Rebalancing cavalry with working charge bonus?

I'm curious how EB is reworking cavalry's stats for 1.5, given that the charge bonus will work as advertised? The reason I ask is that RTR Platinum is grappling with this issue and have raised the charge values and lowered the attack values. I think they might have gone too far but this is only a feeling. I wonder how we can actually know what is an accurate simulation of the effectiveness of cavalry in combat? I guess this is a question for the historians in here.

Anyway, while thinking about this, I pulled out the stats (attack/defence) for two units, Companions and Hastati, in various versions of the game. I suspect Qwerty is going to tell me to look also at animations and other stats (lethality?), but if so, I'd welcome clarification. But if we take the stats at face value and assume - as in STW and MTW - that the difference between the attack and defence stat affects kill rates, what we have is:

Vanilla - hastati 7/14 vs Companion 10/17 so hastati hits at -10, Companion at -4
RTR Gold - hastati 10/25 vs Companion 23/19 so hastati hits at -9 Companion at -2
EB - hastati 4/21 vs Companion 10/22 so hastati hits at -18 Companion at -11
RTR PE15 latest EDU - hastati 10/25 vs Companion 8/19 so hastati hits at -9 Companion at -17

Basically, EB, RTR Gold and vanilla RTW all give the Companion a - remarkably consistent - edge over a hastati in melee (no charge bonus). RTR Platinum Edition swings things dramatically the other way (the charge stat is supposed to compensate, but even so...).

I guess I have two questions:

(1) What is the next version of EB going to do to the above figures when ported over to 1.5 (esp. the Companion's attack)?

(2) From a historical point of view, can we say which is right? Intuitively, I'd be inclined to say the Companions should have an edge, even in a confused melee. AFAIK, they were used - very effectively - as shock cavalry. I can't seem pulling that off with such a disadvantage against infantry.

I can see that cavalry might have an issue charging steady, closed order infantry (images of Napoleonic cavalry and squares come to mind here). But once they were in among them, I think man-for-man, they would have an edge (images of Napoleonic cavalry breaking into a square...). But maybe the RTW engine can't model that kind of nuance.

Well we're just beginning to really work on this but yes, cavalry will have a drastically reduced attack rate. Basically the hope is two-fold. 1 the AP and Lethality edges cavalry have should help compensate somewhat, and secondly it will make secondary melee weapons on cavalry worth using if your pricy horsemen get bogged down. Well we're just beginning to really work on this but yes, cavalry will have a drastically reduced attack rate. Basically the hope is two-fold. 1 the AP and Lethality edges cavalry have should help compensate somewhat, and secondly it will make secondary melee weapons on cavalry worth using if your pricy horsemen get bogged down. The reason I don’t want to swing the advantage in melee too far to the infantry with the primary weapons is because the AI doesn’t use them (at least not in 1.2 and not that I’ve seen or heard of in 1.5) and I’d like to avoid handicapping it too much more, dumb enough already, even in 1.5.

I would think that cavalry would have an edge in a mele only against certain types of infantry. Cavalry should have the advantage when fighting infantry armed with short, close quarters weapons such as the gladius. In fact, Roman infantry was very suceptable to cavalry attack when not in proper formation, as the mounted attacker had an advantage in both leverage and height which rendered the gladius somewhat impotent. If I remeber correctly, the only time a Roman army successfully managed to rout a unit of cavalry in a mele was at Pharsalus, when Caeser ordered his men to use thier pilum's instead of their gladius', thus negating this disadvantage.

I think the real issue that your alluding to is the role of formations in battle. Properly formed up troops should have certain advantages while disorganized ones should have weaknesses. This bug is most cleary observed in phalanx type units, which can be blindsided by a cavalry charge when not in formation and magicaly turn, form up, and decimate the attacking cavalry with thier sarrisas.

Well your point about Roman infantry and cavalry isn't born out by the evidence, but I understand what you're saying. The problem is that RTW isn't good at dealing with formations and how they should effect battle.

Well, 1.5 has formed-up spearmen having bonuses against cav, so that formation problem is partly solved.

Yeah that's true, it seems to give them extra weight as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorebreak

I think the real issue that your alluding to is the role of formations in battle. Properly formed up troops should have certain advantages while disorganized ones should have weaknesses. This bug is most cleary observed in phalanx type units, which can be blindsided by a cavalry charge when not in formation and magicaly turn, form up, and decimate the attacking cavalry with thier sarrisas.

---

Exactly. The way the phalanx is supposed to work in game - negating the charge and almost invulnerable head-on, in formation; weak out of formation or on the flanks - is how I intuitively think heavy infantry vs shock cavalry interactions would have played out. But I'm no historian.

Is it just me but when the bodyguard cavalry charge they look realy cool when they lower their lances then they hit home, however after the impact they just stop and start prodding the enemy to death with the lances are the supposed to use secondary weapons or am I being pedantic. Dont mean to hijack the thread but i can think of a better place to post this.

Press down ALT while you order the unit to attack, that way they'll switch to their secondary weapons after the charge is over and the melee begins. AI cavalry never uses it's secondary weapons from what I've seen.

Actually the AI switches when it gets bogged down and surrounded, actually they seem to do it slightly more in 1.2.

Thought: The lance is basically a single use weapon but the shorter cavalry spears used by some units should actually have better attack ratings with lower charge ratings and Cav should all have significantly more powerful secondaries than primaries. If you raise it high enough maybe the AI will twig.

As to Inf V Cav, remember the ancients were rather less secure in their seats, what with no stirrups.

Stirrups did give cavalry a more secure seat, but were not particullarly vital in any manner of cavalry warfare, be it lances, swords or bows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorebreak

In fact, Roman infantry was very suceptable to cavalry attack when not in proper formation, as the mounted attacker had an advantage in both leverage and height which rendered the gladius somewhat impotent.

---

Well, if I remember correctly, when the Romans were expecting large cavalry assaults they would use their heavy pilum in tight ranks presenting a sort of loose phalanx or spearwall to compensate for that very problem with the Gladius. Also, after the initial charge that becomes less of a problem because it becomes possible to get up under the horse and stab at it's belly more or less disemboweling it. And on the note of proper formations, pretty much any infantry is vulnerable to calvalry attack when not in proper formation not just Roman infantry. A well timed heavy calvalry charge on a unit of soldiers out of formation will rout pretty much anyone.

Of course, I'm no expert, I'm just well read on certain things :bow:

Steppe Merc, as I recall stirrups significantly improve lancers, and the definately make a horse a more stable fighting platform

Zero1: Disembowling a horse is not easy and I can't believe anyone other than Rambo would try it. As to Pila, it was done but the Pila were instantly useless after that and they were too short and weak to recieve a charge the way spears do. Saesar used them to stab at the horses' eyes.

Sorry to go a little off topic, but to the best of my understanding, stirrups make lancers vastly better by allowing the lance to be "couched" under the arm, rather than thrust overhand.
Without stirrups, the lance strikes with only the strengh of the upper body, while with stirrups, the momentum of the horse and rider is used. As far as I know, ancient cavalrymen were sometimes dismounted by the force of their own blows because they would become unbalanced on the horse.

Back on topic (a bit), IMO, trained sword infantry (like the romans) should rip through even heavy cavalry in a standstill melee - the infantry would just hamstring the horses and force the cavalrymen to fight on foot - often at a major disadvantage (overly heavy armour, restricted movement, weapons more suited to horseback)

But of course, I could be completely wrong - this isn't an area of expertise for me.:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clovis

Sorry to go a little off topic, but to the best of my understanding, stirrups make lancers vastly better by allowing the lance to be "couched" under the arm, rather than thrust overhand.
Without stirrups, the lance strikes with only the strengh of the upper body, while with stirrups, the momentum of the horse and rider is used. As far as I know, ancient cavalrymen were sometimes dismounted by the force of their own blows because they would become unbalanced on the horse.

---

Uh-oh, here we go again.

:surrender:
(Hiding behind the blast wall)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clovis

Sorry to go a little off topic, but to the best of my understanding, stirrups make lancers vastly better by allowing the lance to be "couched" under the arm, rather than thrust overhand.
Without stirrups, the lance strikes with only the strengh of the upper body, while with stirrups, the momentum of the horse and rider is used. As far as I know, ancient cavalrymen were sometimes dismounted by the force of their own blows because they would become unbalanced on the horse.

---

An old myth that I thought that the evidence on the performance of ancient cavalry, experimental archaeology and re-enactors had debunked quite a while ago (seems not completely). The current trend among scholars is to regard things like saddle design as more important than stirrups for lancers and it's well established that adequate saddles (e.g., four-horned saddle) were around. Oh, and, FWIW, the Orlat battle plaques show stirrup-less riders using couched lances.

This is not to say that stirrups aren't a very nice thing to have, but their major contribution seems to be by things like allowing people not born on the saddle (literally) the hope of some decent performance as cavalry. Basically, they reduce drastically the training times for cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clovis

Back on topic (a bit), IMO, trained sword infantry (like the romans) should rip through even heavy cavalry in a standstill melee - the infantry would just hamstring the horses and force the cavalrymen to fight on foot - often at a major disadvantage (overly heavy armour, restricted movement, weapons more suited to horseback)

But of course, I could be completely wrong - this isn't an area of expertise for me.:sweatdrop:

---

If not necessarily thorugh hamstringing the horses, there are indeed examples of infantry doing just that. At Tigranocerta, Roman infantry (post Marius) caught the Armenian cataphracts napping, charged them and totally broke them. And even infantry with less "glamour" than Roman legionaries could do well. At Argentoratum (357 CE, IIRC), Alamannic infantry routed Roman cataphracts

Sorry, Clovis and Wigferth Ironwall, but that is a common misconception.

Stirrups did improve the stability of shooting in the case of horse archers but not really in the case of lancers. The horse archer shoots with more stability and precision exactly on the moment the horse has the four legs on the air and for that the stirrups allowed a more stable standing platform than the sitting position - specially at high speed.

In the case of the lancers, the stirrup offered no significant advantage because the stability needed by the lancer acts more on the horizontal plane than on the vertical plane as in the case of the horse archer. That is, the main problem in regard to stability for the lancer was in the moment of impact.

The main difference in the two techniques is that the lancer needs a firm grip with the back of the horse (force transfer on impact) while the horse archer's best position is standing because he needs a stable platform (that the stirrups provide effectivelly).

It's a question of calculating the force directions in both cases.

The two great improvements in lancer stability and charge force were the four horned sadle (ancient times in the east ---> later medieval battle sadles kept improving this type of solution) and later, in medieval times, the couched lance of the knights. Both increase greatly the stability of the lancer at the moment of impact - the former in the case of force transfer from the lancer's body to the horse itself, therefore increasing stability, and the later in the case of force transfer to the target (maximum impact of a non-slipping, stable lance).

Let me add that the 2-handed grip so often used by ancient lancers worked in practice and in some respects not too differently from couched lance techniques. Hence, ancient riders using 2-h lances were not terribly disadvantaged stability-wise. First, the lance was not hold up in the air, but usually kept low, firmly pressed against the rider's hip. Sometimes, loops or even the horse's reins seem to have been used to reduce the chances of the lance slipping. Second, the 2-h grip could easily become a sort of 2-h couched grip. See the pics below:

Sassanian, 5th century CE, IIRC:
https://img216.imageshack.us/img216/...bowl0ue.th.jpg
And the Orlat plaque I mentioned in my post above (uncertain dating, likely not later than 150 CE, possibly as early as II BCE):
https://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9749/orlat9ds.th.jpg

Please note the couched lances and the stirrup-less horsemen.

my bad- as I said, it's not something I've really studied in depth, jsut seen in passing.

For all who don't believe yet, I can once again post a nice picture demonstrating that the "couched" under the arm use of the lance is entirely possbile, without stirrups. In this case only reconstructed roman 1st century AD equippment is use by the reenactor.

https://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7798/la26qm.jpg

Excellent pic cunctator! I assume he's using the four horned saddle?

And thanks to Aymar, Angadil, cunctator et all for the info, as they do it better than I can. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

Uh-oh, here we go again.

:surrender:
(Hiding behind the blast wall)

---

It's something of a pet peeve of ours... ~;)

In this trial yes. In the text the author says they also tried it without saddle
against the sandbag, which requires only marginally more skill. The most difficult part was to redraw the lance from the target without loosing speed.

Firstly, I never said ancient cavalry were ineffective. Secondly, I am aware of the four horned saddle, I neglected to mention it, I was thinking more of earlier cavalry, given that the four horned saddle seems to come in with Caesar's use of Gallic Cavalry. Many modern (ceremonial) cavalry ride without stirrups, including the Household Cavalry and the Royal Spanish Riding School of Vienna.

From personal experience I know that it is musch easier to keep your seat with stirrups if you don't have a very deep saddle. Also they do make a horse a more stable fightiing platform because they allow you to move in ways you can't in a four horned saddle, you can lean and recover your seat more easily, you can stand up in your seat. So I'm sorry but as good as ancient saddles were, and the men who rode in them , stirrups are a big improvement, that's why we have them.

Oh, and cunctator, where's your man's shield? That would change his balance considerably, and he wouldn't be able to hold the reins as he is, not that they're doing a great deal anyway.

They did help things. But it took a long time for people to convert to them. There is evidence in some places are loop stirrups in the first century CE, but really it only became used after the Avars introduced it, at least to the West. And many cultures didn't use it or only did so sparingly. This is probably due to military conservatism and pride, but even so it wasn't a battle winning device. For example, it is likely that the Sassanians, despite contact with the Avars and a strong tradition of horse archery (see Aymar's post above about how it helped archers), did not likely use stirrups, and if they did it was probably not common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Firstly, I never said ancient cavalry were ineffective.

---

What you said was this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Steppe Merc, as I recall stirrups significantly improve lancers, and the definately make a horse a more stable fighting platform

---

And it has been this specific statement that cunctator, Aymar, Steppe Merc and I have shown to be a misconception. Not some vague "stirrups are good". Obviously they are good, but they can be good for many reasons and in many ways. For example, it seems that how much they can help in mounting a horse tends to be overlooked. It would be good to remember that Cambyses, the second king of Achaemenid Persia, died by accidentally wounding himself with his own weapons when leaping on a horse. I'm sure he'd appreciated stirrups. This may help to understand that single, mounting stirrups were used for quite a while before the pair of "normal" stirrups was developed. For the physical reasons Aymar outlined, stirrups are much less of an improvement for lancers in combat than, as Aymar also said, horse archers. It is probably no coincidence that horse archers are particularly abundant int the earliest representations of horsemen using stirrups (Korean tombs frescoes, for example)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

So I'm sorry but as good as ancient saddles were, and the men who rode in them , stirrups are a big improvement, that's why we have them.

---

And no one denied that stirrups, overall, represent an improvement. Just that, specifically, a lancer's charge may be one of the aspects where that improvement is smaller.