Cavalry too strong?

[dochtorgajo]

Id like to ask someone whining about how cavalry is overpowered in sp to describe what tactics precicely he is using that leads him to the conclusion its too strong.

If heaviest cavalry isnt able to beat nord or other heavy infantry in 2:3 let alone 1:2 or 1:5 ratio then theyre superbly underpowered in compare to reality, which they really are- horses arent going through enemy but mob at one place, horses are just standing like nothing was happening around them and cant move if a little pebble is in their way, their riders have no regard for any critical thinking etc. I personally use infantry only armies and dismount all cavalry while I fight on horse alone because this game allows ridiculous results from this while cavalry is useless/nothing to worry about with strong or average infantry. Id expext to loose 40 men if I was attacked by 20 knights out of some 60 on open ground. But it looks like someone expects 10 berserkers with unwieldable uberaxes chopping through 2 horses and men in full plate armour at once killing 50 of them losing noone.

If Im wrong then enlight me- whats any other use of heavy cavalry than to make it dismount and create a wall of horses infront of my infantry to make it harder for enemy to get to me in good order? 

 

[mouthnhoof]

Someone got whopped by the Nords I see. When a bunch of cavalries are charging into a dense gaggle of huscals, turn up the volume - you can hear them cheering "turn on the grill, we feast on horse tonight!".

Cavalry are only effective on the move. If they get stopped by trees, rocks or a mass of people they are worse then foot soldiers when still sitting on their horse. The AI is an idiot - you don't have to be.

 

[excelsias]

Cavalry are only effective on the move. If they get stopped by trees, rocks or a mass of people they are worse then foot soldiers when still sitting on their horse. The AI is an idiot - you don't have to be.

Yeah.  Cavalry stuck in a mass of infantry are FUBAR.  Don't know how realistic that is but it makes sense to me.  Even medieval calvary didn't just charge in the face and expect to PWN.  They exploited flanks and weak vulnerabilities in enemy formations.  Super heavily plated massive knights DID pwn face, but your AI isn't that good.  You really need to charge, have cav follow, wheel, charge again, and so on.  DO NOT LET THEM GET STUCK IN A MESS OF DUDES.

 

[Kellick]

Cavalry are only effective on the move. If they get stopped by trees, rocks or a mass of people they are worse then foot soldiers when still sitting on their horse. The AI is an idiot - you don't have to be.

Yeah.  Cavalry stuck in a mass of infantry are FUBAR.  Don't know how realistic that is but it makes sense to me.  Even medieval calvary didn't just charge in the face and expect to PWN.  They exploited flanks and weak vulnerabilities in enemy formations.  Super heavily plated massive knights DID pwn face, but your AI isn't that good.  You really need to charge, have cav follow, wheel, charge again, and so on.  DO NOT LET THEM GET STUCK IN A MESS OF DUDES.

I agree with the OP. I also agree with Mouthnhoof that the AI is the problem.

You...I partially agree with. The thing is charging into the flanks really does nothing to provide tactical advantage in this game. And the problem with the simple and good advice of "do not let them get stuck in a mess of dudes" is that there really is no way to prevent this other than only allowing them to engage once the enemy has broke and ran, and at that point you might as well have cheap light low-end khergit cavalry.

 

[Ronan37]

  I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree with you on one point Kellick.  Taking cavalry around to charge in the flank actually DOES do some good on this game..... if done correctly.

  When I was at war with the sarrinids, I had a force of 25 or so men at arms / knights riding with me, as well as a mix of swadian sergeants and sharpshooters.  I would have the infantry and x-bowmen line up and charge in at the foe..... because the numerically superior foe would simple form ranks on the other side of the map and wait.

  In 2 instances leading my cavalry around to flank the opposing force served me well.  The first was when the opponent was situated upon the top of an incline..... yet the flank was even ground.  Having my infantry charge with shields up, and my cavalry flank and hit them from their unshielded (and un arrowed covered) flank resulted in no casualties upon my side.

  The second time, my cavalry rode over the crest of a hill and used downward momentum to actually charge into the side of an enemy line.  I rode at the front of the wave, but as I looked back..... the line was no more, and the field was piled with sarrinid corpses.

  So flanking CAN be effective, if only because you don't hit that shield and slow down, and because your AI actually uses lances somewhat more wisely now. 

 

[excelsias]

I agree with the OP. I also agree with Mouthnhoof that the AI is the problem.

You...I partially agree with. The thing is charging into the flanks really does nothing to provide tactical advantage in this game. And the problem with the simple and good advice of "do not let them get stuck in a mess of dudes" is that there really is no way to prevent this other than only allowing them to engage once the enemy has broke and ran, and at that point you might as well have cheap light low-end khergit cavalry.

I'll take partial agreement!    I partially disagree with you though.  I've noticed that in most battles against factions (and I'm still new to WB, so cut me some slack if I'm wrong here) - with infantry, the AI forms up into a line.  It then marches that line into me / my allies line.  As such, there's a weak spot - take your cavalry into their end of the line and issue a charge order.  You get big advantages as your heavy, hard-hitting cav troops end up 2-3:1 against enemy infantry, and usually do some good damage.  Let them charge/melee for a bit, then wheel them back out with a follow / hold order away from the line before the infantry can spread out and envelope your dudes.

That's kinda' what I meant with "charge flanks" and "don't get stuck in".  It's about all I can offer in terms of sound advice

 

[TSD]

My general strategy is this and it seems to work out rather well.  Move my troops within archer range, order the archers/infantry to hold the ground.  I order the cavalry to FOLLOW me.  I never order them to simply charge.  I will generally make strafing runs along their lines.  Still the cav may be stupid, but since they are ordered to follow, they will follow, and wont charge and engage standing still.  As im coming in on the first strafe run i order the infantry to charge.


Another thing is have your cavalry follow you, around to the rear of the enemy, then order your infanty to attack from the front, then charge your cavalry from the rear.  You essentially sandwich them.

 

[mouthnhoof]

OK it is that simple:
You do not use cavalry against a stationary group of troops. Normally the enemy will advance towards you. If they come is a gaggle, you can just release the cavalry, but often they advance in formation until close. What you do then is to lead (or send) the cavs around and attack from the back of the advancing formation when they are close to your infantry.

Reasoning: The enemy missile troops will fall behind. Some will turn around to shoot at the cavs. Splitting the enemy fire is always good, but in this case the missile troops fall behind the advancing infantry and become easy pray. When the cavs hit the rear, the infantry will break, some turning back to chase the cavs and other charging your infantry - chaos is the dish on which cavalry food is served.

The other option is to lead the cavs on passes close and behind the enemy line (follow me), just to tick them off. At some point the AI will go on the attack. Then you get your cavs a little away and release them.

 

[zulu]

whatever you do don't charge into a thick mass of troops without infantry support. on dispersed infantry cavalry are awesome but they rely on mobility. even heavy cavalry are vulnerable if they get mobed by infantry. i find circling around and charging from the rear or sides into already engaged infantry to be a good tactic.

 

[dochtorgajo]

Well Im  beating cavalry just by massing as many of my men as possible as Im in no mood to use cavalry at all.

I wouldnt argue about realism ingame and that in real life groups of heavily armoured riders were able to plow through whole pikesquares (landsknechts/Spanish or Swiss- Ceresole 1544, Dreux 1562 for example) being outnumbered minimally 10 to 1 and were able to do it repeatedly or in other words any infantry no matter how thick a formation it chooses wasnt such a big threat for heavy cavalry (heavy armour for both rider and horse) when it didnt significantly outnumbered them and had an advantage to sit on its ass and play a role of a castle.

I do agree that light cavalry should be best at killing dispersed enemy anyway right now there is no difference in light and heavy horses except that heavies are less maneuverable, slower and still stop at first two men they run into. If AI is stupid enough to charge, stop and sit in melee at least I could have an option of running through formation killing one or two enemies and get away on the other side. Like it was in good old MB.

But it is still good for a game. Anyway not everything is better and more realistic than it was in the elder title.

Id really like to know what exactly changed from MB to WB that removed any differerce in how many men can I roll over with particular type of horse and if it is reversible.

 

[BHunterSEAL]

Actually, if people think cavalry are too strong in Warband, they probably didn't play the original: heavy cavalry were nigh untouchable, and could ride roughshod over anything not mounted, regardless of equipment or tactics. Playing as the Rhodoks or Nords was a much bigger challenge--to win, you'd need to position a mass of infantry several ranks deep on a hilltop and hope to God they'd hold the formation.

 

[Boduar]

And if everything worked out right Huscarls might be disadvantaged to Heavy Cav but Rhodoks would completely decimate them so there you go everything works in opposite order (you have to be either really baller or really stupid to charge a horse into 15-20 foot long spears).

 

[Manic Oppressive]

I've tried to pound this in, cavalry can take out even Huscarls with a basic tactic. Just tell your infantry to charge and your cavalry to follow you, as soon as your infantry hit them head on you lead a cavalry charge against the side and rear, shaving off men without getting caught in the melee.

 

[bowlie]

i think they can be powerful. they devastate in open feilds with equal numbers but if they are horribly outnumbered, get trapped, or are in seiges they get destroyed.

 

[Night Ninja]

I wouldnt argue about realism ingame and that in real life groups of heavily armoured riders were able to plow through whole pikesquares (landsknechts/Spanish or Swiss- Ceresole 1544, Dreux 1562 for example) being outnumbered minimally 10 to 1 and were able to do it repeatedly or in other words any infantry no matter how thick a formation it chooses wasnt such a big threat for heavy cavalry (heavy armour for both rider and horse) when it didnt significantly outnumbered them and had an advantage to sit on its ass and play a role of a castle.

Cavalry has always lost against well led and motivated footmen kept in good order. The slaughter only starts when the infantry break and the cavalry run them down.

 

[The Darklord]

I wouldnt argue about realism ingame and that in real life groups of heavily armoured riders were able to plow through whole pikesquares (landsknechts/Spanish or Swiss- Ceresole 1544, Dreux 1562 for example) being outnumbered minimally 10 to 1 and were able to do it repeatedly or in other words any infantry no matter how thick a formation it chooses wasnt such a big threat for heavy cavalry (heavy armour for both rider and horse) when it didnt significantly outnumbered them and had an advantage to sit on its ass and play a role of a castle.

Cavalry has always lost against well led and motivated footmen kept in good order. The slaughter only starts when the infantry break and the cavalry run them down.

Or when the Infantry is already fighting something and then get hit in the side of rear by the cavalry, the second the cavalry started penetrating the infantry formation it changes (because now the infantry is disrupted). The key things is they normally need to be already fighting or there needs to be a weak spot (IE the infantry not in good order).
Now dochtorgajo that is true for some battles but if you look more closely your find that in most of them, the cavalry is using lances that are longer then the spears/pikes of the infantry they are up against and as such they don't need to charge into a coherent infantry group as they can disrupt it really easy.

Ok it possible to get some horses (it really rare though) to charge into a mob of people and the rest will follow but that special horse dies your how bunch of cavalry is useless

 

[dochtorgajo]

That absolutely wrong generalization.

I wouldnt argue about realism ingame and that in real life groups of heavily armoured riders were able to plow through whole pikesquares (landsknechts/Spanish or Swiss- Ceresole 1544, Dreux 1562 for example) being outnumbered minimally 10 to 1 and were able to do it repeatedly or in other words any infantry no matter how thick a formation it chooses wasnt such a big threat for heavy cavalry (heavy armour for both rider and horse) when it didnt significantly outnumbered them and had an advantage to sit on its ass and play a role of a castle.

Cavalry has always lost against well led and motivated footmen kept in good order. The slaughter only starts when the infantry break and the cavalry run them down.

Or when the Infantry is already fighting something and then get hit in the side of rear by the cavalry, the second the cavalry started penetrating the infantry formation it changes (because now the infantry is disrupted). The key things is they normally need to be already fighting or there needs to be a weak spot (IE the infantry not in good order).
Now dochtorgajo that is true for some battles but if you look more closely your find that in most of them, the cavalry is using lances that are longer then the spears/pikes of the infantry they are up against and as such they don't need to charge into a coherent infantry group as they can disrupt it really easy.

Ok it possible to get some horses (it really rare though) to charge into a mob of people and the rest will follow but that special horse dies your how bunch of cavalry is useless

Problem of really heavy cavalry isnt that it cant defeat infantry its the odds it faced. Its wrong generalization to say it never won (it won many times especially in smaller skirmishes and battles themselves werent about infantry defeating cavalry it was about army defeating army) just as that to train a horse to charge into mobs or walls was rare in the past - youll have whole unit of special horses. (I put my trust in words of rennaisance cavalry reenactors and their research ) I already made few examples and pointed out that they were charging againt supreme numbers of well led and motivated infantry of highest possible quality so they were able to do this (At Ceresole with his infantry routed French commander d´Enghien unaware of situation on other wing desperatly charged several times with about 400 gendarmes imperialist pike square of more then 4000 man running completely through it- with all pikes and firearms pointed at them- this is far from 80 nords reducing 50 heavy horses to ruin in 30 seconds not even equipped for fight against them On the other hand it is logical 400 men would do close to nothing against such a force. From most recent times find something about charge of 21st lancers at the battle of omdurman- and that is fairly light cavalry still charging through at least few thousant men and not being annihilated in few minutes and maybe not the best example of cavalry against trained infantry but anyway- Polish winged hussars)

I fully agree with point about lances- yes they really were there to disrupt the frontal ranks and allow to penetrate infantry formation- once past it cavalry had happy time (Its almost like with throwing coin into the water once you overcome surface tension nothing is halting it) Thats the whole point of developing pike and shot formation and perfecting it- to keep cavalry outside and unable to get in. That was also purpouse of heavy cavalry in this environment- to be able to get inside and distupt its coherence- so yes it was allways good to back this up with cooperation with infantry or artillery to make use of it.

I wouldnt argue but informations you propose are very modern era influenced (Napoleonic wars or more specifically battle of Waterloo ) I say, maybe Im wrong. There are many differences between rennaisance cavalry and more modern heavy cavalry or even medieval knights. Picture of each of these is too complex to grasp in few sentences.

Keep in mind that with advanced firearms and bigger battles numbers and speed go over any individual qualities of horses or men on them as there is nothing you can do against bullet with this and few hundred of them would be shot to pieces before they even reach target. But with melee heavy warfare their role as best tool for offensive is irreplacable.

But I dont want to argue about anything of this everything is possible and own research is needed and still one cant be sure about it.