Printable View
Hello: I remember seeing a bonus of sword vs. spear. For example, a hastati gets a bonus fighting barbarian warband in a melee. Can anybody kindly point out how much (if any) this bonus is and better - where to look for such information? Thank you very much.
The big difference is the time to swing the weapon -- the warband spear is slower than the Hastati. Look in the export_desc_unit text file in the data directory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltz
Are knives faster?
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4rt14n
Don't know about the knives but the peasants carrying them are ~D
The info on the size of bonuses is not accessible. We don't know if CA will make this info known.
Knives and swords are the same speed. Warband spears and axes are slower swings.Quote:
Originally Posted by m4rt14n
So this means, say, that Hastati get off more hits than Spear Warband in the same time frame?
How bout Maces, Axes, or Double Handed Axes??Quote:
Originally Posted by KiOwA
LOL ~D You're not wrong there!Quote:
Originally Posted by oaty
in the real world the point always beats the blade :charge:
In the real world, horsies can't (or won't) jump over spearpoints when charging the front of a phalanx...Quote:
Originally Posted by FURRY_BOOTS
:charge: :charge: :charge: :dizzy2:
Are you sure, anti_strunt? A horse isn't dumb. It can realize that it doesn't have enough space to stop and/or that there are a pack of horses behind it that will shove it forward if it does try to stop. The angled spears are angled vs arrows, not flying horses, thus there is a gap between the horizontal spears and the angled ones that might look a lot less hazardous than the spearpoints. We know that horses can jump (isn't there an entire sport based on horses jumping high obstacles?).
In addition, a cavalry unit might train horses to jump in that situation precisely to disrupt formations. After all, if a few horses can crash into the top of the horizontal spears and then into the formation, it would really mess up the spear's defence of subsequent inbound horses.
The appropriate counter for such tactics, of course, is if the Phalanx lowers the angled spears to intercept jumping horses. However, geometry might prevent that (the spears would need to be driven into the ground on the backside to be able to take the weight of the horse, making it difficult to lower the point due to the guy in front). Even if it were possible, if the horse did jump anyway, it would land on the front spears, nullifying their capability on that section.
If I'm not wrong, there was this famous battle where the severely-outnumbered English, led by King Henry, fought and routed a French army. I don't recall specific details, but I remember the English longbowmen driving pointed stakes into the ground as a precaution against the French heavy calvary. I was wondering, why doesn't RTW model this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anti_strunt
in the real world a general with half a brain cell wouldnt charge a row of pikes :dizzy2: ~:eek:
anyway i was talking about hand to hand combat :duel: if i had to choose, then give me the rapier every time :bow:
Not necessarily, furry_boots. It would depend on the situation.
Say a phalanx army was set up in a pass and thus unflankable, or was in a ring (I've seen pictures of RTW players doing just that). Say also a general had few missile troops, but had many cavalrymen, with some "throw-away" cavalry. I could easily see a general deliberatly charging some cavalry at a point in order to disrupt that point, so he could force his men through that gap and attack the phalanxes from behind. A cavalry charge is much more likely to carve a gap in a phalanx line than an infantry charge, if for nothing else than a wall of spears impaled on horses can't really do much damage to subsequent attackers, where a foot-soldier attack could be held off for quite a while by a spear wall.
Such a tactic was used by the Germans in WW2 to break through the French defenses. In this case, the role of the phalanx was the Maginot line and the Ardennes Forest (apologies if I misspelled either).
If they were all formed up in pass, then it might make more sense to send your cav to round up some local cattle. Herd the cattle together at the back of the pass, scare the heck out of them and drive 'em at full tilt towards the phalanx with your cav charging behind. Alas, I've never seen any herds of cattle on the battlefield.
Back on topic:
I haven't tested the impact of the different speed factor for spear vs. sword. On the surface it looks like one will be about 1/3rd quicker at killing than the other, about 2 attack points for base level units.
I know some folks have substituted a javelin for the hoplite spears to model overhand thrusts vs. underhand. However, this really reduced the kill rate because the "hit box" is smaller.
Was this tactic ever used by any ancient army? I believe that is what's relevant, not just what might have happened... Also, if we are going to discuss theoretics, how many horsemen would be willing to randomly throw themselves at a wall of pikes just to give their comrades a tactical advantage anyway? Also remember that the cavalry was the elite (or at least the minority) in just about all non-steppe-nomad armies, an elite/minority they would hardly want to throw away in such a wasteful fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoof
Never heard this interpretation of the German invasion of France before. Are you saying that the Germans frontally attacked the Maginot Line with their cavalry in order to disorder it's formation? ~;)Quote:
Such a tactic was used by the Germans in WW2 to break through the French defenses. In this case, the role of the phalanx was the Maginot line and the Ardennes Forest (apologies if I misspelled either).
The Germans went through the Ardennes because A) they could B) the French didn't know they could (I've read the Americans actually made a mistake along the same lines later on, before the Battle of the Bulge, but I'm not very convinced of that one) C) because of that, and some other reasons, the French defenses at Sedan behind the mountains were very light.
Once the German victories to the north (Dunkirk et all) forced the French to pull the infantry regiments from around the Maginot Line forts for their last desperate attemp at halting the drive to Paris, the Germans could pass between the major fortifications and on the side invest the small bunkers between them. They also tried to reduce the big forts - but that turned out to be an exercise in frustration, as the damn things shrugged off everything thrown at them and cheerfully shot to bits everything that came close. Once France capitulated so did many of the forts - but some refused to believe the news (dismissing them as "German tricks", undoubtly), and as they had ammo and food aplenty they were in no hurry to give up. The Germans eventually had to bring in ranking French officials to convince the garrisons.
Pretty bad comparision to phalanxes, IMHO.
Anyway, if cavalry have to attack pikemen from the front they might as well not bother - even if they're Renaissance knights in some of the most hardcore armor the world has ever seen, odds are they'll just die plain and simple. It's actually more effective to dismount the men and send them in as infantry.
At Thermopylae the Persians settled down to wearing the Greeks down by sheer attrition and simply fed their disposable crap-quality infantry into hoplite spears - every now and then one of the poor bastards got through and killed a hoplite or two before perishing. I've read somewhere they also tried sending in Bactrian armored cavalry at one point, but that turned out not to work too well. If the horsemen managed to get past the spears they could cause more damage before dying than the crap infantry, but it was obviously not a very cost-effective equation and the cavalry were among the actually effective parts of the army (others included the Immortals and similar regular troops, plus assorted merenaries - it has been said the Persians could just as well have campaigned with these guys and left the great mass of conscripted peasants home) - they were far better used elsewhere.
Horse vs. pike is pretty much a recipe for dead horses. 'Nuff said. If the cavalry can maneuver around the pikemen it's a little better, especially if they have ranged weaponry, but even then it's chancy. Depends on the pikemen too, of course - I understand the Antiquity pikemen hadn't yet figured out the comparatively unassailable hollow-square formation, and duly had vulnerable flanks.
The comparison for the Ardennes can be seen as a bad example or an excellent one, depending on your point of view. The point was to force a hole in the defences, then send the bulk of your forces through that hole to take advantage of an enemy who set their defences up as a single directional line.
The French (incorrectly) assumed that the Ardennes were impassable, or at least very difficult to send an army through, thus they considered it part of their defence. They also assumed that the Belgians would help defend that part of the border between Germany and France/Belgium. There was no need for fortifications in the forest because a) fortifications would be of limited use without the sightlines (hard to see troops through a mile of tree trunks and leaves), and b) defence in forests is much easier than in the open, thus far fewer regular troops would be needed, and c) any army moving through the forest would take a long time to move through (so they thought), thus allowing time for reaction. And of course, the Belgian might have a problem with the French putting up massive construction works in their territory!
The French did understand the danger of the Germans attacking through Belgium, and worried about it once it became clear that Belgium might not fight the Germans if they came through. They had begin a project to expand the Maginot line along the Belgium/France border, but were not far along when the offensive began.
Interestingly enough, the Germans did attack a part of the Maginot line head-on during the offensive, much like the US attacked the defences on the Saudi-Kuwaiti border in '91 (IIRC). In both cases they were diversions, and in both cased the diversion actually made it through.
I have no idea if any general send horsemen in to disrupt a Phalanx/Spearwall line in a suicide run. I do know that suicide waves have been used in history before. In the Korean War, the Chinese/North Koreans did use wave attacks to attack the Americans. The first waves were literally equipped with sticks (obviously not meant to fight if they survived). Subsequent waves were equipped with better and better equipment. The idea was to overwhelm the defences and quite literally run them out of ammo leaving them defenceless when the "real" troops attacked. I think some of the battles around Pusan were like that. I'm not as good on the specifics of the Korean War as I am in WW2 history, so I apologize if some of the facts are wrong. However, there are many examples throughout history (not just the Korean war) where a leader threw a unit against a fortified position in an apparent suicide attack as part of a larger battle plan.
I was merely attempting to point out that there is a tactical use for charging horsemen directly into a spearwall under certain circumstances, despite the horrible results for the horsemen.
However, the conditions would have to be just right for this to be a "good" choice. First, there would have to be a lack of missile troops. Second, there would have to be an overriding need to defeat the spearwall at that time, instead of later. Third, you would need expendable highly motivated troops (motivated by fear, patriotism, incentive, whatever). If you have a choice between sending in your best cavalry vs some slave cavalry who will die the next day anyway (but can choose to die in combat instead), obviously pick the latter. Basically you would need an urgent need to defeat the enemy, a lack of alternative choices, and troops who are willing or can be made to sacrifice themselves to make it work.
Another possibility why such cavalry/mass charge tactics weren't used in history: the depth of formations. A suicide cavalry charge, even with heavy horses, won't break a hole through a phalanx formation if the phalanx formation is, say, 20 men deep.
A 5/6 man deep RTW-style formation can suffer because of three factors:
1) the formation is so shallow that there aren't enough men behind the disrupted section to maintain the line,
2) all units in a formation tend to collapse to the zone of combat (at least when "Guard" mode is off),
3) the entire formation often draws swords and disintegrates as a cohesive body (fortunately issuing "Halt" orders often returns them to spear duty at the attacker's detriment, although they often reform facing the wrong way).
Fortunatly RTW is much better about solving the second problem than MTW was (and is probably why Phalanx units start out with Guard mode on), but still, I suspect that having more ranks would make a formation much more effective vs suicide charges.
cavalry charging against phalanx pikemen, not a very healthy proposition. why would someone do it? it would be some glorious and heroic sight to behold, heroic defeat at that. can't be done if you had some sensible plan to conquer the world, but hey it would be fun if your cavalry is led by one of the generals with "the Mad" as his appelation. he might just survive and have his head straight after the experience.
Why would someone do it? Why would someone charge a machinegun nest? Why would soldiers in WW2 go over the top into certain death? Why would Japanese pilots fly their planes into aircraft carriers? Why would B17 crews fly into Berlin in 1944? Why would Viet-Cong attack US soldiers in Viet-Nam (IIRC, we won decisively virtually all large scale battles during that conflict) Why would people attack the US army in Iraq? Why did the Japanese soldiers continue fighting to the last man on Iwo Jima and Okinawa late in WW2?
There are numerous reasons why people would go into a hopeless fight or go into a charge knowing they would die. It can happen and did happen. However, as I outlined in my post above, the circumstances have to be right for it to even be considered a possibility.
Yeah, but how do you persuade a horse to do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by hoof
Er...hoof ? The examples you cite are from the period after nationalism and patriotism in the modern sense developed. Around that time soldiers were also supposed to stoically and fatalistically accept the prospect of death and injury and "soldier on" nonetheless, which in many ways was their primary difference to the warriors of earlier ages. A very few conditional exceptions aside, those ideas simply weren't around before about 17th or 18th century or thereabouts, at least not in Western Eurasia. Warriors were into it for the money/loot, the glory, their legal obligations to their superiors, because they had no choice, or any combination thereof; "for the Fatherland" mentality was conspicuously absent in almost all cases (save the few conditional exceptions; the Romans were one).
Mounted warriors, if not actually the elite (as in Rome and Greece, the advocates of massed heavy infantry; they might be noblemen, but their military importance and thus real influence was limited), were in any case highly trained and expensive specialists who filled certain vital roles in armies. Only very foolish commanders would waste them in useless suicide attacks against steady phalanxes.
Incidentally, the Korean War human-wave attacks were borne out out stark practical necessity - the Chinese and the North Koreans quite simply didn't have the tanks and artillery required to smash through the Allied fortifications, and had to make do with manpower and will instead. I sincerely doubt about the "first waves with sticks" part, incidentally - even if the first assaults faltered (as was almost certain) the survivors, who'd then spend their time huddling in craters, ditches etc., could make themselves comparatively useful by trading fire with the defenders.
I've also read the Chinese at least made heavy use of stormtrooper-style infiltration tactics to support the main assaults - sending in small units of picked men to sneak into the trenches and spread chaos among the defenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiOwA
Battle of Againcourt (sp?)
The battlefield suited the english army better on that day.
:laugh4:
Agincourt. But "Againcourt" is a pretty neat way to misspell it. :2thumbsup:
Warhorses will follow their masters to whatever end. It's what they're trained to do. Ofcourse, not all animals can overcome instinct with training alone. So asking if a warhorse will carry on the charge or not, would be something akin to asking whether a soldier will go on a suicide mission or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baiae
It's all about motivation. A wall of bayonets, zounds of artillery fire, gunshots, explosions, etc. certainly didn't stop the English Light Brigade, or their horses, from charging the guns. The result was a disaster ofcourse, but motivated men, and horses, will charge. Just like the soldiers from the trenches in the Great War would charge, to their certain deaths.
Alas, dead horsies tend to get in the way of the live ones (and the latter tend to get a little nervous by the screams of the former). Especially if you concentrate the assault too much - cavalry can't add "mass" to the charge by actual physical pushing anyway.
And any horse tries to back off when it actually hits the spear-points.
The popular perception of the charge of the light brigade owes a lot to the 1968 film of the same name. In fact its interpretation of events has been quite coherently challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ptah
The LB were not supposed to charge the Russian guns head on - they were ordered to flank them. The brigade suffered heavy casualties but did in fact capture the position. There was no guarantee they would have been more successful following their original instructions. I've heard it argued that the incident was actually a great success - though expensive and accidental.
Hmm. Can't edit posts. But I found my source - "Hell Riders: The Truth About the Charge of the Light Brigade" by Terry Brighton.
Interesting article about it here... http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/...344535,00.html with some interesting titbits for all you hippophiles and a big sideways dig at Gulf War II: Attack of the Clones.
Anyhow... miles off topic. Back to the fascinating software development debate on another hijacked thread.