lancer and shield

[shadyrome]

Anyone notice when your horse man charge the lancer doesnt break?
Anyone notice the shield is kinda small?

[Pre]

Shield is small for realistic terms. As armor got more sofisticated sheilds were less relied on.

It was mentioned in another thread, I just happen to agree with it.

And the lances breaking would be cool, but to justify that, the lance charge should be massivly strong to compensate afterwards being stuck with a sword.

[the_mango55]

I always figured that only sporting lances for jousts and such would break on contact, war lances would be much more resilient.

I mean I'm sure some would break, but what's the point of elite lancers if they can only attack one enemy?

[Matty_P]

i agree.

this is nitpicking!

[Tzif]

I always figured that only sporting lances for jousts and such would break on contact, war lances would be much more resilient.

I mean I'm sure some would break, but what's the point of elite lancers if they can only attack one enemy?

Agreeded, why would they use something that would break on contact?

Tzif

[Ragss]

But they did drop their lances to draw swords, no? So its a bit rediculous that they can whip out a 12 foot lance from their ass for the next charge.

[Oddball_E8]

But they did drop their lances to draw swords, no? So its a bit rediculous that they can whip out a 12 foot lance from their ass for the next charge.

eeeh... isnt that true for all spear armed horsemen in RTW too? i didnt see anyone wine about that...

the game has its limits... and this is one of them... and frankly not one of the worst...

[sparks]

calvary could charge multiple times during battle with a lance, it only required that they retreat back to there lines and grab another lance from there squire, it would make sense that if the first charge didn't work to fight for a while, and then once you've weakened up the enemy some more to go grab another lance and try to break them with a charge again, can no one reference an instance of multiple calvary charges by the same unit during a battle?

and as far as them breaking, that would very much depend on what they hit, even hitting another knights armour they still might penetrate with the continous force. its also possible the lance would knock you on your ass and just have a damaged tip to show for it. anyone here


also i'd be curious exactly how the lance would shatter, would it shatter at the tip and then slowly move up as you continue to hit them, or would you hit them and the middle of the lance break, i could see it snapping in half if you were aiming at someone not level with you (a foot solider)

[Exodus]

Oh. I always thought lances were used just for one charge and after they either splintered or broke, swords were drawn. :o

[the_mango55]

I have seen "realism mods" such as EB and RTR have kataphract and Sarmatian units have bows and lances, and they would always start the battle by firing the bows.

I always wondered where they had the lance stashed away when using the bows.

But they did drop their lances to draw swords, no? So its a bit rediculous that they can whip out a 12 foot lance from their ass for the next charge.

Actually, I assume they wouldn't drop their lance, and after they charge they turn around and back away for another charge, rinse and repeat. I woudl only drop the lance when absolutely necessary.

[Destraex]

RTW cavalry a lot of the time were spear armed cavalry that stabbed and jabbed NOT lance armed cavalry that impaled their victims with huge shock force.
Remember it is claimed that only after the stirrup was introduced in the middle ages could a real lance shock charge be delivered with much force

[sparks]

a common misconception that stirrup thing

this link is writing from a guy who has actually done several stirrupless lance charges

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

an impact actually has a tendency to push you up and back and by up i mean "out of the stirrups"
from what he says, the stirrup helps you before impact, is fairly pointless during impact, after impact stirrups help you stand up for sword combat and if your solidly in the stirrups your much more difficult to dismount.

from what i understand

[Ragss]

From Sparks' website,

"Stirrups then allow the horseman to exploit the success of the charge, once a lance is broken or discarded in the chest of an unfortunate foe."

But if they really did go back and get a new lance, then you can't really replicate that in a game without it getting very boring...

[Destraex]

Cool link, I have heard both sides argued before. And yes I have been horse riding but am by no means an equestrian expert.
THat is why I said "claimed"..... many modern books that I have only purchased recently still claim the stirrup is important for shock.

[Pre]

So the lances break off in the enemy? And those lances are fairly think aren't they? If their breaking woulden't a reinforced lance built for many charges be very very heavy?

[carl-the-conqueror]

tournament lances were designed to break, so the user got more points, waste of resorces in a war.

[Reiver]

I really like the tactical implications a single use lance would have. It would sort of be like holding back your legions from throwing their javelins until the perfect time (if Rome had required any tactics). It'd be a realistic way of stopping the cavalry from charging around the battlefield again and again.

[Snipafist]

It was pretty common for lances to break, regardless of the materials they were made out of. Obviously tournament lances were made of poorer materials, and so broke quite easily. However, I wouldn't expect a lance to work more than once on the battlefield before it was damaged beyond repair. Primarily good for taking on other horsemen, where the range could make for a huge difference in whose cavalry won.

[Brutius Bollocksus]

.

[Reiver]

Well I certainly thing lances shouldn't break DURING a battle, this would spoil gameplay quite a bit however historically incorrect it is.
What might be better, is that AFTER battles there is a chance that a soldiers lance broke and if you retrain the unit they get a new one.

That would be stupid. It makes much more sense that a lance breeaks in battle than after it and you've got to assume they'd be able to get their hands on replacements (from the dead or stores) at their own leisure rather than during the heat of battle. It would also add a fiddly bit of micromanagement (retrain an entire unit after almost every battle) and needless movement to the correct recruitment centres.
I really like the idea of a single use lance.