How to use knights

[rbodleyscott]

I am really not understanding this, because in this thread, viewtopic.php?f=623&t=104279 RBS writes that you cannot fall back into an enemy ZOC.

Interesting. Maybe not exactly the same rules in Ancients and Medieval then, or only applicable for certain units, such as Knights? Don't know. Let's see what RBS says about it.

Looking again at the code, and doing some tests, it appears that my previous answer was incorrect.

It looks as if, in fact, a single-square break off may only be prevented if the starting square is ZOCd by another unit, and the break-off direction is more that 45 degrees from directly away from that enemy's front.

OR if the break off would normally move 2 squares, and the first square of the break-off is ZOCd.

I don't want to be more explicit (e.g. in the manual) because the use of ZOCs to prevent breakoffs is a bit gamey, so I don't want to make it easier for people to do.

I also may need to rethink how exactly it works.

[matlegob]

I have try the formation with knight in front of pedestrian against the Ai: it works very well!

coul the AI formation use this formation?

[Dux Limitis]

I have try the formation with knight in front of pedestrian against the Ai: it works very well!

coul the AI formation use this formation?

AI don't,I think the game should make the AI use such formation,it will be more historical,for now the AI use the formation of infantry on the center and knights on the flanks,it's rarely seen in High Medieval times(French in Bouvines is one of).And in Legnano the Germans knew the Milanese in the field fortifications but they still use the knights in front to attack,same thing did by Navarres in Tolosa,1212ad,also the French in Courtrai under Duke of Artois,1302ad,means even knew the enemies in the defensive positions they will still use such tactic of knights in the front.

[gribol]

I have try the formation with knight in front of pedestrian against the Ai: it works very well!

coul the AI formation use this formation?

Knights in the front?
Perfect objective for enemy crossbowmen.

... I think the game should make the AI use such formation,it will be more historical,....

There are lots of examples from history, that Knights was cover behind inflantry and shooters line, with very good score.

[Dux Limitis]

I have try the formation with knight in front of pedestrian against the Ai: it works very well!

coul the AI formation use this formation?

Knights in the front?
Perfect objective for enemy crossbowmen.

... I think the game should make the AI use such formation,it will be more historical,....

There are lots of examples from history, that Knights was cover behind inflantry and shooters line, with very good score.

1.Just take 1-2 rounds' hits,then the crossbowmen will not survived after the knights charge.
2.Please post some examples(more than the examples of knights in the front),and evidence of that was an "usual" tactic of that time.

[Sabratha]

2.Please post some examples(more than the examples of knights in the front),and evidence of that was an "usual" tactic of that time.

I'm not gonna say that was the most common or usual tactic, but it was not unheard of or rare either.

There was a formation known and used in central and eastern europe called "en haye" (Polish: "w płot" - literally "as a fence") where the heavy cavalry would form up in a line at the front, with relatively wide spaces between the individual knights, with mounted aides or squires just behind them.
This was a very wide, but shallow formation used almost as an "army-level skirmish" or "tournament" - knights and sargeants from one side would engage in individual combat with enemy knights on the other side, formed in the same style of formation.

This was in a sense a "fair-play" nobleman's arrangement, maximizing the chance of combatants being thrown off the horse and taken captive rather than killed, while minimizing the chances of trampling and minimizing the chances of the expensive warhorses getting wounded.

Of course, such an "arrangement" was possible only if both armies were symmetrical and agreed to "play along". The best example of such a battle that I can recall was the battle of Koronowo 1410 where the opposing armies even agreed to three "time out" periods to rest and water the horses. Though in the final phase of that battle, the Teutonic army started a rout and the battle turned into a regular "pursuit".
Another would be the 1289 battle of Siewier.


Having written all that, this "grand tournament-style-arrangement battle" using en haye is not exactly the sort of battle that the FoG:M engine was designed to handle.

[gribol]

1.Just take 1-2 rounds' hits,then the crossbowmen will not survived after the knights charge.
2.Please post some examples(more than the examples of knights in the front),and evidence of that was an "usual" tactic of that time.

1. No, if they are behind spearmen
2. I just dont want to generalize by telling, that: "that was usual tactic, and that was not". It was just depending from many factors.
There are some battles, in which knights was in the front, or in the flanks, or knight was in the back, or knight was on foot mixed with inflantry.
- Knights in the back: You can look for example Arsuf battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf , Antioch 1098, Hazart 1125, or more battles from Crusades time.
- Knight on flanks: Steppes 1213 Bouvines 1214 (very complitaced battle - on the flanks Knights was in front, and in the center behind)
- Knights on foot: Northallerton 1138

I can recommended Charles Oman books, they are really nice. You will find there all of them.

So, i just want to say, that in my oppinion there was no one best way to use Knights in most of battles.

[Nosy_Rat]

1.Just take 1-2 rounds' hits,then the crossbowmen will not survived after the knights charge.

Fun fact - at equal points crossbows beat knights even in the open field.

[Dux Limitis]

1.Just take 1-2 rounds' hits,then the crossbowmen will not survived after the knights charge.
2.Please post some examples(more than the examples of knights in the front),and evidence of that was an "usual" tactic of that time.

1. No, if they are behind spearmen
2. I just dont want to generalize by telling, that: "that was usual tactic, and that was not". It was just depending from many factors.
There are some battles, in which knights was in the front, or in the flanks, or knight was in the back, or knight was on foot mixed with inflantry.
- Knights in the back: You can look for example Arsuf battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf , Antioch 1098, Hazart 1125, or more battles from Crusades time.
- Knight on flanks: Steppes 1213 Bouvines 1214 (very complitaced battle - on the flanks Knights was in front, and in the center behind)
- Knights on foot: Northallerton 1138

I can recommended Charles Oman books, they are really nice. You will find there all of them.

So, i just want to say, that in my oppinion there was no one best way to use Knights in most of battles.

1.Behind the spearmen then they can not fire because they can not shoot over the other troops in game,unless they're on the hill.
2.In Arsuf because they're facing an mounted archers-based army while the Crusader army is on march so they use the infantry to counter raids and knights in reserves,and no mixed foot for now in FoG:Medieval.Crusaders did that because they're facing the completely different armies from the Euro ones.In Bouvines the Imperial side was not all on the flanks and the French while used their knights on the flanks still had infantry on their backs as reserves so that's still "knights infront of the infantry".Steppes because of the lowcountry armies didn't have that much knights,their armies are infantry-based so they only can put their knights on the flanks by there.About the northallerton,knights on foots but they still counted as knights while usually on the front,like in Castagnaro,Agincourt,Nájera etc.You should read some new books,the Charles Oman's books were too old for Medieval warfares' research some even from the 19th century.
Battle maps of the Bouvines and Arsuf you talked about:

[Dux Limitis]

1.Just take 1-2 rounds' hits,then the crossbowmen will not survived after the knights charge.

Fun fact - at equal points crossbows beat knights even in the open field.

That depends on the cohesion test(Some times AI's knights took multiple hits but they still not disrupted until they took too much casualties then auto breaks),or luck,you should pray to the God before the battle.If the knights don't lose cohesion,then the crossbowmen as good as dead.

[Dux Limitis]

2.Please post some examples(more than the examples of knights in the front),and evidence of that was an "usual" tactic of that time.

I'm not gonna say that was the most common or usual tactic, but it was not unheard of or rare either.

There was a formation known and used in central and eastern europe called "en haye" (Polish: "w płot" - literally "as a fence") where the heavy cavalry would form up in a line at the front, with relatively wide spaces between the individual knights, with mounted aides or squires just behind them.
This was a very wide, but shallow formation used almost as an "army-level skirmish" or "blood-spilling tournament" - knights and sargeants from one side would engage in individual combat with enemy knights on the other side, formed in the same style of formation.

This was in a sense a "fair-play" nobleman's arrangement, maximizing the chance of combatants being thrown off the horse and taken captive rather than killed, while minimizing the chances of trampling and minimizing the chances of the expensive warhorses getting wounded.

Of course, such an "arrangement" was possible only if both armies were symmetrical and agreed to "play along". The best example of such a battle that I can recall was the battle of Koronowo 1410 where the opposing armies even agreed to three "time out" periods to rest and water the horses. Though in the final phase of that battle, the Teutonic army started a rout and the battle turned into a regular "pursuit".
Another would be the 1289 battle of Siewier.


Having written all that, this "grand tournament-style-arrangement battle" using en haye is not exactly the sort of battle that the FoG:M engine was designed to handle.

Yep,that sounds not like the regular blood spilled combat,still,the game need to change the AI's battle array to the more regular and common one of that time(Also the First Battle of Tannenberg,Teutonic Order deployed their knights on the front and routed the Lithuanians on the Poles' side),that means AI should deployed their knights in front of the army and increase their knights' numbers they purchased,some times even I play a custom battle against the France they only have 6-7 units of knights on the field,on very large scale.I mean they can purchase maximum of 17 units of knights on that scale,more than the other countries,they're wasting their advantage.

[gribol]

1.Behind the spearmen then they can not fire because they can not shoot over the other troops in game,unless they're on the hill.
2.(...)You should read some new books,the Charles Oman's books were too old for Medieval warfares' research some even from the 19th century.

You are absolutelly right.

[Sabratha]

2.Please post some examples(more than the examples of knights in the front),and evidence of that was an "usual" tactic of that time.

I'm not gonna say that was the most common or usual tactic, but it was not unheard of or rare either.

There was a formation known and used in central and eastern europe called "en haye" (Polish: "w płot" - literally "as a fence") where the heavy cavalry would form up in a line at the front, with relatively wide spaces between the individual knights, with mounted aides or squires just behind them.
This was a very wide, but shallow formation used almost as an "army-level skirmish" or "blood-spilling tournament" - knights and sargeants from one side would engage in individual combat with enemy knights on the other side, formed in the same style of formation.

This was in a sense a "fair-play" nobleman's arrangement, maximizing the chance of combatants being thrown off the horse and taken captive rather than killed, while minimizing the chances of trampling and minimizing the chances of the expensive warhorses getting wounded.

Of course, such an "arrangement" was possible only if both armies were symmetrical and agreed to "play along". The best example of such a battle that I can recall was the battle of Koronowo 1410 where the opposing armies even agreed to three "time out" periods to rest and water the horses. Though in the final phase of that battle, the Teutonic army started a rout and the battle turned into a regular "pursuit".
Another would be the 1289 battle of Siewier.


Having written all that, this "grand tournament-style-arrangement battle" using en haye is not exactly the sort of battle that the FoG:M engine was designed to handle.

Yep,that sounds not like the regular blood spilled combat,still,the game need to change the AI's battle array to the more regular and common one of that time(Also the First Battle of Tannenberg,Teutonic Order deployed their knights on the front and routed the Lithuanians on the Poles' side),that means AI should deployed their knights in front of the army and increase their knights' numbers they purchased,some times even I play a custom battle against the France they only have 6-7 units of knights on the field,on very large scale.I mean they can purchase maximum of 17 units of knights on that scale,more than the other countries,they're wasting their advantage.

Well, that's the thing with high middle ages central European warfare. There were researchers in the past who stressed primarily these "tournament-style" en-haye battles trying to present it as a sort of triumph of the knightly ethos, the chivalric model over common sense.
Others would try to minimize or deny it entirely, instead stressing the regular "impact-kinetic" warfare with mass charges of horsemen in wedge formations.

I'd say if one reads and treats the period sources seriously, one has to reach the conclusion that both were true to some extent and that armies could fluently move from one method of combat into the other, even within the span of a single battle.

The Koronowo 1410 AD battle is one such well described example - the vast majority of the combat was fought in the en-haye tournament style, but once the rout began the battle devolved into a regular "kinetic" rout-and-pursuit with heavy losses for the retreating army.

[Dux Limitis]

I'm not gonna say that was the most common or usual tactic, but it was not unheard of or rare either.

There was a formation known and used in central and eastern europe called "en haye" (Polish: "w płot" - literally "as a fence") where the heavy cavalry would form up in a line at the front, with relatively wide spaces between the individual knights, with mounted aides or squires just behind them.
This was a very wide, but shallow formation used almost as an "army-level skirmish" or "blood-spilling tournament" - knights and sargeants from one side would engage in individual combat with enemy knights on the other side, formed in the same style of formation.

This was in a sense a "fair-play" nobleman's arrangement, maximizing the chance of combatants being thrown off the horse and taken captive rather than killed, while minimizing the chances of trampling and minimizing the chances of the expensive warhorses getting wounded.

Of course, such an "arrangement" was possible only if both armies were symmetrical and agreed to "play along". The best example of such a battle that I can recall was the battle of Koronowo 1410 where the opposing armies even agreed to three "time out" periods to rest and water the horses. Though in the final phase of that battle, the Teutonic army started a rout and the battle turned into a regular "pursuit".
Another would be the 1289 battle of Siewier.


Having written all that, this "grand tournament-style-arrangement battle" using en haye is not exactly the sort of battle that the FoG:M engine was designed to handle.

Yep,that sounds not like the regular blood spilled combat,still,the game need to change the AI's battle array to the more regular and common one of that time(Also the First Battle of Tannenberg,Teutonic Order deployed their knights on the front and routed the Lithuanians on the Poles' side),that means AI should deployed their knights in front of the army and increase their knights' numbers they purchased,some times even I play a custom battle against the France they only have 6-7 units of knights on the field,on very large scale.I mean they can purchase maximum of 17 units of knights on that scale,more than the other countries,they're wasting their advantage.

So,If about the central and eastern Euro then could keep those army list which coverd

Well, that's the thing with high middle ages central European warfare. There were researchers in the past who stressed primarily these "tournament-style" en-haye battles trying to present it as a sort of triumph of the knightly ethos, the chivalric model over common sense.
Others would try to minimize or deny it entirely, instead stressing the regular "impact-kinetic" warfare with mass charges of horsemen in wedge formations.

I'd say if one reads and treats the period sources seriously, one has to reach the conclusion that both were true to some extent and that armies could fluently move from one method of combat into the other, even within the span of a single battle.

The Koronowo 1410 AD battle is one such well described example - the vast majority of the combat was fought in the en-haye tournament style, but once the rout began the battle devolved into a regular "kinetic" rout-and-pursuit with heavy losses for the retreating army.

There's one thing you forget is this is an unusual tactic in the Western and Southern Euro,and If about the Central and Eastern Euro,the AI will only use one battle formation of horses on the flanks even you place all your knights on the front like in Western Euro,Even in the Eastern Euro when both sides wanna have a blood spilled combat intent of destroy the enemy army they will still regularly put their knights on the front,Like I said,The First Battle of Tannenberg in 1410 AD too.The wedge formation you mentioned was also rare in Medieval,most common cavalry formation of that time was conrois(Tight formation).

[Sabratha]

Yep,that sounds not like the regular blood spilled combat,still,the game need to change the AI's battle array to the more regular and common one of that time(Also the First Battle of Tannenberg,Teutonic Order deployed their knights on the front and routed the Lithuanians on the Poles' side),that means AI should deployed their knights in front of the army and increase their knights' numbers they purchased,some times even I play a custom battle against the France they only have 6-7 units of knights on the field,on very large scale.I mean they can purchase maximum of 17 units of knights on that scale,more than the other countries,they're wasting their advantage.

So,If about the central and eastern Euro then could keep those army list which coverd

Well, that's the thing with high middle ages central European warfare. There were researchers in the past who stressed primarily these "tournament-style" en-haye battles trying to present it as a sort of triumph of the knightly ethos, the chivalric model over common sense.
Others would try to minimize or deny it entirely, instead stressing the regular "impact-kinetic" warfare with mass charges of horsemen in wedge formations.

I'd say if one reads and treats the period sources seriously, one has to reach the conclusion that both were true to some extent and that armies could fluently move from one method of combat into the other, even within the span of a single battle.

The Koronowo 1410 AD battle is one such well described example - the vast majority of the combat was fought in the en-haye tournament style, but once the rout began the battle devolved into a regular "kinetic" rout-and-pursuit with heavy losses for the retreating army.

There's one thing you forget is this is an unusual tactic in the Western and Southern Euro,and If about the Central and Eastern Euro,the AI will only use one battle formation of horses on the flanks even you place all your knights on the front like in Western Euro,Even in the Eastern Euro when both sides wanna have a blood spilled combat intent of destroy the enemy army they will still regularly put their knights on the front,Like I said,The First Battle of Tannenberg in 1410 AD too.The wedge formation you mentioned was also rare in Medieval,most common cavalry formation of that time was conrois(Tight formation).

Tannenberg is a somewhat controversial example for several reasons:
1. Długosz being our main source.
2. The fact that the source mentions that the Teutonic Order's guns fired twice before the main melee began would suggest that the artillery and some infantry were placed in front of the main cavalry body. The early guns of this period were certainly not able to shoot above friendly troops on an arc-trajectory.
3. I've seen interpretations of the battle that suggested that the initial Lithuanian charge was aimed exactly at these infantrymen and artillery, with the general cavalry melee being a result of a Teutonic counter-charge against the initial Lithuanian charge on the Teutonic left.

Personally, I'm not convinced of this interpretation, but we can't rule it out.

[GryfoCezar]

Tannenberg is a somewhat controversial example for several reasons:
1. Długosz being our main source.
2. The fact that the source mentions that the Teutonic Order's guns fired twice before the main melee began would suggest that the artillery and some infantry were placed in front of the main cavalry body. The early guns of this period were certainly not able to shoot above friendly troops on an arc-trajectory.
3. I've seen interpretations of the battle that suggested that the initial Lithuanian charge was aimed exactly at these infantrymen and artillery, with the general cavalry melee being a result of a Teutonic counter-charge against the initial Lithuanian charge on the Teutonic left.

Personally, I'm not convinced of this interpretation, but we can't rule it out.

2. They could have easily fired through gap in Teutonic formation. Though it hardly matters, as by all accounts they didn't impact the course of battle at all.

What interests me more is infantry. Many retellings of the battle don't mention them at all.

[Sabratha]

Tannenberg is a somewhat controversial example for several reasons:
1. Długosz being our main source.
2. The fact that the source mentions that the Teutonic Order's guns fired twice before the main melee began would suggest that the artillery and some infantry were placed in front of the main cavalry body. The early guns of this period were certainly not able to shoot above friendly troops on an arc-trajectory.
3. I've seen interpretations of the battle that suggested that the initial Lithuanian charge was aimed exactly at these infantrymen and artillery, with the general cavalry melee being a result of a Teutonic counter-charge against the initial Lithuanian charge on the Teutonic left.

Personally, I'm not convinced of this interpretation, but we can't rule it out.

2. They could have easily fired through gap in Teutonic formation. Though it hardly matters, as by all accounts they didn't impact the course of battle at all.

What interests me more is infantry. Many retellings of the battle don't mention them at all.

That's the little problem with Długosz I mentioned.

Either he doesn't mention the infantry because it didn't matter much in the battle. Or he just doesn't mention them because well, they happen to be commoners and he's just "commoners - like, whatever"?

Anyway one thing is sure. The battles in western Europe at the time usually had 4 combat-armed footmen for every horseman. Central and East Europe? Often the opposite.

[GryfoCezar]

Tannenberg is a somewhat controversial example for several reasons:
1. Długosz being our main source.
2. The fact that the source mentions that the Teutonic Order's guns fired twice before the main melee began would suggest that the artillery and some infantry were placed in front of the main cavalry body. The early guns of this period were certainly not able to shoot above friendly troops on an arc-trajectory.
3. I've seen interpretations of the battle that suggested that the initial Lithuanian charge was aimed exactly at these infantrymen and artillery, with the general cavalry melee being a result of a Teutonic counter-charge against the initial Lithuanian charge on the Teutonic left.

Personally, I'm not convinced of this interpretation, but we can't rule it out.

2. They could have easily fired through gap in Teutonic formation. Though it hardly matters, as by all accounts they didn't impact the course of battle at all.

What interests me more is infantry. Many retellings of the battle don't mention them at all.

That's the little problem with Długosz I mentioned.

Either he doesn't mention the infantry because it didn't matter much in the battle. Or he just doesn't mention them because well, they happen to be commoners and he's just "commoners - like, whatever"?

Anyway one thing is sure. The battles in western Europe at the time usually had 4 combat-armed footmen for every horseman. Central and East Europe? Often the opposite.

Considering composition of armies in centuries to fallow, where Polish-Lithuanian forces often fielded several times more cavlry then foot, it's most likely the first case.

[Gator007]

The Arsuf battle was sort of atypical though, It wasn't usual for the Hospitallers to be doing the rear guard. The crusader armies had to use a different set of formations because of so much cavalry opposition, so I think you can't make any large generalizations from Arsuf, because they were attacked while in march order.

[Dux Limitis]

So,If about the central and eastern Euro then could keep those army list which coverd

Well, that's the thing with high middle ages central European warfare. There were researchers in the past who stressed primarily these "tournament-style" en-haye battles trying to present it as a sort of triumph of the knightly ethos, the chivalric model over common sense.
Others would try to minimize or deny it entirely, instead stressing the regular "impact-kinetic" warfare with mass charges of horsemen in wedge formations.

I'd say if one reads and treats the period sources seriously, one has to reach the conclusion that both were true to some extent and that armies could fluently move from one method of combat into the other, even within the span of a single battle.

The Koronowo 1410 AD battle is one such well described example - the vast majority of the combat was fought in the en-haye tournament style, but once the rout began the battle devolved into a regular "kinetic" rout-and-pursuit with heavy losses for the retreating army.

There's one thing you forget is this is an unusual tactic in the Western and Southern Euro,and If about the Central and Eastern Euro,the AI will only use one battle formation of horses on the flanks even you place all your knights on the front like in Western Euro,Even in the Eastern Euro when both sides wanna have a blood spilled combat intent of destroy the enemy army they will still regularly put their knights on the front,Like I said,The First Battle of Tannenberg in 1410 AD too.The wedge formation you mentioned was also rare in Medieval,most common cavalry formation of that time was conrois(Tight formation).

Tannenberg is a somewhat controversial example for several reasons:
1. Długosz being our main source.
2. The fact that the source mentions that the Teutonic Order's guns fired twice before the main melee began would suggest that the artillery and some infantry were placed in front of the main cavalry body. The early guns of this period were certainly not able to shoot above friendly troops on an arc-trajectory.
3. I've seen interpretations of the battle that suggested that the initial Lithuanian charge was aimed exactly at these infantrymen and artillery, with the general cavalry melee being a result of a Teutonic counter-charge against the initial Lithuanian charge on the Teutonic left.

Personally, I'm not convinced of this interpretation, but we can't rule it out.

My main source is from the Osprey,the knights were deploy infront of the gonnes at there first,but then pull back to let the gonnes fire.Still the knights attacked poles' main line passing through their infantry after the Lithuanians failed at the poles right,but seems in FoG2 can't let the knights go passing through the friendly infantry or let the infantry clear the ways for them.