ZOCs blocking break-offs.

[Benedict151]

Only just seen this, recently limited gaming time got unexpectedly 'hijacked' by 'Op Art of War IV'.
Cavalry getting locked by infantry has been intermittently bugging me for some time and I've started to feel slightly guilty about using low grade to foot to mob cavalry (in single player games). However I did think 1.5.19 and cavalry's increased 'bounciness' as snugglebunnies aptly put it rather improved things and so like him my current feeling is to wait and see for a bit after this is released before making any changes.

There is obviously no answer that will please everyone here. From a largely single player point of view I'd be inclined to make cavalry break off from foot easier (but as others have suggested at a cost of some losses like evasion or maybe a cohesion check).

Ben

[Bladeheart]

May I ask whether 'Lancers' as used in the game to date and, in respect of this beta are treated any differently then other similar cavalry, or are they programmed identically?

Many thanks.

[rbodleyscott]

May I ask whether 'Lancers' as used in the game to date and, in respect of this beta are treated any differently then other similar cavalry, or are they programmed identically?

Many thanks.

With respect to break offs they are treated the same.

[Bladeheart]

May I ask whether 'Lancers' as used in the game to date and, in respect of this beta are treated any differently then other similar cavalry, or are they programmed identically?

Many thanks.

With respect to break offs they are treated the same.

Thank you.
Without going into the 'Saddle, stirrup and lance' debate which I assume would also cover heavy lancers, I think I will go back and play a few more games before commenting.

[Bladeheart]

Separate to the above, I do find light cavalry somewhat 'skittish' when engaging similarly armed light infantry (skirmishers).

[rbodleyscott]

Separate to the above, I do find light cavalry somewhat 'skittish' when engaging similarly armed light infantry (skirmishers).

It is because the light infantry units are larger, so that if the light horse do not disrupt them at impact, they are unlikely to win the melee if neither side has a melee POA capability, so will break off. Most non-nomad Ancient light horse have no melee capability, because they are very much skirmishers and not intended to be mixing it in close combat. Nomad horse archers and Bedouin light horse, being more aggressive, have swordsmen capability, which makes them more likely to slaughter light foot.

A case could be made for making the mounted POA vs light infantry in the open count in melee and well as impact. This would make light horse more effective vs light foot, but also make them rout faster when contacted by non-light cavalry.

Of course it would make light foot killers like Bedouin lancers even more deadly.

[Bladeheart]

The last battle I fought was Andalusian vs Spanish during which there was a Spanish Javelin against one of the aforementioned light lancers. The odds were more likely that the infantry would loose and again for the subsequent round, the lancers won the round and despite the odds being in favour of them winning again, they broke off.

So, personally I would be in favour of the argument above.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think light infantry and cavalry are well balanced already, and would be opposed to a change in their interactions

[MVP7]

I don't think there's much gameplay/balance need for buffing all light horse against light foot. I'm a bit worried about making light horse particularly effective against light foot in melee since light horse has the mobility to attack light foot without getting shot at by the foot even once.

Without melee weapons both the light foot and cavalry would be trying to out-shoot each other at short range and light infantry does have the numbers advantage. Would the mere shock effect of light cavalry be enough to significantly harm the fighting ability of light foot?

If the light foot doesn't evade or get disrupted on impact with the light cavalry, that would seem to imply that they have maintained their cohesion and combat effectiveness to "melee". In that situation I don't think the missile cavalry (of same quality and similar equipment) would have any inherent melee advantage against the more numerous light infantry.

I'm not opposed to testing this in the next beta. It does seem kind of unnecessary though.

[Bladeheart]

.... Of course it would make light foot killers like Bedouin lancers even more deadly.

I shall pay closer attention in future games, but to date personally I am yet to find light lancers to be such 'killers'.
Time will tell; besides the solution may not be practical given the constraints of programming, etc.

[Bladeheart]

I have been giving the aspect of this thread discussed in the few entries above some more thought, not only in respect of light cavalry but also 'lancers'. Whilst I can see the argument for maintaining the existing balance, I am undecided particularly in respect of the armies and battles of the later Dark Ages, etc.
Therefore, with some trepidation may I ask how it is envisaged lance armed cavalry use the weapon as compared to a light spear? (This does touch upon the 'Saddle, stirrup and lance' debate and, if that is covered elsewhere on the 'FoG' forums, then please just direct me to it rather then having this thread go off at a tangent).

Many thanks.

[rbodleyscott]

I have been giving the aspect of this thread discussed in the few entries above some more thought, not only in respect of light cavalry but also 'lancers'. Whilst I can see the argument for maintaining the existing balance, I am undecided particularly in respect of the armies and battles of the later Dark Ages, etc.
Therefore, with some trepidation may I ask how it is envisaged lance armed cavalry use the weapon as compared to a light spear? (This does touch upon the 'Saddle, stirrup and lance' debate and, if that is covered elsewhere on the 'FoG' forums, then please just direct me to it rather then having this thread go off at a tangent).

Many thanks.

Macedonian Companions like this:

https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/si ... m2-awm.jpg

(from the Alexander Mosaic)

Some others two-handed.

[Bladeheart]

Macedonian Companions like this:

https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/si ... m2-awm.jpg

(from the Alexander Mosaic)

Some others two-handed.

Thank you.

My main interest lies in that time period covered by the later half of your Wolves at the Gates DLC and beyond. However, given that FoG2 covers a far greater span of history I understand why there is little difference between lance and light spear armed cavalry and, thus why they are treated the same, etc. (Not withstanding the +50 difference).

[Bladeheart]

Here is a suggestion offer up for consideration.

Add an additional classification of stirrup to the appropriate latter period cavalry units.
Give stirrup cavalry +50 POA to melee armed troops both impact and melee, possibly javelin armed missile fire but not I would suggest bow armed fire.
Thus I suggest, giving the greater importance that cavalry had to the latter dark age and beyond armies, etc. Also by 'beefing them up' affecting break offs, etc. It would also leave the balance intact for the earlier period armies.

[TheGrayMouser]

Here is a suggestion offer up for consideration.

Add an additional classification of stirrup to the appropriate latter period cavalry units.
Give stirrup cavalry +50 POA to melee armed troops both impact and melee, possibly javelin armed missile fire but not I would suggest bow armed fire.
Thus I suggest, giving the greater importance that cavalry had to the latter dark age and beyond armies, etc. Also by 'beefing them up' affecting break offs, etc. It would also leave the balance intact for the earlier period armies.

Hello, just curious why you would suggest javelin missle fire improvement with “stirrup” Cavalry but not bow, considering that the steppe bow people likely invented the stirrup to be able to easier separate the motion of the moving horse vs their own bodies while aiming.

Not sure how stirrups would aid in what the game defines impact combat as.. melee though might make some sense. Perhaps not 50 poa worth though... the tough thing would be to code a new weapon and all the unit slots that would be taken up!!

[MVP7]

Stuff like better horses, saddles and stirrups is generally handled with unit quality if necessary I think. There's little point in giving every cavalry unit in medieval period "stirrups" when every cavalry unit is using stirrups. I'm not aware of any significant periods in history where one group would have gained a significant advantage MAINLY due to stirrups.

The main gameplay differences between Light-spear cavalry and Lancer cavalry is that the Light-spear cavalry evades and Lancers are better against other cavalry. From ancient to dark ages there's just not that much practical difference in the combat effectiveness of the two systems.

Perfected lance capability of medieval knights, that has significantly different dynamics from former cavalry weapons, will be it's own weapon type that will presumably start appearing from the beginning of the medieval DLC period.

[Bladeheart]

When one throws an object the power comes from a solid base that the body pushes against, hence the advantage of having one's feet in stirrups.
However, the power from a bow shot comes from across the shoulders and back. Whilst stirrups would certainly be of some benefit, it would be negligible compared to throwing a javelin.

MVP7, I think I did not explain the point I was making clear enough. The suggestion was aimed at reflecting the greater effectiveness and thus importance of cavalry in the latter eras due to the use of stirrup. If the stirrup contributed little why was it so relatively quickly adopted by all. Also the idea was to indirectly influence the behaviour of cavalry when it came to break offs. Again, sorry if I did not make it clear enough.

[SnuggleBunnies]

The idea that the stirrup was a decisive factor was thoroughly debunked decades ago

[Bladeheart]

The idea that the stirrup was a decisive factor was thoroughly debunked decades ago

Please show where?
I am aware of criticisms of White's theory, but that was more about social economic change.

[MVP7]

When one throws an object the power comes from a solid base that the body pushes against, hence the advantage of having one's feet in stirrups.
However, the power from a bow shot comes from across the shoulders and back. Whilst stirrups would certainly be of some benefit, it would be negligible compared to throwing a javelin.

MVP7, I think I did not explain the point I was making clear enough. The suggestion was aimed at reflecting the greater effectiveness and thus importance of cavalry in the latter eras due to the use of stirrup. If the stirrup contributed little why was it so relatively quickly adopted by all. Also the idea was to indirectly influence the behaviour of cavalry when it came to break offs. Again, sorry if I did not make it clear enough.

The theories that really raised stirrups on the pedestal basically presumed that without stirrups the riders could barely hold on the their horses which is not accurate (check the ancient military saddles: http://www.seatsofempire.com/ancient.html). The same theories also presume that with stirrups the riders could put all the energy of themselves and the horse into a couched lance thrust which is neither practical nor physically possible (there's only so much force a human body can handle).

Here's some video footage of early 20th century lancer training: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhkCCYnBrWE
You notice the riders are not jumping into the attacks with their full force as that is not necessary or desirable because you don't want to lose your lance by having it wedged into the body of your enemy. Accuracy is more important than raw force.

According to some old theories the Macedonian lancers always let go of their lances on impact but that is more likely based on the presumption that fighting without stirrups is all but impossible rather than other way around. The Macedonian lance had two spearheads which alone is a strong argument against it being a single use weapon. Ancient Cataphracts also used their long two handed lances for both charge and melee.

It's great to have stirrups (especially during melee after the impact) but it's not enough to significantly alter the overall dynamics between the different types of cavalry or the infantry. The fact that the stirrups were adopted quickly means there are few situation where only one army would have use them and gained an advantage over another. When Western knights were considered an unstoppable force on impact the stirrups had already been widely used for centuries by everyone in the neighborhood.