Combat in the Med II engine

[Cute Wolf]

Where do some people get the impression from that cavalry in melee died like flies? If unarmored 18th c. cavalry were able to charge and broke squares and disperse or kill the infantrymen after braking in, why should ancient heavy cavalry not have done it?

I'm not a cavalry player in EB, but it would be extremely frustrating from the historical point of view, if cavalry was not able to destroy a unit by one or two charges in the flank or back and would suffer heavy losses time after time when disengaging (why should they, from the shattered infantrymen who were glad that the horses would go away?).

Crushing a formation of firmly standing infantry with frontal charges should be the exception however.

that's the point, if you charge in disordered formations, weak charge should be counted to easily break them, and remember that cavalrymen often dployed some kind of scout cavalry to probe for "structural weakness" before commiting headlong furious charge for maximum exploit...

but if the infantrymen is not carrying longspears, I see no problem in having them almost completely annihilated by the first charge, especially when the chargers are heavy cavalry with 4m lance (the problem is, in M2TW, you could frontal chargin most Spearmen without pikes, and still decimate them on frontal charge)

[Rolling Thunder]

that's the point, if you charge in disordered formations, weak charge should be counted to easily break them, and remember that cavalrymen often dployed some kind of scout cavalry to probe for "structural weakness" before commiting headlong furious charge for maximum exploit...

but if the infantrymen is not carrying longspears, I see no problem in having them almost completely annihilated by the first charge, especially when the chargers are heavy cavalry with 4m lance (the problem is, in M2TW, you could frontal chargin most Spearmen without pikes, and still decimate them on frontal charge)

Well yes. A spear is at maximum 2-3 metres. A lance is 4-5 metres (giving considerably greater reach) and delivers massive force to the target. Spears aren't a defence against lance-armed cavalry, unless formed into a proper, solid spearwall. That is why cavalry dominated the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike and it's wide scale adoption.

[Blxz]

Well yes. A spear is at maximum 2-3 metres. A lance is 4-5 metres (giving considerably greater reach) and delivers massive force to the target. Spears aren't a defence against lance-armed cavalry, unless formed into a proper, solid spearwall. That is why cavalry dominated the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike and it's wide scale adoption.

Could you say 'reinvention' of the pike? I swear every single bloody faction in EB has nothing but pike infantry (or similar). Having said that, cavalry charges in the EB era were less devestating than equivalent charges in the medieval era due to stirrups.

[vartan]

Could you say 'reinvention' of the pike? I swear every single bloody faction in EB has nothing but pike infantry (or similar). Having said that, cavalry charges in the EB era were less devestating than equivalent charges in the medieval era due to stirrups.

Really great point there Blxz. Stability is key, both in warfare as well as in my investment portfolio! Ahaha! As for pike infantry in EB's timeframe, some nations I haven't really noticed using much more than spears. I've seen Sweboz with 1 pike unit, I believe. I don't remember any pikes from the Celts or Lusos. Hmm...Armenians don't have a native pike unit, at least in EB, and the regionals there are Hellenic pikemen. Most any pikes in the east seem to be descended from some Hellenic/Diadochi variant.

[seienchin]

Well yes. A spear is at maximum 2-3 metres. A lance is 4-5 metres (giving considerably greater reach) and delivers massive force to the target. Spears aren't a defence against lance-armed cavalry, unless formed into a proper, solid spearwall. That is why cavalry dominated the Middle Ages until the invention of the pike and it's wide scale adoption.

And also breaks your arm and/or throws you out of your saddle, if you are riding at fullspeed. The lances of the EB Timeframe were like ordinary spears, just sometimes longer and the riders had no saddle, stirrup and smaller horses. There charges couldnt have been as devasting as medieval knight charges.

18th century cavalry had military training, with mercilesly beating, death penalties for insubordination and most time people behind you to shoot you if you turned. No one had that in EBs timeframe. Esspecially not the riders, which mostly were wealthy free people not willing to risk their lives in head on atacks on a solid enemy front.

By the way, esspecially the cavalry in the wars between rome and carthago seemed to have great staying power like at canae. So maybe ancient cavallery were more like melee skirmishers. ;) Of course with the exception of the eastern cavallery. But crassus defeat also showed that the parthian didnt (Because they were free men) want to risk getting close in melee until the romans were down on their knees, instead showering them with arrows.

[vartan]

I'm just glad that finally, since we'll be playing on the M2TW engine, infantry will be slow and even slower as they tire. In RTW system infantry seem to have more stamina than the best athletes of today.

[Apázlinemjó]

I'm just glad that finally, since we'll be playing on the M2TW engine, infantry will be slow and even slower as they tire. In RTW system infantry seem to have more stamina than the best athletes of today.

It's sad that at the cavalry units, the horse and it's rider don't have different "stamina bars". For example after a 10 minute fight, I guess the horse could still gallop and charge again, but I bet the rider would be quite winded already.

[Ibrahim]

And also breaks your arm and/or throws you out of your saddle, if you are riding at fullspeed. The lances of the EB Timeframe were like ordinary spears, just sometimes longer and the riders had no saddle, stirrup and smaller horses. There charges couldnt have been as devasting as medieval knight charges.

18th century cavalry had military training, with mercilesly beating, death penalties for insubordination and most time people behind you to shoot you if you turned. No one had that in EBs timeframe. Esspecially not the riders, which mostly were wealthy free people not willing to risk their lives in head on atacks on a solid enemy front.

By the way, esspecially the cavalry in the wars between rome and carthago seemed to have great staying power like at canae. So maybe ancient cavallery were more like melee skirmishers. ;) Of course with the exception of the eastern cavallery. But crassus defeat also showed that the parthian didnt (Because they were free men) want to risk getting close in melee until the romans were down on their knees, instead showering them with arrows.

cavalry weren't treated like infantry in the 18th century....