Templars vs Muslims heavy cavalry

[pajomife]

I try several custom battle between Koj knights and Muslims heavy cavalry.
Just a simple front charge.
I note the Koj knigths have best charge bonus, but in the case of a Templar knight vs a heavy KHWAREZM ,the last one have 28 defence points against 15 of a templar ,so the reult of the 37 vs 37 man's charge ,in a medium difficulty custom battle , are 37 dead templars, against 6 heavy kharezm.
Is not to much?

[Kip]

Which Khwarezmiam cavalry did you use? Some of their heavies are supposed to be the heaviest of the heavy.

[pajomife]

I use the Khurasani Heavy Cavalry,just in a frontal charge.
The best bonus charge of the templars takes no effect when the units hit,then the rest of the battle was a massacre.

[colin666]

I don't know about you but I've never been under the impression that heavy cavarly are really supposed to clear away other heavy cavarly..
I always use my in support of my horse archers and to clear away any potential threats to my infantry horde.

Example: charging in my best cavarly when the enemy is weak to route them, clearing out enemy infantry advances trying to keep up with my horse archers, charge the enemy infantry from behind while they're fighting my deadly abbasid/ghorid hordes.

AND when I was playing a very breif campaign as KOJ I found that their heavy cavarly could destroy enemy horse archers and infantry. A better strategy I've found to counter heavy cavarly is to just shoot all your ap arrows/javs at them then hold the line with some spears and then charge in from behind with your heavy cavarly. Works like a charm for me.

[Heinz Guderian]

,so the reult of the 37 vs 37 man's charge ,in a medium difficulty custom battle , are 37 dead templars, against 6 heavy kharezm.
Is not to much?

What would you prefer the result to be? What would be your ideal result in an ideal BC world?

[pajomife]

What would you prefer the result to be? What would be your ideal result in an ideal BC world?

The game is suppose to be fair.Not tendentious.If the Templars was great historical knights,is because they don't lose all the battles.

Of course,i change my self some parameters, stat_pri_armour 16, 8, 5, metal to the Christians HEAVY cavalry.

I ideal result in BC world,should be a fair fight.And 37 against 6,is not.


Now I win 37 against 32 deaths ,is more realistic no?Some type of armour and a big shield ,should give to the Christians a similar defence values.

[Miraj]

Now I win 37 against 32 deaths ,is more realistic no?Some type of armour and a big shield ,should give to the Christians a similar defence values.

What exactly is this "Christian" and "Muslims" heavy cavalry. There is no such unit in BC that I'm aware of. No such warrior in actual history either. Last time I checked religious beliefs did not have any effect on actual physical armour of a soldier.

And a fight between unarmoured mount unit like the Templars and an elite cataphract cavalry unit like the Khwarezmians (or for that matter ERE BG, Mongols etc) should always be in favor of the cataphracts. Templars should definitely lose against any sort of elite central asian heavy cavalry unit - some of the best in the world at the time.

If we wanted to be "fair" we'd make sure every infantry unit, cavalry unit and archer unit had exactly the same stats.

[Samariten]

The game is suppose to be fair.Not tendentious.If the Templars was great historical knights,is because they don't lose all the battles.

Of course,i change my self some parameters, stat_pri_armour 16, 8, 5, metal to the Christians HEAVY cavalry.

I ideal result in BC world,should be a fair fight.And 37 against 6,is not.


Now I win 37 against 32 deaths ,is more realistic no?Some type of armour and a big shield ,should give to the Christians a similar defence values.

The templars were great knights though the best cavarly has always been produced in asia if you look to history. Example is the seljuk, arab and mongolian i could go on. The horsemasters does not come from europe but asia and it shows also in BC and should not be changed.

[michell]

The templars were great knights though the best cavarly has always been produced in asia if you look to history. Example is the seljuk, arab and mongolian i could go on. The horsemasters does not come from europe but asia and it shows also in BC and should not be changed.

Yes, horsemasters come from Asia, but seljucs, arab and mongolian mostly fought like a light cavalry and that was theirs power. Best European cavalry was heavy - look at the battles of Montgisard and Arsuf. That is the reason templars shouldn't loose with casaulties 37:6

[Ahiga]

Yes, horsemasters come from Asia, but seljucs, arab and mongolian mostly fought like a light cavalry and that was theirs power. Best European cavalry was heavy - look at the battles of Montgisard and Arsuf. That is the reason templars shouldn't loose with casaulties 37:6

Not quite true. Yes, Bedouin Arabs were famous as light lancers, as were Tribal Arabs. Yet the basic kit of an Arab horsemen included mail armor. And in fact the typical Middle Eastern cavalrymen prior to the Seljuk's invasion was in fact a medium-heavy horsemen with spear (Which was the most feared cavalry weapon by other cavalry), sword or bow - but a bow akin to the Cataphract Archers of Byzantium, not to Turkish nomads.

• Kurds were commented as often being heavier armored than those Tribal Arabs, well known for their swordsmanship and heavy cavalry, and Professional Turks were commented as often being heavier armored than either.

• "Three thousand of those who were called Agulani were said to be present, and they were afraid neither of swords, lances, arrows, nor any kind of arms, because they and their horses were covered with armor verywhere." - Gesta Francorum, the account of the First Crusade written by an anonymous Crusader.

Despite the Agulani, whose numbers are probably inflated (Even if they were just 300 strong, that's 300 horsemen with metal barding that the Crusaders did not have), the crusaders fought only the Western Islamic world. Whose to say that Khorasani Infantry weren't on par with the Crusader's own? Whose to say that Khwarezmian heavy cavalry weren't better than the Crusaders, considering they fought and defeated them in a pitched battle as mercenaries to Egypt?

On the topic of armor, what nationality would you call these guys?


We realize that Templars were in fact notorious for their charge, and will do our best to reflect this in theirs being very fearsome. However they weren't the very best horsemen bar none. Just the very best out of Europe, and one of the best in the Middle East. Never the less we will be aiming in future releases to increase the difference between couched lance chargers and non couched lance guys.

[Heinz Guderian]

Now I win 37 against 32 deaths ,is more realistic no?Some type of armour and a big shield ,should give to the Christians a similar defence values.

Problem solved. Lesson learned.

Glad you sorted that typical BC bias to muslim units, even though you were using an unarmoured unit incorrectly to charge one of the best elite armoured units in the game. My Knight Templars have saved my arse severel times when facing superior enemies without changing their stats, i just used them right. A well placed Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon charge will change a battle.

[Aurion]

Problem solved. Lesson learned.

Glad you sorted that typical BC bias to muslim units, even though you were using an unarmoured unit incorrectly to charge one of the best elite armoured units in the game. My Knight Templars have saved my arse severel times when facing superior enemies without changing their stats, i just used them right. A well placed Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon charge will change a battle.

Yessir.

For my money though, Hospitallers are better, higher defense = more melee endurance. I can take the attack reduction. Well, that, and they're more widely recruitable, given that the Kingdom of Jerusalem usually ends up with quite a few more towns/cities than castles.

[pajomife]

Problem solved. Lesson learned.

Glad you sorted that typical BC bias to muslim units, even though you were using an unarmoured unit incorrectly to charge one of the best elite armoured units in the game. My Knight Templars have saved my arse severel times when facing superior enemies without changing their stats, i just used them right. A well placed Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon charge will change a battle.

Their charge ,even flanking,not frontal,against the Khurasani Elite,takes few damage.
The bonus charge don't make any difference against those armoured units,Khurasani Elite,or any other of same type.
I just pretend to say ,is the Templars, as a Elite unit, should have better defence points,because in a mele,they lose against any medium/heavy unit,by far.

[Aurion]

Their charge ,even flanking,not frontal,against the Khurasani Elite,takes few damage.
The bonus charge don't make any difference against those armoured units,Khurasani Elite,or any other of same type.
I just pretend to say ,is the Templars, as a Elite unit, should have better defence points,because in a mele,they lose against any medium/heavy unit,by far.

Mmh, Templars aren't meant to win a prolonged melee. European cavalry during the Medieval period was almost exclusively shock cav. The couched lance technique allowed incredible force behind their charge, as it transferred the momentum of the horse and rider to the point of the lance, but in a prolonged melee they were hideously vulnerable due to the unarmored nature of their horses, once again. Simply stab the horse with a spear or clock it upside the head with a mace or something and you stand a decent chance of incapacitating the rider as well.

As far as charging goes, the lance was more of a blunt impact object, not a piercer. You might be able to knock them down, but don't expect to get a real kill shot in through that armor...and the limitations of the charge bonus, which is already quite massive, are more of a engine problem.

Khurasani Elites, on the other hand, are armored all over. There are weak points, obviously, but those are areas of the horse or rider where there is less armor, as opposed to no armor at all. I think you miss the point, that "Eastern" super-heavies are the direct descendants of the Persian/Parthian cataphracts that gave even the best Hellenistic heavy cavalry fits...quite simply, the armored cataphract is the ultimate in heavy cavalry.

People don't jokingly call then "catatanks" for nothing, you know.

Of course, even if they were unhorsed, the Templars could still fight well, but in a TW game, when the horse goes down, the rider is through.

As far as the Templars' defense stat goes, I was under the impression that was a gameplay thing, to have the Templars have higher attack and the Hospitallers higher defense, so as there's a actual reason to use them both...

Can we get some clarification on this point?

[redz27m]

oh... but theirs a debate.. if a real all armoured laden horse can really charge???!!!
all i read here is that ''the more armoured the cavalry is the better its charge.. negating how its sopposed to do that one??''

most of you just follow those stats, but i think in reality, if those armoured horse are made from top to bottom ,they are useless in charge.... maybe on initial charge but to repeat it.. damn those horse must be exhausted as hell s

so point is: we should consider too the fresh-exhaustion icon!!! maybe decreased their movement after the first charge???:hmmm:

well i still go to my templars they have balance armor and good charge more realistic and i bet even those easternheavycav of yours cannot out do them in real battle, their horse would be too exhausted by the time they are on frontal collision

[Miraj]

Templars are supposed to be powerul in the charge against most or nearly all enemies. I guess a cataphract unit having such a high armour value will largely be able to handle that. And the Khwarezmians being charge cav themselves will deliver a greater blow to the armourless mounts the Templars have.


Personally, from my limited readings of central asian heavy cav and ghulam heavy cav fighting techniques it's clear that the elites preferred using maces as a shock "charge" weapon instead of lances - similar to RE clibinarii. So it's worth pondering whether ghulam or khurasanian/khwarezmian cav should be pointing lances and charging...

[redz27m]

well at least my templars and hospitalliers never.. and i mean never ROUT!!! ...
charge them and you are facing a certain death

[Kennylz]

You are charging Templar Knights towards equally charging cataphract type heavy cavalry?

No wonder dude. That is not what they are for. They have outstanding charge, but that charge bonus is pretty much negated when they are charging better armoured heavy cavalry charging right back at them.

The charge is about breaking infantry. The charge is also a charge, not a long drawn out tool for melee, so it is only fair that the heavily armoured, heavy horse will beat the unarmoured horse with the great charge.

[Lupu]

umm, you mean a heavy chain mail, and shield against a heavy metal lamellar, wit plate reinforcements, and heavy mail underneath plus an armored horse?

If you mean the khurasani heavy cavalry it has felt horses, but the rest of the armor is still the same as that of khwarezm, and thats better than the teamplar heavy mail, also dont forget the horses are protected.

[Aurion]

Do I really need to say this?

Who would win between Khurasani Elite Cav and Templar Knights is utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of the mod. Especially given that they are on opposite ends of the map, practically.

The previous posters have already illustrated that armored horses > unarmored horses, so I won't say that.

I will, however, say that whining about that is like saying that in EB it isn't "fair" that someone can beat the Romans in a infantry battle (which people seem to whine about continuously).

It's your own fault for matching up cataphracts with European cavalry in melee, it's almost as stupid as fighting a slugging match with ERE heavy infantry using Turkish Ghazis.

It's just plain idiotic. Get that weak, Eurocentrist "OMG teh Templars shld be teh BOMBZORZ" outta here.

Just kidding. Kinda. At least the bit about Eurocentrism. I always wanted to go McCarthy on someone...

But seriously, do you know how much work is done trying to balance units in something as big as this? I can't do it myself because I'm crap with coding, but it takes freaking forever.

The BC team has done the best they can as far as balancing units goes. But eventually, you just reach a point where to "balance" any more would detract from the "fun factor" and the "challenge" of playing Broken Crescent. The shortcomings of the units are every bit as important as their strengths, you know.

If you want some uber-unstoppable force that can demolish everything in it's path, play vanilla RTW.

Do you want BC to play like vanilla RTW? I sure don't.

/ Rant