The cavalry has insufficient impact.

[Apocal]

All this time you insisted that Maurice suggests charging only at a trot basing on this quote from the tagma drills sections. And let's assume you are right. What is the trot then? Trot can assume different speeds and according to wikipedia

So depending on the breed and intensity and it can be anything from slow to fast. Napoleonic Era sources also describe a fast trot:

Maurice also refers to trot as "not too fast". So what is exactly the trot in speed metrics?

The trot's actual speed does vary, but the Standardbred was a breed developed in the 17th century, well after Maurice's time, and for only one purpose. It is a literal racing horse.

The ERE of Maurice's time used a wide range of horseflesh of various breeds, with equally varying intelligence, gait and temperament. Many of the breeds are extinct -- such as the Nisean -- but their known descendants don't have any particularly exceptional troting characteristics that I'm aware of. So I'd assume it would be more or less a standard trot.

And that leads me to another question: how do you picture a charge with a trot? If it is a slow trot charge which is basically almost walking pace, what purpose did it serve? Do you not think they used their momentum to literally break the formation? If not then what? And if they did, do you not think that a slow trot wouldn't be enough?

Note: this is borrowing heavily from Keegan's Face of Battle.

It (the cataphract charge) was used like a steamroller.

The tagma's closed-ranks were key to gaining its own momentum. The close order, in addition to protection from ranged weapons, served to prevent men from falling back or shying away, forcing them so close together that no one could be anywhere except where he was supposed to be. Presenting a fully armored front that could shrug off arrows, practically resist heavier thrown missiles and beat aside pikes or spears arrayed against them, the men in the first rank freely and liberally used their weapons at hand once within reach. At first, with their lances, but rapidly shifting to axes, swords and maces if the infantry tried to stand their ground and didn't immediately back away.

(The majority did not try to stand their ground.)

Assuming the infantry tried to stand, a horse wins a shoving match even at a trot and even moreso when the rider is making an earnest effort to kill you at the same time. As the first infantry gave ground (or were made to give ground; dead men don't hold), they would disorder their own formation. Even in the case of the men bravely facing the cataphracts there would be a no man's land quickly established that marked the lancer's reach, which would make a tagma-shaped hole through their formation. Not impromptu gaps through which one or two horses might pass but as wide as the entire formation of cavalry. If the formation were, for whatever reason, narrower than the tagmas charging then the men receiving would begin to "ooze" out; left, right and to the rear.

To their left and right, there are other tagmas doing the same thing, until the options left to the infantry are only to the rear.

The men in the following ranks of the tagma were horse archers, but not much less armored than the lancers, and supported the attack by way of producing a veritable rain of arrows (Maurice stresses rate of fire as the most important aspect of the archer's performance, far above accuracy) on the approach that would have an obvious disturbing effect on infantry. Once their lancers in front were in amongst the infantry (assuming it got that far without the infantry breaking and running) the archers then switched to their own lances and sidearms but were probably restricted to opportunistic swipes -- they were still in close-order after all and possibly enough deep within their own formation that the only viable target would be unfortunate strays.

At any rate, nobody willingly stands in front of a steamroller and if they do, well... in the end it is all the same.

Again, how do you picture the charge that penetrates a formation and pushes through to the rear?

The infantry moves out of the way and horses go through the gaps created, mostly.

 

[BuckleUpBones]

Cavalry charging into the backside of infantry has a huge morale impact, infantry always breaks even if charging when largely outnumbered, once the enemy breaks it’s a slaughter thereafter.

Morale collapse is far more powerfuller than stampede.

If you add weapon, stampede and morale impact together, cavalry seems reasonably balance with all the other units, this is sufficient, buffing will only make them too powerful.

 

[Tork789]

The trot's actual speed does vary, but the Standardbred was a breed developed in the 17th century, well after Maurice's time, and for only one purpose. It is a literal racing horse.

The ERE of Maurice's time used a wide range of horseflesh of various breeds, with equally varying intelligence, gait and temperament. Many of the breeds are extinct -- such as the Nisean -- but their known descendants don't have any particularly exceptional troting characteristics that I'm aware of. So I'd assume it would be more or less a standard trot.



Note: this is borrowing heavily from Keegan's Face of Battle.

It (the cataphract charge) was used like a steamroller.

The tagma's closed-ranks were key to gaining its own momentum. The close order, in addition to protection from ranged weapons, served to prevent men from falling back or shying away, forcing them so close together that no one could be anywhere except where he was supposed to be. Presenting a fully armored front that could shrug off arrows, practically resist heavier thrown missiles and beat aside pikes or spears arrayed against them, the men in the first rank freely and liberally used their weapons at hand once within reach. At first, with their lances, but rapidly shifting to axes, swords and maces if the infantry tried to stand their ground and didn't immediately back away.

(The majority did not try to stand their ground.)

Assuming the infantry tried to stand, a horse wins a shoving match even at a trot and even moreso when the rider is making an earnest effort to kill you at the same time. As the first infantry gave ground (or were made to give ground; dead men don't hold), they would disorder their own formation. Even in the case of the men bravely facing the cataphracts there would be a no man's land quickly established that marked the lancer's reach, which would make a tagma-shaped hole through their formation. Not impromptu gaps through which one or two horses might pass but as wide as the entire formation of cavalry. If the formation were, for whatever reason, narrower than the tagmas charging then the men receiving would begin to "ooze" out; left, right and to the rear.

To their left and right, there are other tagmas doing the same thing, until the options left to the infantry are only to the rear.

The men in the following ranks of the tagma were horse archers, but not much less armored than the lancers, and supported the attack by way of producing a veritable rain of arrows (Maurice stresses rate of fire as the most important aspect of the archer's performance, far above accuracy) on the approach that would have an obvious disturbing effect on infantry. Once their lancers in front were in amongst the infantry (assuming it got that far without the infantry breaking and running) the archers then switched to their own lances and sidearms but were probably restricted to opportunistic swipes -- they were still in close-order after all and possibly enough deep within their own formation that the only viable target would be unfortunate strays.

At any rate, nobody willingly stands in front of a steamroller and if they do, well... in the end it is all the same.



The infantry moves out of the way and horses go through the gaps created, mostly.

That's an interesting view of a cavalry charge, I certainly learned something new. I don't really agree, but I'll keep that POV in mind for sure in the future when I'll research the topic. Thanks, for both providing the sources and your opinion.

 

[countzero]

Just recently I had a good laugh about it when I discovered that "famous" French cavalry charge against English longbowmen at the battle of Agincount have never happened and French knights have charged English line of foot ))

not siding one way or the other about the debate - I was just wondering what the hell your talking about here lol. Sounds like your getting somethings very mixed up

 

[countzero]

If cavelry charges are going to have more impact (not a bad thing) they need to impliment it at the same time as making a wall of pikes or spears have a propper impact against horse as well

and if were in that territory, may as well make formations in general work like they should

 

[hruza]

not siding one way or the other about the debate - I was just wondering what the hell your talking about here lol. Sounds like your getting somethings very mixed up

No, watch this:

 

[Tork789]

The trot's actual speed does vary, but the Standardbred was a breed developed in the 17th century, well after Maurice's time, and for only one purpose. It is a literal racing horse.

The ERE of Maurice's time used a wide range of horseflesh of various breeds, with equally varying intelligence, gait and temperament. Many of the breeds are extinct -- such as the Nisean -- but their known descendants don't have any particularly exceptional troting characteristics that I'm aware of. So I'd assume it would be more or less a standard trot.



Note: this is borrowing heavily from Keegan's Face of Battle.

It (the cataphract charge) was used like a steamroller.

The tagma's closed-ranks were key to gaining its own momentum. The close order, in addition to protection from ranged weapons, served to prevent men from falling back or shying away, forcing them so close together that no one could be anywhere except where he was supposed to be. Presenting a fully armored front that could shrug off arrows, practically resist heavier thrown missiles and beat aside pikes or spears arrayed against them, the men in the first rank freely and liberally used their weapons at hand once within reach. At first, with their lances, but rapidly shifting to axes, swords and maces if the infantry tried to stand their ground and didn't immediately back away.

(The majority did not try to stand their ground.)

Assuming the infantry tried to stand, a horse wins a shoving match even at a trot and even moreso when the rider is making an earnest effort to kill you at the same time. As the first infantry gave ground (or were made to give ground; dead men don't hold), they would disorder their own formation. Even in the case of the men bravely facing the cataphracts there would be a no man's land quickly established that marked the lancer's reach, which would make a tagma-shaped hole through their formation. Not impromptu gaps through which one or two horses might pass but as wide as the entire formation of cavalry. If the formation were, for whatever reason, narrower than the tagmas charging then the men receiving would begin to "ooze" out; left, right and to the rear.

To their left and right, there are other tagmas doing the same thing, until the options left to the infantry are only to the rear.

The men in the following ranks of the tagma were horse archers, but not much less armored than the lancers, and supported the attack by way of producing a veritable rain of arrows (Maurice stresses rate of fire as the most important aspect of the archer's performance, far above accuracy) on the approach that would have an obvious disturbing effect on infantry. Once their lancers in front were in amongst the infantry (assuming it got that far without the infantry breaking and running) the archers then switched to their own lances and sidearms but were probably restricted to opportunistic swipes -- they were still in close-order after all and possibly enough deep within their own formation that the only viable target would be unfortunate strays.

At any rate, nobody willingly stands in front of a steamroller and if they do, well... in the end it is all the same.



The infantry moves out of the way and horses go through the gaps created, mostly.

Finally found this quote I've been meaning to share with you, as I believe it illustrates my point of view, if you care to consider it. I believe something similar went on during the battle of Ceresole that I've quoted before:

The Lancers acknowledged the apparition only by an increase of pace. Each man wanted sufficient momentum to drive through such a solid line. The flank troops, seeing that they overlapped, curved inwards like the horns of a moon. But the whole event was a matter of seconds. The riflemen, firing bravely to the last, were swept head over heels into the khor, and jumping down with them, at full gallop and in the closest order, the British squadrons struck the fierce brigade with one loud furious shout. The collision was prodigious. Nearly thirty Lancers, men and horses, and at least two hundred Arabs were overthrown. The shock was stunning to both sides, and for perhaps ten wonderful seconds no man heeded his enemy. Terrified horses wedged in the crowd; bruised and shaken men, sprawling in heaps, struggled, dazed and stupid, to their feet, panted, and looked about them. Several fallen Lancers had even time to remount.

Meanwhile the impetus of the cavalry carried them on. As a rider tears through a bullfinch, the officers forced their way through the press; and as an iron rake might be drawn through a heap of shingle, so the regiment followed. They shattered the Dervish array, and, their pace reduced to a walk, scrambled out of the khor on the further side, leaving a score of troopers behind them, and dragging on with the charge more than a thousand Arabs. Then, and not till then, the killing began; and thereafter each man saw the world along his lance, under his guard, or through the back-sight of his pistol; and each had his own strange tale to tell.

Stubborn and unshaken infantry hardly ever meet stubborn and unshaken cavalry. Either the infantry run away and are cut down in flight, or they keep their heads and destroy nearly all the horsemen by their musketry. On this occasion two living walls had actually crashed together. The Dervishes fought manfully. They tried to hamstring the horses. They fired their rifles, pressing the muzzles into the very bodies of their opponents. They cut reins and stirrup-leathers. They flung their throwing-spears with great dexterity. They tried every device of cool, determined men practiced in war and familiar with cavalry; and, besides, they swung sharp, heavy swords which bit deep. The hand-to-hand fighting on the further side of the khor lasted for perhaps one minute. Then the horses got into their stride again, the pace increased, and the Lancers drew out from among their antagonists. Within two minutes of the collision every living man was clear of the Dervish mass. All who had fallen were cut at with swords till they stopped quivering, but no artistic mutilations were attempted. The enemy's behavior gave small ground for complaint.

Two hundred yards away the regiment halted, rallied, faced about, and in less than five minutes were re-formed and ready for a second charge. The men were anxious to cut their way back through their enemies. We were alone together---the cavalry regiment and the Dervish brigade. The ridge hung like a curtain between us and the army. The general battle was forgotten, as it was unseen. This was a private quarrel. The other might have been a massacre; but here the fight was fair, for we too fought with sword and spear. Indeed, the advantage of ground and numbers lay with them. All prepared to settle the debate at once and for ever. But some realization of the cost of our wild ride began to come to those who were responsible. Riderless horses galloped across the plain. Men, clinging to their saddles, lurched helplessly about, covered with blood from perhaps a dozen wounds. Horses, streaming from tremendous gashes, limped and staggered with their riders. In 120 seconds five officers, 66 men, and 119 horses out of less than 400 had been killed or wounded.

 

[Apocal]

Finally found this quote I've been meaning to share with you, as I believe it illustrates my point of view, if you care to consider it. I believe something similar went on during the battle of Ceresole that I've quoted before:

Oh yeah, that's a pretty famous example. It is famous because it happens so rarely that they took time to note it.
"Stubborn and unshaken infantry hardly ever meet stubborn and unshaken cavalry. Either the infantry run away and are cut down in flight, or they keep their heads and destroy nearly all the horsemen by their musketry."

 

[Tork789]

Oh yeah, that's a pretty famous example. It is famous because it happens so rarely that they took time to note it.
"Stubborn and unshaken infantry hardly ever meet stubborn and unshaken cavalry. Either the infantry run away and are cut down in flight, or they keep their heads and destroy nearly all the horsemen by their musketry."

But of course, it takes quite a lot of guts, discipline and skill from both sides to make such a performance. It's just pretty much what I imagine happened at Ceresole as well. And maybe if other sources cared to depict the events as vividly as mr. Churchill did we'd have a lot less doubts about other similar occasions.

 

[countzero]

No, watch this:

Im not going to watch a 46min vid. I studied agincourt at uni, i know all about it. My point was that no one ever suggested that the cavelry charged archers - the formation was infantry in the middle and archers on the flanks - every one has always known this

Also, when you referenced it, it didnt make any sence in the context of the rest of your post.

 

[Alescor]

Both of you are wrong and my eyes are already bleeding from seeing how you try to be right as small children, stop using the data at your convenience please.
Although I have to admit that I laughed a lot with the comparison of the racing horse, I laughed for not crying it is as if I compared an F1 with an armored humvee, ridiculous truth is what you have been doing for a few days.
You must distinguish that there are many types of chivalry and treat them separately and not use manuals from 2 centuries later, the war changes and the needs too, tell a current soldier to fight like in the 18th century while maintaining the position and advancing in line.
I put your biggest mistakes.
treating chivalry as if there were only one, regardless of the type, the correct century and the enemy to be treated,
Comparing types of cavalry that are not in the game, I do not care about the Napoleonic wars if the units are not in the game, it is just as ridiculous as if you compared a Templar with a Tiger 2, they were both elite cavalry but there are ten centuries Of diference. therefore, use the correct data of the units and not generalize each unit is unique with its benefits or losses.
All the cavalry charge but in a different way the league would try to avoid direct contact because not having armor is very bulnerable the heavy or shock cavalry is different, it will roll you directly and it continued doing it up to the crossbows and pikes, since the arches They could not pierce the plate armor, I do not mean that they were immortal if it hit the neck, armpit or other vulnerable point if they could kill the rider, this would also have to be treated separately the arches are op this is another interesting topic but Now I am sure that one will put me a video of a bow pulleys and arrows of walframme piercing through an armor, in the Middle Ages pulley bows were very common, it is a pity that they were invented in the 60s
At no time do I want to disrespect you, only that you use logic to draw conclusions not by reading one manual you know more than another if you do not know how to apply it with the appropriate parameters.
If you see a grammar mistake or a little messy it is because of the translator

 

[hruza]

Im not going to watch a 46min vid.

Then I am not going to read your posts. Have a nice time.

I do not care about the Napoleonic wars if the units are not in the game, it is just as ridiculous as if you compared a Templar with a Tiger 2, they were both elite cavalry but there are ten centuries Of diference.

You mean comparing man on horse armed with the spear to another man on the horse armed with spear is as ridiculous as comparing man on horse armed with spear to a tank?

Now that sounds ridiculous to me. Yes there were some differences between Napoleonic cavalry and Norman cavalry or Norman cavalry and cavalry of Julius Caesar. But they were insignificant enough that you can, with cautiousness, draw some conclusions from one another, because they all use sharp sticks and ride horses. Unlike Tiger 2.

And no, tank is not elite cavalry. It's not even cavalry.

 

[Alescor]

And no, tank is not elite cavalry. It's not even cavalry.

The current combat tanks are cavalry, I spent six years of my life in the army of my country and precisely in cavalry, the oldest regiment in Europe is from my country, it is true that they no longer use horses except for acts or some parade now they wear leopard 2
and I think I remember that besides the battle tanks and the normal cavalry were found in Poland in 1939, the Poles did not finish well

Julius Caesar did not have to confront cannons or muskets, so his cavalry had another approach, that a unit be similar to another is a mistake, if the enemy is completely different, in a century the war changes a lot

If you see the use of gunpowder as insignificant, I think you have a problem.
the gunpowder changed it all the countries began to remove armor from the units because it was no longer effective and the units were slower, so the hussars are saber knights and dragons "I do not mean the giant lizards, but cavalry with muskets or carbines "also had no armor. there is this the biggest of your mistakes you cannot or should compare units from different centuries because they are made for different things the enemy changes completely, it is not the same to kill or rape peasants than to face artillery

 

[hruza]

The current combat tanks are cavalry, I spent six years of my life in the army of my country and precisely in cavalry, the oldest regiment in Europe is from my country, it is true that they no longer use horses except for acts or some parade now they wear leopard 2

These units are cavalry by the name only.

If you see the use of gunpowder as insignificant, I think you have a problem.
the gunpowder changed it all the countries began to remove armor from the units because it was no longer effective and the units were slower, so the hussars are saber knights and dragons

No it did not. Early gunpowder era armor was capable of defeating firearms.

17th ct Italian armor with "bulletproof" mark on it. These marks were made to demonstrate to the buyer that armor is bulletproof as is claimed:

Even by the time of Napoleonic wars, there were cavalry units that were using armor:

Though the armour could not protect against contemporary flintlock musket fire, it could deflect shots fired from long-range, stop ricochets and offer protection from all but very close range pistol fire.

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

Relation between gunpowder weapons and disappearance of armor isn't as strait forward as popular culture might make you believe. Apex of the evolution of heavily armored knight appeared in Europe at the time when gunpowder weapons were in mass use. 16th and 17th ct.

This armor:

Is contemporary to this guy:

 

[Alescor]

I do not want to say that I am smarter than you, it is very possible that it is the other way around but what happens is that a tree does not let you see the forest behind.
I give you a basic example, the rock paper scissors game is a very basic example I know but I think it works, before the gunpowder the cavalry focused on destroying infantry, there are scissors cutting paper, with the arrival of the gunpowder they change the rules the objective is no longer the infantry it becomes artillery and practically the cavalry units do not use armor and if they use them they are very fine since their main objective is not infantry. I do not mean that they could not charge against them, they did it but their materials were not optimized for it. If you do not believe me, you just have to go to a military museum and see the progression of the armor that until the arrival of the powder was every thicker and after the powder getting thinner until it was almost completely or almost eliminated, that's why I don't think it is convenient to use manuals from different centuries since their role was completely different

you have caught me editing the message now I reply to the other give me a minute

 

[Alescor]

These units are cavalry by the name only.

it really is the logical evolution really only normal horses were changed for horsepower

I give you a basic example, the rock paper scissors game is a very basic example I know but I think it works, before the gunpowder the cavalry focused on destroying infantry, there are scissors cutting paper, with the arrival of the gunpowder they change the rules the objective is no longer the infantry it becomes artillery and practically the cavalry units do not use armor and if they use them they are very fine since their main objective is not infantry. I do not mean that they could not charge against them, they did it but their materials were not optimized for it. If you do not believe me, you just have to go to a military museum and see the progression of the armor that until the arrival of the powder was every thicker and after the powder getting thinner until it was almost completely or almost eliminated, that's why I don't think it is convenient to use manuals from different centuries since their role was completely different

 

[geala]

Then I am not going to read your posts. Have a nice time.



You mean comparing man on horse armed with the spear to another man on the horse armed with spear is as ridiculous as comparing man on horse armed with spear to a tank?

Now that sounds ridiculous to me. Yes there were some differences between Napoleonic cavalry and Norman cavalry or Norman cavalry and cavalry of Julius Caesar. But they were insignificant enough that you can, with cautiousness, draw some conclusions from one another, because they all use sharp sticks and ride horses. Unlike Tiger 2.

And no, tank is not elite cavalry. It's not even cavalry.

What countzero meant, there was never doubt that the main French attack at Agincourt was on foot. A cavalry charge probably occured before the attack of the French vanguard (where most of the men-at-arms were), but was small and insignificant. You cannot define a "fact" and then disprove it with allegedly new insights, that's TV documentary style.

To cavalry, when you read 18th and 19th century manuals for cavalry combat, you clearly see that one of the main problems of cavalry were being shot at and how to avoid it. It made combat very different to the pre-powder era. It is possible to draw some conclusions from Napoleonic era for earlier mounted combat, but it has to be done very carefully.

Firearms made armor disappear, in the longer run and broader sense. Hardened steel armor of the 15th c. AD which had won the arms race against warbow and crossbow was not good against arquebuses. Which led to armor a lot thicker (often 4 to 6 mm) compared to about 2 mm earlier, making armor very heavy. On the longer run it was not affordable and restricted movement (of the units, no the person) too much, so it fell out of use till the middle of the 17th c. AD.


BTW ( long one), I mostly concur with the opinion that cavalry in Bannerlord is in an ok state, no need for adding damage to horse charges.What I don't like is the sudden total stop of a horse when it hits a spear. The horse should run further, a bit slowed maybe and a good chunk of hp removed. I use a mod which slows down injured horses, that's an ok balance to overpowered cavalry. I don't want to talk about the awful lot of annoying problems spears have in this game, one is that speed has too much a meaning for cavalry to be effective, sadly.

 

[Alescor]

These units are cavalry by the name only.



No it did not. Early gunpowder era armor was capable of defeating firearms.

17th ct Italian armor with "bulletproof" mark on it. These marks were made to demonstrate to the buyer that armor is bulletproof as is claimed:

Even by the time of Napoleonic wars, there were cavalry units that were using armor:

Though the armour could not protect against contemporary flintlock musket fire, it could deflect shots fired from long-range, stop ricochets and offer protection from all but very close range pistol fire.

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

Relation between gunpowder weapons and disappearance of armor isn't as strait forward as popular culture might make you believe. Apex of the evolution of heavily armored knight appeared in Europe at the time when gunpowder weapons were in mass use. 16th and 17th ct.

This armor:

Is contemporary to this guy:

I would like you to answer some questions, I would like to see if you have changed your mind on the main topic, which are the cavalry charges? If we are more or less clear that the units in the game are from the late 14th century, why do you put on 17th century armor? Why don't you stop falsifying information? I'm not saying you do it on purpose but since you search the internet for the first photo you find at least contrast it, I would save myself from writing many lines now answer to the previous message you do not see a garter belt difference between the photo alleged armor and the oil of the cuirassier it seems to you that they can be compared in some sense. Now comes the funniest, do not worry, as I have put you in one of the previous messages, I am European and with bad luck for you I am Spanish, it is the case that in the 16th and 17th century my little current country was the most powerful empire that There have been on the planet in all its past history and I hope that future "I don't want more useless wars". that empire was raised largely by the thirds and its main weapons were the harquebus or musket, the pike and a sword with a dagger. With those three weapons, my country dominated Europe for about 150 years or so. defeating the elite of the French army of Charles VIII, the Dutch, the Swiss ... the list could follow the whole of Europe had or avoided fighting with Spain in that period, until they copied the way of waging the war in Spain but that is another issue, but the gunpowder had nothing to do with either the fall of constantinople by the giant ottoman cannons or the birth of the greatest empire, if that is not significant I do not know what will be for you.

 

[Alescor]

BTW ( long one), I mostly concur with the opinion that cavalry in Bannerlord is in an ok state, no need for adding damage to horse charges.What I don't like is the sudden total stop of a horse when it hits a spear. The horse should run further, a bit slowed maybe and a good chunk of hp removed. I use a mod which slows down injured horses, that's an ok balance to overpowered cavalry. I don't want to talk about the awful lot of annoying problems spears have in this game, one is that speed has too much a meaning for cavalry to be effective, sadly

In my opinion, it is well in part, I explain the light chivalry if it is correct in my opinion but the heavy chivalry lacks impact damage. it is too much speed to my way of seeing a horse with 100 or 250 kilos does not run the same, subject of the stop light chivalry is good, but in heavy chivalry it should not stop so easily

 

[hruza]

What countzero meant, there was never doubt that the main French attack at Agincourt was on foot.

Just brief look at documentaries about Agincourt on the History Channel in the last 20 years will tell you that you're wrong.

To cavalry, when you read 18th and 19th century manuals for cavalry combat, you clearly see that one of the main problems of cavalry were being shot at and how to avoid it. It made combat very different to the pre-powder era.

When you read 7-12th century manuals, like for example Strategicon mentioned here few times, you clearly see that one of the main problems of cavalry were being shot at and how to avoid it. Cavalry did not start to be shot at only once firearms have appeared. It was always shoot at.

It is possible to draw some conclusions from Napoleonic era for earlier mounted combat, but it has to be done very carefully.

That's literally what I said:

Yes there were some differences between Napoleonic cavalry and Norman cavalry or Norman cavalry and cavalry of Julius Caesar. But they were insignificant enough that you can, with cautiousness, draw some conclusions from one another,...

Firearms made armor disappear, in the longer run and broader sense.

We still have armor, it did not disappear at all.

Hardened steel armor of the 15th c. AD which had won the arms race against warbow and crossbow was not good against arquebuses.

I have posted pictures of armor that was. Arquebus itself fell out of use because it was ineffective against armor among other things and was replaced by much heavier musket.

A musket is a muzzle-loaded long gun that appeared as a smoothbore weapon in the early 16th century, at first as a heavier variant of the arquebus, capable of penetrating heavy armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket

Which led to armor a lot thicker (often 4 to 6 mm) compared to about 2 mm earlier, making armor very heavy. On the longer run it was not affordable and restricted movement (of the units, no the person) too much, so it fell out of use till the middle of the 17th c. AD.

You mean whole 150 years after it ceased to be "good against arquebuses" in 15th ct as you have said above?

Also I have shown you cavalry still wearing armor during Napoleonic wars in the 19th ct.

There are few main reasons why fully armored cavalry disappeared from the battlefields:

1. reappearance of quality infantry with the rise of the Medieval towns and relative decline of importance of cavalry in general.
2. mass armies that made it financially impossible to field large enough contingents of such heavy cavalry. While earlier battles were clashes between thousands, in the late Medieval and early Modern eras they became clashes of tens or even hundreds of thousands.
3. decline of classic feudalism and military system of feudal levies. You can see it on the example of countries where de-feudalisation and modernization was lacking behind like Poland -they were the last to drop knightly stile of heavy cavalry.

BTW ( long one), I mostly concur with the opinion that cavalry in Bannerlord is in an ok state, no need for adding damage to horse charges.

So we do agree on something after all