B. Hastings & Pushbacks

[PikeStance]

Hey,

I recently purchased the game. I am playing the battle of Hastings on the Knight level. It is my understanding that the Knight level is the standard level (historically accurate). The more difficult levels change the strength of the AI.

According to the sources, the Archers in the battle were mostly ineffective against the shield wall. That sort of played out in my battle. It also stated that the mounted troops were not of high quality. However, in the battle, they seem way stronger than they were historical. In the actual battle, the left flank of the Normans was pushed back and the English continued to push forward despite orders to not do so. As a result, the English Right flank became exposed, and only then did the knights manage to flank and destroy the English left flank. This was playing out, however, in the centers the "knights" just cut through my men in the center despite forming a wall along the hill. I do not get why they are so strong.

This brings up another thought. Often in battles units would be "pushed back" rather than "breaking" and running. It seems only mounted units have this mechanic.

Thanks for reading

[edb1815]

Welcome to the FOG community!

First on the push backs there are two different mechanics. Infantry does get push back in certain circumstances where a unit loses badly - section 13.4 in the manual covers this. Cavalry including knights will break off from combat usually with infantry if they fail to disorder the target on impact - section 13.5.

I would have to check the scenario for the quality of the Norman cavalry/knights, but knightly lancers would have a slight advantage on impact, but the spearmen should be able to hold out unless they are disordered or have taken a lot of casualties. You can check the POA - points of advantage by turning on the detailed combat log - Ctrl C I believe. They are also in the manual. If the spearmen have taken casualties or are disordered, then the odds will turn to the knights. If you charge enough times you would start to see units getting disordered and fragged, etc.

[PikeStance]

Thanks for your feedback....

a follow up.

This is what happens....
The Norman mounted units charge head-on to your men. They cause massive damage and then fall back. Eventually, your units become weakened by this and they break. They then turn and the other units flank and rolls up your wall. This would be historically accurate, except for the head-on attack. This should result in the mounted units taking a massive hit when they charge into a shield wall.

I also noticed that the units given are "attacking spearmen" That seems counter-intuitive to the success of the shield wall in the battle. The English "attacking" spearmen gets canceled out by the Norman "defensive" spearmen. With the strength of the mounted units, it is a matter of time before your units break. The AI seems to know this and really concentrates in the center. pounding you until your units break.

One last night, the Norman archers seem to be overpowered s well. In the battle accounts, they were completely ineffective.

[edb1815]

Thanks for your feedback....

a follow up.

This is what happens....
The Norman mounted units charge head-on to your men. They cause massive damage and then fall back. Eventually, your units become weakened by this and they break. They then turn and the other units flank and rolls up your wall. This would be historically accurate, except for the head-on attack. This should result in the mounted units taking a massive hit when they charge into a shield wall.

I also noticed that the units given are "attacking spearmen" That seems counter-intuitive to the success of the shield wall in the battle. The English "attacking" spearmen gets canceled out by the Norman "defensive" spearmen. With the strength of the mounted units, it is a matter of time before your units break. The AI seems to know this and really concentrates in the center. pounding you until your units break.

One last night, the Norman archers seem to be overpowered s well. In the battle accounts, they were completely ineffective.

The scenario handles the ineffectiveness of the archery with a lowered ammo count. Once the archers run out their effectiveness is way down. I think they only have 2-3 turns of effective fire IIRC.

I am not sure the outcome you describe is far from the actual event. They kept charging and wore them down until they lost cohesion and countercharged breaking up the line. You may want to withdraw units that have taken a large amount of casualties and look for knights that have taken a lot or may be disordered and charge them. Once knights are locked in melee with the spearmen the foot troops have the advantage if you can keep them from breaking off.

[fogman]

According to the sources, the Archers in the battle were mostly ineffective against the shield wall. That sort of played out in my battle. It also stated that the mounted troops were not of high quality. However, in the battle, they seem way stronger than they were historical. In the actual battle, the left flank of the Normans was pushed back and the English continued to push forward despite orders to not do so. As a result, the English Right flank became exposed, and only then did the knights manage to flank and destroy the English left flank. This was playing out, however, in the centers the "knights" just cut through my men in the center despite forming a wall along the hill. I do not get why they are so strong.

I just happened to have been doing quite an exhaustive reading of primary sources for Hastings and I'm afraid this is not quite the picture I'm forming.

https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/hastings-1066-ad

[PikeStance]

According to the sources, the Archers in the battle were mostly ineffective against the shield wall. That sort of played out in my battle. It also stated that the mounted troops were not of high quality. However, in the battle, they seem way stronger than they were historical. In the actual battle, the left flank of the Normans was pushed back and the English continued to push forward despite orders to not do so. As a result, the English Right flank became exposed, and only then did the knights manage to flank and destroy the English left flank. This was playing out, however, in the centers the "knights" just cut through my men in the center despite forming a wall along the hill. I do not get why they are so strong.

I just happened to have been doing quite an exhaustive reading of primary sources for Hastings and I'm afraid this is not quite the picture I'm forming.

https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/hastings-1066-ad

What's more interesting is that I have not seen an interpretation or read one that portrayed the battle the same way.

[PikeStance]

Thanks for your feedback....

a follow up.

This is what happens....
The Norman mounted units charge head-on to your men. They cause massive damage and then fall back. Eventually, your units become weakened by this and they break. They then turn and the other units flank and rolls up your wall. This would be historically accurate, except for the head-on attack. This should result in the mounted units taking a massive hit when they charge into a shield wall.

I also noticed that the units given are "attacking spearmen" That seems counter-intuitive to the success of the shield wall in the battle. The English "attacking" spearmen gets canceled out by the Norman "defensive" spearmen. With the strength of the mounted units, it is a matter of time before your units break. The AI seems to know this and really concentrates in the center. pounding you until your units break.

One last night, the Norman archers seem to be overpowered s well. In the battle accounts, they were completely ineffective.

The scenario handles the ineffectiveness of the archery with a lowered ammo count. Once the archers run out their effectiveness is way down. I think they only have 2-3 turns of effective fire IIRC.

I am not sure the outcome you describe is far from the actual event. They kept charging and wore them down until they lost cohesion and countercharged breaking up the line. You may want to withdraw units that have taken a large amount of casualties and look for knights that have taken a lot or may be disordered and charge them. Once knights are locked in melee with the spearmen the foot troops have the advantage if you can keep them from breaking off.

Thank you for the advice. Appreciated!

[fogman]

According to the sources, the Archers in the battle were mostly ineffective against the shield wall. That sort of played out in my battle. It also stated that the mounted troops were not of high quality. However, in the battle, they seem way stronger than they were historical. In the actual battle, the left flank of the Normans was pushed back and the English continued to push forward despite orders to not do so. As a result, the English Right flank became exposed, and only then did the knights manage to flank and destroy the English left flank. This was playing out, however, in the centers the "knights" just cut through my men in the center despite forming a wall along the hill. I do not get why they are so strong.

I just happened to have been doing quite an exhaustive reading of primary sources for Hastings and I'm afraid this is not quite the picture I'm forming.

https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/hastings-1066-ad

What's more interesting is that I have not seen an interpretation or read one that portrayed the battle the same way.

Can you point me to your (primary) sources ?

[SimonLancaster]

This might have something to do with the top-down design of the game. It tries to recreate the overall result. The Normans did win after all. It would be difficult to play it out just as what happened historically (Normans feinting or breaking and then some Saxon units out of control, etc). This isn’t a scripted battle after all.

For the Normans to have a chance the knights need to be decent. Just some thoughts..

[PikeStance]

I just happened to have been doing quite an exhaustive reading of primary sources for Hastings and I'm afraid this is not quite the picture I'm forming.

https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/hastings-1066-ad

What's more interesting is that I have not seen an interpretation or read one that portrayed the battle the same way.

Can you point me to your (primary) sources ?

Is this question a joke? I literally stated that I have seen/ read several conflicting interpretations of the battle. Let me stress "interpretations." You know, like yours. Despite your exhaustive research, you are not the first and only person to have done so. I never claimed to have. I was crystal clear in my post.

[fogman]

I'm curious to know which secondary sources you have read claiming that archery was ineffective then. I merely listed every mention of archery I could from the primary sources and NONE says it was. So I'm curious to know where you have read that so I can have a look at the notes. No need to get offended like the other guy.