Charge cavalry too weak

[MVP7]

I'd rather see non shock infantry take a cohesion test when charged by lancers ( fail, drop a level and then impact hehe) but some might deem that too much... I do get agrieved when my expensive lancers bounce off or fail to damage the light spear types.

Not sure what you mean shock infantry but cohesion test before impact could be one option. However, It would be rather inconsistent with how the rest of the game works and from top-down design view, the same outcome can be achieved with just the POA penalty.

It would mean pikes, offensive spears, and impact infantry would be exempted.

Ok, I do agree raw pikes should probably be exempted of any cavalry charge penalty but I don't think there's a reason to exempt offensive spearmen or impact foot as they area already a bit questionable concepts.

I think it would fit in fine, after all currently ANY fragged unit charged has to pass a cohesion test or it routs prior to contact. Changing a weapons poa’s based on quality is more of a paradigm shift.

Yeah the fragmented check is indeed somewhat similar. It wouldn't be visible in the impact result estimates though (which also means making AI changes to make AI take it into account) and it would still rely on the same rather opaque experience/elan mechanics.

I think the idea would be avoiding direct weapon POA changes and just add a special POA rule that worse than 'below(?) average' infantry takes POA penalty against cavalry in the open (and maybe a cohesion test penalty on top of that). The clearest way would probably be tying the penalty to the visible experience level of the unit (low elan version of the cut-off rank could also still take the penalty).

[Geffalrus]

I'd rather see non shock infantry take a cohesion test when charged by lancers ( fail, drop a level and then impact hehe) but some might deem that too much... I do get agrieved when my expensive lancers bounce off or fail to damage the light spear types.

To my understanding, this would be a more accurate representation of what Raw infantry would do in the face of a cavalry charge. The fear is as important as the impact.

We also don't know for 100% sure exactly how lance cavalry attacked in ancient times. We can conjecture based on more recent evidence (Polish Hussars for example), but that will always be imperfect.

[MVP7]

I'd rather see non shock infantry take a cohesion test when charged by lancers ( fail, drop a level and then impact hehe) but some might deem that too much... I do get agrieved when my expensive lancers bounce off or fail to damage the light spear types.

To my understanding, this would be a more accurate representation of what Raw infantry would do in the face of a cavalry charge. The fear is as important as the impact.

Cohesion check before impact could indeed be chronologically more accurate, although impact phase also includes the events (defensive bows being fired, pila being thrown etc) taking place right before the physical impact.
In terms of gameplay, going from the initiation of charge by the player to where the results are seen, there's really fairly little difference if the loss of cohesion and the outcome of impact came as a result of lower POA or because of a pre-combat cohesion check.

Pre-impact cohesion check would allow for triple loss of cohesion from impact phase which I think is a bit much. Just having the pre-cohesion check would also not effect the melee phase (if the infantry loses no cohesion) where the raw infantry performance is a bit high as well.

[melm]

The only weapon type for the cavalry to charge the foot frontally should be "lance". I doubt light spear can do any harm in this situation. I just talk about the lance.

The problem that raw defensive spearmen or offensive spearmen looks too good against lancer just because the defensive or offensive spear negates the lance 100 POA, when they are in steady. Simple calculation, raw -25, superior +50, defensive spear +100, NO lance +100. Then raw defensive spearmen even have +25 advantage against lancer. But, as long as these spearmen is disrupted, lance 100 POA is back, which means they now can cut through spearmen's ranks with ease. By the way, light spearmen don't have such advantage to negate the 100 POA lance as Def or Off spearmen.

Now the question is: do we believe that lancers can crush,steady, raw, speamen's rank with ease? So far, I am skeptical on it. In Battle of Falkirk, poorly armed Scottish spearmen were able to hold English cavalry charge at first until they were disrupted by longbow. Then the fate of battle was determined. This is even the medieval technique cavalry, let alone late antiquity or early medieval cavalry.

[TheGrayMouser]

The only weapon type for the cavalry to charge the foot frontally should be "lance". I doubt light spear can do any harm in this situation. I just talk about the lance.

Light spear also presumes javelins are included and hurled with great force at point blank range.

[MikeC_81]

I'd rather see non shock infantry take a cohesion test when charged by lancers ( fail, drop a level and then impact hehe) but some might deem that too much... I do get agrieved when my expensive lancers bounce off or fail to damage the light spear types.

Until someone is able to come up with a large body of evidence that Lancers regularly rode down enemy infantry on the charge this is a very dangerous change. LS/S infantry covers a ton of heavy foot units that should not have to take this test.
One thing they could do to boost Lancer efficacy is maybe a PoA bump by +50 vs medium foot infantry which are not offensive or defensive spearman and are not charging. Medium foot by definition shouldn't have the cohesive force of heavy foot and thus be more vulnerable to lancers.

It would also help nerf the current metagame of where medium foot spam is very annoying to deal with.

[MVP7]

The only weapon type for the cavalry to charge the foot frontally should be "lance". I doubt light spear can do any harm in this situation. I just talk about the lance.

The problem that raw defensive spearmen or offensive spearmen looks too good against lancer just because the defensive or offensive spear negates the lance 100 POA, when they are in steady. Simple calculation, raw -25, superior +50, defensive spear +100, NO lance +100. Then raw defensive spearmen even have +25 advantage against lancer. But, as long as these spearmen is disrupted, lance 100 POA is back, which means they now can cut through spearmen's ranks with ease. By the way, light spearmen don't have such advantage to negate the 100 POA lance as Def or Off spearmen.

Now the question is: do we believe that lancers can crush,steady, raw, speamen's rank with ease? So far, I am skeptical on it. In Battle of Falkirk, poorly armed Scottish spearmen were able to hold English cavalry charge at first until they were disrupted by longbow. Then the fate of battle was determined. This is even the medieval technique cavalry, let alone late antiquity or early medieval cavalry.

The Scottish performance was an exception rather than how things usually went when medieval knights fought unsupported and inexperienced or unmotivated infantry. The reason why Scottish schiltron and Swizz foot were and are so well known is not that their achievements were normal but that they were exceptional and would help transform the way the wars had been fought during high medieval period.

Furthermore I'm not sure the irregular but highly motivated Scots that might have already seen some action would be "raw" in terms of FoG2 and they might be pikemen in any case.

[TheGrayMouser]

I'd rather see non shock infantry take a cohesion test when charged by lancers ( fail, drop a level and then impact hehe) but some might deem that too much... I do get agrieved when my expensive lancers bounce off or fail to damage the light spear types.

Until someone is able to come up with a large body of evidence that Lancers regularly rode down enemy infantry on the charge this is a very dangerous change. LS/S infantry covers a ton of heavy foot units that should not have to take this test.
One thing they could do to boost Lancer efficacy is maybe a PoA bump by +50 vs medium foot infantry which are not offensive or defensive spearman and are not charging. Medium foot by definition shouldn't have the cohesive force of heavy foot and thus be more vulnerable to lancers.

It would also help nerf the current metagame of where medium foot spam is very annoying to deal with.

Well I did preface it as a “ I’d prefer over” type comment. Simply giving lancers the 100 poa versus ALl mediums like in fog1 would go a long way.. ( 50 imho is not enough) but also I think they need to be more maneuverable, I’ve mentioned before it’s too easy for a rear rank infantry unit to cut the chord of a mounted units flanking arc because of the secondary zoc’s.

It’s a pretty complicated dynamic, made even trickier because of the dang romans and their light spears who need to be decent in repelling Cavalry.

Of course we are only thinking about this from the infantries perspective, if we considered a cohesion test or modifier for infantry, we could also consider one for lancers that lose vs steady spears, or heavy foot etc ( or even to charge in the 1st place !!)

[MVP7]

I personally don't like the idea of altering entire medium foot dynamic drastically although 50 POA bonus for cavalry vs non-spearmen medium foot at least on impact could be reasonable. Anything more major would have significant balance effect that would require reassessing the pricing of all cavalry and/or medium infantry with questionable effect on gameplay. In any case I don't think the current medium foot performance against cavalry has issues anywhere near as severe as 24 point raw defensive spearmen being a reliable counter to 64 point superior armoured lancers in the open.

From what I have heard the less fragile nature of medium infantry compared to FoG2 was a deliberate change and I haven't noticed them being so much cheaper than heavy infantry that there would be an issue. At least I would wait to see how actual knights do against medium foot before any major changes.

[rbodleyscott]

From what I have heard the less fragile nature of medium infantry compared to FoG2 was a deliberate change

It was.

At least I would wait to see how actual knights do against medium foot before any major changes.

Subject to beta testing, the current plan is that Medieval Knights (when we get around to doing that period) are going to get an extra +100 POA at impact against all infantry in open ground, which will change the dynamic considerably.

[leonardus68]

Given the performance of Romans and Napoleonic square formation (and there being no historical contemporary separation between anti-infantry infantry and anti-cavalry infantry) it seems logical that the most important factor when facing cavalry charge was not choice of weapons but maintaining solid formation (which is a natural part of FoG2 distinction of 'heavy infantry').

And which is something that reenactions cannot really replicate owing to the relatively low number of participants involved.

You're not knowing what you're talking about. A 500kg mass traveling such a speed even killed before impact will travel by inertial force many meters destroying/killing/incapacitating by smash any soldiers in front on a specific radius. For that reason pikes are PIKES and are the best cavalry repellent, not the spears. And for that reason a non anticavalry braced unit is more susceptible to be smashed than a dispersed one.

[MVP7]

Given the performance of Romans and Napoleonic square formation (and there being no historical contemporary separation between anti-infantry infantry and anti-cavalry infantry) it seems logical that the most important factor when facing cavalry charge was not choice of weapons but maintaining solid formation (which is a natural part of FoG2 distinction of 'heavy infantry').

And which is something that reenactions cannot really replicate owing to the relatively low number of participants involved.

You're not knowing what you're talking about. A 500kg mass traveling such a speed even killed before impact will travel by inertial force many meters destroying/killing/incapacitating by smash any soldiers in front on a specific radius. For that reason pikes are PIKES and are the best cavalry repellent, not the spears. And for that reason a non anticavalry braced unit is more susceptible to be smashed than a dispersed one.

I have never seen accounts of a battle where a line of knights would have ridden into a line of infantry with all the horses ramming into and falling headlong to the mass of infantry with the knights still on their backs. Fight like that would over in 10 seconds with the crippled horses and de-horsed knights tumbling in middle of pissed enemy infantry.

What you are describing makes no sense physically or tactically and is not something a sane knight or horse would do and I can't even begin to imagine how it could play out in reality. Unless you did some extremely impressive re-enacting and have video footage to show I'm not going to agree on that hypothesis.

There are accounts of wounded horses falling into a square formations and disrupting them but that was considered a rare fluke worth recording, not business as usual (sadly I can't remember what forum this subject was discussed on years ago).

edit. Here's one rare example of horse literally ramming into infantry formation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... dez#Battle

[MVP7]

At least I would wait to see how actual knights do against medium foot before any major changes.

Subject to beta testing, the current plan is that Medieval Knights (when we get around to doing that period) are going to get an extra +100 POA at impact against all infantry in open ground, which will change the dynamic considerably.

That does sound powerful, especially on top of the armour . What about units like Mamluks? Will they have the same knightly POA on impact?

[leonardus68]

And which is something that reenactions cannot really replicate owing to the relatively low number of participants involved.

You're not knowing what you're talking about. A 500kg mass traveling such a speed even killed before impact will travel by inertial force many meters destroying/killing/incapacitating by smash any soldiers in front on a specific radius. For that reason pikes are PIKES and are the best cavalry repellent, not the spears. And for that reason a non anticavalry braced unit is more susceptible to be smashed than a dispersed one.

I have never seen accounts of a battle where a line of knights would have ridden into a line of infantry with all the horses ramming into and falling headlong to the mass of infantry with the knights still on their backs. Fight like that would over in 10 seconds with the crippled horses and de-horsed knights tumbling in middle of pissed enemy infantry.

What you are describing makes no sense physically or tactically and is not something a sane knight or horse would do and I can't even begin to imagine how it could play out in reality. Unless you did some extremely impressive re-enacting and have video footage to show I'm not going to agree on that hypothesis.

There are accounts of wounded horses falling into a square formations and disrupting them but that was considered a rare fluke worth recording, not business as usual (sadly I can't remember what forum this subject was discussed on years ago).

edit. Here's one rare example of horse literally ramming into infantry formation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... dez#Battle

Now you mix in reverse the notions; first you said in ancient times were no knights and now you say 'knights would have ridden....'. Obviously you're stubborn on preconceptions read from somewhere. Medieval knights and theirs charging way, off course, are a totally different thing. Ancient 200 and so BC things were not what you imagine. Heavy cavalry ALWAYS tried to smash enemy even frontally if possible. Battle of Adamclisi is the perfect example of this. Sarmatians heavy infantry smashed frontally roman battle lines and almost near victory but the non-timing with the dacian falx units which were too way rear to secure a gap, brings romans an unexpected victory. So many roman soldiers killed and wounded than there is a mausoleum. How many mausoleum roman army erected in it's history for its fallen soldiers do you know ? I tell you: almost one or two. I don't want to argue anymore, but you're totally wrong. And in game, cavalry is almost of no use besides chasing skirmishers.

[MVP7]

Well you certainly have me at a loss for words there.

[SnuggleBunnies]

If you think cavalry is of no use but for chasing skirmishers, you're doing it wrong.

[MikeC_81]

And in game, cavalry is almost of no use besides chasing skirmishers.

[76mm]

I've read two good books on this topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Warhorse-Cavalry ... =8-1-spell

and

https://www.amazon.com/Cavalry-Operatio ... 1-fkmrnull

The first in particular finds that ancient heavy cavalry engaged in "shock action," although I don't recall it suggesting that heavy cavalry ran headlong and frontally into legions, at least with any success.

Both books include lots of analysis of historical accounts, rather interesting.

[rbodleyscott]

Subject to beta testing, the current plan is that Medieval Knights (when we get around to doing that period) are going to get an extra +100 POA at impact against all infantry in open ground, which will change the dynamic considerably.

That does sound powerful, especially on top of the armour . What about units like Mamluks? Will they have the same knightly POA on impact?

No

[TheGrayMouser]

I think Leonardus is being picked on needlessly, when A he likely hasn’t played the game too long and B possibly isnt a native English speaker, plus I suspect he was aggravated when it was suggested he was implying that knights CRASHED landed purposefully into formed infantry in his post. I don't think he meant or said that at all and was simply talking about the mass of horses and what they can do when they have momentum ( dead or alive haha) ie EVERYONE scrambles to get out of the way or gets knocked down.


The article on the battle of Hernandez is interesting but it leaves open some comments:
1) the fact that a dead horse had enough momentum to open up a gap 6 men wide in a square indicates:
it was moving with speed, and it was CLOSE when shot dead... The implication is the rider had intent to charge home...

2) the article makes a nice list of the reasons WHY a square might fall prey to cavalry, and what I found needs be highlighted is MUSKETRY(the failure of) is mentioned more than half the times..


Men standing shoulder to shoulder without a suitable weapon system IMHO cant stop cavalry simply just because they are in a dense formation.. Otherwise mounted police wouldnt be able to disperse rioters 100 of times their #'s . In Napoleonic times the weapons system: muskets, stopped cavalry.

Certainly density( with depth) ie heavy infantry , mattered but it needed the weapon to go with it. How much weapon? I dont know, but I theorize that how much weapon was somehow related to how much shield. With small or no shield you need much more weapon ( ie musket or a long spear, ie pike)

John Keegan launched a thousand keyboard warriors yelling that horses “wont run into a solid object”, implying that cavalry are never successfull unless the infantry breaks before contact. It’s a no brainer..in the sense that no living thing will ran full speed into a brick wall… Could it be that arguably one of the most expensive weapon system in the ancient/medieval world, lancers, (whom need expensive horses, armour and a social system built around wanting to close with the enemy) are ONLY successful based on the actions of the cheaper infantry types ie running away?

Does a horse massing 1500 plus pounds think a human around 150 is a solid object? What about a formation of 6x6 men? Clearly physics states the men, even if touching don’t combine their mass. So what does the horse think? The rider?

Now add overlapping shields to the mix ( like the aspis used by hoplites…) suddenly it is conceivable that to the horse AND rider that this is not so much an object you can just plow into. You cant SEE the outline of the men behind the shields and thus suddenly it might very well become a solid wall, psychologically at least…. Unless you have a much longer weapon which leads to this issue:


There was a thread several months ago and someone quoted a description of Carrhea from a primary source.(cant recall who) What was interesting is the source noted that when the romans were bunched up with overlapping shields they were immune to the Parthian arrows, yet became very vulnerable to the Lancers, when they were in more open order they suffered from arrows but could better fight off the Lancers ( being cataphracts of course) Oh boy...

I wont make any more hypothetical suggestions as too often you get accused of things, for example I was just told to PROVE that mounted troops regularly swept aside infantry when I never made such a grandiose declaration. The op is cavalry seem too weak and I believe the do seem weak versus troops that they shouldnt struggle as hard against ie mediums especially the light spear types. Of course the definitions of mediums are somewhat nebulous anyhow, and they get quite a bit of benefit of the doubt situationally. So by definition they “are lightly equipped” and thus can operate in the rough, yet many types have equal in game protection (or greater ) than hoplites ( Auxila, thorikita etc to name a few.) If they form up like heavies, why do they get a mal cohesion roll?

Any hoot, it is interesting to see the old definitions of mediums, and spears (light and offensive) from the TT and into FOG1, versus the definitions in FOG2. They are more granular now and I think ( not sure) the trend is really to view troops like the thuro’s as basically heavy infantry that could fight like skirmishes if deployed that way at the start of the battle ( perhaps a mod using the dismount function? ) Of course this doesn't justify the irregular types prowess and whom probably should break and run before contact is ever even made by hard charging lancers

May your lancers strike true! ( mine have more often than not have been yielding nerf noodles lately)