M2TW Cavalry and EB II

I'm doubting that the EB system of cavalry having super-high charge will work in EB. When I modded M2TW a while back, I set all of the cavalry lances' attack power at 2 and put their charge somewhere in the teens. Spear cavalry units like Mounted Sergeants got 3 spear attack and about 8 charge. This is what I found to be balanced with the M2TW units. I used the same system when I modded Broken crescent. When I added armour piercing to the stats of the cavalry, they were back to being overpowered once again, but reducing their charge would mean that they would be less effective against levy units. I also buffed up the defense of infantry units.

How does the EB team intend to cope with the natural overpoweredness of M2TW cavalry? My solutions for nerfing them have been pretty effective, reducing the number of casualties BOTH units (the charged and the charging horsemen) take on impact (M2TW cavalry take stupid casualties on hitting enemy units).

Good topic to bring up, gamegeek. Although it is enjoyable witnessing a unit of cavalry ride down several units of infantry like grass, it does seem a tad unrealistic...

I would rather like cavalry to be able to stand up for sustained melee for a while rather than die like flies. I mean, that would be alot better than portraying all cavalry in the EB time frame as high impact chargers.

Well of course our cavalry will be not be statted to be medieval knights and of course we aren't just going to copy the EB I system. We'll be using a new system as complex, balanced and as historically accurate as EBI's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

...but reducing their charge would mean that they would be less effective against levy units.

---

Ain't levy units kind of supposed to be butchered by cavalry, eh?

M2TW cavalry is good enough. One of the aspects I like is that they switch to secondary automatically, instead of poking with their lances indefinetely. Maybe that will make AI Baktrian bodyguards a bit more fearsome?

I like the MTW II Cav, they kill disorganised/low morale infantry like nothing, they die against spears or bowmen behind stakes, they have 50-50 against heavy inf depending on circumstances. No, I find them accurately portraying medieval Cavalry, or any for that matter.

Of course, we will all appreciate the M2TW cavalry switching weapons, bla bla bla. I'm just saying that it doesn't make any sense for a unit of 40 horsemen charging into a unit of 60 foot knights (ready and in formation) to mow down half of the knights AND lose 5 of their own men on impact (too many losses on both sides). M2TW does inaccurately portray foot knights sans their lances, but even if they did have spears, a similar thing would happen (tested against the Papal Guard, I get similar results).

And while cavalry should have less staying power than infantry, mailed horsemen shouldn't die especially quickly in close combat (with exceptions against spearmen, halberdiers, etc)

And of course heavy horsemen are supposed to bowl over levy units (except large numbers of spearmen).

Gamegeek, the lance is blind. When you have a compact formation of heavily armoured horsemen on bulky horses and their big lances lowered the momentum of the impact will shatter anything. Whether the charge is succesful or not depends if the infantry breaks, but if the horsemen present a compact and strong charge it is only natural that even the heaviest infantry will suffer unless they have means to stop the charge, and that usually is a long pole, halberd, voulge and the likes, as well as the good old pike. No wonder why so many formations in the middle ages employed them, after all.

But the EB team will seek to accurately depict horsemen of the Ancient Age within the limitations of the engine while presenting more or less realistic situations. You can be sure that Equites Romani will not have the same impact as the current Feudal Knights et all have against infantry formations, but then no wonder that heavily armoured cataphracts will produce more or less similar results. They were armed and equipped to do it, and break enemy formations, afterall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Of course we'll be using a new system as complex, balanced and as historically accurate as EBI's.

---

~:)

Quote:

---

Gamegeek, the lance is blind. When you have a compact formation of heavily armoured horsemen on bulky horses and their big lances lowered the momentum of the impact will shatter anything. Whether the charge is succesful or not depends if the infantry breaks, but if the horsemen present a compact and strong charge it is only natural that even the heaviest infantry will suffer unless they have means to stop the charge, and that usually is a long pole, halberd, voulge and the likes, as well as the good old pike. No wonder why so many formations in the middle ages employed them, after all.

But the EB team will seek to accurately depict horsemen of the Ancient Age within the limitations of the engine while presenting more or less realistic situations. You can be sure that Equites Romani will not have the same impact as the current Feudal Knights et all have against infantry formations, but then no wonder that heavily armoured cataphracts will produce more or less similar results. They were armed and equipped to do it, and break enemy formations, afterall.

---

I know this, it's rather obvious when you apply the laws of physics. When the lance from a couched charge hits someone, the hit person gets killed or something else awful happens to them. But the guy in the next row? He may be pushed back, but he probably doesn't get hit by the lance. And something good: In M2TW, cavalry charging that run into their own men during the charge actually lose their momentum. So a swarm of Scythian Riders that are running into each other constantly have a much weaker charge.

I also think that the cavalry charge distance for cataphracts (30) is awfully close up for heavy horsemen to get some serious momentum going to charge effectively. I raised the distance to 60 in my slightly modded version of EB.

The guy behind might get killed by the guy infront of him being flung/skewed backwards at him with all the momentum of that horse. I mean, this is close one a ton/tonne hitting someone with a pointy stick going at 20-30 miles per hour. Its kinda like this(graphic):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5QIux9AG8

That car has much more force that the knight. The guy behind probably wouldn't be killed, he has armour and a shield to dissipate the impact.

I'm just wondering how you guys are going to get the M2TW cavalry engine to make EB-level cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

That car has much more force that the knight.

---

A horseman and horse will weight probably a minimum of 400kg (light horse and unarmoured man), and an heavily armoured man and a large (modern-day) horse could weigh over a thousand kilograms - as much as a car, and a horse can reach a speed of 89km/h (55mp/h, the world record atm). Of course, a horse of ancient times would've been smaller than a large 700kg modern-day riding horse, but nonetheless, we can assume the armoured rider and horse would've weighed well over half a ton and could've reached a speed over 50km/h for a charge... There's quite a bit of force there. :P

:-\ 55 mph? Are you sure about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The General

A horseman and horse will weight probably a minimum of 400kg (light horse and unarmoured man), and an heavily armoured man and a large (modern-day) horse could weigh over a thousand kilograms - as much as a car, and a horse can reach a speed of 89km/h (55mp/h, the world record atm). Of course, a horse of ancient times would've been smaller than a large 700kg modern-day riding horse, but nonetheless, we can assume the armoured rider and horse would've weighed well over half a ton and could've reached a speed over 50km/h for a charge... There's quite a bit of force there. :P

---

The lightest of average cars weighs twice that much and goes much faster. There's no way a knight hits with the force of an automobile.

The horse is significantly slowed down by the weight of the man and armour, however the impetus offered by the additional weight serves to contrast this. I would be surprised if charging cataphracts went faster than the fastest runner (28 mph). However, contrary to your belief, there were definitely large breeds of horses in ancient times, particularly the Nisean breed which the Parthian cataphracts rode. It takes a horse stronger than a modern day riding horse AFAIK to carry Grivpanvar and all their armour AND make an effective charge.

And, as seen at the Battle of Carrhae, even the Parthian Cataphracts could not beat the well-trained Roman Legionarii when they were formed up and using pila as spears. A strong, well-made shield will be able to take the majority of a lance's impact, though it might be broken or shattered.

I was just making a claim that one man cannot stop a heavy horse easily, and a heavy horse hitting a group of men would be much like a car plowing through a crowd of people. So if you're using the numbers in this thread, it would be more like a Smart Car(730kg) plowing into a group of people at about 20 miles per hour.

I used round numbers because that's what I thought a heavy cataphract would weigh close to a ton.

So, lets do some math just for fun.

Horse: 400 - 500 kg
Person: ~55 - 70 kg(Normal and Overwight for a ~5 foot 3 man from a modern BMI graph)
Armor and Equipment: ? - I honestly have no clue. I'm thinking about a heavier type of horse. Would be nice to get a number.
So the total would be around 512.5 kg for just a guy on a horse.

The horse would be galloping anywhere from 40-48 kph(25 -30 mph) on impact. The average of that is 44 kph. This gives a total momentum of 22550 kg km/h. Now assuming an inelastic impact because people kinda squish:

m1 * v1 + m2 * v2 = (m1+m2)*vf

And using the mass for a human of 62.5 kg, that gives us a final velocity of about 40 kph. So the first person only slows it down by 4 kph. Assuming that he couldn't do a barrel-roll, he took the lance in the chest. The lance then broke. The primary weapon is gone now but its going to continue trampling guys assuming they stand their ground. I guess this is assuming no bracing.

Here are more numbers for a horse hitting people:

Code:

---

Initial: 44 kph
Person 1: 40 kph
Person 2: 35 kph
Person 3: 31 kph
Person 4: 27 kph
Person 5: 24 kph
etc

---

So lets look at guy #2. He gets accelerated to 35 KPH in a split second. Assuming that it is accelerated to that speed in about x seconds, that's:

35kph / (3600 m/h * s/m) * 1000 * m/km = 9.72 m/s
9.72 m/s / 1/100 s = 9.72x m/s^2
9.72x m/s^2 * 62.5 kg = 607.5x N

Depending on how long the impact takes, he could either live or die. If anyone has a good idea of how long it takes to transfer all that momentum, please tell me.

The impact will be actually much higher... What that you count is Force... quite large, but it goes larger when we count the lancetip's area... the pressure it created will punch a hole even to a well made 5mm metal sheet.

P=F/A

Antisocialmunky, FYI late medieval plate armour weighed about the same or even less than hoplite bronze cuirasses. This site mentions 52lbs average for the whole equipment (23.58kg according to the converter), and that's a value appropriate for late XV century Gothic plate armour. Don't forget the horse barding which often added weight too, thus making it a bit heavier than in your original values. If the guy was wearing jousting armor, even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Antisocialmunky, FYI late medieval plate armour weighed about the same or even less than hoplite bronze cuirasses. This site mentions 52lbs average for the whole equipment (23.58kg according to the converter), and that's a value appropriate for late XV century Gothic plate armour. Don't forget the horse barding which often added weight too, thus making it a bit heavier than in your original values. If the guy was wearing jousting armor, even more.

---

True. Take a look at how large the numbers are already WITHOUT adjusting for the additional weight of armor. That is A LOT of momentum going. Truthfully, I felt as though the cavalry didn't do enough damage on charges. Even if cavalry didn't reach full speed and the lances weren't lowered, such as what happens when the charge distance is attempted at too short of a range, the horse should do more damage and disrupt unit cohesion more than it is represented.

Yes and now try and face it without a polearm of your own. No wonder that M2TW cavalry is what it is now.

Yes, that's not accounting for stactic friction/resisting forces(IE braced spears) and people being pushed into each other or rolled out of the way as a dead on hit would be unlikely.

If u got 3.5 m lance, with some skill you can screw 2 or 3 men in one charge....

rather off the topic question:
What about halberd armed cavalry? they should like Guan Yu (3 kingdoms), and they will hack their way in extremely brutal manner, plus, they had excellent chance to survive in melee... (they are elite cavalrymen in ancient china afterall, why not the saka or sauromatae encountered them and copy them?)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...c/DWGuanYu.jpg

?Que?

While the halberd was very popular among chinese cavalry in later periods, it was not in common use by EB's time period. In the Warring States period and Han dynasty, the main melee cavalry weapons were the lance (no more than 3m), dagger-axe and sword. Halberds became more common by the Tang dynasty in the 7th C, and by the 10 & 11 C were very popular.

Chairman

It seems a fair point the OP raises, and I look forward to the ingenious solution the EB2 team comes up with.

My own uniformed impression is that the stirrup was not in general use (if at all) in the EB2 period, thus making heavy cavalry less effective. Is the problem delivering shock from an unbraced rider and mount to the target without dismounting the rider?

Of course there was effective heavy-to-kataphract weight cav around in the classical age, which did smash infantry quite badly, but just less effectively than horsemen of the age of chivalry. Is that a fair assesment? Its a gross simpification, but the Roman empire held quite well against the northern foes until they were swept away in the Gothic storm, which I'm assuming was a stirrup assisted movement.

I recall a short archaeological film comparing depictions (eg from illuminated mss) with excavated bodies, showing enormous wounds, for example blokes split from collarbone to pelvis. Terrifying how much force a horseman can generate when properly mounted and braced, he had the force of his mount and the extra height (from standing in the stirrups) to swing down from. No wonder even succesful infantry tradtions like the early Franks 9not to mention the eastern empire) adopted heavy cav armament.

The stirrup wasn't fully necessary for the shock action of cavalry. Alexander's Companions prove that point quite well. Instead, the stirrup is really useful for close-quarters fighting when the horseman has to draw his sidearm to crack some skulls. It allowed the rider to stand up and shift his weight to deliver a more powerful, better-balanced blow to whatever hapless infantry stood below him.

Like all other germanic Barbarians the Goths were primarily infantry-based, their stay on the Ukranian steppe had probably heightened their proportion of cavalry to infantry, but they were nonetheless still mostly infantry. It is a question of settled farmers being mostly infantry while nomads/herdsmen are primarily cavalry in that specific setting. Battle of Hadrianopolis was an infantry action until the Goth cavalry with their Alan friends/allies/mercenaries returned from foraging and turned the Roman flank. Nor were the Goths the only tribe to invade the WRE and the others were by and large infantry.

Note that at Tours October 10, 732, the well-trained, armed and disciplined Frankish FOOT soldiers withstood the heavy cavalry of the Umayyads and defeated it. Well-trained, armed and disciplined heavy foot will as a general rule defeat any cavalry you care to mention. It is when they break rank as at Hastings, they get slaughtered.

However, it generally takes an organised state to arm, produce and train this body of foot. A state that was by and large absent in the middle ages. Instead the small bands of well equipped and trained cavalry dominated all battlefields where they did not meet organised heavy foot. It is easier to maintain a single or a few knights and bring them together in effective if disorganised and undisciplined warbands than to keep heavy foot (not to mention chivalric ideals and general ideology). In that light some military historians have seen The Middle Ages not so much as the age of cavalry as the age of absent foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Like all other germanic Barbarians the Goths were primarily infantry-based, their stay on the Ukranian steppe had probably heightened their proportion of cavalry to infantry, but they were nonetheless still mostly infantry. It is a question of settled farmers being mostly infantry while nomads/herdsmen are primarily cavalry in that specific setting. Battle of Hadrianopolis was an infantry action until the Goth cavalry with their Alan friends/allies/mercenaries returned from foraging and turned the Roman flank. Nor were the Goths the only tribe to invade the WRE and the others were by and large infantry.

---

Definitely the germanic footmen were the rats that swarmed the foundered ship of state, but I'd argue they managed it only once the horsey Goths and Huns had cracked the nut. Up until then the Romans cracked german heads as a regular sport for centuries, and only lost if they put pencil-necks in charge who led legions into swamps in winter....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Note that at Tours October 10, 732, the well-trained, armed and disciplined Frankish FOOT soldiers withstood the heavy cavalry of the Umayyads and defeated it. Well-trained, armed and disciplined heavy foot will as a general rule defeat any cavalry you care to mention. It is when they break rank as at Hastings, they get slaughtered.

---

Poitiers/Tours in 732 was pretty much the first stop on a charge that commenced at Mecca, so they were due for a halt. Not sure about Ummayid heavies, perhaps they were more of a Berber raiding party than formed Kwarazmian style katas?

From the Red Sea to the Loire valley is a fairly impressive run of wins for the horse vs the foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

However, it generally takes an organised state to arm, produce and train this body of foot. A state that was by and large absent in the middle ages. Instead the small bands of well equipped and trained cavalry dominated all battlefields where they did not meet organised heavy foot. It is easier to maintain a single or a few knights and bring them together in effective if disorganised and undisciplined warbands than to keep heavy foot (not to mention chivalric ideals and general ideology). In that light some military historians have seen The Middle Ages not so much as the age of cavalry as the age of absent foot.

---

Very good point. The very real breakdown of civilization (in the West) meant there was not the urban administration to rally and arm concentrations of foot.

I liken the spread of the feudal horse culture to the mafia. Its all about honour, families, getting "made" (a knight), private wars (feuds), extortion (dues and levies) and pimped rides.

Hmm, does anyone have any good accounts of the siege of Tigerkant or whatever it was called when the Romans managed to rout that massive army of Tigranes because they bum rushed the Cataphracts?

Quote:

---

Not sure about Ummayid heavies, perhaps they were more of a Berber raiding party than formed Kwarazmian style katas?

---

AFAIK they were heavier than your average raiders, although of course not as heavy as Persian knights of other periods. The battle of Tours was hard fought and some kind of raiding party would have given up much sooner than the Muslim forces actually did.

Quote:

---

I liken the spread of the feudal horse culture to the mafia. Its all about honour, families, getting "made" (a knight), private wars (feuds), extortion (dues and levies) and pimped rides.

---

Aye, the Mafia is somehow a decadent rest of the feudal society.

We're talking EB times here. Let's pretend a Roman legionary has about the stats of Dismounted Chivalric Knights, and that Gendarmes are Cataphracts.

This means that a unit of 40 cataphracts charging a unit of 60 legionaries (formed up) takes out half of the legionaries on impact. But the cataphracts at Carrhae (while the ratio was definitely different) didn't do a ton of damage to the legionaries unless they were unprepared for the charge.

You may argue so Cyclops, but it goes against historical fact and is a figment of a dated perception of the Goths, Tolkien's Rohir are based on that perception, but since then our view has changed quite a bit. I recommend going and reading Ammian/Ammianus, he should be online here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...mmian/31*.html, he clearly states that Cavalry makes up "a part" of the Goth army and that some of it is Alan, not Gothic.

Anyway, even before that, in fact from the very aftermath of Teutoburger Wald even good generals had difficulties with the Germans, on a plain field with armies lined up, Romans would win (but they did against verybody when they were allowed to use the legions as they were intended), in any other terrain they would face difficulty. On the morrow (for it is 01.55 here in Denmark) I shall write an analysis of Germanicus' campaigns to reconquer Germania which I hope shall demonstrate that you are wrong. The point is, German tribes were causing difficulties long before anyone had even heard of Huns- themselves included. What allowed the barbarians (mainly Germans) to overrun the Empire can be followed in another thread ("When was Rome Doomed"), but it was clearly not Goth and Hun horsemen, nor was the Goths primarily horse. As I said, they were farmers = infantry.

As for Tours and the nature of that battle as well as the heavy cavalry there. Copy from Wiki follows as it is a decent article stating its sources and a universal wiev amongst military historians (of which I like to consider myself one).

‘Abd-al-Raḥmân trusted the tactical superiority of his cavalry, and had them charge repeatedly. This time the faith the Umayyads had in their cavalry, armed with their long lances and swords which had brought them victory in previous battles, was not justified. The disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. "The Muslim horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side."

Despite these inroads, the Franks did not break. It appears that the years of year-round training that Charles had bought with Church funds, paid off. Infantry withstood the Umayyad heavy cavalry. Paul Davis says the core of Charles's army was a professional infantry which was both highly disciplined and well motivated, "having campaigned with him all over Europe," buttressed by levies that Charles basically used to raid and disrupt his enemy, and gather food for his infantry.[1] The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 says:

"And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe."

Umayyad troops who had broken into the square had tried to kill Charles, but his liege men surrounded him and would not be broken. The battle was still in flux when—Frankish histories claim—a rumor went through the Umayyad army that Frankish scouts threatened the booty that they had taken from Bordeaux. Some of the Umayyad troops at once broke off the battle and returned to camp to secure their loot. According to Muslim accounts of the battle, in the midst of the fighting on the second day (Frankish accounts have the battle lasting one day only), scouts from the Franks sent by Charles began to raid the camp and supply train (including slaves and other plunder).

Charles supposedly had sent scouts to cause chaos in the Umayyad base camp, and free as many of the slaves as possible, hoping to draw off part of his foe. This succeeded, as many of the Umayyad cavalry returned to their camp. To the rest of the Muslim army, this appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it became one. Both Western and Muslim histories agree that while trying to stop the retreat, ‘Abd-al-Raḥmân became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Umayyad troops then withdrew altogether to their camp. "All the host fled before the enemy", candidly wrote one Arabic source, "and many died in the flight". The Franks resumed their phalanx, and rested in place through the night, believing the battle would resume at dawn the following morning.

Contemporary Arab sources say that Abd-al-Raḥmân had 80.000 men, but today 20- 30.000 is generally deemed more likely. With an equal number of Franks.

It was an impressive run indeed, but much of it was against other horse, and much against disintegrating/weak states. Just as only the weakness of the WRE allowed for the germans and Huns to topple it...

Nite all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

You may argue so Cyclops, but it goes against historical fact and is a figment of a dated perception of the Goths...

---

Of course I'm not suggesting any army was 100% cav, or inf, or anything.

The Visigoths provided the heavy cav at Chalons, didn't they?

The difference between the Goths and the older school German tribes was the heavy cav (allied or their own, who knows? it was a horde) that they brought to the fray. The Goths busted major Roman armies in the field, within the Empire proper, something old school Germans had never done (the Arminius and Cimbri businesses were on the frontier).

Likewise the Goths aided Romans to beat Huns, which the Romans simply could not do unassisted. Cav, heavy cav, was very important in way it had not been before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Contemporary Arab sources say that Abd-al-Raḥmân had 80.000 men, but today 20- 30.000 is generally deemed more likely. With an equal number of Franks...

---

IIRC there are no contemporary Arab sources and two near contemporary French chroniclers who are more poetic than exact.

Quote:

---

It is very unfortunate that we do not possess scientific accounts of Charles Martel's great victory, instead of the interesting but insufficient stories of the old Christian chroniclers.

---

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html

Of course there is a great deal of romantic rubbish in Wikipedia, not much more historical than the Goths as Rohirrim really. I am constantly surprised at the poor level of historical scholarship reflected in military history. I guess its hard to be good at military matters and history at the same time, and it cuts both ways: even an amateur like me can blush at the military ignorance of some historians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

It was an impressive run indeed, but much of it was against other horse, and much against disintegrating/weak states...

---

In North Africa they were fighting Romans and in Spain they fought Visigoths? Well one was weak and the other (I'd argue) had horses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Just as only the weakness of the WRE allowed for the germans and Huns to topple it...

---

Absolutely, the point you made about the decay of civic institutions corresponding to a decay in quality heavy infantry is entirely apposite.

Amazingly the Romans resisted 2 of the main threats, knocking back the Persians (the number 1 percieved threat I think) and the Huns. Only the Goths beat a way in against firm resistance.

Germans and Arabs snuck in once the fabric had been rent by these massive incursions from the steppes and the East.

I do think the shift in emphasis in all armies (even the still civilised Byzantines) must represent a change in military culture over and above the collapsing standards of civilisation. Horses became decisive, and I suspect stirrups had a part in that shift.

From other time periods, I wonder about Phillip's phalangitae: do they fit the model of urban heavy inf? I guess they were rural smallholders but supported/equipped by the mines and other apparatus of the state, and as a response to traditional Hellenic city-state spearmen so they are still the product of an urbanised culture.

I also wonder about the Swiss massed pike: I guess the cantons weren't urbanised in the middle ages and if they were, they certainly weren't really the big smoke. Were they continuing the tradition of those "alpine phalanxes" and mori whassisnames ("sea of spears") chaps? Once again perhaps they are reflecting a response to a neighbours challenge (Austrian and then Burgundian knights) but its an interesting "special case".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Hmm, does anyone have any good accounts of the siege of Tigerkant or whatever it was called when the Romans managed to rout that massive army of Tigranes because they bum rushed the Cataphracts?

---

I am not sure we have any detailed account of that battle. In fact, Foot once mentioned an reference (Chahin, M., The Kingdom of Armenia) that questioned whether the battle had taken place at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I liken the spread of the feudal horse culture to the mafia. Its all about honour, families, getting "made" (a knight), private wars (feuds), extortion (dues and levies) and pimped rides.

---

Oh no. Please no more Mafia glorification. The Mafia never was about family oder honor. It's about making as much money as one can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by machinor

Oh no. Please no more Mafia glorification. The Mafia never was about family oder honor. It's about making as much money as one can.

---

I quite agree. I was suggesting the feudal horse culture were the same sort of thugs (by and large) as the mafia, masquarading as honour.

Ok, luckily I just got you wrong. No offense. :smile:

Plz back to topic, we don't want more locked threads.

Is there any chance of improving the response time of cavalry to orders, it's a problem of M2TW that really bugs me. You'll order a unit to move off in a direction and they'll take ages to get moving and sometimes get all strung out instread of keeping coheison.
I swear sometimes my cavalry will take 10 to 15 secs to "get going" which can be very frustating if your light horse is about to be charged by plate armoured knights. :furious3:

I realise this is most likley a hardcoded part of the engine :wall: but it would be nice if anything could be done to improve the situation.

Eh? You mean after they attack in regular M2TW? I think alot of the unit cohesion problems were addressed in Kingdoms.

That especially but in general they seem to "dither" alot more when a move order is issued, like the individual horsemen are trying to sort their formation before moving. Suppose its actually quite realistic as i doubt even the best cavalry arm could do a 180 turn very quickly.

Just got kingdoms the other day but haven't had a chance to try it out properly yet (damn EB for making anthing vanilla so boring) so maybe it will fix this niggle.

The Crusades campaign is very fun. I think its the best out of all four of them.

I like the Teutonic and Americas campaign.

Anyway I noticed when playing M2TW that individual infanty and cavalry in combat would sometimes stand far away from the fighting and would slowly move forward to fight.

If anyone wants my heavily modded unit file for Broken Crescent, ask. I need to work on costs, though.

perhaps in EB II, we won't get Marshall of the Templars, Hospitallers, Conquistadores, and Archontopoulai::smash:

They are simply killing machine with 2 Hp!!! better than most General's Bodyguards...

EBII!!!!!!!!!!

soon yeah the best of the best in the MOD WORLD

Ahh, finally I have found other people who loathe the MiNO cavalry. So what makes it so powerful? Their stats seem normal. The charges are ridiculously overpowered though. I recollect charging Armoured Swordsmen with Feudal Knights (all un-upgraded) and the the poor footmen had all but 8 dead. Out of 90!! Not to mention the Feudal Knights are just about the weakest one can get. Then what is the point of getting anything better? Not even braced spearmen and halberdiers were able to even so much as bother my horsemen. I had the same casualties frontally charging braced spearmen as swordsmen - that is preposterous!

So anyway, the cavalry bugs, including the difficulty of pulling out, as well as the inability to capture towers are basically the two little things that made me quite MiNO/M2TW in two weeks of sparse playing.

I killed all but 12 Triarri on huge settings with the Iberian Catanks once.

Aemilius Paulus,

Remember that against the combination of stirrup, saddle, destrier lance and armored dude trained since childbirth little can stand. In this aspect Medieval is realistic since you better leave at least some sort of spearman to brace against the charge and then you will need at least pikes to fight Gendarmes and other cavalrymen. These guys were literally giant tin cans with pointy poles and some were even able to break through solid pike formations.

I remember in my HRE campaign in standard M2TW where I took Jerusalem then the Mongols came and sieged it with three full stacks. I had blocked off the entrences to the town square (Iforgot one:wall:) and placed lots of spearmen and pikemen there as well, then the mongol cavalry breaks through charges through my all of my spears like Gandalf from LOTR.:no::shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Aemilius Paulus,

Remember that against the combination of stirrup, saddle, destrier lance and armored dude trained since childbirth little can stand. In this aspect Medieval is realistic since you better leave at least some sort of spearman to brace against the charge and then you will need at least pikes to fight Gendarmes and other cavalrymen. These guys were literally giant tin cans with pointy poles and some were even able to break through solid pike formations.

---

I'm very interested which sources you can recommend about this subject. I've never read something explicitly saying what you teach me here.
THX

Ziegenpeter,

If you want an example of French Cavalry prevailing over pikes, see the Battles of Marignano and Ravenna. Gendarmes, like the Winged Hussaria, could sometimes prevail over solid pike formations in a charge, although it was never the rule, only a possiblity.

Remember that the Gendarme and Heavy Cavalry of the period were far heavier than any Ancient Cavalry, so don't take the viewpoint of EB on the issue.

What about the historical precedent of Alexander's battles? He could just charge in with his hetairoi and butcher the infantry.

Didn't some of the Persian Indian cavalry kill about 60 of them and escape after they looted the Macedonian camp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Ziegenpeter,

If you want an example of French Cavalry prevailing over pikes, see the Battles of Marignano and Ravenna. Gendarmes, like the Winged Hussaria, could sometimes prevail over solid pike formations in a charge, although it was never the rule, only a possiblity.

Remember that the Gendarme and Heavy Cavalry of the period were far heavier than any Ancient Cavalry, so don't take the viewpoint of EB on the issue.

---

I never saw the Hussars as heavy in terms of weight of their gear. I figured it was more of their role of being used in a balls to the wall charge. About the pikemen they charged, anything known about them? Like, were they green, and that fact was taken advantage of?

Well I've read some statements that the lance used by the Winged Hussars, which were of elite quality, sometimes managed to be longer than the pikes used by the Swedes in their numerous wars with Poland. Kirkholm would be a classical example of Polish cavalry steamrolling infantry of green, dubious quality at best. So much that Gustavus always sought to use artillery and fight in rough terrain and from prepared positions to avoid giving the enemy a headstart.

And I thought the kontos was the longest lance out there. That blows them out of the water.

I'm not sure if the lance was the only factor. Mind you that most of the Swedish infantry carried muskets, which was a direct result of the lack of enforcement of army regulations and standardisation amidst Swedish conscripts. This means unprotected musketeers had a very inflated role in early Swedish armies. In Kirkholm they not only lacked pike support, as I am informed, but also were very predictably unlucky when the Swedish cavalry attempted a Caracole at Polish horse and were routed in minutes of combat. Later pistol armed Swedish cavalry abandoned the caracolle and used more shock oriented formations to greater effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I killed all but 12 Triarri on huge settings with the Iberian Catanks once.

---

How many units did you use...
I was attacked by Iberian Heavy Cavallery today and they killed none in open field... If the Triarii can prepare and have the defense mode on most charges do nothing...
I hope thats going to be different in EB2, but by the way:
In the EB times the stirrup were no known to most of the world, so it was impossible to get an charge with a lance like the knights in the Medivial. Ancient Cavallery is believed to rather fight close combat than doing crushing charges. Im think EB is doing it exactly the opposite way, guess its just more fun :juggle2:

You don't need a stirrup neither a saddle to charge with a lance succesfully.

The Hetairoi had, at best, only saddlecloth. Though later the Romans and Parthians used saddles because of their obvious benefit to rider stability, and not necessarily because they were essential.

My :2cents:

50 km/h is too much in my opinion for charging cavalry (except in dramatic fiction of course)
A similar speed was impossible for a horse with muscolar, heavily armed warrior on his back in napoleonic time... so it was equally impossible in ancient era, when husbandry was probably less developed.

And anyway, a similar speed would be very dangerous even for the attacking horseman, and would disrupt any resemblance of formation: contrarily to popular belief, a tight and ordered formation was the most important factor in the chivalric mounted shock tactic (and probably in the mounted shock tactic of every horsemen in whatever time...)

So I think a top speed of 30 km/h is more realistic for ancient cavalry (and medieval as well)

Cheers :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

You don't need a stirrup neither a saddle to charge with a lance succesfully.

The Hetairoi had, at best, only saddlecloth. Though later the Romans and Parthians used saddles because of their obvious benefit to rider stability, and not necessarily because they were essential.

---

They are essential...
Without stirrup or saddle you wouldnt be able stay on your horse, when you poke your enemy with your lance. The romans used special formed saddles, but there is a reason why later everybody used stirrups. I think you can doubt the Hetairoi as real shock riders like the Medievial Knights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

How many units did you use...
I was attacked by Iberian Heavy Cavallery today and they killed none in open field... If the Triarii can prepare and have the defense mode on most charges do nothing...
I hope thats going to be different in EB2, but by the way:
In the EB times the stirrup were no known to most of the world, so it was impossible to get an charge with a lance like the knights in the Medivial. Ancient Cavallery is believed to rather fight close combat than doing crushing charges. Im think EB is doing it exactly the opposite way, guess its just more fun :juggle2:

---

One units of Iberian Heavies in an actual charge. That is a charge from walking spped with lowered lances not from running. The Triarii stopped infront of my cavalry to try adn brace but didn't make it in time.