Cavalry... What do you think? (all discussion of cav here)

**econ21** · 10-12-2006, 09:22

It's hard to judge these things from the demo. You don't actually control much cavalry - two at Hastings and one at Pavia. But so far so good, IMO.

I like the fact that the AI knights make almost no impression charging frontally on braced pikes (Pavia) or dismounted chivalric foot knights (Agincourt). It fits my understanding of history. Charging knights do cause some casualties - esp. at Agincourt (more so, if the English were not so experienced). It may be over a little quickly, but this is a game and battles will last less than 40 minutes rather than a day.

From a gameplay point of view, even if cavalry is prima facie underpowered, I think it will still be extremely useful by virtue of its mobility - it can whip around a flank much faster than infantry and is also much better at running down archers, cannon etc. I play Rome Total Realism Platinum where cavalry seems to have similar power to M2TW but they are still like gold. (A cavalry charge to the rear of an engaged unit is the killer tactic).

AI knights seemed to do fine on the few occasions they did not commit a frontal charge on a prepared position - e.g. the rear charge at Agincourt. They trounce longbows and it is mutually assured destruction vs non-braced billmen.

I have not experimented much with my cavalry at Hastings, but the Pavia general is a monster (the 2 hit points helps a lot here). Very useful for finishing off the French king after he has floundered on the pikes; for taking out the Scots Guards; the cannon; the crossbows etc. A target-rich environment, as the USAAF might have said.

**Ibn Munqidh** · 10-12-2006, 09:25

I agree, they seem to be underpowered. The scots guard at pavia are sword weilding infantry, and even they are a problem from the cavalry.

**Tempiic** · 10-12-2006, 10:25

Really? I experienced easy walkovers against these scottish guard with my cav.

I am not sure if they are underpowered. Don't forget either that the dismounted chiv knights also are nicely upgraded. I mean 22 defence versus 15 attack +13 charge is not a huge difference either. It might be even so they are scripted to simply die on impact. ;) Because I never saw the rear cav attack launch itself over my receiving billmen and/or dismounted knights. Nor the other french cav after first cav wave.

On the other hand, these rear french cav can become very lethal if they refuse to charge into your billmen. Most often I end up loosing my 2 billmen units against them. I also have seen the french AI holding up my isolated general unit and then charging in repeatingly with his cav. That was ouch.

**Bob the Insane** · 10-12-2006, 10:46

Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh

I agree, they seem to be underpowered. The scots guard at pavia are sword weilding infantry, and even they are a problem from the cavalry.

I did not find my general having any real issues with them, but if you mean the cavalry did not crush them in seconds I guess you are right...

I agree with the original poster in that while cavalry is actually effective and even the suicidal frontal charges can cause a reasonable number of deaths in the defending unit, it just does not look right somehow.

It is as if all the weight has been taken out of the cavalry. If an armoured warrior on horseback was to charge a prepared defensive line head on you would reasonable expected the mounted warrior to come off worse but the fact it has no noticeable impact on the defending unit looks a little odd. No more guys getting knocked through the air and push back even a little...

For the pike wall this is reasonable but for the foot knights with their warhammers you would think a charging knight could at least force a step backward, even if it is to avoid hurtling corpse...

I will reiterate though that when you look at the numbers the and effect on gameplay, they have that aspect down just right I think...

**Prince of the Poodles** · 10-12-2006, 11:01

I will reiterate though that when you look at the numbers the and effect on gameplay, they have that aspect down just right I think...

And thats the most important part...

Thanks for your opinions so far!

**Watchman** · 10-12-2006, 11:40

Cavalry always kind of floundered when trying to attack close-order infantry that stubbornly held the ranks. Even if it was just a bunch of determined peasants with pointy sticks. By what I understand of it in such circumstances the horses just flat out refuse to run into what they perceive to be a solid obstacle and hit the brakes, which naturally enough saps the effect of the charge but good and tends to leave the horsemen milling around all vulnerable.

The horsies are apparently more willing to walk or canter into such obstacles though (presumably they think they won't be impacting hard enough to break their legs), which I understand is exactly why cataphract-style cavalry went to attack at such low velocities (at least against formed infantry) - that way they could push into the ranks by the virtue of sheer weight and survivability and hopefully eventually break up the enemy formation.

I've also read that around Late Middle Ages at least some Central European cavalry (the source referred to them as "German") adopted deep solid wedge formations, probably for the same end - trading speed and mobility for mass and staying power.

**Temujin** · 10-12-2006, 11:54

Originally Posted by Watchman

I've also read that around Late Middle Ages at least some Central European cavalry (the source referred to them as "German") adopted deep solid wedge formations, probably for the same end - trading speed and mobility for mass and staying power.

I thought the reason for the deeper german formations was a lack of homogenous quality - putting the lesser men-at-arms at the back to prevent the enemy from exploiting their weakness? I seem to recall Maximillian thinking better of his Burgundian cavalry than others, and devising a formation with Burgundians in front and "other germans" in the rear. I also don't believe that it has been conclusively shown that those formations were "wedges" as opposed to simply deep formations of cavalry, but I could be wrong about all this; it's been a while since I touched those books.

**Watchman** · 10-12-2006, 12:03

That would have been a standard practice. European chivalry normally formed up with the best armed (which usually also meant socially highest ranked) men at the front lines and assorted lesser-status and usually lighter-equipped cavalry (sergeants, squires, whatever) at the rear in support, but those were in successive long lines about two or three ranks deep AFAIK. Considerations other than grade of armament and tactical role could of course also weigh in.

At least the source I read it in seemed to suggest the German wedge was a fundamentally different tactical formation. That differently equipped men would be deployed into specific parts therein would not have been anything new - the old "blunt wedge" of Byzantine cataphracts had similarly had a very specific equipement distribution.

**doc_bean** · 10-12-2006, 11:36

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

It is as if all the weight has been taken out of the cavalry. If an armoured warrior on horseback was to charge a prepared defensive line head on you would reasonable expected the mounted warrior to come off worse but the fact it has no noticeable impact on the defending unit looks a little odd. No more guys getting knocked through the air and push back even a little...

Well, unless they are riding suicidal horses, it would be hard to ride full speed into a braced group of men.

I haven't played the demo yet though, so i don't know what it looks like