Weak cavalry?

[BDC]

I think there's probably a couple of things that are getting confused here:

1) Big pitched battles were RARE. Even the best generals only fought one or two. Perhaps that's why they were the best. Far too much is at stake. You could lose everything in one swoop. Therefore actual big, organised charges wouldn't have happened often.

2) The quality of the opposing troops. Knights were soldiers (essentially, trained from childhood etc), equipped with the best equipment, and keen to show off their bravery to their peers. They might be charging untrained peasants, armed with a stick. Of course they are going to win. But maybe not against a motivated and trained block of well equipped men on foot. Probably not in fact. How many cavalry charges worked against well equipped, trained and positioned pikemen?

[Kavhan Isbul]

Middle Eastern Cavalry (Unless you count the Byzantine Heavy Cavalry)

What makes you think that the Heavy cavalry of the Eastern Roman Empire was significantly different than the Muslim cavalry of say, for example, the Seljuks? After all, the Byzantines modelled their cavalry on the cavalry of the Persians, Avars and Bulgars. It can also be said that the Avars influenced the French themselves. And judging on contemporary iconography, the Eastern heavy cavalry from the times of the first Crusade was probably heavier than the Western European.
Back to Middle Eastern cavalry - the Mongols themselves were similarly equipped, if not identically as the Muslims the Crusaders faced. After their successfull campaign in Central Asia and the destruction of the Khwarezmid Empire, the army that Subodei had at Khalka was equipped with trophies, taken from Persia. The Russian cavalry he faced was equipped in predominantly Western fashion, but was defeated handily when the Mongol Heavy Cavalry center charged it. Then two tumens of light Mongol cavalry defeated a combined Polish and German army, supported by order knights sent from the Pope. And finally, the Mongols were able to defeat the Hungarians at Mohi, where on the side of the Christians fought Knights Templar.
I do not think all these victories prove anything about what cavalry was better or worse. It all came down to tactical skill, good discipline (this one was crucial) and sometimes even bravery, such as the one shown by Batu at Mohi, which is believed to have saved the day when the Mongols were nearly rooted. Making a broad general statement that Western heavy cavalrymen were much better than their Muslim counterparts is not only inaccurate, but over-simplified and biased.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Middle Eastern Cavalry (Unless you count the Byzantine Heavy Cavalry) always got pulverized when facing Knights head on, for example at Dorylaeum which featured Knights at not their heaviest armor (It was still chainmail during the First Crusade) the eastern cavalry really was not able to stand up to the Knights when facing them head on.

Oddly enough...Eastern cavalry did better later versus more armoured knights

Louis maybe we could do a MP game with each other some time.

Sure, PM me anytime, take an hoplite square and see for yourself

To Louis and Ann did MTW get a major upgrade after patch 1.00 because that is all I played of MTW.

What Ann said. With 1.0, people complained that cavalry was too weak, not able to push back spear and swipe ( ) infantry . 1.1 patch gave pushback for cavalry, increase the cost of spear... And basically, overnight, nobody played spear anymore in MP.
1.1 patch is acase study of players asking the wrong thing, getting it, and breaking the game balance they had.

That's pretty much why that kind of topic is ... not a welcome sight for me... We've been there, done that, and screwed up badly.

Louis,

[Watchman]

The European practice of using the couched lance in massed linear charges initially took the Eastern armies by surprise. Once they learned to appreciate its capabilities and limitations, and more importantly were no longer caught off guard, they could deal with it on more even terms.

"Eastern" cavalry doctrine emphasized rather different aspects than the "Frankish" one however, even for armoured shock cavalry, so in terms of pure impact power the latter were always readily recognized as the top dogs. That, however, didn't mean eastern heavy cavalry could not clash with their "Frankish" colleagues head on and win; on the contrary both sides developed a healthy respect for each other's main fighting techniques and put some serious effort into trying to exploit their respective strenghts and weaknesses.

[Woozie]

Cavalry should not be able to annihalate infantry after the charge. Heavy Infantry that is.

I think cavalry is good in the demo, maybe a bit of a beef when they charge the front of units but other than that they decimate light infantry and break ranks easily when flanking.

[Horatius]

Louis that is one funny thing when you think about it, since the Knights of the First Crusade definitely had much lighter armour then the Knights who got slain at Nicepolis (SP).

Kahvan

What makes me say that is the fact that Muslim Armies relied on mobility every time they faced Byzantine Armies up untill the 14th century, which is when the Byzantine Armies really start to become less and less of a serious fighting force. Persia was not the standard of Muslim Cavalry, nor was it especially significant in comparison with the Seljuks, or the Arabs. Had the Arabs and Turks had cavalry capable of standing up to what the Byzantines could have fielded head on then why didn't they just do that instead of using Horse Archers, remembering that this is indeed a warriors age?

The Mongols can not be counted as standard because they usually had extrodinary leadership which was normally lacking in the armies that they faced, and their organization was not rivaled, let alone matched.

[Watchman]

The Persians, Arabs (at least after they'd already taken over most of Middle East) and the Byzantines actually used relatively similar cavalry techniques. Small wonder, as they were constantly butting heads in similar conditions and on ultimately fairly similar resource bases.

The Turks and other nomads had a rather different approach, but this is hardly anything new. Steppe nomads have a quite different recruitement and ecological base than sedentary peoples. Although they too tried to get as much armoured cavalry to the field as they could muster.

Anyway, the horse-archer was a staple among all Eastern cavalry. The nomads tended to employ them as loose-order skirmishers, the sedentary peoples who lacked the vast horse herds needed to support that tactic as close-order multipurpose cavalry instead and preferred to shoot standing. The latter were also typically able to armour their soldiers rather better and give them more thorough hand-to-hand combat training, which made theirs a by far rather more all-purpose troop type than the light steppe skirmishers.

One gets the impression that the difference between the horse-archers and more dedicated heavy shock cavalry among the sedentary nations tended to be blurry indeed, and the types were in practice often one and the same. Heck, the Mamluk horse-archers were trained to use their bows as close assault weapons, and probably weren't the only ones...

Anyway, as a side effect of the fairly extreme proliferation of composite bows and archery in the region since ancient times heavy armour was popular - the massively armoured cataphract developed among the archery-crazy Central Asians and spread rapidly in all directions, remember ? Being able to outlast the other guy in an archery fight by virtue of sheer resiliency, or ride through his missiles with impunity, is an obviously useful ability for soldiers.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Horatius - the Persian cavalry was always representative of the cavalry in the Middle East, since both the Byzantines and the Arabs copied it. You are right that the Seljuks used their mobility against the Byzantines, as did the Arabs initially, but it is interesting to note that all sides tried to get as much heavily armoured horsemen as possible and throw them against each other. The Byzantines of course, had plenty of Turkic mercenaries themselves, even before Manzikert. I think you place too much importance on equipment, which was fairly similar throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and even Eastern Europe, as weapons and armor spread through trade and wars. For example, after the Kievan Knyaz Svetoslav's second campaign in the Balkans was defeated by the Byzantines and their Pecheneg allies, it is reported that the Pechenegs took almost all of the Variangians' armor and swords as trophies, which might change completely the picture of a Pecheneg warrior from the end of the 10th century - they probably looked like the mounted retinues of the Kievan princes. The Rus themselves were quick to adopt the equipment of their steppe foes.
You seem to think that there was huge difference between the heavy cavalry of the Crusaders, the Byzantines and the Muslims in the 12th and 13th centuries, but I personally think such a clear difference exists only in Hollywood movies and computer games. In the open steppes and deserts in the East the bow gave a clear advanatge, which does not mean that Eastern cavalry could not use other weapons - the Mameluks for all accounts were quite expert at close quarters.

[Horatius]

I stand corrected on Arab Cavalry then, although on the Crusaders I am sure that their equiptment was (As far as the Knights go) almost always different. Crusader Knights simply had too much efficiency to think that they did not have a major advantage.

Even at Hattin when the Knights had a leader who could not possible have been more inept the Knights made a great account of themselves, very nearly breaking through the Muslim lines. I do agree that infantry would have looked the same, however I think that the Seljuks emphasized mobile horse archers, while Arab Cavalry emphasized light cavalry, although I do acknowledge the heavy cavalry of both would have looked the same.

[satchef1]

Cavalry are as strong as they should be.
Regardless of the charge, if mounted units get caught in a prolonged mellee they will loose. Being mounted reduces manuverability and increases the size of the target people have to shoot/stab.
Charging is all about scaring the enemy into running, and therefore stopping that mellee from happening. If the infantry stand, and are in a significant number then the Knights are in trouble.

[ProudNerd]

Look at this i had 2 bodyguards and the king left in a custom demo battle from TWC and they by themselves routed 2 unit of about 50 aquebusiers and the lanchnekst (sp?) they had 27 pikes left and when body bodyguards died there were 14 left and the French king proceeded to slaughter all of them to the last man you can see just him by himself the sole survivor standing on the pile of pikeman corpses.

[Redtemplar]

Yes it will be very hard to balance cavalry in SP and in MP. In medieval times numbers of cavalry units depended on part of Europe and time.

For example in 10 century cavalry was armored (most of them) with mail and there were in practise no units against it (spearman are good but they would fall after the charge). In middle Europe infantry was the main force but it changed in 15 century when Poland and Lithuanian used only cavalry units. In MP would for England (15 century) hard to stop cavalry army when they had small amount of horse units and anitcavalry units - historically speaking they would lost with polish army from 15 century (a lot of cavalry with many groups - crossbows, heavy, medium, with longbows -mongol improved Mongol standards). But to make game interesting it is needed to give every nation some of units than can counter enemy units.

The only ways to stop cavalry units are:
- small manoeuvre territory,
- well trained pikeman or something like them - morale of infantry was often weaker than cavalry,
- special barricades made before battle (and war wagons) - yes in game - this is huge plus for Med II.

[Watchman]

I stand corrected on Arab Cavalry then, although on the Crusaders I am sure that their equiptment was (As far as the Knights go) almost always different. Crusader Knights simply had too much efficiency to think that they did not have a major advantage.

Even at Hattin when the Knights had a leader who could not possible have been more inept the Knights made a great account of themselves, very nearly breaking through the Muslim lines. I do agree that infantry would have looked the same, however I think that the Seljuks emphasized mobile horse archers, while Arab Cavalry emphasized light cavalry, although I do acknowledge the heavy cavalry of both would have looked the same.

At Hattin after the Crusaders had retreated to their hilltop last stand positions the knights tried to break through the Muslim lines (either to flee, or to get at Saladin). At least three times. Downhill. And were repulsed every time.

"Arab" cavalry (among whom were many Turkish, Kurdish and Armenian mercenaries) of the period was typically relatively heavy compared to the typical light horse-archer of the Turkic nomads. They typically had composite bows too - although used them in the so-called "Persian" doctrine - but were better mounted on larger and stronger warhorses, and had considerably more armour.

Bedouin or Turkish mercenaries and allies tended to supply the actual light cavalry.

The personal Ghulam formations of all lords and princes naturally had the best war-gear their masters could afford.

For example in 10 century cavalry was armored (most of them) with mail and there were in practise no units against it (spearman are good but they would fall after the charge).

Yeah, well, around those times infantry had degenerated into unreliable rubish in many parts of Europe and heavy cavalry became the dominant arm. The Anglo-Saxon system hadn't, and their fyrd militia and huscarles had no serious troubles repulsing the Norman horse throughout the day at Hastings - although one has to allow that Harold, who had seen the power of the knights on the mainland, had specifically picked a location particularly well suited for the purpose. Nonetheless well-motivated and trained infantry that could form proper solid shieldwalls was extremely cavalry-resistant everywhere it was around. The urbanized regions like northern Italy and the Low countries - which could not well support feudal heavy cavalry, but had lots of proud and self-assertive citizen on foot - also relied heavily on solid infantry forces and besides being quite capable of taking on cavalry-heavy feudal armies also hired out reliable infantry for others' wars. Fennoscandia in turn could not support much in the way of agricultural estates required to maintain large formations of feudal heavy cavalry plus the terrain was mostly near-impassable forests, so a relatively high degree of quality among the infantry arm also had to be maintained (the knights often acted as elite mounted heavy infantry rather than shock cavalry).

[Mordred]

That's pretty much why that kind of topic is ... not a welcome sight for me... We've been there, done that, and screwed up badly.


Couldn't agree more. And I have been testing the demo with 0 valor infantry against cav charges. Nothing can withstand a cav charge. The heaviest knights on foot vaporize, pikes, spears. You need at least a valor 2 upgrade to be able to beat a cav charge point blank. The orignal demo had all high valor infantry, english archers were valor 9 I think. That's the reason cav appears to be weak.

[Orda Khan]

That's pretty much why that kind of topic is ... not a welcome sight for me... We've been there, done that, and screwed up badly.

The orignal demo had all high valor infantry, english archers were valor 9 I think. That's the reason cav appears to be weak.

Spot on

........Orda

[Redtemplar]

That's pretty much why that kind of topic is ... not a welcome sight for me... We've been there, done that, and screwed up badly.


Couldn't agree more. And I have been testing the demo with 0 valor infantry against cav charges. Nothing can withstand a cav charge. The heaviest knights on foot vaporize, pikes, spears. You need at least a valor 2 upgrade to be able to beat a cav charge point blank. The orignal demo had all high valor infantry, english archers were valor 9 I think. That's the reason cav appears to be weak.

Good news, but if I will see in game peasants stopping charge I will be sick :)

[Horatius]

At Hattin after the Crusaders had retreated to their hilltop last stand positions the knights tried to break through the Muslim lines (either to flee, or to get at Saladin). At least three times. Downhill. And were repulsed every time.

"Arab" cavalry (among whom were many Turkish, Kurdish and Armenian mercenaries) of the period was typically relatively heavy compared to the typical light horse-archer of the Turkic nomads. They typically had composite bows too - although used them in the so-called "Persian" doctrine - but were better mounted on larger and stronger warhorses, and had considerably more armour.

1. At Hattin the Crusader Knight happen to have been in the desert for days without having anything to drink, wearing the heavy Chain Mail, and having endured the fires that Saladin ordered lit which got the infantry to surrender very quickly. The fact is that despite these trials (enough to knock out almost all people today) the Crusader Knights made a great show of themselves at the last stance, true they did get repulsed, however each time the repulse barely happened, and not all knighta failed to charge out, Raymond III and his knights managed to cut through the lines and live to fight another day (Apart from Raymond who according to William of Tyre died "of shame" after the battle).

2. Relatively heavy but again and again European Knights bested them, especially Richard the Lionheart and his army of Britons.

Bedouin or Turkish mercenaries and allies tended to supply the actual light cavalry.

The personal Ghulam formations of all lords and princes naturally had the best war-gear their masters could afford.

True although you would probably be able to tell a Ghulam from a Templar or a Cataphractii.