Let's talk about cavalry

My point about the various Riders is simple: when would you want to use them in place of a specialized combined arms cavalry wing? Basic HA do just as well at shooting but cost significantly less, and heavy cav (and cataphract HA, ideally) do enormously better than Riders at charging - and will take few losses while the Riders will be seriously understrength after the battle, even charging at the rear of tired enemies.

Granted, if one can only have one unit type in an army, and cata-HA aren't available and/or affordable, Riders are the way to go. But that's never going to be the case.

Specific context in case it helps clarify: my standard Hayasdan army has a general, a cata-HA, three basic HA, and a Kinsmen as the cavalry wing. Do any of the Rider enthusiasts here think I'd benefit by swapping any of those units for a Rider unit?

Back on topic, I wasn't too impressed by the Hetairoi Aspidophoroi in my brief AS game. They're OK, but not nearly heavy (or dense) enough for charges, and the cheap jav-cav are just as good for missile attacks. A bit of a trend there - personally, I don't like jack of all trades, master of none units. I like jack of all trades, master of all (cata-HA!). ~:) Or cheap units that just do one thing. Same deal with the velites Konny likes so much - from the 1.0 unit cards I judged them the absolute worst javelin skirmishers in the game - give me peltasts, or give me huge cheap units, not the compromise in the middle!

In my baktrian campaign, i was at war on all fronts from early on and 3 unit of riders were all i could afford to stop invading armies. They're cheaper than an HA cata and after laying waste have the ability to effectively charge. May not have the impact of cata's but when u can only afford 3 units, id rather them be a hybrid HA like the rider's.

I have a question about cavalry weapons and since in this thread we're talking about cavalry I won't start another thread.
After I have charged the enemy cavalry with my Hippeis Thessalikoi, is it better to have them use their secondary weapon during the melee? Their primary weapon is spear (Attack:4, Lethality:0.4) and the secondary is sword (Attack:9, Lethality:0.1), both Armour Piercing. Would the choice be different if I charged infantry?

Well to me, it makes more sense to have them charge fight with spears against cavalry since they get a bonus and swords against infantry because the spear gets a deduction in it's damage.

Always better to use spear/lance for the initial charge (bigger charge bonus), then switch to secondary afterwards. Charge with Alt+double click and they do that automatically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Always better to use spear/lance for the initial charge (bigger charge bonus), then switch to secondary afterwards. Charge with Alt+double click and they do that automatically.

---

Except that if they're too close to enemy they charge with their alternative weapons.

On the Rider-issue, why have regular HAs rather than rider-HAs? The cost is the only reason I'd imagine, but I'm just curious if there's more reasons, or if it's about a principle ("'best-of-the-best or cheapest-of-the-cheap', m'dad used t' say. *nodnod*").

Quote:

---

Always better to use spear/lance for the initial charge (bigger charge bonus), then switch to secondary afterwards.

---

Since spears/lances have a bonus against horses, I thought that maybe it would be more effective to use them even in melee against enemy cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcaravel

Since spears/lances have a bonus against horses, I thought that maybe it would be more effective to use them even in melee against enemy cavalry.

---

I don't think the spear-bonus against cavalry applies in cavalry-on-cavalry fights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcaravel

Since spears/lances have a bonus against horses, I thought that maybe it would be more effective to use them even in melee against enemy cavalry.

---

Lances have such low attack values and so long an attack delay that they are useless in close-combat, cavalry-bonus or no. Only use during the charge. Spears are a different matter, but do they have the spear-attribute?

1: I believe the don't actually get the bonus.
2: The lances aren't useless in melee, and reasons why.
-Ingame, they are armour-piercing and have a high lethality rate, good in a cataphract fight
-Historically, the two-handed grip was preferred over the couch during this period because, with the lack of the stirrup, the impact was equal (even though the two-handed grip was much harder) and the two-handed grip allowed use in melee.

Here's a weird one for you. Curepos/Leuce Epos have an AP lance as their backup. Which would explain why I get such good charge results out of them, but also why they're so weak in melee.

Was that intentional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

-Ingame, they are armour-piercing and have a high lethality rate, good in a cataphract fight
-Historically, the two-handed grip was preferred over the couch during this period because, with the lack of the stirrup, the impact was equal (even though the two-handed grip was much harder) and the two-handed grip allowed use in melee.

---

Most lance-using cavalry have an AP secondary weapon, and AP is not able to compensate for low attack values. The stirrup is not that much use when charging, BTW. A high saddle is far more important.

i would always use riders rather than normal HA because of the better charge and they can chase down weaker foot archers. if you can aford it go for armoured HA because tho they cost more you dont take as many casualties from missle fire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Here's a weird one for you. Curepos/Leuce Epos have an AP lance as their backup. Which would explain why I get such good charge results out of them, but also why they're so weak in melee.

Was that intentional?

---

AFAIK, the RTW engine only allows units to have two weapons. Curepos and similar (and in this sense, cataphract HA are "similar") have their missile weapon as primary and lance as secondary. No doubt if three weapons were possible they'd have a sword or something too. This is the only advantage cataphracts have over cata-HA - the latter have no maces for melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGeneral

On the Rider-issue, why have regular HAs rather than rider-HAs? The cost is the only reason I'd imagine, but I'm just curious if there's more reasons, or if it's about a principle ("'best-of-the-best or cheapest-of-the-cheap', m'dad used t' say. *nodnod*").

---

Mostly cost (which is a principle, as you say ~:)), but also accessibility. Late game it doesn't matter, I can recruit anything I want by now, but basic HA are in the level 1 MIC, Riders are level 2 or 3. So early in the game there's the double whammy of a cheaper unit that's much more easily obtained (3 turns vs. 9, thus allowing six turns of economic construction instead, at a time when every mnai counts). But, that relies on having strong bodyguards to take care of your charging needs. Hayasdan, Parthia, and I believe Pontus all have that; Baktria may not, I seem to recall their early bodyguard isn't that great (late, of course, being the best in the game to my knowledge). So STuNTz2023's example is a good one. I really have to find time for a Baktria campaign someday...

Midgame, the Rider strategy might require some fiddling. Would replacing Riders with basic HA free up the upkeep to allow a unit of Kinsmen/cataphracts/cata-HA that one would otherwise be unable to afford? Could be an interesting trade-off for certain factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhhowell

AFAIK, the RTW engine only allows units to have two weapons. Curepos and similar (and in this sense, cataphract HA are "similar") have their missile weapon as primary and lance as secondary. No doubt if three weapons were possible they'd have a sword or something too. This is the only advantage cataphracts have over cata-HA - the latter have no maces for melee.

---

Well, I'm wondering more why they have a lance, rather than a spear. Spears being the more versatile weapon for the unit forced to use one, rather than two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Well, I'm wondering more why they have a lance, rather than a spear. Spears being the more versatile weapon for the unit forced to use one, rather than two.

---

looks to me like they use a spear...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

looks to me like they use a spear...

---

Might look like one, but on both the Recruitment Viewer, and more importantly in the EDU it's a lance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The General

I do know that they're Celtic Archer-Spearmen, but, still, charge in the rear of one unit of them, by two units of Lanceari - and I lose more men in the charge, before the Sotaroas take out their spears? :no:

In reality, the Lanceari would've probably ridden through the unit, impaling the poor Celts from the behind while doing so, and the Celtic unit would've been broken. That, or the Sotaroas would've faced the Lanceari with their spears to try and fend off them (rather than let themselves be charged in the rear). Also, the Lanceari have 30-or-so defence, with quite a bit of armour, which, imho, should reduce their vulnerability to spears somewhat... Or so one would think.

Meh, less whining, more discussion. :whip:

---

30 or so defense? They have 16 armor, 8 skill, and 2 shield. in my backup EDU

I beefed it up 18-9-2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

30 or so defense? They have 16 armor, 8 skill, and 2 shield. in my backup EDU

I beefed it up 18-9-2

---

Meh, 26, then. It has been four or five months since I played the campaign.

It's a toss-up between Curepos and Epos Liguriae. Former has the better stamina, and lances which means lots of good charges. Latter has slightly better armour, melee skills and spears, which means they're better at sticking around.

Since nobody has mentioned it, in my Eastern campaigns I have found the Indo-Iranian light cavalry to be solid mercenary cavalry (they are mislabeled as light - they are a true medium cav), and the regional Median and Asiatic Cavalry (same unit - different name) to be cheap decent medium cavalry. Indo Iranian Heavy Cavalry is a regional unit exclusive to Gandahara in the far East of the map. I also use 4 units of Dahae riders (not the aforementioned Dahae skirmishers, but a step up from them) as a quick reaction force in the East. The riders are standard horse archers, but they double as a useful medium cavalry unit in a pinch. Ethiopian Hippies are a good deal as well in Arabia/Ethiopia/Egypt. Kinsmen are solid, and they are a major reason that turned homeland regions into client states in my AS campaign. Baktrian Hippies are the best medium cav in the game, but they are exclusive to Baktria.

Has anyone had any experience with the Roman auxiliary cavalry?

I was having a look at the RV to see where Germanic auxiliaries can be recruited, and was impressed to see both the Gallic provinces bordering on the Rhine can recruit them. Though presumably you need factional barracks (and a type II government) to do that?

I´ve used them a tiny bit, yes, mostly to fight rebels and brigands, but yes, I´ve used them. The Gallic ones are quite good for flanking and charging, and I mostly treat them as heavy cavalry. I once staged an invasion of the entire north of the Black Sea, 1 FM, 10 Marian Legionaries and 9 Gallic Auxiliary cavalry from Galatia. Worked like a charm, the HA didn´t stand a chance. In the last battle I faced two full stacks of HA and foot archers. Put the Legionaries in front in Testudo formation and let them shot of all their arrows. When the finally charged the Legionaries the Gauls circled around and slaughtered them from behind.

The Germanic auxiliary cavalry is more like very strong Hippakontistai, or the Tarantinoi. Good skirmishing cavalry, but that packs quite a punch in melee. Not so good at charging, but can certainly take out some enemy missile and light infantry units, and against enemy cavalry they´re great, at least against the relatively weak ones I´ve meet (germanic light cavalry, Leuce Epos, Belgae cavalry, etc.).

The Spanish ones I havn´t used much, but my limited experience shows them as a very good unit. Nice skirmishers, not so good chargers, but very good at melee. Havn´t really meet any heavy infantry or cavalry with them, so can´t say anything there.

The Thracians ones are quite good as well, pretty much the same as the Spanish ones. Very good against HA´s though, fast and quick killers, with a little micro-management a few of these can catch up with any HA´s and make short work of them.

The Gallic ones look like better-armoured-Curepos (or a cross with Brihentin). Lances and javelins with good stamina. Is that the case?

It has been some time since I last used them, but yes, I believe that to be the case.

I've used the Auxiliary cavalry in custom battle= of them them suck..nuff said (they aren't really as good as their prices suggest).

the Ala imperatoria isn't much better really.
solution: Brihentin!!

In my Carthaginian campaign, I've been shipping the occasional iberian and numidian unit into Sicily to fight the Romans and I've found the Spanish heavy cavalry (the one's armored similarly to cataphracts) to be a very effective flanking unit, on par with the Hetaroi from the Hellenic factions IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

I've used the Auxiliary cavalry in custom battle= of them them suck..nuff said (they aren't really as good as their prices suggest).

the Ala imperatoria isn't much better really.
solution: Brihentin!!

---

Custom battles are a poor reflection of campaign battles, since your units won't have the morale and defensive boost that their general gives them.

In my experience Brihentin aren't all that special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Custom battles are a poor reflection of campaign battles, since your units won't have the morale and defensive boost that their general gives them.

In my experience Brihentin aren't all that special.

---

that was with 3 bronze chevrons and bronze sword and shield (the average for a late campaign). the main problem is simply that they lack the stats of similar catagories of troops (morale is fine though), with the same ups (like the brihentin). even with the general's guidance, I doubt that will help much, as the morale is not the problem.
then again, everyone has their opinion:beam:

General's stars add to the defense of a unit, as well as their morale. Which make a big difference.