Weak cavalry?

[Satyr]

Knights, when charged into archers should just about break the archer formation and kill many and probably rout the company, yet that doesn't happen at all in the demo. It takes just about the entire battle to take out one archer company with your knights. If this is the way the game plays then cav will be used much less than it was in MTW where cav was used to get behind enemy lines and rout the archers.

[LadyAnn]

I actually didn't do that in MTW (get behind archer lines to route them). They usually are well protected by their fellows.
I guess I need to play more games...

Anniep

[Tempiic]

Knights, when charged into archers should just about break the archer formation and kill many and probably rout the company, yet that doesn't happen at all in the demo. It takes just about the entire battle to take out one archer company with your knights. If this is the way the game plays then cav will be used much less than it was in MTW where cav was used to get behind enemy lines and rout the archers.

If you are referring to these scottish guards... sometimes they get killed by my general cav, sometimes not. I am thinking that these scottish guards might in fact be hybrids rather than pure missile troops.

Besides that, I find myself very agreeing with Bob the Insane and Lady An on the effectiveness of cav in the demo.

As another note, I enjoyed how cav charging charging cav works as well.

[Bob the Insane]

Knights, when charged into archers should just about break the archer formation and kill many and probably rout the company, yet that doesn't happen at all in the demo. It takes just about the entire battle to take out one archer company with your knights. If this is the way the game plays then cav will be used much less than it was in MTW where cav was used to get behind enemy lines and rout the archers.

I beg to differ... If you look at my post in the thread linked below (near the end) you will see a demonstration of what a cavalry charge can do to regular longbowmen out in the open (note also these longbowman are 2 gold chevrons for valour too):

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=70402&page=2



Put simply I think the Scots Guard are a special case and you should not juse the efeectiveness of cavalry against light infantry by them...

Additionally while playing around I had a unit of dismounted knight charge to the rear as I was repositioning them. Normally head on they decimate the cavalry, in this instance the dismounted knight where wiped out neardy to a man very quickly. I think face will have more of an effect than ever...

[Aracnid]

Defiantly on Pavia I first charged my cav in and was getting trashed until I diverted my landsknechts from attacking the other Scots guard unit in an effort to save my general (it worked and I won in the end). Second time I hit them from the flank with my cav and I killed nearly half the unit in my charge. Face has a huge effect.

[Redtemplar]

But longbowmen aren't just good adversary in melee combat. I rather thought about heavy, medium infantry which should be defeated with no problem.

How armored troops can stop cavalry? It is impossible for them because they have nothing that could stop about 800 kilo of charging horse with speed of for example 50 km/h (yeah minimum :)). This option should have only special anticavalry units such as pikeman or scotish guards the rests should be completely destroyed (even spearman with their short weapons). The only exception from this could be massive lines of ordinary infantry (about 20 or more) to stop the impact of charge, but casualties would even than very large about 50% or more.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

But longbowmen aren't just good adversary in melee combat. I rather thought about heavy, medium infantry which should be defeated with no problem.

How armored troops can stop cavalry? It is impossible for them because they have nothing that could stop about 800 kilo of charging horse with speed of for example 50 km/h (yeah minimum :)). This option should have only special anticavalry units such as pikeman or scotish guards the rests should be completely destroyed (even spearman with their short weapons). The only exception from this could be massive lines of ordinary infantry (about 20 or more) to stop the impact of charge, but casualties would even than very large about 50% or more.

I will not even talk about how wrong and unrealistic your argument is... As long as they maintained cohesion, armoured infantry got a fair chance against a cavalry charge. That's the difference between 1v1 and unit versus unit.


If you think in terms of gameplay, I hope you see how damaging your proposal would be. Why would anyone build anything but cavalry? What about unit balance?

Also, after MTW1 1.0, there were a lot of complain about cavalry being too weak, that led to some horrendous balancing decision, and eventually, all spears and pikes became completly useless. I'd urge everybody not to make that kind of judgement with a demo... Actually, not to make that kind of judgement in the first 6 months after game release. We never really recovered from that MTW1 1.0 silly decision.

Louis,

[Orda Khan]

I will not even talk about how wrong and unrealistic your argument is... As long as they maintained cohesion, armoured infantry got a fair chance against a cavalry charge. That's the difference between 1v1 and unit versus unit.


If you think in terms of gameplay, I hope you see how damaging your proposal would be. Why would anyone build anything but cavalry? What about unit balance?

Also, after MTW1 1.0, there were a lot of complain about cavalry being too weak, that led to some horrendous balancing decision, and eventually, all spears and pikes became completly useless. I'd urge everybody not to make that kind of judgement with a demo... Actually, not to make that kind of judgement in the first 6 months after game release. We never really recovered from that MTW1 1.0 silly decision.

Louis,

Very well said Louis.
MTW v1.0 was a good game and it was thoroughly ruined with v1.1. VI nor the v2.01 patch could help save the gameplay.
Cavalry, like any other unit, can die horribly and the thought that the player now has to use then wisely is music to my ears

.........Orda

[Furious Mental]

"How armored troops can stop cavalry? It is impossible for them because they have nothing that could stop about 800 kilo of charging horse with speed of for example 50 km/h (yeah minimum :)). This option should have only special anticavalry units such as pikeman or scotish guards the rests should be completely destroyed (even spearman with their short weapons). The only exception from this could be massive lines of ordinary infantry (about 20 or more) to stop the impact of charge, but casualties would even than very large about 50% or more."

It's less about the weapons and more about the fact that alot of big men standing behind big shields constitutes a big obstacle even to an 800 kg horse. Those standing in the front of a formation were likely to be the worse for wear but as long every man stood his ground a cavalry charge was likely to fail because basically the horses, if they charged home, would topple over and their riders would be killed by the generally more numerous foot soldiers. A cavalry charge was, to a large extent, dependent on scaring the unfortunate front ranks of an infantry formation into scattering. Pikes helped but were by no means vital. There are not a few examples of English spearmen and dismounted knights withstanding French royal cavalry in Anglo-Norman times, and this without having to stand in ranks 20 men deep and suffer 50% casualties.

[Redtemplar]

I will not even talk about how wrong and unrealistic your argument is... As long as they maintained cohesion, armoured infantry got a fair chance against a cavalry charge. That's the difference between 1v1 and unit versus unit.


If you think in terms of gameplay, I hope you see how damaging your proposal would be. Why would anyone build anything but cavalry? What about unit balance?

Also, after MTW1 1.0, there were a lot of complain about cavalry being too weak, that led to some horrendous balancing decision, and eventually, all spears and pikes became completly useless. I'd urge everybody not to make that kind of judgement with a demo... Actually, not to make that kind of judgement in the first 6 months after game release. We never really recovered from that MTW1 1.0 silly decision.

Louis,

Hm. I think that you see medieval times from the infantry side. But I will tell you something. If you think infantry was so great with these shields why Gengis Khan used only horses? (the most of his opponents used them and even than they lost) Why the cavalry was the main force in Europe and America during medieval times and even after.

Someone said that shield wall was good against horses. Good joke. Maybe shields about 2 on 1 meter maybe would be good but i think this was rather rare :) .

Some interlocutors had forgotten that this horses were battle horses (i don't know if France but I talk about my region). They were trained in attacking shield walls, pike walls etc.. They were also learned to kick and ram targets. Heavy cavalry had often armors to protect horses in time after impact.

I understand that the creators are trying to make balance but the weak cavalry shouldn't be so expansive as in Medieval I. The other way is to make them strong as in history it was.

[LadyAnn]

You neglected to mention the tactics of the Golden Horde.

1. Gengis Khan's army was not a pure heavy cav army we were talking about. These were cav archers. Excellent archers by their own right even firing on the move, they could rival any archers on foot. Their composite bows give them short drawn with same range, an excellent range weapon. They discovered they could shoot while none of the horse's hooves touch the air, thus have more accurate aim. They could shoot standing on the stirrup, forward, backward. They were accomplished horse riders, capable of leaning on the side of a horse to pick up items on the ground.

2. Genghis Khan army would not charge infantry formation front, side or even rear. They just made several passes then disappear in a cloud of dust then reemerged from a different direction, rained down hail of arrows, made several passes, then disappeared again. They demoralized, wore down and decimated opponents who were not capable of chasing them. They only charged opoonents in disarray, chased down routers or deserters.

3. The Golden Horde won the wars at strategic level. Their scouting units were capable of fighting and vice versa, and they could quickly disperse and regroup. Being on horses, they often could quickly find the enemy's army, skirmish and disengage, so they could chose their own terrain for battle. Their enemies were described always try to find the Horde army, always unsure of where it was. That fact alone was enough to tilt the battle toward Horde victories.

4. The Golden Horde could quickly pillage and/or maintain supply routes. The enemies cannot. Their superiority in speed allowed them to disrupt supplies routes, while it was much harder for the enemies to do the same. In fact, three of the rare wars the Mongols lost were due to terrain which doesn't permit a landbased supply route, and the Mongols supply ships were raided.

Anyways, I think it suffice to say Mongol Army were not similar to Western Catholic heavy cav army.

Annie

[Vladimir]

I'm sorry RedTemplar but I think you're a bit naive about history.

The Mongols won so many battles for MANY reasons. Their superior archery destroyed the relatively poor steppe peoples, and their superior tactics (feigned retreats, ambushes, etc etc) benefited them as much as their cavalry. They used so many of them because they had so many of them; they were a steppe people!

You're also forgetting about the prevalence of *light* cavalry used by the Mongols. You're bringing light cavalry into a heavy cavalry discussion. The greatest advantage that horsemen bring to the battlefield is mobility. This allows for the above tactics, blitzkrieg warfare and in an emergency...additional food supply (horses).

You can see examples early on of intact shieldwalls holding back frontal cav charges. Just what I can remember from reading a Military History magazine shows that unbroken, disciplined infantry can stop horses cold. Even troops with smaller shields and few longarms.

Show me where it is said that cavalry was the main force in Europe. Cavalry was the most *important* force mainly because, as I said, it added mobility to the battlefield. Heavy horse was also expensive and therefore societies focused on ways to increase their availability. Infantry was the main force but cavalry was the most valuable.

Also remember that horses aren't stupid. They're quite crafty and don't want to die. Yes they were bread for war but no they didn't like charging into solid objects (trees, rocks, PEOPLE) making a lot of noise and waiving things at them.

You can see this in MTW, especially in VI. Once you are able to train large amounts of horsemen, the battlefield opens up to you.

[Furious Mental]

"If you think infantry was so great with these shields why Gengis Khan used only horses?"

First of all, Genghis Khan didn't use "only horses". Where did you get that? Do you think he took all those Chinese citadels with cavalry? Of course not, he had to use Chinese siege engineers and Chinese infantry. Second of all, in so far as Mongol field armies were often comprised entirely of cavalry, the example is quite irrelevant to the discussion because Mongols were so different to Europeans in terms of culture and tactics.

Mongols, being steppe people, naturally tended towards mounted warfare. How could a warlord control the vast plains without horses? He couldn't. In the European context the relative slowness of foot soldiers was less problematic- take the example of a very warlike period in England, 1135-1154: any army was likely to be marching a very short distance to besiege one of the several hundred castles then in existence.

Notably Mongols also did not rely solely on the frontal charge; the charge generally came last after an enemy had been worn down with arrows and often coaxed into pointless and tiring attempts at pursuit, which often placed them in a vulnerable position.

"If you think infantry was so great with these shields why Gengis Khan used only horses? (the most of his opponents used them and even than they lost) Why the cavalry was the main force in Europe and America during medieval times and even after."

Your view of medieval warfare is simply wrong, there are no two ways about it. Infantry were the main component of the average medieval European army. Most medieval generals followed the strategy of the Roman theorist Vegetius, which was to avoid the risks entailed in pitched battles and instead try to force the enemy to abandon a campaign by gaining control of food supplies. In doing this one of the most important things to do was gain control of castles, so sieges were far more numerous than pitched battles. Cavalry are relatively useless for sieges. Where cavalry did fit into this sort of logistical warfare was chiefly using their mobility for foraging and harrying. They were certainly important in pitched battles when such battles occurred but were generally neither the predominant portion of the army nor could they just trample down any opposition. As is the case with any tactical unit, they were best in conjunction with others.

"Someone said that shield wall was good against horses."

Go and read the account of the Battle of Hastings in the Gesta Willelmi, which was written by William of Poitiers, who was William the Conqueror's chaplain and therefore can be taken to have gotten his information straight from those who were at the battle. He was unambiguous in stating that stating that a couple of thousand of the best cavalry in France could make little impression on the English shield wall, and only won by hours of skirmishing (in conjunction with archers and crossbowmen on foot) and tactical ruses. In other words- they fought like Mongols (and some historians theorise that in fact the knowledge of this style of warfare was derived from Frankish contact with the Magyars). And after the Battle of Hastings there was no small number of battles where the English fyrd, then at the service of the Anglo-Norman kings, withstood charges by continental cavalry again and again. Notably, on a number of occasions, the Norman knights in fact dismounted to strengthen the infantry formation; in other words the king guessed (correctly the results of the battles show) that his cavalry were worth more on foot than they were mounted.

[CBR]

Also, after MTW1 1.0, there were a lot of complain about cavalry being too weak, that led to some horrendous balancing decision, and eventually, all spears and pikes became completly useless.

Louis,

Spears and pikes were not made weaker so cavalry could become stronger. Spears became more expensive because people complained about how weak the swords were. As the upkeep stayed the same it had hardly any effect for SP but for MP it had a devastating effect.


CBR