Charge effect

**eggthief** · March 29, 2009, 05:18 AM

The one thing that I'd love to know is how effective cavalry charges are going to be in EB2. In EB, or rtw for that matter, they're close to worthless and seeing as the charges got improved in M2TW, I would like to know how much damage charges can do. I assume that Roman cavalry wouldn't give such a one, but what will nomad cavalry be capable of? Cause worthless close combat cavalry is pretty much what made me stop playing them.

**delra** · March 29, 2009, 07:11 AM

Maybe you don't launch charges properly? I launched thousands (literally) of devastating charges in RTW and M2TW based mods.

**Mediolanicus** · March 29, 2009, 07:24 AM

I agree with delra here.

Even the AI launches some devestating charges against me in EB (on M battle difficulty btw).
80 Brihentin charging + 202 Marian legionaries = 70 Brihentin retreating + 120 Marians asking themselves what just hit them.

**Tankai** · March 29, 2009, 07:31 AM

Charges shouldn't be that powerful anyway.

**delra** · March 29, 2009, 07:36 AM

It's realistic.

**Mediolanicus** · March 29, 2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Tankai

Charges shouldn't be that powerful anyway.

Charges in se should be that powerful.
It's just that men and horses in RTW don't act like they would in RL. Charging through their own troops, charging head on,...
Even charging in very dense formations would be suicide for the first rows of horsemen.
But since you can do all those things in RTW charges can make a lot of casualties. That's just the nature of the game - of any real time war game. All this is, IMO, not a reason to make charges less effective.

**eggthief** · March 29, 2009, 09:08 AM

Well I guess I formulated my question wrong. I find the charges and prolonged melee animations of cavalry on rtw quite dissapointing. I know that m2tw fixed both of these and I assume thatthe animations are going to be fine, but I was more wondering on how effective the charges are going to be, in M2TW they're damn good but then again in the ancient era you didn't had horse and rider clad in plate and equipped with a long and devastating lance. So my final question is, how effective can I expect cavalry charges of cavalry based factions to be?

**konny** · April 02, 2009, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by eggthief

So my final question is, how effective can I expect cavalry charges of cavalry based factions to be?

When everything is done fine: The same as in EB1

**Miltiades the Younger** · April 02, 2009, 12:56 PM

I for one would like something just a tid bit better as the cavalry in rtw often just carge right up to the first row of the enemy, (even if it is from behind) staying there saying that they wouldn't want to charge down such fine chaps with their horses, because then they would get all dirty and messy.

What I'm saying is more or less that I want the cavalry to follow through with their charge, and don't stop as soon as they fell the enemy touching their horses.
And it's important that no horse squad should get pwnd by one group of peltasts or archers...

**eggthief** · April 02, 2009, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by konny

When everything is done fine: The same as in EB1

Well apparently I'm horrible with RTW cavalry, so lets put it this way:

How effective will charging a unit cataphracts into a standard Roman unit be compared to using chivalric knights to charge into a unit of dismounted chivalric knights?

**konny** · April 03, 2009, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by eggthief

How effective will charging a unit cataphracts into a standard Roman unit be compared to using chivalric knights to charge into a unit of dismounted chivalric knights?

In bost cases it is extremly effective. Depending on the size and mental stance of the infantry, it will be (is, both in EB1 and M2TW) either instantly wiped out or might start routing.

What is always important in EB that you should not expect impossible things from your cavalry. For example having one unit of Armenian bodyguards charging frontal into one of Seleucide phalanx is kamikaze, because the horsemen are seriously outnumbered. Using three units of Armenian bodyguard in the same situation will have a complete different outcome: they will be able to break frontal through the pikes causing about 100 casualties amongst the pikemen. And even if the phalanx does not instantly rout, it will have to fight 1:2 outnumbered with horsemen swarming all around its flanks.

**J_O_E** · April 03, 2009, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by eggthief

How effective will charging a unit cataphracts into a standard Roman unit be compared to using chivalric knights to charge into a unit of dismounted chivalric knights?

a cavalry charge by ancient cavalry compared to medieval knights is not a fair comparison, medieval knights had a huge advantage when it came a charge:the stirrup, this allowed for the full momentum and force of the charge to be transferred to the target. Also stirrups allowed the rider a far greater range of movement and balance while on horseback which made swinging a sword or mace at your opponent in the melee far easier. Along with the stirrup knights developed a specialized high backed saddle to help keep the knight firmly on his horse. Not even the heaviest cataphracts had these advantage so keeping with historical accuracy it is not right to compare medieval cavalry to the cavalry of antiquity

**R-teen** · April 04, 2009, 06:21 AM

I think the cavalry charges are represented better in EB than in M2TW. The formation of EB cataphracts is very dense so it'll let for a heavy charge. Playing with Pahlava faction, I really enjoy charging with general bodyguards and Pahlava elite cataphracts. A huge charge with them from behind can make almost any unit to panic

Anyway IMO EB charges was better than M2TW heavy cavalry charges.

**Emperor of The Great Unknown** · April 13, 2009, 06:55 PM

in RTW charges were kinda werid espialy with the animations like sending the men flying in the air the effects are realistic its just it doesn't look realistic.

**Aper** · April 14, 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by J_O_E

a cavalry charge by ancient cavalry compared to medieval knights is not a fair comparison, medieval knights had a huge advantage when it came a charge:the stirrup, this allowed for the full momentum and force of the charge to be transferred to the target. Also stirrups allowed the rider a far greater range of movement and balance while on horseback which made swinging a sword or mace at your opponent in the melee far easier. Along with the stirrup knights developed a specialized high backed saddle to help keep the knight firmly on his horse. Not even the heaviest cataphracts had these advantage so keeping with historical accuracy it is not right to compare medieval cavalry to the cavalry of antiquity

Stirrups have little use in charge. In melee and shooting are a nice advantage ideed. Stirrups' effectiveness was overrated a lot, as proven by both more recent researches and by experimental tests. Read carefully the threads about cavalry if you want to know more, this is a zombie horse that definitevely cannot stay in its grave.

**Watchman** · April 23, 2009, 02:05 PM

OTOH, the specialised lance charge European shock cavalry began using in the early middle ages did require the stirrup - and later specialised types of high-canted saddles and bits of cavalry panoply were developed specifically to further optimize the effect. The effect was powerful enough that the Middle Eastern contemporaries of the First Crusade already, used as they were to massively armoured shock cavalry, were genuinely impressed by the impact of "Frankish" heavy-cavalry charges.

Anyway, Medieval shock cavalry was more or less just as screwed when faced with solid, dependable heavy infantry as their colleagues in Antiquity had been. It's just pretty much nigh impossible to push home a mounted charge on a solid, unwavering body of men, nevermind now if they're presenting a wall of long pointy things (like most were). Knights used to shattering low-class infantry formations tended to learn this the hard way when encountering better-quality foot...

Just for the record, from what I know even cataphracts by preference didn't charge formed bodies of quality infantry (such as Roman foot) without ample missile support beforehand. And there were apparently several instances of Sassanid shock cavalry that misread the disposition of East Roman infantry under fire getting rude surprises when the blighters turned out to be still full of fight and only waiting for an opportunity to check and swarm the horsemen.

**silverster** · May 04, 2009, 05:57 AM

I played polo a few years back so i'll put in my 2 cents about the stirrup.

It's just not possible without it, I'd like to see anyone here to bloody try to hit the ball without at least semi-standing on the damn stirrup. Most of the time you aren't sitting down on the horse at all, your arse is in the air 80% of the time while you play (do give a good muscle tone, but that's a different story.)

It's not just about the initial charge, it's also the ability to fight while ON the horse. Stirrup allow you apply force behind your hits, after all, you are not standing on solid ground.