Why does all cavalry get the "Effective against armour" trait?

**SirPoot** · 03-23-2006, 10:53

Well, I noticed that most typical non-skirmishing cavalry, like the greek cavalry or even the iberian cruisii (i can't spell that), have the "Effective against armour" trait in their description. Why is that so, both historically and gameplay wise? Also, does that trait affects your primary attack, your secondary attack, or both?

**Cheexsta** · 03-23-2006, 12:56

My guess is that it makes flanking much more rewarding with cavalry, while frontal charges become more risky due to the enemy unit still keeping their shield defense value.

Maybe. *Shrugs*

**QwertyMIDX** · 03-23-2006, 17:40

Mostly to make cavalry charges work despite the 1.2 charge bug. Although any cavarly unit that doesn't use an overhand spear will probably keep it, a charge with a lance or even spear is pretty good for cracking open armor.

**The_White_Knight** · 03-23-2006, 17:48

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Mostly to make cavalry charges work despite the 1.2 charge bug.

What exactly is that charge bug?

**QwertyMIDX** · 03-23-2006, 18:02

In 1.2 charge bonuses have almost no effect. This is not the case in 1.5 though, so no worries.

**abou** · 03-23-2006, 19:20

So that is why my cavalry has been so weak!

**econ21** · 03-23-2006, 22:05

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Mostly to make cavalry charges work despite the 1.2 charge bug. Although any cavarly unit that doesn't use an overhand spear will probably keep it, a charge with a lance or even spear is pretty good for cracking open armor.

I would have thought so too, but I am starting to have second doubts. It was interesting in the cavalry spears thread, a link was given saying that Napoleonic lancers were regarded as rather ineffective against cuirassiers:

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/cavalry_tactics_2.htm

**Arman** · 03-23-2006, 23:16

Not at all. About napoleonic lancers, the were simply few good lancers at Napoleonic time. Tho Cossacks Guards had crushed the Guard Cuiarsiers of French in battle of Lipzig, and Polish Ulahn defeated Russian and Austrian cuirassiers, I think in same battle. So first:

1. Ulahn were simply not good, breefly trained Austrian and Prussian Ulahn could not be compared with French Old Guard Lancers which were defeating anybody with lance. One Old Guard Lancer demonstrated his skill by fighting against 2 dragoons and knocking them from the saddle.
2. Incomparable lance. Compare Polish Hussaria and Napoleonic Lancers. 5.5m lances vs 2.3 m lance of Napoleonic Ulah or 4m long lance of the Heiteroi or Cataphract lance.
3. Incomparable armor. You can't compare light Napoleonic Ulah vs Cuirassier. But what if Cuirassiers got charged by Armored Elite Macedonian Cav? They would got smushed and cut on peaces.

Yep found it in your link
"Only well-trained and battle-hardened lancers were able to deal with armored cavalry. In 1813 at Leipzig the Polish 3rd, 6th and 8th Uhlan Regiment (mostly veterans) didn't shy away from the cuirassiers. Near Auenhain Sheepfarm the three regiments charged numerous times against six Austrian and two Russian cuirassier regiments. The Poles pointed their lances at cuirassiers' faces and necks. According to P. Haythornthwaite "lance can be aimed at a target with greater accuracy than a sword." They also used lances as battering rams - striking at tops of opponents' helmets with force."
And equipment were diferent. For example in older times lances were bigger and heavier and could hit armor not worser than sword, even if not breaking armor atleast throwing people down from horse.
Most of good heavy cav would use lance only against infantry or as initiall shock weapon and dragging swords for close fighting. Read about lancers formitions there on this good site. 1 rank lances 2nd couple of lances rest swords. There were men with swords already dragged out to support lancers after an impact.