New anarchy charges

[Paisley]

It is common knowledge that cavalry won't charge formed pikes and spears as the psychology of a horse prevents it

Theydid at Bannockburn (on the day before the battle proper) and did on plenty of other occasions. What they won't do is charge home, which in game terms is modelled by them charging to contact (anarchic or not), losing the fight and breaking off. The charge does not hit home but the English spent some time hacking at Scots spears with their swords and throwing swords and axes into the Scots formation in the futile attempt to make a breach. In game terms that is melee combat and requires contact.

[TheGrayMouser]

I believe they often DID charge home, whether succesful or not isnt the question...
*polish Husaria in 17th could and did with regularity defeat pikes blocks
*clearly the French knights charged home at Coutres?? vs the Flemish burgers ,. otherwise how could you account for the heavy French losses?
*cant recall with Ren battle, but the accountis barded HC literally pushed thru a pike block and emerged on the otherside, apparently no harm done to either (although likly a harrowing experiance)

Also consider, why would the Swiss ditch the 8 ft halberd and replace w the much unwieldier pike my mid 15th century? I think think illustrates that even the Swizz had a hard time repelling HC attacks and needed a longer standoff weapon

The idea that horse wont charge home thru a solid mass is valid.. if that mass is a brick wall.... However i dont think a 2000 pound horse really thinks several men standing shoulder to shoulder and x deep is a solid mass... Bowling pins, even stacked touching as opposed to spread out will still be knocked over by the bowling ball, they dont combine their mass just because they are touching..
I think the above idea is propaganda from the napoleonic wargame communities trying to justify why cavalry really could not press home the attack vs infanty in that time period, so they take training manuals from the 18th century (Santa Cruz etc ) and turn it into an absolute. After all, Napoleoic cavalry was basically naked, only had swords and were disrupted by musketry well before getting up close and personal to the infantry

[Paisley]

They charge home when there is an accident or the infantry break before contact. Again that's well enough modelled by the rules as they stand, I think. The Swiss move to pikes is just as well explained by the considerable psychological benefit to men on foot from feeling they have the means to keep mounted men as far from them as possible. But that aside, I agree with you that the system allowing cavalry to contact infantry in frontal charges is fine, whichever side of the 'charging home' argument one takes.

[rbodleyscott]

I aloo agree that the player should have the option to order charges through his own units in the same manner as the AI and with the same consequences.

Based on what historical examples?

[Holien]

The point is people knew what knights would do and did not stand in front of them!

For me that does not wash. Your lesser troops are on foot and it is the elite riding horses. The elite know it is in their interest not to ride through their own men (deliberately) What effect do you think it would have on morale and the willingness of those foot sloggers to fight in future.

Yes in rare cases it did happen but more by accident than design and certainly not every battle and not multiple times per battle.

Anyway from what I understand the Cavalry will not now ride through their own men? Is that right? Has that check been put in the code?

[Holien]

I believe they often DID charge home, whether succesful or not isnt the question...
*polish Husaria in 17th could and did with regularity defeat pikes blocks
*clearly the French knights charged home at Coutres?? vs the Flemish burgers ,. otherwise how could you account for the heavy French losses?
*cant recall with Ren battle, but the accountis barded HC literally pushed thru a pike block and emerged on the otherside, apparently no harm done to either (although likly a harrowing experiance)

Also consider, why would the Swiss ditch the 8 ft halberd and replace w the much unwieldier pike my mid 15th century? I think think illustrates that even the Swizz had a hard time repelling HC attacks and needed a longer standoff weapon

The idea that horse wont charge home thru a solid mass is valid.. if that mass is a brick wall.... However i dont think a 2000 pound horse really thinks several men standing shoulder to shoulder and x deep is a solid mass... Bowling pins, even stacked touching as opposed to spread out will still be knocked over by the bowling ball, they dont combine their mass just because they are touching..
I think the above idea is propaganda from the napoleonic wargame communities trying to justify why cavalry really could not press home the attack vs infanty in that time period, so they take training manuals from the 18th century (Santa Cruz etc ) and turn it into an absolute. After all, Napoleoic cavalry was basically naked, only had swords and were disrupted by musketry well before getting up close and personal to the infantry

The Polish Husaria obviously had the right tactics and hence good combat odds so a code change to allow charges only if they stand a chance of success would reflect this.

The French Knights might have had a good chance of success and fluffed it on the dice roll. Again fair enough and the code change would reflect this.

As for pushing through a pike block if the pikes were deployed I doubt it. Watching cavalry on the field for re-enactment you can clearly see the horses want to keep away from the pike blocks (ECW Re-enactment) and really will only get moderately close if heavily forced by their riders. The horse has to be modelled as a living being that will not do crazy things (or only rarely...) So charging a pike block or tight formation of men will not be a thing it really wants to do...

The examples given where the Cavalry got pissed off and did things are when they were being pelted by arrows and had to respond and this would be modelled better by the check against % chance of success. 50 / 50 would be fine to charge. But if the Cav is 20 / 80 then it should not charge IMO unless the commander is crazy enough to order it.

[Holien]

I aloo agree that the player should have the option to order charges through his own units in the same manner as the AI and with the same consequences.

Based on what historical examples?

Could be that he is saying if the computer can do it then so should the human. IMO neither should be able to do it.....

[Holien]

At Crecy, the French knights rode down their own crossbowmen to charge the English at the king's command and I can't see the harm in allowing heavy cavalry to charge through like an anarchy charge but player commanded so long as anarchy remains a feature too.

From what I have been told tonight they were not their Crossbow men. They were allies but not from same force and they happened to start the charge when it was clear but the Crossbow men moved into the way and could not get out of the way fast enough.

I really do think this Anarchy thing is over modelled and happens too often. (The charging element, not failure to charge) Apart from Crecy what other examples do people have of troops riding through their own men?

I agree with troops not always wanting to charge but troops charging when not instructed to should be pretty rare as men don't tend to want to die. Yes you get an odd group that want to but then it should be against targets that are good to charge at. The way it stands at the moment you get charges happening against targets that are suicidal to charge!! This is wrong IMO and should be coded out. Only Anarchy Charge if you have better percentage odds or a clear chance of success. Not suicide.

Check the history of western knights charging eastern opponents when the outcome was very much not in their favour

Hi Keyth, Any particular books do you suggest? Any particular battles? I am not familiar with the period but I am willing to be pointed in the right direction if you can point more specifically....



And I refer to my previous answer they might have had good odds but fluffed the dice roll and the opponents held their nerve. This would be covered by the tweak.....

[pantherboy]

*polish Husaria in 17th could and did with regularity defeat pikes blocks

Also consider, why would the Swiss ditch the 8 ft halberd and replace w the much unwieldier pike my mid 15th century? I think think illustrates that even the Swizz had a hard time repelling HC attacks and needed a longer standoff weapon

From my reading the polish hussars operated in a combined arms role awaiting their foot troops (e.g. the muskovites etc.) to sufficiently disrupt the enemy formations before they would charge home. They were used as the decisive arm to smash formation at the right time and this is well reflected in the quality of the leaders they possessed during that period and the fact they were such highly trained and disciplined troops. But once they came up against Gustavus and his reformed army they encountered defeat as they had no means of handling the effective maneouver and firepower. Also remember this period sees forces slowly moving towards gunpowder and away from armor especially for the masses. The fact that pikes began being adopted is a reflection of the changing tactics and that they needed them to keep mounted forces at bay while protecting their other troops. When a person is unarmoured or lightly armoured then you don't need a halberd to hack through. Pretty much any weapon will have a devastating effect on the human body.

Cheers,

Steve