The Game is a Mess

[Al_Mansur]

I'm very satisfied by the evolution of horses in Bannerlord, although it needs to be balanced a bit. It was very frustrating in Warband, you didn't feel the supremacy of heavy cavalry on battlefields, a half naked guy could stop you at full speed or significantly reduce your speed. And when stopped, infantry usually had a huge advantage on you, trying to flee was your only solution. All of that resulted in pretty useless cavalry charges, but now in Bannerlord they will be deadly, just as they have to be.
I agree with most of Younes123 points though.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Horses are beyond broken in the beta. They can ragdoll you and immobilise you for several seconds. Not to mention that they get way more armor than what they had in warband. Additionally they seem to be way more mobile. Which pretty much only was holding them back. This significantly reduces the skill ceiling for cav if it even had one.

I find it humorous that you believe a man can stand his ground against a 600KG+ beast at full charging speed, like seriously... I've made this point on another thread, a horse would go through you like you weren't even there, wouldn't even flinch, that's just the way it has to be.

I hope they don't make horses behave like they did on warband, when you'd halt to a full stop after hitting a couple of people... or at least that they can keep that crap separate, if they have to make the change to balance MP so be it, but leave SP more close to reality...

A horse would find any opportunity not to collide with somebody and it most certainly would flinch even if it sent that person flying to the ground at 20 mph. Two or three people? Nah. Standing close together? Definitely not. Holding weapons? Most certainly not.

Warband was a bit much bc horses were basically ATV's but it is not realistic for heavy cavalry to blow through lines of infantry like a cannon, you should be able to send one or two people flying but you SHOULD come to a halt after hitting a couple of people, at least if we want SP to be "more close to reality". If they were going for realism than heavy cavalry would be used for hit and run charges on weak units or a units flanks, horses would be a lot more maneuverable and you would never want your cavalry in prolonged combat with anything but other cavalry.

 

[Al_Mansur]

There are plenty of medieval accounts relating the deadly efficiency of heavy cavalry charges, both against infantry and cavalry.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

There are plenty of medieval accounts relating the deadly efficiency of heavy cavalry charges, both against infantry and cavalry.

I didn't say anything about them not being deadly or efficient, I said that could not plow through lines of infantry head-on like a semi-truck. They were never used this way, they were used to charge an enemy that was close to breaking, preferably from the flanks or from behind. If the charge made contact and infantry held fast, heavy cavalry would not stay and engage in melee (well sometimes they did, but I can't recall a single account of this that wasn't disastrous) they would escape as quickly as possible and prepare another charge.

 

[Abelardo]

Horses are beyond broken in the beta. They can ragdoll you and immobilise you for several seconds. Not to mention that they get way more armor than what they had in warband. Additionally they seem to be way more mobile. Which pretty much only was holding them back. This significantly reduces the skill ceiling for cav if it even had one.

I find it humorous that you believe a man can stand his ground against a 600KG+ beast at full charging speed, like seriously... I've made this point on another thread, a horse would go through you like you weren't even there, wouldn't even flinch, that's just the way it has to be.


I hope they don't make horses behave like they did on warband, when you'd halt to a full stop after hitting a couple of people... or at least that they can keep that crap separate, if they have to make the change to balance MP so be it, but leave SP more close to reality...

I agree that horses would do what you said, but i think there should be a fix at a specific speed in where that will happen. What i mean is that i don't want to be thrown to the ground for 10 seconds because a horse on marching speed bumped me. I think the ragdoll is great but should be balanced out a bit more because someone can take two hits while you are on the ground and you can  not do anything about it which is pretty frustrating for the player

Perhaps having an animation on the ground where the player can block a hit at least?

Horse should get the same affect as warband where they stop after perhaps charging 4-6 people before coming to a halt. You don't want horses charging through all the players/bots without taking some speed reduction

Ah, with that I agree 100%, you shouldn't be thrown to the ground just because of a slight bump, there's gotta be some speed behind the charge before that happens.

But I maintain that at full charging speed, a well trained heavy war horse would go through at least 3 or 4 lines of men easily (granted said men didn't have braced pikes of course)

 

[Fortnight]

There are plenty of medieval accounts relating the deadly efficiency of heavy cavalry charges, both against infantry and cavalry.

from flanks, into loose formations, or into untrained recruits who ran. If you want to have realism, roll with it all the way, have horses actually dodge things, especially pointy or dense ones. I think that's a better solution anyway, horses always needed some more autonomy so as not to smash headfirst into a rock while their rider was busy lobbing arrows at pursuers, that's just not fun for anyone.

 

[hruza]

But I maintain that at full charging speed, a well trained heavy war horse...

Warhorses were not heavy. Heavy horses are bad for cavalry, because they have no stamina. Middle sized horses were preferred for cavalry. Moreover up until relatively recent times, horses were much smaller in general, as evidenced by skeletons and horse armors. Your typical "heavy war horse" was size of a larger pony.

The archaeological record allows us to state with confidence that the mediaeval fighting horse was as a rule not taller than ca. 150 cm / 15 hands, and definitely substantially taller than 120 cm / 12 hands.37 Based on the literature cited above, the prime fighting horse from Late Antiquity until at least the High Middle Ages was probably 14 to at most 15 hands (142 to 153 cm) tall, of medium build, weighing in the region of 400 kg / 850 lbs,38 with a short back, well-sloped shoulder, and square conformation.

Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann

...would go through at least 3 or 4 lines of men easily (granted said men didn't have braced pikes of course)

No horse would willingly collide full speed in to other objects. Horses have brains, they are not suicidal. You can push horse in to line of man, given men don't use their weapons. But you can't collide horse in to line of man, other then by accident.

There are plenty of medieval accounts relating the deadly efficiency of heavy cavalry charges, both against infantry and cavalry.

"Officer of the Grand Duke Constantine Uhlans, Faddei Bulgarin, wrote that only those who never actually participated in cavalry battle talk about two opposite masses or lines of cavalry clash with each other and fight until one side is annihilated."

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cavalry_tactics.html#charge

Another argument against the “shock” attack into a solid infantry formation is that it cannot be trained; even if done without sharp weapons, it is to o dangerous for man and beast on both sides, and what cannot be sensibly trained cannot be a regulation battlefield tactic.

What can be observed in re enactments is that horses will gravitate towards a perceived gap in the formation facing them, however small, and will delicately but irresistibly) shove aside the infantrymen both sides of the gap (experiment done 2015 between the mounted Timetrotter crew and assorted legionary infantry at Augusta Raurica, and at Tournoi XIII; ref. also Bachrach, Carolingia ns , p. 95

Against infantry, cavalry would ideally only attack a formation already in disarray, as when it was fleeing, or by attacking from the flank or behind.51 A cavalry charge might have the psychological effect of causing infantry to disintegrate or flee before it, but against disciplined and tightly formed-up or even entrenched infantry, the first piece of advice seems to have been “don’t do it ”52 – the inevitable result of cavalry riding into a solid infantry formation will be that the horse will get stuck in the midst of the infantry, and if the impact did not impale it on the infantry’s pikes or spears, their Katzbalger and Roßschinder53 will soon finish the job. Even if the infantry wanted to get out of the way, they couldn’t – there is no-where to go, and not enough time.54

This can be seen in the battle of Arques (1303), described in the Annals of Ghent: The Flemish commander, realising his mounted numbers were not large enough to allow them to operate as cavalry, ordered his knights dismounted and integrated with the infan-try in a tight formation. The French cavalry, though strong, were limited to – ultimately unsuccessfully – probing the Flemish formation for gaps and weaknesses. Individuals from both sides who ventured out of formation were quickly cut down.55

Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Horses are beyond broken in the beta. They can ragdoll you and immobilise you for several seconds. Not to mention that they get way more armor than what they had in warband. Additionally they seem to be way more mobile. Which pretty much only was holding them back. This significantly reduces the skill ceiling for cav if it even had one.

I find it humorous that you believe a man can stand his ground against a 600KG+ beast at full charging speed, like seriously... I've made this point on another thread, a horse would go through you like you weren't even there, wouldn't even flinch, that's just the way it has to be.


I hope they don't make horses behave like they did on warband, when you'd halt to a full stop after hitting a couple of people... or at least that they can keep that crap separate, if they have to make the change to balance MP so be it, but leave SP more close to reality...

I agree that horses would do what you said, but i think there should be a fix at a specific speed in where that will happen. What i mean is that i don't want to be thrown to the ground for 10 seconds because a horse on marching speed bumped me. I think the ragdoll is great but should be balanced out a bit more because someone can take two hits while you are on the ground and you can  not do anything about it which is pretty frustrating for the player

Perhaps having an animation on the ground where the player can block a hit at least?

Horse should get the same affect as warband where they stop after perhaps charging 4-6 people before coming to a halt. You don't want horses charging through all the players/bots without taking some speed reduction

Ah, with that I agree 100%, you shouldn't be thrown to the ground just because of a slight bump, there's gotta be some speed behind the charge before that happens.

But I maintain that at full charging speed, a well trained heavy war horse would go through at least 3 or 4 lines of men easily (granted said men didn't have braced pikes of course)

3 or 4 lines of men? Are they all the size of 12 year olds? I haven't seen any historical account describing something like this, or video of a modern horse doing anything even close to this. Horses may have been better trained back in that day but they were smaller and I am pretty sure they were not battering rams without any sense of self-preservation. I have seen videos (posted on this forum actually) of a horse having no other options and colliding with one person running away from them and while the person was sent hurtling towards the ground at speed, the horse was not entirely unaffected, it was clearly painful and it completely freaked the horse out.

With difficulty, I think heavy cavalry could collide threw one or two lines of infantry without the horses being mortally wounded or the riders being thrown, as long as the infantry did not have spears and were not packed shoulder to shoulder. They would never willingly or purposefully do this though.

Here is a post on r/AskHistorians about cavalry in real life, it is one of a few that have really in-depth responses.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4a5t8y/could_you_please_explain_a_cavalry_charge_did/

 

[hruza]

or video of a modern horse doing anything even close to this.

People forgot Newton's third law of physic when talking about horses colliding in to infantry full speed. They think that what they see in Hollywood movies and computer games is real:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

This is how full speed head on collision between horse and a feeble woman looks like. Woman died, but horse and rider didn't had a good day either. Both ended on the ground. Rider could not walk away from that.

Hardly viable fighting technique.

Depends on the breed of horse. Warhorses were bred and trained to charge. Being a heavier and stockier frame.

What are your sources for that?

The “breed” as we know it today, with a defined conformation (often also colour) and based on a stud book, is an artefact of modern times. Horses in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages were classified by type or function. Having said that, it is borne out by numerous references that breeding was done in a controlled manner.

Another faulty assumption is that to obtain a strong, battle-effective mount fit to carry an armed and armoured fighter, the horse would have to be cross-bred with draughts (e.g. Shire or Belgian – or the ever-popular Friesian, a carriage-horse). But heavy draughts do not make an appearance until the High to Late Middle Ages. Until the advances in agriculture, in rigging and tack, the pivoting axle and whippletree, and the mould-board plough, which came together from the 9th C onwards, the European heavy draught animal was the ox, not the horse.35 Anyway, draughts are built for just that: to pull, not to carry, and to plod or stride steadily, not to dance

The sizes established by Becker have been mentioned; her research on other aspects show the horses to tend to a medium-to-light build with an already fairly well-sloped shoulder.

The archaeological record allows us to state with confidence that the mediaeval fighting horse was as a rule not taller than ca. 150 cm / 15 hands, and definitely substantially taller than 120 cm / 12 hands.37 Based on the literature cited above, the prime fighting horse from Late Antiquity until at least the High Middle Ages was probably 14 to at most 15 hands (142 to 153 cm) tall, of medium build, weighing in the region of 400 kg / 850 lbs,38 with a short back, well-sloped shoulder, and square conformation.

Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann

Obviously the rider wouldn't steer said horse into a wall of spears , but it bloody would run into someone and not flinch. And no infantry will.. "stand fast" as you put it. That would be stupid.

Flemish infantry at the battle of Battle of the Golden Spurs stood just fine.

No Spam
Spam clogs up the forum, makes relevant and accurate information harder to find and causes the forum to slow down for everybody. The definition of ‘spam’ includes, but is not limited to, the following actions:

• ...
• Multi-posting — if you need to add something, and yours was the last post in the thread, edit your last post instead of adding a new one
• ...

 

[John the Roleplayer]

[...]

There are plenty of medieval accounts relating the deadly efficiency of heavy cavalry charges, both against infantry and cavalry.

"Officer of the Grand Duke Constantine Uhlans, Faddei Bulgarin, wrote that only those who never actually participated in cavalry battle talk about two opposite masses or lines of cavalry clash with each other and fight until one side is annihilated."

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cavalry_tactics.html#charge

It's quite a bit misleading to quote a source from the napoleonic period when the subject is a medieval one.

Another argument against the “shock” attack into a solid infantry formation is that it cannot be trained; even if done without sharp weapons, it is to o dangerous for man and beast on both sides, and what cannot be sensibly trained cannot be a regulation battlefield tactic.
[...]

That might be true for the time when it was written, but I'm sure medieval tacticians would disagree. They had tournaments after all.

 

[Urist]

Some things were troubling that were mentioned like them wanting block delay, which is a question of responsiveness not gameplay imho. We already tried big block delay in warband beta, didn't we? It got taken out in like a week.

We had a field day about this back in Warband beta, yeah.

 

[hruza]

It's quite a bit misleading to quote a source from the napoleonic period when the subject is a medieval one.

Why? Because Napoleonic cavalry did not ride horses and did not conduct charges?

That might be true for the time when it was written, but I'm sure medieval tacticians would disagree.

Feel free to quote all medieval tacticians that you have read on the subject.

They had tournaments after all.

Tournament where riders would collide in to infantry formations? I don't think so.

 

[Sarin]

It's quite a bit misleading to quote a source from the napoleonic period when the subject is a medieval one.

Why? Because Napoleonic cavalry did not ride horses and did not conduct charges?.

Actually, yeah. Cavalry dynamics during Napoleonic period were far different from medieval. Significant amount of cavalry were actually dragoons-a mounted infantry who would ride into a favourable position, then dismount and use their guns as infantry. Other cavalry, like lancers or cuirassiers, relied on heavy fire from infantry and artillery to disorganize the enemy before charge, and in general, cavalry charge was rare and often not the decisive action.

 

[hruza]

Actually, yeah. Cavalry dynamics during Napoleonic period were far different from medieval. Significant amount of cavalry were actually dragoons-a mounted infantry who would ride into a favourable position, then dismount and use their guns as infantry. Other cavalry, like lancers or cuirassiers, relied on heavy fire from infantry and artillery to disorganize the enemy before charge, and in general, cavalry charge was rare and often not the decisive action.

Do no, When it comes to cavalry dynamics during Napoleonic period I prefer to trust this guy more:

 

[Lord Milky]

Flemish infantry at the battle of Battle of the Golden Spurs stood just fine.

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.

 

[hruza]

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.

Modern estimates of Saladin's army place it at around 25,000 soldiers, almost all cavalry (horse archers, light cavalry, and a minority of heavy cavalry).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf#Battle

Can't find heavy infantry mentioned there. May be you can.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

Spoiler

It's quite a bit misleading to quote a source from the napoleonic period when the subject is a medieval one.

Why? Because Napoleonic cavalry did not ride horses and did not conduct charges?

Actually, yeah. Cavalry dynamics during Napoleonic period were far different from medieval. Significant amount of cavalry were actually dragoons-a mounted infantry who would ride into a favourable position, then dismount and use their guns as infantry. Other cavalry, like lancers or cuirassiers, relied on heavy fire from infantry and artillery to disorganize the enemy before charge, and in general, cavalry charge was rare and often not the decisive action.

What he said.

[...]
Tournament where riders would collide in to infantry formations? I don't think so.

The point about tournaments was, that they're an example for the fact that danger did not deter medieval fighters and they did use dangerous forms of training, which was at least in part the purpose of tournaments. The mindset of people then was different from that of people of the 18th and 19th centuries, hence your sources don't fit the subject.



Since the matter of the medieval use of heavy cavalry has come up several times now, I just end by concluding that we don't exactly know how it was done, and it's difficult to find out, since we can't exactly recreate an earnest, deadly cavalry charge to study it.

 

[hruza]

What he said.

What Napoleon said.

The point about tournaments was, that they're an example for the fact that danger did not deter medieval fighters and they did use dangerous forms of training, which was at least in part the purpose of tournaments.

Tournament is not a training. Tournament is a competition. And early tournaments were literally battles, often to the death. And they did not run their horses in to solid lines of infantry at tournaments either.

In fact, later when tournaments were heavily regulated, solid obstacle was separating horses so that they don't collide even on accident.

The mindset of people then was different from that of people of the 18th and 19th centuries, hence your sources don't fit the subject.

Feel free to show us your source about different mindset in regards to a cavalry charge.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

We may not know exactly what a cavalry charge looked like, but knowledge of physics and horses makes it unreasonable to assume that heavy cavalry ever collided with braced lines of infantry as a tactic.

Not to mention that videos of collisions such as the one hruza posted and historical accounts suggest the opposite, in the r/AskHistorians link I cited there is an account by Winston Churchill about a cavalry charge that collided with infantry at the Battle of Omdurman. He notes how rare of an occurrence it was, and how the cavalry were forced with no other options to try and break through. It does not go well for the cavalry, those at the front of the charge are killed and the others thrown from their horses, a few fight to remount in the chaos and escape.

As for Napoleonic cavalry warfare being different from the medieval era, this might be true but we have no reason to assume that means medieval horses ran through/over infantry like a tank. We refer to the Napoleonic era because compared to medieval eras we have an abundance of information and accounts about cavalry warfare, and they are far more detailed. Why should we assume that the capabilities of horses or the lancers riding them changed so drastically? Especially when the horses got bigger and stronger...

 

[Sarin]

What he said.

What Napoleon said.

The point about tournaments was, that they're an example for the fact that danger did not deter medieval fighters and they did use dangerous forms of training, which was at least in part the purpose of tournaments.

Tournament is not a training. Tournament is a competition. And early tournaments were literally battles, often to the death.

The mindset of people then was different from that of people of the 18th and 19th centuries, hence your sources don't fit the subject.

Feel free to show us your source about different mindset in regards to a cavalry charge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Balaclava#Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo#Charge_of_the_British_heavy_cavalry

...and many more. Just a brief look through important battles of the era will show that at that time, cavalry was being used only as supportive arm, exploiting weak points, but the decisive arm was almost always infantry and artillery. Unlike medieval period, cavalry had no chance of breaking the infantry alone. Compare it to battles like Grunwald, Agincourt or Crecy where one or both sides relied on heavy cavalry as decisive arm.