Box / Line / Wedge / Skirmish

[psymann]

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? 

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?

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?

[Anaris]

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.

[psymann]

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?

[Anaris]

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.

[Nathan]

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.

[Jim]

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.

[Anaris]

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.

[fodder]

allegedly horses don't like to run into a solid shield wall either....

and allegedly, cavalry chuck their (broken?) lances as missile weapon too.

[Norrel]

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.

[Shizzle]

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.

[vanKaya]

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.

[Chenier]

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?

[Shizzle]

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.

[Chenier]

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?

[egamma]

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.