[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="http://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_26_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>A thousand years ago, the Calradoi were one of a dozen tribes living in the hill country between the southern sea and the Battanian woods. Over time, they subjugated their neighbours, forcing them into a confederation of city-states. Perhaps they were slightly fiercer than the others, or just lucky, or perhaps it was the one tradition that set them apart - the Calradoi had no kings. Ever since the hero Echerion slew the tyrant Cypegos, the institution of the monarchy was banned, in theory at least. There was an assembly of free citizens that met occasionally, a senate of elders (in practice the largest landowners) that sat permanently, and - when it was absolutely necessary - supreme command could be invested for a short time in the person of an emperor, a title that back then meant little more than the right to lead an army.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/45
Dev Blog 08/02/18
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
White Lion
Regular
Cale said:
As far as I know Normans did breed and train war-horses, who were bigger, stronger and faster that your typical horse in that time period. If I remember correctly they use to tie them with a rope so they will learn to run in formation and charge at the same time. In my opinion heavy cavalry can be a hammer on the battle field, so I agree with Bustah, I would like to see heavy cavalry having more of an impact, at least the first charge.
They used light cavalry for that.
Altho I understand your point of view and I think that in order for heavy cavalry to have more of an impact, you need to give the infantry the means to defend themselves, like; shielwalls, spearwalls and so on. Otherwise the cavalry will be to powerful. There needs to be some sort of balance.
Cale
Sergeant
White Lion said:
Yeah that's what I said, it was an innovation to do that. Previously horses we'd probably call ponies were the standard, and breeding eventually leads to massive horses that can hold fully armoured men.
Nope, it's the job of the cavalry to ride down broken units and get behind the formation by doing so. In reality the differentiation between 'light' and 'heavy' cavalry is more of a modern interpretation. Your cavalry were likely to be your best equipped troops because horses were damn expensive as above so it becomes more of a cultural issue.
I.e Norman cavalry would almost certainly be described as 'heavy' whether they were proper knights or sergeants but would be doing this role. Likewise Welsh and Scottish nobles would be wearing mail shirts etc but would not be the 'Norman Tank' level of armour so could be called 'Light' cavalry. Obviously things change when you're doing other tasks like scouting ahead of a larger force with minimal kit but again, that's why I specified pitched battles of the type M&B provides.
I should also probably specify that part of riding down broken units was breaking them in the first place. If you believe a unit of men is ready to break or you can cause panic by flanking etc then you would charge and, if it worked (because thundering hooves and giant horses are damn frightening), they would run away and lose their cohesion which led to a slaughter. Ignoring cavalry for a minute many more battles end in one side legging it then they do with a glorious last stand because up close and personal warfare is awful.
But charging head first into a group of armed and determined men is, was and will always be the quickest way to get horribly slaughtered yourself.
It comes down to preference. Having played heavy cavalry and then spent a lot more time playing infantry it feels to me like the heavy cavalry is easier in many respects because you can disrupt and slaughter most foot troops without too much worry. It also feels correct in so far as hitting the side of a line of reinforcements (when they're strung out by different movement speeds) and plowing straight through is incredibly satisfying but attempting to bisect a huge crowd ends badly.
When playing infantry it becomes a lot more crucial to control your warband and know where everyone is in order to counter the charge.
So for me the current balance feels ok, I don't play MP so can't speak about balance there in fairness, other people may disagree and that's fair enough..
Bustah
Regular
Cale said:
Yes, I do have to remember the Battle of Hastings. Where horsemen charged uphill into hails of javelins and throwing spears, and yet took a relatively small amount of damage before luring the enemy off of that hill and slamming into them, breaking them, riding throughout the formation all the way to King Harald's position, and slaughtering him. This is also the time of the Battle of Cerami, where 136 knights charged into a massive formation of about 50,000 Saracens, with no protection on their flanks and no infantry support. And, despite the fact that the Saracens were in a formation, presumably quite deep and definitely with a lot of spears that they definitely knew how to use, they were absolutely butchered. The knights killed 15,000 of them before getting tired, and going to sleep on top of their dead enemies, in their armour, and then waking up to continue hunting down the fleeing men into the hills. Getting a horse to charge into a group of people may be a difficult task for a modern riding horse, but for a horses that have been bred and trained for hundreds of years for war, these horses were anything but rare or difficult to come by. Expensive? Sometimes.
You're right. Momentum is not infinite. But men did not fight shoulder to shoulder in the Middle Ages, or in any age for that matter. Even the famous phalanxes had some space between soldiers, because men need to be able to use those weapons they are holding. And if there's no space behind you, or to either side of you, I'm not sure how effective that weapon is going to be, and if there is space between you, a horse will knock you over, and you will go flying into the men behind you, and they will stumble, and the horse will hit them next, and the next rank, and rank after rank until the men start running or the horses start dying.
A couched lance in a double ranked formation was the standard in much of Europe from about the 10th century. Couching a lance was not a revolutionary idea, and with the introduction of stronger, larger, heavier horses it became possible, whereas a couched lance atop a pony without stirrups, let a lone without a saddle, would have been a dangerous affair.
I agree that the cavalry probably wouldn't have identified themselves or been known to many as either "light" or "heavy" but rather as "men-at-arms" and "knights." Horses could be damned expensive, however they did not have to be. By the 14th century a man could buy himself a decent courser with a few months of pay as a foot soldier. And considering you get a share of the loot as well, a knight could be earning enough whilst on campaign to buy a new horse every week.
Spear bracing, killing riders if they are dismounted very violently, increasing the effect of speed on piercing damage, etc.
And yet we have been doing it for thousands of years. I don't know why people see Hollywood, understand that it's fake nonsense, but then go so far the other way that they think all battles were just men prancing around with a few casualties here and there until one side runs away.
Every single historical description and archaeological find shows us the opposite. Men did run headlong into each other, armed and determined. Men died. They lost their arms, had their heads cut in half, had lances throwing their innards out from where their spine used to be connected, were trampled by their friends, were drowned in the mud, had daggers shoved into their eye sockets, had their throats slit and their heads crushed. Visby, Cerami, Hastings, Agincourt, Tollense, Ethandun and Reading, Manzikert, the many sieges of Constantinople, the list goes on.
I want Bannerlord to represent that with brutal cavalry charges, and if they do not succeed, I agree the consequences should also be brutal. The "job" of a knight was not to run down fleeing enemies. They did this, of course, but it was not their purpose. Especially in Norman and later French tactics, along with English and German and Italian and Spanish and even Slavic to a lesser degree, a knight was an instrument of battle, the first choice. If an enemy could be defeated with a cavalry charge and a cavalry charge alone, so it was done. Infantry were for sieges, and holding battlefield positions, and obviously for the majority of the frontline combat.
I have yet to see any documentation of a cavalry charge gone horribly wrong by the doing of an infantry formation and an infantry formation alone. Probably because it was not possible. If you could show me some I would obviously change my opinion.
CKyHC
"formed an elite bodyguard of foreign mercenaries loyal only to him" - Varangian Guard ?interesting 
Revverie
You gave some nice information in your post mate, yet I don't think all that realism is necessary, you should remember that these changes from reality are often for fun or balance purposes, a lance and a non stopping horse killing everything in their path would be way too OP, and even if the actual system is unrealistic I think it's quite fine as it isBustah said:
I cant remember the source, but from Wikipedia; ‘Made up of roughly five hundred cavalrymen, this unit was clearly designed with a single decisive charge in mind as the centre of the unit was composed of mounted archers. These would release volleys of arrows into the enemy as the unit advanced at a trot, with the first four rows of mace-armed Kataphraktoi then penetrating the enemy formation through the resulting disruption (contrary to popular representations, Byzantine Kataphraktoi did not charge, they advanced at a steady medium-pace trot and were designed to roll over an enemy already softened by the archers).’
Bustah
Regular
AmateurHetman said:
I think the keyword is advanced. Perhaps this source is implying the charge. The entire cavalry force trots forward, the archers firing until a charging distance has been reached, at which point the Kataphraktoi would break out in front of the horse archers in a wedge. It would be better to roll over an enemy at a full gallop rather than a trot, so I really don't see the point in trotting. Although a fast trot could theoretically be pretty fast I'm just not sure. Again, I think they advanced at a trot, firing arrows, and then the melee cavalry would truly charge once they were close.
Also this article was obviously written by more than one person, with conflicting historical interpretations. "this unit was clearly designed with a single decisive charge in mind" "contrary to popular representations, Byzantine Kataphraktoi did not charge, they advanced at a steady medium-pace trot"
You might be right, I just think that especially since their primary weapon is the lance, they would be going as fast as was possible without overworking the horse or losing cohesion, and the ever contradictory Wikipedia has not swayed me.
Bustah said:
No it specifically mentions they did not charge, but instead 'rolled over' the enemy already weakened by the archers. Even at a medium trot, horses in full armour would easily steamroll infantry not in a tight formation.
Edit- I can't get an electonic copy of Leo VI the wise's 'Sylloge Taktikon' or his tactica. It's a 10th century treatise describing everything from Byzantine tactics and strategy to the philosophies a general should endulge in.
Bustah
Regular
AmateurHetman said:
It specifically mentions they did not charge, after just stating that the idea of the formation was to deliver a single decisive charge that could not be reformed. Why go at a trot when you can go as fast as possible? Obviously keeping everyone in perfect order is not an issue considering the idea is that it completely shatters the enemy, and if it doesn't then you either need another cataphract formation ready to go or you're ****ed. So why trot? There is no citation for the line that says it was a medium trot and not a charge. I found the Sylloge Tacticorum but it costs more than Bannerlord to read it so **** that.
Bustah
Regular
NPC99 said:Mounted English knights were defeated by Scots schilltrons (spearmen) at both Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn. Maybe the English knights learned something tactically, choosing to fight on foot at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt.
Perhaps it could have something to do with the fact that in both cases the English were poorly commanded and trying to cross a river. Mounted knights were not really defeated by schiltrons, on the first day of Bannockburn there was a single combat between Robert the Bruce and Henry de Bohun, after which the Scottish cavalry surprise attacked the English cavalry, forcing them back over a river (yes the Scottish had knights too, this isn't Braveheart).
On the second day, the command seriously came into play. The English knights, rather than charging as a unit, charged off in pride or anger with their commanders, and were slaughtered in the small groups they came in. When the combat truly began, the English knights were being attacked by Scottish longbowmen and accidentally in the rear by their own longbowmen, though this friendly fire ended soon after they realised they were hitting their own men in the back. The Scottish cavalry then attacked the English longbowmen and proceeded to trap the English between schiltrons and enemy knights, and they were defeated. In the end, only a small amount of the knights saw real action and probably about half ever saw action at all.
Stirling Bridge was essentially an ambush at the end of a bridge. It could have been English knights against Scottish soldiers, or Byzantine cataphracts against Turkish "soldiers," or all the kings of the world fighting against a couple hundred peasants, it would have been a disaster. The English fought on foot at Agincourt and Crecy because 1. A large part of their force was longbowmen, and if you were to charge forward with cavalry, as they learned at Bannockburn, you would either shoot your own men in the back or make a dangerous and likely ill-fated maneuvre to get the flank. So, a line of infantry allows you to better use your famous, effective, and numerous longbowmen to the best of their ability. 2. They were badly outnumbered. This doesn't necessarily mean anything until we get to 3. They were defending. They could use the terrain and weather to manipulate the battlefield, along with stakes implanted in the ground. Why charge your cavalry over some muddy ground just to ride straight into a better trained, better equipped, and larger cavalry force when you can just hold on top of a hill and force that enemy to run across said muddy ground while getting pelted by your longbowmen, forcing them to arrive tired and wounded (despite this, at Agincourt, the 14 or so French knights that made it to the English lines in the initial French attack caused, reportedly, around 100 casualties).
A heavily armoured soldier on horseback with a lance was the king of the medieval battlefield. In rare cases they were defeated, typically by ranged weapons, better usage of tactics and terrain, and sometimes luck, I guess. Still, I have yet to see documentation of, as I said,
. No longbowmen, no muddy ground, no holding a hill, no ambushing at a river or a bridge, no guns, etc. All else equal, cavalry, even when seriously outnumbered, almost always wins.
kalarhan said:
Too many people watched Braveheart and heard stories about Agincourt and just thought that knights were garbage that could be easily killed by a bunch of peasants in a circle. It's not true.
Cale
Sergeant
NPC99 said:Bustah said:
Mounted English knights were defeated by Scots schilltrons (spearmen) at both Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn. Maybe the English knights learned something tactically, choosing to fight on foot at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt.
As above, see also the fact that despite your dismissal earlier, the Battle of Hastings lasted all day (morning til night), even after the feints weakened the flanks and it took Harold taking an arrow (or possibly a spear, or possibly getting hacked up) in the eye to decisively end it.
Also, the aforementioned Crecy and Agincourt.
Most examples cited of cavalry decisively winning an engagement on their own come about because of what I already said; namely that cavalry is best when a formation is broken. Men run away and a slaughter ensues. If groups of infantry weren't effective they wouldn't still be in use, and tactics like the Square wouldn't have been standard practice through to the Napoleonic era. In regards the Saracens, I believe this was one of their first encounters with Normans kitted up to this level and the combination of ineffective arrows (gambesons and heavy mail being somewhat unusual in the desert) and the sheer size and ferociousness of men and horses broke the nerve of the troops and they were cut up...also if you believe a Christian medieval chronicler has the numbers of dead (or alive for that matter) Muslim soldiers precisely right then I have some land to sell you in Kabul.
And men most assuredly did fight shoulder to shoulder in the early medieval period, the time directly before it, and time after it.
The romans beat the idea of disorganised armies out of people pretty hard on their little world-tour so by the time of the barbarian invasions Shield-Walls are the standard (in the West). Part of the responsibilities of a commander was teaching his non-professional troops how to stand in formation for example we have this from the Battle of Maldon:
Cavalry absolutely serve a decisive blow in many battles, again if they weren't handy then they wouldn't be used, but the idea that you can just ride wholesale into solid opposition and never slow down is silly.
My solution?
Probably tweak the morale system (VC has this, not sure if Warband does) so that a charge of heavy cavalry does a high level of morale damage. Peasants and low ranking troops should have fairly rubbish morale (modified by Players leadership score and number of living party) and therefore be more likely to break in the face of a charge of knights. However professional troops should be able to whether this impact and keep fighting.
Bustah said:
Well, I'll keep researching and hopefully find you a source.
It says they do not charge meaning at a gallop as we know a charge to be carried out. It does make sense to advance at a medium trot as it is less caotic than a full charge and allows for a tighter formation where horses are less likely to bump into each other etc.
Edit- Found my source: "It is probable that the Byzantine heavy cavalry traditionally made charges at
relatively slow speed, certainly the deep wedge formations described in Nikephoros Phokas' day would have been
impossible to deploy at anything faster than a round trot. In the course of the late 11th century the Normans, and
other Westerners, seem to have evolved a disciplined charge at high speed which developed great impetus, and it is
this which outclassed the Byzantines. The role of the couched lance technique, and the connected development of
the high-cantled war saddle, in this process is obscure but may have had some influence."
Page 166 (167 on the PDF): https://ia800702.us.archive.org/8/items/RomanArmy/Roman-army.pdf
Also Byzantine sources such as Choniates refered to kataphraktoi formations as 'phalanxes' which suggests a slower and denser formation.
Bustah
Regular
OK there is a lot to go through here.
Again, terrain and tactics. It doesn't really matter how long it took, it matters the casualties. For all we know the Normans had a bad case of the **** and decided to retreat from noon til 4' until they felt better. As long as the battle is decisively won and the casualties are low, it's a clear victory. I assessed Crecy and Agincourt. But one more thing... people looooove to talk about Crecy and Agincourt, but hate to even think of all the hundreds of other battles where the English were butchered by nothing but a cavalry charge, and every longbowmen in the world couldn't save them.
I like the Battle of Maldon but I don't see what this has to do with cavalry tactics. Not only are the two people fighting one of the most famous European warrior groups who didn't really use cavalry but it even says "When he had fortified his fyrd-men graciously, then he alighted amid the ranks." Considering the earlier command of how men "must stand and keep that place," this implies that there was enough room for a man on a horse (horses are wider than men. perhaps not modern men but definitely medieval men
) to fit between the ranks, and for him to travel through the ranks and find his place. Maybe that's nitpicky but I think it shows truth.
Perhaps my indication that cavalry could run over a near infinite amount of men disregarding stamina and interference was untrue. But 5, 6, 7, or 8 men, even more? I think very likely. And unless we can field thousands of men I don't see a reason to go deeper than that. I 100% 10/10 definitely agree that morale needs to be fixed. I think most of the balance for Vlandian knights shouldn't be making them unnecessarily weak and therefore uninteresting and unfun, but rather make them balanced. You want a knight? Well he costs a lot to hire, perhaps even some acreage if they implement that into the game (please). If you don't want to pay that price then have fun hiring the few noble boys who are willing to join you as squires and lightly equipped men-at-arms, who will, in the end, want some acreage too by the time you knight them. Having knights should make you feel like a badass. Being a knight should be badass. Losing a knight should feel like a slap in the face, because it's going to take a long time and a lot of money, perhaps even some influence points (what kind of knight wants to join some random peasant? Swadian knights apparently).
I feel like Mithril was right, I always end up posting huge walls of text. Whatever
I was talking hypotheticals. I didn't say no ranged weapons, I said no longbowmen and no guns. You know, the two weapons famous for causing the downfall of the knight? A lot of battles were on wide flat ground. Muddy ground to the extent of Agincourt is rare. Honestly forget I even said no holding a hill. Cavalry wins anyways. An ambush is not a battle. I get it, you want to make a jokey joke about how people think that all battles were fought on large open plains.
But to imply battles weren't scheduled is ridiculous because they were. Why fight on a rainy day when you can just not. It's worse for everyone. Commanders very often sought open ground to do battle, waited out bad weather, sought conditions where the enemy's ranged advantage was mitigated, and avoided being ambushed.
And obviously without scheduling there would be no way to ensure the "work" of the knights was not performed on the Sabbath.
Again, terrain and tactics. It doesn't really matter how long it took, it matters the casualties. For all we know the Normans had a bad case of the **** and decided to retreat from noon til 4' until they felt better. As long as the battle is decisively won and the casualties are low, it's a clear victory. I assessed Crecy and Agincourt. But one more thing... people looooove to talk about Crecy and Agincourt, but hate to even think of all the hundreds of other battles where the English were butchered by nothing but a cavalry charge, and every longbowmen in the world couldn't save them.
I'm pretty sure anyone ever in the whole of existence is better at fighting someone who's running away than someone who's not. What is your point? Need I remind you of Cerami again?
Are you serious with this? Here's my counter point. If a Toyota isn't as good as a Lamborghini, then no one would drive a Toyota, especially an old one. Do you see how little sense that makes? Honestly if the kings of 11th century Europe could afford to have armies entirely of cavalry I'm sure they would disband every single levied stinking peasant in an instant. But they couldn't. So. They didn't.
OK, first part is a no from me. They had been fighting the Normans for 2 years, and definitely understood the emphasis and importance of Norman knights, as they wouldn't have seen much else. Ineffective arrows. Gambesons and heavy mail were not unusual in the desert, and to be so broad as to call Sicily a desert just because it was controlled by Muslims is kind of insulting. These Muslims had been in Sicily for hundreds of years, fighting Lombards and other Italians, and Byzantines too. They were not new to the concept of heavy mail (indicated by the fact that they wore it) and they had their own clothing that would probably qualify as a gambeson if it didn't have its own Saracen definition. Lastly, what do you have against a Christian medieval chronicler? I believe a Zirid chronicler was also there and reported similar results, but that's besides the point because no matter how grossly he overestimated it, which I doubt he did very much, it's still an awesome victory and proof of the absolute raw power of the Norman cavalry charge. 5,000 there, 3,500 killed, 50,000 there, 35,000 killed, it matters not. Also I doubt they "broke the nerves" of the troops when they first charged in, considering the battle lasted hours and they first clashed with the Saracen heavy cavalry.
If you have a spear or can find a stick, go get it. If you have 5 friends go get them. Have one friend on each side of you with his shoulder pressing up against yours and have three more guys behind you in the same position, nearly touching your back with their chest. Tell me if you can use that spear. The answer will be no. To fight in a tight formation is one thing, but to literally be pressed against each other, shoulder to shoulder is another thing entirely.
I like the Battle of Maldon but I don't see what this has to do with cavalry tactics. Not only are the two people fighting one of the most famous European warrior groups who didn't really use cavalry but it even says "When he had fortified his fyrd-men graciously, then he alighted amid the ranks." Considering the earlier command of how men "must stand and keep that place," this implies that there was enough room for a man on a horse (horses are wider than men. perhaps not modern men but definitely medieval men
) to fit between the ranks, and for him to travel through the ranks and find his place. Maybe that's nitpicky but I think it shows truth.Perhaps my indication that cavalry could run over a near infinite amount of men disregarding stamina and interference was untrue. But 5, 6, 7, or 8 men, even more? I think very likely. And unless we can field thousands of men I don't see a reason to go deeper than that. I 100% 10/10 definitely agree that morale needs to be fixed. I think most of the balance for Vlandian knights shouldn't be making them unnecessarily weak and therefore uninteresting and unfun, but rather make them balanced. You want a knight? Well he costs a lot to hire, perhaps even some acreage if they implement that into the game (please). If you don't want to pay that price then have fun hiring the few noble boys who are willing to join you as squires and lightly equipped men-at-arms, who will, in the end, want some acreage too by the time you knight them. Having knights should make you feel like a badass. Being a knight should be badass. Losing a knight should feel like a slap in the face, because it's going to take a long time and a lot of money, perhaps even some influence points (what kind of knight wants to join some random peasant? Swadian knights apparently).
I feel like Mithril was right, I always end up posting huge walls of text. Whatever
Cale said:
I was talking hypotheticals. I didn't say no ranged weapons, I said no longbowmen and no guns. You know, the two weapons famous for causing the downfall of the knight? A lot of battles were on wide flat ground. Muddy ground to the extent of Agincourt is rare. Honestly forget I even said no holding a hill. Cavalry wins anyways. An ambush is not a battle. I get it, you want to make a jokey joke about how people think that all battles were fought on large open plains.
But to imply battles weren't scheduled is ridiculous because they were. Why fight on a rainy day when you can just not. It's worse for everyone. Commanders very often sought open ground to do battle, waited out bad weather, sought conditions where the enemy's ranged advantage was mitigated, and avoided being ambushed.
And obviously without scheduling there would be no way to ensure the "work" of the knights was not performed on the Sabbath.
No doubt digging ditches is beneath a gentleman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
the flower of knighthood, with horses and chargers of the finest, fell before weavers, fullers and the common folk and foot soldiers of Flanders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
the flower of knighthood, with horses and chargers of the finest, fell before weavers, fullers and the common folk and foot soldiers of Flanders
Bustah
Regular
NPC99 said:
Ah yes, a siege! Cavalry's most effective situation. We all know that cavalry are perfect at attacking fortified positions such as walls and ditches. I heard a Norman's lance could go through 10 feet of their enemy's walls before stopping, but by that point the wall had typically crumbled from the gravitational pull of the knight's massive cocks.
