Holding Location on battlemap = dead Horsemen

[Settra]

When I want to make a hold this location on the battlemap..and I both have Horses and footsoldiers...then the horses will attack when the enemy gets in range...normally causing them to die becouse they are outnumbered..but my footsolders just stay back...I would rather that they didnt attack at all before I said Charge!

Then atleast both my horses and Footsoldiers could attack at the same time..

 

[Akodo]

The "Hold Position" command tells your men to go to a certain place (where you are standing) and stop. If an enemy enters thier attack range (either into bow range or into a certain "melee range") they attack. Now, this is very good when you have infantry vs enemy cavalry as they bunch togather and attack as one due to similiar speed. However, when a cavalryman is told to hold position he will attack the enemy going into range by cavalry combat, meening he would charge and manuver with the enemy. This does often meens his death.
The selution is either to just tell everyone to charge, or to dismount your cavalry and make them hold like footmen.

 

[Deus Ex]

[...] or to dismount your cavalry and make them hold like footmen.

That is the trick. If you do not want them to skirmish with the enemy as they approach, use the dismount command (num key 5 IIRC).

This can be a very effective tactic, especially if you hold formation on a decent hill.

DE

 

[Settra]

Yeah well..I think its stupid..I would rather that when you made a hold position then the horses didnt attack before enemy is at close range..like melee...having a hold position where your horsemen dies is kinda not worth it...

and needing to dismount a horseman kinda takes away his advange... so that I find quite stupid too...

otherwise they should make a formation where it was stay in position..where they didnt move unless VERY close...

 

[Akodo]

But the whole point of cavalry fighting is mobility. Without it they drop against any enemy. So if they would have actually stood thier ground on horseback they would all die. Also, historicaly horsemen didn't stand thier ground, as it is unpractical. They always dismounted or charged\counter charged.

 

[Settra]

But the problem is that when I have like 3 horsemen and they charge in to a group of Veterans on foot becouse they feel like charging and not standing..then it means dead horsemen...becouse normal horses cant run footsoldiers down...so I would rather they could stay a little longer and then have my footsoldiers by thier side instead of 3 charging 20 footsoldiers...

 

[Volkier]

Err.. horses would make a mounted enemy more lethal even if stationary, since the horses wouldn't exactly stand motionlessly. They are very agile, capable of defending themselves to some extent, and would provide a lot of advantages for the rider. We've been through this argument several times before. Obviously charging is what cavalry does best, therefore it was mainly what cavalry was used for, but that doesn't mean they would have a disadvantage in a close-up melee.. They do tend to have this currently in game, but full realism would be a bit too hard to code in, and anyway this is still the closest a game has gotten ::\

 

[Beelzebub]

They need to add a better communication system cuz this problem makes it pointless to mix cavalry and infantry. Either go all horse or all foot, cuz if you mix them atm, they'll just both face an enemy group unevenly. Needs to be seperate commands for horse and foot, maybe like FPS voice macros (say for battlefield 1942) where each of the main hotkeys opens a sub menu. You could have one for infantry, one for archers, one for cavalry and one for horse archers. This would let you position each in a different spot and time cavalry interventions.

 

[Akodo]

I agree with Beelzebub, mixing types right now is somewhat pointless, and the only combination worth considering is archer\cavalry as archers tend to hold position even if you tell them to advance when they see the enemy.

 

[Kissaki]

Err.. horses would make a mounted enemy more lethal even if stationary, since the horses wouldn't exactly stand motionlessly. They are very agile, capable of defending themselves to some extent, and would provide a lot of advantages for the rider. We've been through this argument several times before. Obviously charging is what cavalry does best, therefore it was mainly what cavalry was used for, but that doesn't mean they would have a disadvantage in a close-up melee.. They do tend to have this currently in game, but full realism would be a bit too hard to code in, and anyway this is still the closest a game has gotten ::\

When mounted on a horse, the rider loses a lot of his own agility. The horse's mobility compensates for this, but if just standing about - either standing still or walking around a certain area - the rider is essentially a sitting duck. I don't care how much kung-fu the horse knows; infantry will be aware of a horse's natural defences anyway, and would preferably approach with weapons allowing them to poke at the horse and rider from outside said horse and rider's range - spears are excellent for this task.

The rider himself will be restricted in that he cannot utilize his hips in his attacks, and he also has fewer attack directions. His flanks are more vulnerable, as being mounted makes it far more difficult to ward from both sides at once. If he wants to turn more than 90 degrees, he has to turn with the horse. From his elevated position he is also at a disadvantage when it comes to reading his opponents, and in his saddle he is anything but nimble. Not to mention presenting a bigger target for archers.

All these things are countered to a considerable degree if you just let the horse pick up some speed. Trading blows with infantrymen, however, is a bad situation for the cavalryman.

If a knight became more deadly by the virtue of sitting on a horse, the English wouldn't have gotten in the habit of dismounting before battle in the first place.

 

[Lucidor]

Excellent point, Kissaki! Mounting someone on a horse without training, and exspecting him to be better would be quite pointless. Horses are needed for fluid battles of maneuvering, like the Asian horse archer techniques, or bred to be quite monstrous, like the horses ridden by the knights of the middle ages.

You just don't stick a guy with a sword on them and expect them to be more lethal. They are, however, more mobile.

 

[kermitthefrog3]

but Volkier, if a man is on a horse and is stationary, an enemy can just run head on and not be hit because his horses head is in the way and the enemy stabs the horse in the head or neck, it dies the man falls off and gets killed, thats why ites best to keep them moving

 

[DSparil]

Mixing ANY kind of troops its a terrible idea. When i first started to play, i wanted to have an army made of all kinds of troops, and no matter what ordes i gave, all battles came down to the following: first, the cavalry would rush to the enemy (even while i was shouting HOLD GODDAMNIT!!), where they would be surrounded and slaughtered, then, as the enemy came closer, the infantry would attack, only to be shot to death by MY OWN ARCHERS/CROSSBOWMEN who stood behind.
Now i play with an army made only of heavy infantry (sargeants and greatswords in the new mag7) and i rarely have any casualties, even when fighting dark knights.

 

[Volkier]

Thing is, horses are a lot more agile than humans, and can literally turn on the spot a lot faster than somebody running around it. The guy on top of the horse, can still block / parry, and is quite high up, so it is technically harder for him / her to be hit. Yes horses would be stabbed instead, but that would give the opportunity for the rider to swing at the attacker. Horse itself, would not just stand on the spot either.

So basically the equation is: horse = more maneurable than human, rider is on top of the horse, rider can still turn in the torso (to an extent), rider = higher than unmounted troop, horse = heavier than anyone on the ground and can literally push through a tight situation, horses will take a lot more than a human to be knocked down. Therefore it would be safe to say that the guy on top would have an advantage, providing they know what they are doing.

Obviously I won't deny the fact that a horse which doesn't trust the rider, with a crappy rider on top, would not work too well since the horse would panic, throw the guy off and try to escape. However even if the horse is not 'trained for war', but can trust the guy/gal on its back, it would be a completely different story. Even if the horse is scared, he would attempt to defend himself and the rider.

Obviously I won't deny either that long spears and such were used to counter cavalry. (thats why they were invented in the first place). This actually just proves my point, that with sword vs sword combat, a mounted troop has the advantage. Spears would be used to stab the horse I believe, since the rider can still dodge / deflect the spear coming at them, since the only sharp point is at the tip of the spear. This is why spears are not that useful against infantry, and spearmen would not work too well (in reality) on their own vs enemy of similar numbers. It all comes down to strategy.

Its a bit hard and pointless to explain this to people who only seen horses in a computer game tough, and in most games today horses = an increase in speed, and nothing else. So I don't blame anyone for not understanding.

 

[Amman d Stazia]

Ah, Volkier, I'm going to have to throw half a denar in here...
yes, one horseman will always beat one footman. But if you stand three horseman next to each other, as close as possible, there is enough space for 7 or 8 footmen to front them, so in a close melee, cavalry end up outnumbered due to their indivdual size. The aggression of a trained or frightened horse can make up for this ONLY if the rider controls it.


spears are very good against infantry! they are long! Poke your attacker with your spear, then grab your sword (held in the shield hand, already drawn) and hack at him whilst he is still recovering from the spear-thrust. You have dropped your spear but that's good because now you're very close to the enemy and need a short, maneuverable weapon.

 

[Volkier]

Obviously : I'm not comparing 1horsemen vs 10footmen. I believe that however, if a horseman gets surrounded, he (and the horse) would attempt to push out of the situation, and not stand on the spot getting poked left / right / centre ::\

AND if you have 3 horses next to each other, it would be actually a disatvantage, sine they won't be able to spin around to defend themselves as easily. Therefore it would be beneficial for them to be close together, but not close enough to restrict their own movement.

Here is a rough diagram of what I believe would be the case in real life. Top is what you have mentioned, 3 horses being surrounded, and ultimately dying (for obvious reasons - they can't move, they would bump into each other). The same situation is described below, with the same 12 footmen, however the 3 riders / horses are now thinking and protecting each other, while making the enemies surrounding them, more spread out. This is just a rough diagram, and obviously the whole picture would always be moving, but it is just there to show what I roughly mean.

Lastly, you don't even have to train horses too much, since this is a natural defence for a herd of wild horses when protecting foals from danger. As described below.

 

[Amman d Stazia]

indeedy! Horses that don't move, die quickly.
I agree that a horse should be able to 'shoulder' it's way through one rank of infantry, but if the press is too thick, the horse will not get through, and the rider will be dragged down. We could do with marshland for this reason
(ref battle of stirling brig, 1297)
It should maybe be that the better horses (hunter, charger Flemish Destrier) have some fighting AI of their own, as regards trampling, kicking, biting... unless of course oberruled by their rider.
I find in M&B that even if the rider is being hit by an enemy, he can still turn the horse, and this will force scattered infantry to move aside but it won't hurt them.

 

[Volkier]

I edited the above mentioned post to hopefully shine some light on the subject. Sorry for late reply (or rather edit) was half way thru doing it / drawing pictures etc. when you apparently replied.. Thing is, in reality, its not a great idea to try and get closed to a pissed off horse trying to defend itself / its rider.

 

[Amman d Stazia]

Actually, I think we're on the same wavelength here. horses have to move to be effective, and the better the rider is the greater their effectiveness is. even with a crap rider the natural instinct of the horse to defend itself has some value, but not much if it is surrounded by a large number of enemies...

or something similar?
how do you get the graphics in? Hasn't worked for me yet!

 

[Volkier]

Yeah well movement doesnt have to be forward / backward direction. Spinning on the spot and kicking out at the baddies works pretty well, and regarding a horse being surrounded, horses are a lot heavier and can push people out of the way. Also, if you have too many people crowded around 1 enemy, they are actually blocking their own friends, and get in the way, hence its not too beneficial for that to happen. To effectively surround and pull down a horse, you WILL need around 8-10 people, a completely stationary horse, and a retarded rider.. They can surround the horse and rider yes, but at a distance. Getting close to a pissed off / scared horse trying to defend itself, AND with a rider who is swinging a sword on top is not very easy like I mentioned earlier on :

Oh and pictures are just uploaded to a webspace somewhere, then they are just linked to from posts using [*url] :