Are cavalry charges lame in your opinion?

Currently viewing this thread:

hruza

Knight at Arms
He didn't say his infantry were butchered by archers, he was comparing the killing speed of cav vs. archers (a few and very slowly) to infantry vs. infantry (high speed bloodbath).

I misunderstood him then.
Yes, infantry can kill faster because cavalry does not stay in melee. Which is as a good thing in my opinion. But then infantry also dies faster so I don't necessarily see that as a problem.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
So, if cavalry did not charge directly and just simulated many times and turn back, while archers supposedly were able to decimate cavalry according to some people... How is possible that cavalry were so much effective during medieval time? Was it all about undisciplined infantry and people being brainless and do not being able to think about getting tons of archers to punish these horsemen simulating charges and turning back at last moment?

Seriously, there are too much information about medieval battles which make no sense at all. People were not brain death for sure, and while it is probably true that horsemen were not able to directly charge disciplined infantry most of the time, it is also true that disciplined infantry were really rare at that time, and archers were not able to kill armored enemies in seconds.
It's a lost cause to appeal to common sense my dude. Because even me giving actual proof of cavalry charging directly was not enough to convince Hruza, he just keeps repeating the same party line he's been obsessively repeating for, literally, 6 years. If proof won't convince him, common sense definitely won't either.
It is silly to continue arguing about historical information, this is a game with some restrictions to represent real battles and all we should care is about all units being viable and useful in a similar level, which is not the case currently. Right now, spamming elite archers is like playing the game on ultra easy difficulty settings, while using elite infantry is like playing on normal, and using cavalry armies is like playing on hard.
Adherence to history shouldn't take precedence over fun, that is entirely true. I am just trying to make the point that the fun way is also fairly historical.

And yep, melee cavalry are high effort for low reward compared to the other options right now.

By release, melee cavalry should fulfil the battlefield roles of outright slaughtering any infantry who do not have braced long pikes or a shieldwall, flanking distracted formations quickly, and inflicting morale damage through frontal charges. On average, they should go even in a fight with shieldwall infantry, ranged infantry, or ranged cavalry of the same tier and quantity. Weaknesses should be braced long pikes, tricky terrain, and losing some effectiveness in sieges.

With all of these roles, cavalry will be worth their higher cost, will be balanced relative to other options, will be fun, and will represent their real historical role well.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
It's a lost cause to appeal to common sense my dude. Because even me giving actual proof of cavalry charging directly was not enough to convince Hruza, he just keeps repeating the same party line he's been obsessively repeating for, literally, 6 years. If proof won't convince him, common sense definitely won't either.

Adherence to history shouldn't take precedence over fun, that is entirely true. I am just trying to make the point that the fun way is also fairly historical.

And yep, melee cavalry are high effort for low reward compared to the other options right now.

By release, melee cavalry should fulfil the battlefield roles of outright slaughtering any infantry who do not have braced long pikes or a shieldwall, flanking distracted formations quickly, and inflicting morale damage through frontal charges. On average, they should go even in a fight with shieldwall infantry, ranged infantry, or ranged cavalry of the same tier and quantity. Weaknesses should be braced long pikes, tricky terrain, and losing some effectiveness in sieges.

With all of these roles, cavalry will be worth their higher cost, will be balanced relative to other options, will be fun, and will represent their real historical role well.

In my view, there is not sense to try to convince @hruza about how effective cavalry was, because he is going to name the few battles were cavalry lost against infantry/archers, or try to find excuses to make cavalry looks weaker than it really was.

The problem is that we can find information on Internet arguing about anything, so it is impossible to actually know who is right and what actually happened in that time. I have also read some few articles saying that heavy armor was not really so much effective... Probably just because heavy armor was not effective in Agincourt.

It is silly to think that people would waste huge amount of money, and make use of some strategies which were not effective during hundreds of years.

Anyway, cavalry and heavy armor being pretty decisive in medieval battlefields is a fact, and I would like to see this being represented in a medieval game. Sure, cavalry was defeated some times and it was not invencible, but I would to see cavalry being at least as good and as viable as other units in the game.

Related to “archers and infantry were able to defeat cavalry if used properly”, same could be said about “cavalry was able to defeat combined arms of used properly”, because there are battles were cavalry was able to defeat Swiss infantry + Crossbowmen/Guns.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
It is silly to think that people would waste huge amount of money, and make use of some strategies which were not effective during hundreds of years.

The same argument can be said about archers and infantry. People wouldn't waste money on them if they were not effective.

You are completely missing the point. Cavalry was perfectly effective in it's role, just as infantry and archers were perfectly effective in their roles. Point is, they were good and effective in different roles.

Role of frontally attacking formed and disciplined infantry wasn't one cavalry was effective at.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
It doesn't matter how formed or disciplined your infantry are if they have no shieldwall or braced long pikes to protect them from becoming a shishkebab on the end of a lance.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
The same argument can be said about archers and infantry. People wouldn't waste money on them if they were not effective.

You are completely missing the point. Cavalry was perfectly effective in it's role, just as infantry and archers were perfectly effective in their roles. Point is, they were good and effective in different roles.

Role of frontally attacking formed and disciplined infantry wasn't one cavalry was effective at.

Heavy cavalry’s role was about performing (or simulating or whatever) frontal charges against everything. It was not just about flanking where light cavalry was more effective due to mobility. Heavy Cavalry was about frontal charge and it fulfilled its role pretty good, otherwise nobody would have invested a huge amount of money on it, when it was much easier and cheaper to get infantrymen.

I think you are the one missing the point here. People is complaining a lot about cavalry feels weak and not useful in this game, and really do not care much about the reasons because heavy cavalry was effective in real battles. Is TW able to simulate why heavy cavalry was so much effective? The answer is no, but this should not mean that heavy cavalry should be weak in the game and relied to a niche role in the game.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Heavy cavalry’s role was about performing (or simulating or whatever) frontal charges against everything.

No.

It was not just about flanking where light cavalry was more effective due to mobility.

Is that why heavy cavalry was often placed on the flanks?

Heavy Cavalry was about frontal charge and it fulfilled its role pretty good, otherwise nobody would have invested a huge amount of money on it, when it was much easier and cheaper to get infantrymen.

Or it wasn't about frontal charges and it was about using mobility to probe for and strike at the weak points of the enemy.

I think you are the one missing the point here. People is complaining a lot about cavalry feels weak and not useful in this game, and really do not care much about the reasons because heavy cavalry was effective in real battles.

People who complain are usually people who order their cavalry to attack heavy infantry frontally and expect it to ragdoll it Total War stile sending Sturgian warriors flying in to the air. I have already said that Total War is not a good place to learn how to use cavalry.

Is TW able to simulate why heavy cavalry was so much effective? The answer is no, but this should not mean that heavy cavalry should be weak in the game and relied to a niche role in the game.

Again, every troop type was effective in some roles and ineffective in others. Frontal charges against formed disciplined heavy infantry is not what cavalry was effective at.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Not overwhelmingly effective, but they could do it and win.

Yes, they could and they did. Warfare is complex matter where many things factor. Weak armies can win against stronger armies for example. But I doubt you would find somebody arguing that smaller army is better then larger one.


At Hastings cavalry charges against Anglo-Saxon shieldwall have completely failed. It's a good example of how ineffective frontal cavalry charge against disciplined and formed infantry are.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
No.



Is that why heavy cavalry was often placed on the flanks?



Or it wasn't about frontal charges and it was about using mobility to probe for and strike at the weak points of the enemy.



People who complain are usually people who order their cavalry to attack heavy infantry frontally and expect it to ragdoll it Total War stile sending Sturgian warriors flying in to the air. I have already said that Total War is not a good place to learn how to use cavalry.



Again, every troop type was effective in some roles and ineffective in others. Frontal charges against formed disciplined heavy infantry is not what cavalry was effective at.

I am not going to start another historical and not much useful debate here, there is evidence of heavy cavalry performing frontal charges in a lot of battles, but it really has not much to do with if cavalry should be improved or not in Bannerlord...

Medieval battles were pretty much decided for soldiers’ morale. Armies being defeated and fleeing after just lose 10-20% of their men (or even less) was something common, but it is not easy nor enjoyable to represent it a video game. People would hate if their armies would flee after losing just a small portion of their men.

Heavy Cavalry was great for reducing enemy soldiers’ morale, probably one of the best units fulfilling that role, but it is not possible to represent it in the game, so it is pretty common to see this huge morale damage being translated as killing power in plenty of games.

I am one of these people finding heavy cavalry useless in this game, and I have tried tons of ways to make it work, but I always have the feeling that I am just making the game harder for myself because ignoring cavalry is always a better option. I have asked you plenty of times to show us how good cavalry is in your hands, but you have always refused to show us anything... I would be glad to share with you a save game, and we both could play the same battle using different army composition to show our point, but I am pretty sure that you are going to refuse it again...
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
By the way, just check this video I have got in my current "testing cav" playthrough:


This video perfectly shows why I find cavalry to be a garbage in this game. Cavalry charges are so extremely weak and check how these cav units were able to just kill two guys in the charge. Seriously, how could be this ok for you? (they got other two kills after the charge, when two cav entities stayed in melee, but just 2 looters were killed in that charge).

Sure, Cavalry charges against braced and disciplined infantry should not be great, but the current cavalry charges are simply too mediocre against everything.

And it is not about cavalry having bad stats, it is about the cav AI having big issues at selecting targets when performing a group charge. It is as if all agents would try to select the same 2 guys as target, and ignore the other ones.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Just another example, 39 cav units against 60 looters... You could expect these horsemen killing at least 10-15 enemies on charge, but they just killed 6 looters. This is exactly what I get in most of battles... Even if I manage to flank the enemy and rear charge archers, my useless cavalry is just able to kill 3-6 guys as much while my infantry is getting massacred because it is outnumbered (my infantry is outnumbered because I have useless cavalry instead of getting more infantrymen).


@hruza seriously, if you really care about this game, stop arguing against TW fixing cavalry which is currently not viable, at least not as viable as other units. Maybe some people here want OP Swadian Knights coming back, but it is for sure not my case. I just want that cavalry to get fixed because it is simply not good at all currently.
 
Last edited:
the problem of cavalry in this game has a lot to do with it's low amount of charge damage. using a pureblood (35 charge damage compared to 12 of regular warhorses) you can at best hit a looter at full speed with max riding skill and maim him, not 1 shot, just do about 60-80 damage.

compare that to real life physics. when fully strapped 200lb athletes with padding and helmets build to absorb impact, get hit by 300lb/150kg linebackers in a football match, and end up in the hospital with a spine fracture or concussion. imagine what a horse that's 5 times the weight and 3 times the speed can do to a man... btw, the 300 lb linebacker took a hit, of course, but didn't get hurt cause he's bigger and pushed you back, you didn't push him back.

but in bannerlord, a regular horsemen riding into a regular infantry, it's 10 damage. if you are lucky and actually manage to hit them square. but that usually means you miss your attack that could have done 50-100 damage.

for this, i introduce you all. the Drastic Battle Mod https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/2188 which introduces to the game:
- higher charge damage (friendly charge toggle, spear rear horse toggle)
- weapon type to armor type to body part interaction (example, realistically an arrow headshot should do little damage due to the skull but can kill you if it his the neck or heart/lungs, a cut to the abdomen would cause organ damage, but the same cut to the head or chest would be blocked by the skull/ribcage )
- higher armor absorption so tougher units last longer (in terms of % and depreciating, so it does not make weaker weapons useless like realistic battle mod)
- bleed factors (damage over time after initial hit) and health regen (minor hp regen over time to offset bleeding, or per kill like a second wind berserker trait)
and many many more, all customizable

personally i've used the realistic battle mod and disliked many of it's settings, whereas this drastic battle mod does everything well imo.
 
Last edited:

Ningauble

Veteran
Re the above discussion on historical cavalry charges, I highly recommend John Keegan's classic " The Face of Battle ", where he forensically examines Agincourt, and Waterloo, including cavalry charges, as case studies re what can be understood of the military realities of the time etc.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Re the above discussion on historical cavalry charges, I highly recommend John Keegan's classic " The Face of Battle ", where he forensically examines Agincourt, and Waterloo, including cavalry charges, as case studies re what can be understood of the military realities of the time etc.
It has been brought up before; almost no one cares. They want the visual spectacle of horses crashing into troops and sending men flying.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
It has been brought up before; almost no one cares. They want the visual spectacle of horses crashing into troops and sending men flying.
Totally disagree with this commentary... It is not about a visual spectacle, it is about a unit being useful or not. TW has stated that it is not possible to represent in game while cavalry was so powerful in medieval battles, and this is the reason because cavalry’s ability to inflict morale damage, gets translated in killing power in almost every video game. Plus I am pretty sure that 40 knights charging to 60 disorganized and ligh armored infantry guys, would end with these 60 guys getting massacred in seconds in real life.

Please stop the silly historical debate when it has been already stated by devs that it is not possible to represent the cavalry strength, except if you want to see all your non elite units fleeing of the battle when heavy cavalry units come close to them, or all your army running away after being flanked.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Please stop the silly historical debate when it has been already stated by devs that it is not possible to represent the cavalry strength, except if you want to see all your non elite units fleeing of the battle when heavy cavalry units come close to them, or all your army running away after being flanked.
I was talking about Keegan's Face of Battle. It has been brought up before on this forum and no one cares much about being historical; they'll just use Wikipedia for sourcing. I think the historical debate is pointless as well; only a few people want it and most people would be perfectly fine if cav just have ten times as much charge damage.

TW has given zero indication they care about unit balancing, beyond aesthetics.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
Yes, they could and they did. Warfare is complex matter where many things factor. Weak armies can win against stronger armies for example. But I doubt you would find somebody arguing that smaller army is better then larger one.
That's a false equivalence.
At Hastings cavalry charges against Anglo-Saxon shieldwall have completely failed.

I am one of these people finding heavy cavalry useless in this game, and I have tried tons of ways to make it work, but I always have the feeling that I am just making the game harder for myself because ignoring cavalry is always a better option. I have asked you plenty of times to show us how good cavalry is in your hands, but you have always refused to show us anything...
Yep, Hruza is good at doing that. He makes a claim, you respond, he can't respond to your response, so he just ignores it and repeats the same claim again later. Rinse and repeat.
Re: that link, Machiavelli's quote has already been discussed to death here, and the paraphrase of Keegan says "often failed", not "never succeeded". What I keep trying to get into people's heads is that you need the right equipment to stop a cavalry charge, and since polearms of mid-long length are the best defense against a cavalry charge and also were one of the most common weapons given to infantry throughout history, that skews the overall success rate of cavalry charges vs. infantry.
They want the visual spectacle of horses crashing into troops and sending men flying.
Depends what you mean by "flying". Nobody here is asking for Team Rocket-style catapulting into the stratosphere. A 500kg horse being able to knock someone back a few feet when they bump into them from a canter is entirely realistic, though.


Bannerlord's horses having slightly more impact and retaining slightly more momentum would be fun and wouldn't be unrealistic either.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Re: that link, Machiavelli's quote has already been discussed to death here, and the paraphrase of Keegan says "often failed", not "never succeeded". What I keep trying to get into people's heads is that you need the right equipment to stop a cavalry charge, and since polearms of mid-long length are the best defense against a cavalry charge and also were one of the most common weapons given to infantry throughout history, that skews the overall success rate of cavalry charges vs. infantry.
I'm not debating history in this thread, unless you count BL forum history. It is pointless: BL is a game and not a very realistic one. TW doesn't care about history that much, outside of a few aesthetics. The players don't care that much, outside of a few aesthetics.

The only thing that matters is player satisfaction and since the mods that crank charge damage high got lots of downloads, it is clear that is what the playerbase wants.
Depends what you mean by "flying". Nobody here is asking for Team Rocket-style catapulting into the stratosphere. A 500kg horse being able to knock someone back a few feet when they bump into them from a canter is entirely realistic, though.
Maybe not in this thread, but it has been popular.
 

Nalgasucia507

Sergeant at Arms
I'm not debating history in this thread, unless you count BL forum history. It is pointless: BL is a game and not a very realistic one. TW doesn't care about history that much, outside of a few aesthetics. The players don't care that much, outside of a few aesthetics.

The only thing that matters is player satisfaction and since the mods that crank charge damage high got lots of downloads, it is clear that is what the playerbase wants.

Maybe not in this thread, but it has been popular.
+1
 
Top Bottom