Why does all cavalry get the "Effective against armour" trait?

Well, I noticed that most typical non-skirmishing cavalry, like the greek cavalry or even the iberian cruisii (i can't spell that), have the "Effective against armour" trait in their description. Why is that so, both historically and gameplay wise? Also, does that trait affects your primary attack, your secondary attack, or both?

My guess is that it makes flanking much more rewarding with cavalry, while frontal charges become more risky due to the enemy unit still keeping their shield defense value.

Maybe. *Shrugs*

Mostly to make cavalry charges work despite the 1.2 charge bug. Although any cavarly unit that doesn't use an overhand spear will probably keep it, a charge with a lance or even spear is pretty good for cracking open armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Mostly to make cavalry charges work despite the 1.2 charge bug.

---

What exactly is that charge bug?

In 1.2 charge bonuses have almost no effect. This is not the case in 1.5 though, so no worries.

So that is why my cavalry has been so weak!

Also some of the greek units have ap for secondary weapon because they are equipped with kopis special sword similar to kukri used by Ghurka units even in II world war which is great for crushing body defences.

A lot of cavalry have hand axes as secondary weapons too. They're also AP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Mostly to make cavalry charges work despite the 1.2 charge bug. Although any cavarly unit that doesn't use an overhand spear will probably keep it, a charge with a lance or even spear is pretty good for cracking open armor.

---

I would have thought so too, but I am starting to have second doubts. It was interesting in the cavalry spears thread, a link was given saying that Napoleonic lancers were regarded as rather ineffective against cuirassiers:

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/cavalry_tactics_2.htm

Not at all. About napoleonic lancers, the were simply few good lancers at Napoleonic time. Tho Cossacks Guards had crushed the Guard Cuiarsiers of French in battle of Lipzig, and Polish Ulahn defeated Russian and Austrian cuirassiers, I think in same battle. So first:

1. Ulahn were simply not good, breefly trained Austrian and Prussian Ulahn could not be compared with French Old Guard Lancers which were defeating anybody with lance. One Old Guard Lancer demonstrated his skill by fighting against 2 dragoons and knocking them from the saddle.
2. Incomparable lance. Compare Polish Hussaria and Napoleonic Lancers. 5.5m lances vs 2.3 m lance of Napoleonic Ulah or 4m long lance of the Heiteroi or Cataphract lance.
3. Incomparable armor. You can't compare light Napoleonic Ulah vs Cuirassier. But what if Cuirassiers got charged by Armored Elite Macedonian Cav? They would got smushed and cut on peaces.

Yep found it in your link
"Only well-trained and battle-hardened lancers were able to deal with armored cavalry. In 1813 at Leipzig the Polish 3rd, 6th and 8th Uhlan Regiment (mostly veterans) didn't shy away from the cuirassiers. Near Auenhain Sheepfarm the three regiments charged numerous times against six Austrian and two Russian cuirassier regiments. The Poles pointed their lances at cuirassiers' faces and necks. According to P. Haythornthwaite "lance can be aimed at a target with greater accuracy than a sword." They also used lances as battering rams - striking at tops of opponents' helmets with force."
And equipment were diferent. For example in older times lances were bigger and heavier and could hit armor not worser than sword, even if not breaking armor atleast throwing people down from horse.
Most of good heavy cav would use lance only against infantry or as initiall shock weapon and dragging swords for close fighting. Read about lancers formitions there on this good site. 1 rank lances 2nd couple of lances rest swords. There were men with swords already dragged out to support lancers after an impact.

well i wouldnt really know about all this history stuff.
but the physics says its going to hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

well i wouldnt really know about all this history stuff.
but the physics says its going to hurt.

---

Hurt yes, but pierce? I doubt it. A Napoleonic cuirass was pretty decent armour - if struck, I think it would give more protection against a point than chainmail. The site quoted above says the lancers would aim for parts other than the cuirass, just as savy criminals or others do when faced with modern opponents with body armour. Looking at a lot of the heavy cavalry in EB - e..g the hetaroi - I'd say they are often armoured not that differently from the cuirassiers, although perhaps the quality of the metal was better in the Napoleonic period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arman

But what if Cuirassiers got charged by Armored Elite Macedonian Cav?They would got smushed and cut on peaces.

---

Maybe, with that distance of history, who can say? I'll readily concede that the quality of the troops matters more than the kit. (It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog...).

But the question at issue in this thread is whether armour is much less use against lances than swords. The material I quoted seemed to me to suggest the opposite. At least a cutting/slashing sword would tend to go for body parts other than the best armoured part (the chest). The lancers seemed to have to revise their fighting style when faced with the cuirass.

Quote:

---

...even if not breaking armor atleast throwing people down from horse.

---

This is a good point. If we were talking about Norman & medieval "couched lance" fighting style, I might agree the armour of the opponent might be less crucial. The couched lance could throw even an armoured opponent off his horse. But I am not sure the ancient heavy cavalry really did this, otherwise why do medieval historians talk about the couched lance tactic being innovative? When the Byzantines were so impressed by the charge of Frankish knights had they simply forgetten how their Greek and Roman predecessors fought?

Armor in EB includes a lot of things other than soild cuirass, leather for example. Don't forget that we have to consider a lot of armor. And of course historical evidence does point to lancers being effective against heavy infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

When the Byzantines were so impressed by the charge of Frankish knights had they simply forgetten how their Greek and Roman predecessors fought?

---

Absolutelly, recruiting merc for everything cav, inf, marines. But this mention could be simply braggin of Frankish source as well.

I read the "Evolution of Art of War" book writing by Russian professor of military accademy Svetchin(1920s), very well known for his tactical and strategical doctrines and idias.
He calls Heiteroi - cuirassiers of Ancient Times, He beleives that only one cavalry of ancient time could be regarded as good as Heitroi, is Carthage heavy cavalry. He say the tactics and drill, discipline, knee to knee charge, maneuring skills of this two cavalry were supperior to all later cavalry inlcuding knights who were charging not uniformly not synchronously and more like a "mob of bigs" as Sweden king Adolf Hustav said. He beleives that after fall of Rome the art of war suffered big set back in Europe mostly due to lack of strong ecconomics that Rome and Greece had, most of the states fell back to natural exchange and this make proffesional paid army living in barracks imposible to maintain for kings that didn't controled their state resources anymore, spreading them over feudals, who at their turn were not interested in providing kings with best quality armies and excatly oposite were trying to avoid giving monarchs full power.
Only in Napoleonic time when monarchy gave kings greater resources proper taxation systems and trade were developed, creating such units like Cuirassiers and Line infantry become posible again.


Lances of Turkic, Sarmatian, Sakae, Parthian cavalry were chained into the saddle and handled by too hand, they could deliver even stronger blow that feudal knight lance, because they bound to the horse and were passing energy of horse innertion on the point of the lance, as well I were more heavier. I remember readins somewhere they heiteroi lance had metalic plate fixed through whole length of lance to make it harder to break.

The lances of the late medieval knights were also attached to armour and saddle giving them the same advantage to concentrate the kinetic energy of the horse knight combination on the tip of their lance. Plus medieval knights rode bigger and heavier horses than any ancient cavalry. But personally I don't think that this is a great advantage on the battlefield. So they can only
attack tragets directly in front of them making the later knights much less flexible in combat, and searously limiting their possible tactics. As you said flexibility, manouverebility and discipline is far more important for a powerful battlefield cavalry. Hetaroi even didn't use saddles at all, limiting the maximum power of the shock without decreasing their overall effiency. Without doing this Roman Contarii or similiar equiped cav. could fight enemies with their two handed lances on both sides and even beneath their horses and their blow is much more difficult too predict for the enemy than from the straight charging knight. Shorter 1.8-2.8m lances could alternativly be used overhand to stab behind the infantries defence and enables to aim at weaker points more easily.

In addition to that Polish Hussaria were using one 5.5 hollow lance for delivering shot, and also had and iron sort of sword 1.6m long more like long stick with sharp point to be used double handed to stab after hollow lance is broken on inpact.

http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/comp/Pics/Koncerz.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/rik_fox/husaria/hussar13.jpg

Just chiming in with a couple of comments...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Hurt yes, but pierce? I doubt it. A Napoleonic cuirass was pretty decent armour - if struck, I think it would give more protection against a point than chainmail. The site quoted above says the lancers would aim for parts other than the cuirass, just as savy criminals or others do when faced with modern opponents with body armour. Looking at a lot of the heavy cavalry in EB - e..g the hetaroi - I'd say they are often armoured not that differently from the cuirassiers, although perhaps the quality of the metal was better in the Napoleonic period.

---

IIRC one of the ancient sources (gah, can't think who off the top of my head) reporting Makedonian hetairoi doing exactly the same thing: aiming for the faces of their Persian/Asian opponents. They seem to have had the skill to do that and it seems to have made a difference when they fought against, and eventually overcame, heavily armoured cavalry (Sacae, Massagetae & Baktrians) at Gaugamela. Mind you, according to the sources this one was of the hardest struggles Alexander's hetairoi ever won and they paid dearly for their victory. In any case, I think this tidbit tends to fit a general pattern: to be effective lancers have to be highly-trained, but when that occurs, then they are a *very* effective troop type.

Quote:

---

But the question at issue in this thread is whether armour is much less use against lances than swords. The material I quoted seemed to me to suggest the opposite. At least a cutting/slashing sword would tend to go for body parts other than the best armoured part (the chest). The lancers seemed to have to revise their fighting style when faced with the cuirass.

---

Indeed, and see above: good lancers throughout history did adapt according to the enemy they were facing. In fact, that ability to adapt is what seems to have set the *good* lancers (those who could chose their target) apart from mediocre ones.

Quote:

---

This is a good point. If we were talking about Norman & medieval "couched lance" fighting style, I might agree the armour of the opponent might be less crucial. The couched lance could throw even an armoured opponent off his horse. But I am not sure the ancient heavy cavalry really did this, otherwise why do medieval historians talk about the couched lance tactic being innovative? When the Byzantines were so impressed by the charge of Frankish knights had they simply forgetten how their Greek and Roman predecessors fought?

---

Ancient cavalry using the 2-handed lance seems to have had no problem unhorsing people at all! Such scenes abound in ancient art. Sassanian art, particularly, is simply chock full of them, but you also find them in Sarmatian vessels, Bosporan tomb paintings, and the Central Asian steppes. Oh and in some cases the lances do seem to be puncturing through heavy armor A few examples:

Dura Europus graffiti. Early Sassanian or, less likely, late Parthian.
https://img85.imageshack.us/img85/59...dura2gn.th.jpg
Firuzabad rock reliefs. Early Sassanian.
https://img150.imageshack.us/img150/...uzabad2b1v.jpg
Sassanian Bowl
https://img65.imageshack.us/img65/96...bowl0jk.th.jpg
Kossika vessels. Sarmatian.
https://img116.imageshack.us/img116/...oroi0vf.th.jpg

I tend to think that the couched lance technique is easier to master than the 2-handed one and might have a bit more impact, but that if you reach a certain skill level with the 2-h lance, then, as Cunctator says it is more flexible. The often well-trained Mamlukes did not seem to have felt particularly compelled to abandon their 2-h lance techniques after facing the Crusaders, though they did start incorporating the couched lance to their repertoire.

I dont believe a lance needs to Pierce armour to be classed as effective vs armour,

If you slash at armour with a sword/sabre... Your not going to do much.

But if you charge at the opponent and hit him with a lance.
its going to hurt/knock them down Which makes them vulnerable.... so thats a + to the efectiveness vs armour,

alot depends on the armour though.
A relitivly flat brest plate. even of substantial mass would find it hard to resist a lance that was being propelled on horse back.
its just a matter of PSI...
small pointy thing + horses weight = Lots of PSI.

and if your stupid enough to use a breast plate thats made to resemble a sculptured human body.
http://www.columbiacostumes.com/Roma...late%202pc.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"this pic is a little more extravagant than i was thinking"

A direct blow to the Cleavage, would theoreticaly be enough.

How ever if you have those old french "i think" suits of armour.
That protrude out in the center. and round off to the sides.
http://www.batguano.com/bgma/breastplate.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

apparantly this breastplate was used at waterloo by a 5ft 9inch brench butter maker. Who lost a fight with a cannon ball.

the lance would not really be able to efectivly strike.

Basically.
for the thing to pierce the armour.
The armour needs to have a flat bit atleast the same size as the tip of the lance.
and you would need to hit it with 100% accuracy.

But even if you dont pierce the armour. The attack will have an Effect. so + 1 effectivenes vs armour,

Look at the dog on the last picture. There is Kazakhs legends that ancient warriors used the huge steppe dog to attack their oponent horse, and generally protect their master in battle. Look this picture depicts that!
Have you seen Kazakh wolfkiller steppe dog? It's huge, it's like little cow :-)