ZOCs blocking break-offs.

[rbodleyscott]

Thank you MVP for stating the case against special rules for cavalry with and without stirrups so well.

And especially this:

It's great to have stirrups (especially during melee after the impact) but it's not enough to significantly alter the overall dynamics between the different types of cavalry or the infantry.

----------------------------------------

The fact that the stirrups were adopted quickly means there are few situation where only one army would have use them and gained an advantage over another. When Western knights were considered an unstoppable force on impact the stirrups had already been widely used for centuries by everyone in the neighborhood.

And further to this, the rules design philosophy is that we do not model for anachronistic matchups, so we do not need to take into consideration what might happen if lancers with stirrups met lancers without stirrups.

Rest assured that Knights (when they appear in the system) will indeed have a much more potent charge than earlier lancers. This will go beyond the code that can be seen in the release builds.

[Bladeheart]

The theories that really raised stirrups on the pedestal basically presumed that without stirrups the riders could barely hold on the their horses which is not accurate (check the ancient military saddles: http://www.seatsofempire.com/ancient.html). The same theories also presume that with stirrups the riders could put all the energy of themselves and the horse into a couched lance thrust which is neither practical nor physically possible (there's only so much force a human body can handle).

I looked at the above link and I apologise as I must be missing something, as it seems to be just a web site advertising reproduction equestrian equipment.

Here's some video footage of early 20th century lancer training: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhkCCYnBrWE
You notice the riders are not jumping into the attacks with their full force as that is not necessary or desirable because you don't want to lose your lance by having it wedged into the body of your enemy. Accuracy is more important than raw force.

May I draw your attention again to the piece of footage cited here.
First a sack upon a tall stick has no resistance. Secondly, if you watch the movement of these riders they are 'pulling' their attacks before they even make contact so that the lance does not entangle in even this flimsy target. Thirdly, if you look closely you will see that some riders even rise up in their saddles in order to facilitate such movements (standing in their stirrups). Against a more 'solid' target with some form of protection (i.e. other than unarmoured light troop type), more force would be required to inflict injury, and thus increasing the chance of it becoming entangled and requiring force to extract it or swapping to a secondary weapon which is again where the stirrup is of value. There is significant difference between the impact of a horse and rider with a 'couched' lance and a rider try to strike at distance and remain mobile but both benefit greatly from the use of stirrups.

It's great to have stirrups (especially during melee after the impact) but it's not enough to significantly alter the overall dynamics between the different types of cavalry or the infantry. The fact that the stirrups were adopted quickly means there are few situation where only one army would have use them and gained an advantage over another. When Western knights were considered an unstoppable force on impact the stirrups had already been widely used for centuries by everyone in the neighborhood.

The point I was trying to explain to you was that if the stirrup made little difference, then it's relatively quick adoption by all would not have taken place. Further to my comment above that covers 'impact' in general, the 'unstoppable force' of a western knight's formation was also due the relative weight, armour and close formation compared to it's opponent on impact.

However, this discussion is going off at a significant tangent from the theme of the thread and, it is apparent may I suggest, that 'RBS' would like it o come to a close.
So I will comment no further and accept that no argument on either side will change the view of the other.

[MVP7]

I looked at the above link and I apologise as I must be missing something, as it seems to be just a web site advertising reproduction equestrian equipment.

The point is that the ancient saddles were far more supporting than the ones after stirrups came around. Even after stirrups the supporting saddles still played an important role in keeping the rider on horseback. The difference between stirrups and no stirrups is not as huge as you think.

If you think about the forces of couched lance thrust, it's not the stirrups that keep the rider in saddle but the saddle itself. Stirrups are ahead and below the rider so they offer little support in the forward and backward directions. Stirrups mainly allow the rider to better lean sideways and reduce the overall risk of falling. It's convenient but not some massive revolution that alone shifts the balance of warfare.

As for why the stirrups were quickly adopted: It's better to have stirrups than not to have stirrups and stirrups are not that hard to make and add to riding gear. There doesn't need to be some massive strategic reason for cheap quality-of-life improvements to spread.

Thirty years ago most cars didn't have central locking systems or electric windows. These days all cars have both but it doesn't mean that those features revolutionized and altered the role and function of a car in the society. They are simply nice to have and simple to add, so they were added.

[Bladeheart]

However, this discussion is going off at a significant tangent from the theme of the thread and, it is apparent may I suggest, that 'RBS' would like it o come to a close.
So I will comment no further and accept that no argument on either side will change the view of the other.

As previously stated.

[carll11]

Could some examples be provided for the cases like cavalry can't break-off because of ZOC or cavalry can break-off ignoring ZOC? I think that may help the discussion.

example.png

These horse archers are secondarily pinned by the diagonally facing lancers. In the current game they are doomed, unless their other unit engages the diagonal lancers ( and stays engaged!).
In real life they would just about face and outpace the heavier cavalry ( certainly any infantry).

No I dont think any horse at similar class that they are faced by, would just turn and beat it

They would not 'about face' , I think they'd retire(while facing the enemy) the 2 tiles they are awarded normally if they aren't engaged straight up...

If the horse is a lighter class by all means....turn and run.