Currently viewing this thread:

hruza

Knight at Arms
I am pretty sure that the devs' tests are going in the same direction, mostly because it is pretty evident that you can defeat the AI easily if spamming archers (00:15:40 for archers battle), while cavalry is much harder to manage effectively and while the result is much worse.

Only problem here is that AI can't defeat player easily by spamming the same archers. Which is why I am saying that it's problem of the AI and not the archers been OP themselves. If you make archers weaker, or other units stronger, you will just make AI archers even more pathetic then they already are. That's not a "balance".

Right now you can at last make conscientious decision to not exploit AI and not spam archers if you don't like it. If devs do "balancing" as some players want, you will be facing weak AI archers that you can't do anything about.

The balancing is pretty subjective, yes, but if you are getting infinitely better results if recruiting X unit instead of recruiting Y unit, there is not needed to be a balancing expert to know that something is really wrong with these results.
Maybe you want cavalry to be relegated to a 100% support role, while other people want cavalry to a more deadly role, etc. Who is right on this? Well, who knows, but what is pretty evident is that archers make feel cavalry and infantry useless because you do not need anything else if spam archers. If you get a different unit, you clearly know that your army is underperforming compared to an archers spam army.

That's correct. I am just saying that the the players look for that "wrong thing" at the wrong place. Something wrong is the AI, not the archers or cavalry themselves.

Concerning the Archers vs Cavalry question, well, if the cavalry is able to reach archers in melee, cavalry should be able to inflict massive kills on these archers, but it is not happening currently because cavalry AI is mediocre as best and miss a lot of hits. Anyway, there is not much sense to argue about if cavalry AI should be improved or not, because at this point all people do agree with everything related to improving AI, plus devs have already confirmed that cavalry AI is getting improved, so people complaining about cavalry bad performance can be happy now.

I have nothing against improving cavalry AI. Quit the opposite, that's exactly what I am suggesting instead of making it bulletproof and able to run through hordes of men with spears without blinking or taking damage as it was in the Warband.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Only problem here is that AI can't defeat player easily by spamming the same archers. Which is why I am saying that it's problem of the AI and not the archers been OP themselves. If you make archers weaker, or other units stronger, you will just make AI archers even more pathetic then they already are. That's not a "balance".

Right now you can at last make conscientious decision to not exploit AI and not spam archers if you don't like it. If devs do "balancing" as some players want, you will be facing weak AI archers that you can't do anything about.



That's correct. I am just saying that the the players look for that "wrong thing" at the wrong place. Something wrong is the AI, not the archers or cavalry themselves.



I have nothing against improving cavalry AI. Quit the opposite, that's exactly what I am suggesting instead of making it bulletproof and able to run through hordes of men with spears without blinking or taking damage as it was in the Warband.

Well, I think we did agree on this then. I have the feeling that archers have too good stats currently but not 100% sure on this to be honest. I just find their rate of fire unrealistically too fast, but if the infantry AI gets improved to a point where it won't be an issue, then it is ok for me. Cavalry does not need better stats for sure, and proof of this is what we can see in Multiplayer skirmish mode, where horsemen are actually overperforming in the players' hands.

Maybe the AI won't be improved to a point where the game feels better, and then some unit tweaks could be done to compensate this, but keeping in mind that the early access time will be extended for at least 6 extra months, it is still soon to argue about that.

I want to check the result of these pending changes before suggesting anything else related to balancing:

Captain Mode
  • Separation of some Perks and some Troop Stats for Captain Mode
  • Ranged AI not being effective enough
  • Cavalry AI not being effective enough

Ranged AI has been already improved I think, but not sure if they want to improve it further. Archers are already pretty good at picking unshielded infantry units but I have read some complaints about Archers ignoring cavalry, etc.

 

hruza

Knight at Arms
I have the feeling that archers have too good stats currently but not 100% sure on this to be honest. I just find their rate of fire unrealistically too fast, but if the infantry AI gets improved to a point where it won't be an issue, then it is ok for me.

Where I would agree to changes to archers is to make the high tier archers (except Fians) bit weaker in melee. They often have too good an armor and can do far better in hand to hand combat then they should in my opinion. But it's to a degree also question of the AI that doesn't really make much difference between how units with shields and without shields perform. Shields almost doesn't make a difference. That they don't use shields to protect themselves against arrow fire just adds insult to injury.
 

D0c1

Knight
And the obvious thing I am pointing out is that horseman is not stronger then archer and archer is not stronger then horseman, there is no balance between them. The success of one or another is in how they are been used, not what "stats" or "buffs" they have.

Take a chess, which is simplified battle. What is stronger? Pawn or knight? Answer is none. Pawn can kill knight and knight can kill pawn. Trick is not in their "strength", trick is in the way you move them. Pawn doesn't have more or less HP armor or "attack" then a knight. If TW was able to make this aspect of combat more important then we might not have these discussions about buffing, depuffing and balancing this or that unit because it wouldn't matter as much.
except that heavy horsemen were the most armored combatants and had the best weapons so they do have advantages over foot troops.
they should be balanced by expense. upkeep mainly.
of course, they should be defeated if they were fought on rough ground with high level archers pelting them from high ground.
or if they were -heavily- outnumbered.
 
Hello! Game is pefect! Except heavy cavalry, its basically useless. In battles infantry 2:1 heavy cavarly, they barely can kill a single unit xD
Can you buff them? Thanks!
i mean i main valiadia, i haven't noticed much issue with having copious amounts of heavy Calvary, i find they work well to de moralize the enemy troops
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
except that heavy horsemen were the most armored combatants and had the best weapons so they do have advantages over foot troops.
they should be balanced by expense. upkeep mainly.
of course, they should be defeated if they were fought on rough ground with high level archers pelting them from high ground.
or if they were -heavily- outnumbered.

No they did not. Medieval heavy horsemen regularly dismounted and fought on foot. And they did not undress their armor for that.

Moreover heavy horseman is a large exposed target fixed atop a horse, unable to dodge effectively or even turn in to certain directions. Heavy horsemen can't form with other heavy horsemen in to as tight a formation as footman can. If formation of horsemen and footmen meet in a head on fight, one horseman is going to face multiple footman, not to mention fact that footmen can fight from several ranks deep while horsemen can't.

Compared to footman, horseman is large inflexible target that can barely defend himself. A sitting duck. There is only one thing horseman is not inferior to footman: his horse can move faster then footman's legs. He can run away from footman any time he wants and decide when and how to fight a footmen and when and how not.

Fighting footman in a head on attack on to a well formed and motivated infantry formation is about the dumbest idea horseman can do. He literally have not a single advantage over footman. Which is why cavalry lost about every time it tried that. Save few rare exceptions.
 

D0c1

Knight
Medieval heavy horsemen regularly dismounted and fought on foot. And they did not undress their armor for that.
that's during a period after bannerlord. when infantry was making a comeback as the main force. during bannerlord period (600-1100), infantry was weak and undisciplined. people fought on horses whenever they could afford it.
that, or they fought sieges.
Fighting footman in a head on attack on to a well formed and motivated infantry formation is about the dumbest idea horseman can do.
that's an awfully specific situation.
if the foot troops didn't have polearms, deep ranks, discipline and weren't extremely motivated, they'd be decimated.
they lacked most of those during bannerlord period.

regardless, the point is that the heavy horsemen were the nobility/rich. and they could afford the best/most armor. other combatants didn't have as much armor as they did.
your ignoring this point.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
that's during a period after bannerlord. when infantry was making a comeback as the main force.

No, that's during every period. People were not glued to the horses. When it made sense to dismount, they did.

during bannerlord period (600-1100), infantry was weak and undisciplined.

English huscarls on Baeux tapestry, Byzantine Varangian guard or tagmata infantry or warriors of great hearten army (or any Nordic army for that matter) does not struck me neither as weak nor undisciplined. Norsemen kicked ass everywhere from Iceland to North Africa all through period of Bannerlord -on foot.

people fought on horses whenever they could afford it.
that, or they fought sieges.

Wrong. Whenever they could afford it and whenever it made sense.

that's an awfully specific situation.
if the foot troops didn't have polearms, deep ranks, discipline and weren't extremely motivated, they'd be decimated.
they lacked most of those during bannerlord period.

They did have polearms, deep ranks and discipline.

regardless, the point is that the heavy horsemen were the nobility/rich. and they could afford the best/most armor. other combatants didn't have as much armor as they did.
your ignoring this point.

A. Nobility regularly fought on foot. Moreover to fight on foot, you don't need horses -easily the most expensive part of the cavalry gear. Therefore much larger number of people can afford the best infantry gear compared to cavalry one. And then you don't need the best equipment to stop the best cavalry if you are on foot.

B. High tier infantry in Bannelord can afford the best/most armor.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Archers can attack at the distance. Cavalry can move and change position fast. Heavy infantry is good at holding position and fight in formation frontally. Make these things matter more in combat, meaning making combat more tactical and it would go long way towards "balance" without need to buff anything. Within limits of the AI and game system of course. I am not expecting complete realism.
This. Making the battle AI more tactically minded especially utilizing terrain and unit speed abilities should be key
 

D0c1

Knight
No, that's during every period. People were not glued to the horses. When it made sense to dismount, they did.
they didn't "regularly dismount" and now only dismounted when it made sense. good that's progress. it doesn't make sense to dismount in an open field battle.

English huscarls on Baeux tapestry
those guys fought both on foot and on horses. they'd have chosen to ride a horse when offered a choice.

Byzantine Varangian guard
you got one. but i bet they couldn't afford to buy horses and armor them. they were body guards. not nobility or especially rich.

tagmata infantry
infantry or warriors of great hearten army
they couldn't afford horses too.
does not struck me neither as weak nor undisciplined.
do you have sources where they regularly fought against heavy cavalry and won?
the bayeux tapestry represent the invasion of the normans culminating in the battle of hastings where they used cavalry.

Norsemen kicked ass everywhere from Iceland to North Africa all through period of Bannerlord -on foot.
norsemen had to travel by bought so i assume it was hard for them to bring warhorses.
and i wouldn't call attacking monasteries and raiding villages "kicking ass".
and they were defeated in spain so hard that they never returned. so i doubt that they raided north africa.
Wrong. Whenever they could afford it and whenever it made sense.
and it doesn't make sense to fight on foot in an open field battle when you can afford a horse.
They did have polearms, deep ranks and discipline.

they didn't except for the polearms part.
As the quality and availability of heavy infantry declined in Europe with the fall of the Roman Empire, heavy cavalry became more effective. Infantry that lack the cohesion and discipline of tight formations are more susceptible to being broken and scattered by shock combat—the main role of heavy cavalry, which rose to become the dominant force on the European battlefield.
Nobility regularly fought on foot.
this is a set back. unless you mean in sieges or rough ground or something.
you don't need horses -easily the most expensive part of the cavalry gear. Therefore much larger number of peop
debatable
it lists 12century warhorse at 50 shilling and mail at 100 shilling.
13th century warhorse at 80pounds (1pound= 20 shilling)
and in the 14th century, a munition milanise armor at 8 pounds.
there is no armor cost in the 13th century.
High tier infantry in Bannelord can afford the best/most armor.
note that not all infantry have polearms and all archers don't.
also, this is an issue that needs fixing. how could a soldier afford an armor even lords are too poor to afford?

further more, to return to the main point. you said that archers are not weaker than horsemen and there is no balance between them then i pointed out that they are indeed weaker because they don't have the same armor so now you're going to talk about bannerlord and not history.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
they didn't "regularly dismount" and now only dismounted when it made sense. good that's progress. it doesn't make sense to dismount in an open field battle.

Danes dismounted all right at the open field battle of Visby. And guess what? They won.

those guys fought both on foot and on horses.

But that's what you denied one post before.

they'd have chosen to ride a horse when offered a choice.

Offered by who?

you got one. but i bet they couldn't afford to buy horses and armor them.

They literally traveled on horses to battle:

The Varangians relied on the broad-bladed Dane axe as their main weapon, although they were often also skilled swordsmen or archers. In some sources, such as Anna Komnene's The Alexiad, they are described as mounted; both Vikings and elite Anglo-Saxon warriors routinely used horses for strategic mobility even though they normally fought on foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

they were body guards. not nobility or especially rich.

Harald Hardrada, son of kin Sigurd Syr of Ringerike and later King of Norway and Denmark and pretender on English crown ...that sounds as noble and rich as you could get in Scandinavia at that time. And he's by far not the only Scandinavian royal to serve there.


Only after reforms in 8th ct. Originally they were infantry. Literally the first thing in your link:

In its original sense, the term "tagma" (from the Greek τάσσειν, "to set in order") is attested from the 4th century and was used to refer to an infantry battalion of 200–400 men

they couldn't afford horses too.

Again:
both Vikings and elite Anglo-Saxon warriors routinely used horses for strategic mobility even though they normally fought on foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

do you have sources where they regularly fought against heavy cavalry and won?
the bayeux tapestry represent the invasion of the normans culminating in the battle of hastings where they used cavalry.

Sure:

The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left.[97] A rumour started that the duke had been killed, which added to the confusion. The English forces began to pursue the fleeing invaders, but William rode through his forces, showing his face and yelling that he was still alive.[98] The duke then led a counter-attack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.[97]

It is not known whether the English pursuit was ordered by Harold or if it was spontaneous.

A lull probably occurred early in the afternoon, and a break for rest and food would probably have been needed.[99] William may have also needed time to implement a new strategy, which may have been inspired by the English pursuit and subsequent rout by the Normans. If the Normans could send their cavalry against the shield wall and then draw the English into more pursuits, breaks in the English line might form.[101] William of Poitiers says the tactic was used twice. Although arguments have been made that the chroniclers' accounts of this tactic were meant to excuse the flight of the Norman troops from battle, this is unlikely as the earlier flight was not glossed over. It was a tactic used by other Norman armies during the period.[99][r] Some historians have argued that the story of the use of feigned flight as a deliberate tactic was invented after the battle; however most historians agree that it was used by the Normans at Hastings.[102]


Battle of Hastings

The Varangians had been ordered to march just in front of the main line with a strong division of archers a little behind them.

As the opposing armies closed in, Guiscard sent a detachment of cavalry positioned in the centre to feint an attack on the Byzantine positions. Guiscard hoped the feint would draw up the Varangians; however, this plan failed when the cavalry was forced back by the archers.

With their massive battle axes, the Varangians attacked the Norman knights, who were driven away after their horses panicked.


Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)

norsemen had to travel by bought so i assume it was hard for them to bring warhorses.
and i wouldn't call attacking monasteries and raiding villages "kicking ass".
and they were defeated in spain so hard that they never returned. so i doubt that they raided north africa.

1280px-Viking_Expansion.svg.png


and it doesn't make sense to fight on foot in an open field battle when you can afford a horse.

And what is open field battle? Flat field without rivers, hills, trees, ravines, wetlands? How many such battles without any terrain features do you know?

they didn't except for the polearms part.

They did:

skynews-bayeux-tapestry-france_4207449.jpg


this is a set back. unless you mean in sieges or rough ground or something.

No I don't. See picture above.

debatable
it lists 12century warhorse at 50 shilling and mail at 100 shilling.
13th century warhorse at 80pounds (1pound= 20 shilling)
and in the 14th century, a munition milanise armor at 8 pounds.
there is no armor cost in the 13th century.

Except Medieval heavy cavalryman had two fighting horses, the main one and a remount. Not to mention horse for his fighting servant. But that one could have been cheaper.

note that not all infantry have polearms and all archers don't.
also, this is an issue that needs fixing. how could a soldier afford an armor even lords are too poor to afford?

How could Harold Hadrata afford his while serving in the Varangian guard? How could housecarls of king Harold Godwinson?

further more, to return to the main point. you said that archers are not weaker than horsemen and there is no balance between them then i pointed out that they are indeed weaker because they don't have the same armor so now you're going to talk about bannerlord and not history.

My point is that archers don't need armor to kill the knight. It's not armor that makes them strong.
 

D0c1

Knight
Danes dismounted all right at the open field battle of Visby
But that's what you denied one post before.
Offered by who?
by their employer and/or money
Harald Hardrada, son of kin Sigurd Syr of Ringerike and later King of Norway and Denmark and pretender on English crown ...that sounds as noble and rich as you could get in Scandinavia at that time
except he was in exile and trying to hide his identity. also, a lone horseman with infantry doesn't make sense. he had no choice but to fight on foot.
And he's by far not the only Scandinavian royal to serve there.
but it was never that the varangians were all nobility. so the noble had to conform to the majority or go fight solo.
Only after reforms in 8th ct. Originally they were infantry. Literally the first thing in your link:

In its original sense, the term "tagma" (from the Greek τάσσειν, "to set in order") is attested from the 4th century and was used to refer to an infantry battalion of 200–400 men
tagma=any infantry battalion.
tagmata=heavy cavalry
not rich/nobility who could afford horses and armor them but chose to fight on foot.
Again:
both Vikings and elite Anglo-Saxon warriors routinely used horses for strategic mobility even though they normally fought on foot.
again, not all horses can carry you into battle and they don't cost the same.
Battle of Hastings
you mean the one where the infantry parked on a hill?
With their massive battle axes, the Varangians attacked the Norman knights, who were driven away after their horses panicked.
you need to quote it fully
In the meantime, the Byzantine right and centre had been engaging in skirmishes with the Normans opposite them. However, with the collapse of the Norman right, the knights were in danger of being outflanked. At this point, the Varangians (mainly Anglo-Saxons who had left England after the Norman Conquest) joined in the pursuit of the Norman right. With their massive battle axes, the Varangians attacked the Norman knights, who were driven away after their horses panicked.
post real evidence, my dude.

Islamic Levant[edit]​

The well-known Harald Hardrada would also serve the Byzantine emperor in Palestine as well as raiding North Africa, the Middle East as far east as Armenia, and the island of Sicily in the 11th century, as recounted in his saga in Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla.[103]

Evidence for Norse ventures into Arabia and Central Asia can be found in runestones erected in Scandinavia by the relatives of fallen Viking adventurers. Several of these refer to men who died in "Serkland" (possibly Arabia).[104]

Meanwhile, in the Eastern Mediterranean the Norse (referred to as Rus') were viewed more as "merchant-warriors" who were primarily associated with trade and business.[105] Indeed, one of the only detailed accounts of a Viking burial come from Ibn-Fadlan's account.[106] At times this trading relationship would break down into violence – Rus' armadas raided in the Caspian on at least three occasions, in 910, 912 and 943.[105]
a pic of the scandanavian settlements doesn't mean they "kicked ass". just that they had a settlement either through hiring or trading.
They did:

skynews-bayeux-tapestry-france_4207449.jpg
a pic of the bayeux tapestry where the normans won because of cavalry. nice.
And what is open field battle? Flat field without rivers, hills, trees, ravines, wetlands? How many such battles without any terrain features do you know?
mostly flat field with as low rivers, trees, ravines and wetlands going inside the battlefield as possible.
this one was fought in front of the gates.
this one was fought between mountains
this one was fought in a plain
this one doesn't seem to have those features in it too.
i honestly don't understand why would one wouldn't fight in open field normally. it's better for formation cohesion and seeing what's going on. unless your opponent have a big advantage in open field and you want to rob him of that or you want to ambush him in an unfavorable terrain, i see no reason not to fight in open field.
Except Medieval heavy cavalryman had two fighting horses, the main one and a remount. Not to mention horse for his fighting servant. But that one could have been cheaper.
do you have a source for this claim?
How could Harold Hadrata afford his while serving in the Varangian guard? How could housecarls of king Harold Godwinson?
those are questions that you need to answer. and are you claiming that the varangian guards and housecarls had better armors than the emperors and lords?
My point is that archers don't need armor to kill the knight. It's not armor that makes them strong.
but armor does make the cavalrymen withstand arrows where the rabble cannot.
but please do tell me how does your archer mean to kill a cavalryman without hiding behind pickets and/or taking the high ground.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
by their employer and/or money

Their employer was English king and they were his elite bodyguards.

except he was in exile and trying to hide his identity.

Yea, rich royal noble in exile.

also, a lone horseman with infantry doesn't make sense. he had no choice but to fight on foot.

Varangian guard had horses. I gave you source.

but it was never that the varangians were all nobility. so the noble had to conform to the majority or go fight solo.

Nobody was all nobility.

tagma=any infantry battalion.
tagmata=heavy cavalry
not rich/nobility who could afford horses and armor them but chose to fight on foot.

Nope. tagmata = plural of tagma.

again, not all horses can carry you into battle and they don't cost the same.

Those that Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon noble could afford can.

you mean the one where the infantry parked on a hill?

Not my fault that in real life there is this thing called terrain that intervenes with your theories.

you need to quote it fully

And? Norman cavalry still failed spectacularly in their charge against Byzantine Varangians on foot.

post real evidence, my dude.

That evidence does not match your argument does not mean that evidence is not real. It means your argument is wrong.

a pic of the scandanavian settlements doesn't mean they "kicked ass". just that they had a settlement either through hiring or trading.

That's exactly what it means. Kicked ass.

a pic of the bayeux tapestry where the normans won because of cavalry. nice.

No, picture where "The cavalry also failed to make headway" Battle of Hastings

Anyway, you claimed there was no infantry with deep ranks and discipline in this era. That picture proved you wrong, regardless who won or lost that battle. But nice try at dodging and changing the subject.

mostly flat field with as low rivers, trees, ravines and wetlands going inside the battlefield as possible.
this one was fought in front of the gates.
this one was fought between mountains
this one was fought in a plain
this one doesn't seem to have those features in it too.

So gates, mountains, rivers. Not a single battle without them?
See, that's my point. Battles does not happen on your ideal flat fields. Cos such fields does not exist.

i honestly don't understand why would one wouldn't fight in open field normally. it's better for formation cohesion and seeing what's going on. unless your opponent have a big advantage in open field and you want to rob him of that or you want to ambush him in an unfavorable terrain, i see no reason not to fight in open field.

That depends on what you mean by open field. Hence my question above. Perfectly flat fields just does not exist, so that's why you wouldn't fight in them.

do you have a source for this claim?

The Confanonier was to arrange the squires also into squadrons, when the Marshal led the brother knights in the charge, the squires who rode the spare destriers were to charge after them. This animal provided a remount if their master’s charger was wounded or blown. Meanwhile, those with the palfreys or mules which the knights rode to battle, were to follow the Confanonier’s banner, well-ordered and at the amble.
Templar statutes, Bennet, 1989


those are questions that you need to answer. and are you claiming that the varangian guards and housecarls had better armors than the emperors and lords?

No, those are questions you need to answer as it was you who claimed that footmen could not afford armor and weapons heavy cavalry could.

I am pretty sure Harold Hadrata or Godwnison's huscarls had no problem getting the best armor of the time. You can clearly see that on the Bayeux Tapestry. So your assumption is completely wrong.

but armor does make the cavalrymen withstand arrows where the rabble cannot.
but please do tell me how does your archer mean to kill a cavalryman without hiding behind pickets and/or taking the high ground.

See battles of Hundred Years War.
 
Last edited:

D0c1

Knight
Their employer was English king and they were his elite bodyguards.
even so, would a king have enough money to cover the cost for horses for thousands of men?
Yea, rich royal noble in exile.
that's the thing, he wasn't rich when he started.
Nobody was all nobility.
heavy cavalry were mostly nobility and rich people because they could afford it.
Nope. tagmata = plural of tagma.
you're ignoring the other point. it states that tagma refers to any infantry battalion. later it referred to elite heavy cavalry. it doesn't state that it meant elite infantry.
Not my fault that in real life there is this thing called terrain that intervenes with your theories.
it doesn't, they were broken eventually.
And? Norman cavalry still failed spectacularly in their charge against Byzantine Varangians on foot.
it wasn't the varangian who withstood their charge or broke it even.
Guiscard hoped the feint would draw up the Varangians; however, this plan failed when the cavalry was forced back by the archers.
That evidence does not match your argument does not mean that evidence is not real. It means your argument is wrong.
you agreed that you would post evidence of varangian guard, tagmata and nordic people fighting against cavalry charges and winning. so far you gave none.
That's exactly what it means. Kicked ass.
next time i go trading or being hired i'll say that i went to kick ass.
No, picture where "The cavalry also failed to make headway" Battle of Hastings

Anyway, you claimed there was no infantry with deep ranks and discipline in this era. That picture proved you wrong, regardless who won or lost that battle. But nice try at dodging and changing the subject.
my claim was from wikipedia and it's true. at the battle of hastings, the infantry lacked the discipline and that's why they broke down and abandoned their advantageous position.
So gates, mountains, rivers. Not a single battle without them?
See, that's my point. Battles does not happen on your ideal flat fields. Cos such fields does not exist.
those features were around the battlefields, not in them. battles which contained them were mostly ambushes or forced battles.
That depends on what you mean by open field. Hence my question above. Perfectly flat fields just does not exist, so that's why you wouldn't fight in them.
mostly flat fields with little of those elements do exist. if they want to "agree" to fight, they're going to do it in them. if they want to force a fight, they chose an advantageous position and/or ambush the enemy.
no one would "agree" to fight heavy cavalry in a flat field when he has mostly infantry because heavy cavalry have a huge advantage there.
they'd fight them on rough ground ideally.
The Confanonier was to arrange the squires also into squadrons, when the Marshal led the brother knights in the charge, the squires who rode the spare destriers were to charge after them. This animal provided a remount if their master’s charger was wounded or blown. Meanwhile, those with the palfreys or mules which the knights rode to battle, were to follow the Confanonier’s banner, well-ordered and at the amble.
Templar statutes, Bennet, 1989
idk how templars worked or who supplied their equipment. but i doubt that they're representative of lord fights.
No, those are questions you need to answer as it was you who claimed that footmen could not afford armor and weapons heavy cavalry could.
how can i prove a negative? i pulled up the prices of mail and horses. mail was double the price of the most expensive horse. they would have worn other armaments like scale and lamellar and they would be even more expensive.
I am pretty sure Harold Hadrata or Godwnison's huscarls had no problem getting the best armor of the time. You can clearly see that on the Bayeux Tapestry. So your assumption is completely wrong.
godwinson's housecarls were a minority because no king would be able to afford to arm thousands of men and harold hadrata was one guy. the vast majority wouldn't be able to afford the best arms armor.
See battles of Hundred Years War.
that was outside of bannerlord period but even then arrows couldn't kill the knights because they imprisoned thousands.
but you mean the battles where the english entrenched, took the high ground, fought in swampy areas, had to resort to hand to hand fighting, executed prisoners and still kept thousands imprisoned?

i found a bonus for you from your arguments with five bucks.
idk why i'm even arguing with you.
five bucks posts are gold

But I'll gladly answer your request anyway. Here is more proof of heavy cavalry domination on top of what I've already provided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Riade Heavy cavalry decisive charge secures victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lenzen#Battle Decisive heavy cavalry charge secures victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechfeld Decisive victory of an all-heavy cavalry force against a mixed infantry/horse archer army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stilo Although this battle was lost, the heavy cavalry are noted for successfully breaking the enemy's strongest center point where the king's guard were, and they only lost in the end to other cavalry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Olivento Decisive heavy cavalry charge secures victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montemaggiore "Victory was attributed to the addition of the Norman heavy cavalry."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ménfő (Battle of Menfo if that link doesn't work). "The army quickly fell apart in the face of the German cavalry."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Civitate Heavy cavalry manage to defeat a force of elite heavy infantry twice their size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerami Heavy cavalry defeat a significantly numerically superior force. First charge fails, but second charge successfully decides the battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Langensalza_(1075) Charge "almost instantly" destroys the center of the infantry force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Elster In this unusual case, the cavalry acted as the anvil to the hammer of the infantry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dyrrhachium_(1081)#Byzantine_collapse In this most famous example, later described by Anna Komnena, the Norman cavalry "smashed through the ranks of the Byzantines, and they were irresistible. A Frankish charge could smash through the walls of Byzantium."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alnwick_(1093) Knight charge catches enemy by surprise, finishing them off quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dorylaeum_(1097) Heavy cavalry arrives to rescue the helpless infantry with a successful charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bairén Frontal charge breaks center line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Larissa Historian Robert Holmes states: "The new knightly tactic of charging with the lance couched – tucked firmly under the arm to unite the impact of man and horse – proved a battle-winner."
This is almost every single battle from the 1000s I can find where a cavalry force is mentioned as fighting infantry.
heavy cavalry was the best
 
Please not. Removing Warband's heavy cavalry spam was one of the best design decision in Bannerlord. Now playing as something else then a heavy cavalry is much more viable and enjoyable and combined arms approach is effective. Cavalry shouldn't be able to just overrun heavy infantry in formation. It's both unrealistic and unfun.
dude, havy cavalry was meta in medieval peroid. Whats the point of heavy cav if it barely can kill a single unit out of 100 infantry troops
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
dude, havy cavalry was meta in medieval peroid. Whats the point of heavy cav if it barely can kill a single unit out of 100 infantry troops

No, it was meta only in the Hollywood films. In reality it was much more nuanced. As French knights that charged English at Agincourt, or English Knights that charged Scots at the Falkirk can tell you. Or anybody that tried to charge Mongols. Dude.
 
No, it was meta only in the Hollywood films. In reality it was much more nuanced. As French knights that charged English at Agincourt, or English Knights that charged Scots at the Falkirk can tell you. Or anybody that tried to charge Mongols. Dude.
Just launch custom battle 100 cav vs 100 inf, - puff! No cavalry. I dont understand, why you just cant click 2 buttons to see it yourself
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
Just launch custom battle 100 cav vs 100 inf, - puff! No cavalry. I dont understand, why you just cant click 2 buttons to see it yourself

Good, game should punish player for mindlessly pushing buttons. Kind of like at the battle of Agincourt. Except English had even less infantry.

Next time use some tactic and common sense. If you just run your cavalry against the spears, spears will win. Spear have infinite hitpoints you know.
 

Calabanar

Regular
Using a specific battle with very unique parameters to “prove” heavy cavalry wasn’t a deciding factor for a long period... genius.

You guys have to stop clogging this thread with historical debates, or make one of your own.
 
Good, game should punish player for mindlessly pushing buttons. Kind of like at the battle of Agincourt. Except English had even less infantry.

Next time use some tactic and common sense. If you just run your cavalry against the spears, spears will win. Spear have infinite hitpoints you know.
Your arguments as flaccid as cavalry in this game.
D01c already said everything, just reread his massage before coming up with new "arguments"
 
Top Bottom