what's up with Melee cavalry

[morganottosson]

Is the melee cavalry supposto be bad in this era of time? I've checked some of the melee cavalry units and I dont see any point in bringing them in my army.

What I would've like to see is some decent stats for these units, since they are outclassed by shockcavalry. In my opinion the melee cavalry should have good melee combat stats so that they might be able to stand and fight an infantry unit(if its not a spear unit). Also the cavalry i've checked doesn't get a bonus vs infantry(i've seen 0's - 1's haven't checked all units) which in my opinion they should since they can strike from above on their horses. Atm no cavalry i've ever recruited has stood a chance against melee inf in a prolonged fight , I thought that was what melee cavalry was supposto do or are they just ment to be able to fight shockcav for an extended time?

In the current state of melee cavalry I just think they take upp space on my harddrive and increase loading times. I think every unit should have its place and purpose in the mod otherwise why bother adding them.

Have I missed something so feel free to correct me , im by no means an expert so if your experience with melee cavalry has been better plz do tell me.
Ty for reading

[crackerjack1348]

Melee cav is good for smashing skirmishers quickly and charging into the rear of engaged units. Their biggest advantage (like all cav) is speed and maneuverability, so if you're just standing and fighting infantry units you're not playing to that strength. The only thing your cav should stand and fight for any length of time is enemy cav, thereby denying him the ability to use his cav to smash your skirmishers or charge into your engaged infantry.

[Matmannen]

Melee cav is good for smashing skirmishers quickly and charging into the rear of engaged units. Their biggest advantage (like all cav) is speed and maneuverability, so if you're just standing and fighting infantry units you're not playing to that strength. The only thing your cav should stand and fight for any length of time is enemy cav, thereby denying him the ability to use his cav to smash your skirmishers or charge into your engaged infantry.

This ^^

Melee cav is for killing other cav, especially shock cav. The classic cavalry didn't have stirrups so the sat on they remained on the horses by squezing their legs around the horses belly, so I bet you can understand how easy it would be to drag a person down from a horse. The celts on the other hand had a specially designed saddle which makes them the best melee cav ingame...

[Petrucci]

Melee cav is good for smashing skirmishers quickly and charging into the rear of engaged units. Their biggest advantage (like all cav) is speed and maneuverability, so if you're just standing and fighting infantry units you're not playing to that strength. The only thing your cav should stand and fight for any length of time is enemy cav, thereby denying him the ability to use his cav to smash your skirmishers or charge into your engaged infantry.

This ^^

Melee cav is for killing other cav, especially shock cav. The classic cavalry didn't have stirrups so the sat on they remained on the horses by squezing their legs around the horses belly, so I bet you can understand how easy it would be to drag a person down from a horse. The celts on the other hand had a specially designed saddle which makes them the best melee cav ingame...

Not this. Bu crackerjack definition they have same function,but crappier stats then shock cav. There is a reason why that cav is called melee ,and it main purpose is to fight in melee combat. They should be remade based on shogun 2 katana cavalry concept and to give a good account against any non spear enemy. Else their is no point of them taking extra class.

[Matmannen]

Not this. Bu crackerjack definition they have same function,but crappier stats then shock cav. There is a reason why that cav is called melee ,and it main purpose is to fight in melee combat. They should be remade based on shogun 2 katana cavalry concept and to give a good account against any non spear enemy. Else their is no point of them taking extra class.

I am sorry the game doesn't have a simply paper-rock-scissor system for you to follow and demands actual strategy to be played...

[Petrucci]

I am sorry the game doesn't have a simply paper-rock-scissor system for you to follow and demands actual strategy to be played...

I fail to see your point here? Is it
a) you trying to be smart guy
b) Telling TW is too complex game for me?
c) Seeking favor from Athena to bless you with her divine wisdom so you could think out grand strategy needed to play this game?

[Butan]

I disagree with you morganottosson, some melee cav can stand and fight not badly!

Melee cav is good for smashing skirmishers quickly and charging into the rear of engaged units. Their biggest advantage (like all cav) is speed and maneuverability, so if you're just standing and fighting infantry units you're not playing to that strength. The only thing your cav should stand and fight for any length of time is enemy cav, thereby denying him the ability to use his cav to smash your skirmishers or charge into your engaged infantry.

In the best situation, I would agree with you.

But if you lack the micro-management or just want your melee cavalry to have a fight, its not a bad idea to leave them to attack infantry that arent good enough to hurt them a lot, but good enough to not instantly rout.
Sometimes I even forget to cycle-charge my shock cav and they do honest results!

In the end, its on average a better choice to do as you said, but I feel that the average-good melee attack/defense of most of melee cavalry makes them interesting to fix infantry too! Preferably on the flank or rear, and if you have cavalry superiority (or the enemy has none) but still!

[morganottosson]

what im trying to put forward is that i always go for the shock cav there is no insentive for getting a melee cav , which is kinda sad

[Menulo]

i only take melee cavalry in cavalry focused factions like parthia/armenia or macedon with the aspsis companions. getting troops stuck in combat with the melee cav and than charge them with the shock cav to rout the out of them is really effective in getting rid of lone troops. and melee cav is great vs other cav, although i mostly keep some elephants for that

if you play a more infrantry focused factions, dont bother. get some shock cav for the archers and some back chargers and your fine.

[Unactuality]

I find that melee cav sometimes works better at killing archers than shock cav since it's typically difficult to get a good charge on an enemy skirmishing backwards, and you sometimes only have a very short period of time to melee them down before some spearmen jog up to ruin your party. Most shock cav has good enough melee to take care of business against weak troops like that anyway, but not always as quickly

[KAM 2150]

In Ancient times there was no cavalry unit who would fight infantry in prolonged melee. Cavalry would try to either charge and break enemy formations (like single charge of cataphracts and agema at Magnesia broke entire Romans wing) or roll back after charge. Sure, sometimes when fighting much ligher units cav could stay in combat, but for example, Hellenic cavalry did not use any long swords, hence they were severly handicaped in combat vs infantry after the charge.

I hate this entire Rome 2 cavalry division for melee and shock cavalry. It is just stupid and fake.

[KAM 2150]

The point of Matmannen is that in ancient times there was no division that this cav is melee and this one is shock. Super melee cavalry made for fighting in close combat in prolonged melee with infantry is fantasy thing. There is a reason why pretty much all higher grade Hellenic and Eastern cavalry units were lancers.

[Petrucci]

TBH aren't conquering whole known world with some Iberian or German tribe or killing armies 3 time bigger then yours all time also fantasy thing?
It's good for game to have strong base on history, but making right balance between history and gameplay is as much important.
In current metagame melee cavalry is seriously outclassed by shock cav and I can't see any reason why would player choose them over latter one.

[KAM 2150]

Those are two separate things. Many nations had their chances to conquer a lot. German invasion on Rome might have ended republic, but Romans manned up and beat them back. This is plausible. Cavalry that is good in prolonged melee with infantry is fantasy.

[Butan]

Do you mean there was no "melee training" for horsemen and purely "horse riding" tactics?

I'm corrupted by hollywood more than history on that point, but this is an honest question. Was there really no way a man on a horse was trained and asked to cut a man on the ground that was not routing, in the intention of routing them through sheer melee?

[KAM 2150]

Of course there was, but due to lack of proper saddles and stirups it was way to easy to pull the man from his horse. Also most of the horses were not that big too, there were few places where you could get horses similar to what medieval knights used. Without proper long sword to fight from the horse it was hard to reach footmen, not to mention if he was using spear (which most soldiers outside Rome used). Plus, mostly there was more infantry then cavalry, hence more enemies to fight against. As I wrote, sure you could fight from your horse, spiecially if you had spear or long sword, but without stirups you had to hold to your horse with your legs, hence you could not put too much force into each strike. Also, because of this lancers were holding their weapons with both hands instead of couching the lance, which would end up with them flying back from their horse at the point of impact.

Usually, cavalry was made up from more noble classes and no one liked when those guys end up dead in high numbers since they are harder to replace. If you lose 1000 infantry soldiers there are always some other guys you can recruit, but if you lose 1000 horsemen of noble birth then well...their families might not support your rule for long

You have to bear in mind that prolonged melee also was costly in terms of horses which could get killed or injured and they costed a lot.

In other words, prolonged melee with infantry was simply not worth it

[Matmannen]

The main advantage if the horse is that you can get in to battle hit somebody and get out quickly before the guy can hit back. Why would you give up this main advantage and use of cavalry by stopping to fight in a melee. I think that melee can shoul only be effective againts shock cavarly and able to last longer in a cav vs infantry fight then shock cav...

[Petrucci]

Those are two separate things. Many nations had their chances to conquer a lot. German invasion on Rome might have ended republic, but Romans manned up and beat them back. This is plausible.

And one tribe conquering whole Europe isn't?

Hey I behaved well and used smart guy,edit that or I will be forced to report it.
replay to both about topic
Then if

Cavalry that is good in prolonged melee with infantry is fantasy.

and if

The main advantage if the horse is that you can get in to battle hit somebody and get out quickly before the guy can hit back. Why would you give up this main advantage and use of cavalry by stopping to fight in a melee.

why do we still have melee cav unit type in this mod?

[KAM 2150]

And one tribe conquering whole Europe isn't?

Nope, because some tribal invasions often leaded to sacking half of Europe in short time. This is campaign level, do not mix it with battle level, where stuff like cavalry being good in melee vs infantry is fantasy due to historical restrictions I've mentioned.

We still have melee cavalry because those units were used in ancient times, but as I wrote, this whole division into melee/shock done by CA is stupid and leads to false assumptions that there is cav strong vs infantry in prolonged melee. There should be only division into melee cavalry (shock and melee) and missile cavalry.

[Matmannen]

Hey I behaved well and used smart guy,edit that or I will be forced to report it.
replay to both about topic
Then if

Now you are pushing it...

Also this:

We still have melee cavalry because those units were used in ancient times, but as I wrote, this whole division into melee/shock done by CA is stupid and leads to false assumptions that there is cav strong vs infantry in prolonged melee. There should be only division into melee cavalry (shock and melee) and missile cavalry.

The only thing melee can should be good at is fighting other cav... Melee cav would still do better against infantry then shock cav would, or rather less bad would be the correct term. The best counter for infantry is more infantry with a cav charge to top it off...