Changes to battle experience from RTW vanilla

[Bill Westwater]

As a newcomer to this mod, i have noticed a few notable changes to battle, and was wondering if there was naywhere that explains them more fully. For example, infantry seem a lot less vulnerable to rear attacks than previously, and battles seem to be a lot longer. Is this just changes in Morale or are there other reasons for this. Thanks.

[gurakshun]

As a newcomer to this mod, i have noticed a few notable changes to battle, and was wondering if there was naywhere that explains them more fully. For example, infantry seem a lot less vulnerable to rear attacks than previously, and battles seem to be a lot longer. Is this just changes in Morale or are there other reasons for this. Thanks.

yeah, units are a lot more heavily armored on the whole and morale and other attack/defense factors were increased so that battle lines actually lock, instead of breaking within 5 seconds like vanilla. i know its a jarring experience to come from vanilla to EB, but its well worth it once you get the hang of it. even now i still have stereotypes burned in my mind about vanilla.

EDIT: lethality was also significantly lowered too (chance to kill someone with a hit). There is a lot of knockdowns but the rate of deaths was slowed to be more accurate and represent the difference between unit weapon types (in vanilla lethalities were all 1, here short swords, AP weapons, long swords, AP long weapons all have different killing rates here). that also contribultes greatly to the battle lines locking effect.

[Bill Westwater]

The thing i found most alarming was, as the Romans, ngaging a unit of pikes frontally then attacking it from the rear with cavalry and it still did not break, but barely even recived any extra casaulties. That was odd, to say the least. It also seems as it firepower has been significantly weakened, which means javelin armed troops ate a lot less effective. Is this correct, in general?

[LusitanianWolf]

Cavalryavalary have now an diferent way to use:
Now you have to do some micro management and do multiple charges with them, never letting them being engaged in melle agaisnt infantry or they'll be slaugtered (there are some exceptions, but this is mostly the rule).


Go to the FAQs, I think there are the answers to this questions.

Anyway: welcome to the best RTW mod ever

The thing i found most alarming was, as the Romans, ngaging a unit of pikes frontally then attacking it from the rear with cavalry and it still did not break, but barely even recived any extra casaulties. That was odd, to say the least. It also seems as it firepower has been significantly weakened, which means javelin armed troops ate a lot less effective. Is this correct, in general?

Attacking pikemans from the pikes head its almost useless, and as I said with cavalry you have to charge more than once.
Missile attacks are much more efective from behind or from the non-shield side.
And dont play in hight dificult levels from the start until you get used to the gamestyle. EB is more suitted to medium battle game dificult, and hard or very hard campain map.
And factions have now diferent dificult levels, Rome or Cartage are the best ones to start.

[konny]

Cavalry is much weaker than in RTW. Missle troops cause less damage because the tragets are better armoured/have better shields.

[Ketchup]

I wouldn't agree with Konny, i think commanding cavarly has become harder but if used effectively they can be devestating in the charge (especially heavier cavalry) and also, as said before, it would be a good idea to micromanage your cav and charge, pull out and repeat until the unit breaks.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

It takes more to kill phalanxes with cav charging from behind. If you wait until the enemy is tired and surrounded, they will be vaporized in a matter of seconds when you charge. No one escapes.

It's not that rear attacks don't work. It takes more time to work. I like using AP infantry for that purpose.

[Pharnakes]

I wouldn't agree with Konny, i think commanding cavarly has become harder but if used effectively they can be devestating in the charge (especially heavier cavalry) and also, as said before, it would be a good idea to micromanage your cav and charge, pull out and repeat until the unit breaks.

We all do this, I am sure, but I sometimes wonder how realistic it is?

Was the cavalry of those times disciplined/organised enough for such tactics?

[Treverer]

...but if used effectively they can be devestating in the charge (especially heavier cavalry) and also, as said before, it would be a good idea to micromanage your cav and charge, pull out and repeat until the unit breaks.

Well, I used this "hit-and-run" micro-mamagment thingie once and the result was that I lost my FM. Reloaded the game, faught the battle anew and waited until I saw that the unit I wanted to charge was wavering. Charged, unit broke, and set off a chain reaction. Lucky me.

... though I still consider myself as a "Terrible Tactician".

Yours,
Treverer

[Intranetusa]

In EB, you need a longer distance between your cavalry and the enemy so they pick up speed for their charge. Also, you need "real" heavy cavalry - light, medium, and medium-heavy cavalry are quite poor as shock cavalry troops because of their low charge values.

Romans in particular have crappy factional cavalry, so I usually recruit the regional heavy Pedite Cavalry and mercenary Hellenic heavy cavalry.

[cmacq]

I normally mass my horse to take away the enemy's horse after baiting them into piecemeal attacks. If I'm in luck iI'll get the enemy leader in this way as well. That way there will be no mischief among my missile troops, flanks, or rear. Next, take away the enemy missle troops and wait like a wolf on a far flank for the their line troops to tier and waver. Then I've found a ride straight down and just to the rear of the enemy line, no charge needed, will often set off a chain reaction route. After this try to use the horse to mop up as many of the fleeing as they can.

[konny]

We all do this, I am sure, but I sometimes wonder how realistic it is? Was the cavalry of those times disciplined/organised enough for such tactics?

I don't think that any cavalry did fight in that manner. They would only retreat and charge anew if the initial charge was repulsed. And even that would be a sign of poor leadership because the same cavalry that had just been beaten back would hardly be able to breake the enemy now on spent horses and much reduced in numbers. (the classical: Ney at Waterloo)

Even a successfull charge did breake the cavalry because the men and horses were exhausted and, even more problematic, the horsemen tended to chase behind the fleeing enemies instead of keeping the cohesion as a unit. There were only a handfull of cavalry commanders in history who were able to keep their cavalry under controll once the charge started.


If you want to play your EB cavalry historical:

- Go for the enemy cavalry first.

- When you have chased it off, make one mass charge with all cavalry units on your assault wing on the enemy infantry.

- Do not pull back and charge anew, but let your cavalry fight until the infantry had caught up and can take over.

- Do not call back cavalry that is chasing fleeing enemies until it has routed them from the map or killed them.

[Watchman]

Then again outside cataphracts and similar cumbersome superheavy shock specialists, and dedicated shock lancers, most period cavalry fully expected to fight (heavy infantry at least) primarily with hit-and-run tactics; hit them fast and hard, if they don't fold break contact and dress ranks for another go; repeat as long as necessary (ie. until the cumulative unnerving effect, ranged weapons etc. start doing bad things to the enemy formation).

This is really something of a "natural" way for cavalry to fight in really; playing on their strong points (speed and mass) and minimising the exposure of the often rather exposed horses to enemy ironmongery. The basic pattern is manageable even for irregular light-cavalry skirmishers, although obviously those tended to be kind of short of the kind of training, formation and gear needed to deliver much of an effective charge...

This remained the normative tactical approach of post-Roman European cavalry until something like the 800s AD, and much longer elsehwere... it could be said that the characteristic High Medieval and later tendency of European cavalry to charge en masse as their main if not only tactic was really a rather aberrant tactical approach, in essence betting a little too heavily on a single decisive massed charge; were that to fail (and repeat attempts not do better) the cavalry had sort of shot their bolt and tended to end up looking rather lost and impotent. To use a boxing analogy, trying for a decisive strong but risky KO hook or similar, rather than the careful probing for weaknesses and wearing out that most practice.

[konny]

Then again outside cataphracts and similar cumbersome superheavy shock specialists, and dedicated shock lancers, most period cavalry fully expected to fight (heavy infantry at least) primarily with hit-and-run tactics; hit them fast and hard, if they don't fold break contact and dress ranks for another go; repeat as long as necessary (ie. until the cumulative unnerving effect, ranged weapons etc. start doing bad things to the enemy formation).

I doubt that such tactics, involving combat contact, really were used to at least a little effect. The simple reason is that the horses won't do. How many charges they can make depends very much of their quality and the weight of the rider and his armour, but I would guess it can't be more than two or three. The other thing is, that is about impossible to get a unit that is involved in a melee out of the fight in good order.

So, when we find such describtion in books or sources we can either suppose that the author is using his imagination or that the fighting was done with ranged weapons (javelins, bows) and did not include melee combat.

[Watchman]

Yeah, well, if the infantry's in the order horses refuse to enter in the first place (ie. closed, presenting a front, and failing to budge) the decision pretty much gets made for the horsemen anyway because their mounts will hit the brakes before contact. Retreat and try again; hopefully some bugger's nerve cracks and a gap appears in the line the horses can charge into.

Why do you think throwing-spears - or really long pointy things - were so popular ? They kinda make it easier to bring such gaps about - be it through missile fire or sheer intimidation effect... for example Persian cavalry seem to never have been particularly shy of hand-to-hand combat (any more than their nigh-identically equipped Greek colleagues), but when having to deal with a solid mass of heavy infantry with no real prospect of effective outflanking switched to skirmish mode. For example I've been told the contemporary sources on the skirmishing during the stand-off at Plataea describe the Persian horse attacking in waves, discharging javelins, and wheeling off to repeat the process - a solid and workable enough technique for trying to wear down the (practically static) enemy both physically and psychologically, what now it appears not have been succesful there. By what I've read of them Roman cavalry tactics weren't too much different.

More dedicated close-combat cavalry lacking standoff armaments of course needs to rely mainly on the psychological impact of repeated charges for the wearing-down effect; but even in the case they're able to proceed to contact, but without the enemy formation breaking from the impact (there's apparently some tricks canny folks can use to get horses to charge even soldily formed ranks, mostly involving applied equine psychology and the stampede instinct) cavalry trained from the beginning for hit-and-run tactics should normally be able to extricate themselves out of the melee without real difficulties. Unit tactics for the purpose would presumably include leaving some of the horsemen in reserve to remain a threat that forces the infantry to hold ranks rather than try to pursue the wheeling cavalry - because unformed infantry that gets charged by horse is basically dead meat.


If anything cavalry is actually underpowered in EB in some respects due to the peculiarities of the RTW engine. For example IRL open-order infantry in the open basically didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell against even a light cavalry charge, and when caught were normally promptly broken and scattered like so many straws into the wind - such porous formations quite simply have nothing to hinder the speed and mass advantage of the cavalry, or to keep the individual men from being ridden down with impunity. And even quite solid heavy infantry - say hoplites - usually broke pretty much immediately if hit in an unformed flank (or, God forbid, rear) by cavalry, particularly if already frontally engaged; squadrons of only some hundreds of horsemen could put thousands of heavy infantry to flight with a single charge.

And for example the single worst casualties the "free" Greek side suffered at Plataea came from the Theban cavalry catching a force of hoplites hurrying to join the pursuit over open ground out of formation... pretty much made mincemeat out of the whole bunch in a matter of minutes I understand.

[runes]

If anything cavalry is actually underpowered in EB in some respects due to the peculiarities of the RTW engine. For example IRL open-order infantry in the open basically didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell against even a light cavalry charge, and when caught were normally promptly broken and scattered like so many straws into the wind - such porous formations quite simply have nothing to hinder the speed and mass advantage of the cavalry, or to keep the individual men from being ridden down with impunity. And even quite solid heavy infantry - say hoplites - usually broke pretty much immediately if hit in an unformed flank (or, God forbid, rear) by cavalry, particularly if already frontally engaged; squadrons of only some hundreds of horsemen could put thousands of heavy infantry to flight with a single charge.

end of thread.

[konny]

Yeah, well, if the infantry's in the order horses refuse to enter in the first place (ie. closed, presenting a front, and failing to budge) the decision pretty much gets made for the horsemen anyway because their mounts will hit the brakes before contact. Retreat and try again; hopefully some bugger's nerve cracks and a gap appears in the line the horses can charge into.

Unfortuantly, there are two things that computer games have failed so far to re-create: The one thing is the "passing clear" of charging cavalry, either of infantry in good order where the cavalry would rather go around the flanks of the infantry (if possible) than charge head on into it, or of cavalry when two attacking cavalry units pass without real combat trough each other.

The other thing is "riding down" of infantry without inflicting notable casualties. Better reported battles of later Centuries show several examples of units that were reported to have been ridden down by enemy cavalry - sometimes several times - and still were able to fight in nearly full strength afterwards.

For example I've been told the contemporary sources on the skirmishing during the stand-off at Plataea describe the Persian horse attacking in waves, discharging javelins, and wheeling off to repeat the process

That isn't to unusal. 17th Century cavalry fought very much the same way (at least for some time): Approaching the enemy to musket or pistol range, the first line shooting, wheeling left to reload, second line shooting, wheeling left, third line shooting etc. It wasn't done later anymore because it worked much better on the drill ground than on the battlefield, especially because it required an enemy that was fair enough to remain in his position until the cavalry has completed the Caracole.

[Watchman]

Unfortuantly, there are two things that computer games have failed so far to re-create: The one thing is the "passing clear" of charging cavalry, either of infantry in good order where the cavalry would rather go around the flanks of the infantry (if possible) than charge head on into it, or of cavalry when two attacking cavalry units pass without real combat trough each other.

Agreed on the first point. Pretty much every game I know of (not counting those that keep things pretty abstract of course) does have some issues simulating the complicated psychological dynamics of cavalry-infantry engagements - although the fact it's usually by far more effective to attack the flanks and rear, especially if dealing with spearman types, could be counted for something.

The second is a bit more complicated, as AFAIK it was primarily a feature of clashes between open-order light cavalry where both units could penetrate the ranks of the other without much difficulty; it's not so much that there wasn't any combat, but rather the horsemen would try to take a shot at each other in passing while simultaneously trying to stay alive. AFAIK the normal result was that the squadrons would pass through each other with only some casualties being sufffered by either, and if willing to continue the exchange would whell around and charge through each other anew - rinse and repeat until either side had had enough and broke.

The other thing is "riding down" of infantry without inflicting notable casualties. Better reported battles of later Centuries show several examples of units that were reported to have been ridden down by enemy cavalry - sometimes several times - and still were able to fight in nearly full strength afterwards.

If you're thinking of the Napoleonic period or thereabouts, a rather major reason was AFAIK that European armies had by that point sort of forgotten the little detail swords cuts are way more effective if the weapon's actually been sharpened... which said for the purposes of a field battle it didn't really matter if the routed infantry was actually killed, as long as the effective combat formation ceased to exist.

Back when people still recalled certain elementary things about combat, close pursuit by cavalry tended to be quite bloody and result in pretty scary casualty figures - indeed, proper close pursuit of defeated armies often made the difference between an orderly retreat and the complete disintegration of the force.

That isn't to unusal. 17th Century cavalry fought very much the same way (at least for some time): Approaching the enemy to musket or pistol range, the first line shooting, wheeling left to reload, second line shooting, wheeling left, third line shooting etc. It wasn't done later anymore because it worked much better on the drill ground than on the battlefield, especially because it required an enemy that was fair enough to remain in his position until the cavalry has completed the Caracole.

The much-misunderstood caracole, yes. The Early Modern version of the ancient tradition of "heavy skirmish" tactics. It was actually AFAIK originally developed for fighting pikemen, against whom lances were for fairly obvious reasons pretty useless, but when correctly employed worked "pistol" horse usually soundly trounced "lance" horse as well. After all, the cavalry armour of the period was already practically lance-proof (contemporary military writers complained about that often enough), and the lance was basically an one-shot weapon only useful in the initial charge. On the other hand with a couple of pistols the cavalrymen could first deliver a close-range salvo just before contact, and then fire right into their enemies at point-blank ranges in the ensuing melee; while really good armour is known to have stopped even point-blank shots, contemporaries observed the pistols were generally quite lethal in close combat ("...and the reiter is nowhere as dangerous as when he is among the enemy...") and tended to get one side to break quite quickly ("...the heavy pistols make close combat so dangerous nobody, no matter his harness, wishes to dwell there any greater time..." or something along those lines, to paraphrase some period writer I've seen quoted).

The fact that lancers (who in fact themselves often enough carried a pair of pistols for the melee) normally fought some two ranks deep and reiters six or more deep also sort of contributed, of course.

The factual problem of the reiters in the early parts of the Thirty Years' War was really just that they'd long enough fought only similar cavalry that cavalry fights had turned into short-range shooting matches; when an opponent suddenly started pressing home to contact instead with pistol and sword, the advantage in momentum and psychology (and formation distruption) gave the attacker a considerable advantage and often allowed fairly light horse to put to flight much heavier opponents. This emphasis on more aggressive tactics developed when fighting the Poles and their thing for ferocious lance charges) initially gave the relatively light Swedish horse a decent bit of an advantage over the heavier Imperial cuirassieurs, but as it didn't take long for the latter to simply adapt their tactics to similarly aggressive patterns this was rather short-lived - and the Swedish horse started suffering quite heavily in straight fights with heavier colleagues.

[konny]

If you're thinking of the Napoleonic period or thereabouts, a rather major reason was AFAIK that European armies had by that point sort of forgotten the little detail swords cuts are way more effective if the weapon's actually been sharpened... which said for the purposes of a field battle it didn't really matter if the routed infantry was actually killed, as long as the effective combat formation ceased to exist.

I think it is a more psychological thing: The infantry is running away in all directions before the "impact" (that is different to the RTW units running away in one direction). The cavalry is still in good order, because no contact with the enemy was made, and therefore won't swarm around to cut the running enemy (espacially when this happened in the midst of an ongoing battle).

[Watchman]

Then again, wasn't it pretty much specifically the job of light cavalry to fan out to run down the routers, therefore freeing their heavier and much more expensive colleagues (who tended not be all that well suited for pursuit duty anyway) for more useful things like turning flanks ? Even dragoons and other poorly mounted wannabes were apparently able to handle that side of things well enough.