Knights shoul throw away their lance when in melee.!!

[Nikolay]

No calv or knights will fight with their lance which on use when charge.It's ridiculous to see those Bretonnia and Empire knights stick their lance everyway.

[chef]

Originally posted by EL The Emperor of Mankind:

No historically lances broke on the first impact, and thats why all cavalry forces where trained with a sword. They're knights for petes sake!

Later period knights hardly. Swords were a status symbol but almost obsolete on the battle field with full plater armor. The dagger (knock em down and poke it in the armor kinks) and battle scythe(or any large hacking weapon that had good leverage) were actually much more common.

[[PHNX]Kordarus]

Originally posted by EL The Emperor of Mankind:

No historically lances broke on the first impact, and thats why all cavalry forces where trained with a sword. They're knights for petes sake!

Historically you don't have magic caster that can summon fire ball. Maybe they just use a reinforcing spell that make the lancee unbreakable?

Don't you think it would make sense?

[Reverend Belial]

Originally posted by PHNXKordarus:

Originally posted by EL The Emperor of Mankind:

No historically lances broke on the first impact, and thats why all cavalry forces where trained with a sword. They're knights for petes sake!

Historically you don't have magic caster that can summon fire ball. Maybe they just use a reinforcing spell that make the lancee unbreakable?

Don't you think it would make sense?

It's more likely that the lances are just made of a harder material than what we had access to historically, or were perhaps made with a different method that makes them less likely to snap on impact.

[twitch.tv/EarnestBoon]

lances should do more damage but be only first charge then ditched, be more realistic then they can have new lances for next charge somewhere else.

[[PHNX]Kordarus]

Originally posted by Reverend Belial:

Originally posted by PHNXKordarus:

Historically you don't have magic caster that can summon fire ball. Maybe they just use a reinforcing spell that make the lancee unbreakable?

Don't you think it would make sense?

It's more likely that the lances are just made of a harder material than what we had access to historically, or were perhaps made with a different method that makes them less likely to snap on impact.

Well my point was more about the irrelevance of historical comparison more than finding the exact reasons why...

But yeah that make sense lol

[Stubbs]

Cavalry. Calvary was the site Jesus was crucifed outside of Jerusalem's walls (according to the Gospels, if you believe in that).

Back on topic - I agree, they need to ditch the lances after first impact with another unit. Even if the lances were reinforced with magic, why would you use such an unwieldy weapon for combat after the initial charge? Just give them a secondary weapon like a mace or sword after they hit. A sword shouldn't be an issue, unless they're fighting other armored units, and even then if the argument of "but magic..." is applied then the swords are magically sharp/pointed. Maces as a secondary would make even more sense, since they can and were used to fight armored opponents, since blunt force from the mace/hammer could still easily break bones and cause internal injuries.

[Sheytanaslan]

Originally posted by Stubbs:

Cavalry. Calvary was the site Jesus was crucifed outside of Jerusalem's walls (according to the Gospels, if you believe in that).

Back on topic - I agree, they need to ditch the lances after first impact with another unit. Even if the lances were reinforced with magic, why would you use such an unwieldy weapon for combat after the initial charge? Just give them a secondary weapon like a mace or sword after they hit. A sword shouldn't be an issue, unless they're fighting other armored units, and even then if the argument of "but magic..." is applied then the swords are magically sharp/pointed. Maces as a secondary would make even more sense, since they can and were used to fight armored opponents, since blunt force from the mace/hammer could still easily break bones and cause internal injuries.

Why drag Baby Jeerbus into this?
(Chews cornz).

[Stubbs]

Originally posted by Sheytanaslan:

Originally posted by Stubbs:

Cavalry. Calvary was the site Jesus was crucifed outside of Jerusalem's walls (according to the Gospels, if you believe in that).

Back on topic - I agree, they need to ditch the lances after first impact with another unit. Even if the lances were reinforced with magic, why would you use such an unwieldy weapon for combat after the initial charge? Just give them a secondary weapon like a mace or sword after they hit. A sword shouldn't be an issue, unless they're fighting other armored units, and even then if the argument of "but magic..." is applied then the swords are magically sharp/pointed. Maces as a secondary would make even more sense, since they can and were used to fight armored opponents, since blunt force from the mace/hammer could still easily break bones and cause internal injuries.

Why drag Baby Jeerbus into this?
(Chews cornz).

Because the OP said "Calv" multiple times. Just telling him/her the difference between the two.

[⎛⎝ AlilSneezyPanda ⎠⎞]

Originally posted by Xenos:

Originally posted by WarlordOfRome:

That is 100% true.

But due to how cavalry such as Black Nights have variants with/without lances, it seems lance(shock) cavalry is going to be separate from melee calavry. So for continuity and the gamer's sake, they have cavalry with lances keep their lances in melee.

Yes it's inaccurate, but it's necessary.

I actually don't see the reason of having separate units for lance cavalry. Just have them use lances in charges and swords/axes in melee.

The stats are different. Meaning the focus for both units should be used differently.

They are shock cav. Like in any other Total War game. I'm not 100% sure about shock cav in Attila changing weapons mid fight. But then again, that only goes to support the fact that it doesn't bother me at all.

It's such a minor non-issue, clearly purposefully designed to be like this.

No different to having different types of cavalry on any of the other Total War games. You don't just suddenly switch weapons and stats because you are in close combat.

If you engage close combat with lancers, that's your choice, when possibly they should be better used as hammer and anvil.

[The Standing Tortoise]

If I were a solider, I would definitely throw a dangerous object at them before I charged them with a close-combat weapon. This has been done by almost every single land and cavalry army, until the end of muskets.

Seriously, it's not called Total War without drawing upon actual warfare.

Lancers are all-or-nothing units. Their use as hammers is very inefficient, compared to shock anvils. Yes, they are like glasscannon anvils, especially in wedge.

Originally posted by Munchie:

Originally posted by Xenos:

I actually don't see the reason of having separate units for lance cavalry. Just have them use lances in charges and swords/axes in melee.

The stats are different. Meaning the focus for both units should be used differently.

They are shock cav. Like in any other Total War game. I'm not 100% sure about shock cav in Attila changing weapons mid fight. But then again, that only goes to support the fact that it doesn't bother me at all.

It's such a minor non-issue, clearly purposefully designed to be like this.

No different to having different types of cavalry on any of the other Total War games. You don't just suddenly switch weapons and stats because you are in close combat.

If you engage close combat with lancers, that's your choice, when possibly they should be better used as hammer and anvil.

Dismounting was feasible if cavalry were Medium-Heavy sword-wielders, and you could not conclude your engagement as quickly as you thought. It is far better to dismount, than fall off a horse and get stabbed with a spear.

Lancers should always charge, and then use the brief 'shock' afterwards. If they have to withdraw or continue fighting alone, not worth it. The exception being wedge charge against solo swords caught out in the open. That is the best use of Wedge formation.

Contrary to basic propagated knowledge about cav charges, Wedge is a frontal maneuvre. It assumes there is a line to break (in half, but not necessarily through).

[⎛⎝ AlilSneezyPanda ⎠⎞]

Originally posted by WhatsThat:

If I were a solider, I would definitely throw a dangerous object at them before I charged them with a close-combat weapon. This has been done by almost every single land and cavalry army, until the end of muskets.

Seriously, it's not called Total War without drawing upon actual warfare.

Lancers are all-or-nothing units. Their use as hammers is very inefficient, compared to shock anvils. Yes, they are like glasscannon anvils, especially in wedge.

Originally posted by Munchie:

The stats are different. Meaning the focus for both units should be used differently.

They are shock cav. Like in any other Total War game. I'm not 100% sure about shock cav in Attila changing weapons mid fight. But then again, that only goes to support the fact that it doesn't bother me at all.

It's such a minor non-issue, clearly purposefully designed to be like this.

No different to having different types of cavalry on any of the other Total War games. You don't just suddenly switch weapons and stats because you are in close combat.

If you engage close combat with lancers, that's your choice, when possibly they should be better used as hammer and anvil.

Dismounting was feasible if cavalry were Medium-Heavy sword-wielders, and you could not conclude your engagement as quickly as you thought. It is far better to dismount, than fall off a horse and get stabbed with a spear.

Lancers should always charge, and then use the brief 'shock' afterwards. If they have to withdraw or continue fighting alone, not worth it. The exception being wedge charge against solo swords caught out in the open. That is the best use of Wedge formation.

Contrary to basic propagated knowledge about cav charges, Wedge is a frontal maneuvre. It assumes there is a line to break (in half, but not necessarily through).

I'm not seeing what it is your trying to say. Hammer and anvil is not a good tactic?

If that's it then, I mean, it's a game. It's a tactic used a lot in this franchise. The idea is to strick the flanks and get away without taking much damage. Which we've seen this being used.

The lancers have also been left in combat where they are effective. My point was that, the lancers are MORE effective used as a hammer and anvil. If you have the enemy tied down then there is no reason why this would be a useless tactic.

I use it all the time in Attila. As long as I take them from the rear I lose very little if anything at all because it's so quite, they either route/die or are too occupied by my melee that have either just charged them at the front around the same time, which is the best time to strick or just tied up completely.

The other points was explaining that because if they're different uses that one being lancers and the others not is completely fine. There is no need to just make them one unit and expect the devs to "fix" something not needed to be fixed. Or change the design completely for many different units. Where weapons AND the unit's complete stats change.

Which I'd add, one of the factors that makes the lancers good at this is they have much more armour. This makes them slower but also would make them better at charging. Not something you would just change because they entered close combat.

[chef]

If cavalry dismounted it was usally before the battle due to terrain. Unless they were pridefully stupid like the french knights at the battle of the golden spurs.

[Desmond]

Originally posted by EL The Emperor of Mankind:

No historically lances broke on the first impact, and thats why all cavalry forces where trained with a sword. They're knights for petes sake!

Then this wont matter jollygood.

[The Standing Tortoise]

What I said has no relevance to your thing below. You are imagining an argument with somebody else, my friend.

Wedge is a frontal move. That's all I'm saying. The explanation rolls off the tongue less easily.

Originally posted by Munchie:

The other points was explaining that because if they're different uses that one being lancers and the others not is completely fine. There is no need to just make them one unit and expect the devs to "fix" something not needed to be fixed. Or change the design completely for many different units. Where weapons AND the unit's complete stats change.

Which I'd add, one of the factors that makes the lancers good at this is they have much more armour. This makes them slower but also would make them better at charging. Not something you would just change because they entered close combat.