impact foot

[fogman]

I''m sure someone must have pointed this out but I can't find it. It seems to me that if the impact factor for impact foot, say for Roman foot, represents the throwing of pila preceding the charge, would it not be logical that they can benefit from it only once, so that they would be mere swordsmen thereafter? And wouldn't that also apply to lance armed cavalry?

[rbodleyscott]

Logically, perhaps, and perhaps not, as they may not all have thrown pila each time. Likewise not all lancers were in the front rank.

But if we did that in this system, they would be essentially useless after the first clash. Which historically they weren't.

It is the overall effect we are after in this game design, not the bottom up details.

[Athos1660]

btw not sure that a spear/javelin/lance thrust on horseback necessarily led to cavalryman letting go of it.

[fogman]

in a cavalry melee, wielding a lance is clearly disadvantageous.

[fogman]

Logically, perhaps, and perhaps not, as they may not all have thrown pila each time. Likewise not all lancers were in the front rank.

But if we did that in this system, they would be essentially useless after the first clash. Which historically they weren't.

It is the overall effect we are after in this game design, not the bottom up details.

Why would they be useless without impact if that also applies to their foes (if theoretically the other side is also impact foot and i can see the issue here)? It is just odd that a unit already in melee would benefit from an impact charge bonus. Maybe just remove it if the unit is already engaged. Sure, the rear ranks can be argued to turn around and countercharge but then, that logic would invalidate any flanking bonus.

[Athos1660]

in a cavalry melee, wielding a lance is clearly disadvantageous.

Not against another lance... As for swords being that effective in cav melee, no.

One and only one charge followed by one by only one melee wasn't the only pattern during a battle. There coud be several charges in a row. There could be one side fleeing during the charge just before the impact. There could be what Brent Nosworthy calls 'threading' (both enemy units won't stay in melee but prefer going his way sneaking between each other before fleeing or charging again). Etc.

[fogman]

in a cavalry melee, wielding a lance is clearly disadvantageous.

Not against another lance... As for swords being that effective in cav melee, no.

One and only one charge followed by one by only one melee wasn't the only pattern during a battle. There coud be several charges in a row. There could be one side fleeing during the charge just before the impact. There could be what Brent Nosworthy calls 'threading' (both enemy units won't stay in melee but prefer going his way sneaking between each other before fleeing or charging again). Etc.

I'm struggling to think of primary sources where armament is specifically mentioned. Only two I can think of is the description from Choniates and Kinnamos of the battle of Sirmium.

"For when their spears/lances were broken and their swords shattered, they smote the wretches' heads with maces." (John Kinnamos)

"Both sides fought for a while with lances, jostling one another; once the lances were shattered and the battlefield became fenced in by the piling up of pikes [ spears? lances?], they unsheathed their long swords and fell upon one another, flailing away. When their blades were blunted by the troops' armour made all of bronze and iron, the Hungarian were at a loss, for they had not expected the Romans to withstand their onset. The Romans, taking hold of their iron maces (it was their custom to carry this weapon into battle), smote the Hungarians, and the blow against head and face was fatal." (Niketas Choniates)

Now there must be a reason why by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry, even shock cavalry, was overwhelmingly equipped with swords/sabers.

[fogman]

Baron Jomini, who served on the staff of Marshal Ney during the Napoleonic Wars wrote this:

" The lance is, as has just been said the offensive arm for troop of horsemen charging in line, for it attains an enemy that could not approach them; but it may be well to have a second rank or a reserve armed with sabres, more easy to handle when in a melee, and when the ranks cease to be united. Perhaps it would even be better still to cause a charge of lancers to be sustained by an echelon of hussars, who penetrating the hostile line after them, would be better to finish the victory."

[Athos1660]

Several modern cavalrymen (from the 17th-20th centuries) write about :

(1) the relative ineffectiveness of the sword and/or of the cavalrymen in melees, such as :

- British Army officer Michael Rimington (Our cavalry, 1905) : "In a close melee the lance is a clumsy weapon. In the melees which occur after a charge, men and horses are so intermingled that even the use of the sword is difficult. But obviously the cure for this is to teach the men to rally instantaneously and not to indulge in melees."

- or an officer of the First French Empire (in Pierre Cantal, Etudes sur la cavalerie, 1905) : "Sur cent cavaliers, rapporte un officier du Premier Empire, deux ou trois ne songent qu’à pointer ; ce sont eux qui font toute la besogne utile ; cinq ou six parent les coups qu’on leur porte, et parfois allongent un coup de taille lorsqu’ils en voient la possibilité, sans courir aucun risque. Le reste est taillable et pointable à merci."

(2) ... and about cavalrymen not willing to stay in melees ('threading') nor even use their weapons in melees, such as Jean de Tavannes (1555-1629).

All this, of course, don't imply that there weren't any good swordsmen among the cavalrymen, nor that melees couldn't be lethal. But it implies that the job of a cav unit during a battle couldn't be reduced to : "I charge with a lance a single time, then I fight in one melee with my sword, then I ride back to stable (hopefully)".

However all this might be considered as already taken into account by the top down approach of the game.

[MVP7]

From top down design perspective the important thing is, are there consistent descriptions of battles where units become notably worse at fresh impact after first contact and melee with the lack of missiles/lances mentioned as a factor?

Perhaps the Romans had enough pila relative to the number thrown per charge to last virtually the whole battles, maybe they resupplied between bouts. Maybe the lances were lost in relatively small numbers or the squires carried extra lances for the knights. The exact methods are ultimately not important and trying to implement something just for the sake of it can easily lead to clearly warped end result.

Now there must be a reason why by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry, even shock cavalry, was overwhelmingly equipped with swords/sabers.

Perhaps the disappearance of long spears and armor on battlefields made lances less beneficial than what they had been during middle ages. Introduction of pistol is almost certainly a factor as it essentially fulfills the same role as the lance but in much more convenient package: a weapon that is used at "impact" just before a melee is joined or the cavalry withdraws to regroup.

Again, unless there's a historical trend of lancers becoming clearly weaker between charges than equivalent sword armed cavalry, there's really no basis for trying to add a gameplay effect just for the sake of it.

[fogman]

All this, of course, don't imply that there weren't any good swordsmen among the cavalrymen, nor that melees couldn't be lethal. But it implies that the job of a cav unit during a battle couldn't be reduced to : "I charge with a lance a single time, then I fight in one melee with my sword, then I ride back to stable (hopefully)".

That's not what he said. He pointed out how lances and sabres excelled at different stages. And he is very well known, on par in his times with Clausewitz. The argument that cavalrymen don't want to fight in melees is just bizarre. There are very detailed battle accounts of cavalry action in the 18th and 19th century that easily disprove that.

In terms of gameplay, cavalrymen carried secondary weapons, like swords and maces, because the lance tends to get broken, lost etc as described by Choniates.

[fogman]

Perhaps the disappearance of long spears and armor on battlefields made lances less beneficial than what they had been during middle ages. Introduction of pistol is almost certainly a factor as it essentially fulfills the same role as the lance but in much more convenient package: a weapon that is used at "impact" just before a melee is joined or the cavalry withdraws to regroup.

Again, unless there's a historical trend of lancers becoming clearly weaker between charges than equivalent sword armed cavalry, there's really no basis for trying to add a gameplay effect just for the sake of it.

Reiter type cavalry quickly disappeared though.

There is no demonstrable historical trend either way. It is just unprovable either way with the known primary sources.
The only undisputable thing is by the time of the Napoleonics, cavalry was overwhelmingly sabre equipped.

[MVP7]

Reiter type cavalry quickly disappeared though.

There is no demonstrable historical trend either way. It is just unprovable either way with the known primary sources.
The only undisputable thing is by the time of the Napoleonics, cavalry was overwhelmingly sabre equipped.

I'm not talking about reiter type cavalry. That supporting role started shifting back into shock cavalry from 1600's where the cavalry would fire pistols before drawing sword and getting into melee. The use of firearms in actual charge did apparently reduce by Napoleonic wars but that still wasn't a shift from lance to sword but from firearm to sword.

Cavalry in Napoleonic wars (and really most cavalry from 16th century to its obsolescence) overwhelmingly carried sword, carbine/musketoon and/or pistol(s). The rarity of armor meant that sword was far more practical primary weapon (especially when fighting the military elite) than what it had been in antiquity and middle ages. What little armor remained in use was not something that a lance could defeat any better than sword. Without shield and armor there's very limited range window where lance isn't at a disadvantage against a sword or bayonet.

Here are some interesting videos of cavalry training/contests from early 20th century (the Youtube channel has some other interesting videos as well).

First shows some ideal use cases and modest reach advantage of a lance. The inertia and acute point are far less important than what they would have been against opponents in any kind of armor. The lance isn't couched which means it's less likely to break or get stuck in the target: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QrTpopdEXY

Second one shows similar attacks performed with a sword. The difference is reach isn't really significant (it can hit anything a lance can) and the sword is far more nimble and accurate weapon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCw4-Yi0bJI

Third one shows how hard it is to maintain distance on horseback and how vulnerable it leaves the unarmored and shieldless rider when something gets past the lance point (no-one is also shooting at the cavalryman from a square as he tries to poke the infantryman): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyPHGQcE8dI

Fourth video is cavalry vs cavalry single stick fencing contest. You can imagine how hard it would be to use a lance compared to sword when the cavalry encounter gets messy. The opponent will either rush or shoot you if you tried to somehow maintain the ideal distance after joining combat. It's questionable whether the minor reach benefit of the arguably less accurate lance just before impact would really offer anything over just going in with a sword in hand in the first place (possibly after having first fired a pistol at the enemy from 20+ paces): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eop73m8xan8

I'll go out on a limb and say that the perishable nature of lance was probably one of the smaller reason's why it wasn't used more extensively in early modern era. If it had offered a significant benefit in the overall context of early modern warfare, then it would have been used even if it only lasted the first charge. If spare lance or throwing spear was a pivotal weapon in the ancient/medieval charge then surely supplying enough of them to the front line troops during the often hours long battles wouldn't have been beyond the capabilities of the ancient/medieval armies.

[Athos1660]

All this, of course, don't imply that there weren't any good swordsmen among the cavalrymen, nor that melees couldn't be lethal. But it implies that the job of a cav unit during a battle couldn't be reduced to : "I charge with a lance a single time, then I fight in one melee with my sword, then I ride back to stable (hopefully)".

That's not what he said. He pointed out how lances and sabres excelled at different stages. And he is very well known, on par in his times with Clausewitz.

Who didn’t say what ? "I charge with a lance a single time, then I fight in one melee with my sword (...)" sums up your point of view.

The argument that cavalrymen don't want to fight in melees is just bizarre. There are very detailed battle accounts of cavalry action in the 18th and 19th century that easily disprove that.

I never wrote that all cavalrymen since the dawn of time have never wanted to fight in melees. Reread. It seems there were those who didn’t want to stay in melees, those who shouldn’t have stayed in melees being ineffective, those very few ones who were good effective swordsmen in melees, etc.

As the conversation drifts, let me remind you that the topic of our discussion was : did lancers of the Antiquity and early medieval times systematically use their lance only once, during one single charge ? Or did it happen that they charged several times ? How often : always, sometimes, never ? And did lancers whose unit was engaged in its first melee always throw their lance, draw their sword and fight to the death ?

(…) cavalrymen carried secondary weapons, like swords and maces, because the lance tends to get broken, lost etc as described by Choniates.

Nobody said the contrary about the purpose of secondary weapons. You wanted to discuss about their effectiveness. The fact that a troop type was equipped with a secondary weapon doesn’t mean that it was trained to use it, knew the right tactics to use it or could even use it effectively.

Perhaps the disappearance of long spears and armor on battlefields made lances less beneficial than what they had been during middle ages. Introduction of pistol is almost certainly a factor as it essentially fulfills the same role as the lance but in much more convenient package: a weapon that is used at "impact" just before a melee is joined or the cavalry withdraws to regroup.

Again, unless there's a historical trend of lancers becoming clearly weaker between charges than equivalent sword armed cavalry, there's really no basis for trying to add a gameplay effect just for the sake of it.

Reiter type cavalry quickly disappeared though.

Reiters disappeared most likely because they used the wrong tactic, not the wrong weapon, that is the caracole (ie approaching to fire before retreating to load, then again, etc.) refusing the impact (ie they didn’t want to charge) unlike the cuirassiers. They couldn't resist their charges.

The charge is the heart of the shock cavalry, not the melee. (Skirmishing/shooting cav is another matter.)

[SnuggleBunnies]

Top down > bottom up.

Negating Impact for already engaged units would lead to weird tactics, and in any case clearly some frontage of the unit is unengaged enough to be available to charge.

Next, Impact doesn't necessarily refer to throwing weapons - it's also the psychological effect of a determined charge. Warbands for example are considered to use throwing weapons as part of a charge, but the Impact ability is also due to their ferocious onset. How much of each of these factors into the overall POA is hard to say. Finally, we don't know how many pila were typically thrown during a charge. I fail to see how more than the first few ranks could safely throw their pila during a charge. Perhaps after an extended period of melee the unit would run low? But if we don't have contemporary accounts of that being a factor in battles, I don't see why it should be in the game.

As to lancers, I don't think Napoleonic era accounts are that useful here. Ancient and Medieval cavalry equipped primarily for hand to hand combat overwhelmingly preferred lances over swords. They were not stupid. There must have been reasons for their preference. High levels of training and horsemanship, or the wider use of armor come to mind. The most successful lancers in the Napoleonic period were those who had more time and experience with and a living tradition of using the weapons (the Poles). More ancient/medieval horsemen would have been the product of martial cultures in which young men trained with the weapon on horseback from an early age. Only a small proportion of lancers would be likely to actually strike an opponent in any given charge, and of course spares were probably available.

Now realistically, all units would get less effective in melee and impact over the course of a battle... but so would their opponents? I think targeted nerfs of engaged lancers and impact foot would harm the game balance without really accomplishing anything with historicity. If there are specific mechanical changes suggested, I'd be happy to at least look at them of course.

[MVP7]

Ancient and Medieval cavalry equipped primarily for hand to hand combat overwhelmingly preferred lances over swords. They were not stupid. There must have been reasons for their preference. High levels of training and horsemanship, or the wider use of armor come to mind.

It's worth noting that javelin armed cavalry with swords for melee was more common even in heavy cavalry role* for most of ancient and early medieval times. Macedonian lancers were something of an early exception but even the cavalry happy western Franks used a lot of javelin equipped heavy cavalry well into the early medieval era.

My main point here is that cavalry purposely charging into contact with non-light enemy cavalry or infantry without a long spear/lance in hand was not a new trend to the early modern warfare but rather a return to the situation that had existed before the knightly lancers became the European standard. It's also interesting that even though lances were used very successfully on several occasions in ancient and early modern history it still didn't lead to widespread copying and replacement of other cavalry types outside the medieval European setting.

There is definitely some correlation between the prominence (and extent) of armour and the popularity of lance, which seems sensible as armour is more vulnerable to a lance than it is to a "typical" sword. My guess is that the lance just ultimately offers diminishing returns for the training effort and general inconvenience when extensive armour isn't a factor.

* By that I mean units where getting into contact with enemy cavalry or infantry was their intended role rather than merely skirmishing with the missile weapon if there was any fight left in the enemy. Naturally the lancers are intended primarily for hand-to-hand combat by default but the outcome of a successful charge by lancer cavalry, throwing spear cavalry or firearms carrying cavalry isn't that different. The latter two are effectively heavy cavalry who use sword over lance but there's just no reason not to grab some javelins or musketoon/pistol for flexibility if you aren't hauling a lance around (unless you are a Napoleonic cuirassier and deem anything other than the sword to be beneath you...)

[fogman]

As to lancers, I don't think Napoleonic era accounts are that useful here. Ancient and Medieval cavalry equipped primarily for hand to hand combat overwhelmingly preferred lances over swords. They were not stupid. There must have been reasons for their preference. High levels of training and horsemanship, or the wider use of armor come to mind. The most successful lancers in the Napoleonic period were those who had more time and experience with and a living tradition of using the weapons (the Poles). More ancient/medieval horsemen would have been the product of martial cultures in which young men trained with the weapon on horseback from an early age. Only a small proportion of lancers would be likely to actually strike an opponent in any given charge, and of course spares were probably available.

There is actually no primary account of what happened regarding lances/secondary weapons once contact is made. The statement "ancient and medieval cavalry equipped primarily for hand to hand combat overwhelmingly preferred lances over swords" is unsupported. If there is I would like to see it.

Lances: "Traditionally a Polish weapon, the lance was employed by most armies during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain being a notable exception. The lance however was issued only sparsely... The reason for this lay in the characteristics of the weapon, for whatever its advantages, the lancer was at a distinct disadvantage in a melee once the initial 'shock' had passed; the fact that a lancer was almost defenceless once the point had been turned was a major factor influencing Britain against its adoption." This disadvantage holds true in any era.

Cavalry Pistols: "Despite the manufacture of vast quantities of pistols... so that almost every cavalryman had one or two, they were hardly ever used...."

Philip Haythornthwaite (Weapons and equipment of the Napoleonic wars)

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

[fogman]

"The charge is the heart of the shock cavalry, not the melee"

This is quite a statement. Notice however that cuirassiers were equipped with swords while lances were issued to light cavalry, namely chevau-legers lanciers.

[fogman]

I'm curious to know how POAs are in FOG Napoleonics when

lancers impact hussars, then melee
cuirassiers impact uhlans, then melee

[MVP7]

"The charge is the heart of the shock cavalry, not the melee"

This is quite a statement. Notice however that cuirassiers were equipped with swords while lances were issued to light cavalry, namely chevau-legers lanciers.

I think the main idea there is that a cavalry charge produces results by the "shock" i.e. cascading panic and the resulting collapse of cohesion and resistance. Individual close combat ability is secondary to the psychological state of both sides.

For example if a Napoleonic era cavalry charge completely fails to disrupt an infantry square it doesn't matter how skilled the cavalryman is at poking with a lance or swinging a sword, the cavalryman is not going to come out a winner from a direct brawl against a sea of bayonets and firing muskets.