BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Helpline => Topic started by: psymann on August 17, 2011, 08:36:46 PM
-
Hello all,
Wondering if someone can help me understand this, since I'm finding the answer I expected is not true.
First off, the wiki says this:
Formation
Formation is the type of line your men deploy into once they are face to face with the enemy.
Line: Deploy in a wide line, usually 2-3 ranks deep depending on their number. This is the default setting.
Normal melee attack
Normal ranged attack
Normal melee defense
Normal ranged defense
Box: Deploy in a tight, box-shaped formation with more ranks. Box formations suffer fewer casualties and less disorder from a cavalry charge, and will generally withstand more casualties before panic strikes. The tightness of the formation makes them more vulnerable to archer fire. Due to a narrower front, they are less effective in offense.
Low melee attack
Normal ranged attack
High melee defense
Low ranged defense
Wedge: Deploy in a V formation, with sharp end of the V pointed at the enemy. A wedge formation will allow the unit to break into enemy ranks easier, doing more damage than other formations do. However, the unit is also easier to break up and will likely suffer more casualties itself.
High melee attack
Normal ranged attack
Low melee defense
Low ranged defense
Skirmish: Deploy widely, in a loose formation with considerable distance between the men. This makes them less prone to casualties from archer fire and other ranged attacks. However, a skirmish formation is not well suited for close combat and a skirmish unit engaged in melee will take horrible casualties.
Low melee attack
Normal ranged attack
Low melee defense
High ranged defense
So I'm going to assume for the moment that that is correct.
But it doesn't mention cavalry at all here. And much as I'd love to add that information in, I don't know it, hence me coming to the forum to ask.
The reason I'm completely confused at the moment is because I know only a limited amount about formations in real life, but one thing I am absolutely sure about is that if you have a bunch of infantry, and you get charged by horses, you form into a box. By getting into a box shape, facing outwards on all four sides, the approaching cavalry meet a wall of swords/spears/etc, and suffer greatly. Whereas if you are in a line, the cavalry cut through the line, separating you from one another, and then ride around triumphantly hacking you down in pieces.
Yet I've just had a battle. A relatively simple one:
Attacker:
16 Infantry (CS: 219, box, front)
Defenders
23 Angry Peasants (CS: 75, line, front)
4 Cavalry (CS: 129, wedge, rear)
What I would expect to happen in this battle is that when the infantry meet the peasants, the infantry would do more damage than the peasants because they have three times the CS value, but they'd not do tons more damage, because (a) the infantry are in a box so half of them can't reach the frontlines to attack, and (b) the peasants are in a line so they can all attack at once. So three times the CS, take away a bit, maybe the infantry might do between 1 and 2 times as much damage.
And then what I would expect is that the cavalry, being in a wedge, would make a strong charge, but the infantry, being in a box, would be well protected from this. Therefore the infantry, having a higher CS, would win.
But no.
Round One
Angry Peasants make 5 hits.
Infantry make 89 hits.
23 Angry Peasants become 19 Angry Peasants
16 Infantry remain as 16 Infantry
How did the infantry do 17 times as much damage? :o
Round Two
Angry Peasants make 6 hits.
Infantry make 80 hits (14 on the Cavalry; 66 on the Peasants)
Cavalry make 299 hits.
19 Angry Peasants become 16 Angry Peasants
4 Cavalry remain as 4 Cavalry
16 Infantry become 5 Infantry
How did the infantry do 13 times as much damage as the peasants?
How did the cavalry do 3 or 4 times as much damage as the infantry? :o
Round Three
Angry Peasants make 4 hits.
Infantry make 57 hits (10 on the Cavalry; 47 on the Peasants)
Cavalry make 77 hits.
16 Angry Peasants become 14 Angry Peasants
4 Cavalry remain as 4 Cavalry
5 Infantry become 2 Infantry
How did the infantry do 14 times as much damage as the peasants, especially as they now have only a third of the number of troops to attack with?
Round 4
Angry Peasants make 4 hits.
Infantry make 20 hits.
Cavalry make 106 hits.
Infantry are destroyed.
Defender Victory!
So - there are really two questions here.
1) Why do the peasants seem to do so little damage for their CS? The Infantry had approx 3 times the CS, but were doing between 13 and 30 times as much damage. And it's not as if they were weak in attack but phenomenal in defence, for they died in similar numbers compared to the amount of damage taken.
Why especially did they do so badly, when the peasants were in the line formation which should allow them to do more damage than the infantry in their box formation.
2) Conversely, why did the cavalry do so much damage for their CS? The Infantry had 70% more CS than the cavalry, and outnumbered them as well. Yet the infantry, in the first two rounds, only managed 169 hits in total. And the cavalry in their first attack managed 299 - nearly double the number.
Why especially did they do so well, when the infantry were in what must surely be the best possible formation for dealing with pure cavalry?
And I suppose almost a third one - given that the CS values were similar, I'd expect the battle to be close, but it wasn't. My assumption is either that the game is wrong/bugged, or that the infantry picked completely the wrong formation. So would there have been any formation the infantry could have used that would not have ended in their complete and one-sided destruction?
I'm baffled how the attackers can have had 219 CS in predominantly the right formation, and the defenders can have had 204 CS, in a formation that may or may not be the best one (I find it hard to tell since cavalry just seem to pick Wedge for everything and I have no idea how Wedge really helps them against a box or against infantry) - yet instead of a close battle that I would expect, possibly a slight win for the infantry who had higher CS and were well protected against the main defending force, it is a complete massacre of the attackers and the defenders barely get a scratch.
I can't work out if this is due to:
- cavalry charge being massively overpowerful
- CS ratings being incorrect and/or misleading
- my understanding of how good a box formation is against cavalry being wrong
- some sort of bug
I'd post the battle report for you if I knew of a way to do so.
Anyone able to help me understand that?
-
Just to address one point:
I'm not a student of medieval or military history, but I believe that getting into a box against cavalry is really only effective if you've got pikes.
Our infantry are not assumed to have pikes. They are armed with short swords or other simple melee weapons, not polearms or other anti-cavalry weapons.
-
Don't know about medieval times specifically, but I'm sure more recently when people went fighting with muskets, they'd stick a bayonet on the end and then form into a box.
I wouldn't have thought that a gun with a knife on the end is an awful lot longer than a sword, it is? Presumably my troops aren't fighting with pocket daggers?
---
And the other question would then be - if box doesn't defend against cavalry, then what does? And if nothing does, then why does anyone recruit anything other than cavalry, other than if the recruitment centres have run out, given 4 of them with two-thirds of the CS can mow down and destroy 16 infantry without a single casualty? Where's their weakness?
-
And the other question would then be - if box doesn't defend against cavalry, then what does? And if nothing does, then why does anyone recruit anything other than cavalry, other than if the recruitment centres have run out, given 4 of them with two-thirds of the CS can mow down and destroy 16 infantry without a single casualty? Where's their weakness?
- Against walls, they are completely and utterly useless.
- They deal a lot of damage, but they also die fast.
- They're more expensive to recruit than infantry.
- Their centers are more expensive to build than infantry.
- A given noble can command a lot fewer cavalry than infantry.
- Did I mention they're useless against walls? 'Cause that's pretty darn important.
-
1) Why do the peasants seem to do so little damage for their CS? The Infantry had approx 3 times the CS, but were doing between 13 and 30 times as much damage. And it's not as if they were weak in attack but phenomenal in defence, for they died in similar numbers compared to the amount of damage taken.
Why especially did they do so badly, when the peasants were in the line formation which should allow them to do more damage than the infantry in their box formation.
Because the peasants have a low cohesion rating. They're fumbling around for their weapons, wondering if their cow is still in its pen, thinking about their wife/kids. They might have big weapons, but if they can't use them then they're going to do very little damage.
2) Conversely, why did the cavalry do so much damage for their CS? The Infantry had 70% more CS than the cavalry, and outnumbered them as well. Yet the infantry, in the first two rounds, only managed 169 hits in total. And the cavalry in their first attack managed 299 - nearly double the number.
Why especially did they do so well, when the infantry were in what must surely be the best possible formation for dealing with pure cavalry?
Because the horses managed to trample straight over your guys, scare them a little and wound them greatly in the process. The cavalry may also have just charged straight through the infantry and then fought them from back to front (less likely game-mechanic wise, but RP wise makes sense).
And I suppose almost a third one - given that the CS values were similar, I'd expect the battle to be close, but it wasn't. My assumption is either that the game is wrong/bugged, or that the infantry picked completely the wrong formation. So would there have been any formation the infantry could have used that would not have ended in their complete and one-sided destruction?
The formation was probably wrong. I'd have gone with a line there to make the most of your CS each round. Box is really for when you're outnumbered and just want to slow the enemy down, or if you're trying something a little risky strategy wise. Also, cohesion plays a very big factor in how a battle comes out - you may have the strength, but you need to know how to make the most of it too.
-
I believe it might be because you were in a box formation and attacking. So you hit softly on the peasants, had you been line or wedge, you probably would have broken them quickly before the cavalry arrived. Then of course you would have to face the Cavalry head to head crashing into each other, you would have taken loses but your chances of victory would have been greater. The peasants were basically there to absorb the infantry charge and stall the attacker so the cavalry could get into position. The cavalry used the peasants as fodder, it actually makes sense and was a tactic used in the middle ages.
Had you been defending, you probably would have been right on the money with your formation.
-
Because the peasants have a low cohesion rating.
That's true.
They're fumbling around for their weapons, wondering if their cow is still in its pen, thinking about their wife/kids. They might have big weapons, but if they can't use them then they're going to do very little damage.
But that's describing their training. Which is also low.
Because the horses managed to trample straight over your guys, scare them a little and wound them greatly in the process.
Yes; don't underestimate how scary it can be to have horses trample the guy next to you. Or how scary it can be to see half your unit killed in the space of five minutes.
The BattleMaster combat system does model morale reasonably well, IMO.
-
allegedly horses don't like to run into a solid shield wall either....
and allegedly, cavalry chuck their (broken?) lances as missile weapon too.
-
The reason the box formation was so good against cavalry is because horses simply won't run into a solid mass. I don't think it offered much of a tactical advantage other than the animal psychology.
-
The reason the box formation was so good against cavalry is because horses simply won't run into a solid mass. I don't think it offered much of a tactical advantage other than the animal psychology.
The 'horses don't like squares' thing? I think that's bullocks.
Firstly, the horses are especially trained to ignore fear - to a certain extent. Secondly, if the horses would be armoured, they would barely be able to look in front of them. Thirdly, even if the horse would be freightened, in a charge they are going to fast + their neighbours keep them alined.
Looking at how the battle unfolded, I think the mechanics are pretty realistic.
Yes, the peasants did do low damage. What did you expect? They're unarmored, and use flails and pitchforks at best. Armored infantrymen will easily cut down any number of them, as long as they're not to tired to swing their weapon (or they're not trapped by the mud as in Agincourt).
That the cavalry deals a lot of damage is perfectly understandable as well. Simply throwing dead horses with the same velocity into a crowd would kill a lot of people. On top of that, the infantrymen get cramped together, where the cavalerists can still attack from horseback - with more space to swing their weapons.
-
One thing that is important to realize, and something that I was confused about initially as well, is that when you put your men in box formation, it is not equivalent to a cavalry square.
The cavalry square as we know it was used to some degree by the Romans and by the early Chinese against Gobi nomadics but it really didn't come into popular use until Napoleonic style fighting with muskets and bayonets.
With that in mind the way I perceive line is 2 ranks of soldiers spread out in a line (maybe three ranks with a large unit)
In a box I imagine their to be several ranks, somewhat like a column, which keeps the men closer together, preventing the formation from breaking (reduced damage) but also limiting the offensive capabilities of the unit (reduced attack)
As someone else already stated, a traditional cavalry square without pikes is damn near useless. It's pretty well known that all you have to do break a cavalry square is charge through at least one point and then the whole square is decimated. A common strategy to do this was to fling horses and men at them until they collapsed upon a part of the square thus ruining it's integrity. A well led cavalry charge could break infantry squares that had muskets and bayonets, I doubt a square that only has swords and shields as weapons are going to fair very well at all.
-
Looking at how the battle unfolded, I think the mechanics are pretty realistic.
Yes, the peasants did do low damage. What did you expect? They're unarmored, and use flails and pitchforks at best. Armored infantrymen will easily cut down any number of them, as long as they're not to tired to swing their weapon (or they're not trapped by the mud as in Agincourt).
This explains why, you know, they have low CS? Cohesion, training, and morale are all accounted for in the CS calculations. So why are they less effective per CS than other troops, when CS is supposed to be a neutral measure of combat strength based on all these other factors?
-
This explains why, you know, they have low CS? Cohesion, training, and morale are all accounted for in the CS calculations. So why are they less effective per CS than other troops, when CS is supposed to be a neutral measure of combat strength based on all these other factors?
Good point. I'm curious for the answer, now.
Can it be that CS is a value to measure a unit out of it's context? The Bonus the cavalry has against infantry, the the bonus the infantry has against the peasants isn't calculated into CS.
-
Good point. I'm curious for the answer, now.
Can it be that CS is a value to measure a unit out of it's context? The Bonus the cavalry has against infantry, the the bonus the infantry has against the peasants isn't calculated into CS.
Cavalry don't have any bonuses against anyone as far as I understand the system, but rather a bonus to damage on turns where they have moved. And this is considered by a flat CS adjustment ratio, I believe, like with SF.
CS is a poor combat strength estimation though with extreme values, which is why cavalry need a special measure, and why daimons needed to have their CS increased a few times during the invasion (just to better represent their real strength). Maybe the peasants just need an adjustment factor too, to represent that they aren't as strong as the CS calculation code would believe them to be?
-
Good point. I'm curious for the answer, now.
Can it be that CS is a value to measure a unit out of it's context? The Bonus the cavalry has against infantry, the the bonus the infantry has against the peasants isn't calculated into CS.
I think CS calculations do not take into account the cavalry charge, and they don't take into account formation.
-
Hmm, some useful points...
Because the peasants have a low cohesion rating. They're fumbling around for their weapons, wondering if their cow is still in its pen, thinking about their wife/kids. They might have big weapons, but if they can't use them then they're going to do very little damage.
That's true. | But that's describing their training. Which is also low.
Yes, the peasants did do low damage. What did you expect? They're unarmored, and use flails and pitchforks at best.
Because the horses managed to trample straight over your guys, scare them a little and wound them greatly in the process.
That the cavalry deals a lot of damage is perfectly understandable as well. Simply throwing dead horses with the same velocity into a crowd would kill a lot of people. On top of that, the infantrymen get cramped together, where the cavalerists can still attack from horseback - with more space to swing their weapons.
Many very similar points, all saying that the peasants fought less well because they had low stats (be that cohesion, training, morale, whatever). Or the horses fought better because they're big and strong and horselike.
But as Chernier's just posted, that's all already taken into account (or should be) in calculating CS. That's why 23 men (peasants) have only 75CS, whereas just 16 men (army) have 219CS. You can't then go double-counting it, and saying that they should then fight even less well.
Similarly, if it really is the case that cavalry charge can pretty much break through any formation I throw at them, then their CS should be considerably higher. They have the ability to wipe two thirds of my unit out in one go, while I don't so much as wound one of them, yet they have a lower CS. This doesn't make sense.
As far as I can tell from my experience, the peasants should have been listed as having about 15CS. And the horses probably more like 350CS. That would more accurately have reflected the fact that even with a good formation, the peasants were useless (apart from as fodder), and the horses were really rather strong. Showing it as 375 CS vs 219 CS would probably have been a fairer reflection of the outcome.
1. Against walls, they are completely and utterly useless.
2. They deal a lot of damage, but they also die fast.
3. They're more expensive to recruit than infantry.
4. Their centers are more expensive to build than infantry.
5. A given noble can command a lot fewer cavalry than infantry.
6. Did I mention they're useless against walls? 'Cause that's pretty darn important.
1. Fair point, although most battles happen in the rural regions, I find.
2. These didn't die at all. They'd destroyed my troops so fast that they could barely fight back to case any damage anyway. And they do their massive charge before they get hit by infantry at all.
3. No, they're more expensive per person. But since 4 cavalry can decimate 16 infantry, they can be four times the price and still be better value.
4. OK, that's something at least, didn't know that.
5. Which doesn't matter because they do much more damage than infantry, so you don't need to command as many of them.
6. Yes, you did.
And I take it that the answer to "what formation helps infantry defend against cavalry" is "none - just run away or die"?
One thing that is important to realize, and something that I was confused about initially as well, is that when you put your men in box formation, it is not equivalent to a cavalry square.
As someone else already stated, a traditional cavalry square without pikes is damn near useless.
Oh!
Well then, that does start to explain things. I thought box was like a cavalry square - that is that you have men in a tight box shape, facing outwards on all sides with swords pointing out at each side. Then when a horse runs towards it, it just stops (like a refusal at the showjumping) and/or ends up in the face of the box, impaled on swords.
But I question them being useless without pikes. You mentioned their use in Napoleonic wars - I don't think they had pikes then, they just held their bayonets out on the end of their muskets, didn't they? After all, I'm sure it was (with difficulty) possible to keep the square intact while advancing or retreating, and you'd not have been able to move while in a square if you had pikes fixed in the ground - nor would soldiers have carried around both a gun and a pike.
The cavalry may also have just charged straight through the infantry and then fought them from back to front (less likely game-mechanic wise, but RP wise makes sense)
It didn't make any sense when I thought they were in a cavalry square. Because there's not really a 'back'.
But it does make sense when understood to be a column, not a square.
I'm not a student of medieval or military history, but I believe that getting into a box against cavalry is really only effective if you've got pikes.
Yet Anaris still seems to think, like me, that a box is a cavalry square, because you certainly wouldn't pair pikes with a column.
So it sounds as if the reason the box formation was so lousy is that it was (probably) really a column formation (all facing fowards) not a cavalry square formation (facing in all four directions) as I'd thought. But even so, there really wasn't any formation the infantry could have picked that would have made them more effective against horses, because a cavalry charge is unstoppable. And so the CS value for the horses is really too low because it ignores the damage of their charge. Then the CS for the peasants is too high because they massively underperform compared to their CS. And the infantry should only ever try to attack cavalry when they greatly outnumber them in CS terms, or when they're behind a wall.
You live and learn. :-\
-
Your problem was that your infantry could not soak the initial charge enough to do real damage to the cav. Cav does lots of damage on that first turn, your infantry will get smashed...And then the infantry cut the cavalry to pieces assuming they haven't been broken by the initial charge.
But, yes. In open field battles, cavalry are better than infantry. End of story. An equivalent CS of cavalry will almost always beat infantry in the field. Digging in will help a lot against cav, but not enough to even the odds.
Cavalry in a siege battle are overpriced pincushions more often than not, which balances it out, and explains why their CS equivalence seems off. You essentially have to average the extra usefulness in the field vs the lack of usefulness in sieges.
And, here's the other thing: You had no archers to soften that cav charge up. They die from archers just as easily as infantry, and each casualty hurts more. Infantry/Archers do better than pure infantry against cav, in my experience, but it's still not enough to off-set the field advantage.
-
Horses do afraid of squares. I am pretty sure that is how British beat French in one of the vital wars.
Wellington's infantry responded by forming squares (hollow box-formations four ranks deep). Squares were much smaller than usually depicted in paintings of the battle – a 500-man battalion square would have been no more than 60 feet (18 m) in length on a side. Vulnerable to artillery or infantry, squares that stood their ground were deadly to cavalry, because they could not be outflanked and because horses would not charge into a hedge of bayonets. Wellington ordered his artillery crews to take shelter within the squares as the cavalry approached, and to return to their guns and resume fire as they retreated.
-
But I question them being useless without pikes. You mentioned their use in Napoleonic wars - I don't think they had pikes then, they just held their bayonets out on the end of their muskets, didn't they? After all, I'm sure it was (with difficulty) possible to keep the square intact while advancing or retreating, and you'd not have been able to move while in a square if you had pikes fixed in the ground - nor would soldiers have carried around both a gun and a pike.
A quick review of napoleanic era cavalry squares:
The first rank fixed bayonets and knelt, pointing their bayonet outward at 45 degrees and stabilizing it on the ground or against their foot. The bayonets were used principally to prevent the horses getting to close (the stopping effect like at a showjump as you mentioned)
The second rank stands behind with rifles/ muskets at the ready and when the cavalry is within range, lets say 25/30 feet, they fire at the approaching cavalry.
What's meant to happen is that the musket fire decimates the cavalry's front line and causes so much blood and confusion from injured men and horses that it becomes impossible for them to make a proper charge at the square and thus they must swerve away, giving that face of the square time to reload for the next attack.
When things go wrong for the square is when the musket volley is insufficient in curbing the charge. Either firing too early, and not causing enough damage and allowing the charge to continue toward the square, or firing too late and allowing the horses to get to close, both have dire results.
If even one or two injured horses manage to get anywhere near the line, the ensuing panic amongst the infantry will almost always seal the fate of the entire square.
So in conclusion, a napoleonic square deters cavalry by a) making sure the cavalry can't outflank and b) keeping the cavalry at a safe distance from the square
Also, a moving square is almost certainly a dead square. You'd have to move while the cavalry were retreating and reform during the charge. An extremely well drilled group of soldiers could probably do it but, on the other hand, a well drilled group of cavalry would almost certainly be able to time their attack at the right time or locate a weakness along the moving square.
I'm not sure if Anaris really does think that the BM box formation refers to a cavalry square but regardless I stand by the idea that is doesnt
-
Cavalry in a siege battle are overpriced pincushions more often than not, which balances it out, and explains why their CS equivalence seems off. You essentially have to average the extra usefulness in the field vs the lack of usefulness in sieges.
I see what you mean, but I would argue that the CS should be determined based on their performance in the field (not least because that's where the vast majority of battles happen). Then, if you go against a wall, you can make note of the fact that cavalry won't do much for you. Taking some sort of average (which would have to assume a percentage of how many battles you had against walls compared to not against walls), is a bit dodgy I think.
I think if the CS was a bit higher for cavalry, to take into account their charge, then the infantry would be expected to lose, as they did. And an infantry of matching higher CS value would be able to withstand enough of the charge to fight back afterwards and make a battle of it.
It's a good point about archers as well, of course. But I bet archers die even quicker when hit by the charge when it arrives ;)
Would still be interesting if anyone does know what formations are good for cavalry to use (or is it just, boringly, always use Wedge and Rearguard?). And would be interesting if anyone does know what formations are good against them (clearly not Box!) if indeed there is any formation that is effective against cavalry as it sounds to me as if cavalry just stampede over any formation thrown at them.
-
Problem is it depends on the island and war. For instance, one of the (many) reasons why Arcaea on the FEI doesn't use a lot of cav is that in almost every war we've fought in the last three years, fortification battles have been at least as prevalent as field battles, just because of the sheer number of fortifications on the Far East and because the wars tended to swing from "OMG frantically defend Talex!" to "Bwahaha, now we just need to crack Nahad/Taop/Azros/Hatdhes/Nahad/Soniel/Enlod/Nahad".
Now, that's not to say that I disagree with the concept of making CS make more sense, because I do like it, I'm just not sure it's worth the time-investment.
And yes, archers die even faster when the cav charge hits...Unless the infantry move up to soak the damage first. That's why you have your archers in front, and your infantry in the middle (assuming the cav is doing the usual back/rear position).
Everyone uses Wedge for cav because it increases melee damage, which, given how charge works, is a multiplicative effect and thus well-worth the offset. I have seen cav used with other formations, but never well.
What line you set up on is dependent on 1. when your infantry will impact the enemy and 2. when you want your cav to hit with regards to your infantry.
Most people have their infantry in either the front or middle, and want their cav to hit at the same time as the infantry to crack the opposing melee line, so cav is either in back or rear. But if, for instance, you know the enemy is using archer opening, and you want your cavalry to butcher their archers before your infantry arrives, you might set them on front to get to them before the infantry can stop you from hitting them at all. Or, if you outnumber the enemy melee by a lot and want to avoid overcrowding penalties, you have your cav hit the turn before the infantry, or perhaps the turn after hoping the line has cracked and you can charge through to the archers.
-
I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that we have only a single battle to draw conclusions from.
For example, it would be fair to make these statements:
if the peasants had fought archers, they might have actually killed someone
if the infantry had used skirmish formation, the peasants might have killed someone
if the attacker had used a different formation, or had archers or more infantry or another unit with them, the cavalry would have taken more casualties.
-
I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that we have only a single battle to draw conclusions from.
For example, it would be fair to make these statements:
if the peasants had fought archers, they might have actually killed someone
if the infantry had used skirmish formation, the peasants might have killed someone
if the attacker had used a different formation, or had archers or more infantry or another unit with them, the cavalry would have taken more casualties.
It must also be considered that there is an important random factor, and that the peasants might have been "low-rollers" for that battle while the infantry were "high-rolling" (comparing to dice-based games). This could have skewed the hit/cs comparison significantly with such small units.
-
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?
-
why is napoleanic even relevant? ain't no guns at all in this era.
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.
-
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.
Because battletactics have always been the same?
-
Because battletactics have always been the same?
Well, there I have no idea really - I'm not a historian :(
I'm interested to know, then, what medieval armies did do against cavalry if they met them in the field. Did they just die horribly? Did they have no defence tactic?
If so, why weren't armies of horses conquering the world back then?
-
I'm interested to know, then, what medieval armies did do against cavalry if they met them in the field. Did they just die horribly? Did they have no defence tactic?
If so, why weren't armies of horses conquering the world back then?
Well, a wall of spears was most effective. Most of the times one side would also be able to have a "fixed position", meaning that they would have wooden spikes lodged into the ground (e.g. in front of their archers) to defend them against charging cavalry. In any case, cavalry is considered to be worth 10 times a footsoldier in medieval terms, so whatever the defence... they were still pretty heavy. Compare them to a modern-day tank, if you wish. They were fully armoured (including their horses), heavily armed and very capable of wielding their weapon with great skill. Regular infantry would exist out of more unexperienced armed farmers (~peasants) and would have great trouble fighting against cavalry in any case, even if they did have spears.
Also, armies of horses did conquer massive amounts of the world. All these Asian hordes...
-
Well, there I have no idea really - I'm not a historian :(
I'm interested to know, then, what medieval armies did do against cavalry if they met them in the field. Did they just die horribly? Did they have no defence tactic?
If so, why weren't armies of horses conquering the world back then?
Archers.
Large masses of archers were effective at stopping them. But until people learned that, cavalry was enormously effective at "conquering the world"
-
If so, why weren't armies of horses conquering the world back then?
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
... why do you need spears if horses won't run into a solid wall of shields?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Am I the only one puzzled on how to form a box with only three men? :P
-
Triangle formation!
-
Triangle formation!
I think they call that a wedge. ;)
-
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???
-
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.
-
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.
-
But I question them being useless without pikes. You mentioned their use in Napoleonic wars - I don't think they had pikes then, they just held their bayonets out on the end of their muskets, didn't they? After all, I'm sure it was (with difficulty) possible to keep the square intact while advancing or retreating, and you'd not have been able to move while in a square if you had pikes fixed in the ground - nor would soldiers have carried around both a gun and a pike
My knowledge of military history is a bit rusty, or perhaps just mostly non-existant. But from what I understand, by the time muskets and such became popular enough that entire armies were being equipped with them, mounted cavalry really didn't have the massive metal barding that is traditionally associated with mounted/armored knights. So the cavalry of that age mostly rode unarmored horses. And when you take a six foot long musket and stick a two foot blade on the end, you get a really nasty spear. Wedge the butt end in the ground, along with a few hundred of your buddies close packed on either side, and you get a really nice cavalry-shredding machine.
Book4 of David Weber's Safehold series has a very good description of cavalry regiments charging a rifle-armed infantry formation. Not sure how historically accurate it is. And mostly useless as far as BattleMaster is concerned, since we don't have rifle/muskets. But still, very interesting.
-
Are there any plans to introduce different weapon types into BM, like spears? I imagine there'd be the problem then that cavalry in real life would simply avoid a unit bristling with spears or pikes, whereas in BM they have no choice but to charge directly onto it.
-
Not at this time.
-
I would point that it's really irrelevant that BM soldiers didn't have bayonetted muskets. The lancing technology was pretty well developed by that point. Swords were a rich soldier's equipment; a lance (when not a pointy stick) was still the weapon of choice for peasant armies and simple militias.
-
I would point that it's really irrelevant that BM soldiers didn't have bayonetted muskets. The lancing technology was pretty well developed by that point. Swords were a rich soldier's equipment; a lance (when not a pointy stick) was still the weapon of choice for peasant armies and simple militias.
We *do* pay a lot of gold for our troops. I suspect they have better than sharpened sticks.
-
Edit:
I would point that it's really irrelevant that BM soldiers didn't have bayonetted muskets. The lancing technology was pretty well developed by that point. Swords were a rich soldier's equipment; a lance (when not a pointy stick) was still the weapon of choice for peasant armies and simple militias.
Using only spears, a cavalry square is almost worthless. What i think isn't being understood here is that the point of the square is so that the infantry can fire in all directions without being outflanked. A cavalry charge's worst enemy is a well timed volley. The musket is key. It keeps the cavalry from reaching the square. As soon as a horse comes close to the square, everyone's !@#$ed.
Think about it like this. You are an infantryman with a spear and you are a part of a cavalry square that is currently being attacked by a cavalry group. Let's assume that the numbers are not equal, 100 infantry v 50 cavalry and let's also assume that since you only have spears, the technology of the age implies that cavalry is in fact armoured (lets also assume that the cavalry is not equipped with lances which, while common during the age, would outrange the spears and !@#$ up the square, and this scenario) .
So you and your comrades are all set up with spears prickling outward and whatnot, 25 men per side lets assume. So the 50 man cavalry group is coming at you, they're just trotting now since they're 100 yards away but as they get closer, damn close, they break into a gallop and now you have a colomn of fifty galloping horses charging down on your side of the square. Lets assume you, nor your fellow infantrymen break down in fear, you just hold on to your 7 foot spear and brace.
So as the horses approach, some of the ones in the front are like "whoa this is a bad idea" and they try and stall or veer off. But! because of their tight formation, battle training, heavy armour etc, they stay on path and CRASH hit the square like a runaway train. Sure the first rank of the cavalry is filleted on a spear but those same horses have fallen kicking and dying upon the infantrymen which completely ruins the integrity of the square.
In the chaos all the rest of the infantrymen on other faces of the square are likewise slaughtered.
So, in conclusion, in the medieval ages squares were not used to protect against cavalry. The cavalry square came into popular usage during the napoleonic period and was made effective by the advent of muskets.
Medieval tactics used against cavalry were mostly, don't fight on open terrain. Simple as that. Find a hill, find a marsh, find a forest. BAM, no more cavalry problem.
If you have to face them in the field, a phalanx with polearms was used. But generally this only worked with large numbers and support divisions to ensure the cavalry didnt flank.
In BM cavalry is pretty easy to fool. Set up a meatshield unit in front, and then have a second wave hit as soon as the cavalry loses their charge bonus against the first wave meatshield. Or peace out and fight them in a townsland with a wall in front of you. Horses only have clumsy hooves that can't climb delicate siege ladders.
This is battlemaster. the tactics are not that complex to begin with. if you want a straight forward game where everything gets beaten by something, play rock paper scissors.
Also, if cavalry got !@#$ed up everytime some commander set his unit to box, what would be the point in investing hundreds into a proper cavalry troupe.. Sorry this is turning into a rant.
-
...let's also assume that since you only have spears, the technology of the age implies that cavalry is in fact armoured...
How about we don't? Since you chose to quote my post, it's pretty unfair of you to disregard the conditions I stated, and then proceed to tear the now-unsupportable scenario to shreds. I specifically stated that when massed musket/bayonets were used as spears, cavalry were not armored.
-
wooops that was my bad. quoted wrong thing. Its fixed now.
-
you would think the point of box is that they can only charge and knock down the 1st couple of ranks. as opposed to charge clean through a line.
-
This is battlemaster. the tactics are not that complex to begin with. if you want a straight forward game where everything gets beaten by something, play rock paper scissors.
I don't want a straight-forward game where everything gets beaten by something, but I do want a game that makes sense, that I understand, and gives some level of variety.
Thanks for your useful explanation, it's made the situation make a lot more sense to me, which helps me with that. Sadly I don't own any books about medieval warfare, so the majority of the historical-war-based ones I've read are set after 1700 - which is not always a lot of help for Battlemaster! ;)
So from what I can tell, the ways to defeat cavalry, and stop them being the massive force they otherwise are, are:
- fight them when you have walls
- make use of the battlemaster rows to force them to waste their charge on a small line of troops
The only thing I'm still not sure about is whether there is any formation I can use to help my infantry or archers perform better or worse against cavalry (either in attack or defence). Most of the talk so far has been about defending by using mutliple units in particular waves etc, rather than talking about the formations. Am I right in thinking that:
- Cavalry pretty much always benefit from being in a wedge
- Defending against cavalry it doesn't really matter what formation you use because you're going to die unless you can hide behind a wall or someone else's troops.
-
Actually the first waves would profit from Box formation, and the last waves from Line or even Wedge.
-
Actually the first waves would profit from Box formation, and the last waves from Line or even Wedge.
Nah, send a small infantry in wedge formation ahead of everyone.
-
Why wedge? In box it could /attempt/ to survive, at least, soaking up the damage.
-
Why wedge? In box it could /attempt/ to survive, at least, soaking up the damage.
Because wedge causes higher melee damage and lower melee defense. Since that unit is meant to die anyways, it may as well maximize damage against the cavalry unit that has lower defensives values.
-
True, that makes sense.
-
The key, however, is making sure you got the rest of your melee right behind those that charge the cavalry.
And to keep in mind that a single unit will no longer intercept 500 horses as it once did.
-
Do note that the old tactic of sending a single suicide unit in front will not work anymore. The battle code was made more sophisticated, and after a certain amount of overkill the units will just bypass and charge the rest of your troops. Now, you can still, say, get half a dozen large high-armour low-weapon units to soak up the damage in front of your high-weapon low-armour infantry...But you have to have somewhere near the number of men as the cavalry you want to stop.