Fatigue

[Zakilevo]

Well this won't work probably for the current movement system...

If we get rid of the restriction of moving 1 region per turn and replace it with fatigue to control how much a unit can travel, I think cavalries can be used more efficiently. They can outrun infantry units to reach inner regions of enemies to loot and be more useful than just being a heavy hitter in a battle.

Field camp option can be used to reduce fatigue while travelling. (does anyone even use field camp now that we have delay arrival?) Make the influence of fatigue somewhat exponential.

For example,

A unit of 50 men with 0 fatigue can travel 10 miles per hour where as a unit of 50 with 50 fatigue can only travel 3 miles?

[Gustav Kuriga]

I have my army use field camp combined with training in order to arrive precisely on time and together. The reason I use both is that it is the best way to get you to 0 hours when traveling, ensuring you never arrive until you want to.

[egamma]

The problem with changing this for nobles with units, is that battles only run at turn change, and that turns are really fundamental to the game.

It would also seriously unbalance the game to enable a noble to recruit, march one turn at a time to their border region, drop their men as militia, then head back to the Capital as quickly as they can recruit.

Certain class combinations are invalid to prevent exactly these sorts of abuses, including priest/infil and priest/trader, and the general prohibition against priests having any sort of unit or paraphernalia.

[Tom]

Exactly. Turns are crucial to the game so 2-regions-per-turn moves are out for anything with military impact.

[Bedwyr]

Okay, here's something that's been poking around in my head.  Cavalry in BM isn't as mobile as we think it should be, which is why people come up with stuff like this.  What if cavalry had effects tied to chances of evading combat, either for evading or for catching people trying to evade? 

[Tom]

Okay, here's something that's been poking around in my head.  Cavalry in BM isn't as mobile as we think it should be, which is why people come up with stuff like this.  What if cavalry had effects tied to chances of evading combat, either for evading or for catching people trying to evade?

Cavalry is mobile on the battlefield, not in travel. Funny fact: Humans are faster at overland travel than horses. While horses have a higher maximum speed, they can't maintain it for long and need more rest. With armies you also have the whole baggage train thing - you need to move more than just the soldiers.

I actually believe that cavalry is simulated a lot more realistically in BM than in most other games.

[De-Legro]

Cavalry is mobile on the battlefield, not in travel. Funny fact: Humans are faster at overland travel than horses. While horses have a higher maximum speed, they can't maintain it for long and need more rest. With armies you also have the whole baggage train thing - you need to move more than just the soldiers.

I actually believe that cavalry is simulated a lot more realistically in BM than in most other games.

Yup, that is why on theory on early human hunting basically has us running things to death.

[Zakilevo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10302388

I think it is depend on the breed. Like mongolian horses they are not as fast as other bigger horses but they could run longer and didn't get tired so easily.

[Bedwyr]

Cavalry is mobile on the battlefield, not in travel. Funny fact: Humans are faster at overland travel than horses. While horses have a higher maximum speed, they can't maintain it for long and need more rest. With armies you also have the whole baggage train thing - you need to move more than just the soldiers.

I actually believe that cavalry is simulated a lot more realistically in BM than in most other games.

Yes, but the mobility on the battlefield was what I meant, whether or not you actually end up fighting on a given battlefield.  Given that we can't simulate many of the other benefits of cavalry, like flanking maneuvers and hunting down broken forces and the like, I think having them handle evasion differently seems to make sense.

[De-Legro]

Yes, but the mobility on the battlefield was what I meant, whether or not you actually end up fighting on a given battlefield.  Given that we can't simulate many of the other benefits of cavalry, like flanking maneuvers and hunting down broken forces and the like, I think having them handle evasion differently seems to make sense.

Perhaps give them increased resistance to arrows?

[Zakilevo]

Not really. Horses might be faster than men but they are bigger thus easier to hit with arrows.

I thought the system was more of rock-paper-scissor. Inf<Cav, Cav<Arc, Arc<Inf. Something like that.

[De-Legro]

Not really. Horses might be faster than men but they are bigger thus easier to hit with arrows.

I thought the system was more of rock-paper-scissor. Inf<Cav, Cav<Arc, Arc<Inf. Something like that.

Speed is a vital part of evasion of missle weapons, especially in the cases of volleys. The idea is to speed through the target zone, reduce the amount of volleys you face and thus arrive at your target with the larger part of your forces intact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10302388

I think it is depend on the breed. Like mongolian horses they are not as fast as other bigger horses but they could run longer and didn't get tired so easily.

Larger warhorse were actually quite slow in comparison to some of the really fast breeds. The important thing was they could carry the fully armored knight, and also their immense weight increased the impact force of the charge.

The problem with Cav is that is a large category. Horse armies like the Mongols and some of the eastern empires the Roman faced were incredibly mobile at the strategic level due to the way they used light cavalry. When you think of typical medieval cavalry though the image is medium or heavy cavalry. The nature of these breeds increased the load on the baggage trains, they required reasonably large amounts of decent feed to be in top shape, where other light cavalry horse could rely on grazing to a much greater extent.

[Zakilevo]

I forgot there is no light cavalry in BM. I don't know how far heavy armoured european cavalries travelled a day but apparently Mongolian light cavalries could travel up to 160 km per day.

[De-Legro]

I forgot there is no light cavalry in BM. I don't know how far heavy armoured european cavalries travelled a day but apparently Mongolian light cavalries could travel up to 160 km per day.

Yup, the mongol army was entirely based around light horse, mostly archers. Part of their advantage was they were used to the steppes and thus their horses were bred to do more with less food. Compared to European armies they had very little in the way of a baggage train requirement, which allowed their armies to move very rapidly.

You probably won't find a figure for European Cavalry movement speeds, because it was largely irrelevant. Europeans didn't generally field armies of 100% cavalry, and thus when moving as an army the moved the knights and heavy cavalry along with the archers and infantry.

[Zakilevo]

Apparently every six out of ten Mongolian cavalry were light cavalries. Rest being either lancers or heavy cavalries. They avoided facing excessively armoured enemies like knights. They shot their horses to reduce knights' mobility then chased them down. Usually leaving a gap between their position so enemies can escape. Then chased them down to pick them off one by one.