Cavarly too disciplined.

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Tagax	Cavarly too disciplined.		Lead	[-]
Posts: 11 11/09/07 03:59:15	Tags : cavalry Something that has come to my attention in all TW games to date is the fact that cavalry, as a rule, exhibit levels of discipline and restraint that were far beyond them (for the most part) in reality. Every one of us will have fond memories of ordering mass cavalry charges on the flanks of an enemy army, only to pull them back and execute the same manoeuvre again and again until our enemies are dust. This is even encouraged by the in-game advisor. In reality, however, this was not achieved by any but the most disciplined horse. Take Edgehill as an example: the Royalists under Prince Rupert smashed the greater part of their Parliamentarian counterparts, but instead of reining in and regrouping, they thundered off to pursue and loot. Wellington also had consistent grievances along the same line. To reflect this in Empire: Total War, I think a general who lacks the trait "good with cavalry", for example, should find it very difficult to restrain his victorious horse or to halt the charge once it has begun. Furthermore, once charged, inexperienced troops should not respond to calls to withdraw in relection of the fact that the charge was really a one-time affair. Generals who participate in the charge could perhaps exercise greater control over their men? I realize that there is a limit to realism that can be achieved in-game, but I think this would really compliment the game (by making it harder to overwhelm AI opponents with ridiculously intricate cavalry manoeuvres), and also be pretty cool. What are your thoughts?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
lucky 1414		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 763 11/09/07 04:27:51	The best way to show this would be to make horses afriad of gunfire, which is historical, and why the square worked.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
percy13		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 885 11/09/07 04:50:00	A major facet very hard to cover is also the fact that if you charge horses for extended periods, they typically die. Try doing a grand national with a non race horse and they won't last too long.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Traian		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1253 11/09/07 05:01:25 Veles	I'm for this, thought the same thing myself after watching some documentary or other about cavalry. If I remember correctly Napoleon himself talked of how important it is for a cavalry commander to have timing - since you only really get one good shot at ordering a general charge and if you miss-time it you'll have disasterous results. Horses should be controllable when walking, but the moment you charge and they begin running, they should not stop until they've made contact. If they don't break the formation they should rout, but generally reform near you lines. If they break the formation they must scatter all over the place cutting down routers like in the original MTW. Only after several attempts should they finally begin returning to a selected destination to reform.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Therestlesskaiser		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 190 11/09/07 06:36:59	lucky 1414 wrote: The best way to show this would be to make horses afriad of gunfire, which is historical, and why the square worked. the reason why squares worked is subject to enormous historical debate. The idea that is is fear of gunfire is amongst the least credible of arguments. Prioir to the napoleonic period vast numbers of horses were used not in a charge for impact role, but as a way of mobilising a brace of pistols. If military horses were scared of gunfire this would have presented a very serious problem. Most historians agree it is the wall of glinting bayonettes that inspires fear in the horses rather than the whiff of powder and shot.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
clibinarium VII		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 70 11/09/07 06:49:34	Trajan makes a good point about charges; once the charge is sounded the unit is committed and should keep going until contact. Its very difficult to halt a charge, so perhpas they should be non-controlable while charging, or you can halt them, but they should be badly disorganised, i.e. respond to orders poorly for a short time. To ensure commanders judge the distance properly, the charge should quickly run out of steam; historically if commanders order the charge to soon, they were in extreme danger of counterattack if their horses were blown. The old Warhammer game Shadow of the Horned Rat implimented the charge quite nicely; once you order the charge off they went in a burst of speed for a fairly short distance.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Therestlesskaiser		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 190 11/09/07 07:00:56	I have to agree with the general thrust of the tread about over discipline in horsemen. It is endlessly frustrating to have to micromanage cavalry in the TW series because they just dont behave very much like horsemen. All too often I find myself hiding cavalry further back than necessary because I worry the unless I watch them intently they will be charged by formed infantry from the front and slaughtered while they stand still - this is balderdash. A little bit of enthusiams from cavalry would be a good thing - if they are faced with a formed enemy to the front within a sensible range they should either charge or withdraw - just standing there like lemons is the surest way to waste a very expensive unit. This could be solved IMO with a slight change to the current system giving cavalry a range of three options, rather than just skirmish or dont. Aggresive Cautious Skirmish Aggresive cav would engage enemies within easy reach. Cautious cavalry would engage enemies charging them or nearby units. Skirmishing cavalry would behave as before. rather than being cavalry types, these should be selectable options much as formations are in TW at the moment. not all units would have the full range, for example heavy guard cavalry might not be able to skirmish, and conscripted light cav might not be able to select aggressive.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
percy13		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 885 11/09/07 19:17:37	That is a damned good idea I think!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
thomas main		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 587 11/10/07 03:02:53	Just a small point the French Cavalry Manual states that a charge must begin at a step then to canter and only a charge for the last 100 meters or so. For the obvious reason that you don't want to reach the enemy on a blown horse. These were relatively fit animals, tho lack of feed and over excursion could change that state. The English Cavalry were famous for having no discipline. They tended to loose there formation and quickly became, a sort of mad fox hunt. At Waterloo I read that the French Cavalry reformed and charged again 9 times. I suppose on the law of diminishing returns less effectively every time. But the English heavy cavalry made one charge and were effectively finished as a cohesive force, tho they did rout the bulk of the French 1st Corp. So skilled/veteran horseman will be more able at preserving the resources of there horse and themselves, as well maintaining formation. but not necessarily more combat efficient. OOPS Step Trot Canter Charge Last Edited By: thomas main 11/11/07 16:11:49. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
deprimerad		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 308 11/10/07 05:44:37	Cavalry had always been a oneshot weapon. Knight had to return to get a new lance after each charge. And as a lot of you guys has mentioned, they also had to get in formation to perform another charge. Light cav that didn´t rely on charge didn´t have the same problem. Angry cossacs riding around hacking down stragglers are more flexible but on the other hand, don´t have the power of a charge. A cavalry charge is like a shoot, you can aim it at the start but ones its off, it goes in a straight line. Horses where trained to stay in formation and as pack animals, they feel safe in a herd. There are lots of examples of horses staying in formation long after the riders are killed. Especially in a charge.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
patilla		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 963 11/10/07 15:11:04	mmm we go with more realism for cavalry, BUT....what about infantry? do you think you could manouver, disengage, rout and reagroup in order, all of that in the heat of battle? too realism controlling = lack of control = desesperation (if we were desesperated with 1st line attacking bug in infantry and charge bug with cavalry, imagine this...)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
percy13		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 885 11/10/07 16:10:12	It's not as bad as it sounds actually. Take the game Combat Mission for example. If you attack with your infantry battalion over open terrain in piecemeal fashion, you end up with a static line as men go to ground, rout and simply refuse to move. Your own firepower dimishes to such an extent your attack will grind to a halt. This game takes morale to fairly real levels where a well placed defender will nearly always chew your force up unless you play smart and probe/scout and exploit weaknesses. Leaders also play a crucial role and help stem that awful moment when you realise your force is effectively broken. This is very realistic and made even more so by serious fog of war. Half the time you can't see the damned enemy at all. Almost everything I've read of Nap battles makes clear that knowing what the hell was going on was a major hazard and if it was coupled with such an approach (in terms of the difficulty of command and control) then I'm sure a comparible approach could be used. I've seen so many gripes about poor AI over the years at this place, I would love to see moaning about how damned hard it is to win.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Parallel Pain		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4116 11/10/07 21:13:40 Administrator	Actually it was Rupert's fault. And it cost him dearly many times as well at Marston Moor and Naseby too. The Parliamentary cavalry doesn't seem to have problem keeping their cavalry in order to turn on the Royalist infantry. The thing is a cavalry fight is not what we see in TW. Usually a cavalry fight is a series of charges and recharges. The first group would charge at each other. Upon contact or a bit after and sometimes even before contact, one side would see that they are at a disadvantage and turn and break off. At which point the victorious side charges forward in pursuit to keep the momentum, but is often turned back by the next rank of cavalry of the enemy. The rank that had turned back before now regroup, possibly mount spare horses, and wait for their turn to charge again. This cycle of charge and countercharge repeats until one side's horses are too tired or their riders too stressed in which case they route and then it's mopping up. The Secret History of the Mongols certainly described a battle (all cavalry since it's Mongols) as a series of charge and recharge. Eh of course that's unless them knights want to dismount after the intitial charge and fight as really heavy infantry. One known exception is at Cannae where the Spanish and Gallic cavalry fought the Allied Cavalry on the river bank. There was not enough room for charges and recharges so the ranks just duelled it out. Many on both sides actually dismounted after the initial charge and fought as infantry until the winner of this contest was decided. I don't think this is quite possible in the TW field battle system as the casualty rate are too high. After one or two charges there wouldn't be many guys left. So anyway the point is that a cavalry charge that doesn't break the enemy IS SUPPOSED TO break off, reform, and charge again. That's how cavalry worked. Of course it didn't work exactly like the game has it but hey, which part does the game has 100% right?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tagax		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11 11/19/07 03:10:03	A cavalry charge that doesn't break the enemy IS SUPPOSED TO break off, reform, and charge again It is evidently (as we have seen) possible to quote examples in support of either view. A series of successive charges like this may have been what was "supposed" to happen (and a lot of the time, did), but the point is, it equally as often did not occur simply because the losses incurred by the horse on their first attempt were sufficient to dissuade them from another, or they were too hotly pursued etc. This is where discipline comes in. More experienced troops should be capable of the feats described by parallel Pain, and others should not. Furthermore, this system only really works with substantial cavalry reserves, and the numbers present on a total war battlefield are, I think, insufficient (and the fatality rates too high).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Cavarly too disciplined.

Cavarly too disciplined.

Quick Reply