Results 31 to 60 of 1362

Thread: [EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Actually, I wouldn't mind it if you gave "Scares Foot" to cavalry if you take it off most non-naked infantry. Only few infantry should have it. It makes sense on cavalry Kataphractoi though, especially if you reduced their melee fighting/defensive ability due to the ridiculous armor or just gave them completely terrible stamina.

    However, the design of the cataphract also presents some potential weaknesses. Besides requiring expensive maintenance, the heavy armor of cataphracts was at times unwieldy. The excessive armor made it difficult to flee from battle or perform quick maneuvering in battle. The inability to flee from battle due to armor has been mentioned in several occasions. Heliodorus wrote that the armor was so weighty that riders required assistance to mount their horses. This description was probably true, since unlike medieval cavalrymen, ancient cavalrymen did not have the benefit of the stirrup to mount their horses.

    The lack of stirrups in ancient cavalry warfare also restricted the effectiveness of cataphracts in melee combat. While stirrups were not essential to charging (for which the saddle would be the most crucial), stirrups were important in providing the rider with stability in melee. In Crassus’ battle against the Parthians, Plutarch describes the vulnerability of cataphracts in maintained melee combat: “For they (the Roman cavalry) laid hold of the long spears of the Parthians, and grappling with the men, pushed them from their horses.” Such accounts may be anecdotal or artificial, but there is no doubt that riders who were unhorsed became easy prey, as they were probably too clumsy to quickly get up to fight in the middle of a melee. Heliodorus also mentions that cataphracts who were unhorsed were like logs on the ground.
    http://www.allempires.com/article/in...?q=cataphracts

    The only problem you would have is against 240 sized levy spearmen which are suppose to attrition them but would probably break due to scary charge. I really do like the idea of Kataphracts basically being a one time commit unit though. Their whole point was to break the enemy in a frontal charge after their lines were weakened. You didn't do fancy maneuvers or anything, you just shot the enemy up enough that you could break in a single massive charge after a few hours:)

    It would atleast make for some interesting changes for cav fighting. It should only be done for the elite, 3.3K+ fully armored guys though or maybe just the super heavy elites like the Baktrian/Parthian Late and .

    PS. The spacing on the Romans do look weird from that angle. I think you should change it back to where it was.
    PPS. I like TCV's suggestion. I would actually remove the 40 sized chariots. They are basically completely unrealistic because they were mainly used as battle taxis for elites and not scythed chariots. Maybe just put eagles on them? If you remove scary from Gaullic chariots, you would probably want to put fire arrows back in.
    Last edited by antisocialmunky; 08-20-2011 at 05:57.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO