Cav balance

[antisocialmunky]

How is the team planning on balancing horses in EBII? The EB cav balance has been brought up several times in the EB forum so I thought that I should ask. Basically, Cataphracts beat every other horse type when they probably shouldn't be so deadly in hth where their armor weighs them down.

Shouldn't it instead be:
- Kataphracts are extremely powerful charges but aren't that good in melee due to all their armor.
- Heavy cavalry like Companions should have very powerful charges and be good in melee and fast.
- Medium cavalry is good in melee and very fast.
- Light cavalry is very fast.

So the balance would be:
- Kataphracts destroy everything they charge at
- Kataphracts are beaten in melee by Heavy Cavalry
- Medium Cavalry can beat both for cost
- Light Cavalry is just fast

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

You posted at the wrong forum fellow.

[Cute Wolf]

Im quite interested when you say that heavy cavalry will beat cataphracts in melee, well beating cataphracts in a full clad armour, while you wear nearly full-clad armour... is rather depends on skills. And if u play them, cataphracts aren't invincible, every ap units that has enough defense to buy some time against their charge, usually ends up eating them. With notable exception is Griphanvar, who had extremely lethal melee wapons, but even the Saka cataphracts still capable to deal with them if in secondary sagaris mode...

[antisocialmunky]

No, they are not invincible. Infact they get hacked apart by AP. The issue was raised in an earlier thread about cataphracts and I was wondering if hte EBII balance would be adjusted in the future.

[Cute Wolf]

No, they are not invincible. Infact they get hacked apart by AP. The issue was raised in an earlier thread about cataphracts and I was wondering if hte EBII balance would be adjusted in the future.

Oh, maybe u mistake my bad english, soory. I state that any ap units who had enough defense to buy time, usually ends up defeating the cataphracts. As u can try, try drapanai vs Saka cataphracts, and u can look a really hoorible death.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Are you kidding, my unupgraded Thrakian choppers moved down a full unit of Hellenic Kataphracts (50 men) while suffering 2 out of 60 casualties. The catas routed upon going down to 18 men. I timed it, and it took 8 seconds. Eight fluffing seconds!!! It felt like vanilla with its insanely expedient combat.

Custom battle it was. 1 unit vs 1 unit. Elite of the elite vs elite of the elite. The Drapnai or the Bastarnae would not do too much worse. My Pedites Extraordianrii did the same to Armenian cataphracts while suffering four casualties. AP infantry

So the balance would be:
- Kataphracts destroy everything they charge at
- Kataphracts are beaten in melee by Heavy Cavalry

That is quite difficult to implement. Fatigue was the main weakness of the cataphracts. Knights had it too. Mainly the horses that is, of the knights, as even the ultra-heavy chargers of the Mediaeval times would be conserved until the enemy was less than 80-100 metres away. So difficult was the knight and the barding for the horse to carry. But in the Eastern deserts, the men will suffer rather quickly too.

Thus, the cataphracts would still have a great deal of armour in comparison to other heavy cavalry. Speed does not matter much in RTW, and it seems there are only about three different horsemen speeds in EB. In conclusion, the catas' heavy armour will carry them through any melee battle.

The only possible solution is to significantly lower the cataphract melee attack, but I do not know how accurate that is. I mean, sure they have bulky and unwieldy armour, but still, they were effective fighters, were they not? Also, the charge bonus does not seem to work as it should after about 30-40, as I see little difference in the numbers. Heck, RTR has even larger bonuses, and they do little good...




Crap! I left this post for an hour without posting it! Now, with the new replies, my post is half outdated!

[Cute Wolf]

Well, ap, Thraikioi Rhompaiakoi are elite and well armoured, something that save them from early death against Cataphract charges and melee weapons. Even your Pedites extraordinarii are capable to tear down the living battering ram easily, except when the Catas are quickly withdrawn and repeat their charges. But the Drapanai ad only 13 crappy defense... and if u try, 50++ out of 80 of them didn't survive the first charge, if the cats land their charges properly.

And now, going into some scientific and historical arguments, if the Cataphracts are bad at melee combats, why the latter Sassanids and Byzantines employ Clibinarii that exclusively rely on their mace as "Meat-Grinder", knowing if their enemies had faced them for years, they will just equip them with a good mace and stone.

[Watchman]

The OP argument does not make sense. Charge and shock combat were most specifically what the whole cataphract concept was for and the specific reason they wore a metric f***ton of armour - basically eliminating the normal weakness of mounted trops in extended hand-to-hand combat, namely the squishiness of the horse.

It's not like the lack of tactical agility caused by the weight of armour, and the eventual very dense formations whose chief purpose was to avoid individual horsemen becoming isolated and flanked, left too much alternatives anyay.

If lighter-armed heavy cav wanted to beat tanks like these, they had to do so by exploiting their greater mobility to pin down the cataphracts in close combat with part of their force and using the rest to mount repeated charges against their flanks. This is more or less what the Mac right wing did with the Bactrian and Saka armoured cavalry at Gaugamela, for example.
Trying to beat the heavier horse in drawn out hand-to-hand fighting, their very area of specialty, was obviously a pretty losing proposition.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, there was some discussion of this from another thread and someone that I thought might have been related to EB made a similar claim so that's fine you're nto changing it, I was jsut curious.

[Apázlinemjó]

Well, ap, Thraikioi Rhompaiakoi are elite and well armoured, something that save them from early death against Cataphract charges and melee weapons. Even your Pedites extraordinarii are capable to tear down the living battering ram easily, except when the Catas are quickly withdrawn and repeat their charges. But the Drapanai ad only 13 crappy defense... and if u try, 50++ out of 80 of them didn't survive the first charge, if the cats land their charges properly.

And now, going into some scientific and historical arguments, if the Cataphracts are bad at melee combats, why the latter Sassanids and Byzantines employ Clibinarii that exclusively rely on their mace as "Meat-Grinder", knowing if their enemies had faced them for years, they will just equip them with a good mace and stone.

Against AI you can set your Drapani to loose formation, they survive the impact of the charge, then set it back to tight and hack 'n slash. Of course against player this wouldn't work and in reality, I'm sure that the Drapanai would rout even before the tanks hit them.

[Rahwana]

Soory for this necroing, but I want to ask something about the cav balance.

In my lastest campaign as Avernii, my Brihentin are doing some duels against the Karthadast Lancearii (which was almost look like a Cataphract), and as the result, in spear duel, I usually win in the long run, but soon after I switch to secondary, my brihentin got a losing edge... why their longswords only got better lethality ut not ap? I think the longswords deserve ap, because their description about celtic longswords said that they are heavy and almost like a mace.

[Watchman]

Er, aren't you asking that in the wrong game's forum...?

Also Celtic longswords weren't actually particularly heavy, as such weapons go; in fact compared to some later iterations of the theme they were positively light (although it's worth noting here that with single-handed swords the differences are in the order of few hundred grams...). They would have presumably been somewhat tip-heavy though, on account of the nigh entirely nonmetallic hilts and other furniture which was duly rather light and wouldn't have been much of a counterweight for the blade.

Anyways, trying to cut through armour with one-handed swords is generally speaking stupid and mainly a recipe for damaging the edge. End-heavy "choppers" designed for raw cleaving power, typically single-edged (the kopis/machaira/falcata being a period example; Medieval falchions and their ilk were functionally very similar), AFAIK do best at it, in no small part on account of bearing no small resemblance to axes in overall principles of operation...
SOP for fighting an armoured man, particularly with a slashing sword: aim at the bits that don't have armour on them.

[seienchin]

Mmhh... Sounds like the Rock, Scissor, Paper system of Rome Vanilla to me
Where is your evidence that cataphracts were bad in melee? (Medivial knights, cuirassiers and other heavy armoured troops werent...) and why should medium cavallery be good in melee?

I personally would be happy about better skirmishing cavallery, but not for a Vanilla system.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Im pretty sure that cataphracts weren't bad in melee. They had a very powerful charge and were cabable of fighting melee for a long time due to their armor. Im quite sure that they even were made for melee. The downside should be their extreme high cost and that the exhaust quite fast which means that they get useless if you charge several times. (or run too long)

[Genava]

Plutarch, battle of Carrhae:

Many of them died thus, and those that survived were disabled for any service, and when Publius exhorted them to charge the cuirassiers, they showed him their hands nailed to their shields, and their feet stuck to the ground, so that they could neither fly nor fight. He charged in himself boldly, however, with his horse, and came to close quarters with them, but was very unequal, whether as to the offensive or defensive part; for with his weak and little javelins, he struck against targets that were of tough raw hides and iron, whereas, the lightly-clad bodies of his Gaulish horsemen were exposed to the strong spears of the enemy. For upon these he mostly depended, and with them he wrought wonders; for they would catch hold of the great spears, and close upon the enemy, and so pull them off from their horses, where they could scarce stir by reason of the heaviness of their armour, and many of the Gauls quitting their own horses, would creep under those of the enemy, and stick them in the belly; which, growing unruly with the pain, trampled upon their riders and upon the enemies promiscuously. The Gauls were chiefly tormented by the heat and drouth, being not accustomed to either, and most of their horses were slain by being spurred on against the spears, so that they were forced to retire among the foot, bearing off Publius grievously wounded. Observing a sandy hillock not far off, they made to it, and tying their horses to one another, and placing them in the midst, and joining all their shields together before them, they thought they might make some defence against the barbarians. But it fell out quite contrary, for when they were drawn up in a plain, the front in some measure secured those that were behind; but when they were upon the hill, one being of necessity higher up than another, none were in shelter, but all alike stood equally exposed, bewailing their inglorious and useless fate.

[Watchman]

...and the whole passage makes it quite abundantly clear that despite some very spirited efforts, and in the process falling back to many of the universal staples employed against opponents too heavily armoured to be meaningfully vulnerable to one's main weapons ("grapple and stab" was actually a pretty common way for heavily-armoured warriors to deal with each other too - it's not like their weapons had an easier time at it after all), the Gallic auxiliary cavalry was at a very decided disadvantage in a straight fight with the far heavier armed cataphracts. In fact it makes it quite clear they got their asses thoroughly kicked, and most of the battered survivors who made it back to the Roman lines did so without their horses which the catas had rather unsportingly but entirely according to universal SOPs cheerfully run through to dismount their opponents.

So your point was what exactly, other than that you didn't properly read and digest the whole of the account ?

[tarem]

based on limited personal fighting on foot (unarmored and limited armor) as well as some intuitive thinking i'd asume the following:
1. fighting with less armour gives you greater mobility and slower exhaustion rate, ergo in TW terms more defence value and more stamina (possibly slightly more attack but this would depend on the weapon used also)
2. fighting with more armor would result in the oposite efects but adding more armor value.
3. folllowing conclusion would be that in prolonged melee that results in definite exhaustion of stamina a heavily armored unit has the advantage while in short hit and run skirmishes, the light units have the advantage.
4. charge value is more dependant on weapon type and horse size/speed, so light horsemen with heavy lances could charge just as well as heavy horsemen if equiped with the same weapons and horses, it's their survivablity after the charge (or during if it failed) that is lowered by the lack of armor. it should be noted that throughout history the heavy horses were reserved for the armored units for obvious reasons.

now if we want to establish the outcome of a heavy cavalry VS cataphract duel, we have to ask first just how much heavy this cavalry is? and what type of weapon and horse they mount? if they are comparable to that of the cataphract, then on the offensive they could win. but the cataphracted horse will always be more survivable, especially when facing misssile fire or prolonged melee. pretty much the same would go for the medium cavalry, with the note that these were usually armed with lighter lances then the heavy units, giving them a disadvantage on the offence too.

[Genava]

I quoted Plutarch for those which forgot this passage. Then, I think that the Parthian cataphracts were less good in close combat than a usual cavalry. I say that because the ambushes carried out by Cassius in front of Antioch, the battle of Taurus, the battle of Trapezôn and the battle of Gindaros show well that the cataphracts cannot fight the infantry without to have charged it at full speed.

Contrary to the Parthians, the Celtic cavalry pushed back them twice. Once in front of Phraaspa and another time during the retirement of Marc-Antoine. The Celtic cavalry is definitely more mobile and when the cataphracts are attacked by the sides by the Celts, they flee. The fight which takes place during the retirement of Marc-Antoine illustrates this characteristic well. The mounted archers and the cataphracts are stopped by the light infantry and the Celtic cavalry will take them out of clipper. The fight lasts only a few minutes before Parthians flee.

The cataphracts are terribly effective only in plain and when they can charge the enemy. The only problem in EB1, it is that the cataphracts are too resistant in the clause combat cause of their armours.

[tarem]

in TW engine these resluts can be duplicated by making the said cataphracts have high armor and high charge values but lower attack and deffence values i think. and charging them in the rear or flank while engaged is always a good option

[Watchman]

Umm, yeah. You're describing universal phenomenom, not anything specific to cataphracts; when cavalry are caught stationary by an infantry attack, particularly in the flank and if they're disordered, they basically die in droves. The French gendarmes at Pavia could tell you quite a bit about that. Anything that gets charged in the flank, nevermind rear, by close-combat cavalry is pretty much screwed; infantry formations of thousands have in mere minutes dissolved into panicking mobs by flank attacks of mere few hundreds of rather light cavalry of not terribly noteworthy quality, as for example the Greeks of Classical Antiquity could attest to.

Very heavily armoured troops like cataphracts are more vulnerable to this kind of thing mainly because their heavy load makes it comparatively difficult for them to reform and/or shift frontage to face such assaults, and of course they also have a harder time disengaging to reform at a safe distance too due to encumberance.

[-42-]

The big issue, as I see it, is that in M2TW charges are an end all. They are so ridiculously effective that pikes are your only concern. You can literally kill 70 men out of an 80 man unit with a single charge (not terribly common but very possible). This concerns me simply because they have comparatively low charge values (by EB standards) of between 6 and 9.

[Cute Wolf]

The big issue, as I see it, is that in M2TW charges are an end all. They are so ridiculously effective that pikes are your only concern. You can literally kill 70 men out of an 80 man unit with a single charge (not terribly common but very possible). This concerns me simply because they have comparatively low charge values (by EB standards) of between 6 and 9.

You should note while EB had about 0.4 lethality lance at the best, the M2TW cavalry lance are stick to 1 lethality.

[-42-]

I know that, as I have checked the statistics. However somebody mentioned that lethality values were not modable in M2TW.

[Cute Wolf]

maybe we'll got multiple HP system in EB II to compensate that, and get longer fight

[seienchin]

maybe we'll got multiple HP system in EB II to compensate that, and get longer fight

But that would make arrows strange? I recall the LotR Mod for Rome were sauron was nigh impossible to beat in melee, but could be killed by like 2 or 3 arrow volleys...

[Cute Wolf]

But that would make arrows strange? I recall the LotR Mod for Rome were sauron was nigh impossible to beat in melee, but could be killed by like 2 or 3 arrow volleys...

Sorry OT: Elven archers had insane damage that's it! Try the result with normal Gondorian or worse, orcs...

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Cataphracts were later used by both the Eastern Roman Empire (Basileia ton Romaion) and the Sassanids as meat grinder thus i believe they were very fierce as melee units.

[Cute Wolf]

Where is Sonic the Necromancer.....

Cataphracts were later used by both the Eastern Roman Empire (Basileia ton Romaion) and the Sassanids as meat grinder thus i believe they were very fierce as melee units.

Yeah, unit terms - not catafractii, but clibinarii (solely armed with mace and bow)

[athanaric]

The Celtic cavalry is definitely more mobile and when the cataphracts are attacked by the sides by the Celts, they flee. The fight which takes place during the retirement of Marc-Antoine illustrates this characteristic well. The mounted archers and the cataphracts are stopped by the light infantry and the Celtic cavalry will take them out of clipper. The fight lasts only a few minutes before Parthians flee.

Frankly, I fail to see where the problem lies. You can do all that in EB I too. I've taken out cataphracts with flank charges by light cavalry (Arabs, who are slightly worse than Leuce Epos). Still the cataphracts are superior to other cavalry in real melee, just as they were in real life. Pahlava's cavalry is superior to that of the Aedui, get over it.

I've yet to see textual evidence for an occasion where Parthian cataphracts were beaten in a melee engagement by other cavalry (excepting other catas of course).

[Watchman]

Yeah, unit terms - not catafractii, but clibinarii (solely armed with mace and bow)

That would be the late Sassanid "universal" cavalry, and IIRC my reading they still kept some lancer squadrons on the side. The Byzantines actually at one point devised a serious meatgrinder tactical array for rolling over infantry which IIRC had maces in front of the blunt wedge, lancers in the flanks, and archers making up the rear. Worked pretty well apparently.

Anyway, there's good reasons people quite universally preferred to armour their elite shock cavalry to the gills.