Obsolete troop types

[Kali]

[QUOTE=Sinner]Something that has always bugged about MTW is units becoming obsolete & no longer buildable.

In a way Huscarles don't just die out historically but stop being the decisive elemant on the field. Anglo-Norman armies still used the fryd into the 12th and Huscarles style units such as Gallowglaichts. The Gallowglass was an Irish warrior of Scandinavian origin often wielding an Axe. The french used Scottish Gallowglaichts to counter English men at arms, during the 100 years war.
But the triumph of knight over huscarle wasn't just down to "Old William" Who's horsemen were chucking as many spears as they were couching them. The problem was 8/10 A highly mobile, well trained and disciplined force will out manouver and thus often defeat a less mobile force. Huscarle armies couldn't manouver well. So could be easily out flanked and needed to sit on top of a big hill or have well protected flanks to have much chance against a cavalry force. Plus foot troops tire quicker. The root of the legend of King Arthurs knights is probably based on how a Britannic cavalry force repeatedly beat an army of Saxon Huscarles, Saxons who were being driven west by the knock on effect of the Hunic invasions (more guys on horses).
But thats just history and modding can be easy and fun. I introduced Elephants for some of the Muslim factions just coz they look cool.

[Sinner]

[QUOTE=Kali]

Something that has always bugged about MTW is units becoming obsolete & no longer buildable.

In a way Huscarles don't just die out historically but stop being the decisive elemant on the field. Anglo-Norman armies still used the fryd into the 12th and Huscarles style units such as Gallowglaichts. The Gallowglass was an Irish warrior of Scandinavian origin often wielding an Axe. The french used Scottish Gallowglaichts to counter English men at arms, during the 100 years war.
But the triumph of knight over huscarle wasn't just down to "Old William" Who's horsemen were chucking as many spears as they were couching them. The problem was 8/10 A highly mobile, well trained and disciplined force will out manouver and thus often defeat a less mobile force. Huscarle armies couldn't manouver well. So could be easily out flanked and needed to sit on top of a big hill or have well protected flanks to have much chance against a cavalry force. Plus foot troops tire quicker. The root of the legend of King Arthurs knights is probably based on how a Britannic cavalry force repeatedly beat an army of Saxon Huscarles, Saxons who were being driven west by the knock on effect of the Hunic invasions (more guys on horses).
But thats just history and modding can be easy and fun. I introduced Elephants for some of the Muslim factions just coz they look cool.

Yah, I was mildly disappointed that the Gallowglasses in the game were the Scottish style, as opposed to the Scandinavian style, although I got the impression that the former was far more common.

As for cavalry vs infantry, manouver isn't everything, else we wouldn't have had the very common practice of knights dismounting to fight on foot until the closing stages of battle, because of the vulnerability of the horse in large-scale combat. What I'd opinion is the major problem for trained & disciplined infantry in dealing with cavalry is that in general they have to have a critical mass of troops to be able to stand against the horsemen. The cavalry need to be able to punch through the infantry before the momentum of their charge runs out thus avoiding the increased vulnerability of horse & rider when fighting at close quarters; to counter this the infantry need deep enough ranks to slow & halt the cavalry in their midst. If the infantry don't have enough numbers to be able to present massed ranks - in all directions if necessary - then they are far more vulnerable to a charge by even a small number of horsemen breaking and then scattering their lines.

Another problem for infantry facing cavalry is that they generally can't actually defeat them unless the cavalry are willing or dumb enough to attack. The greater mobility of the cavalry does allow them to dictate if battle occurs or not. Except in circumstances where the infantry can somehow force engagement, the best they can achieve is stalemate.

As you noted, the Norman cavalry primarily threw their spears at the time of Hastings, although this proved relatively ineffective against the Saxon shieldwall, and it was only the ill-discipline of the fyrd followed by the loss of morale at Harold's death that led to the eventual Norman victory. The Normans however still had the perception that their horsemen were a decisive weapon, else why bother with the not inconsiderable effort of bringing horses by sea rather than acquiring them locally after landing. This perception would have been reinforced after the victory at Hastings both in the Normans own minds and those of other Western nobles and military. Add in that only the relatively wealthy could afford a horse and you have a further bias to perceiving cavalry as elite. With the belief in the horseman's supremacy the perceived counter would be another horseman, leading to the escalation in arms and armour that changed the Norman knight from moderately armoured & primarily spear-armed to heavily armoured & lance-armed, with the increased effectiveness against infantry unable or unwilling to stand and face the cavalry being almost a side-benefit.

Once the effectiveness of disciplined infantry against cavalry was realized, or rediscovered, the prospects for the knight and their beloved mounted charge were gloomy. In a way the method of fighting eventually went full circle, at least as far as the English are concerned, with huscarles fighting with axes being surplanted by the mounted knight, who was then forced to revert to fighting on foot with the poleaxe a favored weapon. The French for one proved far more stubborn, their noblility fixated on the perceived glory of the mounted charge despite their repeated defeats to the lowly footslogger.

[katank]

medmod gives ye ole armored huscarles.

that might whet your appetite.

billmen killing tanks would be funny.

reminds me of the stupid civ combat random generator which made my tank lose to a spearman!

I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.

combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.

[eadeater]

reminds me of the stupid civ combat random generator which made my tank lose to a spearman!

.

Yeah, that is one of the most random things in Civ. Tanks losing to spearmen is ridiculous, but I can just about imagine how that might happen, but when your nuclear submarine tries to torpedo a galley, and gets sunk, my imagination fails. I simply can't see it happening, torpedo inevitably hits the galley (which moves slower than i walk probably), which gets completely obliteratied, but one lucky sailor survives, swims hundreds of metres to the sub, which has now dived, holds his breath, survives compression/decompression, swims to the sub, using his inhuman strength and pissed off attitude, tears off the hatch, and punches a few holes in the armoured hull, and swims up to the surface. He then fixes the galley with errr, seaweed or something, and using his voodoo magic ressurects his crew, and happily sails on? Huh, I doubt it somehow. Maybe someone has a different idea on how a galley can sink a nuclear sub?

[munrock]

It's been said that the pure slowness of a Biplane would pose a difficulty for modern air2air aircraft. Or maybe it was difficult for heat seeking missiles to track a biplane. Whatever, the only unit that will never grow obsolete is the ninja. Battlefield Ninja Elephants especially... they're so good that they've never been spotted.

[Daveybaby]

Chances are that all a modern jet would need to do would be fly *near* a biplane and it would be torn apart by turbulence , or even set on fire by afterburners!

w.r.t. the battle of hastings - the axemen actually performed pretty well - pretty much the only reason that harold lost is because his men were undisciplined - the normans repeatedly performed fake charges and retreats, and when small numbers of impetuous axemen broke ranks and charged down off of the ridge to chase them, they were slaughtered piecemeal in the open by the normal knights. General consensus is that if the Saxons had held their far superior defensive position, the normans would have lost.

So i dont know if you can assume that the changes came about because of one battle - these things changed gradually over hundreds of years - a gradual evolutionary progression, which MTW doesnt really simulate.

[katank]

If it's evolutionary, why can't my units get upgraded for a price or if they surpass a certain valor threshold to superior units?

you might be able to change v4 feudal knights to v3 chivalrics etc.

[Sinner]

w.r.t. the battle of hastings - the axemen actually performed pretty well - pretty much the only reason that harold lost is because his men were undisciplined - the normans repeatedly performed fake charges and retreats, and when small numbers of impetuous axemen broke ranks and charged down off of the ridge to chase them, they were slaughtered piecemeal in the open by the normal knights. General consensus is that if the Saxons had held their far superior defensive position, the normans would have lost.

So i dont know if you can assume that the changes came about because of one battle - these things changed gradually over hundreds of years - a gradual evolutionary progression, which MTW doesnt really simulate.

The huscarles - the 'professional' warriors in Harold's army - mostly did keep their ranks, it was the fyrd - the rank & file 'militia' who served for a couple of months per year - that were the ones who broke ranks, getting slaughtered & thus weakening the Saxon's numbers until eventually the Norman's could stage a successful assault during their last gasp wave of attacks with Harold's death being the final blow.

As for the story that the Norman forces faked retreats, that is considered unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely. William was leading what was in effect an adhoc force made up of various nationalities and groups lured by the promise of loot, complicating the task of coordinating them. In their very first advance the Normans failed to keep in line, with one wing getting ahead of the others and being routed by the Saxons before the remainder of the Norman forces could intervene. This example of poor command & control indicates that it would be unlilkely that fake retreats would have been possible in the heat of battle due to the danger of them turning into actual routs.

The idea of the fake retreats comes from the Norman chronicler of the battle, and it's likely that he wanted to avoid tarnishing the victory by admitting that the Normans broke at least twice only to be rallied by their leaders. The feigned retreat tale was commonly used by the victors of a battle to mask any embarassment that part or all of their army nearly or actually ran away.

[Ironside]

Yeah, that is one of the most random things in Civ. Tanks losing to spearmen is ridiculous, but I can just about imagine how that might happen, but when your nuclear submarine tries to torpedo a galley, and gets sunk, my imagination fails. I simply can't see it happening, torpedo inevitably hits the galley (which moves slower than i walk probably), which gets completely obliteratied, but one lucky sailor survives, swims hundreds of metres to the sub, which has now dived, holds his breath, survives compression/decompression, swims to the sub, using his inhuman strength and pissed off attitude, tears off the hatch, and punches a few holes in the armoured hull, and swims up to the surface. He then fixes the galley with errr, seaweed or something, and using his voodoo magic ressurects his crew, and happily sails on? Huh, I doubt it somehow. Maybe someone has a different idea on how a galley can sink a nuclear sub?

The galley doesn't need to win, they simply need to not lose. The nuclear sub missed the gally, accidently hit another nuclear sub (if they are a squad), and/or one the torpedoes exploded inside the sub. See it's easy.

[eadeater]

and/or one the torpedoes exploded inside the sub. See it's easy.

Ahhh, very clever, the galley didn't even need to know that the sub was there, the torpedo malfunctioned. Heh, why didn't I think of that myself ?

[Sinner]

I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.

That would depend if the infantry are lined up ready to fire with good officers to get the timing right & disciplined troops who obey their officers & hold their fire until ordered - in which case the footsloggers will be eating horsemeat steaks for supper. The cavalry should counter by pulling away & starting to try & flank the infantry, but then the infantry can counter that by forming into a square, etc.

combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.

Combined arms is always the way to go where possible, artillery plus cavalry were death for the infantry... for MTW, I'd guess archers plus cavalry would be more appropriate.

It's been said that the pure slowness of a Biplane would pose a difficulty for modern air2air aircraft. Or maybe it was difficult for heat seeking missiles to track a biplane.

The slow speed would be a big problem, but since modern fighters can and do shoot down helicopters which have similar top speeds to WW1 biplanes it wouldn't be impossible. Not too sure about the heat seeker, since they are effective against modern piston engined aircraft, but I'm not sure if the weaker engines used on WW1 biplanes have as strong an IR signature. Same for radar guided missiles, although modern ones are designed to be able to track low radar signature targets. Not that it matters, because a peasant would have already brought the biplane down with his pitchfork.

[Rivelin]

I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.

combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.

Not always... Infantry can sometimes stand up to cav charges in a line. The stand of the 93rd Highlanders at Balaclava in 1854 makes great reading.

The Russian force of 25,000 rode down the road to Balaklava. It was countered, in part, by a clash with the British Heavy Cavalry, who charged uphill, led by the apparently fearless Sir James Scarlett. The rest of the Russian force (approx 5000 men) went on to charge the 93rd (approx 500 men).

Campbell is said to have told his men, "There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand." Sir Colin's aide John Scott is said to have replied, "Aye, Sir Colin. If needs be, we'll do that." Campbell formed the 93rd into a line two deep --- the "thin red line" --- and had the regiment wait until very close quarters before the first line fired. The Russians continued to advance, and Campbell had his men wait until no more than 500 yards lay between the Highlanders and the charging Russians to fire the second volley. This broke the Russian charge. At that, some of the Highlanders started forward for a charge, but Sir Colin stopped them with a cry of "93rd, damn all that eagerness!"

It was the London Times correspondent, William H. Russell, who wrote that he could see nothing between the charging Russians and the British base of operations at Balaklava but the "thin red streak tipped with a line of steel" of the 93rd. Popularly condensed into "the thin red line", the phrase became a symbol, rightly or wrongly, for British sang-froid in battle.

When asked afterwards about his 'unconventional' tactics the commander replied that knowing the 93rd he didn't think it was worth the trouble of forming a square. lol