Combat in the Med II engine

Where do some people get the impression from that cavalry in melee died like flies? If unarmored 18th c. cavalry were able to charge and broke squares and disperse or kill the infantrymen after braking in, why should ancient heavy cavalry not have done it?

I'm not a cavalry player in EB, but it would be extremely frustrating from the historical point of view, if cavalry was not able to destroy a unit by one or two charges in the flank or back and would suffer heavy losses time after time when disengaging (why should they, from the shattered infantrymen who were glad that the horses would go away?).

Crushing a formation of firmly standing infantry with frontal charges should be the exception however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Where do some people get the impression from that cavalry in melee died like flies? If unarmored 18th c. cavalry were able to charge and broke squares and disperse or kill the infantrymen after braking in, why should ancient heavy cavalry not have done it?

I'm not a cavalry player in EB, but it would be extremely frustrating from the historical point of view, if cavalry was not able to destroy a unit by one or two charges in the flank or back and would suffer heavy losses time after time when disengaging (why should they, from the shattered infantrymen who were glad that the horses would go away?).

Crushing a formation of firmly standing infantry with frontal charges should be the exception however.

---

that's the point, if you charge in disordered formations, weak charge should be counted to easily break them, and remember that cavalrymen often dployed some kind of scout cavalry to probe for "structural weakness" before commiting headlong furious charge for maximum exploit...

but if the infantrymen is not carrying longspears, I see no problem in having them almost completely annihilated by the first charge, especially when the chargers are heavy cavalry with 4m lance (the problem is, in M2TW, you could frontal chargin most Spearmen without pikes, and still decimate them on frontal charge)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

that's the point, if you charge in disordered formations, weak charge should be counted to easily break them, and remember that cavalrymen often dployed some kind of scout cavalry to probe for "structural weakness" before commiting headlong furious charge for maximum exploit...

but if the infantrymen is not carrying longspears, I see no problem in having them almost completely annihilated by the first charge, especially when the chargers are heavy cavalry with 4m lance (the problem is, in M2TW, you could frontal chargin most Spearmen without pikes, and still decimate them on frontal charge)

---

Well yes. A spear is at maximum 2-3 metres. A lance is 4-5 metres (giving considerably greater reach) and delivers massive force to the target. Spears aren't a defence against lance-armed cavalry, unless formed into a proper, solid spearwall. That is why cavalry dominated the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike and it's wide scale adoption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

Well yes. A spear is at maximum 2-3 metres. A lance is 4-5 metres (giving considerably greater reach) and delivers massive force to the target. Spears aren't a defence against lance-armed cavalry, unless formed into a proper, solid spearwall. That is why cavalry dominated the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike and it's wide scale adoption.

---

Could you say 'reinvention' of the pike? I swear every single bloody faction in EB has nothing but pike infantry (or similar). Having said that, cavalry charges in the EB era were less devestating than equivalent charges in the medieval era due to stirrups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

Could you say 'reinvention' of the pike? I swear every single bloody faction in EB has nothing but pike infantry (or similar). Having said that, cavalry charges in the EB era were less devestating than equivalent charges in the medieval era due to stirrups.

---

Really great point there Blxz. Stability is key, both in warfare as well as in my investment portfolio! Ahaha! As for pike infantry in EB's timeframe, some nations I haven't really noticed using much more than spears. I've seen Sweboz with 1 pike unit, I believe. I don't remember any pikes from the Celts or Lusos. Hmm...Armenians don't have a native pike unit, at least in EB, and the regionals there are Hellenic pikemen. Most any pikes in the east seem to be descended from some Hellenic/Diadochi variant.

Comparing 18th century cavalry to Celtic/Germanic or other EB era cavalry is a bit weird. Not only are the weapons and training vastly different the entire way wars were fought was much different as well.

I don't think many people are advocating that EB2 heavy cavalry should suffer losses RTW style on disengaging from a phalanx that turned 180 but from a game mechanics view it is important to establish how the cavalry should work.

In RTW cavalry could completely wipe out a single enemy non-spear infantry unit and often disengage with no loss vs that unit. However there were often some other infantry already closing(who move much faster relativeling in RTW then MTW2) in and it is unlikely you can take 2 heavy cavalry and defeat a full stack infantry army.

In MTW2 it is actually possible to take a couple heavy cavalry with strong charge in vanilla and many mods and defeat entire full stack enemy army. That might be minimally acceptable due to the dominance of heavy cavalry in the medieval period MTW2 was made to reflect and mechanically in the game is mostly due to the much slower movement of infantry relative to cavalry. In both games shock of cavalry can kill almost any non-spear infantry with a good charge but in RTW phalanx could shift spears so quickly that it is quite hard to flank and the spears length and attack bonus vs cavalry made disengaging even after a clean charge that didn't totally break the unit cost many casualties. That is not an issue in MTW2 and as such cavalry are even more powerful than RTW due game mechanics of slower speed of infantry and phalanx type formations not instantly turning 180.

Given the timeframe of EB where heavy cavalry was not the full or nearly fully armored feudal knights trained from birth riding specially bred large armored steeds the shock of a heavy cavalry charge is still important but not the total crushing tactic it was for most of the medieval period. The way to refelct the differences in training, and above all equipment and type of horses available between EB era and medieval always seems to draw debate.

EB cavalrymen were normally armored but even heavy cavalry wore much less armor than their medieval counterparts and EB era had generally smaller horses rode without stirrups most likely- so the shock of a charge would still apply but to a lesser degree. It will be interesting to see what EB team does as they can adjust basic stats as well as change the mass, fatigue, heat stress, morale etc of units. More options than were in RTW. From what I've seen how the engine works it will be extremely hard to make any cavalry charge which is disruptive from the rear also not able to shatter an infantry unit from the front just as if it were a medieval charge. And even possibly in EB timeframe such a charge could be as disruptive. However it did not seem to happen very often... my guess would be because with smaller/less armored horses and cavalrymen and lesser equipment(saddles/ stirrupts) such frontal charges would be costly in casualties. The tactics which usually worked was flank or rear charges or chasing down targets other than heavy infantry and then isolating those heavy infantry without support. How to model that with available engine seems to be reduce mass and shock stat of cavalry(but apply full morale hit) so a cavalry charge from the rear could still cause many casualties and even more is likely to shatter the victim units morale and start a rout where the rest of the unit is killed by the cavalry. This way if a cavalry unit tried a frontal charge on a decent heavy infantry unit it would cause mass casualties but not completely destroy a unit just from the charge. With less of a hit on their morale the infantry unit could then more likely fight back. The cavalry would still have their armor and speed to get away but probably is going to take more casualties than otherwise. Probably not enough to make the unit incapable of fighting but should be enough losses to make such frontal charges a bad tactic to use repeatedly all battle long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

Well yes. A spear is at maximum 2-3 metres. A lance is 4-5 metres (giving considerably greater reach) and delivers massive force to the target. Spears aren't a defence against lance-armed cavalry, unless formed into a proper, solid spearwall. That is why cavalry dominated the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike and it's wide scale adoption.

---

And also breaks your arm and/or throws you out of your saddle, if you are riding at fullspeed. The lances of the EB Timeframe were like ordinary spears, just sometimes longer and the riders had no saddle, stirrup and smaller horses. There charges couldnt have been as devasting as medieval knight charges.

18th century cavalry had military training, with mercilesly beating, death penalties for insubordination and most time people behind you to shoot you if you turned. No one had that in EBs timeframe. Esspecially not the riders, which mostly were wealthy free people not willing to risk their lives in head on atacks on a solid enemy front.

By the way, esspecially the cavalry in the wars between rome and carthago seemed to have great staying power like at canae. So maybe ancient cavallery were more like melee skirmishers. ;) Of course with the exception of the eastern cavallery. But crassus defeat also showed that the parthian didnt (Because they were free men) want to risk getting close in melee until the romans were down on their knees, instead showering them with arrows.

I'm just glad that finally, since we'll be playing on the M2TW engine, infantry will be slow and even slower as they tire. In RTW system infantry seem to have more stamina than the best athletes of today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

I'm just glad that finally, since we'll be playing on the M2TW engine, infantry will be slow and even slower as they tire. In RTW system infantry seem to have more stamina than the best athletes of today.

---

It's sad that at the cavalry units, the horse and it's rider don't have different "stamina bars". For example after a 10 minute fight, I guess the horse could still gallop and charge again, but I bet the rider would be quite winded already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

EB cavalrymen were normally armored but even heavy cavalry wore much less armor than their medieval counterparts

---

The armour of the rider would be of less quality, but in the medieval time the horses wore nearly no armour. So I can't unterstand the fact that the really heavy cavalry in EB should take many casualities when disenganging or charging from the front compared to medieval cavalry. I would say the big difference is not the weaker cavalry but the much stronger infantry of the EB timeframe.
The charge should be weaker but the heavy cavalry with armoured horses should be hard to kill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

And also breaks your arm and/or throws you out of your saddle, if you are riding at fullspeed. The lances of the EB Timeframe were like ordinary spears, just sometimes longer and the riders had no saddle, stirrup and smaller horses. There charges couldnt have been as devasting as medieval knight charges.

18th century cavalry had military training, with mercilesly beating, death penalties for insubordination and most time people behind you to shoot you if you turned. No one had that in EBs timeframe. Esspecially not the riders, which mostly were wealthy free people not willing to risk their lives in head on atacks on a solid enemy front.

By the way, esspecially the cavalry in the wars between rome and carthago seemed to have great staying power like at canae. So maybe ancient cavallery were more like melee skirmishers. ;) Of course with the exception of the eastern cavallery. But crassus defeat also showed that the parthian didnt (Because they were free men) want to risk getting close in melee until the romans were down on their knees, instead showering them with arrows.

---

cavalry weren't treated like infantry in the 18th century....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahl

The armour of the rider would be of less quality, but in the medieval time the horses wore nearly no armour. So I can't unterstand the fact that the really heavy cavalry in EB should take many casualities when disenganging or charging from the front compared to medieval cavalry. I would say the big difference is not the weaker cavalry but the much stronger infantry of the EB timeframe.
The charge should be weaker but the heavy cavalry with armoured horses should be hard to kill.

---

Not sure what you are getting your information from but depending on the culture some horses wore quite much armor in medieval times. Even in EB era Samartions, Scythians, and maybe even Thracians and the Companions put some armor on their horses. Usually just heavy felt with some head and chest plates but still less compared to barding on medieval heavy cavalry. Of course some medieval cavalry horses had no armor but the heavy shock cavalry we are talking about usually had something.

The armour of a Crusader wasn't a ton better than the armour of a hetairos, and definitely inferior to the armour of an EB cataphract; the Crusader would have mail over most of his body, plus a great helm; the hetairos wouldn't be as covered, but the iron breastplate and greaves are better protection on their respective areas. The Europeans realized this, and added plates to vital parts, then to everywhere on the body, and some horses would get similar treatment as well; thus creating the objectively strongest cavalry ever to exist, though the dominance of the full plate knight was shortlived, thanks to gunpowder, pikemen, and the advent of the dismounted knight as a common tactic.

The stirrup wouldn't have had as much impact on the charge as on melee, actually; it wouldn't deliver more force as much as prevent the guy from falling off, which is of more benefit in melee combat. Medieval knights had a good ability to cut through the usually low quality feudal infantry; ancient era infantry (in the West) were far superior. The charge would be comparable to that of a cataphract; thanks to superior lance techniques and design (popularized by, IIRC, byzantine heavy horsemen). Mercenaries who were equipped to fight off a mounted charge were either too few in number to do so effectively, or too incohesive, when cobbled together, to form an effective defense against the mounted charge.

Not falling off the horse is pretty important part of a charge btw. Cataphracts are the exception for EB era cavalry though. Most of the cavalry in the mod won't be Cataphracts and even for EB era might not really fit in as ERE did not adopt Cataphracts until 100-200AD. Sarmations and a couple other eastern peoples probably the main ones using such heavy cavalry in the EB era and Parthians suffered several defeats vs the disciplined Roman heavy infantry. Seluicid states did often make use of heavy cavalry but not sure if what they used would be considered Cataphracts. Most cavalry in this period was still light cavalry... could charge but the objective and tactical use wasn't a shock to break the frontlines but more to harry and exploit gaps.

As for the armor... I think the evidence of exactly how people and horses were armored is inconclusive with many varying practices and things changing over time. Not to mention a metal plate made in 200 BC probably is not as strong as a metal plate made in 1100 AD so even if the 200 BC version covered more vital parts of the body I don't know if that means it was way more effective. Lighter and easier upkeep than chainmail or scale probably but I'd guess there is a reason chainmail is preferred for so many years over plates. It wasn't until plates began to be interlocking and hinged that they took over and led to fully armored knights.

==================================================

Although Parthians probably come pretty close to the heavy shock cavalry in the EB era. I think some battle reports by Roman generals describe violent charges and lances impaling 2 Romans at a time. Even the Parthians though seemed to have changed practices and moved to more lightly armored, more mobile, and cheaper to train and equip lancers that also had bows standard shortly after 300 AD. Even in the famous battles like Carrhae that Parthians won (it was pretty even as witnessed the border didn't change huge amount until the Roman empire was ending) the horse archer tactics wearing the Romans down seemed more effective than heavy shock charge.

By the way, who exactly uses precisely cataphracts in the EB time frame? The only ones I am aware of using precisely cataphracts are the Armenians and the Parthians (and in the centuries before EB, usually, Armenian cataphracts within the Parthian overall cavalry command). Note: I have not knowledge on the people of the northern steppes.

The Sarmatians fielded large numbers of heavily armour lancers, but few were really cataphracts proper.

Baktria and the Seleucids fielded cataphracts to counter those of Armenia and Parthia.

Quote:

---

Even the Parthians though seemed to have changed practices and moved to more lightly armored, more mobile, and cheaper to train and equip lancers that also had bows standard shortly after 300 AD.

---

The parthians were gone by then, replaced with the Sassanids. Also, note that most, if not all, cataphracts had bows anyways (take a look at the EB cataphract models...2 weapon system sucks ): ). Also, the top cataphracts armour only improved during Sassanid times - the ERE offered stiff competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

Not sure what you are getting your information from but depending on the culture some horses wore quite much armor in medieval times.

---

From my best friend, I would say she's an expert on medieval europe. I meant the european knights when I said they had mostly unarmoured horses over most of the medieval times. Middle eastern and nomad heavy cavalry probably had armoured horses.
Sorry that I was so unprecisly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

The Sarmatians fielded large numbers of heavily armour lancers, but few were really cataphracts proper.

Baktria and the Seleucids fielded cataphracts to counter those of Armenia and Parthia.

The parthians were gone by then, replaced with the Sassanids. Also, note that most, if not all, cataphracts had bows anyways (take a look at the EB cataphract models...2 weapon system sucks ): ). Also, the top cataphracts armour only improved during Sassanid times - the ERE offered stiff competition.

---

Agree about Sarmations but I think the Selucid Cataphract companies were quite few... only heard of one which was the Leader's private guards basically. Parthians were around past 200 AD though gone by 300 you are right.

Most Persian/eastern cavalry carried a bow- for Cataphracts there were long periods the bow was more secondary weapon with seperate companies of more lightly armored lancers being the main bowmen and the Cataphracts job to drive home a charge. The more exposure the Persians had with Scythians and steppe cultures it seems they adopted the bow more often. Also maybe something to do with ERE infantry not being so vulnerable to a shock charge. When ERE went away from infantry backbone and to Cataphract and cavalry based armies then there is a return of heavy shock cavalry.

But it is easier to stick in EB era than go beyond. Cataphracts existed as normal tactic for whom- Armenians, Parthians for awhile, maybe rare Selucids... most of the other cultures had heavy lancers but not the Cataphract with scale/chain armor covering fully rider and much of the horse. So out of 20 some factions less than a handful employed Cataphracts and most of those even had them as very, very rare elites.

The rest of factions usually had some concept of heavy cavalry though it was also usually reserved for elites with normal companies employed in much numbers more like light cavalry functions. That type of heavy cavalry is well armored but I don't think using the tactic of Cataphracts to attack set heavy infantry formations from the front and break the lines with a charge.

The Chinese and the Koreans also had fairly heavy cataphracts. Anyone know how well they compared?

Quote:

---

But it is easier to stick in EB era than go beyond. Cataphracts existed as normal tactic for whom- Armenians, Parthians for awhile, maybe rare Selucids... most of the other cultures had heavy lancers but not the Cataphract with scale/chain armor covering fully rider and much of the horse. So out of 20 some factions less than a handful employed Cataphracts and most of those even had them as very, very rare elites.

---

Cataphracts were hardly a rarity in the Seleukid army, Livy mentions 6000 being present at the Battle of Magnesia.

I'm assuming you were thinking about the Agema, which were one half of the Royal guard and who were armed as cataphracts, even then they numbered 1000 men which is hardly a small force.

Also your forgetting the Saka, who were one the first users of cataphracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

The Chinese and the Koreans also had fairly heavy cataphracts. Anyone know how well they compared?

---

This happened in late Han times IIRC...Yuezhi and Saka cats influenced Xiongnu, which influenced the late Han.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

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 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

Most Persian/eastern cavalry carried a bow- for Cataphracts there were long periods the bow was more secondary weapon with seperate companies of more lightly armored lancers being the main bowmen and the Cataphracts job to drive home a charge.

---

For certain time periods, yes. Which is reflected in EB's Parthian roster.

Quote:

---

The more exposure the Persians had with Scythians and steppe cultures it seems they adopted the bow more often.

---

You got it the wrong way around. The Persians were bowmen (including HAs) right from the start - even in Achaemenid times.
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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

The armour of a Crusader wasn't a ton better than the armour of a hetairos, and definitely inferior to the armour of an EB cataphract; the Crusader would have mail over most of his body, plus a great helm; the hetairos wouldn't be as covered, but the iron breastplate and greaves are better protection on their respective areas. The Europeans realized this, and added plates to vital parts, then to everywhere on the body, and some horses would get similar treatment as well; thus creating the objectively strongest cavalry ever to exist, though the dominance of the full plate knight was shortlived, thanks to gunpowder, pikemen, and the advent of the dismounted knight as a common tactic.

The stirrup wouldn't have had as much impact on the charge as on melee, actually; it wouldn't deliver more force as much as prevent the guy from falling off, which is of more benefit in melee combat. Medieval knights had a good ability to cut through the usually low quality feudal infantry; ancient era infantry (in the West) were far superior. The charge would be comparable to that of a cataphract; thanks to superior lance techniques and design (popularized by, IIRC, byzantine heavy horsemen). Mercenaries who were equipped to fight off a mounted charge were either too few in number to do so effectively, or too incohesive, when cobbled together, to form an effective defense against the mounted charge.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

For certain time periods, yes. Which is reflected in EB's Parthian roster.

You got it the wrong way around. The Persians were bowmen (including HAs) right from the start - even in Achaemenid times.
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...

---

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.