Cavalry efficiency

Could you reveal something about cav effectivnes? Almost ever mod seems to treat as a point of honour to reduce it "because cav was unimportant in this period as it was time of heavy inf". This made a rather strange situations when historicaly good cav was not able to break skirmishers. Another problem is speed setting as it seems to have huge impact on cav charge ability (if the game uses some phisics then it's obvious - slower moving means shorter charge). This problem reached peak in RTR 6 (they decreased unit speed to prolonge battles) when cav got problems chasing skirmishers and having problems to charge - especially kataphraktoi - such slowed that they were not entering charge if not running downhill. They tried to fix it with huge charge bonuses but the problem is that this is also limited.
I think the problem with cav was not it's power but rather very limited access to good horses. The best were probably Nissean (or maybe Iberian?), Thessalian/Macedonian, numidian and Gallic were good, stepe horses were also good. In other places horses had to be imported. This made them very expensive and rare, so only higher nobles were able to afford them. In tat time you were not able to "build" a force of cav fast, as you were not able to teach man to ride fast - to ride well without stirrups people had to be taughed from infancy or at least for many years. So you have to have many horses and this means big, deforestated plains and also significant trained population to use the horses.
Concluding, I think the horse units should be trained only in some areas - kind of hidden resource. Or maybe two of them - for one poor and another for good horses.
So, now the question - have you made sth like this or only reduce power of cav and increase it's cost? And what about speed problem, as I read that you are slowing units down?

Good question - I'd like to hear it discussed by those with experience of playing EB.

I experienced some weird cav vs skirmisher interactions in RTR but think it was some game mechanics bug rather than the stats used by the mod itself. Elite cavalry - eg companions - could be massacred by skirmishers when the cavalry chased them and then the skirmishers turned to fight. It was as if the cavalry were not connecting to the skirmishers - not getting a charge bonus or even attacking - and somehow were turning their exposed backs to them - the cavalry were that helpless and toothless. That's how it "felt" anyway. I still see it occasionally and am reluctant to charge any skirmishers with good cav unless I know their morale will break. (I don't mind the effectiveness of cavalry depending on the morale of infantry - that's rather nice - it's just that should be for closed formation infantry, not skirmishers.)

But in general, I've rather liked cavalry in RTR. It is very powerful if used right (e.g. if your shock cavalry hits the rear or flank of infantry) but generally fragile if abused. Unlike those phalanx leaping uber-creations of pre-BI RTW.

Then again, I don't mind the way CA have balanced cavalry in BI as well. So I guess I am easily pleased!

This is an interesting topic and I have myself a few questions about cavalry .
Will there be different speed for different cavalry (for example numidian horses were extremely swift)
So, cataphracts should be easily outrunned by light cavalry or get exhausted more quickly but they should be more fast than any kind of infantry...

Since it's topic about cavalry let's talk about elephants and camels...
Will the elephants make fly the units they charge in (it's a bit exagerated)? Will they have real trample power (in vanilla they just attack with their tusks ) and finally will they have the stupid rear animation (I'm sure it's quite unnatural for an elephant to rear like a horse and it's stupid to make it when the elephant carry a tower...)?

And finally the camels, I hope there will be at least camel units (I find them funny) but who will have access to them (seleucids, prolemies)? I also hope that there will be very vulnerable to infantry units in close combat since they are very tall.

hmmm, why not add a "non Hidden" resource of "high quality" horses which would make you able to build better calvary units then areas without high-quality horse resources, sort-of how elephants require the elephant resource in order to be built

[QUOTE=Simon Appleton]
I experienced some weird cav vs skirmisher interactions in RTR but think it was some game mechanics bug rather than the stats used by the mod itself. Elite cavalry - eg companions - could be massacred by skirmishers when the cavalry chased them and then the skirmishers turned to fight. It was as if the cavalry were not connecting to the skirmishers - not getting a charge bonus or even attacking - and somehow were turning their exposed backs to them - the cavalry were that helpless and toothless. That's how it "felt" anyway. I still see it occasionally and am reluctant to charge any skirmishers with good cav unless I know their morale will break. (I don't mind the effectiveness of cavalry depending on the morale of infantry - that's rather nice - it's just that should be for closed formation infantry, not skirmishers.)
[QUOTE]

I've had similar experiences with RTR. I was playing as Macedonians and fighting Romans. Th computer's legionaries were fighting my heavy infantry and it's velites were behind chucking javelins at me. I sent a unit of Thessalian cavalry at the velites. The velites ran away for a little while, stopped, turned around and attacked. My Thessalians didn't seem to fight much and a lot of them got killed before routing.

[QUOTE=Spendios]This is an interesting topic and I have myself a few questions about cavalry .
Will there be different speed for different cavalry (for example numidian horses were extremely swift)
So, cataphracts should be easily outrunned by light cavalry or get exhausted more quickly but they should be more fast than any kind of infantry...QUOTE]

The problem is that in this situation the probably best charge cav (kataphraktoi) seems to have lower effective charge bonus compared to light long spear cav (e.g. sarissophoroi) just because kat's are so slow.

Kataphraktoi charging not spear inf (even heavy) should be able to break through first and second unit finally stop on the third (In battle near Magnesia kataphraktoi and companions of Antiochus III broke entire legion and made them flee to the camp). when fighting short spear inf they should also easly break 1 unit - kat's spears were shorter only to sarissas.

Companions were not that powerful in charge (lower armour=lower impact) but more capable in melee (it was difficult to manevuer with kat's armoured horse) - when kataphraktos stops inside of enemy formation he is already dead.

On the other hand most cav types of that time were not able to charge at all only hurling javelins (even heavy cav like Persian) or fighting hand to hand with spears

well EB is famous for trying to get everything as historical as it get's within the game limits ofcourse. so:
my small opinion about the cavalry. The elephants have good stats if you ask me. they can be deadly but they're not overpowered. some pikes, javelins or even better flamed arrows can do wonders. But the elephants won't be running amok just like that. Camels have their reasonable advantage when fighting cavalry.
hetairoi and sacred baal cavalry are verry effective and quality (and expensive!) cavalry that can do melee fighting. But what I thought was the best about the cavalry was that the not so heavy cavalry can't really be used for melee but they can be used the way cavalry should be used. to attack at the flanks or rear and make the infantry rout and than hunt them down. Kathapracts are ideal for this ofcourse: they have a good mass, armour and great charge. but it's armor makes them slow and so they can get into problems when facing cavalry archers or a lot infantry missile units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

Companions were not that powerful in charge (lower armour=lower impact) but more capable in melee (it was difficult to manevuer with kat's armoured horse) - when kataphraktos stops inside of enemy formation he is already dead.

---

Unlike some of the EB team, I'm no historian but I had a feeling the situation was the opposite of what you describe.

I read some secondary source - I think the Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome WRG book - that gave the impression that cataphracts did not even charge when they fought the Romans - they virtually walked up to the legions and duked it out holding their kontos with two hands, relying on their armour to prevail. (Unlike the Norman knights, they did not use a "couched lance" to make the charge particularly deadly.)

The Companions I thought behaved in a more "Napoleonic" way - charging quickly at the critical moment to exploit a weak point and using the initial shock to prevail.

[This is all cavalry vs infantry - in a cavalry vs cavalry melee, the more maneouvrable Companions might have the edge as you say.]

Intuitively, both tactics sound risky - what you say about kats stopping being dead sounds plausible (it reminds me of some of the descriptions of knights vs foot interactions; the Romans used to try to hamstring their horse), although a massively armoured figure on a horse with a mace or something is not necessarily a weak opponent.

A headlong "Napoleonic" style charge always seemed risky if the targetted infantry held and met it with a mass of spear points. Of course, in the Napoleonic period, the heavy cavalry usually only accelerated to a charge at the last minute and typically would not close with a steady foe (in square).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rilder

hmmm, why not add a "non Hidden" resource of "high quality" horses which would make you able to build better calvary units then areas without high-quality horse resources, sort-of how elephants require the elephant resource in order to be built

---

Well, when some nomads took over settled areas, they devoted the existing farm land to raise their horses. So good horses can be transplanted, and raised, but it takes work and money. And we represent it, though not perfectly due to limitations.

And I assure you, the cavalry is good. It's not crazy, but the cavalry that was good is, and the cavalry that sucks does.

Quote:

---

I read some secondary source - I think the Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome WRG book - that gave the impression that cataphracts did not even charge when they fought the Romans - they virtually walked up to the legions and duked it out holding their kontos with two hands, relying on their armour to prevail. (Unlike the Norman knights, they did not use a "couched lance" to make the charge particularly deadly.)

---

Don't take that at face value. Armoured horses could go fast, just not very fast. And it was more probably not a full out charge, but perhaps a trot rather than a walk.
And the cataphracts used against the Romans were probably used to make them easier targets for the archers, since there weren't that many cataphracts.

And in cavalry versus cavalry situations, the cataphract's charge would be better than any other's. And heavy horse can't really just sit there against infantry, the horses are too vunerable. You either charge and break them, break off the charge (either the horses spook or you do it to scare the infantry, or get them to bunch together for your archers to shoot them), or you don't break them, in which you will have to retreat and try a charge later on.

Unlike the feudal knights, Eastern heavy horse were a lot more disciplined, and could mount multiple charges, and only when needed.

Simon Appleton, what I meant by "more capable in melee" may be divided into two questions - how much blows you could deliver and how fast you can change direction the horse is moving - in both of this cases lighter, but still effecively armored men (and horse) got advantage.
The first is rather obvious - with less armour you could move more swiftly. This is seriously affected by your skill and even more by your weapon. For example with sabre you can deliver dangerous strikes from whist movement and those could be extremely fast and accurate. On the other hand mace or axe needs whole arm movement which is slow and not that accurate (similar, but weaker problem is with one hand sword).
Comparing turning ability of horses (Comp's vs Kat's) is like comparing single and twin engined fighers in WWII (eg. Bf109 and Bf110) - both had comparable speed but turning rate and acceleration was strongly in favour single engined ones, because they were much lighter.
This means that lighter cav could break from the charge in the last moment - kat's were gaining speed slower and when finally charging they were almost unable to change direction.
Kataphraktoi were like a ram while Companions like guided missile. ~;)
And obviously every cavalryman hold in place and surrounded by many inf got no chance to survive.
By the way in the Napoleonic period the best cav were not heavy cuirasiers but light Polish Lancers, who were actually able to break inf in square formation. I have to check the name of battle, but in one in Spain the English inf regiment was smahed by a charge - they lost even regimental standard (the only one lost by English inf during whole Napoleonic Wars~:) ).
:charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:

You must be talking of Albuera...the french (polish as well, actually) cavalry smashed an entire brigade (4 regiments) and took more than one regimental colours; if memory serves me right it was 5 plus some cannons as well. However the cavalry did not break any square, in fact the only regiment that wasn't destroyed was the only one that formed in a square on time. The Cavalry just flanked the entire british line and rolled over on it's flank and rear.

I checked and it is Albuera, but the book states that English were in squares ~:confused:. Maybe the author made mistake, but he is historian of this period specialised in military. I'm not much interested in this period and this is my only book mentioning this battle (very briefly) so I can't check. Seems I have to visit library on my university ~;) .

What I said about feudal knights wasn't entirelly correct... some were more disciplined than I had known. Thanks Ranika for the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

Simon Appleton, what I meant by "more capable in melee" may be divided into two questions - how much blows you could deliver and how fast you can change direction the horse is moving - in both of this cases lighter, but still effecively armored men (and horse) got advantage.
The first is rather obvious - with less armour you could move more swiftly. This is seriously affected by your skill and even more by your weapon. For example with sabre you can deliver dangerous strikes from whist movement and those could be extremely fast and accurate. On the other hand mace or axe needs whole arm movement which is slow and not that accurate (similar, but weaker problem is with one hand sword).
Comparing turning ability of horses (Comp's vs Kat's) is like comparing single and twin engined fighers in WWII (eg. Bf109 and Bf110) - both had comparable speed but turning rate and acceleration was strongly in favour single engined ones, because they were much lighter.

---

Single edged blades only came into the picture with the Avars.

Quote:

---

This means that lighter cav could break from the charge in the last moment - kat's were gaining speed slower and when finally charging they were almost unable to change direction.
Kataphraktoi were like a ram while Companions like guided missile. ~;)

---

Not true. Often the Parthians and the later Sassanians would have their cataphracts charge, then break off the charge to allow their horse archers easier shots (the infantry would bunch up to repell a charge), or just to scare the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Single edged blades only came into the picture with the Avars.


Not true. Often the Parthians and the later Sassanians would have their cataphracts charge, then break off the charge to allow their horse archers easier shots (the infantry would bunch up to repell a charge), or just to scare the enemy.

---

Sabres were only example ~:) , I do not state they were used in RTW period.

Sorry, my statements were based on Magnesia battle. In this case I could only say shame Antiochos III!
But I will still state that Comp's could easier turn.~D
Also, mentioning Sasanids you mean Kataphracti or Clibinari?

I reffer to the Parthian and Sassanian heavy horse as cataphracts. I don't understand the Greek and Latin classifications, and seeing as how many of the Parthian heavy horse were still considered cataphracts though they couldn't afford horse armor, and while a greater number of Sassanians were heavier when compared to the Parthians, for most of the time the basic tactics were the same, though evantually horse archers lost prominence and infantry gained prominence.

Thats my major concern:
Horse Archers historically and tactically were unstopable, there is no way to counter them, light cavalry? They shot it to pieces, Heavy Cavalry? will never catch them and will be decimated anyway...
Will the EB take the balance/gameplay path or the realism/historical accuracy one?

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I reffer to the Parthian and Sassanian heavy horse as cataphracts. I don't understand the Greek and Latin classifications, and seeing as how many of the Parthian heavy horse were still considered cataphracts though they couldn't afford horse armor, and while a greater number of Sassanians were heavier when compared to the Parthians, for most of the time the basic tactics were the same, though evantually horse archers lost prominence and infantry gained prominence.

---

The problem is that the name seems to indicate the tactics used - while kataphracti fought in block with spears on right side of horse (this was perfect for anti inf), the clibinari were formed in the wedge with HA's behind them, and maybe even holdng spear under armpit (this was anti cav formation). This means that the same rider could be called kataphraktarius or clibanarius according to formation he was in. This is only theory, but its based on few strong info in sources and in iconography - we have even inscription mentioning (catafractus) catafractarius clibanarius.

That's not true. Alexander defeated Scythian nomads in his campaign, wich were expert horse archers.
Horse archers were devastating to opponents not used to their type of warfare. The infantry centric Romans are a prime example, we all know off Cannae. However in later battles, Romans would employ more slingers and other missile troops against the Parthians. They then had a lot harder time dealing with their Roman foes.
So act sensibly and do what the Romans did: have slingers and archers take care of the horse archers, and have other units near them to protect them from cavalry charges. Maybe you can even use your cavalry to go around their backs and envelop them, though that would require great care. Just don't expect your phalangites and legions to beat horse archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

That's not true. Alexander defeated Scythian nomads in his campaign, wich were expert horse archers.
Horse archers were devastating to opponents not used to their type of warfare. The infantry centric Romans are a prime example, we all know off Cannae. However in later battles, Romans would employ more slingers and other missile troops against the Parthians. They then had a lot harder time dealing with their Roman foes.
So act sensibly and do what the Romans did: have slingers and archers take care of the horse archers, and have other units near them to protect them from cavalry charges. Maybe you can even use your cavalry to go around their backs and envelop them, though that would require great care. Just don't expect your phalangites and legions to beat horse archers.

---

Im thinking more in a MP context...
But Alexander used field artillery IIRC and I dont know how artillery is in EB but in RTW MP its banned and for good reason...
Plust the Cat. Circle is almost immune to archer fire...

Hellenes

Didn't the eastern bows far outrange the western or Roman bows? Or did the Romans start using more powerful bows by that time?

Eastern bows massively outranged western bows, that's why they used slingers. You can always get your own eastern archers too (horse or infantry) easterns fight each other too, and would be willing to side with a western power to smite a traditional enemy, or a western ruler to keep on good terms.

Romans rarely used western style archers during the republic or later. Most of their bowmen during the Republic were composite bow armed cretans, recruited as mercenaries and later auxilaries, since the punic wars.

In the wars and civil wars of the late republic roman generals in the east started to hire horse and foot archers in large contigents for their armies.

Thereafter, in the early principate, when the roman army begun to field greater numbers of their own regular archer and horse archer units almost all were intially enrolled in the eastern and black sea provinces and equipped with eastern style composite bows.

The remainders of such bows have been found in greater numbers in roman forts throughout europe, even in places not occupied by specialised archer units. The roman imperial period was the only era when the eastern style composite bow was dominantly use in western europe.

Quote:

---

Thats my major concern:
Horse Archers historically and tactically were unstopable, there is no way to counter them, light cavalry? They shot it to pieces, Heavy Cavalry? will never catch them and will be decimated anyway...
Will the EB take the balance/gameplay path or the realism/historical accuracy one?

---

I don't play multiplayer, so I can only answer from a singleplayer and historical view.
History always comes first, so we are depicting the horse archers in a historical manner. I am the Parthian and Armenian Faction Coordinator, so I would know.
And Horse archers are not impossible to kill. I never understood why people said this. You use your own horse archers or hide some missle troops behind infantry. You defeat them the way they were really defeated in history.
If you use an all infantry army, then of course horse archers will destroy you, and they should as they did historically.

As for Romans, some of the people they conquered or hired had decent bows.

In some mods, cavalry –especially heavy cavalry- has been weakened to the point of obscurity.. :sad:
Having the best weapons, the best armor, those magnificent mounts and all at great expense… just to chase down fleeing enemy?! ~:confused:
I don't underestimate the importance of "chasing down the enemy" and that the majority of the killing was often done after the battle proper; but I believe historically cavalry deserves much more respect than that!! :knight:

O Stratigos :bow:

Fear not, heavy horse is quite deadly. You do need support of course. You couldn't make a Parthian army with all cataphracts. And you probably couldn't make one with all horse archers, because you'll run out of arrows before you rout all of the enemy's infantry (if your fighting say Greece or Rome).