Pike Vs Cavalry

[Sergeant Edgar]

Hello i recently found this game and i am immensly enjoying it,excellent job developers!
I thought that large scale battle games were done for after all the total war fiaskos (Rome 2 and everything after it) but this game really surprised me!

I would like to ask one thing though , i finished the tutorial and i am playing the Great Turkik War campaign and what i am about to describe happened in the tutorial as well (with different nations) when the Ottoman Sipahis frontally charged my pike in even terein the enemy cavalry won and on the following melle they were killing more of my men than i was of them.
And here comes my question should't my pikes ahnillate them?I know that the siphahis were relatively well armored but still cavalry shouldn't be able to do anything against pike.
I have seen the same complaint in some reviews on amazon downvoting the game for that reason ,so this is something generally counter intuative.

Are there any reasons i am not aware of that cavaly can even withstand a frontal charge agaist pike and even further inflict casualties on pikemen?

[Zarkarion]

I certainly would not expect sipahis to win vs STEADY pikes. If, however, they first Disrupt them by shooting at them, they would very likely win.

However, don't take too much notice of relative casualties - they are not directly what determines who won the combat. Infantry generally take higher casualties than cavalry (though not higher in proportion to the size of their units).

Also bear in mind that there is only a small clump of pikemen in the middle of the unit, and while these prevent the cavalry from sweeping away the unit, they won't prevent some casualties being inflicted on the unit as a whole. It isn't like the cavalry are charging into a 16th century pike keil. Now _that_ really would be suicidal.

[Sergeant Edgar]

Thanks a lot for the swift awnser!
Only debuff my pikes had is that they were "raw" not veteran trained pikes and in the end the infantry outlasted them but i expected it to ahnilate them but probably its as you said that its not like the phalanxes of Alexander with massed pikes.So i underwstand now that you explained it.

Also one more question i understand why my pikes can't charge cavalry but is there a reason they cannot attack engeged cavalry(i mean they cannot leave)?
Because in a tuttorial battle i ended up having 3 free units of pike and shot behind an enged unit of horse and i couldn't help my lads in the melee i could not charge them and i couldn't shoot them because they were engaged,so sadly i had to wait for my cav to get routed and then beat the enemy cav.

[Tháleia Helikon (VTuber)]

for your last question, i think that the point is that the cavarly is have the pistol type melee combat simulate the horses running around the pike & shot formation trying to shot , run, reload , shotagain. so another formation who move slowly like a pike & shot does not have the way to engage them, or make them engage. i'm notan expert of the game or the warfare, just putting some theory about that xD

[SnuggleBunny]

To add to what zarkarion said:

Quality is the key here.

Let's look at it in game terms first. Raw Pike and Shot cost 30 points. The Superior Sipahis cost 58 points. So your 30 point unit pinned and eventually defeated a unit that costs twice as many points. Average Pike and Shot cost 42. Against these, the enemy cavalry would likely have fallen back after impact, as their chances in the ongoing melee would have been so low. This would give you the chance to pour more musketry/cannon fire into them.

Next, let's try to remove ourselves from our godlike perch in the sky above the contending armies and put ourselves on the ground. On the one side: elite Turkish cavalry, riding in good order. They are richly appareled, the sun flashes off of their armor, they carry an assortment of firearms and hand weapons, swords, maces, etc. Most have trained since childhood in the use of their arms, and their fearsome reputation precedes them.

On the other side, your newly mustered conscripts. A few wear helmets, perhaps the officers wear breastplates, but the vast majority wear no armor, or even uniforms, only the rags that they were mustered in with. Two thirds of the unit is composed of musketeers - entirely untrained in hand to hand combat, they carry their slow firing matchlocks and cheap swords. In the center, the third of the unit that is composed of pikemen - some of the men have cut their weapons short to make them easier to carry on the march. The wavering mass of pikes reveals the unit's collective unease and lack of training to any observer.

The Sipahis surge forward. The musketeers fire off a couple of ragged volleys, but in their panic, few shots hit the mark. Seeing (and hearing) the horsemen thundering towards them, the musketeers scramble chaotically to the cover of the pikemen, whose square is more of a ragged clump. The Sipahis close in, hacking down stragglers, riding down panicked men. Some try to fight back with their cheap swords or clubbed muskets, but are cut down. The rest make it to the cover of the pikes. The Sipahis, scenting victory, continue the charge, but draw up short when met by the pikes. The more reckless horsemen are impaled on pikes or lose their mounts, but most stand off. The two sides then briefly trade shots with the few loaded weapons left, before the cavalry sullenly withdraw.

Or, if you want to put it in raw game terms: The Sipahis charge the Raw Pike and Shot. The impact is inconclusive, but the melee odds are relatively even. The fight drags on for a few turns until the Sipahis have suffered enough loss that they Fall Back.

[Sergeant Edgar]

Haha excellent comment SnuggleBunny i can see you are a man of culture as well!

Now about the cost point well i would uderstand it if it was for simular things,let me use an analogy.
A fully grown Elefant who is the result of decades growing up to be the largest animal alive on land still can easily be taken down by a human 1/10th his size with a cheap gun.Point beign it dosent matter how much something costs but if it is designed to be effective in what it is doing ,if it is ,it will do it,and a pike is definatly one of the best tools to take down cavalry.No matter the man behind the pike if the men hold then the cavalry are done for.
But alas your point about having too few pikemen(and not the best at that) to effectively protect the shot still stands.

P.S. Have you actually read somewhere that some pikemen cut their pikes down to be easier to transport them?
Im genuinly curius.
Defenatly if i was a commander back in the day i would execute or at least pass through the gauntlet anyone caught doing that but still interesting if true.


Also as response to Sucy:interesting idea but well the enemy cavalry was tied down by my own and atleast in napoleontic times when cavalry clashed they had a proper melee running around in circles shoting etc would break all unit coheasion and would lead to a rout.

[Tháleia Helikon (VTuber)]

oh sorry i miserunderstood there ^^' i thought that the cav was already fighting an infantry unit! maybe the fact is that regardless of the type of melee actually happening, a block of 1000-1500men (and only few using pikes, very long pikes)cannot "charge" quite well in that situation. i'm not an expert in this kind of warfare, even if i like the period, but i love the game cause it's rare to find these warsin other games.

[Zarkarion]

Originally posted by Greg the Greek:

Also as response to Sucy:interesting idea but well the enemy cavalry was tied down by my own and atleast in napoleontic times when cavalry clashed they had a proper melee running around in circles shoting etc would break all unit coheasion and would lead to a rout.

In this period pike and shot units just did not charge cavalry, period. So even if it seems illogical, we are just being true to history.

We can speculate as to the reasons for this seeming anomaly. Two things immediately come to mind:
1) As Snuggles has described, getting into an anti-cavalry formation in time was a big deal, so they would not risk leaving it if there were any cavalry about.
2) Cavalry melees were not as static as the game perforce displays, so the cavalry would not be around long enough for the slow infantry to attack.

Anyway, as I say, the logic of it is irrelevant because the game is simulating actual historical behaviour, not modern logic.

[Zarkarion]

Originally posted by Greg the Greek:

P.S. Have you actually read somewhere that some pikemen cut their pikes down to be easier to transport them?

Yes, and threw away their armour as being too much of an effort to march in.

[Sergeant Edgar]

Originally posted by Zarkarion:

Yes, and threw away their armour as being too much of an effort to march in.

Xexe lads get your gauntlets ready!

I trully admire your heavy focus on historical accuracy i always wanted that from developers!

But logic at least to the fundementals of battle is universal,for example as i saw pointed out in the forums as well by not allowing infatry to attack cavalry some players abused that(and the ai did in my campaign probably without knowing it) ,since they can put some cavalry in a spot they desire and if you dont have cavalry at hand which is better than them to dislodge them you can't do anything about it,leading to you beign unable to manuver in that section.

And here comes what i meant fundimental logic infatry has a lot of "staying power" for lack of a better term meaning if infantry wants to go somewhre and they dont break or fragment cavalry can't stand in their way and stop them except if they melee with them,no matter the fancy maneuvers cavalry might employ if they do not engeage the infantry the infatry will not be stopped from taking the position.
By not allowing for infantry attack this aspect present throughout history is lost and lack of primary sources for the era of such an engagement do not mean it didnt happen ,since propably the cavalry would have ceeded the position with no combat thus it would not have beign reported.(happened on my campaign when the siphahis in another battle got to a river crossing far sooner than their janissaries and i could not attack them to cross the river quicly and not suffer the debuffs versus their musketeers )

P.S. Thank you all for your replies i have learned much from this discusion about this period for which i am not well read in,so thank you! I come from a more ancient greek and napoleontic era mindset leading to some faulse assumptions for the era in my part.

[Zarkarion]

Originally posted by Greg the Greek:

But logic at least to the fundementals of battle is universal,for example as i saw pointed out in the forums as well by not allowing infatry to attack cavalry some players abused that(and the ai did in my campaign probably without knowing it) ,since they can put some cavalry in a spot they desire and if you dont have cavalry at hand which is better than them to dislodge them you can't do anything about it,leading to you beign unable to manuver in that section.

But you can shoot them to death. Infantry units without any means of shooting are given dispensation to charge them.

And here comes what i meant fundimental logic infatry has a lot of "staying power" for lack of a better term meaning if infantry wants to go somewhre and they dont break or fragment cavalry can't stand in their way and stop them except if they melee with them,no matter the fancy maneuvers cavalry might employ if they do not engeage the infantry the infatry will not be stopped from taking the position.

This is certainly true of 16th pike keils (and the game does allow those to charge cavalry), but it take leave to doubt that a late 17th century infantry unit with only 20% pikemen would be able to do this. Hold the cavalry off, yes, advance remorseless against them, no. (And why bother to risk it anyway when the cavalry will soon die from musketry if they foolishly stand in front of the infantry).

Clearly there is a massive difference between a 16th century pike keil of 2000 men, 30 ranks deep, and a late 17th century pike and shot battalion of 480 men in 8 ranks with less than 100 pikemen to protect the lot. By steadily reducing the proportion of pikemen to musketeers, the later units were playing a game of brinkmanship with their anti-cavalry capability. How to maximise firepower without risking being ridden down. This is not the same as being able to brush the cavalry aside. Frontal physical offensive power was being traded away for greater firepower.

[Sergeant Edgar]

I see the difference between keils and pike and shot is indeed great.

Also i sound so keen to go to close quarters combat because all the units the turks employ and i face seem to be significatly better than mine in shooting even their cavalry when they end up in 1v1 shooting engagements with my pike and shot outperform them and may even disorganise my troops and break them or make them too weak without me having the same effect on them and that is why i dont want to shoot to death the cavalry because it at least feels to me that everyone else shoots better than my units.

I still havent lost a battle ,i use the 4th difficulty but i feel i win only because i outmanuver them and not in any significant part because of the skill of my troops they seem to shoot bad and not beign able to attack 50% of the ottoman army (cavalry) in melee which seem my strong point get shot to pieces.Maybe i should retrain my troops in the good old ways of the keil since those new fancy guns dont seem to work too well for us :P
Or maybe pike formations are in my blood because i am Greek.

[SnuggleBunny]

Pike and Shot will eventually win firefights vs cavalry, as they have twice as many men. To break the enemy faster, try to be in position so you don't have to turn or move before shooting, that makes your fire far more effective. Adding artillery support will force the enemy to take extra cohesion tests.

Two more things to note:

Infantry can charge light cavalry

Troop quality effects shooting skill. So raw pike and shot will shoot far less effectively than average pike and shot.

Overall, Pike and Shot armies are way better against cavalry armies than keil armies. The old style pike squares tend to lose their supporting troops, then get charged from the rear and slaughtered.

[Sergeant Edgar]

Originally posted by SnuggleBunny:

To break the enemy faster, try to be in position so you don't have to turn or move before shooting, that makes your fire far more effective. Adding artillery support will force the enemy to take extra cohesion tests.

Thanks for the advice Snuggle i did not know that turning affected accuracy but indeed i was't turning unless absolutely necessery ,also i didn't emloy artillery because at least from my limited expirience it does not inflict any substuntial loses and moral damage wise i didnt see that much moral drop on the enemy when i used arty or on my men when it was used against em(even when fired together with shot as the tutorial suggested ,didnt do anything that one other shot unit instead of the arty would do) ,everyone seemed to shrug it off.

[SnuggleBunny]

Artillery definitely increases the chance of cohesion drop. It doesn't tend to inflict very many casualties, but cavalry is particularly vulnerable due to its smaller unit size.

Obviously I can't explain what's happening without seeing what you're seeing. If you would like, we could play an MP match or two and talk through it as we go.