Cavalry

[Chester]

I'm trying to find any sources that discuss a scenario where heavy calvary was able to smash through a line of infantry, succesfully.

I'm assuming the cataphracts of the Eastern kingdoms could do this with relative ease since they were drapped in armor.

I've been lead to believe that medieval heavy calvary was able to break infantry formations and trample them. And with the exception of pikes and long bows, where pretty much uncontested on the field until fire arms became a standard.

Did infantry really rule the age? I know the roman legions did and they consisted mostly of ground troops. But did rome ever fight an equal aside from carthage? I'm not aware of any battle where an opposing faction wreaked havoc on Rome with calvary formations.

[Trithemius]

Cavalry. :/

[CountArach]

The only times that I can think of when Cavalry truly dominated was Parthians vs Romans. Surena I believe had some Cataphracts and was able to crush the legions with them, but some of the reason was the lowered morale and condition of Crassus' legions (From marching through the desert). Cataphracts were completely capable of taking out Infantry (look at Battle of Magnesia where Antiochus was capable of smashing through the Roman left), yet in general Heavy Cavalry armies did not fight without support and were generally not capable of being fielded in sufficient numbers to be able to achieve victory without support.

[Ludens]

You may find this thread interesting: it contains the discussion you are trying to start right now. I am sure Angadil will still be interesting to hear instances of heavy cavalry being able to break formed heavy infantry in EB's time frame.

[MSB]

Infantry was dominant for most peoples in this period. Cavalry was only unsupported for Nomadic Peoples such as the Parthians and the Peoples of the Steppes. For most nations infantry was the backbone of the army and did all the work and the cavalry was used mostly to break up lines and formations and also protect the flanks.

[Discoskull]

Cataphracts actually weren't as powerful as decked-out medival knights

[Conradus]

Didn't the Gothic cavalry defeat the roman army at Adrianopel or were they more of an infantry on horseback? I know they appeared on the roman flanks and crushed their army, killing Valens? in the process.

[econ21]

I think during the "Barbarian invasion" time frame, cavalry were enjoying more success against infantry. However, Chester might regard this as outside the time frame he's interested in.

I'm trying to find any sources that discuss a scenario where heavy calvary was able to smash through a line of infantry, succesfully.

Unlike some of the EB team, I'm not an ancient historian but wouldn't Alexander and the exploits of his Companions provide multiple examples of this?

I've been lead to believe that medieval heavy calvary was able to break infantry formations and trample them. And with the exception of pikes and long bows, where pretty much uncontested on the field until fire arms became a standard.

I think there are more exceptions than this - dismounted men-at-arms often seem to have been a successful counter to mounted men-at-arms in the period.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Breaking inf formation for cavalry was usually matter of training/courage. Crushing through stationary inf formation could be very difficult, but only the very best infantry units could stand and not flee if facing full scale charge.

[Zaknafien]

cavalry was primarily used to smash a pinned force in the "hammer and anvil" technique perfected by Alexander. its uses before and after this have also mainly been scouting and screening, and was never intended to be used as a decisive arm.

regardless of training, a horse will NOT charge into a line of spears and shields. The best you can get is have it close enough to allow you to swing a longer sword or thrust with a spear, but the fear effect of a line of horses bearing down on the enemy was what broke them. IF a line of infantry holds, it will defeat cavalry anytime. When they turn and break is when cavalry will slaughter them with better speed and reach.

[fallen851]

cavalry was primarily used to smash a pinned force in the "hammer and anvil" technique perfected by Alexander. its uses before and after this have also mainly been scouting and screening, and was never intended to be used as a decisive arm.

regardless of training, a horse will NOT charge into a line of spears and shields. The best you can get is have it close enough to allow you to swing a longer sword or thrust with a spear, but the fear effect of a line of horses bearing down on the enemy was what broke them. IF a line of infantry holds, it will defeat cavalry anytime. When they turn and break is when cavalry will slaughter them with better speed and reach.

Well horses will charge into a line of spears, but I think this is a pretty good description.

One thing to remember is the intimidation factor. It is scary to have a line of horses charging at you at a gallop. Poor trained conscript infantry may run before the cavalry even hits. This is why I believe much of the cavalry in the game should have the "frightens_infantry" line added in the export_descr_units.txt. The intial charge value of the cavalry should also be very high.

Only determined infantry would stand and fight, and if they survived the fear factor and the initial charge, then the cavalry would be slaughtered. Thus cavalry would not have near the armor of infantry.

This system is the most realistic because it forces people to time their cavalry charges just right. Charge too soon and you don't break the enemy line, cavalry slaughtered. Charge at the right time and you'll break the morale of the enemy, and cause them to rout.

Cavalry would be great for mopping up archer/peltasts as well.

[BigTex]

Well horses will charge into a line of spears, but I think this is a pretty good description.

One thing to remember is the intimidation factor. It is scary to have a line of horses charging at you at a gallop. Poor trained conscript infantry may run before the cavalry even hits. This is why I believe much of the cavalry in the game should have the "frightens_infantry" line added in the export_descr_units.txt. The intial charge value of the cavalry should also be very high.

Only determined infantry would stand and fight, and if they survived the fear factor and the initial charge, then the cavalry would be slaughtered. Thus cavalry would not have near the armor of infantry.

This system is the most realistic because it forces people to time their cavalry charges just right. Charge too soon and you don't break the enemy line, cavalry slaughtered. Charge at the right time and you'll break the morale of the enemy, and cause them to rout.

Cavalry would be great for mopping up archer/peltasts as well.

Gah cavalry dont need to have their charges amped up. Cavalry are there to destroy the opositions cavalry and then to move on and start a rout by charging a already weakend and engaged foe.

Cavalry in EB's timeframe werent built like knights were, their purpose was not to soley crush infantry with a massive charge. Heck they don't even couch their lances. Lowering their armor would be unrealistic, they were wealthy landowners for the most part. They could afford the best of the best as far as armor. Cavalry is fine the way it is, and whenever it gets ported to 1.5 it will be perfect.

[fallen851]

I didn't say they were built like knights, and that was not my intention. Rather as someone who is around horses a lot, they are often very intimidating to people who don't know or don't understand them, mostly because the way they communicate is extremely subtle, and of course they have the power at any moment to take your life.

So having men on horses with the ground shaking charges is intimidating, no matter if they are armored or not.

Essentially what I'm saying is cavalry should frighten infantry, and conscript town guard crap should rout easily to a charge of a decent cavalry unit. Furthermore, the power of cavalry is in the charge, not the ability to fight on horseback, thus this should be represented. So if the cavalry does not break the infantry with their charge and intimidation factor, it should be slaughtered.

It should be noted that horses are frail creatures, and to defeat a even a heavily armored horseman only takes a good stab into a critical area of the horse. If the horse is armored, then going after the legs or under the armor to the horses belly (As Carrus has his son's cavalry do at Carrhae to the cataphracts) is quite effective.

Heavy armor sacrifices mobility, which means the horse should be slower using the "general_horse" designation, and should reduce defensive skill and attack, as you're reducing the mobility and stamina of the fighter.

So for those reasons is why cavalry would be easier to kill than infantry. I would much rather face a Companion than a Hoplite, simply because I know how to take down a horse, it would be quite easy, and the Hoplite would require much more skill. But to the average person, I'm sure they would not want to face a horseman.

Lastly, your unwaving support for EB's balancing put into question why I even wrote this, you seem to think everything they do is perfect. That is fine, but it is likely the relationship of cavalry to infantry is going to change dramatically in EB 0.8 because the changes in the stats system in RTW 1.5.

So it is likely that cavalry charges will be more effective vs infantry in EB 0.8, at least based on what members have said. So now do you still hold onto your claim that cavalry charges are fine in 0.74 ? I think not, because you also advance the claim that whatever the EB team does is fine. So If I decide to increase charge values, it is not ok, but if they do, that's fine, regardless of whether or not you think charge values are ok, because you actually don't have an opinion on the matter, you simply mirror your opinion to whatever the EB team believes at the moment, and since you believed the EB wasn't changing charge values, you attacked me. But since you now know the EB team is likely to make charges more powerful (perhaps not in the form of increasing stats, since the charge system was messed up in 1.2), you have no right to attack me on that issue.

Ahh blind faith and ignorance at its best.

Based on the information you had then esentially the only difference between the EB team and I in the way we will adjust stats for 1.5 is I am adding "frightens_infantry" for the reason I described above (EB plans to adjust the charges to make them work properly as well, as at this point they are broken), but of course you didn't attack that point, only the charge value point which is going to change in .8 by the EB team anyway.

Now I will also be reducing the size of cavalry units for a variety of reasons, though I do suspect that my armor and attack stats will be lower, but my charge values higher, as this have given me a more realistic feel, but you had no way of knowing this.

Of course when EB 0.8 comes and I adjust the stats and release it, you're free to give your opinion (if you even try my stats... I have a feeling you'll be one of those "I HATE MICHAEL MOORES 9/11 MOVIE... but I never saw it"). I'll welcome corrections to my stats and will present people with research (in the form of in-game tests) about why my stats are correct, that I think most people will agree with if I find someone's correction unnecessary. Otherwise I'll be happy they helped me make my game more realistic.

[Ludens]

Essentially what I'm saying is cavalry should frighten infantry, and conscript town guard crap should rout easily to a charge of a decent cavalry unit. Furthermore, the power of cavalry is in the charge, not the ability to fight on horseback, thus this should be represented. So if the cavalry does not break the infantry with their charge and intimidation factor, it should be slaughtered.

I would like to see this also, but I don't know if the A.I. will respond well to that.

[econ21]

I've noticed infantry in RTR Platinum Edition tend to have the "frightened by nearby enemies" message when near cav, so I assume that mod makes infantry fear cavalry. I've grown to like the modelling of cav in that mod - with the charge, they are devastating - especially if hitting in the rear. But they are very vulnerable to infantry and don't kill much without getting a proper charge off.

[fallen851]

The AI seems to do ok with cavalry, as I have balanced vanilla like this. I mean they do as well with cavalry as they do with their other units (ie not very good).

It makes using cavalry quite a bit harder for the human, and makes battle a lot more interesting in general in my opinion. Cavalry becomes very specialized unit, they are very good at charging and breaking conscript town guard infantry (provided they don't have spears), archers and peltasts, or decent infantry that has been severly weakened or has been charged from the rear. And with the other changes to stats, they fit in very well. One of the general things I've noticed is that units on both sides will rout and reform during battles. So often the AI might be able to rout a group of infantry with a combined infantry/cavalry attack.

Previously, especially in vanilla, you would just run your cavalry around without much regard for them. Make one mistake and you'll see the remaining horsemen heading for the hills like this. But if you do it right, the enemy will be the one heading for the hills.

Lastly, just because cavalry is more "armored" doesn't mean they are better than less armored cavalry. Companions will be entirely different (not worse or better) than cataphracts for instance.

[Trithemius]

The AI seems to do ok with cavalry, as I have balanced vanilla like this. I mean they do as well with cavalry as they do with their other units (ie not very good).

They still seem to charge them out through their own lines and are easily lured away to be destroyed in detail by my cavalry.

Lastly, just because cavalry is more "armored" doesn't mean they are better than less armored cavalry. Companions will be entirely different (not worse or better) than cataphracts for instance.

Well they are "better" at not being killed by most weapons, surely? Their offensive statistics might not be much better (although more armour means more momentum if you can get them moving at a decent speed).

[HighLord z0b]

Charging cavalry didn't gallop, they cantered to keep their formations tight. At least I know that's true of the middle ages and I doubt it would be any different in the Ancient Period.

The advantage of cavalry is speed and manoeuvrability, they should be used against other cavalry and to hit the flanks and rear of infantry.

[Watchman]

All I've read about it suggests that when facing solid formed-up heavy infantry with enough backbone to not waver before the men on big animals, and if lacking suitable stand-off weaponry (ie. missile weapons or longer pointy sticks than the infantry have), even the best heavy cavalry pretty much might as well pack up and go home. Which they apparently also did every now and then; I've read than in some of the Rome - East (ie. Parthians or Sassanids) matches when the Romans brought along enough missile troops to counter the horse-archers, their opponents usually rather yielded the field than wasted cataphracts in futile attempts to break intact infantry blocks.

I understand the big issue is the horses themselves. When you think about it, those critters are just big skittish grazers, designed to run away from anything scary at impressive speed - giant rabbits really. And, as animals whose survival is heavily based on being able to run fast, they are also rather concerned about their footing and obstacles.

All of which basically means the big animals always tended to point blank refuse to run into solid obstacles - like stubborn infantry blocks - and pulled short. Sure, they could be persuaded to canter or walk against such without excessive trouble (I suspect this is another reason why heavy shock cavalry tended to favor relatively low attack speeds), but as the rear ranks of the infantry can lend their weight to assist the forward ranks for the "push" rather better than the cavalry that alone probably won't really help much. Especially if the pesky footsloggers poke the horses in the chest with something long and pointy.

I'm guessing this is really what the cataphracts - and especially the type with only the front of the horse barded - were partly designed for; forcing their way into the ranks with sheer weight and mass in a dense, mutually supporting formation at least partly able to add the weight of the rear ranks to the push, armed to stab and hack gaps in the enemy formation and - likely an important point, especially for the vulnerable mounts - armoured heavily enough to flatly "tough out" the lighter-equipped opposition (and keep their own ranks intact) if need be. The "blunt wedge" Byzantine heavy cavalry used during certain periods specifically against infantry was apparently a pretty sophisticated example of such tactics, or so I've read.

Although the horses might get in the way even here. I've read there were occasional incidents of even second-rate Late Roman static infantry seeing off Sassanid cataphracts by the crude expedient of being very noisy and scaring the beasts.

Anyway, the impact of cavalry charge against infantry was always first and foremost psychological. If the latter held their nerve and ranks, even rather unimpressive levies with little more than spears, shields and the clotches on their back could see off knights and other elite cavalry, or at the very least required repeated assaults to wear down (hit-and-run tactics were the norm for shock cavalry outside medieval Europe, I understand). On the other hand if the infantry wavered they could often be eaten for breakfast even by fairly light mounted troops.

Summa summarum, by what I know of it in a head-on clash against solid, motivated infantry even elite heavy cavalry was by and large if not quite automatically in trouble (being, after all, well-equipped elite troops) then at least bereft of many of their inherent advantages and forced to either mount repeated attacks or engage in a drawn-out slugging match (the all-or-nothing couched-lance charges medieval knights employed for a time tended to fail messily against determined infantry). On a frontal attack only poorly motivated or already wavering close-combat infantry could be expected to break and run quickly nevermind on impact; against formations of higher calibre cavalry should, and if possible also did, try to capitalize on its mobility and attack the flanks or rear.

[CountArach]

Regarding the FEar Cavalry thing:

I believe this is already built into 1.5. Every time an infantry unit is fighting a cavalry unit, they get the message in their morale thing, "Concerned to be fighting a nearby Cavalry unit)" or words to that effect.

[econ21]

Regarding the FEar Cavalry thing:

I believe this is already built into 1.5.

You may be right - it may be that I notice it in RTR PE not because the modders introduced it, but because it's inherent in 1.5.

[fallen851]

Medieval cavalry would canter until they got close to the enemy, then would go into a full gallop.

I don't know about the fear thing.

From Vanilla 1.5:

type barb chariot light briton
dictionary barb_chariot_light_briton ; British Light Chariots
category cavalry
class missile
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, frighten_foot, cantabrian_circle

Chariots are grouped as cavalry but also have the modifier frighten.

So maybe cavalry does frighten to an extent, and then chariots frighten even more with the modifier? Either way, I've added it to all cavalry (except horse archers, who infantry men would love to come to grips with).

My differences in Catapharts and other cavalry units is similar to my difference in lightly armor and heaviliy armored infantry.

Heavily armored troops trade "armor factor" for "defensive skill factor", in other words the more armored you become, the harder is to dodge blows (I assign a fatigue rating to the armor that effects many thing). It is not a 1-1 ratio, so units with armor do end up with a better overall armor rating. They also trade some attack for the heavier armor (has to do with the fatigue).

Infantry charge better without armor, but Cavalry charge the same (more armor = more mass, but at the same time, slower movement...F = M*A....)

So the differences will be this. Cataphracts will be slower and they will do better vs missle units.

Companions will have less much defense, and much less will be in armor factor, so even less resistance to missle. Their attack will be better, and they will be faster.

In battle Companions will beat Cataphracts because their over attack + armor will be higher (attack and armor are equal on a 1-1 ratio). But Cataphracts will have the extra armor will increases survivability vs missle and infantry so they can pull out and charge again.

All cavalry (except a few without spears and horse archers) gain a bonus vs cavalry.

[NeoSpartan]

Regarding the FEar Cavalry thing:

I believe this is already built into 1.5. Every time an infantry unit is fighting a cavalry unit, they get the message in their morale thing, "Concerned to be fighting a nearby Cavalry unit)" or words to that effect.

It is in 1.5. I played RTW 1.5 for 7 months, then the XGM mod for another 3months (XGM doesn't change vanilla that much), and only about 2 months ago did I start playing EB with v. 1.2.
I clearly remember reading "CONSERNED ABOUT FIGHITING CAVALRY" when infantry fought cavalry back in RTW and XGM.

(I know, I've only had RTW for 1 year now)

[Chester]

So Calvary, up and until the charge, had the same effects on the infantry during the classical age as it did in Medieval times?

Only difference is that Medieval knights could actually push their way through a crowd where as in the classical age they couldn't get very far, with maybe the exception of the Cataphracts?

Thanks for all the responses!

[Trithemius]

So Calvary, up and until the charge, had the same effects on the infantry during the classical age as it did in Medieval times?

The medieval period seemed to see a reduction in emphasis on disciplined spear-armed foot, so cavalry could prevail. As a consequence they became very important, until tactics adapted again.

[Discoskull]

From Vanilla 1.5:

type barb chariot light briton
dictionary barb_chariot_light_briton ; British Light Chariots
category cavalry
class missile
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, frighten_foot, cantabrian_circle

Chariots are grouped as cavalry but also have the modifier frighten.

So maybe cavalry does frighten to an extent, and then chariots frighten even more with the modifier? Either way, I've added it to all cavalry (except horse archers, who infantry men would love to come to grips with).

Chariots frighten foot soldiers more than normal cavalry. That's how it's supposed to be.

The insane noise of the wheels / mass of the chariots themselves / devestation they cause in the ranks / sythed blades of the eastern variety / the fact that they aren't seen as often as normal cavalry to boot scares the ever-loving #$^& out of inexperienced foot soldiers.

With that bit of script edited as you have it, a crappy light cavalry unit could prance around the back end of an engaged unit of foot soldiers - even relatively experienced ones - and cause the unit to route without killing a man (a tactic chariots are useful for, one of the things that legitimizes their expense).

Elephants are also grouped as cavalry, and they scare folks too - is a guy on a horse equal to a guy on an elephant or a war machine? Methinks not.

Change it back!

edit: I could maybe see that trait added to cataphracts, but only because they had a reputation...even still

[fallen851]

Chariots frighten foot soldiers more than normal cavalry. That's how it's supposed to be.

With that bit of script edited as you have it, a crappy light cavalry unit could prance around the back end of an engaged unit of foot soldiers - even relatively experienced ones - and cause the unit to route without killing a man (a tactic chariots are useful for, one of the things that legitimizes their expense).

Well I'm afriad it doesn't exactly work this way. Really crappy cavalry (like the lightest of cavalry) I actually didn't give this qualifer too.

But even still, just having cavalry in the rear doesn't cause them to rout, unless their front is crumbling and the army is about to give way anyway. It is the intimidation + the charge that does it. Once the cavalry hits, unless the unit is winning greatly and supported by other units around it, the unit of infantry is likely going to rout. If you get your cavalry around the rear of the enemy, then the battle should be over anyway. So many historical instances of the battle ending when one sides cavarly smashed into the rear of the other sides infantry. I could find none where cavalry got to the rear of infantry, and the infantry both defeated the cavalry behind and the infantry in front at the same time. If there are instances, they must be few and far between.

And think about it. If your fighting some freak who is wearing no clothes, and his friends are riding around in the rear... are you going to feel secure? Even if you been in battle?

One of things I don't like about RTW is that the crappy and decent units will rout from one side, but the "elite" units will sit their surrounded all day despite being outnumbered 24-1, before finally routing when 3/4 of their group has been killed, as if they actually had a chance against those odds in the first place. This is of course different is the battle is very close.

I invite you try my system when I release it, and see if you don't like it better. My whole system just makes more sense: cavalry in the rear routing units, if the entire army is routing the "elite units" will rout too. Furthermore it places a greater emphasis on tactics from battle to battle, rather than who has more "elite units".

[Ludens]

Sounds promising. I'll be trying out your system when I find time.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

The problem with cavalry in EB is that the most powerful units are available to factions with phalanx troops and nomadic factions. Since the RTW phalanx can turn around in 1 second and kill all of your precious cavalry when you attack the infantry from behind most classic tactics such as the hammer and anvil tactic don't really work. Needless to say attacking the phalanx from behind with an all horse army doesn't work as it should either.

Since the behaviour of the phalanx is hardcoded this problem can't really be solved I guess.

Mad Guitar Murphy

[Musopticon?]

Look, the idea of the anvil is to pin down the enemy you want to throw the hammer against. Do you have an anvil in place? The phalanx you want to flank has to be fighting a unit already, they won't turn. And even if they do, they'll be killed pretty quick since there's now infantry on their backside - just stop your cavalry.