This happened in late Han times IIRC...Yuezhi and Saka cats influenced Xiongnu, which influenced the late Han.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Printable View
This happened in late Han times IIRC...Yuezhi and Saka cats influenced Xiongnu, which influenced the late Han.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
and maybe something very intersting for all of you, cataphract-user kingdoms are often either steppe descendants, or had endure terrors of steppe warriors first, and they are virtually all over Asia
I don't know that the raids by steppe cultures produced Cataphracts more that being close to steppes maybe got more and cheaper horses. Cataphracts were too heavy to chase steppe nomads, the whole point is to be heavy enough to break infantry formations. Heavy lancers and other light cavalry usually used to counter steppe horse archers. Also the economics to produce Cataphracts were usually complicated and those types of units depended alot on certain type of economic relationships.
I'd say more that more asian cultures were cavalry reliant rather than infantry reliant like Greeks and Romans were for so long.
Asians are actually more reliant in massed foot archery tactics, so that was quite logical if the cataphracts, being quite invulnerable with mere arrows, gains prominence as they could easily shrug off most missiles away
I think you misunderstood, cataphract like cavalry was developed first by steppe cultures (Saka, Parthians etc) and then copied by those that they came into contact with (Seleukids, Han, Romans etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
For certain time periods, yes. Which is reflected in EB's Parthian roster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
You got it the wrong way around. The Persians were bowmen (including HAs) right from the start - even in Achaemenid times.Quote:
The more exposure the Persians had with Scythians and steppe cultures it seems they adopted the bow more often.
Unless of course you mean the specific Arsacid and Sassanid dynasties. They just adjusted their tactics and armaments to whatever enemy they had to fight. Sometimes that means reverting to neglected traditions...
hehehe. Well I guess that is a matter of believing. There are many facts that agree to your theory, on the other hand there maybe even more to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Chainmail covers your whole body and I would say it is superior to hetairoi armour. Cataphract also used it and were definitly heavier than hetairoi.
But the even more important things are: Saddle and lance. The hetairoi as well as cataphract were not lancing cavallery.
It is impossible to hit a hard target like a shield with your lance and not fall of your horse, without a saddle and a lance you can wield underarm-couched.
I know that there is a Controversy about the stirrup and I also am not sure it helped the charge, but saddle and underarm lance definitly did.
That is why I still agree with historians from the past and say antic cavallery were rather melee than striking cavallery.
I mean come on! the romans fought centuries against parthian and sassanid cataphracts and adopted there stil, developed strategies against them, but if they were really lancers, then why didnt the roman employ long spear infantry??
It makes no sense. The romans always adapted to their enemys and people are trying to say the romans never had the idea to stop lancers with phalanx like long spears? I doubt it. So for me the possibility is that cataphract didnt charge like medieval knights.
Pikes when disordered don't really deter determined lancers better than spears -> Winged Hussars.
I know this thread has sort of focused on Cav but I was just wondering what sort of effect will fixed lethality have on combat?
Right... the tactics changed according to the enemy and the economic structures. Though sometimes it is annoying to read about Parthians as related to nomadic steppe horsemen. Maybe originally but just like the later Mongols they adopted to local cultures pretty rapidly and also there were fairly large cities north of Persia not all empty steppes.Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Roman legionaries had quite a good record holding off or aggressively tackling cavalry. What is more important than big sticks is discipline, and that's what they had. The Romans had disciplined, heavily armoured infantry that could stop a cavalry charge - of course with losses but still efficiently - why completely change that if the statisics actually spoke in their favour?Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
That's a very bold statement...Quote:
So for me the possibility is that cataphract didnt charge like medieval knights.
If Cataphract was as dominating as medieval knights in their time I'd think they would be adopted more widely. Some civilizations adopted for awhile but it never seems consistent. It could be their opponents also had varied discipline in their infantry or strong enough heavy cavalry of their own which varied over time thus making super heavy cavalry more and less effective. Only other explanation is economic/cultural which is more difficult to know now even compared to strictly military reasons of which at least there are some battle reports. I don't know many ancient historians which recorded economic conditions very heavily. I'd lean toward cultural as training and support structure for a single heavy cataphract is probably quite elaborate.
Combat seemed a bit sluggish in EB1. I don't mean the kill rate, that should be rather slow, but the high morale of the units made it difficult to start a chain rout.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that when meeting head on, the armies would slowly whittle away at each other till you had a turning point (a flank collapsing, cavalry charging through a gap etc...) and then the whole army would rout.
That "collapse" just never happened in EB1. I hope the battles play differently in EB2.
The units look awesome so far though :)
you should take some heavy cavalry charges in the back then, unless against Getai or Saby'n, I could produce chain routs rather easilyQuote:
Originally Posted by James Purefoy
On what battle difficulty do you play?Quote:
Originally Posted by James Purefoy
Pretty much all my EB battles end with a massive collapse and rout!
On VH. I thought that gave a boost to the AI?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
Yes, well +8 to among other things morale isn't going to cause routs.Quote:
Originally Posted by James Purefoy
You are free to play on VH, but you must realize that that unbalances things enourmously.
EB battle is balanced to be played on M battle difficulty.
Edit: I'm sure you meant it this way, but just to make clear: this are boni for the AI, not to the AI itself. It stays as stupid as ever.
No its not.... A 2 handed spear using rider without a saddle, sitting on a fully armoured horse, was not able to deliver a blow like a medieval knight.Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
medieval knights broke infantry formations easily, until the swiss and others reinvented pikes. In the roman times, they didnt. That implies that their enemies wasnt really endangering the roman formations with their charging.
Besides that Ichon said it well.
I guess the team will lower everybodies atack values and slow maybe the units animation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Jazzy
Hopefully a massive increase in armor (maybe even a base armor level for everything) defense skill, etc, will allow them to have a flexible selection of attack values and realistic animations. But this is probably impossible because of the irritating way armor-piercing works and 60 billion other factors.
Er, how then did they charge, in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
That implies that people after Classical Roman times didn't have formations trained and disciplined as well as the Roman infantry. Show me the place where they had this kind of well-trained mass heavy infantry in the Middle Ages, before the advent of pike tactics. And no, small units of elite infantry don't count.Quote:
medieval knights broke infantry formations easily, until the swiss and others reinvented pikes. In the roman times, they didnt. That implies that their enemies wasnt really endangering the roman formations with their charging.
I don't know that Cataphracts did not use a saddle. Never heard that before but that the saddles they used were fairly basic compared to high cantle and more secure saddles of medieval times is probably true. If they lacked stirrups and a secure saddle they probably either hung onto handle on the saddle they did have just before charge contact or more likely didn't run straight into a formation but more along the edges stabbing inwards with lance. Either method against trained infantry isn't as decisive as a medieval shock charge which blows a hole in a formation when lances kill many men and then the mass of the charge kills/stuns more men.
If we accept head on charges in EB2 era then the main damage is caused by secondary weapon and the mass of horse and rider, not the lances. Even if lances kill 1 or 2 men trained infantry close ranks quick. The real damage is knocking down/aside several ranks and causing other ranks to turn sideways rather than face forwards. A successful shock charge destroys the unity of the target infantry formation for some length of time. The better trained the infantry the less time probably though with many well armored horses and riders wielding weapons and raining blows I'd guess even trained infantry couldn't close ranks very quickly. More likely other formations would close to protect the damaged one from further attacks and make the cavalry have tougher time escaping which legion formations would already be adept at fighting in smaller independent units.
It should be considerably easier to dismount a heavily armored man from a horse when he has no strirrups and a saddle that doesn't secure him well and in that sense medieval knights would have a great advantage even after a charge struck home then Cataphracts in this era. So then we are back to the original point... if Cataphracts were capable of and did conduct shock charges on frontally facing well trained infantry they still have much tougher time extricating themselves than later medieval heavy cavalry which did not face very often as numerous and well trained infantry as the roman legions.
How to represent that in MTW2 engine? Giving decent charge stat to Cataphracts ok ( I think rather less than 10- certainly not the 14-18 common in many mods)... but then either less mass or lower armor or attack stat relative to the infantry they are fighting to represent that used incautiously even Cataphracts would take such heavy losses as to make their expense wasted. Especially since AI is likely to ignore stats and still try head on charges quite often. Although some better AI's are around now in MTW2 that actually try and flank more often. But the point would be that charging Cataphracts do cause lots of damage to the target formation but then don't necessarily wheel about and line up for a 2nd charge but more likely are stuck in prolonged melee unless the infantry formation completely shattered. Which seems unlikely for Romans but maybe common in eastern levees of this time period. Trained and discipline infantry like Romans who could fight in smaller independent formations would be even tougher for heavy cavalry to face in large numbers than well drilled phalanx of Alexander which were more similar to later pikemen but still required lots of cavalry support.
Since the civilizations which were the most devoted to Cataphracts all fell to other rising powers that most of the time did not use such formations heavily I'd guess that the power of Cataphracts was limited compared to medieval heavy cavalry which dominated the battlefield for a couple centuries.
People are still clinging to the idea that cavalry charges consisted of the horsemen colliding at full speed into infantry, this did not happen. Horses will not do this, if they did they would certainly fall, throwing their rider and injuring or killing themselves in the process.
I don't have a copy of the excellent The Face of War by John Keegan to hand but AFAIK he one of the first to start exposing the "myth" of the cavalry charge. This short paper from google books pretty much sums up what he says though.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L...keegan&f=false
If anyone still doesn't believe me they should watch these two videos, the first shows a colllsion between a horse and a person, the second shows two horses colliding head on, both amply demonstrate why full speed cavalry charge impacts are tactically suicidal.
Warning these videos are a bit nasty so don't watch them if you don't want to see animals or people dying.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
to correct the second video, Stacy did survive; though she had to undergo 20 surgeries, and suffered severe brain injuries. she's still sensible, and can talk and walk, but still needs care
Sorry, I was refering to the first one when I said people (that horse lived btw).
Not sure what this has to do with anything... full speed charge or steady canter the inertia might change but the mass remains the same and the mass of a horse + rider will knock more than 1 rank of infantry down even at a walk. Of course even at slower speeds horses can suffer broken legs even wearing full barding and I've even heard of horses running through a field hitting a stump breaking their sternum. A full speed running horse is not a very steady platform either for anything except archery. Just watch how much the jockeys move even balancing most of their weight over the stirrups. Most horses that would have been used by heavy cavalry probably have 2-3 gaits used for different activities.
The most difficult part of a heavy cavalry charge would be training the horses to maintain formation. Most horses when moving at anything more than a walk instinctively move forward or back of the horses around it. You can overcome that with training but it usually has to start young when you are mass producing horses for cavalry operations which use quite many. Trained horses and men could stay in formation and hit a wall of infantry. Whether that infantry maintained cohesion in the face of the charge directly related to how many cavalry casualties resulted and the training of the infantry after taking the charge would have a big effect as well if the infantry formation shattered or drew the cavalry in and isolated individual cavalrymen etc.
Most cavalry charges wouldn't be a single line of cavalry but some ranks as well. The first rank hits the first rank of infantry and either dies or not but either way knocks those infantry out of the way but loses momentum. The next rank would penetrate a little deeper... etc. A flat line which is so effective in MTW2 is probably one of the least effective formations for disrupting a steady infantry formation where a wedge would work much better but it would probably be ideal for chasing scattering infantry/skirmishers.
http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/...orses-collide/
The comments from the reenactor are pretty interesting.
Most likely cavalry "charges" took place at somewhat slower speed. Horses can definitely be trained to plow into things, especially when those things are liable to wobble a bit in the face of approaching cavalry. If the approach is done at a slower speed, the horse and rider can manage much better, and the rider can make good advantage of his longer spear and high position.
no, I understood that; its the 2nd video that made an error, not anything you typed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
It was a reply to the various posts in this thread stating that cavalry charges could completely blast apart prepared infantry formations with ease, I was under the impression your post was continuing that train of thought (sorry if it wasn't).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
Note I was never agruing that they don't move into infantry, just that they won't run into them.
The way I understand it your average cavarly charge went like this:
1. The cavalry advance on the infantry slowly in a solid line (with or without ranks behind it).
2. At a suitable distance they would pick up the pace,maybe even to a gallop, beginning the "charge".
3. If at any point the infantry begin to panic and disperse the charge is pressed home and the cavalry run down the fleeing soldiers, probably at a slower pace than the charge though (you've seen what colliding at speed with a small lady can do to a horse).
4. If the infantry hold firm the charge would slow down or even stop, with the cavalry deciding to either retreat and attempt the charge again or to wade into the infantry at a trots pace and engage them (or skim along the edges jabbing inwards like you said in your prevous post).
Only at low speeds, even at a canter it would be very difficult to maintain a formation on mass.Quote:
The most difficult part of a heavy cavalry charge would be training the horses to maintain formation. Most horses when moving at anything more than a walk instinctively move forward or back of the horses around it. You can overcome that with training but it usually has to start young when you are mass producing horses for cavalry operations which use quite many. Trained horses and men could stay in formation and hit a wall of infantry.
But then they would slamming right into the backs of the first rank wouldn't they? and even if the first rank was all killed they would still be riding over the dead bodies which would just be a great method for falling over.Quote:
Most cavalry charges wouldn't be a single line of cavalry but some ranks as well. The first rank hits the first rank of infantry and either dies or not but either way knocks those infantry out of the way but loses momentum. The next rank would penetrate a little deeper... etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
My position is that for EB2 heavy cavalry should be able to do a frontal charge on heavy infantry and advance some ranks deep perhaps killing 20-40% (depending on armor and mass of the infantry being attacked) with shock of the charge but then the infantry recover and start fighting back and causing casualties. So a unit of Cataphracts in the mod could perhaps do 2-3 frontal charges in a battle but then have too few men left to accomplish much so it is a poor trade off. Better to use them for the final blow, IE charge to the rear when the enemy general is dead or the target infantry formation already weakened. In an emergency though a frontal charge shouldn't be instant death for Cataphracts like it often was on phalanx in RTW(though they obliterated just about everything else) but doing many frontal charges should be shown as a poor tactic with less cost infantry kill = or more numbers(cost wise) of heavy cavalry.
I do disagree that cavalry would't run into a mass of men... or is it the horses you are saying wouldn't?
You seem to be arguing that is going to kill the horses as much as the men. I agree some horses will go down most likely even wearing armor but the examples you showed of quarter horses at a full out gallop isn't very applicable. The higher the intertia, the more violent the reaction against both bodies- the stationary and the moving. Newton proved that... however that also means the greater mass at slower speeds has proportionally less inertia and thus less of a violent reaction. The precise speed of a cavalry charge making contact probably varied a bit but I'd guess anywhere from a trot to a canter but not a gallup unless maybe chasing already fleeing infantry. A race horse can run 50mph at full gallop and in those videos was likely somewhere in th 40 mph range. A trot or canter is between 8-18 mph... considerably different speeds. The difference between a highway crash and a crash on a city street if cars going the speedlimit. Both the 50 mph highway car and the 15mph city street car could kill a person but while the 50 mph car would probably kill a person it would also destroy the car while the 15 mph car would maybe only injure a person but definitely knock them into the air or at least to the ground but probably not damage the car much at all.
I think the way cavalry advanced is probably dependent on what enemy they are facing. The records I've seen often refer to Alexander leading his companions in a wedge formation which makes sense to me when trying to disrupt enemy formations.
A long line of cavalry as you describe would more likely be for skirmishers or less ordered infantry as the entire line of cavalry hitting simultaneously would be quite a shock but only to the first few ranks where a wedge would penetrate more deeply and narrowly actually disrupting the entire formation not just a few ranks deep. Also a wedge is more manueverable then a long line and fits a horses herd isntincts much better where only a few horses on the front and sides would even be much aware of what is happening up ahead.
Your point 4 I agree with and is why I think Roman discipline led to many Parthian and other Cataphract using civilizations not dominating the battlefields along with various technological issues where EB era mounted cavalry did not have as great an advantage due to saddles, stirrups and tactics as later medieval knights.
Training is precisely meant to overcome difficult things. I don't think many men or horses could maintain formation at a even a slow canter but elites who had trained from a young age and horses raised to be warhorses probably could. Just watch old cowboy movies... the stuntmen often managed to do such things just for the cameras and their lives didn't depend on it. Also watch some of the present day competitions... there are tandem and other events where horses match pace almost perfectly. Extend that to a formation and even if its not so perfect its close enough for a charge to be successful.
Yes... a long line of more than 1 rank of cavalry would be getting in each others way in a charge whereas with a wedge that would happen a bit as well but much reduced as only extremely well trained infantry wouldn't move aside slightly when the point of the wedge entered their formation and thus make it easier for the further ranks of the wedge to penetrate more deeply into the infantry and lead to the infantry losing cohesion and unity. Also in a wedge there are less horses in front to block the force of the charge.
Unfortunately the mechanics of the MTW2 engine don't allow wedge formation to be very useful so usually it is 2 deep wide line formation that achieves the most kills in MTW2 and mods because of the way shock stat is calculated.
Horse wouldn't, not running a least, they would move into one at a trot like modern police horse do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
I was arguing that case for high speed collsions, at lower speeds like those you suggested they would probably be unharmed by any collsion, although they might lose their footing once there are enough bodies underfoot.Quote:
You seem to be arguing that is going to kill the horses as much as the men. I agree some horses will go down most likely even wearing armor but the examples you showed of quarter horses at a full out gallop isn't very applicable. The higher the intertia, the more violent the reaction against both bodies- the stationary and the moving. Newton proved that... however that also means the greater mass at slower speeds has proportionally less inertia and thus less of a violent reaction. The precise speed of a cavalry charge making contact probably varied a bit but I'd guess anywhere from a trot to a canter but not a gallup unless maybe chasing already fleeing infantry. A race horse can run 50mph at full gallop and in those videos was likely somewhere in th 40 mph range. A trot or canter is between 8-18 mph... considerably different speeds. The difference between a highway crash and a crash on a city street if cars going the speedlimit. Both the 50 mph highway car and the 15mph city street car could kill a person but while the 50 mph car would probably kill a person it would also destroy the car while the 15 mph car would maybe only injure a person but definitely knock them into the air or at least to the ground but probably not damage the car much at all.
Yes it depends on the situation, line formations increased the psychological impact of a charge at contact but more importantly before, the main aim of a charging cavalry was to get the infantry to rout before reaching they reached them, a solid wall was the best way of doing this.Quote:
I think the way cavalry advanced is probably dependent on what enemy they are facing. The records I've seen often refer to Alexander leading his companions in a wedge formation which makes sense to me when trying to disrupt enemy formations.
A long line of cavalry as you describe would more likely be for skirmishers or less ordered infantry as the entire line of cavalry hitting simultaneously would be quite a shock but only to the first few ranks where a wedge would penetrate more deeply and narrowly actually disrupting the entire formation not just a few ranks deep. Also a wedge is more manueverable then a long line and fits a horses herd isntincts much better where only a few horses on the front and sides would even be much aware of what is happening up ahead.
This book has a excellent description of how charges worked, including with the wedge formation.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l...charge&f=false (starts on p.20)
I would say there is a lot of difference between a few horses maintaining formation and a couple of hundred, this is why cavaly would usually only charge when fairly close, so as to prevent the formation breaking up too much.Quote:
Training is precisely meant to overcome difficult things. I don't think many men or horses could maintain formation at a even a slow canter but elites who had trained from a young age and horses raised to be warhorses probably could. Just watch old cowboy movies... the stuntmen often managed to do such things just for the cameras and their lives didn't depend on it. Also watch some of the present day competitions... there are tandem and other events where horses match pace almost perfectly. Extend that to a formation and even if its not so perfect its close enough for a charge to be successful.
Yes but if one goes down in the front when moving at speed you've got the potential for a rather nasty ten pin bowling type situation. Hence why I believe the speed was quite slow (note the the book I link states the same thing).Quote:
Yes... a long line of more than 1 rank of cavalry would be getting in each others way in a charge whereas with a wedge that would happen a bit as well but much reduced as only extremely well trained infantry wouldn't move aside slightly when the point of the wedge entered their formation and thus make it easier for the further ranks of the wedge to penetrate more deeply into the infantry and lead to the infantry losing cohesion and unity. Also in a wedge there are less horses in front to block the force of the charge.
Yes I think the way cavalry operates in general is pretty inaccurate for the TW seires as a whole, I can see why they done it though, one can imagine the endless number of angry rant threads that would have sprung up had CA decided to with a more realistic portrayal.Quote:
Unfortunately the mechanics of the MTW2 engine don't allow wedge formation to be very useful so usually it is 2 deep wide line formation that achieves the most kills in MTW2 and mods because of the way shock stat is calculated.
Ok, I agree horses wouldn't want to run into anything at near full speed but I'm pretty sure there are tricks you can use in training to convince otherwise if you wanted as I've seen horses run near full speed into solid fences and be knocked down and run into much less solid things like other horses or people. A mass of men isn't a solid object but at high speeds would still result in violent collison. Of course most horses top speed is probably in 30mph range when they aren't a race horse, add armor and a non-jockey rider and top speed declines even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
I think I have trouble buying the pyschological impact of a long line of horsemen... maybe for noob infantry but if very many infantry had seen a charge stop or fail even once their courage would increase alot. As well it is dangerous to charge a long line and pull up short if the infantry don't break. I think that might have happened more in 1700's when infantry and the cavalry weren't armored but have trouble seeing it in EB era. Already problems with holding a formation, stopping one once started a charge could be even more problems.
Well charge distances I'm sure varied and the cohesion of the charge also varied alot due to the training of men and horses involved. A wedge is much easier to maintain formation in even when turning than a long line which is another reason I doubt a long line was very often used even in feint situation.
Horses going down would probably happen frequently in a charge but overall numbers going down out of several 100? Hard to say but horses have pretty good balance and can be surprisingly nimble. They are used to running at night over rough ground in the wild, with other horses and men underneath it would be very rough ground but more likely to make a horse stumble than fall completely down.
Yeah... TW hasn't done cavalry well but that is what the OP was asking- how will EB team use the mechanics available to try for slightly more realistic portrayal. I'm curious as well because not sure if there is an elegant solution or not.
EDIT- so the main point of disagreement seems to be the actual speed at which cavalry might encounter an infantry formation. That book assume the speed of police riot control which I totally disagree with. The reason police enter crowds so slowly is not to protect them or their horses as much as the people in the crowd. There is no reason to assume an all or nothing approach- IE that cavalry either ran full speed or walked into infantry to engage in melee. I just can't see humans not taking advantage of the mass of the horses to throw or knock down at least 1 or 2 ranks of the infantry in addition to the lance kills. A slow canter is low enough inertia to protect the horse and rider from injury purely from violence of collision so aside from accidents like tripping over other men or horses(though at this point they already entered the enemy formation) that leaves the enemy pikes/spears to impale horse and rider which is another reason a canter is likely the speed used as it doesn't impale all the horses if they had at least some form of armor unless spears are braced and even then many would probably slide off armor or get caught up or torn out of the infantry man's hands and tossed aside.
Disruption of the enemy infantry is the most important part of the charge I think the book nails that but in such a discussion that is a given. Flank attacks being the most efficient use of cavalry is also mostly agreed upon. The only issue is attacking head on. To me engaging enemy infantry along a wide front at a walk is stupid and would waste the cavalry potential basically turning them into an infantry formation with more height and equal mass for less men but more horses. I don't think cavalry would often form a wedge and ride straight into enemy infantry as higher casualties DO result... high enough casualties to completely break up the cavalry charge though? I doubt it... and once the wedge is into the enemy infantry their cohesion is forced way lower physically and the knowledge of that breakup is the morale blow. Only well trained infantry would be able to respond effectively and it would be infantry trained specifically do deal with cavalry. Something not many Greeks were trained for as their own cavalry arm was relied upon for that while Roman infantry with a history of discipline and more importantly long periods of service would likely be trained for. Not to mention the Roman formations were already trained to work in smaller units and breaking apart a large Roman formation the file leaders or nearest in the hierarchy could easily adapt compared to a Phalanx that is trained to work as a whole, not separate into smaller units. When the infantry fail to rout even when their formation is disrupted... then the cavalry are in trouble in the midst of more numerous enemy infantry they either push and exit the infantry formation to the rear or stay and rely on armor and fighting skill to prevail(perhaps cataphracts?). If the cavalrymen sense this then the psychology is almost revered with each cavalry man trying to get out of the mass of infantry and their cohesion breaks down and many are slain as they try and escape.
If morale blow is the key then the cavalry in EB2 would all have 'frighten' infantry attribute and very low charge values and end up being an expensive waste if on a flank charge the enemy infantry failed to break. That is one way of representing it and probably would work well for most cavalry which is more like light cavalry. Heavy macedonian cavalry, cataphracts, and heavy lancers though should have some effect on a physical collision though the MTW2 style of a massive full speed charge tossing bodies of infantry into the air looks cool it isn't accurate. So what is the solution using MTW2 engine... I've already stated my opinion and it remains for the EB team to decide how to actually implement things.
minor addition then :
and if horses can't actually "persuaded/forced" to charging down into a massive line of infantry, then we only have one logical conclusion... the historical texts, records, and writings about how cavalry operate is most likely an extreme exggregation, and those are delibrate lies to glorify the cavalrymen, who often consists of nobility and other well off sections of society.... oh yes, they do that all arround the world where horses exists and used by men, since more than 2300 years ago until just more recently in late 19th century.... oh yeah, all those historical records are lie... people now had proven that horsies is soft peceful and delicate animals that won't do such violent things because they are rather weak and fragile.... :clown:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A mass of 100+ men who don't move out of the way is a pretty considerable solid object and certainly doesn't compare to a fence. As for speeds of armour horses, one figure I recall seeing somewhere is around 15-18mph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
A stumble is just as dangerous as a fall if your surrounded by enemies and have other horses moving at speed behind you.Quote:
Horses going down would probably happen frequently in a charge but overall numbers going down out of several 100? Hard to say but horses have pretty good balance and can be surprisingly nimble. They are used to running at night over rough ground in the wild, with other horses and men underneath it would be very rough ground but more likely to make a horse stumble than fall completely down.
I can't give you an answer on that as the statting is still being worked out, but rest assured the team will try to produce the best representation possible.Quote:
Yeah... TW hasn't done cavalry well but that is what the OP was asking- how will EB team use the mechanics available to try for slightly more realistic portrayal. I'm curious as well because not sure if there is an elegant solution or not.
I agree, a canter is the probable max speed they used to engage, the riot police thing is actually about right, as if you ever been on the recieving end of them you'd know that they can pick up a fair bit of speed sometimes (although most they time the do move much slower).Quote:
EDIT- so the main point of disagreement seems to be the actual speed at which cavalry might encounter an infantry formation. That book assume the speed of police riot control which I totally disagree with. The reason police enter crowds so slowly is not to protect them or their horses as much as the people in the crowd. There is no reason to assume an all or nothing approach- IE that cavalry either ran full speed or walked into infantry to engage in melee. I just can't see humans not taking advantage of the mass of the horses to throw or knock down at least 1 or 2 ranks of the infantry in addition to the lance kills. A slow canter is low enough inertia to protect the horse and rider from injury purely from violence of collision so aside from accidents like tripping over other men or horses(though at this point they already entered the enemy formation) that leaves the enemy pikes/spears to impale horse and rider which is another reason a canter is likely the speed used as it doesn't impale all the horses if they had at least some form of armor unless spears are braced and even then many would probably slide off armor or get caught up or torn out of the infantry man's hands and tossed aside.
High enough to put the unit out of action, remember that in most cases cavalry was the nobility, it doesn't do well for a state to lose a sizable chunk of their ruling classes to break a single infantry formation.Quote:
Disruption of the enemy infantry is the most important part of the charge I think the book nails that but in such a discussion that is a given. Flank attacks being the most efficient use of cavalry is also mostly agreed upon. The only issue is attacking head on. To me engaging enemy infantry along a wide front at a walk is stupid and would waste the cavalry potential basically turning them into an infantry formation with more height and equal mass for less men but more horses. I don't think cavalry would often form a wedge and ride straight into enemy infantry as higher casualties DO result... high enough casualties to completely break up the cavalry charge though?
The frighten_foot attribute isn't very good as it would mean infantry would be scared of cavalry all the time which wouldn't be very realistic (unless applied to only the most poorly trained soldiers).Quote:
If morale blow is the key then the cavalry in EB2 would all have 'frighten' infantry attribute and very low charge values and end up being an expensive waste if on a flank charge the enemy infantry failed to break. That is one way of representing it and probably would work well for most cavalry which is more like light cavalry. Heavy macedonian cavalry, cataphracts, and heavy lancers though should have some effect on a physical collision though the MTW2 style of a massive full speed charge tossing bodies of infantry into the air looks cool it isn't accurate. So what is the solution using MTW2 engine... I've already stated my opinion and it remains for the EB team to decide how to actually implement things.
As always the team will try to represent cavalry in the best possible way allowed under the limitations of the engine.
@Cute Wolf
I'll just put what I said in my reply to your vistior message.
Also see this book, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X...page&q&f=falseQuote:
It wouldn't be ironic, there are plenty of texts that attest to it from the before the EB period to the napoleonic times and beyond.
I suspect the authors that said frontal charges were effective were probably embellishing the truth for dramatic reasons, most of the time they are fairly ambiguous about the actual charge and just say something like "the cavalry charged the infantry and routed them".
Hmm... I still don't see a formation of men being very solid vs even a couple dozen horses in a wedge. Even assuming Phalanx pushing and thus very high density. Most formations wouldn't be packed together like that and a horse weighing 1000lbs is equal to approx 5 men wearing armor so the mass would be equal at the front of the formation only if it was 5 ranks deep and the men were packed together. Plus that doesn't count the rider's weight or warhorses potentially being on the heavier side. Horses are strong... I've never been on the receiving end of a police charge but I've been run over and bumped down by horses during many different situations. The worst time I remember I made the mistake of wrapping lead around my hand and and a horse spooked and reared up. It was still not full grown and it threw me up into the air high enough I was looking down at the top of its head. Pulled my arm out of the socket and I still have scar tissue from muscles that tore.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Well if we assume 15mph(medium canter approx) is the fastest a charge would make contact and its wedge formation, the horse stumbling already entered the infantry formation some distance and the entire charge slowed a bit. If you've ever seen a horse stumble its definitely doesn't look graceful but with 4 legs and quite good balance the recovery doesn't usually slow a horse down that much. Even slowing by 50% to 7-8mph is just under the speed of a running man and that much mass moving forward is going to knock a person back. Knocking back formed and dense ranks would be a bit more difficult but like I said earlier, how many formations actually stood back to back and were that dense?
Well I am with you there... I think the main reason frontal charges didn't happen much is not because horses or men couldn't be trained to do it but that due to the likely higher casualties its a waste of expensive trained horses and men.
Yeah, frighten foot might not be the best but if morale is high enough it wouldn't have much extra affect on the front and be more for extra effect when the cavalry is rear and flanks. There might be better ways of doing that though. It's too bad that affect can't be positional in relation to where the cavalry is and where the infantry is.
Well most of this frontal charge conversation applies only to very few heavy cavalry units in EB era anyway. Most of the cavalry if done like EB1 seems right. EB team has always done as best work as they could with what they had to work with so its not about doubting the team as wondering how to best use MTW2 engine.
From what I've seen making an effective charge from flank or rear would be difficult to not make it affect front of a unit powerfully especially non braced spears unless the charge is totally morale based and most cavalry in melee would suffer even against average infantry.
Certain types of heavy cavalry should have the trait (scares enemies nearby) just imagine heavy boned horses, fully muscled, trained to charge and fully armored !! man... I'd shit my pants
too bad, Legionaries are trained to not to fecalize their pants when they saw Pahlavan Cataphract marching.... if they indeed fecalizing their pants, all we have now is no Roman Empire, but rather a big World of Askanian empire...Quote:
Originally Posted by Torres84
I guess that was why the Romans were issued tunics instead of pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torres84
My point was that a stumbling horse in the front of the formation could cause others behind to crash into it leading to a pile up effect, which would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the charge. The danger was to the cavalry not the infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
Well I love EB1 too, but you just said frontal charges didnt happen too often, and others in this thread (Including team members) said, that a real charge was unlikely to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
In EB every second cavalry is like Medieval knights. Armoured and with the power to frontal charge most of the units, tossing them in the air like flies...
so should we start to reduce lance lethality in EB 1? :grin:
uh yeah... and what about EB II's hetairoi... Megas Alexandros will cry for that :grin:
Hmm... its been awhile since I played EB1 but I remember less effective charges. Maybe just the factions I played? If there are many charging like medieval knights I'd think that was wrong but I also don't know how moddable RTW was, I only played it a bit before spending most time on MTW2. I hope EB2 doesn't do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
I'm not sure how big a danger it was. Either ranked in a line or wedge horses aren't packed like sardines. If a horse stumbles over a knocked down infantry (already entered formation there btw) the horse behind it should be able to turn 3-4 feet in a stride and avoid. Only a horse going completely down and flailing around would stop the file of ranks directly behind. I'd guess that happened occasionally but to completely stop the charge we'd be talking about 1/3 or more of the entire first rank of horses falling to the ground. That seems unlikely... also less of a problem in wedge where it penetrates some distance inside an infantry formations and forces the infantry to turn sideways to fight where a charge done in a line the infantry formation retains integrity and faces forward despite however many ranks were knocked down/back in the front. So if a horse did fall then the wedge would simply get a bit wider whereas in a line the line could grow only so much lengthwise with fewer ranks. If there is some terrain obstacle like a covered ditch or stakes etc that would be a big detriment to cavalry and perhaps Romans did do such things regularly when facing cavalry, not many other type of infantry seem to have done such as part of normal operations until early renaissance.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
A frontal charge did create more dangers for the cavalry and hence usually casualties which is why I don't think very many cavalry would do a frontal charge often. That doesn't mean automatically that such charges were fatal to all the horses involved or never happened. The one problem both MTW2 and the RTW AI share is suicidal intent with its cavalry. Even in some of the better BAI's where cavalry seek to flank or circle to the rear the AI still advances with cavalry first before the body of its infantry arrives and that lets the cavalry be defeated first and then it is much easier to beat just the infantry. Nerfing the cavalry overmuch is likely to give the AI a big disadvantage because in most battles aside from siege assaults the enemy cavalry causes the majority of player's losses. If cavalry are completely ineffective in charge the AI needs to be improved so it doesn't throw them in first to be slaughtered and then leave its infantry without support.
After all the comments I read from the EB Team I wouldnt excpect hetairoi to kick that much ass anymore. And to further irritate you one crew member said, that EBs heavy cataphract units were first reported in the 1century AD. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Personally I would be happy if medieval style lancing cavallery would be taken out all together.
I mean the main reason the human player in EB wins most battles easily is because of the cavallery.
If you play celts or lusotann you wonder why your armies take that much more casualties than if you were playing a steppe faction.
Yeah, and the Trojan War wasn't reported till centuries later. They didn't have real-time live newspress and Internet back then, and even before (as well as during) text there have been (and still are) oral myths and whathaveyou. Stuff sometimes don't get reported till far beyond the event's date. Just look at the stuff that gets de-classified here in the States. Take at least 30 years plus to get it de-class'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
I went back to M2TW lately and the guard mode is awful, no formation and the troops get tired quite fast...
Maybe something can be done with the shield wall ability, but even that is disappointing...
Pikes hold formation halfway decently but most other infantry don't even in guard mode, stamina can be modded a bit which if the fights are going to be longer with overall relatively higher defense needs to be done.
The losing formation problem is an issue, but arguably, troops should get tired, even in guard mode. That was part of the problem with RTW guard mode, where the unit would remain fresh indefinitely if fighting but not told to attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Guard units don't chase after the enemy unless told to. That is enough.