Weak cavalry?

[LadyAnn]

That feature had not stopped all cavalry army in MTW, it won't stop it in MTW2...

Louis,

In MTW, you can field 4 units of one type, 4 units of another type, etc. Each faction has enough variety to field 4 types and still has all cav army.

It is important to see that all cav in MTW is a handicap. You have only 640 men total and you can't easily hold ground. On RTW, all cav is not a handicap. Thus I wouldn't play all cav on RTW.

(also important to separate out MP and SP).

Anniep

[Orda Khan]

easily countered by a square of Hoplites with Archers in the middle shooting any horse archer, what's your point?

I faced that formation with Scythian HA, the formation died. Switch off FAW, target archer units, when all dead or so low in number as to offer no threat, target the BACKS of each pike wall and watch them drop

.......Orda

[Cheetah]

First of all there is a big diference between SP and MP not just in the oposition you have but in the effectiveness, exactly because of the oposition.

In SP you can play whatever style you prefer as long as you want. In most cases you wont recognize the weakness of your style simply because the AI is not that good to exploit it. Thus you can play infantry heavy, cav heavy, archer heavy styles forever, and accordingly you might be complaianing that cavs, infs, archers are weak/strong etc.

However, in MP your opponents will quickly show the weakness of your style (simply because of the competitve nature of MP) and thus you will be forced to change, unless you are prepared to lose all the time, which none of us prefers. All in all in MP you will be quickly chanelled to play the most efficient style with the most efficient armies (add a small variation here and there).

For the above reasons I am a bit sceptical about gamebalance suggestions coming from SP, simply because there is no way to know whether your style is efficient/unefficient in SP. On the otherhand, MP is a much better measure of game balance as even the smallest expliots will be found and used/abused very quickly.

Thus, as far as the above statement concered that cavs were weak in MTW, it is safe to say that it is not likely to be true. Almost half of the armies in MP consisted cavs, most notably heavy cavs (chiv knights) and in the light of the above argument it is not likely that people would take them if they were that weak. For example a tipical MP army was 3 pavies x-bows, 5 MAA and 8 Chiv knight (or it is equivalent: Hospitaller knights, Teutonic knights, Templars, upgraded feudal knights, etc). Would anyone deploy such an army if cavs were that weak? No way.

The very problem of MP was that spears were not good enough or to be precise were to costly. There were spears that could hold cav charges, like v2 orderfoot, but they were even costlier than the cavs and even costlier than the MAA that could beat them. IMHO a small change in cost could have changed things, as if lets say v2 orderfoot would have been the same cost as v3w1 FMAA then I am sure some people would have used at least 1 or 2; and if v2 orderfoot would have been cheaper than v3w1 FMAA, let say around 700 florins, then I am sure it would have been a standard addition to MP armies.

Anyway, it was not and cav was a dominant force in MTW (except the early days before the 1.1 patch).

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

What Cheetah say

This is exactly the kind of topic that killed spear as a part of a balanced army in MTW moving from 1.0 to 1.1 ...

Louis,

[geala]

Interesting historical debate. My point of view:

1. It is possible to train horses in a manner that they run against and crush in a firm obstacle like a dense body of men with or without spears, pikes and shields. It would be obviously not very good for the horses health and might be their one and only battle but it is possible.

2. It must have been a fairly seldom event at any ancient, medieval or modern battle that there were together enough horses well trained in the described manner to achieve a contact or break against a firm infantry formation.

My opinion is based on the fact that in war horses fade away very quickly even without actual fighting (desease, starvation, accidents) and at a far higher percentage than men. Maybe some of the supposed breaks were achieved by knights with such trained horses but imho it happened not so often to take it as a rule (unfortunately I could only list incidents where medieval cavalry was unable to break massive formations but I hope for enlightenment).

3. The reports of frankish knights breaking through their byzantine and islamic enemies should not be taken too seriously. My explanation for this strange hint, if it isn't mere exaggeration, is that it is meant for cavalry against cavalry. In this case heavier cavalry has a big advantage. Maybe another example for this effect: in some battles of the 30-years-war the imperial Kürisser/cuirassiers in heavy armour are said to go through lighter swedish cavalry "like a knife through butter". That was not the case against infantry.

4. For me the mongols greatest advantage was not the bow or horse or mobility but the very good organisation and discipline which equalled those of modern european armies. And it's not a miracle that steppe people performed so pitiable against modern european troops of equal or better discipline from the 16th century on.

5. Cavalry in MTW reflects knightly combat not in every instance. It behaves more as modern cavalry fighting in seperate bodies and being able to charge, summon, withdraw and recharge several times. Medieval cavalry was not always able to do this in a similar manner. So I would appreciate if cavalry wouldn't be as strong as in RTW where sometimes balance is ridiculous.

6. Even if cavalry wasn't able to break massive formations from 350 BC till 1890 AD frequently battles were won by cavalry and that will be also the case in M2TW, I presume.

7. sry for my english