Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

Currently viewing this thread:

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Best answers
0
But you do, at least i do right now ^^ especially grabbing their T6 legendary armor after battle <3
that's so rare to drop 😭😭😭😭😭
The best money making machine tactic is to just spam focus into smithing, farm for parts until you get certain special parts, and craft weapons with ridiculous costs like 100k+. Since I always lose patience with the grind, I generally just do that.

What kills me is that the crafting system only takes account of dmg value, everything else is borderline ignored, when in fact that level of detail and complexity of a weapon along with raw materials should be the pricing factor... 🤷‍♂️
 

Dr-Shinobi

that's so rare to drop 😭😭😭😭😭
Ik i was really really lucky there xD especially with 17 in rogue skill...However i had some reg t6 drops while playing banditlords and wasnt that exceptional rare when youre up on high level
 

Dr-Shinobi

Damn scratch that statement with warhorse prices....you can get em for 186 if youre lucky without skills what so ever...trading (11). Now thats a damn good deal! since i usually hip regular horses under 200 sometimes 250 to be worth it
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Regular
Best answers
0
That's delusion French knights had at Crecy, Agincourt and Golden Spurs. Then the real "real" life kicked in.

Devastating charges happened in the real life much less often then in the Hollywood movies.

Making cavalry more realistic in Warband is one of the best changes done to the series. I don't want Warband's heavy cav spam that can roll over everything.
Crecy, Agincourt, and the Battle of the Golden Spurs get such great attention specifically because they are exceptional-- they involved worst-case scenarios where cavalry forces lost battles they would normally win.

This was due to some terrible decisions. At Crecy and Agincourt the ground was extremely muddy, and the battleground was greatly in favour of the English (who had erected defensive stakes), and the French cavalry were disorganized, not at full numbers (at Agincourt some of them left to go for a walk!), and made some incredibly poor tactical decisions (like waiting until after multiple arrow volleys to charge, and not charging when the English were vulnerable outside their stake walls). At the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Flemish had crisscrossed the countryside with defensive ditches (which you can't do in Bannerlord) and the battle took place on marshy ground; the French cavalry charged against a force twice their size, and their reinforcements decided not to show up to help them. What lost those battles was not heavy cavalry somehow being weak, but disorganization that made the full strength not be brought to bear.

Also, importantly, Golden Spurs took place in the year 1302, when two centuries of heavy cavalry domination had made armies finally adapt tactics that would best work against heavy cavalry. In the 1000s the high-backed saddle and stirrups were relatively new innovations for Europe, and thus so was the heavy cavalry charge.

I will say that yes, an individual charge was not always immediately devastating; however, over the course of a battle, heavy cavalry forces making repeated charges over infantry generally were successful, and massive failures like Agincourt were rare. Bringing up the few battles where it resulted in death, compared to the thousands of battles where it succeeded, is disingenuous.

As a handful of counter-examples (that are actually from Bannerlord's 1000-1100s time period, and not the high middle ages!), you can have the Battle of Hastings where the Norman knights defeated a numerically superior infantry force through repeat charges, the Battle of the Lake of Antioch (where 700 mounted knights quickly routed 10,000 infantry in a handful of charges), the Battle of Dyrrhachium (army of 15,000 defeats an army of 25,000 thanks to a decisive cavalry charge), the Battle of Ramla where a force of 260 knights and 900 infantry defeated a force of 3000, and the third (lol) Battle of Ramla where 500 knights and 2000 infantry used a decisive charge to defeat a mix of around 5000-15000 infantry, horse archers, and light Arab cavalry (who did not charge, and waited to be charged).
I don't know about you. But in real life a horse would not charge into a line of men. It's a living animal with instincts after all.
Dude, sorry, but please stop talking about something you know nothing about. People are very happy to say "in real life" while providing no examples of real life. Here, have a horse charging into a line of men in real life.
They were literally trained to do it. A human is a "living animal with instincts" and you can train it to charge into a line of men!
 

five bucks

Regular
Best answers
0
How is that real life when that is a camera crew there?
What sort of ridiculous question is that lmao. It's real life because it is real horses charging into a deep "line" of real human beings, and absolutely running them down. Yes a camera crew is there but that doesn't stop it from being real life, this is an incident from the filming of "The King" when the stuntmen failed to stop early enough. You can only see the camera crew because this is non-edited footage, no special effects.
 
Best answers
0
What sort of ridiculous question is that lmao. It's real life because it is real horses charging into a deep "line" of real human beings, and absolutely running them down. Yes a camera crew is there but that doesn't stop it from being real life, this is an incident from the filming of "The King" when the stuntmen failed to stop early enough. You can only see the camera crew because this is non-edited footage, no special effects.
It was planned. I'm just saying its not "real life." They would be charging a lot harder and that line would be packed tight.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
Archers are being totall
Crecy, Agincourt, and the Battle of the Golden Spurs get such great attention specifically because they are exceptional-- they involved worst-case scenarios where cavalry forces lost battles they would normally win.

This was due to some terrible decisions. At Crecy and Agincourt the ground was extremely muddy, and the battleground was greatly in favour of the English (who had erected defensive stakes), and the French cavalry were disorganized, not at full numbers (at Agincourt some of them left to go for a walk!), and made some incredibly poor tactical decisions (like waiting until after multiple arrow volleys to charge, and not charging when the English were vulnerable outside their stake walls). At the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Flemish had crisscrossed the countryside with defensive ditches (which you can't do in Bannerlord) and the battle took place on marshy ground; the French cavalry charged against a force twice their size, and their reinforcements decided not to show up to help them. What lost those battles was not heavy cavalry somehow being weak, but disorganization that made the full strength not be brought to bear.

Also, importantly, Golden Spurs took place in the year 1302, when two centuries of heavy cavalry domination had made armies finally adapt tactics that would best work against heavy cavalry. In the 1000s the high-backed saddle and stirrups were relatively new innovations for Europe, and thus so was the heavy cavalry charge.

I will say that yes, an individual charge was not always immediately devastating; however, over the course of a battle, heavy cavalry forces making repeated charges over infantry generally were successful, and massive failures like Agincourt were rare. Bringing up the few battles where it resulted in death, compared to the thousands of battles where it succeeded, is disingenuous.

As a handful of counter-examples (that are actually from Bannerlord's 1000-1100s time period, and not the high middle ages!), you can have the Battle of Hastings where the Norman knights defeated a numerically superior infantry force through repeat charges, the Battle of the Lake of Antioch (where 700 mounted knights quickly routed 10,000 infantry in a handful of charges), the Battle of Dyrrhachium (army of 15,000 defeats an army of 25,000 thanks to a decisive cavalry charge), the Battle of Ramla where a force of 260 knights and 900 infantry defeated a force of 3000, and the third (lol) Battle of Ramla where 500 knights and 2000 infantry used a decisive charge to defeat a mix of around 5000-15000 infantry, horse archers, and light Arab cavalry (who did not charge, and waited to be charged).

Dude, sorry, but please stop talking about something you know nothing about. People are very happy to say "in real life" while providing no examples of real life. Here, have a horse charging into a line of men in real life.
They were literally trained to do it. A human is a "living animal with instincts" and you can train it to charge into a line of men!
+1000000

I do not get why people have problems to accept that medieval battles were pretty much about heavy cavalry (talking mainly about Europe). There are some exceptions where battlefield or bad decisions made cavalry get big defeats but most of the time cavalry was decisive.
 

Dr-Shinobi

Funny thing i have no problem doing this in game...running thru lines like that, except if they have pointy spears sticking in to our horses but even then. So idk where you want to get with this still ^^ Even if do like the video and i had no doubt horses could do it.... its still stupid to rush in like that if they had real weapons since those soldiers even if they got knocked down have more control there in that situation and an human rider would had thought about doing this twice for sure and there would be most prob 3 hors men dead as i saw in this one...
Having larger lances riding around picking targets, annoying the lines in flanks and in some cases riding in with thicker formations against weaker, supporting the infantry would make more sense but thinking 3 cav against 10 men riding in like madmen killing everyone like nothing wouldnt

And archers arent that much of a problem to in game that is. I pick easily off an band of forest bandits with same numbers as my cav without loosing one horseman (sometimes yeah depending on situation and terrain ofc but mostly no) so where are we going with this balancing factor is the question here ? Making them more like riding superhumans and superhorses which skin and legs is made out of titanium? This of which they still arnt. Still the horses can tank an pretty substantial spear sticking in to their bodies and heart with full speed in this game...does that make it realistic ? Hell no but its a game and i dont care

Dont get me wrong...im all down to make an balanced game and such but then i want to see it on the battlefield and in game to as an problem not making another one. From my experience cav are pretty powerful right now and can tank pretty good to but they also need an tweak in targeting system as well as tactical movement and decision making. However charging em in to an large mob thinking they are gonna kill them all is just stupid (especially with spears and two handed butcher knives :wink:) and its the same in every strategy game i ever played that has no realism in them either

The large problem also lays that since people where complaining about them dying in the mist of things they got reprogrammed to take long routes out after they charged which resulted them showing their backs for and extention of time making archers to fire at them without cover...In other words i get the idea since its a good tactics at times but in other its devastating to as they also dont help out as much since when they come back to make an second charge the inf they supported who was engaging the enemy might already be either dead or retreated leaving the Cav wide open for the enemy to concentrate on

I also saw someone mention an knockdown system...There is such in this game since ive been knocked down many times by horses riding in to me...If its disabled for rework or just scratched now idk yet since im not playing as an inf atm

2:04 in this vid you can see that mechanic
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Crecy, Agincourt, and the Battle of the Golden Spurs get such great attention specifically because they are exceptional-- they involved worst-case scenarios where cavalry forces lost battles they would normally win.
Let me ques, every bate where cavalry got rect by infantry is exception?

This was due to some terrible decisions. At Crecy and Agincourt the ground was extremely muddy, and the battleground was greatly in favour of the English (who had erected defensive stakes), and the French cavalry were disorganized, not at full numbers (at Agincourt some of them left to go for a walk!), and made some incredibly poor tactical decisions (like waiting until after multiple arrow volleys to charge, and not charging when the English were vulnerable outside their stake walls).
Excuses. French before the battle clearly though otherwise.

At the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Flemish had crisscrossed the countryside with defensive ditches (which you can't do in Bannerlord) and the battle took place on marshy ground; the French cavalry charged against a force twice their size, and their reinforcements decided not to show up to help them. What lost those battles was not heavy cavalry somehow being weak, but disorganization that made the full strength not be brought to bear.
More excuses. Heavy cavalry was always outnumbered by infantry.

Also, importantly, Golden Spurs took place in the year 1302, when two centuries of heavy cavalry domination had made armies finally adapt tactics that would best work against heavy cavalry. In the 1000s the high-backed saddle and stirrups were relatively new innovations for Europe, and thus so was the heavy cavalry charge.
Did Alexander's companions knew that they shouldn't charge Persians because high saddle and stirrups were not invented yet? Nobody told them?

I will say that yes, an individual charge was not always immediately devastating; however, over the course of a battle, heavy cavalry forces making repeated charges over infantry generally were successful, and massive failures like Agincourt were rare. Bringing up the few battles where it resulted in death, compared to the thousands of battles where it succeeded, is disingenuous.

As a handful of counter-examples (that are actually from Bannerlord's 1000-1100s time period, and not the high middle ages!), you can have the Battle of Hastings where the Norman knights defeated a numerically superior infantry force through repeat charges,
At the battle of Hastings Norman cavalry charges ended in utter and complete failure, until they either faked retreat fooling English infantry to disband their line and charge or until English king Harold Godwinson took arrow in to the head. Depending on which source you believe.

Hastings is another example of cavalry charge been ineffective against determined and disciplined infantry.

the Battle of the Lake of Antioch (where 700 mounted knights quickly routed 10,000 infantry in a handful of charges), the Battle of Dyrrhachium (army of 15,000 defeats an army of 25,000 thanks to a decisive cavalry charge), the Battle of Ramla where a force of 260 knights and 900 infantry defeated a force of 3000, and the third (lol) Battle of Ramla where 500 knights and 2000 infantry used a decisive charge to defeat a mix of around 5000-15000 infantry, horse archers, and light Arab cavalry (who did not charge, and waited to be charged).
Muslim armies Crusaders have fought were mostly composed of light cavalry. They certainly did not face any decent infantry in sufficient quantity. Which just reinforces my point.

Dude, sorry, but please stop talking about something you know nothing about.
Sorry, but the only one who does not know what he is talking about here are you. See below.

People are very happy to say "in real life" while providing no examples of real life. Here, have a horse charging into a line of men in real life.
And that staged video of horses riding through bunch of guys with fake sticks should show what exactly?

They were literally trained to do it. A human is a "living animal with instincts" and you can train it to charge into a line of men!
Humans you can train to charge in to line of men sure. But not horses:

I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left. If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it.

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Art of War
 
Last edited:

Dr-Shinobi

Some Basics one on one how i command cavalry "staying back"...(Ok im bit rusty commanding but still its some fundamentals in here)
[My mistake here is that i charged em aprox 5 seconds to soon..Inf should had engaged first to clutch theirs. And when the enemy was busy with my infantry then the cav should come in to sweep as well as taking down pesky archers]
--------------------------------------



(For those wondering why im not doing "hero" atm its just because i grew tired of tons of peace time and when we finally had one it was so far away that our main armies didnt do anything but sat at home. So i took the bull by the horn myself and called on some friends....)

This is now the 5th battle both against traders and other lords and i only lost 2 horses. But we made tons of money as my 20 cav men already payed for em selves 10 folds if not more way back
 
Last edited:

Honved

Knight
Best answers
0
The horse charge video posted by five bucks shows the situation quite well. The horses that broke through the lines continued relatively unscathed, while those that were stopped ended up being surrounded by infantry. The medieval cavalry charge depended on passing successfully THROUGH the enemy line, not crashing into it and then engaging in melee. The infantry were well aware of their vulnerability, so the only way to survive it was to not panic and stand firm in multiple lines to stop the horses, knowing full well that many of your group were about to die or suffer injury, whether the charge succeeded or failed. Too often, someone did panic, which resulted in a "devil take the hindmost" rush to escape, and a totally successful cavalry charge.

In M&B (in all its versions), a spear will stop a horse dead in its tracks, so any horse that contacts a spear does no damage to the infantry, rather than being impaled and then crashing into the spear-holder and anyone else unfortunate enough to be standing next to him. Realistically the horse would be mortally wounded, and the rider would fall and probably get hacked down, but the infantry line's cohesion is going to get demolished, with several men crushed or trampled by the dying horse, in addition to anyone who got lanced by the rider before the horse dropped. That doesn't happen in M&B: either the spear misses and the horseman gets to make his attack, or else the horse gets stopped with zero repercussions to the infantry. M&B is too lenient toward the horses that get wounded, but even more lenient toward the infantry who get charged.

Cavalry attacks wouldn't have been made in battle after battle if they weren't successful MOST of the time. The point is, there were failures, and plenty of them, but cavalry charges remained the primary form of attack for several hundred years. Since cavalry usually consisted of the nobility, there certainly would have been changes in tactics if those nobles EXPECTED to fail and die anywhere near as often as not. The counter was either your own cavalry, or hoping that your infantry line was deep enough and determined enough to absorb both the shock of impact and the steep casualties that a charge would inevitably inflict, without routing in panic.

Making horses cheap and readily available, and knights only moderately more costly than various militia and peasant levies means that you can afford to field them in unusually high proportions compared to the number of infantry on the battlefield. The ratio isn't sufficient to allow the infantry to form in 4-8 ranks; it rarely forms more than one or two deep, so cavalry charges should almost always succeed on reasonably level and open dry ground.
 

five bucks

Regular
Best answers
0
1: Let me ques, every bate where cavalry got rect by infantry is exception?
2: Excuses. French before the battle clearly though otherwise. More excuses. Heavy cavalry was always outnumbered by infantry.
3: Did Alexander's companions knew that they shouldn't charge Persians because high saddle and stirrups were not invented yet? Nobody told them?
4: Hastings is another example of cavalry charge been ineffective against determined and disciplined infantry. At the battle of Hastings Norman cavalry charges ended in utter and complete failure, until they either faked retreat fooling English infantry to disband their line and charge or until English king Harold Godwinson took arrow in to the head. Depending on which source you believe.
5: The Crusaders certainly did not face any decent infantry in sufficient quantity.
6: And that staged video of horses riding through bunch of guys with fake sticks should show what exactly?
7: I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, either he will by himself check his gait
1: In that case, why don't you show me all the other battles where "heavy cavalry got rekt by infantry" in the period 900-1100?
2: So explain to me how those aren't valid excuses? It was the worst possible scenario for cavalry to be fighting in, and that's why they lost where they would have won in normal circumstances. More importantly, your examples are still from the wrong time period for this game anyway.
You may as well be saying "Well the Polish cavalry got rekt by German tanks in the 1930s so clearly 1000s cavalry sucks!"
3: Yes, cavalry "charged" before the invention of the stirrup, couched lance and high backed saddle. However, they could not do a couched lance charge which allowed them to fully apply the force of their charge against an infantryman on the ground, and they could not wear the same heavy armor as infantry, because if they tried to lean down to hit someone they would fall off the horse without stirrups. Couched lance charges in heavy armor were pretty new to the military world in the 11th century.
4: It's in no way an example of cavalry being "ineffective". They WON that battle against the best infantry England had to offer. It took repeated charges, but they succeeded decisively in the end. How the hell do you describe winning a battle as ineffective? They were even slightly outnumbered and they still won.
5: Oh, you know, just 10,000 infantry vs 700 heavy cavalry. That's not a "sufficient quantity" at all. 🤔
6: What you're doing now is called "moving the goalposts". His argument was that "you can't get a horse to charge a line of men in real life" and yet that horse did exactly that. It doesn't matter if the sticks are fake, the horses have no concept of whether the sticks are real or fake, only whether they look threatening.
7: Again, you erroneously use evidence from the wrong time period. Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the year 1573. Like I said, 200 years of heavy cavalry absolutely dominating the battlefield had lead to commanders finally adapting their tactics to counter it by the year 1300 by changing their armies to have VERY long pikes (longer than anything you'll find in Bannerlord), braced into the ground, arranged in deep squares to hard-counter cavalry. That's the sort of thing that can genuinely deter cavalry. Bannerlord is set around the year 1000. Not 1573. Otherwise we'd have guns.

And I do agree that cavalry in Bannerlord should be weak against infantry who have the game's longest 2-handed spears that are braced in the ground (a mechanic that isn't implemented in SP yet). But this is a discussion about all cavalry vs. all infantry in general. Against any sort of infantry that doesn't possess a braceable 2-handed polearm, cavalry should be dominant, because that's just how it was in Bannerlord's 900-1100 time period. That's why the nobility all went to the expense of having fine warhorses and long lances, because it was the most effective method of combat.
 

Pentagathoos

Recruit
Best answers
0
And pikes are 3-7.5m long. RIP cavalry which foolishly thought to have any advantage over infantry. Any other then the mobility.
AND THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!

I am having a very different experience to most people who posted in the first few pages. Cavalry aren't as op as in Warband and I actually have to be careful not to get stabbed or slashed by infantry with long reach weapons, but they still wreck enemy infantry (running right through their lines is so damn fun). Perhaps you guys are playing on lower AI proficiency? If you set AI to veteran or challenging it affects their use of tactics as well as their individual combat prowess I believe. Even in my early game when most of my cav were mounted mountain bandits I found them very effective. I think the current cavalry gameplay is pretty great, and reach is actually very important now when fighting on horseback. It would be nice if we could get rid of the horse rearing when struck with any kind of polearm thing though, its pretty retarded that I can run right through the enemy lines but if someone strokes my horse from the side when I'm going at full gallop it just rears up at a dead stop.

Having a command to attack specific enemy is definitely needed, I really don't know why it's not in there already. ATM I often just set my cav to AI command when the battles in full swing, until the reinforcement waves arrive and I need to pull back (reinforcement really needs to fixed somehow too, its so annoying when you're the attacking army and you know your men are going to be butchered when they autospawn right next to your formation).
As to glaives being OP, I think two handed swings should have a serious nerf when on horseback if you want realism. I'm pretty sure you can't hit someone that hard and maintain a stable position in your saddle if you're swinging laterally and riding at full speed, military saddles were made with high backs to prevent the rider falling backwards out of the saddle when delivering or receiving a lance strike afterall.
 
Best answers
0
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Cavalry aren't necessarily weak, they're just no where near as devastating as they could be. And at the same time, spear infantry are nowhere near as deadly to cavalry as they should be.

I want cavalry to utterly break unprepared, spearless infantry and at the same time take huge casualties against a block of determined spearmen. I just want them both to have more impact. Right now, they both feel ineffective.
 

Dr-Shinobi

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Cavalry aren't necessarily weak, they're just no where near as devastating as they could be. And at the same time, spear infantry are nowhere near as deadly to cavalry as they should be.

I want cavalry to utterly break unprepared, spearless infantry and at the same time take huge casualties against a block of determined spearmen. I just want them both to have more impact. Right now, they both feel ineffective.
then youre gonna unleash a lot more complaints for sure with this formula and isnt thought thru. But sure if they balance alot of other stuff towards this may be but still why complicate things to much when it basically works but with some small issues...

I mean theres an mentality here i like to share as i thought of fighting looters and bandits right now....Even if i have hight troop value (T4-5 inf) right now and know we most prob could fight an force of lets say the double when it comes to looters im not willing to take the risk if it goes sour. Sometimes i do when i really need money. But if i do take that chance i would understand what risk i get myself in to (even if i know my men are strong and they prob would make it lets say 80%of the time depending on terrain, my commands and situation) and not going in here *****ing that my troops are to weak :wink: Just saying and still are open for discussions ofc since everything must be taken up in to consideration to find the best balance
I have been doing this to at times...yelling out for changes when i was frustrated not knowing really what that object could do or mechanic that i havent thought about. But ive learned to really try something out before i do even if it still does happens from time to time when anger gets the best of me ^^ But who knows there might be changes for the better that i havent seen thru, who knows.... I mean im merely but just only an bot and we do mistakes to at times...spelling issues as one ^^ But im programmed from an institute in Azerbaijan and are only in early Alpha stages
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
1: In that case, why don't you show me all the other battles where "heavy cavalry got rekt by infantry" in the period 900-1100?
Why should I?

2: So explain to me how those aren't valid excuses? It was the worst possible scenario for cavalry to be fighting in, and that's why they lost where they would have won in normal circumstances. More importantly, your examples are still from the wrong time period for this game anyway.
I didn't say they are invalid excuses. There is always valid reason why one side won and other side lost. That does not change fact that when French charged at Crecy, they did not intend to loose.

You may as well be saying "Well the Polish cavalry got rekt by German tanks in the 1930s so clearly 1000s cavalry sucks!"
You're getting desperate.

3: Yes, cavalry "charged" before the invention of the stirrup, couched lance and high backed saddle. However, they could not do a couched lance charge which allowed them to fully apply the force of their charge against an infantryman on the ground,
Did Alexander's companions know that they can't "fully apply the force of their charge" against Persians or nobody told them again?

and they could not wear the same heavy armor as infantry, because if they tried to lean down to hit someone they would fall off the horse without stirrups.
That's the most ridiculous of your claims so far. From Sarmatian cataphracts to Greek Thessalians to Romans, cavalry wore heaviest armors available without failing from their horses during charges.

Couched lance charges in heavy armor were pretty new to the military world in the 11th century.
Yet cavalry charges existed for centuries before that. And also existed for centuries after they stooped to use couched lance.

Speaking of couched lance, did you know that Norman cavalry at Hastings did not use couched lance? Or that Franks did not use couched lance at the battle of lake Antioch? Of course you did not. You're mixing things up without understanding timescale and relations between events.

4: It's in no way an example of cavalry being "ineffective". They WON that battle against the best infantry England had to offer. It took repeated charges, but they succeeded decisively in the end. How the hell do you describe winning a battle as ineffective? They were even slightly outnumbered and they still won.
They won the battle all right, they just failed every single of their cavalry charges.

5: Oh, you know, just 10,000 infantry vs 700 heavy cavalry. That's not a "sufficient quantity" at all.
200, rest of the Franks did not have horses to ride so they charged on foot. You're pulling numbers out of thin air.

6: What you're doing now is called "moving the goalposts". His argument was that "you can't get a horse to charge a line of men in real life" and yet that horse did exactly that.
No they did not. He was talking about line of men in battle armed with weapons and not herd of reenactors with broomsticks that can't stand their ground. And even then when horses were supposed to actually collide in to them, they refused. I have already exposed that video elsewhere. When you watch that video in slow mo or by frames, you will see that those few horses that managed to pass through actually did not collide to anybody and those horses that could not because they would have to collide in to somebody, refused to do so. If anything that video proves exact opposite of your claim.

It doesn't matter if the sticks are fake, the horses have no concept of whether the sticks are real or fake, only whether they look threatening.
That's the point, they don't look threatening.

7: Again, you erroneously use evidence from the wrong time period. Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the year 1573. Like I said, 200 years of heavy cavalry absolutely dominating the battlefield had lead to commanders finally adapting their tactics to counter it by the year 1300 by changing their armies to have VERY long pikes (longer than anything you'll find in Bannerlord), braced into the ground, arranged in deep squares to hard-counter cavalry. That's the sort of thing that can genuinely deter cavalry. Bannerlord is set around the year 1000. Not 1573. Otherwise we'd have guns.
I don't care when Machiavelli wrote The Prince. It's citation from Art of War, a different book. And Machiavelli wrote it at the time of maximum height of heavy cavalry development in Europe. Besides lesson is universal, horse will not willingly charge in to a spear point, does not matter how long the shaft of the spear is.
 

Pentagathoos

Recruit
Best answers
0
First off how would you programme horse behaviour to avoid spears? Secondly cavalry charged into pike and spear formations many times throughout history. Even during the era of pike and shot. If you want sources just read through some of the battles fought by this dude

I can't remember which battle it is, but there is even an account of him leading a cavalry charge up a steep hill against pikemen and routing them.
 

Dr-Shinobi

First off how would you programme horse behaviour to avoid spears? Secondly cavalry charged into pike and spear formations many times throughout history. Even during the era of pike and shot. If you want sources just read through some of the battles fought by this dude

I can't remember which battle it is, but there is even an account of him leading a cavalry charge up a steep hill against pikemen and routing them.
Not saying that the history are not true but how do we know that some are over exaggerated like the tales of the profets as an example ? Or other heroes and generals out there that most prob would have laughed hearing the stories depictured about them. If we dont have actually wording as most here prob have due to letters from the actual characters describing it but even then we have to count in the fact of actually human psychology. However if an detail repeats it self from alot of different persons in different places, the data should be seen as more accurate ofc
 
Last edited: