Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

[vonGenf]

The first was eventually stopped by walls

Where was that? I thought they were stopped by having to go back to fight for the spoils, and then finding themselves rich enough that they didn't want to go back.

[Huntsmaster]

Where was that? I thought they were stopped by having to go back to fight for the spoils, and then finding themselves rich enough that they didn't want to go back.

Well, they were stopped by a lot of things, really. You're right- fighting over spoils, fighting over succession after the deaths of khans, and fighting just for fun of it did more to stop the mongols than walls. IIRC though, they were frustrated for quite some time by walls and forts in China, where they had to shift from horses to siege.

[Chenier]

That's true, but since in this situation they just put bayonets on the end and used the guns as pointy swords (ie not firing them), it's not as irrelevant as it first appears.

Indeed, because as someone put it nicely, it is *firing the muskets* that forced the cavalry to abort the charge, and therefore save the square. No shooting, and the box is useless.

Also, swords aren't bayonets on long rifles. You can't lodge a sword in the ground with its point tipping upwards to stop the charge, it just won't work. Bayonets in these regards mimicked spears, not swords, because of their length and therefore the ability to lodge them in the ground as one would with a spear.

[Shizzle]

See: Mongols in Asia, Muslims in North Africa and Spain. The first was eventually stopped by walls, the second by knights in a square. :P

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the crusaders for instance, just got butchered by the muslim archers on horseback. Armor was of little effect, because of the heat.

Also, another said that the Napoleontic Era is of relevance because they used their bayonets as spears. Try using a sword as spear? You cant even put it in the ground properly. And if it's just in your hands, it won't stop hundreds of kilo's of horse and steel.

I think cavalry charges were usually effective, unless the circumstances fought against horses. E.g. rough terrain, low cohesion in the charge, low morale. If you get the horses up close, they will pretty much kill anything but pikes.

[fodder]

... why do you need spears if horses won't run into a solid wall of shields?

[vanKaya]

why is napoleanic even relevant? ain't no guns at all in this era. you could say xbow, but they ain't infantry.

surely roman or its ilk would be more relevant. what did they do back then?

Napoleanic squares aren't relevant, that was my point. The reason I outlined how Napoleanic squares operated was to show that a midieval cavalry square was useless (no guns) and thus a BM box formation does not represent a cavalry square and thus box shouldn't have a cavalry bonus (which is one of the questions asked in the first post: why doesnt box mess up cavalry?)

romans would also be irrelevant. the horses they were fighting against were way less armoured. In a mideival situation (ie. middle ages cavalry vs middle ages infantry) a) a square wouldnt help and b) if the odds were even i.e open ground, similar numbers, the cavalry will always win. just like in bm

If you want to beat cavalry.... have more numbers, use waves, or retreat to fortifications. Than you have turned their disadvantage into your advantage.

[psymann]

Ok, so you've partly persuaded me that horses really should be an unstoppable force (though I'll still be interested to hear a reply to fodder's suggestion about a wall of shields, so I'm not yet 100% convinced, and I've seen horses at the showjumping refuse running over/through/whatever a hedge or a gate or a pond - none of which were firing at it with muskets).

I'm still somewhat unsure that their higher cost is proportional to their higher power, but they do at least have the inability to attack walls, so that's something, certainly.  And the fact that all the gamers don't run off and recruit cavalry and nothing else suggests it can't be too overpowered overall.


The thing that still bugs me though is the CS values.

First off, the horses should, I think, have a higher CS value.  Granted, if they're up against walls, then they're useless, and their CS could be assumed to be 0, or close to 0, if against walls.  But that's fine, you just work out if the battle has walls, and if it does, you replace whatever CS value they have with the number 0.

And so the CS should be representative of their power in the fields 9because it is not possible to look at the CS, guess what percentage-of-battles-against-walls were used in their calculation, divide by that percentage and come up with a 'fields' CS value for them).  I'll concede that one battle is not a good sample, so I'll see if I have more in future that are appropriate to consider for this topic.  But based on that one sample, the CS of the cavalry should probably have been double what it actually was.


And then the peasants.  Oh joy!  I have another battle with peasants on which I can now report.  And it's quite a good one for this discussion, though I did forget to put my infantry back to line, but never mind:


Battle:
Attackers: 3 Infantry (box, CS 64)
Defenders: 18 Angry Peasants (line, CS 60)

So here we have a battle between almost equal forces.  60 vs 64.

The 60 Angry Peasants are in line, and the Infantry are in Box.  So the Angry Peasants should do a little more damage than the Infantry.  And the Infantry should be able to absorb a little more damage without dying than the Angry Peasants.  So that should still end up pretty equal.

And the Infantry w/a is 50%/49%, which are very equal, so I'd not expect a particularly strong or weak performance in either attack or defence from them.

Round One
18 Angry Peasants score 5 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 25 hits
One peasant dies.

Round Two
17 Angry Peasants score 4 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 26 hits
One peasant dies.

Round Three
16 Angry Peasants score 4 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 36 hits
Two peasants die.

Round Four
14 Angry Peasants score 3 hits
3 Infantry score 29 hits
One peasant dies, and the remaining peasants retreat.

So... 64 CS vs 60 CS.

The 64 CS do between 25 and 36 hits each round.
The 60 CS do between 4 and 5 hits each round.

And it's not as if the 60 CS have something like 5%/95% weapons/armour, firstly because they didn't manage to withstand the hits on them that well, and secondly because I bet that peasants would be given a flat 50%/50% split by the game code.

So as far as I can see, and I'm now up to 2 sample battles, the CS value of peasants is greatly overstated.  They should have been about 9 CS, not 60 CS.

[egamma]

And then the peasants.  Oh joy!  I have another battle with peasants on which I can now report.  And it's quite a good one for this discussion, though I did forget to put my infantry back to line, but never mind:


Battle:
Attackers: 3 Infantry (box, CS 64)
Defenders: 18 Angry Peasants (line, CS 60)

So here we have a battle between almost equal forces.  60 vs 64.

The 60 Angry Peasants are in line, and the Infantry are in Box.  So the Angry Peasants should do a little more damage than the Infantry.  And the Infantry should be able to absorb a little more damage without dying than the Angry Peasants.  So that should still end up pretty equal.

And the Infantry w/a is 50%/49%, which are very equal, so I'd not expect a particularly strong or weak performance in either attack or defence from them.

Round One
18 Angry Peasants score 5 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 25 hits
One peasant dies.

Round Two
17 Angry Peasants score 4 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 26 hits
One peasant dies.

Round Three
16 Angry Peasants score 4 hits (3 after overkill)
3 Infantry score 36 hits
Two peasants die.

Round Four
14 Angry Peasants score 3 hits
3 Infantry score 29 hits
One peasant dies, and the remaining peasants retreat.

So... 64 CS vs 60 CS.

The 64 CS do between 25 and 36 hits each round.
The 60 CS do between 4 and 5 hits each round.

And it's not as if the 60 CS have something like 5%/95% weapons/armour, firstly because they didn't manage to withstand the hits on them that well, and secondly because I bet that peasants would be given a flat 50%/50% split by the game code.

So as far as I can see, and I'm now up to 2 sample battles, the CS value of peasants is greatly overstated.  They should have been about 9 CS, not 60 CS.

Peasants are more like 10/10. I think the CS number is highly inflated. Still, I think box means that your 3 men were fighting close in, so the peasants couldn't land many hits.

[Bedwyr]

Peasants soak up a lot of hits, though.  Yeah, peasants on their own don't do much.  But I've seen (in Perdan) how peasants can soak a lot of hits and allow supporting troops to get through a round mostly unscathed in a nasty way.

[Shizzle]

Am I the only one puzzled on how to form a box with only three men? :P

[JPierreD]

Triangle formation!

[Chenier]

Triangle formation!

I think they call that a wedge. ;)

[vanKaya]

Am I the only one puzzled on how to form a box with only three men? :P

I'm likewise puzzled when a unit of two or even one has low cohesion. How do you not get along with the only other soldier???? How do you not get along with yourself???

[Shizzle]

I'm likewise puzzled when a unit of two or even one has low cohesion. How do you not get along with the only other soldier???? How do you not get along with yourself???

Yeah, I saw that before as well :P I guess it's your cohesion towards the commanding noble, as well.

[psymann]

Yep, the number of troops doesn't include the noble.

So my 3 troops were accompanied by my character, so in fact they had four men - just enough for a 2x2 column ;)

Similarly, I assume cohesion must be cohesion with the noble, since he's in addition to the number of troops.