Will the units be able to mount and dismount during a battle?
Printable View
Will the units be able to mount and dismount during a battle?
I hope so, that feature in MTW was neat.
Scrap any other suggestion I have made/will make, if dismounting is back that's reason enough for me to buy MTW2!!!!
I agree, dismounting is probably the most important of all features we've wished for that have not yet been confirmed by CA
Dismounting would also be a superb addition to a modders arsenal. Even more if dismounting is in the game restricted to cavalry units, but if the game allows it for infantry as well.
An off-era example would be Alexander the Greats pikemen. They were chiefly intended for his phalanx, but he also drilled them to be capable javelineers. If dismounting allowed this to be depicted in modded games, that would be great.
Intrepid Sidekick, Captain Fishpants, if you read this please consider it!
Dismounting is back. Its been confirmed by someone from tw.com who went to E3. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the thread.
Link
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Many units can fight dismounted.
8 Points for us :-) :-)
BUT do you have to dismount them before the battle? although I don't find this too important IMO.
Hopefully the English knights will be kick arse when dismounted.
My initial thought would be yes, probably while you deploy your troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oaty
:balloon2:
It would be great if you could mount/dismount at will during a battle, just like moving in and out of phalanx sort of button.
That might be possible with the more lightly-armed cavalry, but could a knight in full plate actually dismount and re-mount alone, without the help of a squire or two (maybe even a ladder?) in the midst of combat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taurus
And what happens to the horse after you dismount and start swinging your sword at the enemy? Does each unit include squires for handling the horses? Those are very valuable animals, and I'm having trouble imagining the knight just abondoning it on the battlefield to enter ground-level combat, unless it was already injured.
Anyway, I didn't play the first MTW so I don't know how the game mechanics are intended to work, for mounting/dismounting in the midst of a battle.
I would like to see that unit able to fight when he falls from his horse (wounded or killed), but such things are very hard to implement in engine.
MTW was dismount only at the start of the battle too. I agree with you - for most troops, e.g. knights, not being able to mount or dismount during battle would be historical. Off hand, I can't think of a battle where troops did that to a significant degree. Maybe ACW cavalry and possibly ECW dragoons. But usually cavalry liked to stay on their horses. And mounted infantry would tend to fight dismounted throughout a battle, riding only in the approach and aftermath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
I think it would be good if one could so called mounted infantry, but yeah chiefly for the benefit of Napooleonic mods.
Napoleonic warfare is probably the one I know best, but it was one in which there were really no mounted infantry that I know of. Napoleon tried to force his dragoons to fight dismounted, but it is said that they could not do that well and trying to do so ruined them as cavalry. He gave up on the idea and by the time we get to Waterloo, dragoons were just indistinguishable from other cavalry. AFAIK, the other major powers in the period did not even try to get their "dragoons" to perform as mounted infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Mounted infantry seem to have really taken off with the repeating rifle in the ACW. Union cavalry were often the first to get these guns and, after an inauspicious beginning, ended the war under Sheridan as extremely potent units not unlike modern day airborne. I can imagine a game would want to give these units the ability to "remount" in battle, as they were often deployed on foot as an advance guard and might remount if sorely pressed or if the footsloggers arrived to replace them.
IIRC, the Union also raised whole units of mounted infantry, not cavalry, that punched far above their weight because of their weapons - IIRC, Wilder's brigade at Chickamauga was one example.
I was always concerned with a feature like this. Why was it that everytime, a horse and its rider are killed, can the rider live and fight as an infantryman, however, thinking of this, I realised it was very hard to implement.:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Herkus
That's actually a myth (based on modern people who've never worn armour trying some on for a lark). The only thing about plate armour that would limit your movements is overheating. AS you've got layers of quilting between your skin and the plates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
A lot of websites claim that the myth originated from Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court" (1889) but AFAIK it goes even further back in Victorian times as people thought that the extremly heavy tournament armour also was used in battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
The plate armour used in battles (30-40 kg IIRC) was flexible and actually less encumbersome compared to the full sets of chain armour used before that. And as you say overheating were most likely the biggest problem with it.
Riders dismounted or mounting during a battle didnt happen often. Arbedo (1422) would be one as Italian Men-at-Arms did a mounted charge, which was repulsed by the Swiss, only to dismount while covered by their crossbowmen and attack again.
It would take time to organise and one would have to be pretty sure the opponent couldnt take advantage of it. At Arbedo the Swiss were outnumbered and were in no position to do anything but wait for the second attack.
So overall it might not be important to add as a feature in the game because it was so rarely used, but then again neither was flaming pigs in ancient times :laugh4:
CBR
"Napoleonic warfare is probably the one I know best, but it was one in which there were really no mounted infantry that I know of."
Yes, I think you are right. But I'm pretty sure that some time before the Napoleonic era dragoons could fight either on horseback or on foot even if they did not perform terribly well in the latter role. After all, as far as I know the name derives from the weapon they used, which was a shortened musket, and I cannot imagine even a carbine being of much use on horseback.
Yes, you are right. AFAIK, at Culloden, the English deployed dragoons on the flank of the Jacobites, so they could dismount and pour fire into their flank as they charged. Ouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
I always thought the idea of dragoons was really neat. I mean - the mobility of a horse has got to be good. But I guess the firearms at the time were so crude, it was rather a waste to use expensive and scarce cavalry in bloody firefights. Better to reserve them for the unique tasks only mounted troops could perform. With rapid fire weapons, the situation was reversed - relatively few dismounted troopers could now hold off larger numbers of attacking infantry for a while and fighting mounted was close to suicide. Indeed todays infantry - being mechanised in all rich countries - are effectively modern day dragoons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taurus
the only way this would work for the heavier knights would be if they had a check piont to leave the horses at with squires waiting to help them off cause full plate would be hard to get in and out of a saddle by ones self.
plus like others have siad a knight wont give up his horse!
"plus like others have siad a knight wont give up his horse!"
Yes he would if the general who ordered it was influential enough. I do not know what the practice elsewhere in Europe was at the time, but it was not uncommon for Anglo-Norman knights to fight dismounted even if they didn't particularly like it. I do not think they would often have dismounted during a battle though.
"my kingdom for a horse!"Quote:
"plus like others have siad a knight wont give up his horse!"
Agreed. That would be awsome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I'd really, really like that, too. :) Hopefully some future Total War games will distinguish between mounts and their riders, with seperate armor and hitpoint values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herkus
There is plenty of evidence that knights dismounted if it was necessary. For example the frankish knights during the viking invasions had to attack a viking laager in bad wet, swamp-like terrain. The king ordered to dismount, and the knights conquered the laager. A interesting sidenote is that the friends of the king adviced to keep a mounted reserve, so that the other men could advance without fearing to get caught from behind or the flanks.
A must feature, greatly missed in RTW - if it's in, very good.
That would actually be a nice touch, if a low influence, low command general would be unable to dismount his arrogant knights before a battle. The exception would be situations where it doesn't make much sense at all to fight mounted, such as defending from a castle assault or the aforementioned swampy terrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Cavalry dismounted when they had a reason to. Knights were generally clever enough to realize it wasn't going to do much good to try to get through a stake-field on horseback for example, and instead usually often "got off their high horses" and proceeded on foot. Nicopolis was one of the more famous instances of this (although the knights ended up surrounded by Turkish cavalry after clearing the archers from the stakes there...).
These folks may have been aristocrats with rather exaggerated sense of self-worth, but they were also well-trained warriors.
Anyway, mount/dismout during the actual battle would strike me as a bit tricky to handle. At the very least the unit in process of doing so would logically need to be very vulnerable to enemy close-combat attacks, and the horses disappearing into and appearing out of thin air ought to look pretty strange indeed.
As for mounted infantry, those and proper cavalry were always two very different things. During the Hundred Years' War for example the English usually mounted at least some of their longbowmen to give them better mobility, but they sure as heck weren't horse-archers. Mounted crossbowmen could fire from horseback - whether they could reload depended on the exact details of their weapons - but usually just used their horses for mobility. Spearmen could likewise be mounted, often specifically for the purpose of accompanying mounted missile infantry and providing them a modicum of protection if necessary, and so on.
Just about none of these ever actually *fought* on horseback, though. The very fact that their horses weren't properly trained (and hair-raisingly expensive) warhorses alone would have greatly discouraged such activity.
Later on mounted musketeers, dragoons, were something of a jack-of-all-trades soldier type. They had somewhat less firepower than a comparable number of infantry musketeers (due to using carbines instead of full-sized long-arms), but were obviously more mobile which made them extremely useful strategically - they tended to be something of "workhorse" troops used for scouting, harassement, ravaging, securing terrain ahead of the main force and so on, and in battles provided useful mobile firepower. Most could make a credible showing as close-combat cavalry too, but as they were neither specifically trained for mounted combat nor on the average very well mounted (proper cavalrymen tended to consider them little more than jumped-up infantry on nags, not without justification) they'd be heartily recommended to at the very least thoroughly shoot up the opposition first.
Of course, they could cut down routers like any other mounted troops and free proper cavalrymen for other duties.
you want know what id really like to see? unmounted general bodyguards. use them if they are too much spearmen. heheh...
sorry if its a bit off topic.
Hmm, that's actually a cool idea Spartan. I think as a trade-off (or simply a touch of realism), dismounted generals should lose the ability to rally routing troops. Or at least, its effective range should be greatly diminished. Being mounted makes leaders more visible (and possibly more audible) to their troops, so being on foot would make it more difficult to communicate with your troops, which is necessary to inspire/encorage/scare them out of retreat.
Also, most general/bodyguard units have 2 hitpoints. I'm not sure if this is meant to reflect their superb fighting skill or account for their heavily armored cavalry, but I'm thinking that dismounting should reduce their hitpoints by 1. I don't know. Not a big deal either way, to me.
Not sure about this. IIRC, a lot of generals in the period would dismount to show their troops that they were not going to flee if the going got rough.Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
Hmmmmm... I had no idea they ever did that. That's interesting. OK, I take that suggestion back. That would be pretty inspiring and reassuring to know that your leader had given up his own means of escape, so I guess it would effectively counter any line-of-sight issues. Thanks for the correction. :2thumbsup: