question about the cavalry

[quintus Lucius]

I don ´t understand for what reason the cavalry you have lowered the attacking skill?
Now in my oppinion the cavalry is especially in a multiplayergame very uneffectiv to expensive instead you should buy some good infantry and only buy some lite cavalry to kill some retreating enemies.

I think the cavalry skill in relation to the infantry units is unrealistic low.

[joerd9]

Well, but to make up for this, most cav units have an insane charge bonus. You did notice that, didn't you? All you have to do is alter your tactics a little. Charge often and repeatedly, remain less in melee = beautiful toy.

Welcome to TWC.

[florin80]

There is a pinned thread right above explaining why it was changed, to what extent and how it is best to use it.

[El_Saracen]

Having your heavy cavalry line up and charge directly into the back of an engaged enemy unit is a beautiful thing. Just remember to allow your cavalry to get in position in order to get the full charge bonus. Few units can withstand a charge into the rear. Forget about melee with nearly all infantry.

[quintus Lucius]

I have realised that chargebonus
but in my oppinion the cavalry gets to weak with this low attacking skill and this to high costs

I prefer the attacking skills in RTR 6.2

I believe RTR tried to make RTW more realistic and I find big parts of this mod
are very good

But I find, because antike battles are one of my hobbies, this low attacking skills is not compareable to the power of antike cavalries.

[shadow2726]

But keep in mind this is set in a time period before the stirrup was used.. That means that the initial charge momentum is the only extra force a rider would get behind his lance. after that it would have been rather hard to get a whole lot of force behind the lance without having something to brace yourself on.

[quintus Lucius]

But I think you forget a rider can use his horse in fight and is no unmoving target on it.
And what is about the kataphrakt...
Why the cavallerie becomes more and more important in the romen army???
Gallic auxiliaries, german auxiliaries...sarmatian auxiliaries
stirrup come after the fall of western rome empire into use they are not the reason the cavalry becomes more and more important in the roman army.

[florin80]

That reason would be mobility afaik.

[Phillieas_Caesar]

That reason would be mobility afaik.

yeah you right Florin,mobility became a big part as the empire grew but espality after Constintine's reforms the army was split into border-guards (limitanei) who were station at the Friontier to slow down invaders for the centralized Field-Army (Comitatenses) to attack it. Since the Comitatenses Had to be more mobile to meet the enemy where ever thay should strike the Legions stated to put more enphasis on horses because their more mobile than a column of infantry. also the army of this time had become more BARBARIANISED* by the foederati so training down-graded in the infantry. example The Foederati don't were Helmats/Armor why should I? so the quality also went down until the Legions were little better than the Foederati themselfs. that's all folks!

*their term not mine

[FirstManOnTheMoon]

From what I know about cavalry use in ancient history, cavalry represented the aristocracy/land owning elite. These were the only ones who could spare leisure time to train, could afford a horse and armor. The trend continued, the cavalry (at least in Rome and Greece, Persia and Carthage) still consisted of the aristocracy. Therefore, I think, cavalry should be made very strong (the ability to allocate time to train) and very expensive - as well as taking two turns to train. Infantry should be fast to train, cheap and weaker than cavalry, but strong enough to deter all-cavalry armies.

[Wien1938]

On the other hand, in a melee, without stirrups and proper saddles, even the most highly trained aristocratic horseman did not hang about - he could be pulled off, knocked off, or his horse killed - and then he was dead.
No where do you find horse charging into melee, then fighting in melee, except against other horse.
Even medieval knights would not charge a line of spears without weakening it before hand - and certainly not charge a line of swiss pikes! One historian made a very good point, years ago, namely that the rag-tag militias of the 11th and 12th centuries would not stand up to a knightly charge because of lack of discipline, low morale and poor weaponry and training.
What changes in that period and was consistent in the ancient world was the higher average quality of the infantry. Greek foot could stand up to endless frontal charges by all but cataphracts, and even those could be beaten.
At Carrhae (53 BC) the Romans were worn down by endless horse-archer attacks throughout a scorching day, followed by partially successful cataphract charges. Even then the bulk of the army was able to escape until Crassus surrendered most of it.

[florin80]

Most books I`ve read(that refer to the matter) seem to agree that cavalry in antiquity at least was not able on its own to brake infantry if the latter was fresh, disciplined and already formed for battle.

[SuleymanGroznii]

Even medieval knights would not charge a line of spears without weakening it before hand - and certainly not charge a line of swiss pikes! One historian made a very good point, years ago, namely that the rag-tag militias of the 11th and 12th centuries would not stand up to a knightly charge because of lack of discipline, low morale and poor weaponry and training.
What changes in that period and was consistent in the ancient world was the higher average quality of the infantry. Greek foot could stand up to endless frontal charges by all but cataphracts, and even those could be beaten.
At Carrhae (53 BC) the Romans were worn down by endless horse-archer attacks throughout a scorching day, followed by partially successful cataphract charges. Even then the bulk of the army was able to escape until Crassus surrendered most of it.

Horses have to specifically trained to charge into a solid line of men. Even with the usual combat training horses got when they were so important on the battlefield (e.g. banging loud stuff up close to their faces, having a bunch of guys yelling and chasing them around with weapons in the riding area, etc), charging cavalry would always stop just shy of a line of infantry disciplined enough to a.) not totally urinate and defecate all over themselves and their colleagues, and b.) stay in formation.

There is an incredibly scary story re the above subject from the Battle of Nicopolis, between the Ottoman Empire and one of the later pseudo-Crusader armies in 1396 (Hungary, Holy Roman Empire, France, England, Venice, Wallachia, and a few others). The Janissaries, the Ottoman's elite infantry (and IMO, one of the most interesting institutions in all of military history; anybody who hasn't read up on the Ottomans should at least Wiki the Janissaries and the Devshirme process), were charged by a large group of French knights. They responded by...standing there, waiting for the horses to stop, then pulling the knights off of their horses, and basically killing them however they wanted. Ouch. That had to suck.

<i>Warriors of the Steppes<i> by Erik Hildinger is a great read for anybody who wants to learn more about cavalry tactics.

[quintus Lucius]

my last comment is to Wien1938....

I think cavalry in antike battles shouldnt have such an high charge Bonus. In my oppinion the cavalry is often a highly trained troop (most of them are out of the nobility) so they must have a good attack skill but attacking a phalanx frontal they have disadwantages i.e. because lack of hughe shields and mass of troops only in combination with other troops the rides have a good change to beet the enemy.

Disadvantages are high Costs, units as not many men

[HeroSK]

There is an incredibly scary story re the above subject from the Battle of Nicopolis, between the Ottoman Empire and one of the later pseudo-Crusader armies in 1396 (Hungary, Holy Roman Empire, France, England, Venice, Wallachia, and a few others). The Janissaries, the Ottoman's elite infantry (and IMO, one of the most interesting institutions in all of military history; anybody who hasn't read up on the Ottomans should at least Wiki the Janissaries and the Devshirme process), were charged by a large group of French knights. They responded by...standing there, waiting for the horses to stop, then pulling the knights off of their horses, and basically killing them however they wanted. Ouch. That had to suck.
.

AFAIK...At the Battle of Nicopolis, Janissary archers were at the front line with Azaps (light infantry) and They are attacked by French Kinghts but soon retreated to forest of pikes...and started to shoot French Knights with their very powerful recurve bows..

French Knight dismounted and pursued the retrating Ottomans up to hill...
When knights reach at the top, They shocked by the scene..40 000 Ottoman
cavalry were waiting...At this point, French knights try to escape but they were too tired, all of them killerd or captured..

I think, light cavalry cannot stand aganist infantry since they are out numbered but they should have charge affect..

However, armoured and elite cavalry should be able to defend themselves even prolonged fight with infantry..

[quintus Lucius]

I dont understand what you want to say with your first sentence... if a footman sticks over an stone in a battle he also could be killed??????

To your second thesis cavalry never charge into melee Hundred years war Agincourt and Crecy i.e.

In antike wars the punic wars cannae (216 B.C.)

Lance in antike battles without stirrups difficult to use... the roman equites use a speer
to attack a rider or footman they must pass their victim pull the speer into the enemy and have to hope his speer wouldnt stick to hard in the body...
or they throw their speer at an enemy...
In Melee they use a shortsword early roman period later the sparta...
Often in antike Battles riders use the horses only to increase their speed and flank the enemy, but to fight in melee their sprang of their horses...
The macedonies use a long Lance they use an other technique: they ride straight against the enemy holding their lance at the side in their hand, not under their ellbow, and a moment before the lance impacting the enemy the rider opens his hand and gives the Lance free. (difficult manöver only well trained troops could do this)

[AqD]

I don ?t understand for what reason the cavalry you have lowered the attacking skill?
Now in my oppinion the cavalry is especially in a multiplayergame very uneffectiv to expensive instead you should buy some good infantry and only buy some lite cavalry to kill some retreating enemies.

I think the cavalry skill in relation to the infantry units is unrealistic low.

I raised both of the attack skill and charge point by 1.5x, and make cataphract's lance capable of penetrating armour - only now they become useful in the game.

However, the non-cataphract cavalry still suck when facing heavy infantry due to their very low attack rate and defense skill...

PS: I have found that, by maintaining the formation of a single unit before charge (by walking - not running toward enemy), also DON'T use wedge, the charge effect could be very great and almost unstoppable.
________
Web shows

[Artax]

I raised both of the attack skill and charge point by 1.5x, and make cataphract's lance capable of penetrating armour - only now they become useful in the game.

However, the non-cataphract cavalries still suck when facing heavy infantries due to their very low attack rate and defense skill...

It sucks if not used well. Cavalry is meant to charge and retreat. Nothing else. If they stay in combat with heavy infantry they will get slaughtered.

Here is the example from one of my battles (no stat changes or additional moding and the enemy was roman principes mostly):

[Heldelance]

Even IF the cavalry were armored head to toe with high quality armor, they would be easily dispatched when engaging in a melee with decent troops. (ie; Gallic warbands, low quality but fierce [high morale] units)
See, without stirrups and a proper riding seat, a rider would be easily dragged off the horse (especially in the thick of battle), even with proper equipment, in a thick melee, the rider would be killed quickly.

Here's how I use my cavalry...
Heavy cavalry to charge from the flanks/rear ONCE the enemy formation has been pinned down by my infantry. I let them engage in melee for a short count (typically 5 seconds) before pulling them out to reform.

Light cavalry I use to hit ranged units (archers, slingers, etc) or to chase down retreating enemies.

[AqD]

How I use an army of full cavalry against heavy infantry:

3/4 of units are horse archers.
1/4 of units are heavy cavalry

All of the horse archers are in one group, forming a single line, with skirmish mode and fire-at-will on (until contacted with enemies). Heavy cavalry are separated to 2 or 3 groups, and waiting in one side.

Once contacted, the enemy units would break formation to chase those horse archers, whom they can never catch. Then it's done - Move the heavy cavalry to enemies' back, and target the leftmost or rightmost enemy units, charge them from flank/rear repeatedly like this: group 1 charge from the left, retreat, group 2 charge from the right, retreat, group 1 charge from the left again, .... They should break soon and then you move to next enemy units.
________
ROLL A JOINT