Unbalanced spears

[axossk]

Anytime a spear hits you or your horse, even if it does 0 dmg, you get stoped for maybe 0.5 or 1 second.
Seems like at least 50% of soldiers in this game have spears.
Removing this annoying feature & add damage against cavalry would be much more balanced I think.

Anyway, it is possible to desactivate this by myself ?

 

[othr]

Yes, don't run into spears.

 

[axossk]

The problem isn't about cavalry rushing into spears.
I just don't understand why a 1 dmg taken from aside does stop me, even if i'm on foot.

 

[magitsu]

Hmm... damage taken from side stops you?
Anyway spears and pikes seem to stop you easily in vanilla M&B and other mods too. So it might be something that isn't easily changed.

 

[toxic-nova]

I think you are talking about the throw back thing when hit by a thrust?

 

[axossk]

I'm talking about this fact :
I wait until the ennemy footmen are engaged into close combat with mine, then I charge their back with my cav, which are heavy armored knights, the last line of ennemy infantry simply face the charge with pikes to stop & beat all the knights in few secs. Even if there is 2x more cav than pikeman.

I never noticed this in any other mod.


edit :

Well.... Like magitsu said, it looks like a Vanilla issue.

 

[axossk]

Ok, I switched the one handed spears type from "polearm" to "1-handed".
Now the one handed spears don't stop cavalry charges anymore, only 2h do.
I've also disabled the spears overswing.
I think this tweak increase realism & balance.
Slightly more deadly charges if you have enough cavalry to break the ennemy lines, otherwise, cavalry will be trapped into ennemy infantry.

 

[Jason L.]

I do agree with you that cav. is getting too soft in the latest revisions. Some time ago I posted many times asking for the cav. to be more powerful as in fact it was in that time period (to my opinion). I even created a topic about horses where this matter was discussed. Finally Othr changed some things and it was getting better.. now we are at the point were infantry rules the battlefield and horses don't survive more than a couple of minutes in battle.. It doesn't fit the time period but I've already said that.... 

 

[Ivan the Awesome]

A cavalry charge was most devastating due to the lack of armour, equipment, and discipline among the average foot army of the day, and because the terror of men on horseback coupled with the smashing power of the initial charge was enough to break undisciplined peasants. However, a well trained spear militia could make mincemeat of a frontal cavalry charge, see the Battle on the Ice, the Swiss Pikemen, and the Battle of Agincourt (archers, I know, but close enough). My point is, while knights were effective in their role as shock troops, horses are both fragile and intelligent enough to know their fragility, and there is a reason why cavalry faded to a more supporting role in combat.

Also, more specifically, if you were a horse, and someone jabbed a pointy metal stick at you, do you think you would keep going forward?

If you were a dude wearing armour, and some hulking peasant boy poinked your armour ineffectually with his spear, you would still feel all the momentum of the thrust transferred into you, knocking you back. It is realistic. Inconvenient maybe, but realistic.

 

[Jason L.]

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,258919.0.html  http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,265565.0.html
I already have responded to that (quoted from the previous):
A late replay to what is written above : the heavy cavalry was used to crush the enemy lines not to chase enemies already routed that's the particularity of the medieval warfair . the organised phalanx of hoplites was no more mainly for political and cultural reasons which i don't have to explain here. the battles of Crecy and Ajincour were the exception and not the rule (in this case the terrain maid the deference). What really happened was that the heavy cavalry remained dominant on the battlefield until the Swiss managed to recreate the pickman phalanx at the late medieval and early Renaissance. the heavy cavalry wasn't a bunch of farmers who had just had a horse to ride they had to train their whole life and good appropriate horses costed a fortune. In the other hand an infantry unit that could potentially stop a heavy charge had to train TOGETHER for a whole life to be effective. Not everyone who had a fork could stop a warhorse that easily ... That's way I think horses are somewhat too weak in this magnificent mod ... It seams tho that I rapresent  a minority ...

 

[Ivan the Awesome]

I dont know if it is like this or not, havent played in a while, but I would do it so that getting hit by a horse knocks you down, and deals as much damage as a well placed mace blow. I would also make horses die after one arrow to the head or chest, stop when jabbed, and collapse if you hit a leg with a bladed weapon. It would also be cool if horses could throw riders.

note that the rules would be different for armoured horses.

 

[Jason L.]

Interesting views. Note tho that  bows are not rifles (nor even cross bows are) they don't kill instantly that easy. They rather injure you and get you out of combat, not to mention that injured people often died later from infection. The amount of damage depends on the kinetic energy. Also the dimensions of the target : an arrow is unlike to kill a man instantly further more a horse which is 7 to 10 times bigger. Cutting edges can do harm more to tissues but they are less effective against armor while conical ones have more effective against armor but do less damage to tissues and so on... Practically you had to finish of injured enemies with melee weapons to actually kill them...   

 

[illapa]

Actually I'll back you up on that. I love cavalry but I'll be honest lancer cavalry is a joke. Especially how the AI uses it. I fight for the Roman Empire so we have the Greek Cavalry with bows. BTW this mod has probably the best Horse Archer AI. It actually circles and shoots instead of charging and dying. The infantry AI is very good. I am NOT saying that infantry is too powerful its their formations. The tight square formation that infantry make in this mod is basically unbreakable by a cavalry charge. EVEN if you hit them in the back your cavalry only punches 1/2 of the way through gets stuck and dies. I'm a horse archer player at heart and honestly I am never worried about cavalry pwning my infantry I'm only afraid of lance cavalry going for my horse archers.

I rarely ever lead my heavy cavalry in a charge. Speed of the horse moving straight at infantry makes it so an arrow or javelin instantly kills a horse then I end up dismounted in the middle of a bunch of pissed off infantry who want me dead. I would agree with say....the "weight" of horses being increased so charges actually punch through lines instead of knocking 1 person down then getting you killed. I have 2 characters going atm I have one that uses Greek horse archers and the other where I use the Armenian/Georgians as my cavalry arm.

My 1st character I ride around killing enemy cavalry then just filling infantry with arrows or riding down archers. Its fun and effective. The Second melee cav character though.....my knights are fast moving hard hitting, but most charges are the same. I charge, we instantly kill the 1st rank of enemy infantry and suddenly I'm in the middle of the infantry hacking down like crazy trying to get the hell out of the infantry square. Usually it results in me/the horse dying and being beaten to death on the ground.  Hurray I lost 12k gold because my horse died. All my fancy knights got slaughtered. Charges from the rear or side are obviously more effective. But the result is usually the same. Most/all of the infantry are dead at horrifically high cavalry losses. I don't know about you but I don't see the point of fielding heavy knights when they're basically suicide troops that always die.

I'll stick to Turcopoles or any other decently armored horse archers any day. They die less, they kill just as much and are cheaper. If I'm paying 250 for atop tier knight that knight has to kill 7 infantry before dying to have even been worth the money and I don't think they do unless its a siege battle or something. Also its a Player paying 250 for a knight the AI pays nothing....so yea not cost effective at all. I almost ragequit my melee cavalry character when we went to fight the Bulgarians and everyone and their mother had a javelin. Went through a stupid amount of horses because 1 javelin while charging instantly kills. Victory we conquered all of Bulgaria however I am now poorer than ever because I lost 30k in horses. The cavalry needs a buff because the infantry AI is MUCH smarter than the cavalry AI so it slaughters them. Shield wall vs random ass disorganized charge.

 

[Jason L.]

Illapa you've spoken the truth ... It's not the medieval infantry you face out there it's rather the spartan 300 with Leonidas himself and your horses with the present stats die like wine flays. 

 

[othr]

I always thought it wasn't Leonidas but their own stupidity that killed them.

Oh looky here a pointy stick! Let me run the horse right into it while I swing my weapon at the air!  Besides, if you want it accurate then I'd simply have to remove all infantry from open field battles as they had no place there in those times and were often left behind while the mounted troops charged on ahead.  Breaking lines... what lines?  They'd just run for their lives.

As far as I know the only thing foot soldiers were good for was sieges as cannon fodder and other forms of stationary warfare.

That aside, I don't care about having tank horses.  Already tried that and it simply removed the need for any infantry or archers.

 

[Ivan the Awesome]

As far as I know the only thing foot soldiers were good for was sieges as cannon fodder and other forms of stationary warfare.

wait, what?? That does not mesh with what I know at all. True, the knights would charge ahead and fight each other, but when people refused to play by the rules (i.e. were smart) infantry played a huge role, because of the fantastic ability of a spear to dismount a knight, and the fact that armour is not that effective against a dozen angry peasants with daggers.

 

[Jason L.]

I always thought it wasn't Leonidas but their own stupidity that killed them.

Oh looky here a pointy stick! Let me run the horse right into it while I swing my weapon at the air!  Besides, if you want it accurate then I'd simply have to remove all infantry from open field battles as they had no place there in those times and were often left behind while the mounted troops charged on ahead.  Breaking lines... what lines?  They'd just run for their lives.

As far as I know the only thing foot soldiers were good for was sieges as cannon fodder and other forms of stationary warfare.

That aside, I don't care about having tank horses.  Already tried that and it simply removed the need for any infantry or archers.

If I get it right your point of view of the historical reality is not different from what we say, but for balancing purposes you tweaked things as they are. I remember being very happy with rev 232 or something. Can't we just split the difference and see if it works for you ? because right now it's getting too unrealistic to my opinion. 

 

[Jason L.]

As far as I know the only thing foot soldiers were good for was sieges as cannon fodder and other forms of stationary warfare.

wait, what?? That does not mesh with what I know at all. True, the knights would charge ahead and fight each other, but when people refused to play by the rules (i.e. were smart) infantry played a huge role, because of the fantastic ability of a spear to dismount a knight, and the fact that armour is not that effective against a dozen angry peasants with daggers.

Your point of view is very romantic but doesn't much the time period to my opinion. Such heroic deeds of pour peasants were more likely to take place in the gunpowder era . I do like the way you think tho...

 

[DrTomas]

Besides, if you want it accurate then I'd simply have to remove all infantry from open field battles as they had no place there in those times and were often left behind while the mounted troops charged on ahead.  Breaking lines... what lines?  They'd just run for their lives.

WAT!? Where the hell did you get that idea? Majority of the army would be foot soldiers. What you just charge in and leave majority of your forces drinking in the camp? Some cultures would hardly use cavalry even at this period. In later centuries knights would prefer to dismount even more often for battles.

 

[oroboros]

As far as I know the only thing foot soldiers were good for was sieges as cannon fodder and other forms of stationary warfare.

wait, what?? That does not mesh with what I know at all. True, the knights would charge ahead and fight each other, but when people refused to play by the rules (i.e. were smart) infantry played a huge role, because of the fantastic ability of a spear to dismount a knight, and the fact that armour is not that effective against a dozen angry peasants with daggers.

Your point of view is very romantic but doesn't much the time period to my opinion. Such heroic deeds of pour peasants were more likely to take place in the gunpowder era . I do like the way you think tho...

Not really, think about the Swiss and how they were knocking around the big and mighty Habsburg knights in the early 1300s. The Swiss pikemen, which were existant before firearms were used, or only rarely used, gave also a very hard time to any opponent who wanted to meet them on the battle field. Swiss pikemen were nothing more than peasants with a long pole (I know it sounds somewhat like, well...). The typical Swiss mercenaries were the ones who emerged later on, during the times where more and more firearms were used, especially after the Swiss became neutral in the early 16th Century, after they had lost decisive battles due to a lack of firearms during the Italian wars.

And if we generally talk about foot soldiers, not peasants per se, you might want to talk to some guy from the Varangian guard who will show you and your horsey where the heavenly honours of knightly horsemanship belong to. Or go and ask the English how well they fared against the Scottish Shiltron, ask the French how well they fared against dismounted men-at-arms and prepared & well-positioned longbowmen, or what it was like for the French to fight against the Flemish peasant militia, who were armed with godendags and geldons, in the "Battle of the Golden Spurs" (1302).

Infantry was the spine of almost every army, if the infantry broke ranks, the battle would have been lost - and this was the main aim of the cavalry charge, to break the enemy's infantry formation. Infantry, especially militia and peasants, was of course viewed by the nobility and their noble friends as being far inferior to the noble knights. But the truth is that without infantry the knights wouldn't have had almost no reason for celebrating their victories in battles because they would have been all dead if it weren't for the infantry.