What is the Historical/Concrete Explanation for How Lancers are typically used?

[Schweetness101]

Typically, or perhaps simply quite often, lancers are used in the following way:

Pull them up to the enemy infantry line, facing (hopefully) the best enemy infantry, giving those infantry the option of either
a) charging the lancers at disadvantage, in which case they will likely lose the impact, the lancers will break off, the infantry will be unable to move again that turn, and the lancers will pull right back up on their next turn; wash, rinse repeat
b) sitting there doing nothing (a bad option for your best infantry units, especially if they are receiving ranged fire at the same time)

That can be countered with good ranged use, especially indirect fire light artillery, to disrupt the lancers before charging them. But, nonetheless the above is often effective, whether in isolated cases along the line, or with a whole big lancer line like with early middle ages norman, frankish and arab armies.

I like using this from a gameplay/tactics perspective, but my question though is: what is the concrete/historical explanation of what is really going on there? The above is the 'abstraction' in terms of what you see visibly on the board, but because it's a tabletop game there is of course assumed behavior going on that is not visible (like assumed counter-charges, skirmishers scattering and reforming when evading, etc...).

Are the lancers seeing the enemy infantry charging them, counter charging those infantry at advantage, and then somehow recovering and withdrawing after the infantry have stopped? How do they so easily turn around while in combat, withdraw in good order, and then re-assume their old formation after having impacted with the infantry? That seems like it would be extremely challenging to pull off (sometimes they don't pull it off, as in sometimes the lancers lose when charged by infantry, but not very often).

[Gaznak]

The strategicon recommends that that cavalry that is forced back should retreat a distance of a few bowshots, do an about-face, and prepare for another charge. If that fails consecutively they should retreat behind the reserve line and support it. I think that is a fair description of the way charges are presented in game.

I think there is an argument that the game is being generous by allowing infantry to initiate attacks against lancers at all, but maybe the engagement could be read as the infantry advancing close enough to trigger an impetuous charge by the horsemen, which catches the infantry off guard, and not as an actual "charge", which would be suicidal.

[melm]

If cavalry retreating animation could not be the current one, horses walking backward, but like the Strategikon described, horses turn around to move back then turn around again, that will make the game more elegant.

[sIg3b]

I am generally rather happy with the latest official cavalry mechanics; they are not so easy to catch any more in a bad melee, making them more useful than they were.

[Geffalrus]

Typically, or perhaps simply quite often, lancers are used in the following way:

Pull them up to the enemy infantry line, facing (hopefully) the best enemy infantry, giving those infantry the option of either
a) charging the lancers at disadvantage, in which case they will likely lose the impact, the lancers will break off, the infantry will be unable to move again that turn, and the lancers will pull right back up on their next turn; wash, rinse repeat
b) sitting there doing nothing (a bad option for your best infantry units, especially if they are receiving ranged fire at the same time)

Most lancers in the game are 64 point superior armored versions, though there are cheaper/weaker versions available. So if you're using a 42 point hoplite, or (even better) a 36 point defensive shieldwall to "pin" them in place, then you likely have more points elsewhere to gain you an advantage, since a lancer initiating a charge against heavy infantry off/def spears is not an amazing proposition. There's a chance you can win the impact, especially if you have a general, but the +1 heavy inf cohesion check bonus usually cancels out the -1 penalty they get from losing to a lancer on impact. And then after that, the spears will usually win successive melees, potentially disrupting the more expensive cavalry.

So personally, I view using cheaper spears to face off with expensive lancers as a good investment. The point savings can easily mean that you have a nearby light foot unit able to start rocking the lancer with some stationary shooting. It's only a bad trade when the lancers are holding up an expensive infantry unit like pikes, veteran hoplites, or noble spears.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Except that due to secondary zoc one unit of Lancers can delay multiple infantry units.

[Schweetness101]

Most lancers in the game are 64 point superior armored versions, though there are cheaper/weaker versions available. So if you're using a 42 point hoplite, or (even better) a 36 point defensive shieldwall to "pin" them in place, then you likely have more points elsewhere to gain you an advantage, since a lancer initiating a charge against heavy infantry off/def spears is not an amazing proposition. There's a chance you can win the impact, especially if you have a general, but the +1 heavy inf cohesion check bonus usually cancels out the -1 penalty they get from losing to a lancer on impact. And then after that, the spears will usually win successive melees, potentially disrupting the more expensive cavalry.

So personally, I view using cheaper spears to face off with expensive lancers as a good investment. The point savings can easily mean that you have a nearby light foot unit able to start rocking the lancer with some stationary shooting. It's only a bad trade when the lancers are holding up an expensive infantry unit like pikes, veteran hoplites, or noble spears.

yes, that's correct, I typically like the cheaper Northern European "Lancers" instead of Armoured Lancers, or the Arab "Armoured Lancers (Mediocre)" and cheaper non armoured and bedouin lancers, to hold up expensive elite foot like huscarls. Sometimes I intersperse them in my infantry line and move them until they are lined up with the most favorable points disparity

Except that due to secondary zoc one unit of Lancers can delay multiple infantry units.

I hadn't really thought of that, perhaps you could do a lancer every other space and hold up infantry with a 2 to 1 ratio? at least for awhile, if there's an opening they can drive you back with one inf charge and then move the other infantry closer, gradually moving their whole line up

[Geffalrus]

Except that due to secondary zoc one unit of Lancers can delay multiple infantry units.

I hadn't really thought of that, perhaps you could do a lancer every other space and hold up infantry with a 2 to 1 ratio? at least for awhile, if there's an opening they can drive you back with one inf charge and then move the other infantry closer, gradually moving their whole line up

Yup, that's a good move. Even if they press the issue and force an infantry unit to attack, the lancer might fall back if an indecisive roll happens, or if a subsequent melee goes poorly. However, that works less well when you're using lower quality lancers, because they are less likely to pass a cohesion check. And the less armored ones will fare VERY poorly in the subsequent melee. It can be a delicate balance.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Except that due to secondary zoc one unit of Lancers can delay multiple infantry units.

I hadn't really thought of that, perhaps you could do a lancer every other space and hold up infantry with a 2 to 1 ratio? at least for awhile, if there's an opening they can drive you back with one inf charge and then move the other infantry closer, gradually moving their whole line up

The danger to that is: if an enemy infantry charges your lancers diagonally and gets disrupted on impact, leading your lancers to stick around in melee at the same time turning 45 degrees and exposing a flank. Once the lancer gets engaged by two infantry units 90 degrees apart, it's not gonna be able to disengage.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Except that due to secondary zoc one unit of Lancers can delay multiple infantry units.

I hadn't really thought of that, perhaps you could do a lancer every other space and hold up infantry with a 2 to 1 ratio? at least for awhile, if there's an opening they can drive you back with one inf charge and then move the other infantry closer, gradually moving their whole line up

Yup, that's a good move. Even if they press the issue and force an infantry unit to attack, the lancer might fall back if an indecisive roll happens, or if a subsequent melee goes poorly. However, that works less well when you're using lower quality lancers, because they are less likely to pass a cohesion check. And the less armored ones will fare VERY poorly in the subsequent melee. It can be a delicate balance.

Nope the danger to the lancers is not passing cohesion checks. Even crappy average lancers get +50 POA when charged frontally by superior infantry. The danger to the lancers happen when the charging infantry gets disrupted on impact leading the lancers to decide to stick around in melee, and subsequently getting trapped and ground down. What you are after is rolling as many of those +100 POA impacts from infantry charging lancers as possible. So having more armor on the lancers is actually a detriment, since that makes the lancers more likely to foolish stick it out in melee instead of falling back after impact. Especially since there's likely to be more infantry around just drooling at the prospect of trapping the lancers in a protracted grinding melee.

[Geffalrus]

Nope the danger to the lancers is not passing cohesion checks. Even crappy average lancers get +50 POA when charged frontally by superior infantry. The danger to the lancers happen when the charging infantry gets disrupted on impact leading the lancers to decide to stick around in melee, and subsequently getting trapped and ground down. What you are after is rolling as many of those +100 POA impacts from infantry charging lancers as possible. So having more armor on the lancers is actually a detriment, since that makes the lancers more likely to foolish stick it out in melee instead of falling back after impact. Especially since there's likely to be more infantry around just drooling at the prospect of trapping the lancers in a protracted grinding melee.

Sticking with disrupted enemy infantry in melee is only a problem if the infantry rally rather than fail subsequent melee cohesion checks. Otherwise, the superior armor lancer can secure the win, adding that high infantry loss % to the enemy's total. Any additional infantry charging in to trap the lancers have to first get past the Impact POA and cohesion check penalty. And if they do win/succeed, then they can still trigger the fallback protocol for the cavalry, completely resetting things.

And to effectively trap lancers with infantry like that, you're now committing a lot more than 36 points to that fight, removing the points advantage you can have elsewhere. Two 36 point defensive shieldwalls are more point intensive than a 64 point superior armored lancer, and thus an inefficient trade. I'll happily lose a 64 point lancer if it distracts 100+ points of infantry while I gain an advantage elsewhere.