New(?) Cavalry tactic/exploit

[Axalon]

It's uses are limited, yes, both in circumstances and targets for it - I have already pointed that out (and you obviously agree with that, Gil) – however so are all tactics. Otherwise we would not bother with any. Tactics would not be necessary…. The trick is to apply the right tactics at the right time and in the right circumstances - this stuff is no exception to that. The more tactics you master, the better and flexible commander you will be in the field. As easy and forgiving as raw MTW might be, I still think we can find some uses for it even there at some point. If so (rethorical, I know so), then it will not be a waste of time. Just because something is rarely relevant does not make it completely irrelevant at all times, right…?

As for the solo-battles you are right, it hardly is the same thing, but the sheer combat-circumstances was not the thing that was interesting on that note, for me anyways. It was the actual and sheer effects of this manoeuvre upon troops with high-level bonuses and how that circumstance might impact on the final results. The question is, whether it is still relevant or not under such circumstances. If not, the uses of this stuff will be further limited and we don’t need any campaign battles to get that info - solo-battles will do just fine for that…

- A

[Gilrandir]

It's uses are limited, yes, both in circumstances and targets for it - I have already pointed that out (and you obviously agree with that, Gil) – however so are all tactics. Otherwise we would not bother with any. Tactics would not be necessary…. The trick is to apply the right tactics at the right time and in the right circumstances - this stuff is no exception to that. The more tactics you master, the better and flexible commander you will be in the field. As easy and forgiving as raw MTW might be, I still think we can find some uses for it even there at some point. If so (rethorical, I know so), then it will not be a waste of time. Just because something is rarely relevant does not make it completely irrelevant at all times, right…?

I agree. But the tactics discussed here is hardly applicable because I cannot imagine a battlefield where you can put your 53-men cavalry unit in a single string. It will take a lot of space and will be outside the rest of your army. Then the natural obstacles (trees, water bodies, hills, etc.) will impede the manouver desired. A battlefield with no such obstacles? Perhaps, a desert or a steppe. But factions you are likely to meet in such terrains do not have strong swordsmen (Arab infantry, for instance) or no swordsmen at all (Mongols, Russians), rather excessive cavalry. Well, there are Almos, it is true. So it all boils down to an additional expedient to rout AUM. Of course, I'm speaking about vanilla MTW. The mods you play may offer more chances to apply the tactics discussed.

[Axalon]

Gil....

The problem here is not your reasoning or your conclusions but your applied perspective. Because of that, your conclusions – while true in a limited sense – still fails to properly reflect the realities of even raw MTW. Essentially, they are true for the things they address - not for the reality they are intended to reflect…

As we discuss the validity of tactics somehow - including this one - we can not limit ourselves to intact formations and static enemies (however likely) at given terrains because that does not match the circumstances found in MTW – any version. Battles and the circumstances found there are ever changing. The given terrain for battles changes, the type of enemy found in that terrain changes, and the formation-strength of that enemy changes – all the time. Once the battle is on, the only fixed constants we have are those of the field being limited, the numbers of enemies are limited (somehow), and that formations-sizes are limited (somehow). This goes for the “friendlys” as well. The rest are essentially variables and circumstances.

In most battles troops will take casualties somehow. At some point we will not have the luxury to call upon another fresh full-strength formation to do the job – we must then rely on and make do with either damaged or understrength-formations. As your perspective fails to recognize and consider that aspect - and this on all sides (enemies and friendly’s alike) - it is thus flawed.

Once such aspects are recognized and considered - the valid circumstances and possible targets for this manoeuvre drastically increases. As long as we still have a unit with enough men to successfully execute this manoeuvre (I guess that is dictated by the target) – the effect will be the same, just on a smaller scale. Obviously, these realities are valid for raw MTW as well. Now, the available “attractive” targets for this tactic still strike me as limited for raw MTW but it clearly does not confine itself to just AUM’s, that much is obvious. Furthermore, we do not need to be on any steppe or desert in order to execute this manoeuvre either, it can be done anywhere with enough open flat space for it (this in relation to the number men in the unit intended to execute it). That is also obvious. Fighting in an open desert or steppe however usually does provide more favourable circumstances for it (as you already outlined) - but it is still not a necessity for it, neither are intact formations…

Right?

- A

[gollum]

Just to make a note, long cavalry lines (as long as it is practical for a particular map/battle) are not a new tactic. There are mp replays that exhibit that. Men converge to the target, which means you have more hits on the enemy unit than if the formation was deeper. With cavalry against swords it gives a devastating effect.

[Axalon]

Well…

At least I am not suggesting that it was, I have done “single line cavalry-charges” plenty of times in the past, as I said “I have done similar stuff”. However, what I am discussing here is - a more extreme and precarious variant of that – something clearly executed differently and with a seemingly even more devastating effect on (low moral) infantry if successfully done (at least on normal-difficulty settings). As outlined by lolpah…

That may very well be a new tactic, or if preferred - a new variant and take on the “single line cavalry-charge”. A more advanced manoeuvre but also more risky. And, that is what I am discussing here (as it is, the validity and relevance of it, as Gil questioned that)...

- A

[gollum]

Weell..:)

[Gilrandir]

Gil....

The problem here is not your reasoning or your conclusions but your applied perspective. Because of that, your conclusions – while true in a limited sense – still fails to properly reflect the realities of even raw MTW. Essentially, they are true for the things they address - not for the reality they are intended to reflect…

As we discuss the validity of tactics somehow - including this one - we can not limit ourselves to intact formations and static enemies (however likely) at given terrains because that does not match the circumstances found in MTW – any version. Battles and the circumstances found there are ever changing. The given terrain for battles changes, the type of enemy found in that terrain changes, and the formation-strength of that enemy changes – all the time. Once the battle is on, the only fixed constants we have are those of the field being limited, the numbers of enemies are limited (somehow), and that formations-sizes are limited (somehow). This goes for the “friendlys” as well. The rest are essentially variables and circumstances.

In most battles troops will take casualties somehow. At some point we will not have the luxury to call upon another fresh full-strength formation to do the job – we must then rely on and make do with either damaged or understrength-formations. As your perspective fails to recognize and consider that aspect - and this on all sides (enemies and friendly’s alike) - it is thus flawed.

Once such aspects are recognized and considered - the valid circumstances and possible targets for this manoeuvre drastically increases. As long as we still have a unit with enough men to successfully execute this manoeuvre (I guess that is dictated by the target) – the effect will be the same, just on a smaller scale. Obviously, these realities are valid for raw MTW as well. Now, the available “attractive” targets for this tactic still strike me as limited for raw MTW but it clearly does not confine itself to just AUM’s, that much is obvious. Furthermore, we do not need to be on any steppe or desert in order to execute this manoeuvre either, it can be done anywhere with enough open flat space for it (this in relation to the number men in the unit intended to execute it). That is also obvious. Fighting in an open desert or steppe however usually does provide more favourable circumstances for it (as you already outlined) - but it is still not a necessity for it, neither are intact formations…

Right?

- A

I admit that I forgot the undermanned units... Well, it's been too long since I played the game so that I lost track of what may be happening on the battlefield. Thanks for the reminder, Ax. Maybe I will even try the tactics you seconded.

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi

Does this tactic work, perhaps rather less dramatically, when infantry are doing the charging? E.g., FMAAs vs spears?

Regards
V

[Axalon]

Maybe, I don’t know…. It is an interesting question Victor.

It would probably take a troop with very high charge-value to pull it off. In Raw MTW or similar I would go for anything with 6 or more. Gallowglasses, the muslim spearboys Muhad** – whatever their name is – or some fanatics. It might work but I think they main problem will be speed, as I wonder if they will be fast enough to get that effect. Try and find out…



EDIT:
-----------------------

Thanks for the reminder, Ax. Maybe I will even try the tactics you seconded.

No problem... You do that, it might do the trick, you never know...

- A

[Brandy Blue]

I think I remember someone posted about attacking with two sword units set at a depth of 1, and hitting a spear unit's corners. If you use 60/100 size infantry units, and the spear unit was at a depth of 4, that would in theory mean 30 men from each sword unit would attack the front, for a total of 60, giving a depth of 2-3 men at the front where they are likely to take casualties. There would also be 4 men attacking each flank, and 52 would pile up around the rear. Can't say I've ever tried it, though, and I expect in practice it would not work out nearly that nicely.

Anyone ever tried it?

[caravel]

Does this tactic work, perhaps rather less dramatically, when infantry are doing the charging? E.g., FMAAs vs spears?

I'm unclear as to which tactic you're referring to, but if it's switching from hold formation to engage at will at the last moment to maintain a wider frontage to optimise "wrap around"(?) - then yes it works well, especially with swords vs spears (the bonus is a factor there). As ever this assumes you're using some reasonable tactics, e.g. not charging head on or uphill, etc...

[Trapped in Samsara]

I'm unclear as to which tactic you're referring to, but if it's switching from hold formation to engage at will at the last moment to maintain a wider frontage to optimise "wrap around"(?) - then yes it works well, especially with swords vs spears (the bonus is a factor there).

Hi

Yes, that's it.

Cheers
V