Knights are too weak

[ick_of_pick]

i dont know it this was said before, but kataphraktoi histoically did not use lances, but used a weapon called a Kontos, which was a very sturdy pike sort of weapon that was sometimes 16-20 feet long, and were designed to fight against spearmen that the bulgars employed en masse, but it turned out that the knontos not only beat up spearmen, but also made cavalry with lances useless against kataphraktoi.

just some info you might like to know.

[ShadeHonestus]

I think we are missing the nature of the game and its culpability in the effectiveness of heavy cav/knights when compared to history.

Command and Control where the biggest issues of the day and dictated the outcome of most battles. Do you think that advances in Command and Control are directly parrelled by more speed and less heavies in any era just by accident?

Knights were their most effective when the fog of war was possibly at its highest. Untrustworthy foot units, peasants, and the like all added to the knights success, but most importantly was the inability of historical generals to have the GOD's View that we have in MTW and other wargames.

Further proving this fact are the effectiveness of light cav. We are able to manipulate units, dance around, disengage and practically anything we want with the grand scheme of the battle in mind. In a real battle the subordinate would have to make these decisions and would not know what swam in the mind of the commander(who was at ground level) nor did the subordinate know what was going on elsewhere.

Another factor to the knights' success is their highy individualistic style of combat once engaged. Quantifying knights in a unit strength for battle and expecting an outcome exact to history is implausible.

The knights effectiveness is compromised due to the nature of the game, not their lack of battlefield strength. Considering this I would have to say the design team did an excellent job representing as close to history as they could with the nature of the game in mind.

------------------
Total War Assembly

Clan Shades

There is a true glory and a true honor; the glory in duty done and the honor in the integrity of principle.

[dej2]

From this site Heavy Cavalry was obsolete by the time the pike was used by infantry units. I say that the game balance is fine.
http://users.wpi.edu/~dev_alac/iqp/i...ndtactics.html

History of Tactics
When studying the emergence of plate armor from mail it is necessary to look at the uses for armor, which mainly would be warfare. The tactical changes during the transition may give some more evidence for the factors that caused this change.


Cavalry Tactics and the Use of the Lance
Early cavalry techniques involved the knights on horses with or without stirrups, equipped with a long sword and a long spear or lance. The spear or lance was used as a thrusting weapon against both cavalry and infantry. When used against infantry a downward thrust was applied to hit the soldier. When used against a mounted knight the spear or lance would be used in an upward thrust to puncture or dismount the knight. These tactics changed to those known as mounted shock troop sometime around orbefore the middle of the 12th century. The lance, instead of being used as a thrustingweapon, was placed firmly under the arm and used along with the force of the horse to charge into the lines of infantry. This tactic was more likely to allow the cavalry to break through the front line and cause the infantry to lose formation leading to major casualties, as the confusion allowed the cavalry to take advantage of the infantry. (DeVries 1992, 12-13)


Infantry and the Emergence of Staff Weapon Tactics
Calvary's domination of the battlefield began to change in the early 1300s when infantry tactics began to improve. For ages the standard in infantry weaponry was a spear, some shorter or longer depending on who and when, and a sword, again the type varying with the culture and time period. In the 14th and 15th century the spear evolvedinto a longer pike. The extra length added onto the pike made it better suited for use against the charge of cavalry. Staff weapons, which combined the length of the spear with the melee power of a mace, axe or hammer, can be dated far before the late middle ages but for the most part these weapons didn t become widely used until the 14thcentury. (DeVries 1992, 15) Staff weapons made their mark on infantry-based armies starting in the early 14th century, when infantry armed with these weapons began toeffectively defeat cavalry-based armies. Staff weapon tactics used by the Swiss were so effective that foot soldiers were often seen overpowering mounted knights. To deploy troops in this way the infantry had to be of high morale and trained well as a unit to resist a charge from the well trained and armed cavalry units that would bear down on them. A well-formed infantry unit could stand against cavalry when deploying spears and missile weapons as long as there were no infantry as well helping the cavalry. This in essence made infantry and archers necessary to complement the use of the cavalry. (Keen 1999, 76-78)

The Scots defeated the English with the use of staff weapons at Loudon Hill 1307,and Bannockburn in 1314. The Swiss also defeated the Austrians at Mortgarten 1315, and at Laupen 1339. The armies of the Flemings successfully defeated the French at both Courtrai 1302, and Argues 1303, by deploying successful staff weapon based infantry. (DeVries 1992, 29-30) At Courtrai the French deployed crossbowmen to inflict casualties on the Flemish pikemen. The French then deployed their cavalry to charge the pikemen. Because the French general called the charge too soon, the Flemish pikemen were allowed to devastate the oncoming French cavalry. (Keen 1999, 113-114)


Men-At-Arms
The use of men-at-arms, that is knights dismounted for combat, was a tactic mainly used by the English. In the mid 14th century the English began using a three-man lance unit instead of the traditional knight with two squires, one with the knight's lance and the other leading the spare horse. The three-man lance was two knights and a squire: the knights would dismount and fight side by side in combat and leave the horses with the squire till the end of combat when the squire would bring back the horses. (Prestwich 1996, 49)

The battle of Cráy in 1346 is a good example of the English knights dismounting to fight side by side with the infantry and of the English use of strong defensive bow tactics to support the infantry. The French deployed their crossbowmen in front of their cavalry. The English archers were spread out in a defensive formation around the infantry, consisting of both the normal foot soldiers and the English men-at-arms. The English archers used the firing rate of the long bow to overpower the French crossbowmen. The French cavalry could not then effectively mount a charge upon the well-placed English men at arms and ended the day with defeat. (Hooper & Bennett 1996, 120)


The Crossbow
The crossbow is believed by some to be the major factor in the change from mail to plate armor. The crossbow has a violent force behind the bolts that are fired. It is capable of penetrating shields and mail and keeping enough force to continue moving. Reports from the 12th century say that bolts fired from a crossbow could pierce througha man's shield and armor and into the wearer. (Hardy 1976, 35) The church saw the power of the crossbow and how it challenged the dominance of the knight on the battlefield. This prompted the Pope to make a stand against crossbows and he declared the Anathema, which stated that the use of crossbows against Christians was against God's will. For those that chose to follow the new law set forth by the church, the onlyvalid use of the crossbow was against non-Christians, but even then it was frowned upon. (Hardy 1976, 35) The belt and claw, consisting of a hook attached to the belt that could be used to set the crossbow allowing for a more powerful bow, were first recorded in the late 12th century. In the 14th century the windlass, which was a mechanical device attached to the crossbow to allow you to crank the string back with pulleys, and the screw winder, which was a shaft that could be attached to both the bowstring and a turning screw, brought increased power to the crossbow. (Richardson 1997, 43-44)


Longbow
Technological advances in the bow were slowed by the emergence of the crossbow in the 10th and 11th century but still made significant improvements. (Hardy1976, 35) The bow of the 11th century was the short bow which still had the power to pierce through some mails when used right. The arrows were standard 4-feathered shafts with a tanged head. Into the 12th century the development of smaller heads allowed forarrows to be better at piercing mail armor. (Hooper & Bennett 1996, 161) There were cases of longbows powerful enough to pierce through a mailed leg and then into the mount of the knight and inflict a mortal wound on the horse. (Bradbury 1985, 16) The longbow, even though proven effective in battle by the English in the 1300s, still required immense training and did not prove to be a major component in the armies of continental Europe.

[CBR]

Quote Originally posted by dej2:
From this site Heavy Cavalry was obsolete by the time the pike was used by infantry units. I say that the game balance is fine.
[/QUOTE]

Just one small problem...in MTW you dont need pikes at all to defeat cavalry..

CBR

[Hakonarson]

And there's a differnce betwen "being able to defeat" something and making it "obsolete".

There has always been a means to defeat cavalry - but it wasn't "obsolete" utill the advent of rapid firing small arms!!

[AgentBif]

Quote
German and Polish knights were crushed at Leignitz. Hungarians were defeated in at least two battles. All fought in the western style - heavy cavalry.
[/QUOTE]

You have neglected to establish that horse archery was the primary cause of these defeats. You have also neglected to rule out other factors being the significant source of the Mongol victories here. See my second posting on this issue where I pose a number of questions and issues regarding the Mongols.

In general you have also neglected to establish that Horse Archery is an inherently superior mode of warefare (which would thereby necessitate adoption by those who don't employ this style). And finally, you have avoided dealing with what most people would consider to be obvious counters to horse archery: foot archery with it's superior range and lower cost, light cavalry with it's comparable mobility, superior melee, and lower skill requirements.

Quote
So horse archers are less cost effective than mailed/plate armored knights riding large horses into battle, men who have trained most of their lives for this?
[/QUOTE]

You raise a good point, but yeah, horse archery would initially be very cost inneffective. It seems to me that such a style is even more training intensive than even the longbow... And we have established, for example, that the French made many attempts to field longbows and failed. Horse archery seems to be a feasible mode of warefare for a plains dwelling nomadic people who's culture centers on their animals. But for Europeans to adopt this technique, which did not previously exist, would require years of trial and error and development before large scale training could be attempted. And even then, it is such a highly skilled mode of combat that it would require lords who could afford to take hundreds of men out of their normal deployment and sink them for years into a training regimen during which they would be unavailable for combat. All of this adds up to high cost which may have not been considered affordable, especially considering that it may well have been perceived as being easily countered by existing techniques.

Crossbows and muskets were radical new techniques that were easily adopted because the necessary training was short. This translates to high cost effectiveness. Horse archery requires immense riding skill (hands free), new weapons, and high strength archery skill combined.


Quote
You can toss out cost effectiveness all you want, but the system they had was losing them battles, and badly. So the system they had wasn't cost effective at all! Better an expensive system that led to victory than any system that consistently led to defeat! [/QUOTE]

Non Sequitur dude. The fact that the French lost some battles due to their initial conflict with English longbows does not mean that their existing style of warfare was "not cost effective at all". To esablish this untenable conclusion, you'd have to point out that the French never won any conflicts and that it was all due to their style of war.

Furthermore, the term "cost effective" doesn't ammount to simply the price of a longbow and some arrows... One must factor in the cost of training, the lost effectiveness of those men in training not being avialable for active duty, etc. Cost is not just material, but is a general measure of total effort. Clearly they were unwilling or unable pay the price necessary to field effective longbow troops.

Quote
And your political point above actually supports my theory. A political reason is a social reason (my term for the preference for heavy cavalry was not "cultural" but "social")!
[/QUOTE]

Well, fluid semantics aside, the point I was making is that it was a military decision to deny his potential enemy an effective weapon system. And, of course, you neglect to acknowledge that after this particular event, Hardy states that the French continued to make attempts to field the longbow.

So, does this particular example constitute evidence that sometimes superior modes of warefare are decided against by some people due to factors other than pure military effectiveness? Yes, I'd have to concede that. But with a larger perspective over a longer period of time, the fact that the French continued to make attempts to correct the problem only supports my side of the argument: That the dominant factor in whether or not a mode of combat is adopted or abandoned is that style's effectiveness. If an existing style of warefare is maintained over multiple generations of usage, this is a clear indication that that style of combat was reasonably potent. Plain, simple, straight-forward.

Quote
No, the unsound logic is driven by the cultural preference!
[/QUOTE]

There was no "culture" in this decision at all! The argument against the adoption of the MG was entirely rational:

1) When firing a machinegun at full auto, it is very difficult to hit anything beyond 50-100 yards. When using it to "snipe" in 1-3 round bursts it's still less accurate than a rifle. If you've had any experience with high powered riflery or even with handguns, you'd realise just how much skill and precision it takes to hit something beyond 50 yards (15 yards with a handgun).

2) The MG's being considered were heavy and would take 2-3 men to port and operate. That's 2-3 fewer rifles putting pain on the target.

3) The ammunition logistics were horrifying to one used to thinking in terms of bolt-action rifles with 5 round clips. One MG could chew through a 50-100 rnd belt in a minute or two and still not manage to hit anything.

4) Early MG's were notoriously flakey and unreliable.

It took actual combat demonstration to make it clear that the machinegun was not primarily valuable as a killing weapon like a rifle, rather it satisfied a new role on the battlefield: suppression and area denial. It would make significantly heavier demands on logistics, but these were necessary costs which were shown to be worthwhile once the MG was combat proven and the new mode of such tactics were understood.

So anyway, the rejection of this system was a rational choice rather than some irrational romantic notion.

bif



[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-15-2002).]

[Hakonarson]

I was a pretty ordinary rifleman in my time in the military (part time), but I generally could hit a man sized taget at 250 yards without TOO much difficulty!!

and one of my jobs was on a tripod mounted MG - we had no trouble hitting man sized targets at 800 metres, and "area" targets at 1600 meters!!

Dunno what military yuo'er thinking of!! lol

I like your arguments about why Europeans didn't adopt horse archery - IMO you are spot on - the whole social framework wasn't there to support it - Charlemagne (Charles the Great) of France tried to get some nobles to carry bows as well as lances in 840-ish AD, but it never worked.

However mounted X-bows WERE very common!!

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
I was a pretty ordinary rifleman in my time in the military (part time), but I generally could hit a man sized taget at 250 yards without TOO much difficulty!!

and one of my jobs was on a tripod mounted MG - we had no trouble hitting man sized targets at 800 metres, and "area" targets at 1600 meters!!
[/QUOTE]

Rereading what I wrote, I probably overstated the inaccuracy issue, but that was one of the arguments. The fact that the MG was nonetheless much less accurate than a rifle while expending far more ammunition was one of the key sticking points.

On the rifle marksmanship thing, once you have had some training, just getting on the paper at even 100 yards is still not a sure bet, much less 200 and beyond. It's definitely not the "point and click" deal that most people imagine.

And in terms of the MG experience you have... "no trouble" hitting point targets at 800 yards on full auto? I find that hard to believe. The bullet spread at a couple hundred yards of an MG mounted in a vise is a rather large area. Hell, it's hard enough just to SEE the target at 800 yards However, I don't have any actual experience with automatic weapons, I'm only going from third hand experience (writings) and some 1000 rounds of rifle at 100-600 yards.

bif

[Cheetah]

PAF