Are cavalry charges lame in your opinion?

Currently viewing this thread:

five bucks

Sergeant
I'm not debating history in this thread, unless you count BL forum history.
That's all well and good. I was simply replying to what you linked because it seemed like you were bringing it up as new information (in the context of this thread).
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
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...

Yes, and no one argued that cavalry did not perform frontal charges. The same evidence also shows that those performed against formed and disciplined infantry were rarely successful.

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.

You don't know, given no one ever tried it in the video game.

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).

And how many looters did that charge damaged? If you want cavalry one shoot everything in a game where lowly bandit takes four axe strikes to the head to go down, then I respectfully disagree.

You have defeated that force of looters in just two charges. I don't know what more you want your cavalry to do. Shoot laser rays?

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).

And again, how many looters were damaged in that one charge you have shown? Against zero casualties among your cavalry. Again, if you want 20-30 knights to down 60 looters in one charge then I disagree.

I don't want return to Warband's Swadian knights spam where you can play bowling with Rhodock sergeants and Nords huscarls while riding your horse.



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.

From your own link:

The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left.
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Yes, and no one argued that cavalry did not perform frontal charges. The same evidence also shows that those performed against formed and disciplined infantry were rarely successful.



You don't know, given no one ever tried it in the video game.



And how many looters did that charge damaged? If you want cavalry one shoot everything in a game where lowly bandit takes four axe strikes to the head to go down, then I respectfully disagree.

You have defeated that force of looters in just two charges. I don't know what more you want your cavalry to do. Shoot laser rays?



And again, how many looters were damaged in that one charge you have shown? Against zero casualties among your cavalry. Again, if you want 20-30 knights to down 60 looters in one charge then I disagree.

I don't want return to Warband's Swadian knights spam where you can play bowling with Rhodock sergeants and Nords huscarls while riding your horse.



From your own link:

The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left.

If you are still thinking that cavalry is ok after seeing the videos I have posted, for me it is pretty clear you simply want cavalry to remain underpowered for some weird reason, or you simply do not understand what I have already explained about why cavalry being really slow at killing enemies (while other units are able to kill insanely fast) is what make it useless.

Again, I invite you to play the same battle with different army compositions in order to show you how cavalry is far away of archers performance, and also behind infantry (plus more expensive and harder to replace after losses). You are going to refuse as always because you probably perfectly know that cavalry is UP and you probably like that, but I am going to continue making you this offer until you accept or stop posting nonsenses.

Anyway, I am going to stop arguing with you. You are a known cavalry hater in the video games community, and luckily Total War devs didn’t hear you when you were asking for making cavalry useless in total war games, and hopefully Bannerlord devs are going to ignore you also here.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
If you are still thinking that cavalry is ok after seeing the videos I have posted, for me it is pretty clear you simply want cavalry to remain underpowered for some weird reason, or you simply do not understand what I have already explained about why cavalry being really slow at killing enemies (while other units are able to kill insanely fast) is what make it useless.
And I have already told you that cavalry is slower at killing because it does not stay in melee, as it should not, because cavalry should always keep moving. At the same time cavalry is slower in getting killed, for the exact same reason. Therefore I see no problem there.
 
cavalry requires tactics. not a simple f1 f3. if you do that only, they are going to be useless. just like in real life.

truth is cavalry has always been effective since the macedonian days with 8-16 men deep phalanx squares and 5 meter spears that could brace into the ground. all the way till napoleon times. when the typical infantry had a musket that can blow holes on 1400 plate armor supported by cannons that can kill everything in a 5m radius..

you know the primary reason cavalry didn't do frontal charges into infantry formations? because that's what infantry did. your infantry met theirs in the melee from the front. which leaves no room for your cavalry to come in, unless you wanna tremple your own men first. so they have to come from the side or behind. that's as simple as that.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
And I have already told you that cavalry is slower at killing because it does not stay in melee, as it should not, because cavalry should always keep moving. At the same time cavalry is slower in getting killed, for the exact same reason. Therefore I see no problem there.

- Infantry vs infantry engagements last for seconds in this game, which is totally unrealistic.
- Archers are able to decimate enemies in this game in seconds, which is also totally unrealistic.
- But hey! Cavalry should be represented as much “historical” as possible, and 40 knights should kill only 6 dudes as much every time they charge against nude bandits xD...

Cavalry is slower at killing because cavalry charges are simply not effective at all. It does not matter if you charge against light armored units in spread formation, or if you manage to rear charge someone, cavalry charge are not effective at all in any circumstances. This is the main reason because cavalry is much slower at killing and because cavalry is not effective in this game.

You have been arguing about cavalry charges should not be effective against disciplined infantry in tight formation, which could be reasonable, but then I have shown cavalry charges being exactly the same (mediocre) when fighting light armored bandits without any formation, and you say that it is also ok... Even when it is pretty evident that there is an AI issue because when in formation, most of cavalry agent try to target the same enemies instead of charge the one they have directly in front (all agents make a blob in the center in the last moment).

I am still waiting for any kind of proof from you which could show how viable the cavalry is (according to you), aside from just posting the same Machiavelli’s book which have not anything to do with how cavalry should work in a video game, where all other kind of units are able to kill in seconds. Again, let’s test the same battle with different army composition, it is something easy to do. Just pick a battle you want and share the save game with me.
 
Last edited:
Cavalry is slower at killing because cavalry charges are simply not effective at all. It does not matter if you charge against light armored units in spread formation, or if you manage to rear charge someone, cavalry charge are not effective at all in any circumstances. This is the main reason because cavalry is much slower at killing and because cavalry is not effective in this game.
like i replied earlier, cavalry requires tactics. not a simple f1 f3. if you do that only, they are going to be useless. just like in real life.

i wrote a long post earlier detailing what you can do and how to make cavalry more effective. what not to do to waste their potential

also suggested a mod option to significantly improve the situation. as far as i'm concerned. the devs won't do anything. and that's your only actual solution.

but lets continue arguing semantics with irrational idiots online lol
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
like i replied earlier, cavalry requires tactics. not a simple f1 f3. if you do that only, they are going to be useless. just like in real life.

i wrote a long post earlier detailing what you can do and how to make cavalry more effective. what not to do to waste their potential

also suggested a mod option to significantly improve the situation. as far as i'm concerned. the devs won't do anything. and that's your only actual solution.

but lets continue arguing semantics with irrational idiots online lol

As I have mentioned many times, I have tried to flank enemies, rear charges, etc, with pretty similar results (the difference between rear or frontal charges in this game is almost unnoticeable). Instead of continue writing silly arguments like F1+F3 or swadian knights coming back, just show a video how you use your cavalry units. All we have to do is to play the same battle, and you can use your “advanced cavalry tactics”, while I will just sit with my archers and get much better results than you.

So yes, instead of continuing arguing with irrational idiots, I also prefer to make tests which sustain arguments. Please choose a battle, play it using your great cavalry tactics, upload a video (you only need a YouTube account you can create in 1 minute), share the save game, and I will do the same but using infantry and/or archers (picking the same units’ tier than you).

By the way, it is pretty funny to read people talking about “advanced cavalry tactics” in a frenetic action game where melee engagements last for 1 minute as much.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
- Infantry vs infantry engagements last for seconds in this game, which is totally unrealistic.
- Archers are able to decimate enemies in this game in seconds, which is also totally unrealistic.
- But hey! Cavalry should be represented as much “historical” as possible, and 40 knights should kill only 6 dudes as much every time they charge against nude bandits xD...

Cavalry have the same unrealistic damage rules as infantry and archers. If you think that cavalry weapons are somehow artificially nerfed compared to infantry or archers then you're wrong. Plus Cavalry damage gets multiplied by speed or even couched lance bonus so cavalry damage is even more unrealistic then either infantry or archers. Cavalry simply does not stay in melee therefore it kills slower then infantry or archers and that is balanced out by the fact that cavalry is also killed slower then infantry and archers. I am not sure what's difficult to understand about that.

Cavalry is slower at killing because cavalry charges are simply not effective at all.

You have just shown video where your cavalry defeated group of looters about equal in size in just two charges and without sustaining any losses. That's about as effective as it should be. Why are you complaining here?

It does not matter if you charge against light armored units in spread formation, or if you manage to rear charge someone, cavalry charge are not effective at all in any circumstances. This is the main reason because cavalry is much slower at killing and because cavalry is not effective in this game.

You have been arguing about cavalry charges should not be effective against disciplined infantry in tight formation, which could be reasonable, but then I have shown cavalry charges being exactly the same (mediocre) when fighting light armored bandits without any formation, and you say that it is also ok... Even when it is pretty evident that there is an AI issue because when in formation, most of cavalry agent try to target the same enemies instead of charge the one they have directly in front (all agents make a blob in the center in the last moment).

I am still waiting for any kind of proof from you which could show how viable the cavalry is (according to you), aside from just posting the same Machiavelli’s book which have not anything to do with how cavalry should work in a video game, where all other kind of units are able to kill in seconds. Again, let’s test the same battle with different army composition, it is something easy to do. Just pick a battle you want and share the save game with me.

The videos you have provided shows that cavalry is perfectly effective. Moreover you have avoided my question, how many looters in those charges got damaged instead of one shoot outright?
 
You have just shown video where your cavalry defeated group of looters about equal in size in just two charges and without sustaining any losses. That's about as effective as it should be. Why are you complaining here?
The first video shows initial charge of about 15 cavalry units against a mob of looters without shields, spears, training, formation, etc the result of the charge should be close to 15 looters injured or killed but it is about just 4 - 5 of them. For me it's hard to imagine knight crossing a mob of people and being unable to hit anyone, if we were talking about professional trained/equipped infantry it will be another business but not in this case.

The second video is similar...
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
The first video shows initial charge of about 15 cavalry units against a mob of looters without shields, spears, training, formation, etc the result of the charge should be close to 15 looters injured or killed but it is about just 4 - 5 of them.

I see 4-5 looters killed, how many are wounded you and OP still did not tell.
What I also see is 22 strong cavalry defeating 18 looters in just two charges sustaining no losses. What's wrong with that?

So, how many looters were wounded and how much in that (and then another in second video) single charge?
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Sergeant
The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left.
"Failed to make headway" just means that they didn't make a decisive impact, not that they "completely failed". Both sides caused casualties and the battle went back and forth, which is consistent with what I am saying about melee cavalry vs. shielded infantry.


The initial charge was at a great disadvantage because the English had built a barricade.

They had built up a fence before them with their shields, and with ash and other wood; and had well joined and wattled in the whole work, so as not to leave even a crevice; and thus they had a barricade in their front, through which any Norman who would attack them must first pass. Being covered in this way by their shields and barricades, their aim was to defend themselves.

The Normans charged the English position with their horses anyway, and made some progress despite this disadvantage, with the battle going back and forth for both sides:

Then Taillefer put his horse to a gallop, charging before all the rest, and struck an Englishman dead, driving his lance below the breast into his body, and stretching him upon the ground. Then he drew his sword, and struck another, crying out "Come on! come on! What do ye, sirs? lay on! lay on!" At the second blow he struck, the English pushed forward and surrounded him. Forthwith arose the noise and cry of war, and on either side the people put themselves in motion. Loud and far resounded the bray of the horns; and the shocks of the lances; the mighty strokes of clubs, and the quick clashing of swords. One while the Englishmen rushed on, another while they fell back; one while the Normans charged onwards, and again at other times retreated.

A French soldier of noble mien, who sat his horse gallantly, spied two Englishmen who were also carrying themselves boldly. They were both men of great worth, and had become companions in arms and fought together, the one protecting the other. They bore two long and broad bills, and did great mischief to the Normans, killing both horses and men. The French soldier looked at them and their bills, and was sore alarmed, for he was afraid of losing his good horse, the best that he had; and would willingly have turned to some other quarter, if it would not have looked like cowardice. He soon, however, recovered his courage, and spurring his horse gave him the bridle, and galloped swiftly forward. Fearing the two bills, he raised his shield by the 'enarmes,' and struck one of the Englishmen with his lance on the breast, so that the iron passed out at his back. At the moment that he fell, the lance broke, and the Frenchman seized the mace that hung at his right side, and struck the other Englishman a blow that completely fractured his skull.

De Gloz killed two Englishmen; smiting the one through with his lance, and braining the other with his sword; and then galloped his horse back, so that no Englishman touched him.

The barricade had made it quite difficult for the Norman cavalry to fully maneuver, and was one of the big reasons they "failed to make headway."

The English stood firm in their barricades, and shivered the lances, beating them into pieces with their bills and maces.

Once the barricade was cleared, though:

The Normans drew their swords and hewed down the barricades, and the English in great trouble fell back upon their standard. Then the sire de la Haie[40] charged on, and neither[Pg 236] spared nor pitied any; striking none whom he did not kill, and inflicting wounds such as none could cure. The lords smote down[Pg 237] many of the English, most of whom suffered grievously, and many of them were killed.

Then those who kept close guard by William, and rode where he rode, being about a thousand armed men, came and rushed with closed ranks upon the English; and with the weight of their good horses, and the blows the knights gave, broke the press of the enemy.

-Then the Normans "made headway."
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
"Failed to make headway" just means that they didn't make a decisive impact, not that they "completely failed". Both sides caused casualties and the battle went back and forth, which is consistent with what I am saying about melee cavalry vs. shielded infantry.


The initial charge was at a great disadvantage because the English had built a barricade.



The Normans charged the English position with their horses anyway, and made some progress despite this disadvantage, with the battle going back and forth for both sides:



The barricade had made it quite difficult for the Norman cavalry to fully maneuver, and was one of the big reasons they "failed to make headway."



Once the barricade was cleared, though:



-Then the Normans "made headway."

Do no, but panicked retreat that almost caused whole Norman army to rout sounds like complete failure of their charges. But if you count that as a success... then I fail to see reason to complain about cavalry in Bannerlord. They are certainly more effective then Norman horse at Hastings, which was only good at fooling Anglo-Saxons in to believing, that Normans are fleeing the field. Rightly or wrongly.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Cavalry have the same unrealistic damage rules as infantry and archers. If you think that cavalry weapons are somehow artificially nerfed compared to infantry or archers then you're wrong. Plus Cavalry damage gets multiplied by speed or even couched lance bonus so cavalry damage is even more unrealistic then either infantry or archers. Cavalry simply does not stay in melee therefore it kills slower then infantry or archers and that is balanced out by the fact that cavalry is also killed slower then infantry and archers. I am not sure what's difficult to understand about that.



You have just shown video where your cavalry defeated group of looters about equal in size in just two charges and without sustaining any losses. That's about as effective as it should be. Why are you complaining here?



The videos you have provided shows that cavalry is perfectly effective. Moreover you have avoided my question, how many looters in those charges got damaged instead of one shoot outright?

How many looters got damaged? Who knows, I cannot see health bars over looters to answer that question. What I can see pretty clear after tons of tests and campaigns using different army composition:

- There is not much incentive for flaking enemy units, and rear charges look like do not give any advantage. Rear charges are as useless as frontal charges in this game, or at least pretty similar. So the mobility advantage for cavalry is not great as it could be in games like Total War, or other games where you have time to flank and get some advantages for that.
- Cavalry units are much harder to replace than infantry and archers without giving anything in return, because archers are by far more effective. Plus cavalry units are more expensive to get.
- Cavalry AI needs to be fixed, especially when performing charges in formation, because cavalry agents blob up and try to attack all the same target which results in only few cavalry agents being able to damage enemies.
- Cavalry are not a good support for infantry in this game. Numbers are pretty relevant in Bannerlord, much more than in Warband. Outnumbered infantry usually lose and gets defeated in seconds, even if you have elite infantry units. Cavalry units are excessively slow at killing compared to other units, which usually means that your infantry gets outnumbered and killed in seconds, and then the same happens with your cavalry after that. It is much better to get a huge infantry formation and defeat the enemy infantry formation pretty fast yourself, and then deal with remaining enemy archers/cav.
- Cavalry AI against other cavalry units is really bad. Horsemen usually target the horse instead of the rider, and usually perform delayed attacks which end missing.
- Heavy cavalry KD is the worse by far in every battle. Archers usually get tons of kills, followed by infantry and cavalry at the buttom. This would not be relevant if cavalry would be overall useful, but I can really find any scenario where I would pick cavalry over archers.

This information is actually for @AVRC and @NIN3

@hruza I know there is no anything I can say which will change your mind, so let’s agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
How many looters got damaged? Who knows, I cannot see health bars over looters to answer that question.

But some of them did get damaged, didn't they? My point is, kills in the top right doesn't tell the whole story.

What I can see pretty clear after tons of tests and campaigns using different army composition:

- There is not much incentive for flaking enemy units, and rear charges look like do not give any advantage. Rear charges are as useless as frontal charges in this game, or at least pretty similar. So the mobility advantage for cavalry is not great as it could be in games like Total War, or other games where you have time to flank and get some advantages for that.

That's true. MB doesn't have anything that would make flanking or rear attacks matter in the terms of impact on the unit. But that does not mean that mobility of the cavalry or flanking have no uses. Flanking is useful to surround enemy, or part of enemy formation in order to kill it faster. Mobility of the cavalry is also useful to engage units that you can't engage otherwise or that would be difficult to engage, like archers, reinforcements, skirmish and horse archer cavalry. And cavalry is the only unit that can kill fleeing enemies.

- Cavalry units are much harder to replace than infantry and archers without giving anything in return, because archers are by far more effective. Plus cavalry units are more expensive to get.

The only reason archers are so effective is because AI won't use shieldwall. And even then, cavalry gives you something that no other unit can: strategic mobility. Ability to be faster on the map alone is reason why cavalry is worth it.

- Cavalry AI needs to be fixed, especially when performing charges in formation, because cavalry agents blob up and try to attack all the same target which results in only few cavalry agents being able to damage enemies.

Yes, cavalry AI can be better. But then infantry and archer AI can be better too. See AI infantry and how they allow player to slaughter them with archers.

- Cavalry are not a good support for infantry in this game. Numbers are pretty relevant in Bannerlord, much more than in Warband. Outnumbered infantry usually lose and gets defeated in seconds, even if you have elite infantry units. Cavalry units are excessively slow at killing compared to other units, which usually means that your infantry gets outnumbered and killed in seconds, and then the same happens with your cavalry after that. It is much better to get a huge infantry formation and defeat the enemy infantry formation pretty fast yourself, and then deal with remaining enemy archers/cav.

Good luck dealing with horse arches with your infantry spam. And I disagree that cavalry is not good at supporting infantry. If you use cavalry just as faster infantry, then that's not going to work.

- Cavalry AI against other cavalry units is really bad. Horsemen usually target the horse instead of the rider, and usually perform delayed attacks which end missing.

Cavalry targeting can be wonky, yes. And I hope it will get improved. But then it's somewhat realistic too. How many times do you miss when riding a horse? If cavalry was 100% accurate, it would be pretty hard to play as cavalry yourself.

- Heavy cavalry KD is the worse by far in every battle. Archers usually get tons of kills, followed by infantry and cavalry at the buttom. This would not be relevant if cavalry would be overall useful, but I can really find any scenario where I would pick cavalry over archers.

I hope devs will finally make AI infantry use shields against arrow fire and then you would have a reason to pick cavalry instead of archers. Until then all I can suggest to you is not exploit AI with archer spam. Game is more enjoyable that way.

@hruza I know there is no anything I can say which will change your mind, so let’s agree to disagree.

I do agree with some of your points, and there are things that could, and should be improved. But that's not just case of the cavalry. The main problem with your approach in my opinion is that you look at the cavalry as more expensive infantry. Cavalry can't and shouldn't compete with infantry. There are both in game and real world reasons for that. Cavalry can't form as tight as infantry and can't bring as many weapons on target as infantry can. Cavalry is clunky in close quarters fighting, rider on a horse is pretty limited in his movements and can't engage targets as well and as flexibly as footman can. Cavalry is not good at out DPS-ing infantry or archers, cavalry is good at delivering damage where infantry or archers can't.

I believe that if you would stop expecting cavalry to outdo an infantry and stop comparing it to infantry and instead play to it's strengths, you would be less frustrated. Cavalry in Bannerlord is better modeled and balanced then in Warband, and is actually fun to play. It's just not all powerful as it used to be in Warband. And I very much welcome that. For both realism and playability reasons.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Good luck dealing with horse arches with your infantry spam. And I disagree that cavalry is not good at supporting infantry. If you use cavalry just as faster infantry, then that's not going to work.

No, best way to deal with HA is getting archers. Infantry and Archers support each other pretty good in this game. Your really do not need any cavalry unit to deal with HA and archers will do the job, especially Fians who are pretty accurate using their Barrett M82 rifles and able to kill HA in no time. Plus, archers can also work as infantry if needed to avoid your infantry getting outnumbered (this after getting a lot of kills from the distance).

Thanks for the “do not abuse archers spam to enjoy the game” advise, but I actually do not abuse the archers spam in every campaign. In my current campaign I am actually using armies like 50% cavalry, 30% crossbowmen, 20% infantry. Before, I played a campaign using armies like 50% archers, 40-45% infantry and 5-10% cavalry (cavalry recruited from prisoners pool), and it was like playing the game on ultra easy settings.

In my current campaign playing with 50% cavalry armies is pretty evident how cavalry is behind archers and usually behind elite infantry too (Legionaries are amazing). Even when I try to flank, split my cavalry in groups to perform coordinated charges, etc, etc, I am taking massive losses after every battle and replacing these horsemen is pretty hard and expensive.

I do agree with Cavalry is more balanced in Bannerlord than it is in Warband, but it does not mean that cavalry is where is should be. Not everything is black or white and improving the cavalry performance and making cavalry charges somehow deadlier by improving the cav AI (I am not asking for better stats), won’t turn the currently cavalry into Swadian Knights for sure. Cavalry is so much OP in Warband mostly because the infantry AI is awful at fighting cav, but it is not the case in Bannerlord, and even recruits with two handed weapons can be pretty deadly against elite cav.

Plus the AI is also smarter in Bannerlord in terms of detecting when you have tons of cavalry, and then it decides to use defensive formations in good places, and cavalry gets totally neutralized when having to charge uphill (as it should be in that case). The only way to deal with this, is getting archers (which is the best answer for everything in this game), and force the AI to abandon its defensive stance, and then use the cavalry, but it is a different thing. Believe me, the Swadian Spam is totally fixed in Bannerlord and won’t come back for giving cavalry AI the fixes it needs.
 
Last edited:
How many looters got damaged? Who knows, I cannot see health bars over looters to answer that question. What I can see pretty clear after tons of tests and campaigns using different army composition:

- There is not much incentive for flaking enemy units, and rear charges look like do not give any advantage. Rear charges are as useless as frontal charges in this game, or at least pretty similar. So the mobility advantage for cavalry is not great as it could be in games like Total War, or other games where you have time to flank and get some advantages for that.
- Cavalry units are much harder to replace than infantry and archers without giving anything in return, because archers are by far more effective. Plus cavalry units are more expensive to get.
- Cavalry AI needs to be fixed, especially when performing charges in formation, because cavalry agents blob up and try to attack all the same target which results in only few cavalry agents being able to damage enemies.
- Cavalry are not a good support for infantry in this game. Numbers are pretty relevant in Bannerlord, much more than in Warband. Outnumbered infantry usually lose and gets defeated in seconds, even if you have elite infantry units. Cavalry units are excessively slow at killing compared to other units, which usually means that your infantry gets outnumbered and killed in seconds, and then the same happens with your cavalry after that. It is much better to get a huge infantry formation and defeat the enemy infantry formation pretty fast yourself, and then deal with remaining enemy archers/cav.
- Cavalry AI against other cavalry units is really bad. Horsemen usually target the horse instead of the rider, and usually perform delayed attacks which end missing.
- Heavy cavalry KD is the worse by far in every battle. Archers usually get tons of kills, followed by infantry and cavalry at the buttom. This would not be relevant if cavalry would be overall useful, but I can really find any scenario where I would pick cavalry over archers.

This information is actually for @AVRC and @NIN3

@hruza I know there is no anything I can say which will change your mind, so let’s agree to disagree.
+1 especially the target the horse not the rider it is so goddamn stupid.
 

Ningauble

Veteran
"Failed to make headway" just means that they didn't make a decisive impact, not that they "completely failed". Both sides caused casualties and the battle went back and forth, which is consistent with what I am saying about melee cavalry vs. shielded infantry.


The initial charge was at a great disadvantage because the English had built a barricade.



The Normans charged the English position with their horses anyway, and made some progress despite this disadvantage, with the battle going back and forth for both sides:



The barricade had made it quite difficult for the Norman cavalry to fully maneuver, and was one of the big reasons they "failed to make headway."



Once the barricade was cleared, though:



-Then the Normans "made headway."
You do appreciate that your quoted Wace's " Roman de Rou " was written a hundred years after Hastings, as a propaganda exercise commissioned by Henry II to " cement " the Norman hegemony in England? And your translation is from the 1830s. It may make " romantic " reading, but as a reliable Hastings source ......... the detailed one - on - one combat descriptions etc are a fantasy.

The current historians' view is that Norman lances were not being couched by 1066 - the Tapestry depicts them all in an " overhead " grip .........evidently not charging " A l'Outrance ", then ......
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Sergeant
Do no, but panicked retreat that almost caused whole Norman army to rout sounds like complete failure of their charges. But if you count that as a success... which was only good at fooling Anglo-Saxons in to believing, that Normans are fleeing the field
As I have already showed and you ignored, the presence of the barricade prevented the charges from making headway. Once the barricade was removed, the charges succeeded. Read this again.

The Normans drew their swords and hewed down the barricades. Then those who kept close guard by William, and rode where he rode, being about a thousand armed men, came and rushed with closed ranks upon the English; and with the weight of their good horses, and the blows the knights gave, broke the press of the enemy.

Another source confirming what I am saying about the cavalry being at a disadvantage due to the English's strategic positioning, is William of Poitiers, who in 1071 (take notice of this date @Ningauble) describes the battle in "The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans."

The English were greatly helped by the advantage of the high ground... also by their great number, and further, by their weapons which could easily find a way through shields and other defences... Terrified by this ferocity, the Norman foot soldiers began to retreat... The duke galloped up in front of them, shouting and brandishing his lance. Removing his helmet to bare his head, he cried: "Look at me. I am alive, and, by God's help, I shall win (...)". The duke was the first to charge forward, sword flashing, cutting down the English. The English were so densely massed that the dead could scarcely fall. However, breaches were cut in several places by the swords of the Norman knights.
then I fail to see reason to complain about cavalry in Bannerlord. They are certainly more effective then Norman horse at Hastings,
Norman lance cavalry at Hastings could kill infantry in a single lance charge (there were three examples in that text). Bannerlord lance cavalry generally can't.
And even then, cavalry gives you something that no other unit can: strategic mobility.
Cavalry is the only unit that can kill fleeing enemies. Cavalry is also useful to engage units that you can't engage otherwise or that would be difficult to engage, like archers, reinforcements, skirmish and horse archer cavalry.
Good luck dealing with horse arches with your infantry spam
It's clear that he's talking about melee cavalry.
Ranged cavalry have all these exact same advantages, making melee cavalry pretty much useless.
You deal with horse archers by... using other horse archers.
Cavalry targeting can be wonky, yes. And I hope it will get improved. But then it's somewhat realistic too. How many times do you miss when riding a horse?
Well then I'm glad we can finally agree on something because this is the main issue which is making melee cavalry weak.

Couching and stab-based weapons are very wonky for the player as well as cav AI right now. In Warband couched weapons were much more accurate for both player and AI. In Bannerlord, both player and AI couching/stabbing from horseback is very inaccurate.

And yet, infantry attacking a charging horse are superhumanly accurate, rarely if ever missing their attacks.
Wace's " Roman de Rou " was written a hundred years after Hastings as a propaganda exercise commissioned by Henry II to " cement " the Norman hegemony in England and your translation is from the 1830s. It may make " romantic " reading, but as a reliable Hastings source ......... the one - on - one combat descriptions etc are most likely a fantasy.
If you have a better one which supports Hruza's statement that the Norman cavalry absolutely failed to do anything at all, I'd like to see it.
Your (proofless) attacks on the source should take into account that almost every single piece of medieval history we read was commissioned by someone. Roman de Rou was obviously written with an agenda, but its target audience was the nobility who actually engaged in fighting, so "fantasy" would be ineffective propaganda because they would recognize it as incorrect. Wace fairly portrays both sides as fighting quite well, with nothing outlandish in the retelling of the battle, and omitting the embellishments some other versions use (such as Tallifleur's sword tricks).
What exact part of the history are you calling fantasy, and what is your alternate source?
The current historians' view is that Norman lances were not being couched by 1066 - the Tapestry depicts them all in an " overhead " grip .........
While probably not couched in the strictest sense of the word, they were certainly in underhand "semi-couched" grip, which for the purposes of this discussion is functionally identical, since either way the question is about deadliness of cavalry in a charge.
If you say the Tapestry depicts them "all in overhand" then evidently you haven't even looked at it.
BayeuxTapestryScene54.jpg

Knight in the center.
BayeuxTapestryScene52b.jpg

Knight slightly to the right.
BayeuxTapestryScene51b.jpg

Knight furthest right.
 
Last edited:
As I have mentioned many times, I have tried to flank enemies, rear charges, etc, with pretty similar results (the difference between rear or frontal charges in this game is almost unnoticeable).
what you haven't seem to have tried is observe what happens when you do that or go into custom battles and test things out. a good cavalry charge might not get many direct kills, but it routs enemies making them flee, and allows your infantry to just kill more and die less in the melee. if you don't believe me, go to custom battles and do 300 vs 300 infantry. then add some cavalry to your group and charge them and see.
that's how cavalry was used in real life. they were the rock, and your infantry was the hard place, and you confronted the enemy with your infantry and hit them from the back with your cavalry. and they have represented this in the game slowly but surely.

and you can use your “advanced cavalry tactics”, while I will just sit with my archers and get much better results than you.
are you talking about max-min when we are playing a single player game, against 1 ai difficulty. and thinking you somehow are superior with your efficient meta strategies? don't start with that please it's the wrong game and wrong forum. the OP posed the question inquiring other people's opinions on whether cavalry charge is lame in this game. and you are talking about how archers are more efficient than cavalry at killing ai looters...

Cavalry is slower at killing because cavalry charges are simply not effective at all.
that is your personal biased perspective. due to lack of observation.
--first. you missed the routing of the enemy, this is more evident against higher tier troops that under ordinary circumstances would fight to the death. looters flee if you kill 3 out of 10 no matter how. but try to get a group of tier 4 infantry to flee with your archers...
--second. you are not considering the extra kills claimed by and lives saved in your infantry ranks from the cavalry charge. which frankly is part of it's effectiveness, and not measured in units killed by the cavs
--third, you are using the cavalry's kill/death ratio as the sole measure of usefulness in it's comparison against other unit types. when in reality that cannot be further from the truth. their strength lie in their durability, mobility and versatility. (a group of dismounted cavs will generally outfight the same tier infantry in melee combat, which goes to show, even without their horses that offer protection and speed they can do a lot, if you can't manage at least that much on horses... maybe doing something wrong man)

but aside from the 3 main things you seemingly failed to notice. you are deliberately taking things out of perspective. cavalry units have 1 moment of connection when they charge. and then run off. if they miss or get blocked, they do 0 dps for like 30 seconds, poor ai design made is so cavalry misses all the time, and the charge damage is almost a none factor. whereas an infantry comes in and keeps swinging his sword until he's cut down, he might not last the next 30 seconds but chances are he will take someone down with him. archers on the other hand, aren't engaged in melee and have free room to just shoot away. allowing them to keep doing dps until out of ammo. and archers seem extra effective in the game due to poor ai shield usage and poor armor damage mitigation.
you are essentially taking the archers' advantage against infantry due to their design unintentional weakness (shield use and armor) paired with their intentional troop type counter and comparing it against the cavalry's disadvantage against infantry due to their own unintentional design flaw (missing, low charge dmg) paired with their intentional troop type counter just to make the point that cavs suck. not a good argument, kinda falls apart by itself the moment it's presented. but that's more than most could muster so good effort.

and of course, you ignored the most useful advice i gave you. which is the mod that adds charge damage. making cavalry hit much harder despite missing with their weapons. which frankly is how real life worked also since people kinda die after getting hit by heavy object moving at fast speeds. wait for the devs? or use a mod? your pick.

oh i forgot you dislike cavalry... ok for guys like you here's maybe a mod that adds bow accuracy, armor penetration, quiver size and aim speed along with tier 7 elf archers that are literally all legolas with a 30:0 kda per battle .
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom