Spearmen?

[Lupu]

How will spearmen work in BC?
Will they be like in vanilla: cant hold cav cahrges, have bonus vs cav, lose to havy/light inf.
Or will they be like in kingdoms: stop cav charges, bonus vs cav, lose to light/heavy inf.
Or something new.
I would hope for this: stop cav charges, no bonus vs cav in mellee, dont lose vs light/heav inf of same price.

A-L

[AlphaDelta]

I would like to beef-up medium, heavy and elite spearmen vs cav charges. How has it been done in Kingdoms?

Cheers

[Lusted]

Higher mass for spearmen.

[Aeimnestus]

In kingdoms spearmen are unrealistically powerful against cavalry. A succesful charge on an open field by a unit of Gothic Knights should devastate a unit armored sergeants, yet in Kingdoms the knights kill maybe 10 spearmen before being decimated.
Historically spears did have a slight advantage against cavalry compared to most other weapons, but they were not pikes or halberds.

[Ahiga]

But there's also not a good representation of the horses fear of charging into a compact mass of men.

I think a higher mass for the Upper class & elites will be a good idea. I don't believe we have a strong knowledge of what happened when lancers tried to hit a pack of Armored Sergeants, or Ghaznavid Armored Spearmen.

[Valdamar]

But there's also not a good representation of the horses fear of charging into a compact mass of men.

Which is why men should smell like camels when holding ground.

[Fenix_120]

The Saxons stopped several calvary charges from Norman Knights at the battle of Hastings.


This was because of the "Shield wall" formation, and although the spear was a great weapon to the Saxons and many of their soldiers fought with it, many also used Axe's and swords and also stopped the calvary charge.


This was because a solid wall of men Can physically stop a calvary charge.


If you read about the battle of tours, Charles Martel dismounted his calvary to fight with his infantry and the Franks made a long thin line of men who were in a shield wall formation.

And the Saracen light calvary charged the shield wall and almost literally bounced off it, even though the Saracens had more light calvary alone than the entire Frankish army.

Now the only units who used this kind of formation by this point in time would have been the Byzantines, the Crusader states and the eastern factions units who were based off of these two states (Such as the Armenians) but this is not the point.


A unit of heavy foot soldiers should be able to stop a calvary charge from any unit of horsemen except the elite...

As historically only elite heavy calvary could survive a charging the front of a line of heavy infantry, all other types of calvary were ether used missile's or charged the flanks or rear.

So that pretty much narrows it down to European style men-at-arms and Eastern style Kataphracts or similar units based off of those two types of units like the Armenians and Turks used.


So heavy infantry should slaughter light calvary (even if their not armed with spears), but not heavy calvary.

But a unit of Heavy calvary should have more to fear from spear men than axeman for example...


My two cents.

[Valdamar]

True in many respects. A heavy spear anchored by a foot has greater reach than a lance from horseback. Also consider the size of early military horse as compared to later eras. Budweiser wouldn't use steppe ponies to sell beer. Remember that the greatest asset cavalry brings to the field is mobility. The charge is a bonus.

[jo the greek]

it would be good see spearmen working like in mtw 1

[Player44]

Well, in Vanilla, the charge is woefully weak. Go realcombat ish please.... I also believe cav should be weak in sustained melee, with their armor, skill, and shield all significantly lowered compared to an infantry counterpart.

[Kalos]

Well, in Vanilla, the charge is woefully weak. Go realcombat ish please.... I also believe cav should be weak in sustained melee, with their armor, skill, and shield all significantly lowered compared to an infantry counterpart.

Now that I think is stupid. Why would they be significantly weaker than the infantry? One of the biggest advantages of Cavalry is that you can swipe at people's heads.

[John I Tzimisces]

Well, in Vanilla, the charge is woefully weak. Go realcombat ish please.... I also believe cav should be weak in sustained melee, with their armor, skill, and shield all significantly lowered compared to an infantry counterpart.

What sense does that make? The core of cavalry are devoted to war (warrior nobility or petty nobility in some way) and thus indeed are more skilled, and better armed and armored than infantry counter-parts...

There is a *reason* men wet their pants when they saw heavy cavalry charge. Kataphracts, back in the day, could kill the first rank or two of a sarissa phalanx with a charge...

[Fenix_120]

What sense does that make? The core of cavalry are devoted to war (warrior nobility or petty nobility in some way) and thus indeed are more skilled, and better armed and armored than infantry counter-parts...

There is a *reason* men wet their pants when they saw heavy cavalry charge. Kataphracts, back in the day, could kill the first rank or two of a sarissa phalanx with a charge...

Ok, first of all even though the super elite of the day were mounted warriors, Sergeants(sometimes mistakingly called "Men-at-arms") were Not push overs!

they were not rich, but they were sure as hell richer than peasants.

To become a sergeant in the "High" age you had to supply your own Helmet, spear, shield, brigand(A mail-studded leather armor brigadine that was actually pretty damn good armor) or even a full bridagine, a mace, sword or axe, and you had too have at least five years of intensive training under your belt.


Knights were most definitely the military super elite , but their were many other types of soldiers who were quite bad ass themselves.



And by the time the armor Kataphracts wore was strong enough to do as you claim, they were on the same side as the Greek sarissa.

The armor Macedonian/Seleucid Kataphracts wore was made from bronze, which was stronger and lighter than the iron armor worn by their Parthan counterparts(although three times more expensive)

The armor Byzantine Kataphracts used was first bronze, then steel.
And by this time the Greek sarissa had been replaced.

[Player44]

Well, I mean their attack should be higher, but first of all, you could be in full plate but kill your horse... also, its probably harder to block with your sword and shield cause you would have to protect both horse and man...

[Son of Mao]

Ya I agree with john

[John I Tzimisces]

Ok, missing my point.

I'm aware the sarissa phalanx is long dead, I'm making a statement that is testament to the power of noble cavalry even against professional infantry like those that fought in a phalanx. It's not a claim, kataphracts of antiquity scared the **** out of people...like...the ROMANS (who despite having easily the most pathetic cavalry in the Mediterranean still knew how to admire a good cavalryman).

In addition, Byzantine Kataphracts, like sergeants, are professional warriors. Unlike in the west (and in armenia and other locales), they were a professional corps, not landowning nobility (although i think the pronoiar system changed that sorta...)

Cavalry are inherently superior to infantry in this day and age. Their presence dominated the battlefield and despite inferior numbers, turned battles one way or another. Be they light skirmishing cavalry, or heavy cavalry, their mobility and impetus is not something infantry (professional or otherwise) could to match (in any regard) until the advent of gunpowder (and more specifically the Tercio formation, which is like a phalanx + gunpowder)

[Fenix_120]

Ok, missing my point.

I'm aware the sarissa phalanx is long dead, I'm making a statement that is testament to the power of noble cavalry even against professional infantry like those that fought in a phalanx. It's not a claim, kataphracts of antiquity scared the **** out of people...like...the ROMANS (who despite having easily the most pathetic cavalry in the Mediterranean still knew how to admire a good cavalryman).

umm... At the battle of Cahra (I miss-spelled that) The Romans totally creamed the Parthan Catapracts... A thousand Cataphracts charged the legions and all were dead or running in less than five minutes.


The Parthan's won thanks to their horse archers.


And although a feudal army is not considered "Professional" remember that feudal troops were far better trained than their 'Professional" counter parts.


You could train Professional Pike men-Muskets in weeks, as opposed to the years you need for Sergeants and Knights.

[Drtad]

umm... At the battle of Cahra (I miss-spelled that) The Romans totally creamed the Parthan Catapracts... A thousand Cataphracts charged the legions and all were dead or running in less than five minutes.


The Parthan's won thanks to their horse archers.

While the latter is mostly true the top part is not. The Romans beat back the cataphracts (didn't kill them all) because there were 35,000 legionaries compared to 1,000 cataphracts! What do you expect? The cataphracts did play a major role in the destruction of the Roman cavalry, I must add.

[Kalos]

While the latter is mostly true the top part is not. The Romans beat back the cataphracts (didn't kill them all) because there were 35,000 legionaries compared to 1,000 cataphracts! What do you expect? The cataphracts did play a major role in the destruction of the Roman cavalry, I must add.

Yeah, do you really expect 1 cataphract to be able to take down 35 legionaries before dying?

[Player44]

Well I mean would it be harder to protect your horse and yourself with blocking? In RC all cavalry had weaker shield and skill to compensate the fact that you have to protect yourself and the horse