Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
200 m/s is 720 km/h, right ?!!
I guess you mean 72 km/h which is already a lot. Let's say it is the speed of the very best horses during the last few steps before impact on a flat terrain. Half of it during a charge is already very good, given the fatigue, rough terrain, the weight of the load...
Also, there are many vague terms. For example, what is "charge distance"? The distance at which a body of cavalry speeds up as much as it can? If that ever happens in the first place, 300 meters seems excessive to me. All cohesion would get lost. It's a common myth even for napoleonic times that cavalry charged at full speed. (Also, 200 meters per second must be a typo? :D)
I also have troubles to imagine how a knight charge would be physically (as opposed to psychologically) overwhelming. So here is my purely speculateive hypothesis: Let's assume for a moment that knights were not behaving like suicidal bulldozers (just consider the return force from the lance impact at 72km/h, lol!). With the Hollywood option gone, there is only one real option left for cavalry to engage infantry (except for skirmishing):
I believe that cavalry attacked infantry like mounted riot police, i.e. slow, as cohesively as possible. The main weapon is probably not so much the lance as it is the horse (the pike helps to keep the horse at a distance!). If the infantry doesn't give way on its own (like it always happens in youtube videos showing mounted riot police), then at some point, a horse might trample or push some poor infantry lad, maybe the horse goes into the gap, chaos ensues, pockets of infantrymen find themselves squeezed between horse bodies. Panic spreads, infantrymen lose their awareness, at which point they start to fall victim to the knights' spears/lances. In my mind, this is still the most plausible way to imagine an infantry versus cavalry engagement. It would also explain that these phases of contact could take very long?
This is probably the closest you can get (at 0:40) - it's an actual charge that succeeds in penetrating the line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qhUTF4hOp8
---------
In game terms, actively attacking knights with infantry is already punished quite a lot and comes down to an automatic cohesion test -1 (and more, if the 5% threshold or the difference in casualties is exceeded) for the infantry. All infantry units lose their impact PoA against knights. This makes lancers good "blocking" units, which I personally find a bit odd. Knights are often more effective if they get attacked, rather than attacking themselves.
Yes indeed, looked back, not sure where I got the m/s. It is 200m at a working gallop (canter) in 30 seconds, Lehnart quotes Keegan who say 20-25km/h and a distance of 200-300m in roughly 40 seconds.
I agree with such speeds.
btw a speed is of course a mean on a long distance (hundreds of meters) from 0 km/h (when the horse is unmoving) to a max speed at the impact.
I don't quite understand what you wish to say in your first paragraph as you are stating exactly what I was saying. Namely highly trained and armed cavalry against mostly untrained (not unmotivated, at least when it comes to Scotland, Wales, the Low Countries and Rhineland, the Dietmarschen, Northern Italy) foot. But motivation is not enough when facing cavalry in the open. So in most cases it will never come to shock as infantry will simply break formation and be ridden down. Which is one of the points I made in my previous post. The lack of depth compared to armies from antiquity is also a factor for this, which is one of the reasons I mentioned the 3 horse and 4 men depth.
The theory is that the charges starts at a trot, lances high, resting on stirrups or saddle. The final distance, Lehnart says 200m, Keegan 200-300m, at what would in English be considered a canter. That would in no way break up their formation as they were riding stirrup to stirrup.
And of course the lance is the determining factor if it comes to a shock, why else would the use of couched lance (which technique also extends the length of said lance as it can be held far further back without loss of balance) have revolutionised mounted warfare at the end of the 11th c. And yes, that also involved the new high cantle saddles, a new equestrian seat with legs pushed far forward in the stirrups and standing up in said stirrups at the last moment as well as lowering the lance at that point, And yes, obviously the horse provides the power behind the lance unlike overhead spear fencing of earlier periods. There is even indication that the lance could be held in both hands. A good rider does not really need the reins at all times, in illuminations you even see this with reins attached by a ring to the saddle, the shield with new strap reconstructions (discovered in the last decade) can also be held without the use of the left hand.
As to the shock effect at 20-25km/h (as my previous number was obviously a mistake), this is absorbed by the saddle and standing in the stirrups, resting the lower back on the cantle at the last moment. Living Historians like Arne Coets, but also other hard lance jousters, have proven this without a doubt in the last decade.
This is not at all comparable to riot police, not in the type of weapon used, not in the saddles and horse types, not in their very purpouse. Riot police is not trying to kill protesters, well at least they shouldn't be.
A note on Napoleonic heavy cavalry and their horses. These had much less riding training than medieval knights (and sergeants), the same applies to their horses. In theory in Napoleonic times the rule was still to only start using 9 year old horses, so called remounts, in combat after they had completed 5 plus years of training. In fact due to constant losses in horses this luxury could not be maintained once on campaigns.
As to phases of contact. The idea that knights would simply stand and fight it out toe to toe with infantry makes no sense and is long disproven. Training clearly called for charging through the enemy formation, turning around, reorganising, getting new lances, if needed change horses and then back at it. The very meaning of tournament is to turn and wheel. Obviously after a number of charges there'd be a point of exhaustion to rider and horses which would put an end to this. But otherwise It is only under adverse conditions, like boggy terrain for instance, that heavy cavalry of the era would end up static and thereby lose their main advantage.
And if locked in melee the lance is of no use unlike the shorter fencing spears wielded overhead up to the 11th c. In any case the lance has most likely been lost in the contact, either broken or discarded if it hit a lightly armoured opponent. So at that point if contact is maintained the weapons used by riders will be maces, axes, swords and falchions.
Note, I'm a rider and Living Historian, though I haven't ridden with weapon and armour for some years now. But what I'm writing here is not just based on my own, rather limited, experience and recent experiments by better riders than me, but on recent (since the 50s roughly) military historians' statements. I just started rereading Verbruggen's 'The Art of Warfare...' and ordered a number of additional books this afternoon. So there will be more coming in the coming weeks. Not sure I will be playing much as this afternoon, so I will have more time for research. I shut down the Angevin campaign on the last battle as even un historic concentration of cavalry on a single flank would not break those deep Scotish formations (the schiltron appeared at the end of the 13th c. as a purely defensive formation and only became offensive in the early 14th, even then it was regularly broken by cavalry). Not only is infantry far to powerful, it is also comes in far to large bodies. The idea of 100,000 men armies, as described in some chronicles, has been debunked for a hundred years now (Oman and Dellbrück were two of the first, but according to Verbruggen they were mistaken when it came to training and tactics).
But enough now, I will provide more info as I continue reading.
In game, when a unit of heavy knights charges spearmen head-on on open ground, prediction about the impact is around Win 50%, Draw 49% and Lose 1% in favour of the Knights, which is a very good position and will often lead to serious casualties for the spearmen. If the Knights don’t disrupt them at this moment (which is very possible) and stay in melee to finish them off, they’ll fall back and be able to charge again next turn.
What’s wrong with that ?
I will try to answer on the other interesting points (historical debate/speculation, how did knights actually fight?) later on.
As Bill described, knights are currently not as powerfull as described by you - but almost. There is a very good chance that the knights will force a morale check on the infantry, particularly if the infantry is not armed with spears and steady, and that morale check will be difficult (-1 for losing to shock troops in impact phase). Note that regardless of whether the battle results in a draw or victory (defeat is highly unlikely), the knights will suffer only minor casualties from it because in impact phase, both units fight at the manpower of the smaller unit and casualties are reduced for a draw or victory.
That seems a bit over the top for me. Right now, there is already a huge malus if infantry tries to attack knights (basically all foot units lose their impact PoAs if charging knights). I think that this is strong enough?
This is exactly what happens in the game, unless it was lancer cavalry who charged. In this case, cavalry is not allowed to fall back, as lancer cavalry counts as mounted shock troops. I think it's primarily a means to incite players to use knights offensively and to make knightly charges decisive.
This one is debatable. I think it's nice that there is some kind of differentiation between the heavier "western" cavalry and the more flexible cavalry?
In the same vein, the knights going through the infantry formation and reforming would be part of the "melee" in the game.
You could find similar abstraction in unit capabilities too. For example, Huscarls have "100% heavy weapon" capability even though it is unlikely that every single one of them are equipped with the famed two handed axes.
Regarding the in-game campaign armies, AI purchase pattern is randomized and does not necessarily follow historical composition. The Northern Crusade campaign has a Lake Peipus phase and AI could choose to bring a cavalry heavy army unlike what actually happened.
Also, the amount of units depend on how cheap the units are, so infantry heavy armies tend to get very very large.
Unit point balance and purchase limits are guaranteed to be reviewed following the conclusion of upcoming MP tournament.
One example of a battle I know very well. At Worringen 1288 (all of this is just the respective left and right flanks resting on the Rhine) the city of Cologne fielded a body of militia of roughly 1500 and 2000 men. Due to the city's wealth including weapons and armour industries, these were excellently equipped and even included a small body of professional These were supported by some 500 peasant militia from the counties of Berg and Marck. Their left flank was on the swampy banks of the Rhine river. Their right flank should have been covered by slightly less than 500 knights from Cologne, Berg and Marck. In game terms that would be something like 2x light crossbow, 6x armoured infantry with heavy weapons and swords, 2x defensive spearmen (not raw), 3x knights and sergeants and 1x Sergeants. Opposing them was the archbishop of Cologne along with the contingents of Westphalia and some mercenaries, all amounting to some 1200 heavy cavalry, in game terms 10x knights and sergeants. When the count of Berg withdrew his cavalry the arch bishop threw the opposing infantry into an immediate rout without much any real contact (that was not a controlled retreat they ended up several km in the rear before they were rallied). The arch duke by the way did not use his infantry offensively (some militia from smaller cities as well as professional sergeants incl. crossbowmen). The reason he eventually lost was that he made two serious mistakes, not pursuing the fleing infantry and cavalry on his flank and instead swinging left to fast and compressing his own cavalry and that of his centre (the counts of Luxembourg and allies) instead of falling into the enemy's rear. Thereby he rendered most of the heavy cavalry static, in game terms stacked one behind the other and knights unable to disengage or retreat from the Brabant heavy cavalry in front of them).
Why am I saying this? Even good infantry at a late time in the 13th c. could not stand up to a charge. Not to make the game boring we could not represent that 1 to 1 (particularly as that routed infantry would have been rallied off map and returned, which is impossible in FoF-2. But even then that is far from a 49% change in favour of infantry in your example.
And yes, making infantry take an automatic morale check when advancing on heavy cavalry might be excessive in game terms, not because it's ahistorical, but because it would be no fun for the player with the infantry force. So yes, there'd have to be some ahistoric tuning, but the odds have to change to represent the time period.
One thing to consider is that infantry advancing on cavalry need not be an attack to be efficient. In game terms they excert a zone of control on those knights whose next movement is highly restricted (reverse movement if rear is free, if correctly faced charge one of the infantry units, or just change facing hoping for a better option in the next turn. And that is why most infantry should not be capable of moving up to knights and sergeants.
The reason I dropped my current game on Saturday (or was it Friday) was that I saw much of this happening. I had a-historically opted to mass all my cavalry on the left flank. The idea was to push through Scottish cavalry (which can be done as it should) and then wheel left and hit the enemy infantry, there is not enough room on the maps to wheel further outside.
But because Scottish infantry (consider how the Angevin Campaign represents early 13th c., so several decades before the defensive schiltron and a century before the offensive one) could move up to my knights and sergeants while some of those were still fighting cavalry in front of them. So they got bunched up and immobilised despite being in open terrain and good order. As I could not withdraw (1 or 2 tile retreat) my cavalry (I had a number of 2 step cohesion drops with cavalry in charge range of infantry in various battles) I had to charge the infantry (the 6 deep spear) which dealt casualties but only on one or two occasions a drop in enemy cohesion.
Due to the limited turn ability there were very few occasions to fix infantry (melee) (there cavalry disengaging is actually a disadvantage as the infantry will not be engaged and therefore subject to an automatic cohesion drop) and flank attack with others.
At first most of my cavalry managed to disengage after combat, only to have infantry move back up to them in following turns including at that point into my flank, increasing the envelopment turn by turn. Eventually ending in engagement in melee. And melee combat was almost always 1/1 casualties and no cohesion drops, which had I continued to play would have eventually led to automatic routes (360 men infantry, 120 men cavalry).
Now it's possible I made some tactic mistakes, but in part I was testing how these fights would go (previous battles against other infantry, even with strong cavalry) using similar tactics led to costly victories with my cavalry eventually wheeling into the enemy rear. Mostly frontal charges as historic would be even less succesful. A lot of my playing was testing out what works and what doesn't (I have experience from design team over alpha, beta down to open beta testing, so I'm used to looking for holes in the rules but also a-historic results).
So I also realise there have to be compromises to balance games to a degree for player's enjoyment. Though I think the idea of double games, two games, first one player playing side A, next game side B, the actual victor being considered by the aggregate result, that makes a game enjoyable even if forces are highly unbalance, the point not being to win but to be better that the opponent in the same situation. For single player against ai (which I mostly do these days) comparison to historic results would rate the level of success. But the system and results should not be so a-historic as to make it entirely unrelated to actual past battles.
So what I'm proposing is fiddling around with parts of the game, that within the bounds of the engine.
And some things currently in game cannot be termed compromises but are strongly a-historic. Those are among others infantry having a high probability of standing against a frontal charges of heavy cavalry. But also infantry advancing on good order cavalry in open terrain. But also toe to toe fighting (remember the 10/1 knight over foot sergeant advantage given in most literature) with 1/1 casualty rates. Now obviously heavy cavalry should not deal 10/1, probably not even 5/1 damage, but they should have a definitive edge.
One last issue with game as it is now. Numbers of infantry are far exagerated. Clergy chroniclers often gave fantasy numbers for infantry, numbers which could not have been supplied (train or forage), or even raised from local lands. The 1500-2000 Cologne militia at Worringen is derived from total population of that city and comparison with better documented battles (for instance Courtray where we have almost exact returns for some militias). On the other hand we have very good reports on cavalry present, based on identification of individual lords and knights and their retinues, on reimbursment of damage taken by said contingents (a lord usually had to replace his vassals' lost horses for instance), but also promises of contingents raised for service and the payment they received which are found in period documents. So in most cases there should be far more cavalry on the battlefield in FoG-2-M than is currently the case.
I will continue my research and add more sources here gradually. I don't expect overnight changes in the game but hope to work towards some improvement. But I will probably write less detailed comments. I tend to be very long winded, sorry for that. Well at least I will try to, This writing also cuts to much into my actual game related research and another private project I'm working on in parallel.
The one major set piece battle that I can think of before the late 13th century was the Standard, in which English archery played a major role. The Scottish infantry didn't seem to hesitate to attack there, and many of the English Knights were dismounted to fight - a funny thing to do if infantry can't stand up to knights, but commonly done especially by English and German knights. Later, you have Stirling Bridge, which really was decided by terrain more than anything, as was Bannockburn. In both battles, the terrain meant that the English could not effectively use their archery, or force the Scottish infantry into immobility by threatening their flanks. At Falkirk, the Scots were immobile, not because the Schiltron was an immobile formation, but because the dispersal of their cavalry and the nature of the terrain left them exposed. They were then overrun in hand to hand combat, but *only* after extensive softening up by archery.
Deep Spearmen are one thing, but standard spearmen get run down pretty easily by knights. Dismounted Knights are of course a much tougher nut to crack.
If moving nearish to Knights caused infantry cohesion checks, or if they took checks before Impact, there'd be no point in ever bringing any infantry along at all. They'd be totally useless. If that was the case, why did armies of the era still muster such a large proportion of infantry? Nobody is disputing that knights were the most powerful part of these armies, but cherry picking examples doesn't convince me that the balance is substantially wrong. I could just as easily cherry pick examples of infantry standing their ground.
I think we also have to be very cautious about primary sources. These were after all mostly written by clerics, with little understanding of warfare, and the literate classes were largely the clergy and the same wealthy landed classes that comprised the fighting nobility. Of course they're going to downplay the role of the infantry, just as reading Herodotos you could not realize the importance and sheer numbers of light troops in Greek warfare.
Infantry in the open unsupported by friendly knights or missile troops will eventually drop cohesion and be overrun by knights. Sometimes it takes multiple charges, but it's only a matter of time. I am really skeptical of mechanical explanations of tactics - lance length, horse speed, velocity, etc. etc. - too similar to the old explanation of stirrups etc. The game mechanics are tilted more towards the 'Face of Battle' style explanation of combat, of moral rather than physical factors being most important.
I also have DeVries, Verbruggen, France, etc. etc. on my bookshelf. My reading has given me a different picture than you seem to have of the game so far. It's early days, and undoubtedly the game's balance will be slightly altered. I am watching the current tournament season closely to see if I think knights need to be priced a little cheaper, so you can field slightly more of them, but I am unsure as of yet.
Charging on open terrain was the Knight’s strength, so a smart general would try to neuter that advantage by not fighting on open terrain.
If the decision is made to give Knights a bonus on open terrain, you would probably need more infantry friendly maps, with more hills, rough terrain and ability to easily purchase field fortifications to place on the map in the deployment phase.
But that is actually the opposite of what Verbruggen and Lehnart say. We have very good sources for numbers of heavy cavalry. But for most of the infantry we only have those clerical writings. For some cities we have good returns, how many chariots had to be sent with the force, what the crossbowmen and their pavisiers were paid. In some cases simply the population of the city in question. But for other levies, even most foot mercenaries we have little to no reliable sources.
At least Verbruggen's theory is that infantry numbers were greatly inflated, that largely to make cavalry seem more heroic (iirc he cites a case where 2 knights are supposed to have routed 10.000 foot, which obviously can't be true). A small number of knights beating a staggeringly large one of foot looks like magic, enormous valour, but also godly intervention. This might actually put in doubt the 10/1 knight to foot sergeant capacity number we see so often even in the serious sources, But at least the modern sources seem to agree that foot armies only won when numerically superior and at advantage.
Why did they take so much infantry (if they actually did, in many cases we not only know that a city could not have raised the number of militia some literary sources name, but we know the same for the peasant levies)? Because they had other uses. They were used in siege work, building and guarding camps and trains, foraging etc. When used in battle they usually ended in the back row or on flanks, that is of course if the army in question had a substantial force of cavalry.
Battles were usually not the preferred way to win a war, carefully taking castles and cities, devastating countrysides etc. was far more popular. One reason being that battles could be very costly (death or injury of men and horses, and of course ransoms). It was hard to estimate the outcome beforehand if both forces were of similar size. So often a battle was the last resort and its result was decisive and considered god's ruling, ending the war abruptly.
And maybe it's all about personal interpretations of the sources and of what a strong cavalry is.
Good point on the sources - I will note that some of the writings of the nobility seem much more reliable. Villehardouin's numbers seem pretty believable, for example - as he was one of the men in charge of the army!
I do disagree that infantry 'usually' ended up in the back row or on the flanks. There are many many battles where the cavalry were on the wings, and the infantry held the center. Looking *only* at battles represented in the base game, Tinchebrai, Crug Mawr, the Standard, Steppes, Bouvines, the infantry was deployed in the center, opposite the enemy's infantry. Like I said, in many battles knights dismounted to fight amongst the infantry - why would they do that if they were so much more effective dispersing the enemy on horseback? Bouvines also had the heroic stand of 700 mercenary spearmen seeing off thousands of mounted and foot attackers from all sides.
I think what the game represents pretty well overall is that infantry can do well as part of a combined arms force. Armies of just infantry don't have much of a chance in the open.
Is there room for adjustment? Maybe there is; but if so, it's nothing so extreme as cohesion checks everywhere, rendering infantry useless.