Cavalry are Rubbish

[Thokan]

This kind of "cRPG-thinking", that horses are tanks and should mow infantry down, is not cool. Not cool at all.

 

[Mac-Picsou]

i have to agree on the fact that cavalry is not enough poweful in the game compared to what she was in reality. My solution: Cavalry man allowed on servers should be limited(like it is already the case on some servers) but the horses resistance and strenght(damage they did when they hit someone) should be improved to compensate. Also the cav swords should be a little bit more...maniable.

 

[Talii]

This kind of "cRPG-thinking", that horses are tanks and should mow infantry down, is not cool. Not cool at all.

Imagine having a 500 kilos heavy horse, whose parents has for generations been bred for war. Now, Imagine having this beast galloping at you. It equals getting hit by a smaller car. Trust me, if you get overrun by a galloping horse, it'll brake enough bones in your body to make sure you dont get up again, and then there's the chance of getting trampled.

 

[Nordmann]

This kind of "cRPG-thinking", that horses are tanks and should mow infantry down, is not cool. Not cool at all.

Imagine having a 500 kilos heavy horse, whose parents has for generations been bred for war. Now, Imagine having this beast galloping at you. It equals getting hit by a smaller car. Trust me, if you get overrun by a galloping horse, it'll brake enough bones in your body to make sure you dont get up again, and then there's the chance of getting trampled.

Yes, but most horses don't tend to run into sharp point objects, now do they. Some people have still been watching far too many romanticised depictions of cavalry.

 

[b00227783]

Well I played as cavalry for a good bit today, I did ok. But this is coming from someone who plays cavalry once in a blue moon in any mount&blade game.

 

[JeanChristophe]

Yes, but most horses don't tend to run into sharp point objects, now do they

No one said anything about the horse running straight into a bayo.. if that even happened your rifle would be thrown out of your hands..What he perhaps meant was if the horse got shot and then the momentum kind of made it go into a line like a sledgehammer..or something like that.

Something intressting would be though..to add the same amount of time for a infantryman to get up being knocked over by a horse as it takes for a cavalryman to get up when he gets dismounted! The infantryman just pops up again like hes doing a pushup..

Spoiler

here comes the *****ing from infantryplayers..

 

[b00227783]

Yes, but most horses don't tend to run into sharp point objects, now do they

Something intressting would be though..to add the same amount of time for a infantryman to get up being knocked over by a horse as it takes for a cavalryman to get up when he gets dismounted! The infantryman just pops up again like hes doing a pushup..

That actually sounds reasonable to me. Most of the time when I bumped someone over for a team mate, they could get up and block before the team mate manages to get an attack in.

 

[Horsa]

Cavalry needs weight and all the consequences it brings along to be realistic.

 

[tomislawus]

Talk about gimped cavalry.

Slow (there should be a charge or gallop button) way to slow.
There is no momentum when a group of horse smash into static infantry in a line.
It seem as a few infantry have the mass and weight  as if they were made from cast iron concreted into the ground.

I did a few tests of polish 50 lances vs 50 line infantry. Got totally rapped each time.

I am very disappointed about the state of cavalry in this DLC

Go play M&B.  This is about how effective Cav was in Napoleonic battles.

Cavalry rarely ever charged head on in the first place due to bayonets. The thing that's missing in 50 vs 50 battles is the
fact the usually an infantry formation is likely to brake formation and run out of fear making it a picnic for cavalry. Charging cavalry head on into infantry was NOT a regular tactic after pikemen became obsolete with the emergence of the socket bayonet. I've been looking into this for the last few days in terms of historical sources and the notion that cavalry charged head on died around the same time as heavily armored Knights in armor.

EDIT: I should mention that head on charges did occur at times (that much is known) but it is also known that the onset of musket and bayonet generally discouraged the practice unless it was absolutely necessary.

Do you seriously think that "the onset of musket and bayonet generally discouraged the practice unless it was absolutely necessary [cavalry head on charges]"? What is bayonet? A dagger on a unwieldy stick (musket) - a makeshift weapon. Even a solid pitch fork is a better weapon against cavalry than a bayonet. Bayonet is a choice of lesser evil - it was chosen not because its a good weapon, but because its cheap and versatile.

It wasn't the muskets or the bayonet that made cavalry charges obsolete - it was the growth of population, while the amount of weaponry (resources) increased only a bit since middle ages, there were a lot more men in XVIII century which lords could enlist into their armies. Even the best armor and weapons can't win you a battle if your 100 knights stand against 1000 infantry with crude muskets and makeshift bayonets.

The way bayonets are depicted in NW suggests its the best melee weapon ever, while in reality its just a crude, unwieldy and rather short spear.

 

[rejenorst]

Do you seriously think that "the onset of musket and bayonet generally discouraged the practice unless it was absolutely necessary [cavalry head on charges]"? What is bayonet? A dagger on a unwieldy stick (musket) - a makeshift weapon. Even a solid pitch fork is a better weapon against cavalry than a bayonet. Bayonet is a choice of lesser evil - it was chosen not because its a good weapon, but because its cheap and versatile.

You forget that that musket fires a projectile making head on attacks on unyielding infantry formations a risky and potentially costly affair that may not yield the intended result. Its not so much the possibility that cavalry might be killed by charging into bayonets, its the possibility that despite any training the horse will veer or stop short of plunging into the human formation as well as the possibility that the entire charge fails to produce the intended shock force result ie: to brake an enemy whose morale is already wavering. Bayonets add to this factor in that no one, be it horse or rider is willing to ride into a formation of miniature pikes unless the rider has good nerves and the horse good training and even then success is not assured.

EDIT:
As for the effectiveness of the bayonet, this is an excerpt from an 1852 bayonet manual. If it was as **** as you say it was then it would have long been out of use and replaced with something more useable.

Spoiler

Gomard lays it down as a principle, that
the most formidable antagonist an infantry
soldier can encounter is an infantry soldier;
that the bayonet is more formidable than
either the lance or the sabre. This assertion
may seem surprising, but trial will convince
any one of its truth, and of the consequent
fact that an infantry soldier who can parry
the attacks of a well-drilled infantry soldier
has nothing to fear from a cavalry soldier,
because simple variations of the parries
against infantry are perfectly effective against
the sabre and lance, e.g. the parries in high
tierce and high quarte.
The work of Gomard was translated by
the author of the present work about two
years ago, and taught by him to the noncommissioned
officers of the company of sappers
with which he was then on duty. The
non-commissioned officers soon became competent
to instruct the men, and the system
was in successful operation when the author
was relieved from duty with the company.

It wasn't the muskets or the bayonet that made cavalry charges obsolete - it was the growth of population, while the amount of weaponry (resources) increased only a bit since middle ages, there were a lot more men in XVII century which lords could enlist into their armies. Even the best armor and weapons can't win you a battle if your 100 knights stand against 1000 infantry with crude muskets and makeshift bayonets.

I agree that industrialization and populated town centers made it easier to recruit so that the ratio of infantry to cav was probably a lot higher than in most battles of the middle ages. But what had also made a major difference was artillery/cannons which worked in conjunction with Cavalry (according to Napoleon) to produce the intended shock effect.

The way bayonets are depicted in NW suggests its the best melee weapon ever, while in reality its just a crude, unwieldy and rather short spear.

The problem is that there are to few sources that talk of how effective bayonets were against cav rather than how effective men have been at using melee weapons to fend of cavalry attacks. Can a man in a 1 vs 1 against a cavalryman, easily knock him off his horse or kill the horse? We don't know. I dare say however that a man's forward thrust with no resistance behind the buttstock would be knocked out of his hand by the force of an oncoming horse.)  However game play wise I'd say it would probably cause a massive unbalance.

Anyway in regards to the debate of full frontal charges:

Spoiler

In conclusion, most cavalry vs. cavalry and cavalry vs. infantry interactions were probably decided before the two sides came into contact, but it is not improbable that at least some cavalry units were actually able to charge and come into contact with unbroken infantry. The greatest doubt lies in the who, the where, and the when--though it is clear that contact followed by hand-to-hand fighting between two unbroken lines was generally the exception among infantry-cavalry interactions, it is not an easy matter to decide how prevalent these exceptional cases were. I think nobody would disagree if I say that we still need a great deal more research before we can resolve that doubt.
http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/141888.html

 

[Marmz]

Do you seriously think that "the onset of musket and bayonet generally discouraged the practice unless it was absolutely necessary [cavalry head on charges]"? What is bayonet? A dagger on a unwieldy stick (musket) - a makeshift weapon. Even a solid pitch fork is a better weapon against cavalry than a bayonet. Bayonet is a choice of lesser evil - it was chosen not because its a good weapon, but because its cheap and versatile.

It wasn't the muskets or the bayonet that made cavalry charges obsolete - it was the growth of population, while the amount of weaponry (resources) increased only a bit since middle ages, there were a lot more men in XVII century which lords could enlist into their armies. Even the best armor and weapons can't win you a battle if your 100 knights stand against 1000 infantry with crude muskets and makeshift bayonets.

The way bayonets are depicted in NW suggests its the best melee weapon ever, while in reality its just a crude, unwieldy and rather short spear.

I must agree. Cavalry would of cost more to maintain and equip than run-of-the-mill infantry, and yet it was used quite extensively in that period; so surely it must of been considered valuable (though not in a head-on charge, obviously).

In my opinion, NW doesn't reflect the value and strength of cavalry very realistically; though it's balanced, in the sense that 1 cavalryman ~ 1 infantryman, I would prefer a clever way of limiting cavalrymen in a match (~20% cavalry seems fair). Current server-side limits are fine, but somewhat crude; if all the slots are taken, you're screwed. Warband's "gold" system could be adapted to remedy that.

Normally, a cavalry squad charging the flanks of and equal-sized infantry squad already engaged/distracted/spread-out should decimate them. Although that's the best way to fight as cavalry in NW already, I feel the shock value is insufficient.

On that subject, the cuirassier's cuirass is also somewhat underwhelming.

 

[rejenorst]

I must agree. Cavalry would of cost more to maintain and equip than run-of-the-mill infantry, and yet it was used quite extensively in that period; so surely it must of been considered valuable (though not in a head-on charge, obviously).

You're quite right.
1) It was essential for victory in that it was used extensively in the pursuit of retreating armies in order to deprive them of a) human resources and b) the chance to reform/regroup.
2)The heavy cavalry cost a fortune for both armor and specially bred horse, to which Napoleon remarked that the cost over the other cav types did not significantly outweigh the benefits.

In my opinion, NW doesn't reflect the value and strength of cavalry very realistically; though it's balanced, in the sense that 1 cavalryman ~ 1 infantryman, I would prefer a clever way of limiting cavalrymen in a match (~20% cavalry seems fair). Current server-side limits are fine, but somewhat crude; if all the slots are taken, you're screwed. Warband's "gold" system could be adapted to remedy that.

I wouldn't mind heavy cav or cav in generally getting some form of additional protection value to the horses front against thrusted bayonets if they are moving full speed. Or some additional bump damage.

On that subject, the cuirassier's cuirass is also somewhat underwhelming

My cuirassier's armor has protected me a few times from musket shots and once at close range too (not always) but they were intended to stop a musket shot at long range. Not short range or so my source seems to say: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA406969

However the video you posted is great and seems to fall in line with the story about the square formations of english troops who claim to have heard musket balls bounce off the enemy's cuirasses, I've been looking for a live demonstration the past few days but couldn't find any. Cheers for that.

 

[Falrinth]

What i would like to see is the dead horse having some projectiel mechanic... Its so wrong when you charge someone with huge speed on heavy horse, he stabs killing both horse and rider, and the horse with the rider simply ghost-pass the one who stabbed them... It should have some physics, so even dead heavy horse with huge momentum should knock down and badly dmg the one it hits...

In NW cav gets disadventage in plenty of forms (no reloading on the move, short lances, anti-cav wepaons everywhere), so it should get some buff aswell - and i agree with the OP, the momentum of the heavy horse should be dangerous. Ninja suprise attacks are for light cavalry, not heavy cav on heavy horses.... Their strenght was momentum and in the game its not present :/

 

[tomislawus]

I dare to say that a XVI century knights in a full (and very expensive) plate armor on a horse which had its own armor too, could easily charge a line of XVIII century infantry and decimate the enemy. I once read about a russian cavalryman who fired a pistol point blank at a french soldier - the ball failed to penetrate the skull and got stuck in the head wrappings. Granted it was very cold there and russians had very low quality powder at their disposal, but still you you have to remember that that musket balls are round and rather soft. A musket ball to penetrate a proper plate armor would need to be fired at really close range , so close actually that it would make the charging horse crash into the line. Also, note that such units as Polish Winged Hussars had their own specials tactics of charging frontally infantry - they would disperse while approaching the line and in the last few meters they would close in the formation for the maximum effect.

As I said, 100 late middle ages knights would easily destroy 200 XVIII century infantrymen in a full frontal assault, but the problem was that 1 such knight with his horse and equipment would cost as much as 100 soldiers with muskets.

Also, I like your Rejenorst for how much well you argument your opinions and back them up with facts. Its so rare actually that I must express my gratitude for your selfless pursuit of truth 

 

[rejenorst]

I dare to say that a XVI century knights in a full (and very expensive) plate armor on a horse which had its own armor too, could easily charge a line of XVIII century infantry and decimate the enemy.

I disagree, they had trouble enough just charging longbow men. Let me put it this way. While theoretically they could, the outcome is decided by so many factors both inside and outside of human control that what seems impossible at times may very well be possible.
Example the battle of Minden: Marshal Contades is reputed to have said bitterly after the battle: “I never thought to see a single line of infantry break through three lines of cavalry ranked in order of battle and tumble them to ruin.”

There's a whole list of failed and successful cav charges throughout history making assumptions like 'easy' hard to swallow.

I once read about a russian cavalryman who fired a pistol point blank at a french soldier - the ball failed to penetrate the skull and got stuck in the head wrappings. Granted it was very cold there and russians had very low quality powder at their disposal, but still you you have to remember that that musket balls are round and rather soft. A musket ball to penetrate a proper plate armor would need to be fired at really close range , so close actually that it would make the charging horse crash into the line.

The joys of dealing with black powder misfires were also common and if the powder got wet from humidity or whatever reason you were in big trouble (as the musketeer).

Also, note that such units as Polish Winged Hussars had their own specials tactics of charging frontally infantry - they would disperse while approaching the line and in the last few meters they would close in the formation for the maximum effect.

Yes and they had very good results in a few battles against superior Russian forces, also and correct me if I am wrong this was probably before the bayonet was adopted for standard use.

As I said, 100 late middle ages knights would easily destroy 200 XVIII century infantrymen in a full frontal assault, but the problem was that 1 such knight with his horse and equipment would cost as much as 100 soldiers with muskets.

Yes its true that the cost would be enormous and even Napoleon was annoyed by the cost of his heavy cav's armor which I believe was apprx 8mm thick for the front and back plate, (I think the medieval plate armor was actually thinner (not sure)). In any case after much reading of various sources I can safely say that there is no certainty of victory in any case.

Napoleon's main use of heavy cavalry was to keep them in reserve and to trot them out only for decisive operations and mop ups. Occasionally however, when his situation grew desperate he did in fact trot them out for a frontal charge (as is the case in the battle of Eylau). At Eylau Napoleon sent Murat with 10,700 cavalry to charge the Russian center in order to buy himself some time. At one point Napoleon had to send in more cav to ensure the cavalry wouldn't become encircled. Some of the Russian infantry managed to withstand several charges before eventually succumbing or withdrawing. All in all the battle proved indecisive and the casualties to Murat's 10,000 strong cav force are estimated at over 1,500 although the exact numbers are unknown. It was by no means an easy victory, and yet it was the largest cavalry charge of its time.

Excerpt:

Napoleon saw that Murat would have to be cut free and ordered forward the
cavalry of the Guard. The guard cavalry smashed through everything, cutting a path for
Murat’s trapped cavalry to withdraw. The cost was heavy though. General Dahlmann,
Aide de Camp to Napoleon and previous commander of the Chasseurs of the Guard, was
killed. General Lepic, commander of the Guard Grenadiers, was wounded.45 Murat had
lost over 1,500 cavalry (either killed or wounded) in the assault. General D'Hautpoul,
who commanded the cuirassiers, was killed and General Grouchy was wounded.
Additionally, four regimental commanders were lost in what would become know as the
greatest cavalry charge of the Napoleonic wars.
http://www.jeux-histoire.fr/doc/MURPHY.pdf

Also, I like your Rejenorst for how much well you argument your opinions and back them up with facts. Its so rare actually that I must express my gratitude for your selfless pursuit of truth 

Thank you

Also I leave you with an excerpt from a U.S. Bayonet Manual (1852 or 1854) which comments about 2 men who defeated 25 cavalry men with bayonets:

Spoiler

It will be proper to remark that any system
of fencing with the bayonet can, in service,
have its full and direct application
only when the men are isolated, or in very
open order; as, for instance, when employed
as skirmishers, in assaulting breaches, fieldworks,
or batteries, or when broken by cavalry,
etc. etc. When in the habitual formation,
as infantry of the line, the small interval
allowed each file, and the method of
action of masses, will prevent the possibility,
or necessity, of the employment of much
individual address; but even then, in the
shock of a charge, or when awaiting the attack
of cavalry, the men will surely be more
steady and composed, from the consciousness
of the fact that they can make good use of
their bayonets, and easily protect their persons
against everything but balls.
There is an instance on record of a French
grenadier, who, in the battle of Polotsk, defended
himself, with his bayonet, against the
simultaneous attack of eleven Russian grenadiers,
eight of whom he killed. In the battle
of Sanguessa, two soldiers of Abbe*'s division
defended themselves, with their bayonets,
against twenty-five Spanish cavalry, and,
after having inflicted several severe wounds,
rejoined their regiment without a scratch.
At that period there was little or no regular
instruction in the use of the bayonet.

http://www.7thmichigan.us/manuals/Bayonet.pdf

 

[tomislawus]

I admit you you have somewhat convinced me that an infantry man can defend with much success against cavalry, but still I think that horses should be buffed in NW. Why? Yesterday I was charging a guy, he obviously killed my horse and then still managed to kill with the same move another cavalryman who was two meters behind me. It should not have happened. I agree that he managed to dehorse me, but he should have been knocked down by my horse in the process and then killed easily by the other cavalryman. We both failed there, but horses really need to have some impact when hitting people.

 

[Thokan]

The main focus of MM and now NW has always been to be a fun and competitive game, so as to progress longevity. Realism, for the sake of the game and the community should come in second hand. The cavalry is challenging, competitive and skillful and many a veteran just like me has taken up the cavalry sword as the shooting has been buffed and it's hard to prove your worth with the bayonet these days.

The current cavsystem in NW is a FIX from what can be considered several years of beta-testing that was MM. It's patched, done and darn good if not brilliant.

Unbalancing the game by buffing the cavalry breaks it and hurts the longevity wich have held me amongst several playing since long before mmprussia2 even.

If you want to break the game for the sake of realism than start working on a mod. Add TBC, plague and whatever. Buff the cavalry, make tanks out of the horses and give every cavalryman a musketoon while you are at it. 

 

[tomislawus]

The main focus of MM and now NW has always been to be a fun and competitive game, so as to progress longevity. Realism, for the sake of the game and the community should come in second hand. The cavalry is challenging, competitive and skillful and many a veteran just like me has taken up the cavalry sword as the shooting has been buffed and it's hard to prove your worth with the bayonet these days.

The current cavsystem in NW is a FIX from what can be considered several years of beta-testing that was MM. It's patched, done and darn good if not brilliant.

Unbalancing the game by buffing the cavalry breaks it and hurts the longevity wich have held me amongst several playing since long before mmprussia2 even.

If you want to break the game for the sake of realism than start working on a mod. Add TBC, plague and whatever. Buff the cavalry, make tanks out of the horses and give every cavalryman a musketoon while you are at it. 

Making my suggestion of slightly buffing horses ability to bump into people an unreasonable demand to make cavalry completely OP is the most low and unintelligent way of arguing I can think of.   

 

[rejenorst]

Making my suggestion of slightly buffing horses ability to bump into people an unreasonable demand to make cavalry completely OP is the most low and unintelligent way of arguing I can think of. 

I believe we have a duel SUH! CHOOSE YOUR WEAPON!

Shall we say PISTOLS AT DAWN??

As referee I shall be expecting a fair fight. May the luckiest bastard win

 

[tomislawus]

Making my suggestion of slightly buffing horses ability to bump into people an unreasonable demand to make cavalry completely OP is the most low and unintelligent way of arguing I can think of. 

I believe we have a duel SUH! CHOOSE YOUR WEAPON!

Shall we say PISTOLS AT DAWN??

As referee I shall be expecting a fair fight. May the luckiest bastard win

I choose the pistols, you can have the little brush