View Full Version : Cav way too powerful
Been playing for about a day now and I've noticed cav are still overly powerful just like in Rome total war. Even the lightest heavy knights available to catholic factions (mailed knights) have no trouble running right through a prepared spear wall. Even armoured seargants are no match to mailed knights let alone feudal or chivalric. No matter what infantry unit you use to defend it always appears to suffer greater than 50% casualties within the first few seconds of the charge. Something about this doesn't seem right.
Dont know if cav is overpowered but I think spears are too weak, I play as Portugal and I can say that pikes are ok against cav but normal spears almost always loose even against Hobilars!!!!!
A 340 gold spear unit looses against an Hobilar 220 gold unit even when in shiltron formation (which by the way seems useless to me). Its a bit sad :no:
Too powerful? My cav refuses to charge correctly and even peasants killing the frontline pretty fast...
The Wizard
11-16-2006, 00:24
I'm hearing two sounds here... one side tells me the cavalry is weakened from RTW, the other says that spears are underpowered.
Say we take MTW as the level to be achieved. I've recently gotten back to playing that. I've heard normal spears get decimated by cavalry, even in close quarters (say a siege). In MTW, this is also the case, unless you misuse your cavalry. Chivalric knights will win any encounter with normal spearmen, even feudal sergeants, under normal circumstances. Uphill, even kataphraktoi and Gothic knights flounder.
Can't speak of a combat experience. Don't have the game, you see :sweatdrop:
Spears would suffer from cavalry charges. What makes the pike different is that it's butt end is grounded and then the pikes are leveled in a hedgehog bristle. Spears might have a bit of reach over swords but the weapon is still only held by the spearman and so a horse charge will still penetrate the line.
Not all pointy ended sticks are the same in use or effect.
With pikes, the weapon itself absorbes the impact and transmits it to the ground so it forms a real barrier.
With spears the man still absorbes the impact through the weapon and suffers the direct shock of the charge.
Cavalry has always been powerful and decisive on battlefields. First, prior to impact charges, by being able to quickly flank infantry and out manuvere foot soldiers.
After the development of impact charges, foot soldiers would often run at the mear threat of a horse charge.
Pikes gave the footman some hope of success but foot soldiers were still subject to being out manuvered by horse and forced to defend either from an infantry push from their front, or horse impact from rear or side.
Also for pikemen, the weapon itself would often inflict casualties on themselves or their fellows by becoming ungrounded and shoved like rams through the ranks by the impact of the horse charge.
Anyway, that's my limited understanding of the issue.
The Wizard
11-16-2006, 00:38
You forget the effects of a spear formation. The densely packed mass of men, in which each man's weight contributes to the staying power of the man in front of him, is a major reason why a spear formation can stop cavalry. That is the power of the shield wall, the major infantry tactic in the early ages of MTW2's timespan.
Like pikes, spears do not massacre cavalry; rather, they win by sheer staying power. Cavalry bogged down is no force at all.
The difference between, say, a spear-armed formation of Anglo-Saxon fyrdmen and the gladius-armed Roman cohort is the reach of the spear. The Roman cohort could most certainly stop an oncoming cavalry charge, yes, but its soldiers couldn't reach the man on the horse. A spear's reach remedies that problem. Again: killing power is not the power of the "long pointy thing" soldier category.
Throumbaris
11-16-2006, 00:44
Even peasants can destroy mailed knights once they are stopped, they are most definately not too powerful.
The Wizard
11-16-2006, 00:50
The sentiment expressed in this thread is: sure, but how can they be stopped if my spears can't do the job?
I can't say, for one. I'm just a sucker without the game ~;)
RabidGibbon
11-16-2006, 00:58
I did some Game research just now, and was surprised by the results. After playing 150 or so campaign turns I don't make frontal charges with my heavy cav, so expected some different results to what I got here.
I took 3 units of Gendarmes, against 3 units of (HRE) Sargeant Spearmen. Difficulty was VH.
I expected the HRE spears to form a line, but they kept their general in reserve, so I charged 2 units of gendarmes against the front 2 spear units. The 3rd Gendarme unit was never used throughout the battle.
Total value of the Gendarmes is (770 x 2) 1540
Total value of the spearmen is (420 x 3) 1260
The spearmen were routed within a minute. However they were deployed piecemeal (ie: the front 2 then the General) against the Gendarmes. The Gendarmes won, but only 36 out of 120 were left.
https://usera.imagecave.com/RabidGibbon/TestFolder/Cavtest1.jpg
https://usera.imagecave.com/RabidGibbon/TestFolder/CavTest2.jpg
https://usera.imagecave.com/RabidGibbon/TestFolder/CavTest3.jpg
https://usera.imagecave.com/RabidGibbon/TestFolder/CavTest4.jpg
Now the cavalry has won here, but they are more expensive than the troops their fighting. Once you factor in that you never get a charge as straight and clean as I got in this test fight - In MP or the Campaign archers, terrain and confusion would all have reduced their effectiveness.
Overall I don't think Cavalry are overpowered. At all.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-16-2006, 01:12
Think Cav is Kinda Overpowered when I did some SP games today, but not to bad..
I just did an experiment similiar to the one above. I had a general of peasants, as well as the enemy general of peasants, both never bothered two engage. I had 2 units of Mailed Knights and the enemy had 2 units of Armoured Spearment. Now when I walked them up to the enemy they began dying but if i clicked "move" on the ground behind them the cavalry just walked through the units completly decimating them. I think the problem lies in that fact that infantry don't really have any staying power and cavalry just walk through them like they're not even there. The AI seems to do this. I remember in a siege having 8 units of spear militia almost completly decimated before being able to finally destroy 1 unit of jinettes and 2 units of mailed knights. The mailed knights just kept walking through my men killing them in massive numbers. I finally called in my general and he dispatched them but I lost a lot of spears.
Well, I had mostly city battles so far and at least there, mailed knights fall like flies once a spear unit catches them. I think the balance is about right as it is, I don't want knights to die even faster and I play on medium...
A.Saturnus
11-16-2006, 01:23
You forget the effects of a spear formation. The densely packed mass of men, in which each man's weight contributes to the staying power of the man in front of him, is a major reason why a spear formation can stop cavalry. That is the power of the shield wall, the major infantry tactic in the early ages of MTW2's timespan.
Like pikes, spears do not massacre cavalry; rather, they win by sheer staying power. Cavalry bogged down is no force at all.
The difference between, say, a spear-armed formation of Anglo-Saxon fyrdmen and the gladius-armed Roman cohort is the reach of the spear. The Roman cohort could most certainly stop an oncoming cavalry charge, yes, but its soldiers couldn't reach the man on the horse. A spear's reach remedies that problem. Again: killing power is not the power of the "long pointy thing" soldier category.
No doubt that disciplined spearmen in tight formation could stop a cav charge but in medieval times spearmen never were highly trained. Even Sargeant Spearmen would be rather would be rather untrained, since almost the entire fighting elite in these times were knights. That's why heavy cav dominated the battlefields until the late medieval times.
Also bear in mind, that a unit of gendarmes, is more than 2 times as expensive to maintain in the campaigngame
Interesting test, RabidGibbon. :bow: It fits my impression from solo play - knights vs spears head on = mutual assured destruction. Yes, the knights may prevail but at such a cost you don't want to do it. (Think charge of the light brigade.)
As to whether they are overpowered, I think there are at least two alternative standards: gameplay or historical accuracy. Probably three, if separate SP and MP gameplay.
For SP gameplay, I don't have an enormous problem. Unlike RTW, I don't find the AI cavalry rolling over me, nor do I find myself trying to roll over the AI with my cavalry. I'd still rather use swords or missiles to kill those spears. And I'd still rather use spears than other units to soak up a cavalry charge (although apparently pikes are the best).
For historical accuracy, it's open to debate. CA might have got it right - knights could prevail over spearmen but it would not be a smart general who tried a simple frontal assault. I've read more about Napoleonic warfare, where cavalry seem to have balked at steady infantry, but it's likely in the pre-gunpowder age, with heavier armour, they were used more aggressively.
On balance, I rather like M2TW knights. They are very powerful, but very fragile, and so interesting to handle. They remind me a little of heavy cavalry in RTR Platinum Edition. By contrast, I found MTW knights lacked a little punch while RTW cavalry were a little too robust.
PROMETHEUS
11-16-2006, 02:56
Too powerful? My cav refuses to charge correctly and even peasants killing the frontline pretty fast...
Same here I play on very hard , but come one it is possible that CA put smoke in our eyes when reading their wonders on AI , but may be they simply pumped up the enemies stats when on hard and very hard .... my cavalry is buggy , don't charge anything if not very far, tire very fast , and gets killed by even archers and crossbowmen....that if charged after a couple of hits they stand firm and cut into pieces all the knights ..... bah .....
I don't think the AI's cav is more buffed up. The AI does seem to get decent charges more often. Mine always stop charging 2 mweters in front of an enemy unit, and walk the rest of the way like they;re walking down a park.
Also they don;t form a proper front, rather they choose to go into battle one by one, getting hacked away.
Playing on VH/VH knights and other heavy cav seem perfect. They can decimate nearly any infantry 1v1 in a solid charge. But if they get bogged down they will be massacred. The trick to killing them is to stop them, remember to always keep some form of reserve heavy infantry behind your main line. Let the cavalry hit that cheap infantry and stall out. Then send in your reserve and their ground horsemeat before too long. Unsuported infantry should always be decimated if caught by cav. Even if their spearmen, cav should decimate them but they will take insane casualties head on to make it worth it.
I'm loving the knights and heavy cav atm. CA you truly got it so near perfect this time.
Spears would suffer from cavalry charges. What makes the pike different is that it's butt end is grounded and then the pikes are leveled in a hedgehog bristle. Spears might have a bit of reach over swords but the weapon is still only held by the spearman and so a horse charge will still penetrate the line.
Not all pointy ended sticks are the same in use or effect.
With pikes, the weapon itself absorbes the impact and transmits it to the ground so it forms a real barrier.
With spears the man still absorbes the impact through the weapon and suffers the direct shock of the charge.
Cavalry has always been powerful and decisive on battlefields. First, prior to impact charges, by being able to quickly flank infantry and out manuvere foot soldiers.
After the development of impact charges, foot soldiers would often run at the mear threat of a horse charge.
Pikes gave the footman some hope of success but foot soldiers were still subject to being out manuvered by horse and forced to defend either from an infantry push from their front, or horse impact from rear or side.
Also for pikemen, the weapon itself would often inflict casualties on themselves or their fellows by becoming ungrounded and shoved like rams through the ranks by the impact of the horse charge.
Anyway, that's my limited understanding of the issue.
What your missing though is that a spear formation is much much more tighter then a pike. While a spearmen will take the brunt of the assualt he is supported by the men behind him, the horse must move not just him but the supporting men in the back ranks. With tight disciplined formations like the shield wall the amount of men the cav would have had to of pushed increased exponentially with each additional rank.
My experience with the Cav charging thing is this.
You have to allow the cavalry to "reset", they need to come to nearly a complete stop and be lined up roughly on the target you intend to charge. Next you need to make sure their lances are already out, if they are not out try hitting cancel orders, that usually works for me. If cancel orders doesnt work to get them to pull their lances out try having them move forward a little bit. It is obviously very finicky and I think something is probably broken in that regard.
Next when delivering the actual charge, they need a minimum distance because they WILL actually sort themselves out in the approach to present a single line abreast however many ranks deep you have them. Secondly they WILL abort the charge if there are "doodads" in the way. If you are charging them over broken ground, they will abort the charge 90% of the time in my experience. Rocks/Trees/Shrubs etc will all cause them to pull up their lances and go to swords. Seems fairly realistic to me actually.
The biggest issue I have at the moment is being able to consistently have them pull out their lances when they are not currently engaged in combat. Sometimes hitting cancel works like magic, other times nothing seems to work.
I found that knights charging your line headon are going to smash through, or make a serious dent, no matter what you have in front of them. But once you stall the knights and counter attack them from the flank with polearms, they die fast. The AI will do this to your knights too so you HAVE to break off a change once it hits home then wheel and charge again, unless the AI has redeployed, which it usually does.
Those gendarme vs spearmen results don't make cavalry seem overpowered at all.
Man for man, expensive top of the line heavy knight units should definitely defeat an unsupported spear unit. I mean, what are the spearmen going to do to harm heavily armed knights on horseback with lances that may well outreach their spears? Nothing.
The real danger is that the horsemen would get bogged down slowly killing spearmen (they can't just dash them away in a glorious charge) and then other units would rush in and attack them in the flanks, or they'd get counter cavalry charged or shot up by archers or something.
I think this is probably the period where heavy cavalry was most dangerous to infantry, if there's one place for cavalry to be powerful, this is it.
I'd say some Knights are underpowered - Frankish knights always seem to get butchered.
Sheogorath
11-16-2006, 10:16
For historical accuracy, it's open to debate. CA might have got it right - knights could prevail over spearmen but it would not be a smart general who tried a simple frontal assault. I've read more about Napoleonic warfare, where cavalry seem to have balked at steady infantry, but it's likely in the pre-gunpowder age, with heavier armour, they were used more aggressively.
Thats what I love about the Napoleonic Russian Army, especially the units like the Pavlovsk Grenadiers.
Cavalry? Where? There?
CHARGE!
Imagine the effect THAT would have on cavalry, used to being the ones doing the charging :P
Anyway, one thing I have noticed with cavalry recently is the fact that the skirmish range for them is INSIDE the range of javaline units, EX: Polish nobles. This means that when fighting such units and trying to avoid MAD, you need to constantly move your cavy on your own.
'Tis quite frustrating, but I guess it would be hard to code proper skirmishing for such occasions.
AussieGiant
11-16-2006, 11:09
From what I've seen it looks about right. I don't think Cav are overpowered as you can't just charge around willy nilly, which is correct.
The game play Econ is describing is about what you should expect.
Please note If EVERYONE could please state what difficulty they are playing on so these discussions can be compared.
The only issue that needs to be addresses globally is the issue with only a few front rank soldiers in any formation charging when given the attack order. When this happens with a charge it is suicide (both Cav and Infrantry). You must have all the soldiers in a unit hitting at the same time. This I believe is a patch issue and should solve much of the balancing issues we are all talking about.
Maybe, "prepared" spear units should be a little more robust but it is certainly not going to get off a cav charge without some serious losses.
"Prepared" to me is either a spear unit in Guard Mode or in a shield wall or shiltron formation.
Please note, unprepared spear units would be very ugly.
Just a thought Waleed, can you double check this when spear units are 5 deep or greater. This should help.
Leaping-Tall
11-16-2006, 12:26
hmmm a good way of beating cav is to stop them from hittiong your infantry with a long ranged attack sacrafice archers or ur weakest infantry:wall:
Daveybaby
11-16-2006, 12:26
I really think the balance is about right.
Cav, if used properly, will devastate spearmen, especially if its 1 on 1.
Spears, if used properly, will devastate cav, especially if theyre used to pin the cav so another unit can get stuck in from the sides/behind.
Its not about one unit being better than the other, its about how you use them in combination with the rest of your army. Perfect.
Admittedly cav charges do seem a little fragile, and difficult to set up. It would be interesting to hear from CA as to whether this is intentional or a bug.
RabidGibbon's test is all well and good, but, as he admits himself, it isnt really relevant for a realworld battle. The purpose of spears isnt to beat cavalry, its to hold them while another unit does the killing. Also, unit purchase costs arent nearly as important in the campaign as maintenance costs are - in reality those gendarmes are going to cost more than twice as much per turn in upkeep - maybe this should be reflected in MP game unit costs.
I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Davey, with the possible exception that *some* spear units are slightly underpowered, and some of the light cav units feel a bit overpowered. Even against basic spears the average "Frankish charge" of heavy knights and it's various cultural equivalents was absolutely devastating, even if the receiving company did not break on impact.
Just my $0.02 USD.
PseRamesses
11-16-2006, 13:54
Cavs are finally represented in a proper way. The speed is realistic and their impact in any troops are too IMHO. To you guys that always whine about cavs being too strong in previous CA-titles I have one serious Q: do you have any idea how devastating it is to try and stay in the way of a horse running straight at you? A mass of 500-750 kg´s running at 40-50 km/h creates a huge momentum. Only a deep, stationary and well organized formation will be able to counter such a charge, like the shieldwall or a phalanx formation but will still take losses. This is why the horses dominated the battlefield from Alexanders day until the 19th century.
To all that thinks spears are underpowered I must state that their are few unit types throughout history that was significantly better that others. No matter how strong and well equipped infantry ever was they still took losses.
My personal feeling with M2 is that things are finally getting portrayed in a more realistic way. I do feel however that units stamina in M2 are a bit too good, they shure can run for a long time without getting tired.
FrauGloer
11-16-2006, 14:49
Here's what I found:
Cav vs Spears: in SP I faced a full general's unit (30) with just one unit of spear militia in city combat. On the initial charge, I lost about 20 spearmen, but after that, the cav was butchered. In the end, I had about 50 of the original 112 spearmen left, and, considering they are low-tier, that kill ratio is amazing IMO. --> on the charge, cavalry is adequately powerful even vs spearmen, but once they are stayed, they die very quickly.
Cav vs cav: in MTW and Rome, I liked doing pitched all-cav battles in custom just for the looks of it. Having two cav armies charge at each other looks just plain cool. :yes: In MTW2 I found that cavalry units have problems charging each other head-on: In Custom Battle, I set 1 unit of Teutonic Knights vs 1 unit of Hospitallers. When I ordered the head-on charge, my unit stopped just before the impact without any apparent reason. As the enemy cav continued their charge, they killed about 10 of my knights while I killed none! :wall:
I hope they fix that...
AussieGiant
11-16-2006, 15:03
Here's what I found:
Cav vs Spears: in SP I faced a full general's unit (30) with just one unit of spear militia in city combat. On the initial charge, I lost about 20 spearmen, but after that, the cav was butchered. In the end, I had about 50 of the original 112 spearmen left, and, considering they are low-tier, that kill ratio is amazing IMO. --> on the charge, cavalry is adequately powerful even vs spearmen, but once they are stayed, they die very quickly.
Cav vs cav: in MTW and Rome, I liked doing pitched all-cav battles in custom just for the looks of it. Having two cav armies charge at each other looks just plain cool. :yes: In MTW2 I found that cavalry units have problems charging each other head-on: In Custom Battle, I set 1 unit of Teutonic Knights vs 1 unit of Hospitallers. When I ordered the head-on charge, my unit stopped just before the impact without any apparent reason. As the enemy cav continued their charge, they killed about 10 of my knights while I killed none! :wall:
I hope they fix that...
I think you have identified the bug FrauGloer.
Doug-Thompson
11-16-2006, 16:48
Dumb question time.
Do most knights have an alt-attack option for melee? Charge with the lance, fight with the sword?
:charge:
Cavs are finally represented in a proper way. The speed is realistic and their impact in any troops are too IMHO. To you guys that always whine about cavs being too strong in previous CA-titles I have one serious Q: do you have any idea how devastating it is to try and stay in the way of a horse running straight at you? A mass of 500-750 kg´s running at 40-50 km/h creates a huge momentum. Only a deep, stationary and well organized formation will be able to counter such a charge, like the shieldwall or a phalanx formation but will still take losses. This is why the horses dominated the battlefield from Alexanders day until the 19th century.
To all that thinks spears are underpowered I must state that their are few unit types throughout history that was significantly better that others. No matter how strong and well equipped infantry ever was they still took losses.
My personal feeling with M2 is that things are finally getting portrayed in a more realistic way. I do feel however that units stamina in M2 are a bit too good, they shure can run for a long time without getting tired.
I have to say I agree with you. Cavalry with momentum are unstoppable. Cavalry with no momentum are yesterdays lunch meat. The only issue I have atm is the finicky nature of actually getting Cavalry to charge reliably. The AI does not have this problem so I am of the belief the problems we are experiencing are bug related.
Top quality knights and heavy cav can have their way with nearly any foot unit in the game. The strategic implications of this however are not so straight forward. Is it worth it to you, to charge your heavy cav directly into the middle of their line, smashing a serious hole to exploit and inflicting massive casualties which ultimately results in the unit being mauled in return and combat ineffective? Or do you hold that unit in reserve so you can use it when you can get the most out of it and keep it alive?
I guess it depends on the desperation of the moment and if you think that frontal charge will reap any rewards.
So far Im undecided on the issue. It seems to me a horse would simply refuse to charge a wall of pikes, spears or stakes. Ingame, you can tell your cav to charge head first into a wall of stakes, and they will obey till theyre shishkabobbed. When you command your cav to charge spears pikes or stakes, they should at least waver and loose speed as the horses resist the command.
My cavalry is dumb, they always stop 10 meters before the enemy troops, and then run with low speed to death.
And when I play with spearmen against enemy's cavalry, my spearmen just die after killing like 4 or 5 units.. :wall:
Lord Condormanius
11-16-2006, 19:11
Cavalry has always been powerful and decisive on battlefields. First, prior to impact charges, by being able to quickly flank infantry and out manuvere foot soldiers.
After the development of impact charges, foot soldiers would often run at the mear threat of a horse charge.
The cavalry in Medieval II is way more realistic than that of Rome. There is no way that the Roman would have ever been able to fight on horseback like they did in that game. Cavalry in the ancient world, with very few exceptions, was not used as the main force of an army. They were primarily used for guarding the flanks of an infantry line or chasing down routers.
It wasn't until the stirrup reached Europe that cavalry became not only important, but the essential force in warfare.
redriver
11-16-2006, 19:31
The cavalry in Medieval II is way more realistic than that of Rome. There is no way that the Roman would have ever been able to fight on horseback like they did in that game. Cavalry in the ancient world, with very few exceptions, was not used as the main force of an army. They were primarily used for guarding the flanks of an infantry line or chasing down routers.
It wasn't until the stirrup reached Europe that cavalry became not only important, but the essential force in warfare.
nobody forces ya to play cavalry only armies in RTW.. they are not unrealistic to my eye in most cases anyway. AI doesn't build lots of cav. with exception of cavalry arches for some eastern factions because they luck infantry variety. that said the cavalry units is lotsa fun in RTW and this is a game after all not a sim heheh.
Lord Condormanius
11-16-2006, 19:46
My point is that the Romans (and most others) did not use cavalry like they do in RTW. If an ancient Roman cavalry unit charged a line, most of them would likely not make it out alive. They would all fall off their horses and die. In that respect, the game's cavalry is very unrealistic.
redriver
11-16-2006, 20:19
~;p
My point is that the Romans (and most others) did not use cavalry like they do in RTW. If an ancient Roman cavalry unit charged a line, most of them would likely not make it out alive. They would all fall off their horses and die. In that respect, the game's cavalry is very unrealistic.
good points but not quiet.. recallin' me watchin' Gladiator the general unit charged barbarians from behind usin' the woods as cover and they did indeed fall off of their horses but didn't all die heheh.. in RTW and all other TW games a guy ridin' on a horseback is considered dead as soon as the horse's down and wise versa.. not so IRL. so maybe that's how they overcompensate that little detail with makin' the cavalry unit extra tougher as a whole.. instead of tossin' a dice and lettin' dismounted soldiers survive and keep on fightin'? see? I can explain everythin' to protect my beloved Rome hehehh ~;p
There is no way that the Roman would have ever been able to fight on horseback like they did in that game.
It wasn't until the stirrup reached Europe that cavalry became not only important, but the essential force in warfare.
What's your basis for this opinion? Most of the more recent books on this topic that I have read, in addition to this excellent article state the exact opposite otherwise regarding shock cavalry tactics.
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php
Cavalry in the ancient world, with very few exceptions, was not used as the main force of an army. They were primarily used for guarding the flanks of an infantry line or chasing down routers.
This on the other hand, as I read, is for the most part correct. Even though shock cavalry tactics were possible, it doesn't mean they were used. It'd be interesting to see if other forum members have any knowledge or references to Greek or Roman use of shock cavalry tactics predating the Greek adoption of the persian cataphract style of cavalry.
Doug-Thompson
11-16-2006, 21:40
What's your basis for this opinion? Most of the more recent books on this topic that I have read, in addition to this excellent article state the exact opposite otherwise regarding shock cavalry tactics.
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php
I read that article earlier this year. It is worth reading.
However, the plain fact is that that there was no effective shock cavalry in the Roman era before the Goths, and they had stirrups.
In the East, the Sassinids did develop effective heavy cavalry pre-stirrup with their deep seated saddles and "barge pole" lances. However, they are the exception that proves the rule. Their social and political organization resembled later feudal societies in the West. Their armored horsemen were very much like knights, minor nobles with their own estates and income. It took many years of training to make a Sassinid heavy cavalryman. Stirrups were the shortcut that helped spread those tactics to Rome's other enemies.
Since I presume the enemies of Rome talked to each other, I wonder how much the Goths and others owe to the Sassinids.
Doug-Thompson
11-16-2006, 21:40
Drat. Double post. Sorry.
I read that article earlier this year. It is worth reading.
However, the plain fact is that that there was no effective shock cavalry in the Roman era before the Goths, and they had stirrups.
In the East, the Sassinids did develop effective heavy cavalry pre-stirrup with their deep seated saddles and "barge pole" lances. However, they are the exception that proves the rule. Their social and political organization resembled later feudal societies in the West. Their armored horsemen were very much like knights, minor nobles with their own estates and income. It took many years of training to make a Sassinid heavy cavalryman. Stirrups were the shortcut that helped spread those tactics to Rome's other enemies.
Since I presume the enemies of Rome talked to each other, I wonder how much the Goths and others owe to the Sassinids.
Ave Master Doug :bow:
Not to hijack this thread (too much), but do you have some good sources that I can read? I think we all understand and agree that Wikipedia isn't always 100% accurate, but the stirrup article first states that they were indirectly documented in Europe during the 8th century. We should note that it just states "documented", not "appeared or arrived". Given that they were known in Scandinavia several hundred years earlier I can believe it, I'd just like to understand the discrepancy.
Cheers!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-16-2006, 22:18
As a Roman military historian I feel bound to point out that Cavalry were perfectly capable of charging home and inflicting massive casualties. The problem was that very few peoples outside of the Steppes, Arabia and Thessaly-Macedonia were capable of fielding the cavalrymen. All of the equipment existed and was well up to spec. Modern tests have even shown that a couched-lance grip is possible with a Gallic saddle, although its easier with stirrups.
The main problem in the ancient world was armour level, which was usually not that high and lance technology, which meant that most cav just had spears.
Doug-Thompson
11-16-2006, 22:21
The best book I've read on warfare in a long time:
"World History of Warfare"
By Christon I. Archer, John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig, and Timothy H. E. Travers
University of Nebraska Press
Although your question was more cavalry-specific, this book discusses each era and the developments in it from all over the world. The non-Western world still gets the short shrift, but at least an attempt at comprehensiveness is made.
The best thing about the book: Each chapter has a short bibliographical essay at the end that tells you the best books to date on each of those eras and civiizations. Whatever you're interested in, this book will point you in the right direction.
As for your real question, about the stirrup, there's not much I can point you toward. I was certain that I'd bookmarked an article about the whole controversy, but now I can't find it. I'll look for it on my computer at home. There's been some serious scholarship on the issue, especially lately. As I recall, the absolute first mention of the stirrup was actually the 8th century BC, in India, where it was used but only as a aid for getting into the saddle.
Doug-Thompson
11-16-2006, 22:27
As a Roman military historian I feel bound to point out that Cavalry were perfectly capable of charging home and inflicting massive casualties. The problem was that very few peoples outside of the Steppes, Arabia and Thessaly-Macedonia were capable of fielding the cavalrymen. All of the equipment existed and was well up to spec. Modern tests have even shown that a couched-lance grip is possible with a Gallic saddle, although its easier with stirrups.
The main problem in the ancient world was armour level, which was usually not that high and lance technology, which meant that most cav just had spears.
A question, WI: Would it be fair to say that stirrups didn't make cavalry any more effective, man per man, but that it cut the training time and broadened the pool of available cavalrymen by decreasing the amount of practice needed before you had an effective, trained cavalryman?
Lord Condormanius
11-16-2006, 22:47
What's your basis for this opinion? Most of the more recent books on this topic that I have read, in addition to this excellent article state the exact opposite otherwise regarding shock cavalry tactics.
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php
I don't care for this article (all of his sources are secondary. mostly books written in the '80s), although I wouldn't say that it states "exactly the opposite." Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it happenned. Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from the side of a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, but common sense says something altogether different. Common sense tells me that is you are on a horse, riding 30-40 mph (just a guess) with no saddle, no stirrups and you smash into a wall of human beings...sorry, but you are going over the handlebars.
Doug-Thompson
11-16-2006, 23:23
I don't care for this article (all of his sources are secondary. mostly books written in the '80s), although I wouldn't say that it states "exactly the opposite." Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it happenned. Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from the side of a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, but common sense says something altogether different. Common sense tells me that is you are on a horse, riding 30-40 mph (just a guess) with no saddle, no stirrups and you smash into a wall of human beings...sorry, but you are going over the handlebars.
The article clearly says that having a saddle makes for a much more effective blow and stirrups made it easier. Also, the chief citation is experimentation with horses, not books in the 1980s.
Romans most definitely had saddles, ones that fit so tightly that is was hard for a trained rider to fall out of them.
Drat my bad bookmarking, but there was a site that talked about how the Sassinids carried a heavy lance and would hold it as long as possible after contact, but let is slide through their hands before it sent them "over the handlebars." Just because I read it somewhere doesn't make it so, but the simple fact remains that Sassinids and the Parthians did develop effective heavy cavalry that rode without stirrups. For that matter, so did Alexander the Great centuries before.
Watchman
11-17-2006, 00:00
A question, WI: Would it be fair to say that stirrups didn't make cavalry any more effective, man per man, but that it cut the training time and broadened the pool of available cavalrymen by decreasing the amount of practice needed before you had an effective, trained cavalryman?AFAIK it's overall advantageous for a horseman to have decent stirrups, but for the most part, yeah.
There were of course ways to circumvent this little detail. The Parthians, Sassanids and Macedonians among others did it through the feudal scheme - a landowning warrior class freed to put in the necessary training hours by the income of their (or their lords') estates - although that likely required enough geography suitable for rearing horses, and for example the Byzantines and Chinese AFAIK by simply having deep enough pockets to recruit mercenaries from "horse nations" to serve as both soldiers and instructors (as well as some de facto feudal setups here and there). There were presumably not a few other methods too as both for example the ancient Iberians and Thracians were noted for their cavalry.
When all is said and done shock cavalry never worked all that well against solid close-order infantry though, at least not by itself. The Parthians and Sassanids first had to thin out the Roman infantry block with archery before they could throw in the cataphracts for example, the later Byzantine kataphraktoi apparently eventually ended up developing a specialized "blunt wedge" formation which by what I know of it was specifically designed against infantry, and Medieval knights with their lances had a habit of hitting a wall (and quite often getting a pretty bloody nose) when they tried to frontally charge decent spearmen such as some urban militias and professional mercs.
AFAIK there are several reasons for that. One is that horses are very hesitant about what to their eyes seem like big solid obstacles, such as large bodies of men in close order (that they're generally skittish beasts altogether too easily spooked by loud noises and whatnot doesn't really help; training can only take so much off that), and point blank refuse to run into them. Although as most cavalry actually charged at a canter (partly to maintain formation) this wasn't an impassable obstacle.
Another is that the cavalry are in serious trouble if the infantry - or at least some types of infantry - can swarm them once they've been halted. Short swords for example are apparently awfully good at disemboweling the horses or slashing their tendons at close quarters, and as there generally are far more infantrymen in a melee than cavalrymen the latter can get into serious trouble indeed if aggressive footsloggers can get in amongst them - no doubt another reason shock cavalry tended to be a bit obsessive about maintaining formation.
Spears are a major problem because even the relatively shorter ones go a long way to offsetting the height advantage the horseman has, and allow the infantryman to hurt the horse from that much further away. Moreover the longer kind - and the "international standard" of 2-2.5 meters or thereabouts for infantry fighting spears was certainly close enough - can be easily "set" on the ground to turn the weight and speed of the horse against itself; the impact energy is pretty much exactly the same as what the horseman gets out of a couched lance, and kind of tends to lead to skewered horses. Small wonder that right after head defenses the chest was the first place horses were given some armour...
Spears can also be thrown, and I understand that although they have a relatively short range and fly rather slowly, being easy for loose-order light skirmishers to dodge, they have some very serious penetrating and killing power. People used to hunt pretty large game with the things after all, and back then they had to make do with at best flint or obsidian tips. Getting a shower of javelins or, worse yet, heavy throwing spears in the face at near point-blank ranges is obviously prone to distrupting the best ordered cavalry charge and creating gaps in the line (Sassanid cataphracts were apparently even heavier armoured than their Parthian precessadors, no doubt partly to better withstand the heavy javelins the Romans so loved).
All that said, it's not like cavalry cannot break close-order infantry on a frontal charge; they tend to be highly trained and well equipped elite forces after all, and even if the initial charge doesn't break the footmen (as tended to be the case) they'll likely have an advantage in the ensuing slugging match. AFAIK this was one of the things cataphracts were designed for. But unless the disparity in troop quality is pretty mind-boggling (ie. the infantry aren't complete rubbish) that's not actually a very effective way to skin that particular tactical cat; a flank or rear attack works by far better, especially if friendly infantry (or whatever) first pins the formation down.
Good post!
I guess most of my (and others) issues/problems have to do with the buggy charge.
As others pointed out, my cav simply stops sometimes in front of an enemy unit, "walks" into it or simply forgets to lower their lances.
Sometimes when they attack correctly, they really mess up the enemy unit.
Kobal2fr
11-17-2006, 01:41
That's pretty much what I concluded from reading the article - it must have been really, really hard to pull off a head-on charge in the middle of a line and live to talk about it...
Imagine being a knight in armor, cursed to be in the first line of such a brilliant manoeuver.
I don't think the problem would lie in getting the horse to actually run into the enemy unit, provided you begin your charge far enough. Then the horse starts to run, and by the time it realizes it's heading straight for the wall, it can't do much about it. It can't just stop dead in its tracks, cause then it'll be rear-ended by the horse behind him. It can't veer left or right either, because that's where your buddies and their horses are. Bearing in mind that horses are utterly insane animals to begin with, my bet would be that its natural response to such a quandary will be to just close its eyes and speed forward hoping that somehow it will all go away :)
But then, if you, the rider, have been lucky enough that
a) you did skewer the guy you were aiming for, the guy behind him, and trample the third with sheer mass and momentum,
b) you didn't unhorse yourself in the impact, either by not dropping your lance fast enough, breaking the saddle, having your lance glance off and clotheslining yourself etc...
c) your horse didn't just go nuts and try to get you off of him and get the frigg away because he realized halfway through that he's a lover not a fighter (and believe you me, a horse that really wants you off is going to get you off QUICK or at the very least make you wish you were. Forget rodeos, those are horses trained to buck and only buck, "normal" horses are way sneakier, and they have lots of nasty tricks. They'll scrape you against a tree (or, in that case, another idjit on horseback), roll over, even jump up and fall on their back crushing you...)
and lastly
d) the guys to your left and right have had the same luck, and you're not completely alone and surrounded,
weeeell...you're still in a pickle if the enemy doesn't just turn and run like he's supposed to.
Even if you are somewhat safeish in all that armor, and with your height advantage and general combat training going for you, your horse isn't. He's got a big wide head to brain, a big wide soft breast to pierce, and great long spindly legs with oh so fragile knees. Oh, and he's probably got a guy or two under his hooves, so he might even break its own legs all by himself, what with the unsure footing and frantic confusion. Plus, while you can hack and slash left and right, you're wide open from the front, the head of your horse and it's height forming a huge dead angle for your sword/mace/axe/modified farming implement.
Chances are, if this state of affairs lasts long enough for anyone around you to figure it out, you'll soon be a footman, and quite possibly a mildly concussed footman trapped under half a ton of dead horse at that.
How, then, to quickly get away from that predicament ?
You can't turn back, mostly because you'd expose your back to the enemy, which is never that good an idea, but also because there's another clunky genius on a horse right behind you.
He doesn't share your problems. His own charge stopped in the middle of the first, perhaps second rank of infantry. You're shielding his dead angle, he doesn't have to worry about infantry behind him, and he's having the time of his life slashing around whoever's unlucky enough to have survived the charge only to be trapped in the middle of it. You can bet your codpiece he's not going to give away his share of the g(l)ory just because it's not really convenient to you. In any case, even if he actually did, you hardly would be able to turn about in the middle of a press of armed men. He can disengage somewhat easily. You, on the other hand, can't.
No, your only hope is to try and force your way straight ahead through the remaining ranks while everyone's still frozen with fright and hope to get away in the confusion.
It's the only way I can imagine pulling that kind of stunt and still be combat efficient - and guess what ? that's exactly what the AI goes for.
Sometimes your formation is not dense enough, the AI succeeds, your unit is butchered without a chance to retaliate, and you feel that cav is overpowered. Sometimes it is, the horses are stuck in the middle, you slaughter the poor fellows, and you feel that cav is a joke.
I believe the root of the problem is that ever since ol' Shogun, the optimal spear formation has always been 4, maybe 5 ranks deep, and that was enough to hold a charge and get the most combat bonuses (boni ?). In M2, apparently, you'd better go for 7-10 ranks if you want to stand a chance against heavy horses. But then you're easy pickings for infantry in wide formation, because it'll wrap around and rout you. Decisions, decisions ;)
A good solution for the knights to avoid all that trouble would perhaps be an oblique chargen which could work rather well I suppose with a trajectory akin to that :
\
\ MMMMMMMMMMMM
\MMMMMMMMMMMM
\MMMMMMMMMMMM
/MMMMMMMMMMMM
/ MMMMMMMMMMMM
\/
the M block being of course the target unit. That way, you could theoretically slaughter a guy or two with the lance, behead a third with your sword and just turn right and race away. I'll have to try that one ingame, see how it turns out, perhaps even in wedge formation.
It wasnt the stirups that made the traditionally harrasser cav into impact charge cav.
It was the development of the saddle with the high cantle.
Fact is, it's an issue of physics. If a mounted man couches a lance and proceeds to run into a solid object with the end of that lance, he's gonna get swept off the ass end of the horse by the force transfered up the shaft of the lance and into his body.
It was the high cantle that allowed for the transfer fo that force from the mounted man into the horse, through the saddle.
If you look at the depictions of early Norman cav, you see a cav that is used as the ancients used it. Harrasment cav and horse mobile light infantry.
It was the dev of the high cantle saddle that allowed for the transformation of cav into what is our modern concept of shock armor.
Also, on the idea that once a cav unit is halted, its mounted men become easy prey... I suggest folk take a look at some of the ancient warhorse training as is now demonstrated by The Royal Lippisans.
The ability to spring into the air from all fours and lash out with rear hoof kicks, the very fast spinning in place to use haunch and shoulder to knock back attackers, the ability to hop on rear legs and lash out with fore hooves... the horse itself was also a weapon.
And remember, it's not just one horse. It's a wave of horses with depth and the guys on their backs slashing and stabbing.
And last but not least, those that still confuse spears with pikes.
Take a wooden dowl, 4 or 5 feet long, grab it in one hand or even both then take a running charge at a tree. Dont run up to it, plant your feet and stab...no, grab your stick and run full force into that tree. Now after you pick yourself back up and assess the damage to hands, elbows and arms, imagine that tree is actually a half ton of horse that's running at you.
Spears were the cheap and easy to use weapon for foot fighters. Pikes were invented to give the foot man some hope of survival against shock armor cav. The difference is not only the lenght of the pike shaft but the tactic of grounding the butt of the pike into the ground to absorbe the shock of impact instead of transfering that shock directly into the foot man.
If a cav assault did bog down in a foot man unit, the spears would have some advantage over swords due to the reach. Every meter of differnce between the stabber and the stabbee does help when there's that hoof kicking and biting critter involved.
Anyhoo, I aint no historian so I may well be full of poodle piddle but I've trained on bayonettes enough to understand the force/impact/transfer issues and have been a semi-interested historical reader for a couple decades.
None of what I wrote was intended to insult or aggravate, if it did then I do appologize. I am only adding in what I understand the issues to be in the hope that we can finally, someday, put this whole cav too++ or too -- to bed.
Kobal2fr
11-17-2006, 01:56
Gah, that didn't work too well. The ascii was supposed to be a 120ish° angle wedging itself into the side of that unit, and I can't seem to find the edit post option to fix it.
The cavalry in Medieval II is way more realistic than that of Rome. There is no way that the Roman would have ever been able to fight on horseback like they did in that game. Cavalry in the ancient world, with very few exceptions, was not used as the main force of an army. They were primarily used for guarding the flanks of an infantry line or chasing down routers.
It wasn't until the stirrup reached Europe that cavalry became not only important, but the essential force in warfare.
Not true. Alexander's Companion cavalry fully functioned as shock cavalry. Sassanian Persian and Parthian heavy cavalry also functioned as shock cavalry, all well before the stirrup.
I've been activly finding counters to cavalry and it seems this is by far the best one.
Stretch your infantry out at least 6 ranks deep, if there aren't enough men in the unit to do so place a unit of infantry IMMEDIATLY behind this unit. Make sure you place units in guard mode. Next thing is just stand there and receive the charge.
The key as many people have stated it seems is just to have enough men as fodder that they just stay there and take it and bog the cavalry down. You'll take massive casualties but as long as you stop the cav unit you're going to hurt it real bad.
Archers and crossbowmen are excellent for softening up cav before they hit your lines as well. Seems the best counter for cav is well, cav. Been playing an amazing campaign as the Moors, who are a really fun faction to play, much more challenging this time around as you can't just churn out tons of Almohad Urban Militia from the beginning and take over iberia right away like in Medieval. Well I was sieging Lisbon and the managed to kill the King of Portugal when he attacked my besieging army, drew him in to attack my spearwall and had to use rally as he almost routed them but I swung my general around behind and surrounded him. Guess that's how you do it this time around.
Ok let me state that I'm not a nerf shouter or a cav hater but something isnt right now, and I think it has to do with the spearmens staying power or the massive charge bonus.
I have made some 1-1 unit tests and these are my findings.
First of all it is of reason that the deeper the spearmens formation and coision the better they will withstand a charge and fight right?
Well wrong buddy, very wrong at least in my tests, I will follow with a detailed resume of them now:
I made two tests, the first with the most basic of cav and spear units.
Militia spearmen 310 gold against hobilars 280 gold
in schiltrom formation they mostly always loose, like 80-90% of the time.
Ok I will say that schiltrom seems slightly, but just slightly better than the normal ranking formations, but you still loose.
now formations dont seem to matter much. 4 line deep, square formation,long spread out lines, marching lines, nada.supriseling I found out that sometimes they would do better in the most odd 2 men deep thin lines than in a square formation!
Hold doesnt seem to matter either.
Now the mad part.
If I put my men in loose formation!!!
I would fair allot better!thats correct better results.
more noticeable in the 2nd test up ahead.
2nd test:
Now I choose a good spearmen unit.
Lalmilar(or Lamilond, don't remember) 580 gold unit against merchant cav 370 gold unit.
The results:
I put them in Schiltrom and still loose!!!!!!
Now we are talking about a much better, expensive cav bonnus unit in an anti cav formation and they still loose!!
ok I then try them in an 4 man deep and then square formation and still loose.
When I change to loose formation, Bam, much better results and mostly win.
I will now say, that I except that a person can argue that the test are not 100%
correct because of the moral factor, captain factor and such, but I will mention that even in the cases that the captain died in the very end the results seem to indicate the same numbers.
my spears would even fight until the last 5-8 men even after the general died in the first charge.
So my conclusion seems that the cav charges seems too fair much better against tighter and denser formation which is something that seems contrary to popular belief but actually sounds logic because what seems to happen is that the charging cavalry will bang against a greater number of men and kill more men in the initial charge, leaving less to fight back.In the loose formation it seems to encounter less mess to charge against and so leaves more remaining men to fight against and do worse or loose, this is more apparent in the 2nd test were the spearmen had better overall stats.
So if you want a better chance against cavalry charges dont rank your men deeply but rather spread them in an loose formation :beam:
I ask that someone tries this out and see if they get the same results, just in case I'm seeing things.
Kanamori
11-17-2006, 03:57
I've noticed that the cav charges are really powerful, but noticably less against spearmen. From an MP view, I think that the charge is too powerful to make the games that I like to play. On more than one occasion, I've had v1 knights -- I don't remeber which type, I think mailed, frankish or feudal, but it doesn't matter unless they're far-and-away the strongest in the game -- slam into a line of 60 pavs and reduced it to 10-15 pavs in the charge. Once they get stuck in inf though, they melt away faster than they did in MTW, maybe because there are more of them inside the unit of inf, whereas in MTW all the units tended to buoy in globs, even moreso if they where told to keep formation; I liked that too, it made playing less sloppy and more controlled. Besides the command delay, tendancy for single units of cav to become ridiculously spread out, relatively slower speed, and being a little hardier, they're pretty similar to the cav in MTW. I'd like the charges to be less powerful, but I think cav would be harder to use well online in real time because of the big command delay. On the whole, I would say they're fairly balanced; most all of the changes since rome just seem to result in a style of play needed to win that I just don't find very fun. I did like MTW being simpler and less realistic.
I ask that someone tries this out and see if they get the same results, just in case I'm seeing things.
OK, it's late and I'm tired, so please excuse any bad spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, I typed this out as they occured so just think of me as your sportscaster. For a war game. But typing. Without using spellchecker.
Also please note I did NOT apply any scientific method to this, I just did these as they came to me, so take this as you will and with a grain of salt. The timings that I submit are simple estimations by me, I was not looking at my watch (I don't wear a watch anyway) nor did I have a stopwatch handy.
---------------------------------------------
Constant settings, unless otherwise noted.
- Map: Grassy flatland
- Difficulty: Medium difficulty
- Periods: All periods
- Weather: Unselectable on Grassy plain map
- Unit size: Huge size
- Time of day: Morning
Do not use speed adjustment controls.
Test runs, set 1. Myself as cavalry, enemy as infantry.
Procedure: Double click on enemy unit and let it go, do not place under AI assistance and do not issue any other orders... Do not reform units or reposition on battlefield during placement. Record result when victory screen displays. If given choice to continue or end, pick end.
1. Eng. Hobilars vs French pikemen, result Eng. general died after approx 3-5 seconds, English defeat, 32 men remain vs 116 pikemen, battle lasted approx. 10 seconds from contact
2. Eng. Mailed Knights vs French pikemen, result enemy general dead on impact, fight lasted approx 15 seconds. Eng victory, 50 men remain vs 71 french men remain.
3. HRE Mounted Sergeants vs Eng. Levy Spearmen, result Eng. general dead on impact, fight lasted approx. 3 seconds, HRE victory 77 men to Eng 36 men (ouch)
4. HRE Mounted Sergeants vs Eng. Heavy Billmen, result HRE victory, battle lasted approx 15 seconds, neither general died, HRE 54 men remain to Eng 8 men remain. They also charged me and did not brace to recieve the charge, unlike all other previous tests to this point.
5. French Merchant Cavalry Militia vs HRE Landsknecht PIkemen, result holy christ the French MCM got mulched on impact, down to 50, but they broke the formation of the pikemen, pikemen tried to march away and reform???, cavalry didn't follow them to attack (grrr), enemy general dead at 25 seconds, holy CRAP that was a good battle, lasted 70 seconds! French victory, victory screen shows French 15 men remain to pikemen 11 men, but I only had 3 horses left including my general when the enemy broke, I was positive I was going to lose that one.
6. Repeat of 5, result enemy general dead on impact, 25% french casualties, pikemen attempting to march away again, aww they broke, French victory battle lasted 40 seconds, 44 men remain vs 68 pikemen. Try tried to get away and reform but my cav had them hemmed in. Interesting results.
7. Eng. hobilars vs. French dismounted feudal knights, result damn the French knights took a beating, 50%+ casualties on impact, I took ~25%, WOW that was interesting, enemy general dead at 50 seconds, only my general was left and 3 knights, my general finished them off and was literally the last man standing. Result Eng victory, 13 men remain to 0 french. The dismounted knights tore up the cav in the standing fight.
8. Eng. mailed knights vs French dismounted feudal knights, result enemy general dead on impact, damn fight lasted 3 seconds, result Eng victory, Eng 68 men remain to 18 French knights.
General observations: Enemy infantry will generally stop to recieve charge, exception was the Eng. billmen and the dismounted knights, they would charge into my cav.
Test run set 2, me as the defender with infantry, cpu with cavalry.
Procedure: Remain in starting position, optionally select special infantry ability and close/loose formation. Do not reform units or reposition on battlefield during placement. Record result when victory screen displays. If given choice to continue or end, pick end.
1. Eng. levy spearmen vs. french merchant cavalry militia, result no special ability, close formation, result my general dead on impact, battle lasted less than 5 seconds, French victory, 17 eng men to 59 french men.
2. Repeat of 1, with loose formation on battle start. Result heavy losses both sides, they broke off and recharged with 27 to my 37, battle lasted 30 seconds, I lost. French victory 20 men on the field, results showed 12 eng men remain to 29 french men.
3. Eng. Armored Sergeants vs french mailed knights, result no special ability, close formation, hmmm 30 seconds they won't charge me, ok fine I'll charge him, they broke off and my unit autochased, result Eng victory, 115 men to 7 french knights, combat lasted about 45 seconds.
4. Repeat of 3, set Eng as defender. Result changing to loose formation doesn't provoke them, ok fine I'll charge them in loose formation. Enemy general dead at 15 seconds, battle lasted 17 secodns, result Eng victory, 135 eng men to 35 french knights.
5. Eng Billmen vs HRE mounted sergeants. Close formation. Result dammit they won't charge me! OK fine, charging them, DOH big mistake. My general dead on impact, battle lasts 5 seconds. Result HRE victory, 66 HRE men to 0 eng men.
OK I'm tired at this point.
----------------------------------------
If I forgot to clarify anything please let me know.
Cheers!
Let me just say that pikes seem fine for me, they will stop a cavalry charge if ranked deep and braced in pike formation. at least my aventuros do. spears are my big gripe. thanks whacker for also doing some tests leaving aside the failed AI charges it seems to me that when you put your Pikes!!!! in loose formation they did better than in tight also, now I didnt even try pikes in loose because I pre asumed that tight would always be the better option for them, I still believe that the pike formation works though if the special ability is used.
RomoR, that would seem to the case about loose formation being better. I'll run another battery of tests as infantry tomorrow. It would seem that getting them to charge me is sometimes a challenge, even if I select myself as the defender. Stay tuned!
Watchman
11-17-2006, 11:40
And last but not least, those that still confuse spears with pikes.
Take a wooden dowl, 4 or 5 feet long, grab it in one hand or even both then take a running charge at a tree. Dont run up to it, plant your feet and stab...no, grab your stick and run full force into that tree. Now after you pick yourself back up and assess the damage to hands, elbows and arms, imagine that tree is actually a half ton of horse that's running at you.
Spears were the cheap and easy to use weapon for foot fighters. Pikes were invented to give the foot man some hope of survival against shock armor cav. The difference is not only the lenght of the pike shaft but the tactic of grounding the butt of the pike into the ground to absorbe the shock of impact instead of transfering that shock directly into the foot man.
If a cav assault did bog down in a foot man unit, the spears would have some advantage over swords due to the reach. Every meter of differnce between the stabber and the stabbee does help when there's that hoof kicking and biting critter involved.And last but not least, those that still confuse fighting-spears with javelins. By Medieval times at the latest infantry spears were long. Not some piddling 4-5 feet; that's a javelin which you toss at the other guy. Try around two and half meters. Up to that much is apparently pretty much what a trained man can manage one-handed, and formed something of an "industry" standard since rather ancient times (not that shorter shafts weren't also commonly used, especially where melee against other infantry was a far more likely prospect than a cavalry charge).
And, yes, those can be braced too. One of the many things the ubiquitous butt ferrule was for. Not as good as a pike naturally, but more manageable, allows the use of a shield, and does horse kebab well enough.
I think Kobal2fr explained it very well.
I had 6 units of Gendarmes charge a deep formation of armoured swordsmen in a fortress and my Gendarmes got stuck, I lost almost half of them to that single swordsmen unit before it routed. Later I lost the remeining Gendarmes in a similar street battle against armoured swordsmen and dismounted feudal knights.
Cavalry might have a mighty charge, but that is what it is supposed to have, it can then sometimes hack down infantry with swords, but good infantry will kill your cavalry in huge numbers once they stop.
Deep ranks can prevent that, my Aventurians set up in few ranks also got annihilated quickly by a cavalry charge while they slaughter cavalry that got stopped by spearmen before.
Oleander Ardens
11-17-2006, 15:38
To sum it up:
It's difficult to charge with Cavalry. When it works Cavalry seems to be able to smash with it's mighty charge through swords, polearms and spears alike when the defenders are not formed in deep ranks. Spears seem just a tad better to stop the cavalry charge than the rest, while pikes seem to be quite o.k. in this matchup. The Schiltron doesn't seem to help the spearmen too much, the still get slaughtered.
When Cavalry stands still it dies fast as flies, even lowly peasants can knock down some noble rider from his high horse. As far as I've seen there is little need to recruit billmen and the like for specifically fighting cavalry, the AP bonus combined with the high attack makes them similar to slower Gazhis with lower moral.
Kobal2fr
11-17-2006, 17:04
Is the schiltron supposed to give you a defensive bonus though ?
Never used it much in Rome, but I had always taken for granted that it was just a formation without flanks or back, meaning it can't be routed by sneaky cav, but that other than that it was a pretty weak combat formation really (since you lose the ranks, you gotta lose rank bonuses too in the bargain, no ?)
Something more of a desperate measure/last stand thing than an efficient combat manoeuver.
Spendius
11-17-2006, 17:06
I play French, all my armies have a big share of knights (mostly feodal, french and hospitaliers). i can't get them to charge properly, but by just mass charging whatever I'm facing I usually get a nice win, at the cost of some guys lost (maybe each unit down to 75 to 50% of their original force).
So, if proper charging is implemented, wouldn't knights definitely become OP ??
I can usually get my Byzantine generals to charge properly, but every time I've done it, the general has been stopped, directly facing the enemy. I've single clicked and the enemy isn't moving. When that's happened, the bodyguard unit goes through all the steps: walk, trot, sound horn, lower lances, and charge with mighty impact. If the formation gets disrupted in any way, or if the enemy unit moves at all, suddenly the charge goes out the window, out comes the swords, and they just to running in willy nilly.
big_boss120
11-17-2006, 19:10
So how to effectively charge the cav?
It seems that I only effectively charge the cav once or twice as terrain permitted(flat + no obsticles)
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
11-17-2006, 20:31
As the Turks, I've been using armies made up entirely of cavalry with no infantry whatsoever - mostly a mix of Turkomens, Sipahis, and Turkish horse archers, with a general's bodyguard or two for heavy cavalry. I'm also just starting to get Sipahi Lancers in significant numbers.
With this composition I've dominated any army I've come into contact with. However, I did take some *significant* losses when fighitng the Byzantines. They use lots of infantry and mounted skirmishers too, so it's a matter of outmaneuvering and catching them off guard, a process that can cause me to lose lots of guys to probing charges and archer duels. Of all the soliders I sent to fight the Byzantines, I lost probably half while fighting generals of equal or greater command. Against the Egyptians though, this army composition is faring much, much better despite them having mounted archers and heavy cavalry. Those Sipahis are capable of swarming in and killing off Mamluks quite quickly.
In my Byzantine campaign, of 4 field armies, three have no infantry at all. Two of those have no melee cavalry other than a general; they're exclusively horse archers. While the Byzantine horse archers can melee successfully, they don't charge the same way as lance cavalry do. They just gallop in full speed, and have very small charge bonuses. I tend to lose more men to friendly fire from unit getting in the way of unit or charging into lagging arrows than I do from enemy kills.
Redtemplar
11-17-2006, 20:43
I saw some movie where cavalry charged normal heavy infantry units. It is some kind of bug that cavalry must be exactly in front of enemy units, but when it isn't t (even little) the cavalry takes great loses. It is little strange.
And about spearman - these formations are good but for first cavalry formations(light cavalry units). Later period cavalry shouldn't have problems with them.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.