Combat in the Med II engine

Hello. Now im sure that EB II is going to be mind blowingly amazing but I have one small worry....
Combat in Medieval II is pretty sluggish... also the formations seemed to be very spaced. This lead to a couple of men at the fronts of the units engaging in realy slow and clumsy combat while the rest of the unit backed off and occasionaly took their places when they died. Im aware that its not realistic to have crazy RTW like slaughter but if the combat is like this in EB II with higher defence values combat could go on forever. So essentially my question is what will the combat be like in EB II will it retain more of a RTW feal or become slower and more like Med II?
Anyway thanks for reading.

I hope the soldiers would die a little slower while rout a little sooner than in EB1.

EB1 combat is already slow paced compared to RTW or even M2TW vanilla, so I'm guessing it will be about the same speed as it is now, although who knows really.

I am guessing that units will move and certainly turn slower. It's crazy how RTW cavalry can turn on a dime.

There are two things I'd like to see:

1) If shock cavalry try to retreat after a charge they just committed to, they should suffer many casualties as they turn and attempt to escape.

2) Units should have more men in their companies before they rout. At least on average, that is. I can't help but be amazed when I see a unit lose 90 percent or more of its men before it routs.

That's all well and good for historical realism. But for campaign and multiplayer fun, its usually better if a unit sticks in for a little while before routing. I think where EB I had it is about right. Although I do think some of EBI's elite units die a little easy.

Forgot to say, one feature I always want is incrasing the time needed when a unit is "reforming". It has always been a most dangerous move to change your formation on the battle field such as increasing front width when enemy is near because of the confusion it might result in. However in EB1, the soldiers always manage to get into new position in a few seconds...Not sure if it's possible though.

medieval 2 balancing system = less actual damage dealed, more time for artistic coreographic combat, and non moddable lethality (stuck to their default values, no matter how u tweak)

But on the bright side, we will see less cavalrymen using their poking stick in melee, unless they are delibrately ordered to do that...

Unit cohesion is moddable and allows for some interesting side effects like units not being able to withdraw from melee and such if it is really low(really annoying for command and control but may be a good bonus on undisciplined troops).

I hope they figured out how to implement hoplite pushing shieldwalls. :-D

I love medievials combat system!! Although I hoped the cavallery dies like flies in melee system together with the delayed unit controlls got me insane at first, when my knights were slaughtered by peasants.
Still it is quite realistic that units do not react imediatly and that cavallery loses some of its charging power everytime it charges.
Prevents EB1 Super Heavy cavallery over kills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

I love medievials combat system!! Although I hoped the cavallery dies like flies in melee system together with the delayed unit controlls got me insane at first, when my knights were slaughtered by peasants.
Still it is quite realistic that units do not react imediatly and that cavallery loses some of its charging power everytime it charges.
Prevents EB1 Super Heavy cavallery over kills.

---

The cavalry loses charging power in EB 1 too, just compare an exhausted cataphract to a fresh one.

The thing were a couple of soldiers at the the front engage and the rest stand around is mostly a problem when fighting in the town centre, or trying to run past each other elsewhere Ive not seen that happen often when units engage cleanly on an open battlefield. And I dont get what people are saying about weaker cavalry in M2TW, a proper charge can still anihilate most infantry, even if they are prepared and from the front.

I understand that if an infantry unit do rout when facing a cavalry charge, they should rout before the impact. Otherwise if they stay steady then it's the cavalry who will be in real trouble if they don't put on the brakes. So i always wonder if the "charge into an infantry unit -- if they don't rout then disengage and reform -- charge again until they rout" practice really happened in history.

I just dont want to see my Hellcats owned by freed slaves =(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

The cavalry loses charging power in EB 1 too, just compare an exhausted cataphract to a fresh one.

---

It doens't make much of a difference if the infantry is also exhausted.

If someone barely can hold a shield, because he is so tired, why do you expect him to withstand a cataphract charge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

If someone barely can hold a shield, because he is so tired, why do you expect him to withstand a cataphract charge?

---

By tapping into SECRET HIDDEN POWER that they only get when they see their friends get beat up and or killed? Haven't you watched DBZ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

By tapping into SECRET HIDDEN POWER that they only get when they see their friends get beat up and or killed? Haven't you watched DBZ?

---

I forgot it, sorry. :( We need moar anime-ish units! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

If someone barely can hold a shield, because he is so tired, why do you expect him to withstand a cataphract charge?

---

In this case he will almost inevitably flee as soon as he catches the mere sight of the enemy's kataphractoi...
What I question is the usual practice in EB that you can ultimately rout a full-strength, fresh, and high-spirited infantry unit by repeatedly charging INTO their ranks and then disengaging. Because I believe an unsuccessful charge, i.e. one withstood by the opposite side, should does more harm to the charging cavalry then to the infantry being charged, and disengaging in this case should be a most difficult task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julianus

In this case he will almost inevitably flee as soon as he catches the mere sight of the enemy's kataphractoi...
What I question is the usual practice in EB that you can ultimately rout a full-strength, fresh, and high-spirited infantry unit by repeatedly charging INTO their ranks and then disengaging. Because I believe an unsuccessful charge, i.e. one withstood by the opposite side, should does more harm to the charging cavalry then to the infantry being charged, and disengaging in this case should be a most difficult task.

---

I've heard that disengaging in M2TW causes vast casualties. I hope this is the case. It would mean you'd only use cav at the right moment. Also, in EB, as it is, you have charge-reflection phenomena, so you do sometimes lose half your regiment of cav when you charge into rear of a unit. Strange stuff.

medieval 2 system indeed shown great realistic behaviour in cavalry warfare, but the bad side was just one, they kill (in supposedly prolonged melee, not chargin time) and got killed too quickly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

medieval 2 system indeed shown great realistic behaviour in cavalry warfare, but the bad side was just one, they kill (in supposedly prolonged melee, not chargin time) and got killed too quickly

---

That's perfect! :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julianus

In this case he will almost inevitably flee as soon as he catches the mere sight of the enemy's kataphractoi...
What I question is the usual practice in EB that you can ultimately rout a full-strength, fresh, and high-spirited infantry unit by repeatedly charging INTO their ranks and then disengaging. Because I believe an unsuccessful charge, i.e. one withstood by the opposite side, should does more harm to the charging cavalry then to the infantry being charged, and disengaging in this case should be a most difficult task.

---

In that case answer the exploit with exploit, charge toward the cavalry with your infantry, you will lose less men and make more damage against the cavalry.

Unless the EB team are able to make major changes, Im afraid it really isnt perfect. Mostly because a head on cavalry charge in every M2TW mod Ive ever played can wipe out 50% of any infantry unit it connects with in 3-5 seconds. Its true cavalry left in melee do die quickly, and charge/withdraw is very costly in terms of numbers. So a new tactic of hitting any unit with two or three units of cavalry at once and, literally, totally annihiliating them is the way forward. Cavalry and artillery rule the battlefield in M2TW.

RTW is much better in that respect. Of course there are also a great many things that M2TW does better than RTW - but personally I would not put "realism of cavalry" on that list.

This is actually easily rectified via statting, its just that most mods (at least those I've played) seem to like stronger charges.

One thing the Medieval II engine does well is model cavalry behaviour. Getting a charge is difficult, they're more powerful in melee and when they do hit home, it's like being smashed with a sledgehammer. Oh, and trying to countercharge with infantry gets you killed. So pretty damn realistic there - a man with a 12 foot lance is going to deliver a hell of a lot of damage to any infantry formation before they can hope to strike back.
The 'Realism' mod for Medievall II, Stainless Steel Real Recruitment/Real Combat, actually buffed a lot of the charge values for the knights and other units and did a lot of splendid work in general.

Pikes in vanilla ME:2 suck, but with proper modding they work great.
However, part of this modding requires removing the secondary weapon, as in Medieval II the tendency for units to switch to secondary's is far too great for them to be useful in a melee. However, this actually makes them less rigid as you don't have to obssessively maintain the phalanx formation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

One thing the Medieval II engine does well is model cavalry behaviour. Getting a charge is difficult, they're more powerful in melee and when they do hit home, it's like being smashed with a sledgehammer. Oh, and trying to countercharge with infantry gets you killed. So pretty damn realistic there - a man with a 12 foot lance is going to deliver a hell of a lot of damage to any infantry formation before they can hope to strike back.
The 'Realism' mod for Medievall II, Stainless Steel Real Recruitment/Real Combat, actually buffed a lot of the charge values for the knights and other units and did a lot of splendid work in general.

Pikes in vanilla ME:2 suck, but with proper modding they work great.
However, part of this modding requires removing the secondary weapon, as in Medieval II the tendency for units to switch to secondary's is far too great for them to be useful in a melee. However, this actually makes them less rigid as you don't have to obssessively maintain the phalanx formation.

---

well, it's true that pike units somewhat love to drop their pike in battle ;clown:
but this will solve age old hardcoded bug in EB with pike turning 180 degree, at least partially since the pikemen are now baing much much much more vulnerable.

and yes, this could be somewhat compensated by get really high attack values for pikes, so they kill more before finally dropped

Actually pike with low stats are pretty effective vs most units in MTW2 due to the pathfinding and coherent units. IE- longer reach mean pike usually get at least 2x attack vs opposing unit and also if the opposing unit is dense/high cohernent it takes long time to even reach into range where they can hit pikes. As well MTW2 has better modeling of armor/shields. IE- heavy armored cavalry with shield is pretty tough for most infantry without really high attack or bonus vs cavalry to take except thru mass numbers but soon as cavalry turns to disengage they become very vulnerable for a few seconds. Cavalry in RTW move so fast disengage almost instant.

Charge bonus works pretty well depending on stat as well. IE- many mods put charge shock bonus of 12 and higher which means one unit of 50 cavalry can kill 150 infantry unit in a few seconds. Mod that stat down to 6-8 and it is much better especially for the timeframe of EB when heavy cavalry charges weren't quite on the devastating level of armored knight with couched lance of medieval times. Though still devastating in the right situation head on charges into set infantry formations should probably only be possible for a very few elite cavalries without large losses. Hopefully the generals bodyguard units are more varied in EB and someway to make them smaller without adversely affecting AI generals killing themselves even more quickly.

Even more important though might be model the difference between speed of light and heavy infantry and cavalries... never seen a MTW2 mod yet where heavy cavalry can't eventually catch light cavalry on the map corners because the difference in speed is so small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julianus

I understand that if an infantry unit do rout when facing a cavalry charge, they should rout before the impact. Otherwise if they stay steady then it's the cavalry who will be in real trouble if they don't put on the brakes. So i always wonder if the "charge into an infantry unit -- if they don't rout then disengage and reform -- charge again until they rout" practice really happened in history.

---

This is an interesting point, especially the bit about inf routing before impact. I am no expert, my knowledge is purely academic and limited at that. My impression from a few texts eg Face of Battle is units often fell back before contact when charged, refused to charge when ordered etc. so generalship was something like herding cats.

I recall having this problem with units in MTW (the old one) especially with 0 1 or 2 star commanders. If morale was a lot lower then we'd see charges brealk off sooner and defenders rout more often.

This makes for less impressive battles (hmmm the disorganised barbarians ran away again), or at least the impressive ones are less common. Maybe its a touch of historical realism? Real bloodbaths only happening when there are two well-led well-motivated forces, or there's no escape for one side?

In game terms I guess it would favour skirmishers and missile troops over heavies in that if both sides are unwilling to engage then shock loses value.

I suppose it might force players to position generals and "eagle" units more carefully and time attacks more exactly.

I find it frustrating when a flanking unit drops its bundle and flees to the rear but I guess it did happen and in fact it might have happened a lot.

Once again the game mechanics might not handle this so well, with the distortion of the town square and battlefield map edge meaning a rout has massively different values for different situations.

Is there a point in nerfing morale (and maybe speeding morale recovery? if possible?) to model troop trepidation?

Routing before contact would make many battles almost unplayable or that only elite units would be used by human players since a handful of elite units could wipe up a full stack of low morale/prone to rout AI units. It is an interesting idea for future TW game but in practice for MTW2 probably quite boring. In all TW games I would prefer having units worth much more in manpower terms... so even a routing unit if it makes it alive off the battlefield could form the core of a new unit or contribute some manpower. RTW came closest with units subtracting from the population of the region formed out of but that put the AI at a rather large disadvantage. MTW2 negated unit creation minus to population but that along with minimal bonus due to XP resulted in individual units becoming rather interchangeable. Hopefully in the future something like a max cap per type of unit per region could be done... so losing a unit completely means the manpower pool takes some time to replenish before it is available again. Even better is if that is offset by the ability to recruit more manpower with a tax income/unrest penalty. Various RR/RC submods for some of the most popular MTW2 mods move in this direction but limited by the engine CA built. Ideally the differences between more civilized culture and less civilized could be modeled that way as well. More civilized cultures with higher populations could support more units if willing to tax lower and bear more unrest (partially countered by law/public order structures) while less civlized cultures have a more fragile economy which can support high number of units only for a set time before income penalty is leading the state to go bankrupt... however more men under arms could conversaely lead to higher public order (young trouble makers fighting far away) and allow higher taxes... though perhaps some units being only recruitable for a set duration- 5 seasons or something. Anyway, most of that is probably for another game.

Most battles had blood baths occurring with the rout so that part is historical. Units fighting to the death was more rare but happened in very militatistic cultures and with some elite units even in less militaristic cultures.

Using the current MTW2 system the best results could be not decreasing morale overall but increasing the rate fatigue sets in and also the rate units recover from being tired. With tired and exhausted units much more likely to rout it would encourage rotating units or at least keeping a reserve but that tired units wouldn't be finished for the entire battle. Just need to rest a bit as this would especially help AI when on higher difficulties it often would have routing units rally which might have a chance to rest before getting into battle again. Especially if fatigue rates made a bigger difference in unit speed. I haven't seen very many mods change unit speed noticeably with fatigue and not sure if that is due to narrow band of difference possible to mod or just never been done. The most annoying thing in battles for me besides the AI charging its general into the midst of my best spear unit for a glorious death is when exhausted units sprint away at the same speed as fresh units chasing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

Using the current MTW2 system the best results could be not decreasing morale overall but increasing the rate fatigue sets in and also the rate units recover from being tired. With tired and exhausted units much more likely to rout it would encourage rotating units or at least keeping a reserve but that tired units wouldn't be finished for the entire battle. Just need to rest a bit as this would especially help AI when on higher difficulties it often would have routing units rally which might have a chance to rest before getting into battle again. Especially if fatigue rates made a bigger difference in unit speed. I haven't seen very many mods change unit speed noticeably with fatigue and not sure if that is due to narrow band of difference possible to mod or just never been done. The most annoying thing in battles for me besides the AI charging its general into the midst of my best spear unit for a glorious death is when exhausted units sprint away at the same speed as fresh units chasing them.

---

i absolutley agree with the fatigue part
but i have that certain fear that this is hardcoded

on a side note i think that the recovery ratio of wounded after battle should be greatly increased
maybe by granting every general a trait that does so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

This is actually easily rectified via statting, its just that most mods (at least those I've played) seem to like stronger charges.

---

It's like with the more volume-less fidelity in music production in the past decade and half. Or like Hollywood with 300 and Co. The mods would like to appeal to a greater audience (i.e. the greater, not lesser part of the teen/20-something male audience), hence the stronger charges. They aren't that much stronger anyway. CA already used this tactics in vanilla, so it's just keeping those ridiculously strong charges. Wish there was an activism campaign against these strong charges in mods in the TW series...

What exactly is ridiculous about strong charges? A full-on lance charge will decimate an enemy unit and usually put them to flight unless they are extremely disciplined, and, like I said, most of the Medieval II modders who try for realism employ exceptionally strong charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

What exactly is ridiculous about strong charges? A full-on lance charge will decimate an enemy unit and usually put them to flight unless they are extremely disciplined, and, like I said, most of the Medieval II modders who try for realism employ exceptionally strong charges.

---

It is as is low-fidelity hi-volume and 300 and Friends. I predict half EB charge values would be just about right. At any rate, it's hard to imagine if you've played using such values consistently. It is far easier to remain than to change, and convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

Routing before contact would make many battles almost unplayable or that only elite units would be used by human players since a handful of elite units could wipe up a full stack of low morale/prone to rout AI units. ...

---

That sounds historical to me. I guess you're right that the AI will not handle it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

...increasing the rate fatigue sets in and also the rate units recover from being tired. With tired and exhausted units much more likely to rout it would encourage rotating units or at least keeping a reserve but that tired units wouldn't be finished for the entire battle...

---

That sounds intriguing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

... The most annoying thing in battles for me ... is when exhausted units sprint away at the same speed as fresh units chasing them.

---

Yep. I tend to keep back a swift unit for pursuit (either fast skirmisher or light cav) and only allow myself a "full pursuit" (ie not end the battle at the first prompt) if I have one of those in good order, few or no casualties and not tired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Yep. I tend to keep back a swift unit for pursuit (either fast skirmisher or light cav) and only allow myself a "full pursuit" (ie not end the battle at the first prompt) if I have one of those in good order, few or no casualties and not tired.

---

Yes... keeping a cavalry for pursuit is a big help but I haven't yet played a mod where light infantry can run down heavy infantry even when the heavy infantry is exhausted and running up a hill the light infantry might close the distance of 2-3 model ranks in the whole battlemap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

It is as is low-fidelity hi-volume and 300 and Friends. I predict half EB charge values would be just about right. At any rate, it's hard to imagine if you've played using such values consistently. It is far easier to remain than to change, and convenient.

---

I must politely disagree with you. If you go by the historical accounts of many battles, lance-armed cavalry charges are utterly, utterly devastating to infantry units. A couched lance can tear through a shield, punch through armour and there are plenty of accounts of a lance shearing clean through two men in a tight formation. The addition shock effect of the mass of a full warhorse smashing into an enemy at full gallop, plus the result that occurs when the rider drops his lance and starts laying about the dazed and shaken infantry with sword, axe or mace is usually described as nothing short of catastrophic to the cohesion of an infantry formation. Just taking the accounts from many Napoleonic cavalry actions (which used an even lighter form of cavalry than those in EB) would suggest that high cavalry charge values are closer to realistic behaviour for warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

Yes... keeping a cavalry for pursuit is a big help but I haven't yet played a mod where light infantry can run down heavy infantry even when the heavy infantry is exhausted and running up a hill the light infantry might close the distance of 2-3 model ranks in the whole battlemap.

---

Actually I was deviating OT into how I roleplay. What I mean is nothing gets to pursue unless I have one fit "pursuit unit" so FM heavy cavalry doesn't get to mop up a fully routed enemy army unless I kept back some psiloi or whatever.

I hope what you are suggesting about fatigue gradation and degradation is moddable. It was a tangible feature in MTW (I used to shuffle my overall formations oh-so-carefully and really paid attention to generals positioning) so here's hoping it can be done with the M2TW engine.

I love the idea of say barbaric troops roaring forwards and crumpling backwards as they tire and recover, and really being inspired by the proximity of their warchief (and diminished by his absence), contrasting perhaps with the top end elites and proffesionals soldiering on steadily with less reference to whether they can actually see their general.

I would also like lower unit cohesion so its harder to withdraw undisciplined troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

I must politely disagree with you. If you go by the historical accounts of many battles, lance-armed cavalry charges are utterly, utterly devastating to infantry units. A couched lance can tear through a shield, punch through armour and there are plenty of accounts of a lance shearing clean through two men in a tight formation. The addition shock effect of the mass of a full warhorse smashing into an enemy at full gallop, plus the result that occurs when the rider drops his lance and starts laying about the dazed and shaken infantry with sword, axe or mace is usually described as nothing short of catastrophic to the cohesion of an infantry formation. Just taking the accounts from many Napoleonic cavalry actions (which used an even lighter form of cavalry than those in EB) would suggest that high cavalry charge values are closer to realistic behaviour for warfare.

---

The main problem with this view is that horses will, under no circumstances, charge headlong into well ordered infantry. Try getting a horse to run into a brick wall, no matter how much you try to train it to, it will never happen.
Cavalry charges in any era relied on exploiting gaps in infantry formations, these could be formed by soldiers breaking formation out of fear or impetuousness or by showering them with missiles forcing them to break up or spread out (the tactic commonly used by the parthians).

Also as far as I am aware there were no couched lances in EB's timeframe, I recall a mention of some parthian cataphracts having their kontos's chained to the horse but that is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The main problem with this view is that horses will, under no circumstances, charge headlong into well ordered infantry. Try getting a horse to run into a brick wall, no matter how much you try to train it to, it will never happen.
Cavalry charges in any era relied on exploiting gaps in infantry formations, these could be formed by soldiers breaking formation out of fear or impetuousness or by showering them with missiles forcing them to break up or spread out (the tactic commonly used by the parthians).

Also as far as I am aware there were no couched lances in EB's timeframe, I recall a mention of some parthian cataphracts having their kontos's chained to the horse but that is all.

---

You don't need couched lances if you can get a horse to charge. Look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/us...de.html?src=mv Just happened last weekend. Two horses panicked at a parade, and bolted. The person in the carriage was thrown free and died, and 23 people were injured. Now, that's two horses hitched to a carriage, with no armor or riders with weapons. Normal horses won't charge a body of infantry, but a panicked herd of horses will. I think the history channel did something on this, saying that the idea is to get the horses to think their in a stampede. It doesn't seem like it would be hard to do in battlefield conditions, which must have been a scary place for horse and men alike.

On the other hand, elephants don't need encouragement to charge, because they know they can plow through most things. That's one of their advantages actually. When they are calm they are tractable and will charge with ease. When they panic they tend to run wherever they want. Hmm...I wonder if this is why elephants were always used at the beginning of battles. They could charge on a cold start, but horses needed to be warmed up and scared a bit.

Well I can say with some experience that horses won't charge a solid wall or cliff but that is a big assumption that a horse thinks a group of men standing together is as solid as a good wall or cliff. Having been put on horses before I could walk most horses know they are stronger than a person and don't hesitate to charge over a man in the right circumstances whereas the only time I have heard of horses running off cliffs or into walls is when blinded though most horses simply stop running when blinded. (blinding a horse is one method to catch them for sale to meat factories as recently as a few years ago in the US).

However there aren't many battle accounts I am aware of in EB time frame of cavalry charging straight into the front of a ready heavy infantry formation. Skirmishers, archers, maybe but usually cavalry were used to penetrate between formations and separate them so following infantry can defeat in more detail or just sowing confusion with dust and movement when in this time period command and control was usually limited to direct LoS or shouting/horn distance. This probably was not because horses couldn't be trained to charge into heavy infantry but that such charges were not very efficient. Costing nearly as many cavalry as infantry. In battles where many times 20,000 infantry to 3,000 cavalry that is not a good exchange. Of course maybe for a horse culture with access to more horses it might happen more often but most horse cultures respect horses too much to "waste' them in such a manner when many would break bones and get extreme wounds from such an encounter tough in emergencies maybe it happened. If you know many accounts of such instances please share though because I haven't heard of them.

A horse given an option will choose the path of least resistance usually but a mass charge by horses does recreate a stampede a bit when only the horses on the edges and front have much of an option or awareness to halt or change direction. Some charges did end badly for the cavalry when the horses in front stumble or were slowed by some obstacle but on clear ground most often the opposing infantry unless set with pikes/long spears of some sort were swept away at least a few ranks deep.

Couched lances and extreme shock impact of medieval cavalry is not what is going on in EB times. However the infantry being charged were also quite often less well armored relatively to medieval times and often maintained more rigid formations(good for disciplined attacks, less good when the line of battle is broken by terrain or enemy tactics or rout of neighboring unit or separation due to cavalry).

I think EB cavalry should work well if the charge values are set lower. I typically charge with horse archers in many MTW2 mods where that light cavalry have charge values of 4-6 and can kill 1/4 enemy unit in a few seconds and then maybe another 1/4 in melee after but losing most of that cavalry in the melee as well. That charge stat set over 8 is when cavalry basically evaporate entire units with 2/3 dying in initial charge and 1/3 in quick melee after. Sometimes you can get 95% + on a nice lined up charge but most of the time battles chaotic enough you only get 1 or 2 of those. So light cavalry charge in EB 4-5 and elite heavy maybe 7-8 but not the 12-16 stats you see in many MTW2 mods. Elite are elite not just due to the shock of a charge but higher armor and morale values as well. I think MTW2 allows to set the mass of a unit as well so lowering the mass means cavalry don't penetrate as deeply into ranks of an infantry unit and the shock charge bonus touches less men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tudhaliya

You don't need couched lances if you can get a horse to charge. Look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/us...de.html?src=mv Just happened last weekend. Two horses panicked at a parade, and bolted. The person in the carriage was thrown free and died, and 23 people were injured. Now, that's two horses hitched to a carriage, with no armor or riders with weapons. Normal horses won't charge a body of infantry, but a panicked herd of horses will. I think the history channel did something on this, saying that the idea is to get the horses to think their in a stampede. It doesn't seem like it would be hard to do in battlefield conditions, which must have been a scary place for horse and men alike.

---

That wouldn't sound like a good idea to me, the first thing a panicked horse would do is try to throw its rider, then it would bolt following the path of least resistance ie away from the mass of infantry. Looking at the article you linked they seem to have done the same thing, running down the parade route as opposed to the pavement where most people were standing.

Besides there are plenty of mentions of panicking horses in battles, and it never ends well.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The main problem with this view is that horses will, under no circumstances, charge headlong into well ordered infantry. Try getting a horse to run into a brick wall, no matter how much you try to train it to, it will never happen.
Cavalry charges in any era relied on exploiting gaps in infantry formations, these could be formed by soldiers breaking formation out of fear or impetuousness or by showering them with missiles forcing them to break up or spread out (the tactic commonly used by the parthians).

Also as far as I am aware there were no couched lances in EB's timeframe, I recall a mention of some parthian cataphracts having their kontos's chained to the horse but that is all.

---

I'm afraid that again I find myself disagreeing with you. A trained warhorse will, with enough goading, charge itself onto infantry arrayed in good order. The Battle of Crecy attests to that, as do the numerous battles of the Napoleonic Wars and the campaigns of Megas Alexandros. The charge may be disrupted as some horses are more recalcitrant, but the mass of the charge can and will be maintained if the horses are trained and the riders disciplined enough. They will usually balk at impaling themselves on a pike, spear wall or row of sharpened stakes, but a mass of infantry is in itself not particularly likely to resist a shock charge by cavalry.

Also, the Kontos is a lance, and it was definitely used underarm (and quite possible couched), as using to unwieldy a weapon overarm is just plain impractical and counterintuitive.

The horse conversation is the one we've had a million times. Should we really derail an engine thread to have it again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

I'm afraid that again I find myself disagreeing with you. A trained warhorse will, with enough goading, charge itself onto infantry arrayed in good order. The Battle of Crecy attests to that, as do the numerous battles of the Napoleonic Wars and the campaigns of Megas Alexandros.

---

When in the Battle of Cercy did any knights charge a full gallop into organised infantry? From what I've read the charges repeatedly failed because most had their horses shot out from under them and the ones remaining couldn't penetrate the english lines. In the Napoleonic wars the whole concept of infantry squares worked on the principle that horses won't charge into them.

I'm not saying that cavalry couldn't attack a dense mass of troops, just that they wouldn't run at full speed into it.

Quote:

---

Also, the Kontos is a lance, and it was definitely used underarm (and quite possible couched), as using to unwieldy a weapon overarm is just plain impractical and counterintuitive.

---

This doesn't mean it was couched, it was used in a 2 handed underarm fashion. Couching is a one handed technique invented (or at least first attested to) during the medieval period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

When in the Battle of Cercy did any knights charge a full gallop into organised infantry? From what I've read the charges repeatedly failed because most had their horses shot out from under them and the ones remaining couldn't penetrate the english lines. In the Napoleonic wars the whole concept of infantry squares worked on the principle that horses won't charge into them.

I'm not saying that cavalry couldn't attack a dense mass of troops, just that they wouldn't run at full speed into it.

---

But that's the point. They did. At Crecy, the French knights, despite being strafed, tripwired and staked, still nearly managed to break the English foot lines due to sheer shock and mass. And at Waterloo, they damn well hit the squares at force, and were repelled by the wall of bayonets. The same thing happened in 1683 - three thousand winged hussars charged directly into an ordered infantry line and broke it into pieces.
The only thing that is capable of stopping a charge of lance-armed heavy cavalry purely in melee is a pike. You can wear them down and butcher them, you can melee them to death, you can strafe them. But if they hit your lines in mass and with force, everything in front of them is going to be impaled, smashed, trampled and then hacked apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

This doesn't mean it was couched, it was used in a 2 handed underarm fashion. Couching is a one handed technique invented (or at least first attested to) during the medieval period.

---

It was still used underhand to transfer the force of the charge to the target. The manner in which it's use merely precludes the use of a shield in antiquity, which wasn't really a problem for heavily-armoured horsemen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

The horse conversation is the one we've had a million times. Should we really derail an engine thread to have it again?

---

Listen to bobby! :furious3: Heh. Horses and the TW engines go hand in hand. Nothing more relevant. :book:

Is there a reason we haven't brought up stirrups yet?

Edit after Ichon's post: I did know stirrups were not present in the EB time-period, but I was hoping someone would ensure lurkers and commenters not super familiar with ancient history that EB would naturally have weaker charges than other Med II mods for this reason. And thankfully, Ichon did, and much better than I could.

Stirrups and saddles plus the size of the horse and type of armor the rider wearing all bear on the shock of impact and how much force able to be transferred through a lance. I'd assumed most people are familiar that in EB time frame most cavalry(maybe all cavalry though the record is not totally clear) did not use stirrups or much of a saddle.

Stirrups probably aren't that important for light cavalry unless they are archers since a good rider does not benefit hugely from stirrups when unencumbered. Heavier armor on rider, longer lances, and throwing/shooting missiles benefit greatly from stirrups since all those things affect the riders balance/weight distribution and the horse maintaining a steady speed. Riding without strirrups or a good saddle that secures rider and distributes weight makes a big difference in how fast a horse can run and carry home a charge as well.

It shouldn't be that charges are impossible or totally ineffective for EB era cavalry but less effective and more prone to cause casualties to the cavalry with generally smaller/less armored horses compared to medieval heavy cavalry and riders plus no strirrups/saddles seems reasonable.

A cavalry charge hitting the side or rear of a phalanx would still be quite effective and the problem of RTW phalanx ability to compeltely turn 180 in 2 seconds isn't in MTW2. A cavalry charge hitting heavy infantry frontally is something that should be possible but cost high casualties for the cavalry- even elites though elites should be able to fight in the melee after with much less losses and withdraw to charge again. Though cavalry should be able to scythe down most skirmishers(perhaps not peltasts though depends on EB portrays such medium infantry units). If only MTW2 mechanics could be such that cavalry only scare certain types of infantry units in certain relative positions but that isn't how it works. So best compromise is probably give most heavy infantry spear units bonus vs cavalry and low enough cavalry charge value that trying to take one of those spear units down from a frontal charge is a very poor tactic wasting precious cavalry but allows rear charges and cavalry that toss javelins, shoot missiles, engage enemy cavalry and skirmishers without huge losses is ideal. How to balance skirmishers vs heavy infantry vs cavalry is probably the most difficult for MTW2 engine. It's not totally rock, paper, scissors, but a bit of that. Balancing it so skirmishers having high enough missile attack to cause damage to infantry but not enough to completely wipe out smaller cavalry units who charge by is difficult.

Hardcoded. The looser always loses every injured man.

Unless ransomed or whatever EB will call it. Probably enslaved though I'm not sure how they will script that so ransom fee is not subtracted from defeated faction.

How do draws work in MTW2? I've only had a draw one time and don't recall noticing what happened to the wounded casualties.

I thought the system of traits and ancillaries that carried over from RTW and exists in MTW2 works fairly well. Without anicllaries/traits for healing winner only heals 5-25% of losses while with traits etc around 50% can be healed.

BTW- last time I read on the subject I think the Avars are credited with introducing strirrups to western Europe. The Scythians or Samartions are generally credited with the adoption of leather toe loops that evolved into the current stirrups but the adoption and spread of rigid stirrups took less than a couple hundred years probably. Which is actually quite short amount of time when efficiency of communications was as poor as that era.

I've read some arguments that most Roman cavalry used a saddle which had a hand grip that allowed 1 hand on the grip and 2nd hand to hold a weapon while reins could be gripped in teeth or leg pressure used to steer. That sounds awkward to me but I could see the reins simply being dropped shortly before a charge made contact and 1 hand steadying against the shock using one of these hand grips. Sort of like modern western saddles horn but placed on the part of the saddle strap that ran over a horses shoulder on ancient saddles. I've seen pictures of a couple bronze statues and some friezes that apparently show such a handle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The main problem with this view is that horses will, under no circumstances, charge headlong into well ordered infantry. Try getting a horse to run into a brick wall, no matter how much you try to train it to, it will never happen.
Cavalry charges in any era relied on exploiting gaps in infantry formations, these could be formed by soldiers breaking formation out of fear or impetuousness or by showering them with missiles forcing them to break up or spread out (the tactic commonly used by the parthians).

Also as far as I am aware there were no couched lances in EB's timeframe, I recall a mention of some parthian cataphracts having their kontos's chained to the horse but that is all.

---

Well at least medieval history prooves you wrong. Knights (at least in the late)medievial times used to atack headlong in a tight formation.(Thats why their fighting power decreased against pikes, guns etc.) and the cavallery in later times charged against dense musket fire. No modern horse would charge against that eather. ;)
The thing is that war horses were trained different and in medieval times sometimes they used somethng to cover the eyes of the horse so that it couldnt se much of the enemy.

Anyway, if we are speaking of the cavallery in EBs timeframe, I would agree with you that head long charging might have been nothing of strategical values. Although at magnesia the seleucs seemed to have succes with it. On the other hand: No spurs, no saddle, no way of stabilising your lance....^^ Even if the horses woud charge against the enemy it doesnt seem likely that they had an impact like knights had

PS: You can disagree about everything in my post, but not medieval knights charging straight on. With heavy protection, helmets blocking your side, no way of communicating and next to no modern military drill, it wasnt possible to make quick turns or maneuvers so they had to atack that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Well at least medieval history prooves you wrong. Knights (at least in the late)medievial times used to atack headlong in a tight formation.(Thats why their fighting power decreased against pikes, guns etc.) and the cavallery in later times charged against dense musket fire. No modern horse would charge against that eather. ;)
The thing is that war horses were trained different and in medieval times sometimes they used somethng to cover the eyes of the horse so that it couldnt se much of the enemy.

Anyway, if we are speaking of the cavallery in EBs timeframe, I would agree with you that head long charging might have been nothing of strategical values. Although at magnesia the seleucs seemed to have succes with it. On the other hand: No spurs, no saddle, no way of stabilising your lance....^^ Even if the horses woud charge against the enemy it doesnt seem likely that they had an impact like knights had

PS: You can disagree about everything in my post, but not medieval knights charging straight on. With heavy protection, helmets blocking your side, no way of communicating and next to no modern military drill, it wasnt possible to make quick turns or maneuvers so they had to atack that way.

---

are you implying that french cavalry have no discipline? :inquisitive: :clown:

actually, it does make me wonder though: did medieval knights slow down a little as they crashed into the enemy? I ask because french cavalry tended-though noot always-to basically contact the enemy at a quick trot in the 18th century; figured they might have done it in the middle ages. it makes me wonder about what determines the speed of the charge on the battlefield..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

actually, it does make me wonder though: did medieval knights slow down a little as they crashed into the enemy? I ask because french cavalry tended-though noot always-to basically contact the enemy at a quick trot in the 18th century; figured they might have done it in the middle ages. it makes me wonder about what determines the speed of the charge on the battlefield..

---

I wondered that as well... I would think it depends on who they are charging and if it is lances or swords drawn. Couched lances with a longer reach would would likely lend to a faster charge since the more force of impact the more damage done at least with barded horses.

With swords or shorter lances I'd guess a slower charge for better aim and also to protect the horses since the defending formation might have nearly equal reach or even greater reach if longer spears. It would depend on the terrain and deployment of the enemy as well. Probably alot went into it and most cavalry would have some basic tactical training in manuever though I am not sure how many cavalries were discplined and coordinated to follow instrument calls or shouted orders in the midst of a charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

are you implying that french cavalry have no discipline? :inquisitive: :clown:

actually, it does make me wonder though: did medieval knights slow down a little as they crashed into the enemy? I ask because french cavalry tended-though noot always-to basically contact the enemy at a quick trot in the 18th century; figured they might have done it in the middle ages. it makes me wonder about what determines the speed of the charge on the battlefield..

---

18th century cavallery were basicly no lancers. Although some countries still imployed spear wielding cavallery, the task of cavallery in that age was not to atack full speed head on, esspecially since musket fire and bayonetts were deadly to that kind of charge.
The lances of medieval knights were (not in the early years^^) really long and wielded in a manner that the whole body plus the horse and saddle supported the strike so it would be a waste of energy not to atack really fast. Of course the horses had the heavy armour to carry and were rather trained for beeing massive than fast and agile so maybe the charge wasnt that fast.

Its too bad you can't scare infantry with mock charges in EB. It is nice to pulling units out of position but its useless for morale breaking purposes.

I thought charges were applied before contact for morale purposes. That is why cavalry charge to the rear can break a wavering unit before contact or multiple charges on a single unit break its morale before contact. It's not instant though so not sure when it gets applied.

That's a combination of (worried about being flanked) and (upset about facing a cavalry unit) or something similar to those two. If those penalties are enough to break the unit, it'll rout before the cav hits. You can see the same thing with infantry charges to the back if (worried about being flanked) is enough to break the units. Most of the time, additional casualties, in particular the speed of them, is required to break the unit. Multiple charges to a unit break it primarily because casualties mount, and penalties from being flanked, in addition to some others, get worse the longer they apply.

I think :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

Actually pike with low stats are pretty effective vs most units in MTW2 due to the pathfinding and coherent units. IE- longer reach mean pike usually get at least 2x attack vs opposing unit and also if the opposing unit is dense/high cohernent it takes long time to even reach into range where they can hit pikes. As well MTW2 has better modeling of armor/shields. IE- heavy armored cavalry with shield is pretty tough for most infantry without really high attack or bonus vs cavalry to take except thru mass numbers but soon as cavalry turns to disengage they become very vulnerable for a few seconds. Cavalry in RTW move so fast disengage almost instant.

Charge bonus works pretty well depending on stat as well. IE- many mods put charge shock bonus of 12 and higher which means one unit of 50 cavalry can kill 150 infantry unit in a few seconds. Mod that stat down to 6-8 and it is much better especially for the timeframe of EB when heavy cavalry charges weren't quite on the devastating level of armored knight with couched lance of medieval times. Though still devastating in the right situation head on charges into set infantry formations should probably only be possible for a very few elite cavalries without large losses. Hopefully the generals bodyguard units are more varied in EB and someway to make them smaller without adversely affecting AI generals killing themselves even more quickly.

Even more important though might be model the difference between speed of light and heavy infantry and cavalries... never seen a MTW2 mod yet where heavy cavalry can't eventually catch light cavalry on the map corners because the difference in speed is so small.

---

Rohan in TATW :idea2: they just have the perfect charge kills ratio....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Well at least medieval history prooves you wrong. Knights (at least in the late)medievial times used to atack headlong in a tight formation.(Thats why their fighting power decreased against pikes, guns etc.) and the cavallery in later times charged against dense musket fire. No modern horse would charge against that eather. ;)
The thing is that war horses were trained different and in medieval times sometimes they used somethng to cover the eyes of the horse so that it couldnt se much of the enemy.

Anyway, if we are speaking of the cavallery in EBs timeframe, I would agree with you that head long charging might have been nothing of strategical values. Although at magnesia the seleucs seemed to have succes with it. On the other hand: No spurs, no saddle, no way of stabilising your lance....^^ Even if the horses woud charge against the enemy it doesnt seem likely that they had an impact like knights had

PS: You can disagree about everything in my post, but not medieval knights charging straight on. With heavy protection, helmets blocking your side, no way of communicating and next to no modern military drill, it wasnt possible to make quick turns or maneuvers so they had to atack that way.

---

well, and in some Asian cultures, warhorses are traditionally trained with method that today will be called animal cruelty, starting when they are still small, and barely could start following a trainer, they are repeatedly force-slammed into wooden wall with ropes and sharp spiky whip (the horses are small enough in their age, just barely separated from their mum), then they regularly trained to pull enermous weight behind them, and had weighting box placed on top of their back all the time (snce they are young), after that, their outer ears are cutted and their nose pierced with steel ring, and they regularly whipped for even smallest mistakes. True, many will die in the process, but the surviving one will be greatly prized as full trained warhorses and could be used to charge anything headlong without fear.

And I bet the Europeans and another Civilizations in EB timeframe also had their own cruel ways to train their most prized warhorses.

ADD: and those who die will mostly end up as the stablemen's dinner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

That's a combination of (worried about being flanked) and (upset about facing a cavalry unit) or something similar to those two. If those penalties are enough to break the unit, it'll rout before the cav hits. You can see the same thing with infantry charges to the back if (worried about being flanked) is enough to break the units. Most of the time, additional casualties, in particular the speed of them, is required to break the unit. Multiple charges to a unit break it primarily because casualties mount, and penalties from being flanked, in addition to some others, get worse the longer they apply.

I think :).

---

Yeah, you can rout even the infamous Gaesatae, if they lost at least ~20% of the troopers and they are surrounded. They have 22 morale.

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.