First impression/ suggestions [Archive]

nic

01-14-2006, 00:44

Thanks for making this mod, first of all. While Rome Total Realism is obviously much more polished and complete at this stage I think that with time Europa Barbarorum can be even better. I have a few suggestions.

Cavarly need a MUCH greater charge bonus. Cavalry no longer have any real shock value and basically pull up next to the enemy and start stabbing or thrusting. This means that hammer and anvil tactics no longer work as a cavarly charge in the flank or rear is virtually meaningless. Usually a cavalry charge would shake the morale of the ememy due to the impact. Not anymore. Cavarly now have difficulty even taking on skirmishing troops.

I like the way the cost of units and buildings has risen. It means that large battles now really mean something and can be decisive. The large cost of naval fleets adds importance to the naval aspect of the game; ships are no longer a throwaway asset.

The Chinease faction should probably be replaced with the Ilyrians, Numidians, Mauryans or Nabeteans. Each of those factions was more influencial in the time period. Mauryans would be good because it would be interesting tactically; a faction that relies on elephants for tactical sucess!

You should probably look to switch to the BI engine in the future. Not only for night battles and swimming but also for the vast new possibilities that the scripting open up.

Overall, great mod!

QwertyMIDX

01-14-2006, 01:14

None of the factions you suggested replacing the Yuezhi (I think that's what you meant) with are good options. The Illyrians are a bunch of disunified tribes, the Nabeteans are nomads, not Petra dwelling masters of trade, for most of EB's time frame. The Mauryans are only partially on the Map, and they looked south for expansion not North and West. The Numidians, well, they were clients of the Romans or Carthies for the vast majority of the time frame. Important in the same way the Italian people were, not much more.

Also, charge bonus is broken in 1.2. What you're actually complaining about is probably related to the speed or weight of cavalry though. Still, they shouldn't blast through a unit of infantry, don't expect to see that in EB.

Arman616

01-14-2006, 02:44

QwertyMIDX

01-14-2006, 03:10

We're looking at night battles actually. We can use them once we port to 1.5, we're trying to find a way to do it without the torches though.

Simmons

01-14-2006, 03:17

We're looking at night battles actually. We can use them once we port to 1.5, we're trying to find a way to do it without the torches though.
Wow that would make things interesting :bounce:

Would this also allow the "barbarians" to have more than 3 city levels?

Arman616

01-14-2006, 06:31

We're looking at night battles actually. We can use them once we port to 1.5, we're trying to find a way to do it without the torches though.

the torches are sweet though!

QwertyMIDX

01-14-2006, 07:17

Yeah, just like the head hurlers. :no:

fallen851

01-14-2006, 07:20

Still, they shouldn't blast through a unit of infantry, don't expect to see that in EB.

Why shouldn't they be able to? At the battles of Granicus and Issus, seems like the Companions charged directly into Greek phalanxes and rolled them up nicely.

Arman616

01-14-2006, 07:53

Yeah, just like the head hurlers. :no:

Are you implying that torches are unrealistic?

LorDBulA

01-14-2006, 08:08

Offcourse they are not realistic. Common, if you would like take enemy by surprise at night the last thing you would take with you would be torches.

Arman616

01-14-2006, 08:22

Offcourse they are not realistic. Common, if you would like take enemy by surprise at night the last thing you would take with you would be torches.

Not all armies needed to attack out of suprise. And how else would they be able to see at night? The moonlight isn't enough. And of course there was no night vision.

QwertyMIDX

01-14-2006, 08:43

Arman, in this thread you said both that heavy cav should be able to charge right through a phalanx and that troops in battle at night should carry torches. This is starting to make me feel kind of like this: :dizzy2:.

Arman616

01-14-2006, 09:14

I didn't say say cavarly should charge straight through a phalanx, that was someone else. And what's wrong with torches at night? How else could anyone see at night IF they were to fight at night?

QwertyMIDX

01-14-2006, 09:21

Arman616

01-14-2006, 10:33

Ah, sorry. Same avatar.

We'll likely increase ambiant light from the moon/stars/city under seige.

They didn't see very well, read the account of the night attack on Syracuse. Trying to fight a night battle was almost impossible, it was generally only used to suprise enemy camps or fortifications.

Ah i see. So even with torches, a battle still isn't well luminated? If that's the case, then I think night battles should be in EB for sieges and ambushes.

QwertyMIDX

01-14-2006, 19:06

Yeah, they would not be used to fight a pitch battle. Rather an attack on a city or an enemy camp would be the 'common' use of them.

paullus

01-14-2006, 19:53

I kinda like the broken charge bonus, since a lot of ancient sources sound like cavalry were great because they could stab from way up on their horse and intimidated foot soldiers, which is what they're generally good for in EB. My problem with charge bonus is when heavy cav slam into even very light infantry and pretty much just stop.

Night battles without the torches would be very cool...troops scaling walls by moonlight could look very awesome. Too bad you can't have units get confused and start killing each other...it would add an extra intensity to it.

QwertyMIDX

01-14-2006, 20:04

Yeah, that would be optimal.

Kull

01-14-2006, 20:26

Are you implying that torches are unrealistic?

If you are fighting with a two handed spear, the torch would be carried how? Or if you had a shield on one arm and a sword in the other, the torch would go.....? As an archer, bow in hand, drawing string back with the other and torch is placed....?? A javelineer carrying spares in one hand and hurling them with the other while the torch is held with...?? I could go on, but hopefully you see the point.

Even ignoring the "I-need-3-hands" problem, lets say you were out with a unit of your fellow swordsmen on patrol one night and saw a bunch of torches in the distance. Would you A) light some torches of your own and march off to confront them or B) sneak up on them unseen in the dark? More to the point, since units historically never marched around at night hoping for a pitched battle, all historical examples of night attacks involve one group attacking the camp/fort/city of the other. How many of these do you think involved the attackers using torches, and thereby eliminating the element of surprise? (Which is the ONLY advantage accruing to the attacker in a night battle.)

In sum. Torches = Wardogs, Headhurlers, Screeching women, etc.

Edit:
Ah i see. So even with torches, a battle still isn't well luminated? If that's the case, then I think night battles should be in EB for sieges and ambushes.

The above isn't directed at Araman626 (since he now "gets it"), but rather at anyone else who's unclear on the issue of torches

King of the dutch

01-15-2006, 00:49

Well Scipio lit up some torches at night and then proceeded to light up the carthaginian camp. :book:

But the reason for CA to implement torches seems quite obvious: to see what you're doing. And they do look sweet.

QwertyMIDX

01-15-2006, 01:51

If we can't have night battles without torches (and if we can;'t avoid pitched battles at night) than we won't put them in.

Arman616

01-15-2006, 03:15

If we can't have night battles without torches (and if we can;'t avoid pitched battles at night) than we won't put them in.

I hope night battles are in somehow.

And, another question, what about battles that stretch onto night, or mid day to late afternoon? Maybe it's already there in the RTW engine but we don't notice it because our battles don't last that long. And I haven't gone that far in my EB campaign so i haven't had any huge battles yet.

fallen851

01-15-2006, 09:24

Wait a minute, you're telling me that history is wrong? The Companions didn't charge and break through the Greek phalanx that Darius hired at those two battles?

This would suggest that Alexander the Great never conquered Persia?

Those are some big claims.

I'm rather disappointed with some of your comments, such as this one from the TWC "If you're looking for quick battles that can be won almost soley by using heavy cavalry than you're playing the wrong mod."

How many battles were won quickly by heavy cavarly back then? I don't know, but just about every battle Alexander the Great pulled off seems to have been...

Worse is "Go for it, just know that you're making them (Gaesatae) less realistic."

I don't quite understand how you can say that someone reducing the armor rating of Gaesatae is making them realistic. It isn't like back then there was a book that said: "Gaesatae have an armor rating of 5". That isn't realistic, nor is it historical, or even in the spirit of historical study to propose than arbitary system based on "defence rating" and "charge bonus" and such could actually represent the battlefield. I don't know how anyone can do that, it certainly doesn't explain the myriad of battles that would have turned out differently if real life was based on the arbitary system used in RTW or any of its mods... this is a game, just like mathematics. Now mathematics for the most part happens to represent what goes on in the world, but as I said, the system used has many problems when applied to reality.

As for you stating we shouldn't rely on what "feels right", as a horseback rider, you and I should do a test (actually I've already done this). I'll get on my horse, and hold broomstick in onehand, and charge you directly and you can hold a long stick in one hand and try to dismount me.

The fact is you won't have enough power onehanded with a very long spear to be able to muscle the spear deep enough into the horse to dismount me, the spear will just get pushed backward out of your hands, and leave a relatively small wound in the horse, or just a mark on the riders shield. Many historians claims that the phalanxes actually hung their shields from their necks, and used the spears two handed, because their would simply be no way to control them effectively otherwise. Still, even with the stick in two hands the horse and rider will tear the spear out of your hands. A horse that was armoured would be even harder to stop.

You can test this at home actually using basic physics and a car. Suppose the horse (lets assume its a Friesian, possiby the closest thing to what knights rode: 1350 lbs) plus the rider rider (160 lbs) plus the equiptment (60 lbs), total in at 1570 pounds (712 kilograms), and lets say he is charging you (member of the phalanx) at 30mph, which is a reasonable speed I'd say.

Now compare the horses weight to a car, and then subtract the proper amount of acceleration from your car (assuming the car is heavier) to recreate the force created by a 1570 pound horse traveling at 30mph.

So go outside and have someone drive toward you at the speed necessary to recreate the force that the horse generates. Mount a protective pad on the bumper of said car (protect the paint) and target this area with a long pole. Now as someone drives toward you with the car equipped with a protective pad on the bumper at 15mph or whatever "Stand your ground" and stop the charge! I guarentee the car will tear the pole out of your hand. Now you can even arm a friend with a pole also and have to the two of you try to stop the car together.

Now explain to me how a phalanx stops heavily armoured calvary... (repeat the above procedure as many times as necessary to realize this question is rhetorical)

Anyone doing this does so at their own risk, and I am not liable for any injuries or damage to broomsticks or cars, but I'd like it very much to see a video tape of this.

QwertyMIDX

01-15-2006, 20:39

Using heavy cavalry without a proper hammer and anvil tactic, or some other combined arms tactic (HA's and heavy cavalry springs to mind as another highly effective combination) won't win you many battles is what I was saying, I thought that was pretty obvious.

Artifically weakening the Gaesatae, who get armor through the same system of equipment as every other unit, makes it less realistic.

Play warrior as much as you like, but the historical record, both ancient and early modern, points to the pike as one of the most effective anti-cavalry weapons in history, for whatever reason (the horse not being willing to charge seems to have been a major factor), the density of pikemen (and thus pikes) relative to the density of cav might also have something to do with it...you don't charge me you charge me and 20 other pikes.

If you awnt to believe that heavy cavalry was the wonder weapon of the ancient world and could defeat everything else then so be it, mod away. Just don't excpet EB to make heavy cavalry the atomic bomb of the ancient world.

Of course you fail to mention that at Granicus the mercenary greeks (who may or may not have been in a makedonian phalanx) were at time of his charge completely on their own, surronded (granted on high ground) and Alexander lost more men in this part of the battle than the rest of the battle combined, including his own horse in the first charge. It also doesn't seem as though he steamrolled them with a cavarly charge, but rather wore them down.

I believe this is a passage in question, from Plutarch:

But the enemy hardly sustaining the first onset soon gave ground and fled, all but the mercenary Greeks, who, making a stand upon a rising ground, desired quarter, which Alexander, guided rather by passion than judgment, refused to grant, and charging them himself first, had his horse [...] killed under him. And this obstinacy of his to cut off these experienced desperate men cost him the lives of more of his own soldiers than all the battle before, besides those who were wounded.

Ludens

01-15-2006, 21:27

Now explain to me how a phalanx stops heavily armoured calvary... (repeat the above procedure as many times as necessary to realize this question is rhetorical)
Firstly, there is only one known occasion of Alexander's compagnion cavalry beating a phalanx from the front and that was the Theban Sacred Band. In the battles against Persia, he always used hammer & anvil tactics where the mercenary hoplites where pinned by the Macedonian phalanx and the compagnions came in from the side.

Secondly, one pike against one horse it not going to make much of an impression, I agree. However, eight pikes (as they have multiple ranks and stand in a much denser formation than the charging horsemen) will. Especially if the horse is unable to manouvre due to being hemmed in on both sides by other horses. Also, the horse will probably be discinlined to impale himself. Lastly, a bright pikemen will put the but on the ground and let that take the blow.

No doubt a frontal-cavalry charge on a phalanx would have been much more messier for the pikemen than R:TW implies, but close-orders spear always were the bane of shock-cavalry.

Craterus

01-15-2006, 21:50

My first impression of EB was that it wasn't great.

It hasn't changed.

Magnificant me

01-15-2006, 21:54

Not all armies needed to attack out of suprise. And how else would they be able to see at night? The moonlight isn't enough. And of course there was no night vision.

the moon light very well could be enuff, if you can duplicate it proproly in the game. I have spent many a night walking around at night by the light of the moon at a summer camp i worked at for a long time (it was rather isolated so there was no light form the citys and all that), you can evin drive by it if it is clear enuf at night, this was in the sumer mind you, that being the time of year that a lot of the campaing was done. the only time night becomes a bother is when the moon is not out, you get into the trees, or when the moon is back behind a hill or some thing of the sort

Teleklos Archelaou

01-15-2006, 22:15

It's very interesting that within an hour or so today two people show up on the boards and express very negative opinions of our little mod, and that these two folks just happen to be the same ones who were badmouthing us months ago on this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=966519

Thought that was just a nice coincidence. So really, it's not that you just don't like EB now, but you were pretty sure you didn't like it months ago too, right? So this really isn't a "first impression" (though for most people I guess it isn't either, eh)?

STuNTz2023

01-15-2006, 23:36

QwertyMIDX

01-16-2006, 04:00

the moon light very well could be enuff, if you can duplicate it proproly in the game. I have spent many a night walking around at night by the light of the moon at a summer camp i worked at for a long time (it was rather isolated so there was no light form the citys and all that), you can evin drive by it if it is clear enuf at night, this was in the sumer mind you, that being the time of year that a lot of the campaing was done. the only time night becomes a bother is when the moon is not out, you get into the trees, or when the moon is back behind a hill or some thing of the sort

Yeah, we're looking at increasing ambiant light from moon/stars.

Big_John

01-16-2006, 04:13

what i dont understand is...why take a great mod, do everything u can to make it look bad, when these guys have spent time making it great..when you could jus shut up n go play another mod or mod vanilla to the way that u want?'tis but among the great mysteries of the interweb. ponder not too long, ye, for thy brain may hurteth for for it, as doeth mine.
:wall:

fallen851

01-16-2006, 04:59

Firstly, there is only one known occasion of Alexander's compagnion cavalry beating a phalanx from the front and that was the Theban Sacred Band. In the battles against Persia, he always used hammer & anvil tactics where the mercenary hoplites where pinned by the Macedonian phalanx and the compagnions came in from the side.

Secondly, one pike against one horse it not going to make much of an impression, I agree. However, eight pikes (as they have multiple ranks and stand in a much denser formation than the charging horsemen) will. Especially if the horse is unable to manouvre due to being hemmed in on both sides by other horses. Also, the horse will probably be discinlined to impale himself. Lastly, a bright pikemen will put the but on the ground and let that take the blow.

No doubt a frontal-cavalry charge on a phalanx would have been much more messier for the pikemen than R:TW implies, but close-orders spear always were the bane of shock-cavalry.

Important to mention is the fact that calvary did not charge alone also, so get a couple of cars come at you. Still try getting 8 people or whatever to stop a car. My point is the first line of horses, even if you did take them down, would oblierate any spears the hoplites/pikemen held and would rip them out of their hands. That is basic physics, it is like a car smashing into the phalanx... the calvary would now be so close it would (and destroy so many spears) force the phalanx to use their swords.

Horses will do anything the rider tells them to do, as long as the ground is solid. They will run into another horse, hit a pole, whatever. Only when they literally can't see the ground or are unsure of the terrain will they stop (this is why if you lay down a horse won't run you over, the horse is unsure about its footing).

You do mention something important, that pikemen can put their pikes on the ground, this is why the Swiss pikemen were so effective. I don't see examples of this in the ancient world though... especially if they held a shield in the other hand, (Swiss pikemen didn't [don't?]) it would be simply ineffective.

Lastly, both battles of Persia and as I found out the battle of Gaugamela (spelling...) he went directly into the Phalanx, in fact one battle his calvary plus light troops took on a phalanx held and won. I'll quote my sources later.

Teleklos Archelaou

01-16-2006, 05:09

Horses will do anything the rider tells them to do, as long as the ground is solid. They will run into another horse, hit a pole, whatever. Only when they literally can't see the ground or are unsure of the terrain will they stop (this is why if you lay down a horse won't run you over, the horse is unsure about its footing).
I'm pretty ignorant about this, but I've read some good stuff by Keegan "Face of Battle" about Waterloo and he's pretty adament that horses will absolutely not charge directly into a unmoving wall of men. That's why the charges of squares rarely work - unless a horse is killed by a shot and slams into the men, creating a gap which others then plow through. Interesting to know which is right. :grin:

Kull

01-16-2006, 05:23

Keegan

Warlord 11

01-16-2006, 05:23

Important to mention is the fact that calvary did not charge alone also, so get a couple of cars come at you. Still try getting 8 people or whatever to stop a car. My point is the first line of horses, even if you did take them down, would oblierate any spears the hoplites/pikemen held and would rip them out of their hands. That is basic physics, it is like a car smashing into the phalanx... the calvary would now be so close it would (and destroy so many spears) force the phalanx to use their swords.

Horses will do anything the rider tells them to do, as long as the ground is solid. They will run into another horse, hit a pole, whatever. Only when they literally can't see the ground or are unsure of the terrain will they stop (this is why if you lay down a horse won't run you over, the horse is unsure about its footing).

You do mention something important, that pikemen can put their pikes on the ground, this is why the Swiss pikemen were so effective. I don't see examples of this in the ancient world though... especially if they held a shield in the other hand, (Swiss pikemen didn't [don't?]) it would be simply ineffective.

Lastly, both battles of Persia and as I found out the battle of Gaugamela (spelling...) he went directly into the Phalanx, in fact one battle his calvary plus light troops took on a phalanx held and won. I'll quote my sources later.

After some research, I found he did charge the Phalanx at Gaugamela. He did so, though, at a weak point created by the Bactrian Satrap attempted encircling maneuver.

QwertyMIDX

01-16-2006, 05:28

Well TA, for example at the Battle of Grandson the horse of Charles's cavalry refused to charge the front of a pike formation both times it was tried.

You do mention something important, that pikemen can put their pikes on the ground, this is why the Swiss pikemen were so effective. I don't see examples of this in the ancient world though... especially if they held a shield in the other hand, (Swiss pikemen didn't [don't?]) it would be simply ineffective.

Ummm, the Macedonians used both hands, the shield was supported mostly by a neck strap allowing both arms to weild the sarissa. Do you think they could hold a 6-8 meter pike with 1 hand? What do you think the butt spike was for? The fact that you don't know that kind of damages your credibility with respect to the way the makedonian phalanx functioned.

Teleklos Archelaou

01-16-2006, 05:28

Keegan
?
John Keegan - "The Face of Battle"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140048979/103-2839184-7075848?v=glance&n=283155

Is he questionable to some? Not sure I understood.

MeroFromVero

01-16-2006, 05:32

Is he questionable to some? Not sure I understood.

It read to me like "Keegan" was a response to your comment: "Interesting to know which is right."

I could be wrong though.

PSYCHO V

01-16-2006, 05:39

I don't quite understand how you can say that someone reducing the armor rating of Gaesatae is making them realistic. It isn't like back then there was a book that said: "Gaesatae have an armor rating of 5". That isn't realistic, nor is it historical, or even in the spirit of historical study to propose than arbitary system based on "defence rating" and "charge bonus" and such could actually represent the battlefield.... just like mathematics. Now mathematics for the most part happens to represent what goes on in the world, but as I said, the system used has many problems when applied to reality..

lol.. given that you just previously stated your belief that ..
"..it isn't like back then there was a book that said...".. ..I'm curious. What are you basing your
"reality" on?

We believe we have the system pretty darn close, esp on the likes of the Gaesatae... but we never claimed to be perfect, so if you wish to help us out and give some convincing data....we're all ears.

~:)

I don't know how anyone can do that, it certainly doesn't explain the myriad of battles that would have turned out differently if real life was based on the arbitary system used in RTW or any of its mods.

Rather arbitrary opinion there. I'm sure a myriad of battles would have turned out differently if they had of had a re-run of the actual battle on the day.

...this is a game.

Ah shucks..too much credit. Did you really believe we'd make EB so good you'd be transported back in time? ~:pat:
In any case, have you tryed it? .. the game ..that is, not 'going back in time' ? ~;)
Been doing some testing and I have to say, I'm very please with the way it plays.

my2bob

King of the dutch

01-16-2006, 10:05

Hello

uuuuuhhh.....As i have no knowledge of the macedonian phalanx this might be ridiculous but wouldn't it be impossible to stick you're spear in the ground if you have to keep it level with the oncoming cavelry. In fact only the back row who keep their spears diagnally would be able to stick 'em in the ground.

And Qwert: if someone doesn't know something or hadn't thought about it you don't have to attack their 'credebiliy' right away. It's not a political debate. See if i'm right on the above wouldn't that hurt you're credibility? I see this more when someone disagrees. I thought these forums/threads were to learn from each other not being very lofty about credibility and not answering questions half the time.

grtz kotd

O'ETAIPOS

01-16-2006, 11:16

I'm pretty ignorant about this, but I've read some good stuff by Keegan "Face of Battle" about Waterloo and he's pretty adament that horses will absolutely not charge directly into a unmoving wall of men. That's why the charges of squares rarely work - unless a horse is killed by a shot and slams into the men, creating a gap which others then plow through. Interesting to know which is right. :grin:

Teleklos are you sure that it was horses who were afraid of charge?

I'd rather say that riders didnt want to die and they didnt want to be shot for cowardity after battle so they just said that the horses don't want to charge.
Or horses were not trained enough.

Some example:

Somossiera pass in Spain. Only one road forward to Madrid. Few meters wide road with stone walls on both sides. 4 artillery placements on the road with infantry support (2,2,2,4 guns if I remember well) One or two inf attacks just were defeated on the rocky terrain around the road. Napoleon orders 400 Polish cavalry unit to charge. They go up the road, brake through or jump over the defences, up to the highest place in pass. In the ouctome over a half of cavalrymen were dead or severly wounded but the rest were victorious.
Everything is a matter of morale and training.
If you check any of horse riding competitions you will see that horse will do everything rider wants it to do.
What is the difference in charging wall of men from the back and from the front?

Riders courage.

Spectral

01-16-2006, 12:43

Somossiera pass in Spain. Only one road forward to Madrid. Few meters wide road with stone walls on both sides. 4 artillery placements on the road with infantry support (2,2,2,4 guns if I remember well) One or two inf attacks just were defeated on the rocky terrain around the road. Napoleon orders 400 Polish cavalry unit to charge. They go up the road, brake through or jump over the defences, up to the highest place in pass. In the ouctome over a half of cavalrymen were dead or severly wounded but the rest were victorious.
Everything is a matter of morale and training.
If you check any of horse riding competitions you will see that horse will do everything rider wants it to do.
What is the difference in charging wall of men from the back and from the front?

Yes, but that was the exception, not the rule. If you read upon Napoleonic Wars, or other ancient wars, you will find lots and lots of occasions where cavalry, no matter how well equipped/disciplined, couldn't push through a solid line of infantry of infantry with pikes/spears/bayonets whatever.

It's funny how people will always pick some particular situations (well known for being that, exceptions, why do you think that Somossiera is so well known, or for that matter the british charge at Garcia-Hernandez where they also destroyed an infantry square ?) and tend to make them the general rule. On most of those particular occasions the mais reason why the head-on cav charge succeeded was that the enemy infantry panicked and routed in sight of the charging cav.

BTW, anyone who is saying that really hvy cav is not powerful in the game should look twice. Hetairoi are authentic tanks on the battlefield.

QwertyMIDX

01-16-2006, 16:02

Hello

uuuuuhhh.....As i have no knowledge of the macedonian phalanx this might be ridiculous but wouldn't it be impossible to stick you're spear in the ground if you have to keep it level with the oncoming cavelry. In fact only the back row who keep their spears diagnally would be able to stick 'em in the ground.

Sounds logical, at least intially, but every pike block of the early modern era could do despite their being people behind them, I doubt the Macedonians had any problems with it either. The reason would logically be this: if you're holding a pike with a portion of it behind your back hand (which would be necessary to wield a 6-8 meter pike) then in it's horizontal it will already extend as far backwards as it ever will, making a 45 degree angle with the group would decrease the distance behind you the butt spike was. Further, the Macedonian Phalanx was off set a bit, to allow the pikes of the first 5 ranks all to protrude beyond the first rank.

Teleklos Archelaou

01-16-2006, 17:39

Teleklos are you sure that it was horses who were afraid of charge?

I'd rather say that riders didnt want to die and they didnt want to be shot for cowardity after battle so they just said that the horses don't want to charge.
Or horses were not trained enough.

Some example:

Somossiera pass in Spain. Only one road forward to Madrid. Few meters wide road with stone walls on both sides. 4 artillery placements on the road with infantry support (2,2,2,4 guns if I remember well) One or two inf attacks just were defeated on the rocky terrain around the road. Napoleon orders 400 Polish cavalry unit to charge. They go up the road, brake through or jump over the defences, up to the highest place in pass. In the ouctome over a half of cavalrymen were dead or severly wounded but the rest were victorious.
Everything is a matter of morale and training.
If you check any of horse riding competitions you will see that horse will do everything rider wants it to do.
What is the difference in charging wall of men from the back and from the front?

Riders courage.As I said, I don't know a lot about it, but I seriously doubt the reason is that some riders were cowards after the battle and lied about not being able to attack a formation. Has anyone seen a rider direct a horse straight into a wall without the intent of jumping it or pulling up just shy? That's what we're talking about. Keegan says that the horse must see an opening to jump through in the ranks, one man must flinch away and open a gap, or they must be able to jump over it (not so with a wall of standing men and spears) or something (a just-struck-dead horse) must drive a gap in the wall of men. Otherwise the horse will shy or draw up just short.

O'ETAIPOS

01-16-2006, 20:12

I do not mean some of them were cowards. I mean they have common sense and do not want to die. Great example is charge of Light Brigade at Balakalawa. After the charge which in fact succesful reached russian line (only in wrong place) cavalrymen hadn't enough morale (better say willing to death?) to continiue H2H to victory and fled.
Only realy desperate rider could do such a thing to charge infantry head-on, but it is much easier to charge the same infantry from the back.
So head on charges were available only for such units that consist of desperates (or well protected ones, using long-shaft weapons, who think they are invincible - kataphracts, heavy knights etc)
And in fact pure cav armies could win battles - at Kircholm in 1605 Polish army of 4000 cav (3500 winged husars) completely destroyed 11000 Swedish army (but it was in fact double envelope battle not head on charge against inf)

Ludens

01-16-2006, 20:36

Important to mention is the fact that calvary did not charge alone also, so get a couple of cars come at you. Still try getting 8 people or whatever to stop a car.
I think I already adressed this in my previous post. Yes, there will be more than one horse, however, a charging horse needs more "elbow space" than a stationary pikeman, so there will be perhaps two pikemen for every horse. Then the pikemen will have several ranks ready, so every horse faces eight pikepoints.

The car-analogy is good in principle, but not in proportion. A car is far heavier, faster and more powerful than a horse, far better protected and most importantly, cannot fall. It will just keep on going. A horse on the other hand is made of flesh, and at best has a thin layer metal in front of him, does feel pain and can come to an abrupt stop when it falls or dies.

My point is the first line of horses, even if you did take them down, would oblierate any spears the hoplites/pikemen held and would rip them out of their hands. That is basic physics, it is like a car smashing into the phalanx... the calvary would now be so close it would (and destroy so many spears) force the phalanx to use their swords.
Basic physics also tells us that if you charge hard enough at a pointed object anchored into the ground, you will get impaled, breastplate or no. Even if the pikepoint glances off, it can still lift you out of the sadle. Now, this exersize in bravery may be survivable if it was just one wall of pikes you have to pass, but there are four, each and everyone of them capable of killing you or your horse. Sure, several pikemen will have to let go of their pikes or find them broken, but the first line of of the cavalry charged is dead or wounded.

Now, at this point the second line of horses would have an easier job were not for the fact that their path blocked by the dying horses of the first line. They either have to jump, stop or stumble (assuming that the horses are lying on the ground, but given that cavalry charges in close order they may still be falling when the second group arrives), adding only more to the chaos. Then the third lines comes in, and has to stop or else they chrash into the second line.

So in short, your frontal cavalry charge is not only going wreck the phalanx, but your first line of cavalry men as well, provided the phalanx was formed and stood their ground. If these conditions do not apply, then a frontal charge can meet with success.

Lastly, both battles of Persia and as I found out the battle of Gaugamela (spelling...) he went directly into the Phalanx, in fact one battle his calvary plus light troops took on a phalanx held and won. I'll quote my sources later.
Interesting. I always thought that at Gaugamela he first despatched the Persian cavalry and then flanked the phalanx, but then I am not an expert.

nic

01-16-2006, 23:09

Iskandr

01-17-2006, 00:37

Kull

01-17-2006, 05:50

It read to me like "Keegan" was a response to your comment: "Interesting to know which is right."

I could be wrong though.

That's what i meant. By the way, for anyone reading this - if you haven't read "Face of Battle", BUY IT!!!! Just top notch. Before he writes about them Keegan walks the physical battlefields he's about to describe, and does a superb job with his first hand sources. Unlike many, Keegan doesn't just refer to them in the footnotes and give you his take on the battle, rather he quotes his sources and then describes why he believes their words mean "x".

So. In the context of Waterloo, the facts are there were multiple French cavalry charges, and in almost every case, the participants agree that these mass charges flowed around the British squares, not through them. And whatever people may say about the French military, these cavalrymen were fantastically brave. They rode into a hail of fire, multiple times, and made every effort to engage the infantry, but the Brits wouldn't break square (and if you think standing upright in a square for hours on end was a picnic, examine Keegan's description of "Artillery vs. Infantry" in this battle - one of the most chilling things you'll ever read). A man willing to ride a horse for a quarter mile into oncoming artillery and musket fire is not going to quail at the sight of a thin red line a few men deep - men who are NOT carrying long pikes, I might add - no, he would ride right through it except for one small detail. His horse will not go there.

One final comment. If you read the ancient authors, the sad truth is that most were not present at the battles they describe - and thus we hear through them the second and third hand description of events. So when you hear of cavalry successfully attacking a phalanx, keep in mind that we often don't know (and probably never will) the true reason for success. Did the infantry - or at least some - turn and run? Was it a flank attack. Did something disrupt the line, thus gving the cavalry access to the interior of the unit? In most cases, it's impossible to say. So we must rely on examples nearer to our time, and those are pretty close to unanimous that a cavalry charge against a solid, disciplined line of men almost never ends well for the guys on horseback.

Kull

01-17-2006, 05:56

Ludens

01-17-2006, 16:55

I'm mot asking for cavalry to be an ancient super-weapon, just to have a little more shock value when they hit the flank or rear. Surley we can agree that they should be given a little more speed/weight?
The problem is that cavalry charge in R:TW 1.2 is bugged. Either you have cavalry able to plough through heavy infantry or you get cavalry that cannot push over a light skirmisher. EB chose the least unbalancing option. However, the switch to 1.5 should solve this issue.

jerby

01-17-2006, 17:50

My first impression of EB was that it wasn't great.

It hasn't changed.
Then what was wrong? EB coudl you soem constructed critisism...i think...

Spectral

01-17-2006, 19:20

Well, the only real problem I see with cavalry so far (besides not being able to recruit Heteroi yet, curses! ) is that pike have a completely fantastic ability to turn around and reface while engaged. In reality, even the best trained men, when hit from behind, are in no way ever going to rebuild the pike wall facing the opposite direction. But in the game, they can. Now, well-trained pike may form a hedgehog, and in fact the Swiss were known for this later on, but I have never read or heard of a phalanx doing so. And this tactic, of course, reduces either frontage or depth. OTOH, until the AI learns what a flank is (i.e., never) then making pike work like reality will be a losing proposition, gameplay-wise.

Yes, I've noticed it too and it's a shame when you make a "classical" drive through one flank of the enemy phalanx with your medium infantry ( like thureophoroi) and/or cavalry and then crash into the side or rear of the phalanx only to have them quickly turn their pikes agains it you - it is even worse when you're using only infantry to attack the phalanx IMO, making the thureophoroi sometimes quite useless.

It makes it even worse the fact that normally the AI phalanx units have better XP, which added to the bonuses given to them in h/vh battle settings (I'll never user them again!) means that all other things being equal you will lose the phalanx battle...

Gealai

01-17-2006, 20:27

I personally would suggest to read the following article (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/bachrach3.htm) about medieval horses and cavalry. Interesting is especially the part with many example about the famous frankish knights charging various enemies with very mixed success.

Of the importance of a coordinated disciplined attack:

Maintaining a cohesive mounted formation (ordinata aequaliter acies) was well recognized in the West as crucial for the effective use of mounted troops.73 Einhard's report on the defeat of a troop of Frankish horsemen by a unit of Saxons fighting on foot in the Suntal mountains illustrates, through the description of a failed attack, what could happen when a mounted force lost its cohesion and each man attacked as an individual.74 Such mistakes seem to have been easily recognized even by court intellectuals such as Einhard, who writes:

"Thus they [the leaders of the scara] decided to engage the Saxons without him [Theodoric] and took up their arms not as though they were intending to attack a prepared battle line but as if they were chasing down fugitives from behind and gathering up booty. The Saxons stood in their battle line in front of their encampment and each and every one of them [the Franks] rode at them as fast as possible. The charge was as poorly executed as the battle. Indeed, once the fighting began the attackers were surrounded by the Saxons and almost all of the Franks were killed.75 "

However even if the charge was well united and well prepared good infantry was very hard to beat:

"It is also clear that when a commander underestimated the strength or resolve of a disciplined force of men fighting on foot and hurled his horsemen, inadequately supported by foot soldiers or fire power, at such a well-positioned enemy, the result was usually disaster or near-disaster for the mounted attackers. Whether we look to the early Middle Ages at Unstruct (531), Suntal (782), or to later encounters such as Lechfeld (955), Conquereuil (992), Saint Michel en l'Herm (1014), the first charge at Pontlevoy (1016), the first few charges at Hastings (1066), Legnano (1176), Courtrai (1302), Bannockburn (1314), Morgarten (1315), Crecy (1346), and Agincourt (1415), the failure of the mounted troops is evident.56 Indeed, even at the celebrated battle of Bouvines (1214), where most scholars credit the French mounted troops with winning the victory, it is clear that the Saxon infantry was superior to King Philip's own horsemen in the center of the line. The mounted charge by the French left flank against the Brabantine foot, who withdrew after a less than noteworthy resistance, is thought by many scholars to have been the decisive phase of the battle. This retreat, however, was probably due to the duke of Brabant's duplicity rather than to the vast tactical superiority of the French horse.57"

The author points out that the medieval knights and commanders were quite learned and were not just tricked by enemy feigned retreats but also used them to their advantage:

"Both the feigned retreat and the emphasis upon the cohesive deployment of heavily armed mounted troops are well illustrated in the military operations carried out by King Henry I at Riade in 933. Henry set out to locate and engage a force of lightly armed Magyar horse-archers which had been raiding in the area of Mercerberg. Henry knew that his heavily armed horsemen could not force an engagement at close quarters because the Magyars, who were much more lightly armed, simply could outdistance his forces and, by remaining within bow range, pick off the slower-moving Saxons or, more probably, their valuable but unprotected horses. Thus Henry developed a plan which entailed the use of a force of lightly armed Thuringian horsemen among whom he spotted a very few heavily armed men. This force was deployed to attract the attention of the Magyars. When the numerically superior Magyars attacked, the lightly armed Germans were to wheel their horses and execute a feigned retreat. This was intended to lure the Magyars into pursuit and within range of Henry's heavily armed horsemen who, concealed by the terrain, would then attack the enemy before they could flee.71 In preparation for this encounter, Henry instructed his heavily armed horsemen in the following terms:

When you are charging forward to this initial contact with the enemy, none of you is to try to outdistance your fellows simply because you have a faster horse. Cover yourself on one side with your shield and catch the enemy's first volley of arrows on your shield. Then charge them at full speed as fast as you can so that before they have a chance to fire a second volley they may feel the wounds inflicted by your weapons.72 "

A gem of an article IMHO and shows clearly that some commanders knew how to counter horse-archers!

!By the way a great mod!