Cavalry is Ridiculously Overpowered in this Game.

[Magnum_Opus]

Really, they are.

Historically, cavalry charges were not effective against well disciplined infantry braced for impact. Cavalry was only effective when the enemy lines were broken or if the infantry started routing before the charge impacted, because horses are unwilling to charge headfirst into a solid block if soldiers with sharp weapons.

This is not the case in SS. Cavalry can just charge right into any infantry unit, inflicting massive casualties even if that unit is heavy spearmen braced for impact. It disturbs the whole unit balance, infantry are no longer valuable troops, just meatshields to hold the enemy while your cav do the killing. Good heavy infantry and spearmen should not take many casualties from a cavalry charge if they are braced for impact.

Is there any sub mods that nerf cavalry?

[Larkin]

I agree that cavalry are super strong. Titanium is going to have reduced strength cavalry, I believe.

[RC-1136]

1.) Were cavalry charges in history ineffective against infantry braced for impact?
2.) Are horses unwilling to charge headfirst into a solid block of soldiers (with sharp weapons)?

What are your sources, wyrda78?

This is a game about Medieval warfare. Cavalry was the thing in these times.

(3.) You aren't the first one to bring this up ;-))

[Magnum_Opus]

1.) Were cavalry charges in history ineffective against infantry braced for impact?
2.) Are horses unwilling to charge headfirst into a solid block of soldiers (with sharp weapons)?

What are your sources, wyrda78?

This is a game about Medieval warfare. Cavalry was the thing in these times.

(3.) You aren't the first one to bring this up ;-))

My logic is pretty obvious and self explanatory. Though here are some quotes from wikipedia:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies,^[4] or the charging unit itself breaking up. However, when cavalry charges succeeded, it was usually due to the defending formation breaking up (often in fear) and scattering, to be hunted down by the enemy"


"Norman Knights repeatedly charged the Anglo-Saxon shield wall. All charges were repulsed with heavy casualties until the Saxon infantry, thinking the Normans were retreating, broke its formation to follow them and were routed by Norman cavalry."


The English cavalry, though able to break Scottish archers and cavalry, was unable to break the tight formation of Scottish pikemen deployed in Schiltrons. Together with the Battle of Golden Spurs (below), the battle contributed to the end of the perception of cavalry supremacy in warfare.

These quotes back up my points. Yes heavy cavalry were powerful in medieval times, but they weren't so powerful as to be able to frontal charge into any infantry and inflict massive casualties regardless of the scenario. It seems to me that SS reflects more of a stereotypical and uneducated view that people have of the middle ages, where Knights on horseback reign supreme and foot soldiers were just there to make up the numbers. In fact cavalry were just an element of medieval armies, no more important than infantry and missile troops. An example would be the battle of Crecy, where a much smaller force of archers and infantry routed a much larger army of French knights.


So while a cavalry charge at the right moment could turn the tide of battle, they were no way near as powerful as they are in SS. Heavy cavalry were powerful in vanilla Med 2, in SS they have gotten a very large and unnecessary buff. I'm not the first person to bring this up because the point is quite valid.

[Shaun]

I think the problem is that cavalry are extremely powerful even in tiny numbers. I've had quite a few battles where when the enemy's knights were reduced to even one man left, they could still take out a good chunk of my spearmen with their charge.

[Joshua the Bear]

The infantry you get in the earliest game, the "Spear militias", are not actually equipped to fight cavalry. These spears used by these men are not anti cavalry weapons, they are simply wooden sticks, with or without a sharp iron point, utilized because they are simply much cheaper then swords. The militias only have basic training on how to maintain formations. The earlier spearmen are as the wikipedia article describes: Untrained men who rout and are broken down. However, the later spearmen (Armored Sergeants and pikemen spring to mind) are very effective against cavalry.

[Magnum_Opus]

I'm not talking about spear militia. Armoured sergeants and similar spearmen will still get devastated by cavalry, and sword units even more. Pikemen aren't as great as you would expect either, late cav like lancers can charge straight at a pike formation and only lose a fraction of men. And that's if they charge directly at your pike units.

[RC-1136]

Though here are some quotes from wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a source. It is not even research literature.

by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies,or the charging unit itself breaking up. However, when cavalry charges succeeded, it was usually due to the defending formation breaking up (often in fear) and scattering, to be hunted down by the enemy"

Just an opinion of some ... guy?

Norman Knights repeatedly charged the Anglo-Saxon shield wall. All charges were repulsed with heavy casualties until the Saxon infantry, thinking the Normans were retreating, broke its formation to follow them and were routed by Norman cavalry."

We are referring to the battle of Hastings, aren't we? Well. First of all: This marks the beginning of the Middle Ages in Britain. It just can't stand for THE Middle Ages. Do you know where said shield wall was located? Do you think this is a good example for the frontal charge of knights against foot soldiers?

The English cavalry, though able to break Scottish archers and cavalry, was unable to break the tight formation of Scottish pikemen deployed in Schiltrons. Together with the Battle of Golden Spurs (below), the battle contributed to the end of the perception of cavalry supremacy in warfare.

1. At first the battle of Hastings and now Bannockburn?! From 1066 to 1314? What about the quoted "cavalry supremacy" in between?
2. The Battle of the Golden Spurs. Consider the terrain. Consider the aftermath.
3. The battle of Bannockburn. Consider the terrain. Consider the commanders on each side. Consider the situation at all. And then we can talk about the beginning of the loose of cavalry supremacy in the Late (!) Middle Ages.

These quotes back up my points.

My points as well: You need discipline and well trained soldiers to beat cavalry.

You need an able commander.

In most cases (in all you quoted) you need the terrain on your side.

Let's have a look at:

the battle of Crecy

Crecy.
Discipline. Checked
Professionals. Checked
Commander. Checked
Terrain. Checked
Terrain. Double Checked.

Use a well organised army of able soldiers, use proper tactics and use the fricking terrain.

And why do you think Scottish, Swiss and German soldiers didn't just stood very tight to wait for the charging horses but used these very long pointy sticks?
Why do you think the tightly packed Hussite fanatics waited not just behind their pavises but inside a Wagenburg for the crusaders to charge?

Yes, cavalry was very able to be beaten by proper tactics. But even in early modern times these were crazy guys on highly trained horses. A stampeding bunch of horses would nearly do anything to continue pressing forward.

At last a little delicacy for those who say a horse wouldn't do these or those things:
A horse would do nearly anything if trained to do so.

[Pherion]

Wikipedia is not a source. It is not even research literature. Just an opinion of some ... guy? We are referring to the battle of Hastings, aren't we? Well. First of all: This marks the beginning of the Middle Ages in Britain. It just can't stand for THE Middle Ages. Do you know where said shield wall was located? Do you think this is a good example for the frontal charge of knights against foot soldiers? 1. At first the battle of Hastings and now Bannockburn?! From 1066 to 1314? What about the quoted "cavalry supremacy" in between?
2. The Battle of the Golden Spurs. Consider the terrain. Consider the aftermath.
3. The battle of Bannockburn. Consider the terrain. Consider the commanders on each side. Consider the situation at all. And then we can talk about the beginning of the loose of cavalry supremacy in the Late (!) Middle Ages.

My points as well: You need discipline and well trained soldiers to beat cavalry.

You need an able commander.

In most cases (in all you quoted) you need the terrain on your side.

Let's have a look at:

Crecy.
Discipline. Checked
Professionals. Checked
Commander. Checked
Terrain. Checked
Terrain. Double Checked.

Use a well organised army of able soldiers, use proper tactics and use the fricking terrain.

And why do you think Scottish, Swiss and German soldiers didn't just stood very tight to wait for the charging horses but used these very long pointy sticks?
Why do you think the tightly packed Hussite fanatics waited not just behind their pavises but inside a Wagenburg for the crusaders to charge?

Yes, cavalry was very able to be beaten by proper tactics. But even in early modern times these were crazy guys on highly trained horses. A stampeding bunch of horses would nearly do anything to continue pressing forward.

At last a little delicacy for those who say a horse wouldn't do these or those things:
A horse would do nearly anything if trained to do so.

I was going to say something. But you said everything and more that I wanted to say.
Great reply!

[Andytheplatypus]

RC is correct. But the OP is right in that cavalry charges are far from perfect in SS. Its difficult to balance correctly but it can be done.

There are also a lot of hidden stats that you don't see that effect units being able to deal with charges. Armor levels, mass, weapon types, length of weapons, etc.

[napoleonic]

sssshhhh... don't let OP discover the tanks units

[Stario]

Horses don't generally charge full speed into a mass formation of men with pointy sticks. In any case the weapon is actually irrelevant with regards to stopping a cavalry charge. The weapon is more a psychological crutch for the bearer & a threat to the rider. It doesn't actually matter whether such mass formation of men carry spear or sword, even a wall of men with bayonets can hold up cavalry. To the horse the formation of men appears as an obstacle & this is the key. Albeit a different time period, Marcus Junkelmann mentions in his Die Reiter Roms that it is possible to train a horse to charge into a formation of men (his crew managed to get the horses to do it), but it took an extreme amount of training & time. They concluded that it is unlikely any army would have the time nor inclination to train their horses to that extent. Certainly this conclusion seems to be supported if one reviews the history.

...now how insane are those Family members/Generals royal guards. A 20 unit army full of well bred family members/Generals royal guards will decimate any AI army; particularly the Byzantine Royal Guards. ლ(ಠ益ಠლ

[RC-1136]

Yes, you can indeed force a horse to press into a wall of pikes or spears. About Junkelmann. Great stuff. What I do not understand is why he thinks war horses wouldn't have been trained to do such a thing. Is he speaking for horses in ancient times or war horses in general? I wanted to mention it before but forgot it. At some Reenactment event here in Germany Junkelmann got into a discussion if said thing - horses charging tightly packed foot soldiers - was possible. It ended with his riders charging a tight legionary formation. Well - shields went flying when the horses hit the 'shield wall'.

[Stario]

I think it would be unfeasible because one would need to not only train a handful of horses (this took Junkelmann over half-a year), but a couple of hundred horses & their replacements (resulting due to casualties of war).
Now try to imagine hitting a deer at 20 miles/hour in a car; the outcome wouldn't be good for neither the deer nor car (you have to remember that a wall of men; even unarmed, also has mass). Then there is the psychological problem in training every horse & rider to be willing to go kamikaze; if only a handful of horses & riders charge into the opposing wall of men, & the rest break-off then the charge would most likely result in failure. Now we know horses must've refused to charge human walls with sharp objects because effectively even in relatively modern warfare of the 1800's, the Napoleonic era square formation relied on this same principle- that is horses & raiders tended to be intelligent creatures & not be so willing to charge seemingly solid obstacles such as a wall of men; so if tactics such as these were used as late as the 1800's they must have been effective.

[Theramines]

A good source to support the OP would be John Keegan's 'The Face of Battle'. Mentioned somewhere in the mods forum (Paeninsula Italica, I think). Keegan argues pretty much as above that horses won't ride into walls of men and pointy things. I agree that the cavalry inflict disproportionate casualties in SS (but I still LOVE this mod).

[Shaun]

Another argument is that even if horses could be trained to run into spear points, it simply wasn't economical to risk the lives of expensive war horses to rout a peasant with a sharp stick.

[Navajo Joe]

A point to also make is the fear factor, for an infantryman to be charged by heavy horse, would be terrifying, you can train all you like with weapons and tactics, but to deal with sight of large horses, moving at pace, with a guy on top swinging a sword or whatever, cannot be simulated. We must not forget that heavy cavarly were the 'tanks' of the battlefield in medieval time.
I guess some of the cavarly units need to be nerfed alittle, but then again do the infantry units suffer a fear factor, before they get hit, then run for it.

[-SaH-]

As for training of the horse - in Poland there is common knowledge that on horse for Hussar was worth of 2 or 3 villages. For some time it was simply unbeliveable for me, but now I know why those horses were so expensive. And remember also that in Medieval Poland we had 4% of nobility, in other countries it was 1-2%. It was possible for those elite mens to train horse for 2,3 or even 4 years. Just look at Mongols and Tatars, who had extremely trained horses and each warrior had 2 or 3. It is only for us unthinkable, people then get up when sun rise and had planty of time for anything And yes, I also feel that cavalry in SS6.4 is a little bit op.

[Charerg]

I think it's quite possible that the medieval "knights" did have horses trained to charge at formations. That said, most cavalry horses probably weren't that well trained. But remember that the warhorse was the knight's most expensive piece of equipment, many times the cost of a "normal" horse. That is because they were specifically trained and bred for the purpose.

Another factor to consider is that some horse armours both in the ancient period (Parthian Cataphracts) and late medieval times had chamfrons (the piece of armour covering the horse's head) that covered the eyes of the horse. So in some cases the horses couldn't even see where they were going.

Also the knights used rather sharp spurs, so there would also be that factor of pain that could be used to drive the horse into a formation.

All in all, I'd say that the biggest failure of super-heavy cavalry like cataphracts and knights was probably their massive cost more than anything. While they were undoubtedly effective, you could probably equip at least 10 footmen (if not more) for the price of one knight.

As to the cavalry in SS, I agree that they feel somewhat overpowered on the charge, and could use some toning down.

[Byg]

Really, they are.

Historically, cavalry charges were not effective against well disciplined infantry braced for impact. Cavalry was only effective when the enemy lines were broken or if the infantry started routing before the charge impacted, because horses are unwilling to charge headfirst into a solid block if soldiers with sharp weapons.

This is not the case in SS. Cavalry can just charge right into any infantry unit, inflicting massive casualties even if that unit is heavy spearmen braced for impact. It disturbs the whole unit balance, infantry are no longer valuable troops, just meatshields to hold the enemy while your cav do the killing. Good heavy infantry and spearmen should not take many casualties from a cavalry charge if they are braced for impact.

Is there any sub mods that nerf cavalry?

A while back we played a game on this forum where multiple players took turns at controlling a single faction for BGRV. It showed how others played and revealed the power of cavalry such that one player could destroy armies with only a few cavalry units.

I halted the game and rebalanced cavalry, simply reducing their unit size, making their costs relative to their stats (actually this wasnt simple, it took ages) and increasing their manpower requirement (bgrv feature) so as not to damage the work that went into their physical attributes. I think this method was effective.