came and went so fast that they didnt have time to fire back.