why do horse charges only cause a stagger?

Users who are viewing this thread

Oltopeteeh

Regular
As I understand it, the dispute goes in two directions.
Some comrades press on feelings, want to feel power, and so on.
Others advocate balance.
I, if anything, from the second.
Feelings are created by mods. For example, deadly horses.
I still remember that there is no time to put the peak in front of half a ton of live weight at full gallop, which means looking for death, committing suicide.
And don't care that the horse is old, lame, and you are highlevel in the best armor in the game. Horses are Death. Horses kill everyone and everything. Because that's the idea of fashion.

In terms of balance, a horse is a piece of equipment.
There is no fundamental difference than to beat. Sword, shield, horse, stone.
Only the difference in stats matters.

If the rider is tougher, the infantry will suffer.
Stun, knockback, damage, debuffs, weapon loss, shield break, etc.

If the infantry is cooler, the rider will feel bad.
Knockout, spear blow with acceleration, fall of a mount, stun, debuffs, etc.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
giphy.gif


It's funny that again... and again... and again... and again... the same topics are being repeated requesting Taleworlds to implement fundamental things. @five bucks , if you feel it make please a brief summary of what we need... I am already old and become lazy lately :lol: .
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
I think it's a serious issue when units getting up from being knocked down have 0 collision and are immune to further charge damage until they are fully standing. which is quite the opposite of what really happens.
they should create trample mechanic, where downed troops take double charge damage from being ran over and remain stunned for longer.

but the main problem with cavalry charge is the rider AI. they miss their lances, and they miss their horse charge. and the back line of riders run into the front lines instead of enemies. so really you have 1 row in the front half connecting with some attacks and some charges while the rest just run through the enemy lines getting chopped at.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
You seriously going to argue mounted police plowing into unarmed/poorly armed civilians, is something to compared with attempting a charge into armored people with a lot of long, pointy things?
Have you ever been charged by a warhorse before? Well, I've never encountered a warhorse, but I grew up with cows and buffalos. Trust me, you don't want to be charged by one of those. They're hardy beasts. Your pointy sticks might hurt them, but they won't go down right away. They will run around for a bit before they run out of juice and go down. Even if you're lucky and hit a vital for an instant kill, it won't stop the momentum and you will still be crushed by that force.

And that's how and why cavalry charge worked. It made people run away from them, because it's that scary. The rider then just needs to poke people as they run away. Of course, if a group of cavalrymen is charging and their targets are not running away, they can just turn their horses away, but if you ask me whether or not an armored heavy warhorse is capable of charging through armored people with spears, I'd bet yes they can.

To answer the OP, as many have said, people complain a lot about cavalry in multiplayer, so they keep nerfing them.
 

humility925

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Buff on single player, not multiplayer, don't they had two file, one file for single and one file for multiplayer as single and multiplayer do not follow same gameplay rule.

They don't work together like that, but I guess it's easier to work on one file over 2 file each for specifically gameplay mode but hurt lot on gameplay especially single player often follow more realistic and lore based of gameplay while multiplayer don't follow realistic and lore but balanced of gameplay in name of balanced rather than realistic and lore rule.

Balanced and Realistic/lore don't work together very well, this is why one file for single player that follow realistic/lore/sense while multiplayer don't follow lore/sense but in fair of gameplay balanced that had own file system to follow.

They should not had one file that shared both for single and multiplayer.
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
It's funny that again... and again... and again... and again... the same topics are being repeated requesting Taleworlds to implement fundamental things. @five bucks , if you feel it make please a brief summary of what we need... I am already old and become lazy lately :lol: .

A couple things come to mind as the big problems for horse physics...

SIZE - collision boxes for horses need to be much, much much bigger
MASS - no, not the horse, the people the horse is hitting: running into a person should slow you down!!!, but only a braced spear should stop-by-weapon
ADVANTAGE - it doesn't feel like the people are afraid of being trampled by the horses: a rearing horse is an opportunity to pile on, not a "get clear of a reeling animal" moment. It doesn't feel like I'm tall in the saddle: it feels like any bum with a sickle can cut my leg clean off at any moment. That is, besides speed, I feel like there are none of the real-world advantages to horseback. This one is harder to solve, but collision boxes is a start.
 

geala

Sergeant at Arms
I don't think charge damage and/or knockdown are the main cavalry problems. For me the most important would be to a) allow to command the cavalry to attack a certain formation, b) make them able to hit with the pointy sticks better, c) if misses, ride a certain amount of distance (not that far) away and d) turn and attack again as a UNIT and don't spread over the whole map. In addition cavalry should not be able to ride through dense infantry formations from the front. So that for example infantry with spears and shields or pikes are quite safe but archers are very much in danger. Horses should not stop after hit with a spear thrust unless braced.

Dreams apart, if we increase charge damage and knockdown, fall damage for riders (with a random chance of death maybe) and a slower rise from the ground after a fall from a horse should be implemented as well.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
What people expect, as can be seen in the amount fantasies people project even in this very thread, is one of two things (or in many cases):

  1. People expect cavalry charges (particularly lance cavalry) to work like line infantry firing muskets. Cavalry line up, charge, and then the impact will immediately cause every infantry in the first and second row just keel over and die on the spot, and the infantry line decimated -- with no regard to other factors like how well the infantry are armed, how disciplined they are, how thick and rigid the line is, how their morale is holding up, when and where the cavalry charge hits, and how the relative numbers difference is.
  2. People expect cavalry charges to be like bulldozers, like the Charge of the Rohirrim as I've mentioned previously. Even if the charge was bad, even if the timing was off, even if the infantry were holding steady, still, people expect the cavalry charge should have bulldozed the infantry lines with horde of infantry killed on the spot, because they think horses are bulldozers.

For one thing, most of the cavalry in the game, are loosely modeled/inspired by the historical cavalry of the timeframes between around 6th century ~ 10th century, although the arms and armor may include mixed designs of different eras. In the game only the Vlandians really field couched lances in the first place (other than the Sturgian Druzhinaks, which went through a very strange ordeal since launch), and their lances are not yet at the length which one might imagine when thinking about knights charging head-on into infantry formations.

These lances in the game, are about at the length when the very first "western Knights" began to show up in meaningful numbers circa 1066, Battle of Hastings, and at this point the lances themselves were in a state of transition. They were (barely) long enough length that could be used in the under-arm couched position, but short enough to be handled conventionally, and a significant number of knights (actually, way more and common than couched depictions) show up in depictions still using the classical overhead or underhand thrusts.

Around that point in time, the Byzantine cavalry kontos (or kontarion, at this point) were on average 2.5 meters long. The Byzantines also used couching as well, but they would still more commonly use the two-handed method since the Byzantine cavalry were also expected to play more conventional role of cavalry as flanking melee units (as opposed to the "shock charge" of knights). On average the western knights of that time period had way longer lances -- 3 meters or longer. Later, in the High Medieval periods, it's only around this time that knights benefitted enough from new technologies to be much more heavily armed and armored, horses also receiving plate bardings, with even longer lances that would begin reaching 4 meters in length -- that they started to just charge head-on into infantry formations.

Compare that with the lances we have in the game. At the longest the standard lances sold in the shops are around 1.8 meters in length. At the longest, around 2.2 meters (Heavy Druzhinak lances). You can craft longer couched lances, which at maximum come out around 2.5 meters. The game doesn't feature the 3-meter lances of Medieval knights. These cavalry in the game, are NOT Medieval knights. They're their predecessors -- "conventional cavalry." They basically don't have the arms and armament to be able to do head-on charges against infantry lines effectively, and that's with the Vlandians. Other cavalry with even shorter lances, not used as couched but rather classical overhead/underarm thrusts are not fit for such charges in the first place.


TLDR version: People are making the mistake of thinking "cavalry charges" in this game, should be those that might be expected from 13th~14th century French knights and their lance charges, when in reality the devs already made it clear this is an era 2 centuries before Warband, inspired by the era that came before the height of the Medieval Ages in Europe. The cavalry in the game are at the stages before transitioning into such roles and capabilities the Western European knights would (eventually) become to be known for. At "this point in time," cavalry still inherit and retain the roles they were known for in the classical times, and in the classical times, cavalry did not charge like knights.

(ps) If anecdotes mean anything, I've decimated pure Sturgian infantry lines of 100+ in shieldwall formation with a single cavalry charge in under 10 seconds by doing charges in the "correct" way these cavalry should be used. How did I do it? I threw my own shieldwall infantry line at them to have all of their backs turned to my cavalry. My cavalry were 80+, almost as numerous as the Sturgian line, and then I lined them as wide as possible, and sandwiched them from behind. That's what the cavalry in the game are used for. Yes, I did that, because my 80+ cavalry alone had no capability to just decimate a 100+ Sturgian infantry line by themselves -- because that's what the cavalry of this time period (or rather, of comparable time period in real-life) just are.

Why should anyone expect them to be able to pull of cavalry charges like 14th century French knights clad in full plate, armed with 3-meter long lances, when these cavalry aren't like that?
 
Last edited:

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Funny all the Nerd rage that the LOTR movies caused -people writing thesis and getting doctorates on "why those Cav charges in Two Towers were false". Whats next "Elves didnt REALLY jump over a perfectly good Shieldwall !!"
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
Cavalry charges are strong because they approach fast (as in the game)
They don't though they ride far away and then charge each time, exposing them selves each time they pull back.
deliver an immensely powerful attack (as in the game)
In Bannerlord? No way cavalry is totally limp in bannerlord. In Warband they were powerful but in bannerlord they still wiff attacks and fail to deliver lethal most of the time, allowing them to immediately be countered by ANY other troops. They're only good as distraction units or SW units, if you expect them to actually kill anything in a useful way...well they're not gonna.
are hard to stop because of the mass (as in the game), and deliver a crippling blow to morale (as in the game).
In this game, Bannerlord?
This is my typical experience with mass Heavy cavalry in Bannerlord
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
What people expect, as can be seen in the amount fantasies people project even in this very thread, is one of two things (or in many cases):

  1. Cavalry line up, charge, and then the impact will immediately cause every infantry in the first and second row just keel over and die on the spot, and the infantry line decimated -- with no regard to other factors like how well the infantry are armed
I agree that how the infantry are armed should play a part.
Pike infantry should stop and impale a charging horse.
Large shield infantry should stop a couched lance charge.

Any infantry with no pike or large shield should be vulnerable to a couched lance charge.

This will make cavalry useful at fighting some infantry. Right now they suck against all infantry unless you babysit them and they have help. Considering they cost more than infantry, this is not OK.
For one thing, most of the cavalry in the game, are loosely modeled/inspired by the historical cavalry of the timeframes between around 6th century ~ 10th century, although the arms and armor may include mixed designs of different eras. In the game only the Vlandians really field couched lances in the first place (other than the Sturgian Druzhinaks, which went through a very strange ordeal since launch), and their lances are not yet at the length which one might imagine when thinking about knights charging head-on into infantry formations.
These lances in the game, are about at the length when the very first "western Knights" began to show up in meaningful numbers circa 1066, Battle of Hastings, and at this point the lances themselves were in a state of transition. They were (barely) long enough length that could be used in the under-arm couched position, but short enough to be handled conventionally, and a significant number of knights (actually, way more and common than couched depictions) show up in depictions still using the classical overhead or underhand thrusts.
Cavalry lances need to be slightly longer or held slightly further forward. On the topic of Hastings, having looked at the Bayeux Tapestry myself and compared it to a side-on view of the lances the player and Banner Knights can couch, and how far it extends in front of the horse's head, they are actually slightly too short.
BayeuxTapestryScene52b.jpg

Compared to this, where the couched spear extends about a head or so in front of the horse, Bannerlord couched lances barely pass the horse's head.
the Byzantine cavalry were also expected to play more conventional role of cavalry as flanking melee units (as opposed to the "shock charge" of knights).
Byzantine heavy armoured cavalry would prefer to flank if possible, but if they could not, they would batter their way headfirst into enemy infantry formations at a fast trot.

"It is necessary for the commander of the army to have the triangular formation of kataphraktoi at the ready and the other two units which accompany it, and, on whichever front enemy is facing, have them move out through those internals very calmly in proper formation. Even if enemy formation is made up of infantry, that is to say heavy infantry, the kataphraktoi should not be apprehensive but should proceed to attack very calmly, and aim the triangular formation of the kataphraktoi right at the spot where commander of the enemy army is standing. And then the spears of the enemy infantry in the front lines will be smashed by the kataphraktoi, while arrows will be ineffective, as will javelins of their javeliners. Then with the help of God, they will turn to flight."

"Then the front of the triangular formation must move in proper formation at a trotting pace and smash into the position of the enemy commander, while the outflankers on the outside encircle the enemy as far as possible, and the other two units proceed on both flanks with the rear ranks of the kataphraktoi without getting too far ahead or breaking rank in any way. With the aid of God and through the intercession of His immaculate Mother the enemy will be overcome and give way to flight."

"For the enemy spear and pikes will be shattered by the kataphraktoi and their arrows will be ineffective, whereupon, the kataphraktoi, gaining in courage and boldness, will smash in the heads and bodies of the enemy and their horses with their iron maces and sabers, they will break in to and dismember their formations and from there break through and so completely destroy them.

When the enemy troops do turn to flight, it is not the kataphraktoi who should undertake the pursuit but their two accompanying units trailing behind them."

Praecepta Militaria on the tactics of the deployment of Kataphraktoi

Later, in the High Medieval periods, it's only around this time that knights (...) started to just charge head-on into infantry formations.
I can think of multiple examples from the 1000s:

The Battle of Civitate (Norman knights directly charge Papal infantry and cause them to flee).
The first Battle of Dyrrhachium (where the Norman knights are described in the Alexiad as being "unstoppable, able to punch a hole in the walls of Constantinople").
The second Battle of Dyrrhachium (Byzantine cataphracts directly attacked the centre Norman infantry and crushed them).
And the Battle of Hastings (where the Norman knights could not flank the well chosen Saxon position, so they made multiple direct assaults, according to the primary sources and the Tapestry).
Compare that with the lances we have in the game. At the longest the standard lances sold in the shops are around 1.8 meters in length. At the longest, around 2.2 meters (Heavy Druzhinak lances). You can craft longer couched lances, which at maximum come out around 2.5 meters.
Make lances longer or make the cavalry hold them out a bit further.
The cavalry in the game are at the stages before transitioning into such roles and capabilities the Western European knights would (eventually) become to be known for. At "this point in time," cavalry still inherit and retain the roles they were known for in the classical times, and in the classical times, cavalry did not charge like knights.
This is inaccurate. Norman cavalry of the 1000s were the origin of the archetypical knightly charge. That's how the Norman charges are described in Byzantine military manuals and historical sources, as well as Norman sources of the First Crusade.
ps) If anecdotes mean anything, I've decimated pure Sturgian infantry lines of 100+ in shieldwall formation with a single cavalry charge in under 10 seconds by doing charges in the "correct" way these cavalry should be used. How did I do it? I threw my own shieldwall infantry line at them to have all of their backs turned to my cavalry. My cavalry were 80+, almost as numerous as the Sturgian line, and then I lined them as wide as possible, and sandwiched them from behind. That's what the cavalry in the game are used for. Yes, I did that, because my 80+ cavalry alone had no capability to just decimate a 100+ Sturgian infantry line by themselves -- because that's what the cavalry of this time period (or rather, of comparable time period in real-life) just are.
Actually there are real battles where cavalry direct charges prevailed which are very close analogies to that situation, such as the battles between the Byzantines and the Kievan Rus prior to the Siege of Dorostolon. In these battles the Byzantine cataphracts twice directly charged the Rus' shieldwall (which was not retreating), and twice crushed their way through it.

Cavalry don't have to be the bulldozers able to delete everything in their path like you fear, but if we are talking realism, a 300kg horse covered in armour charging at 40km/h should absolutely be able to knock down one or two lines of men, and unless the men in front have long pikes or large shields or really good armor, a couched lance charge or well-aimed stab should be killing in one hit.

Otherwise, what's the point of melee cavalry? They're more expensive and difficult to get, they need to attack from up close unlike ranged units, they need to do big sweeping movements around the battlefield for each attack which makes them take longer per kill than infantry and ranged.

So if on top of all that, you also make them require micromanagement and flanking and allied support to have any effectiveness at all, I.E. their current state, then they will ****ing suck. Which, I should add, they do. In the current state of the game there's almost nothing melee cavalry can do which ranged cavalry can't do with fewer casualties.




Horse charges in Singleplayer need to knock down infantry more easily, but not necessarily deal more damage.

Melee cavalry need to have slightly longer reach, and be more accurate. Either that, or infantry need to be less accurate, as right now they have almost 100% accuracy against cav.

Spears and lances need to stab slightly faster and do about 25% more damage on a stab, while Slashing polearms like glaives need to be slightly slower and do about 25% less damage, as currently Khan's Guard, who are horse archers, are better cavalry than actual melee cavalry.

Armour needs to be more effective against ranged attacks.

These things combined should make cavalry be more realistic and more useful (balanced to take into account their greater cost).
 
Last edited:

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
Well said @five bucks .

The only addition if you let me is when you say "Horse charges in Singleplayer need to knock down infantry more easily, but not necessarily deal more damage."; in my opinion if the charge is from the side or from behind, there should be a higher percentage of damage undeniably.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Even after a charge a smart fighter is going to use his War Mount to bully the space around him amongst enemy troops. Think about it -are you gonna just pull up sideways to an enemy combatant "care to duel ol chap?" or are you gonna use that beast to literally push people around, keep physical space between you and the enemy's pointy thing and push people around if not outright trample them.
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
People expect cavalry charges to be like bulldozers, like the Charge of the Rohirrim as I've mentioned previously. Even if the charge was bad, even if the timing was off, even if the infantry were holding steady, still, people expect the cavalry charge should have bulldozed the infantry lines with horde of infantry killed on the spot, because they think horses are bulldozers.
nobody is expecting cavalry charge to behave like bulldozers. but under the best of circumstances they can't do **** in this game.

i can have 500 tier 6 cavs formed up in a line charging against 100 looters from behind them and it will still have minimal impact. the horses run into each other and come to a complete stop instantly and the lances miss. they "swim" through the looters and very little total damage is done.
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
the horses run into each other and come to a complete stop instantly

they "swim" through the looters
Exactly this: real horses know how to swim past each other while running together, but they should absolutely STOP (with damage to both sides!) after pushing into 5+ people.
 
I have seen people complain about many things, but never ever have I seen people complain about buffed horse charge damage in RBM (which results in knock down very often), on contrary, some people wanted even higher damage. So my conclussion is that people would be OK with some buff to it.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
I have seen people complain about many things, but never ever have I seen people complain about buffed horse charge damage in RBM (which results in knock down very often), on contrary, some people wanted even higher damage. So my conclussion is that people would be OK with some buff to it.
Which is why I specifically made it clear I'm not against soldiers being knocked down, more confusion in the ranks before it recovers, and stronger penalty to morale when a charge happens.

I'm simply against people expecting and demanding to see the results of a late-Medieval style lance charge happening with early/pre-Medieval cavalry we have in the game + people being rewarded of their piss-poor horsemanship and tactical judgement, in which instead of concentrating on landing hits while on horseback, and carefully gauging the moment of when and where to charge in, you just simply lead mass cavalry line into infantry formations head-on and pummel through like a steam roller.

So I think it's a safe bet to say the "middle line" where everyone can agree, for now, is "more knockdowns."
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
I'm simply against people expecting and demanding to see the results of a late-Medieval style lance charge happening with early/pre-Medieval cavalry we have in the game - pummeling through like a steam roller
Norman knights and Byzantine cataphracts COULD "pummel through like a steam roller"- that's what their role was, that's why they were heavy cavalry instead of light flanking cavalry, and that's how they were described in historical sources. "Smashing a hole in the walls of Byzantium". See the posts above.
+ people being rewarded of their piss-poor tactical judgement, in which instead of concentrating carefully gauging the moment of when and where to charge in, you just simply lead mass cavalry line into infantry formations head-on
I get that you don't want the game to be tactically thoughtless.

Look at it this way.
Right now:
Shield infantry can make archers almost irrelevant with their shields with no tactical effort.
Two-hander infantry can shred shields, and destroy shield infantry in a fight, with no tactical effort.
Horse archers can defeat any infantry who are without a shield or throwing weapon and unable to catch them or outshoot them, with very little effort (follow command+circle).
Archers can out-shoot horse archers with superior accuracy, negating their effectiveness, with no tactical effort.
Pike infantry can brace their pikes to absolutely destroy charging cavalry, with no tactical effort.

Melee cavalry can... ??

They get shredded by archers, by infantry, by horse archers. Despite being more expensive than other troops, they require the most babysitting and support just to get similar results.

Why shouldn't melee cavalry be able to defeat at least one type of troop easily? Like every other troop type can?

If you are worried about players using heavy cav armies not having to use any tactics, the answer is simple: increase the number of pikeman troops in the game.

I made a thread about how to increase the tactical depth in Bannerlord, and the TL;DR is that each type of troop should have another troop type they soft-counter, and are soft-countered by.

In melee cavalry's case, they would be strong against shock infantry (who have no pike or large shield to protect them from a charge), go roughly even with shield infantry/ranged cavalry/ranged infantry, and be weak against pike infantry.

Thus the player would be able to send their cavalry to steamroll shock infantry (this is backed up by historical examples like the Norman Knights steamrolling the Varangian Guard at Olivento and Montmaggiore), but would have to exercise thought and flanking attacks against shieldwalls to get the best result, and would absolutely have to exercise thought against pikewalls to avoid being murdered.
So I think it's a safe bet to say the "middle line" where everyone can agree, for now, is "more knockdowns."
Yes, that would be a good start, but cav also need better accuracy and armor needs to work better.
 
Last edited:

emo_edjiboye

Regular
I get that you don't want the game to be tactically thoughtless.

Look at it this way.
Right now:
Shield infantry can make archers almost irrelevant with their shields with no tactical effort.
Two-hander infantry can shred shields, and destroy shield infantry in a fight, with no tactical effort.
Horse archers can defeat any infantry who are without a shield or throwing weapon and unable to catch them or outshoot them, with very little effort (follow command+circle).
Archers can out-shoot horse archers with superior accuracy, negating their effectiveness, with no tactical effort.
Pike infantry can brace their pikes to absolutely destroy charging cavalry, with no tactical effort.
gosh, I wish tactics could be like that in BannerLord. Sadly, the combat AI makes traditional counters trivial. In battles the AI will do one of two things: turtle up in a corner or charge.

The AI turtling up should be good if it is defending, letting their archer shoot accurately, letting spear-infantry brace, and shield-infantry keep their shield wall intact. But unfortunately this is BannerLord; the AI will generally bunch up their archers making them easy targets for your own. The AI will put its infantry in shield wall, making spear-bracing ineffective. Yet shield wall is terrible in combat as troops will eat each other hits. yet the it will still keep that formation until their bitter end.

The AI charging is no better. Archers can somewhat effectively shoot and run forward, but crossbows can't. Infantry will not hold their shield up when charging, preferring to raise the weapons up as if they can strike someone 100 meters away.

I think AI combat is so bad that people believe if TW were to actual fix something it would break the game balance, its "everything is bad, so nothing is bad" kind of balance. And that's sad because it's true. However, AI combat being bad isn't an excuse for keeping cavalry in the stat that it is in. what happens when TW fixes the AI to properly set up a line of spear-braced infantry in response to a cav charge? will people whine that infantry is too strong because it's working properly? what happens if armor gets buff so that acts like actual historic armor, will people complain that "archer are bad now, please nerf/buff!"? After launch they had to nerf horse-archer hard because they were the few units that behaved exactly as you'd think horse archers should, while most units didn't.

heavy cavalry should act and feel like heavy cavalry, with all its strengths and weaknesses. The least they can do is add stumbling to infantry when they are charged by cavalry.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
Melee cavalry can... ??

They get shredded by archers, by infantry, by horse archers. Despite being more expensive than other troops, they require the most babysitting and support just to get similar results.

Why shouldn't melee cavalry be able to defeat at least one type of troop easily? Like every other troop type can?
Err.. they do defeat things easily. I really have no clue as to what you're talking about when you say "can't defeat things easily" because this game isn't some SRPG game that has neat rock-scissors-papers relationship between troop types, and I really don't understand why you're thinking something needs to "defeat something easily" to have tactical value, because tactics is a measure of value as part of the army group, not a DPS meter.

Already, the cavalry pretty easily decimates archers when done in the right way, right numbers, right situation. Same against infantry, same against horse archers, same against any other troop type for that matter.

I find most of these types of complaints where people say "A can't do B" in this game, results from either (a) misconceptions on historical battles (as clearly can be seen in this very thread about cavalry charges), and/or (b) not knowing how to pull things off correctly.

Take for example attacks against archers, as you've mentioned. In many cases I see the common mistakes of..
  • (a) riding in head-on against sufficient numbers of archers from a distance without drawing their fire through other troops
  • (b) riding in against too numerous number of archers with too few cavalry
  • (c) riding in perpendicular to a long, elongated archer line and hitting just one spot
...etc etc. These are all mistakes coming from people who just vaguely have the "game knowledge" of "oh, cavalry is supposed to be good against archers" and then expect all engagements against archers with cavalry to be an automatic-win -- which in actuality, is not.

People EXPECT certain things out of a vague sense of fantasy, but in reality have no idea of how it's done in real life, so when the results come out bad from their mistaken methods, they blame the game. That's basically what I see in these forums every day. I'm not trying to chest-thump here or anything, but for me, much of what happens in the game, and how and why people complain about those things, are actually a testament to how realistic this game is.

Archers are not defenseless. They're lightly armored and armed, but they're all soldiers ready to take on enemies in melee if necessary.. Plus, most of the archers/ranged in the game are actually quite well-equipped in the higher tiers -- typically the crossbows armed in the Genoan style -- and some of them are even capable melee fighters. And on top of it, they are spread widely in a line, which means if you just puncture the line in one small spot, it's only natural that you're exposed to cross-fire from all the other soldiers in the line that are further away from your charge.

So how do you take on archers with cavalry and decimate them easily? You hit them from the sides and rake the entire archer line from one side to the other. That way, many archers are blocked in their line of fire by other archers. The cavalry line following your lead naturally envelops/overlaps a huge swathe of the archer line at the same time. The archers are being pushed around by the horses with no chance of firing anything. As a result the archer line is just toast.


It's practically similar with any troop type mentioned. Cavalry has a way to deal with them, and if not alone, as part of a combined arms maneuver, which, is EXACTLY how they should be.

Cavalry is still the most significantly powerful and useful unit type in the game by far. Their speed alone is plenty enough to be valuable, for example, you see enemy formation in the opening phase of the battle try to move to a better spot? You lead the cavalry and harass them to stop. The enemy has their own cavalry protecting the sides? Lure then out to and destroy them to expose enemy sides. The enemy has horse archers attempting a envelopment tactic? Ride out with your cavalry to counter and repel them. Circle them around for a classic hammer&anvil charge, etc etc etc..

How many other troop types can fulfill all of those roles above?
 
Top Bottom