Slitherine

So basically the evolutions of the thirty years war and ECW were retrograde steps, they should have stayed 15th century and kept the pike universal according to the rules

Units with a Keil bonus that have enough men to keep it after getting shot are expensive in the TYW era.

panzeh wrote:Units with a Keil bonus that have enough men to keep it after getting shot are expensive in the TYW era.

Indeed, the later infantry sacrificed impetus, resilience and all round defensibility in favour of efficiency and greater firepower.

I'm unfamiliar with the work "Keil", is it explained in the manual somewhere? Is it just a pike wall?

SteveD64 wrote:I'm unfamiliar with the work "Keil", is it explained in the manual somewhere? Is it just a pike wall?

Yeah, it's in the manual. Keil refers in game terms to a unit with around 350 pikemen which gives a POA bonus in melee equivalent to the ratio of pikes to musketeers in a unit. There are a couple of other bonuses added including the ability to charge cavalry as well as being immune to flank charges. The latter is mostly relevant to Italian Wars pike units.

There's a reason Swiss Pikemen in the Italian Wars are the most expensive unit in the game.

Smirfy wrote:So basically the evolutions of the thirty years war and ECW were retrograde steps, they should have stayed 15th century and kept the pike universal according to the rules

Its sounds like now you are denigrating the game simply because you dont agree with one aspect of it... In your last post you argue that sure, you wont find any historical accounts of infantry charging cavalry(but want it in the game anyway) but "it doesnt matter" because the cavaly would have been destroyed/routed anyway. Perhaps you should be arguing then that cavalry doesnt suffer enough when in melee with Pike and shot units(which to me would be more valid) rather than infantry should charge cavalry?
It would likley be a lot easier to mod the game to your satisfaction by increasing the POA's vs cavalry charging infantry than say to try to mod the circumstances of whom can charge cavalry...
As for the evolution of tactics/equipment hmm thats tricky, not everything is linear or "better".
The skirmsih game doesnt allow Italien wars armies to fight TYW armies, but try taking an Early TYW army with Kuirssaiers and big tercios vs a late army like the Weimarines or later Swedes. They will get torn apart with the musketry by the much more numerious P&S battalions while your Kurissaiers will be outflanked and attrited by more numerious determined horse types
Cheers!

Smirfy wrote:
"We are talking not talking about "charging" an unbroken line of horse, we are talking about infantry units right beside engaged Cavalry units flank and rear heavily outnumbering them doing nothing. Again total nonsense you can imagine the chaos if horses were ever trapped in such a manner. Historical examples will be rare because the human nature of self preservation would have broke the cavalry unit long before such a situation arose, whereas in game a whole host of ridiculous gamey tactics open up to the player or for that matter the ai."

Just two more comments.

1) The game (and table top) show melees in a very abstract manner. There was quite a bit more movement going on than the stationary units show.

2) In many of scarce instances of infantry attacking cavalry, there was usually some terrain feature ("accident of the ground") involved that compromised the cavalry. These types of terrain features would be below the level of what is represented in Pike & Shot.

John
aka flatsix518

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Smirfy wrote:So basically the evolutions of the thirty years war and ECW were retrograde steps, they should have stayed 15th century and kept the pike universal according to the rules

Its sounds like now you are denigrating the game simply because you dont agree with one aspect of it... In your last post you argue that sure, you wont find any historical accounts of infantry charging cavalry(but want it in the game anyway) but "it doesnt matter" because the cavaly would have been destroyed/routed anyway. Perhaps you should be arguing then that cavalry doesnt suffer enough when in melee with Pike and shot units(which to me would be more valid) rather than infantry should charge cavalry?
It would likley be a lot easier to mod the game to your satisfaction by increasing the POA's vs cavalry charging infantry than say to try to mod the circumstances of whom can charge cavalry...
As for the evolution of tactics/equipment hmm thats tricky, not everything is linear or "better".
The skirmsih game doesnt allow Italien wars armies to fight TYW armies, but try taking an Early TYW army with Kuirssaiers and big tercios vs a late army like the Weimarines or later Swedes. They will get torn apart with the musketry by the much more numerious P&S battalions while your Kurissaiers will be outflanked and attrited by more numerious determined horse types
Cheers!

In this game "charge" is highly abstract, off course it would make no sense for infantry to charge uncommitted cavalry because they have more mobility and could avoid it, We are specifically talking about cavalry locked in combat with infantry on their flanks, on their rear or both. cavalry heavily outnumbered overwhelming units in succession because units can't join the melee because of. "Charge Rules". Ajacent Hexes need "melee rules" and a criteria for joining that melee

I hear what you mean. I always thought FOG could use the ability to enter melee w/o "charging" as some units like sword and buckler men, halberdiers were somewhat usless due to the distinct melee and impact phases, of which they sucked at impact. Such a mechanic would have brought it more in line w the TT rules too. I dont see it as much needed in this game though.
Just what are you seeing BTW? Certainly I have had the AI park a cavalry unit in front of 2-3 P&S units occasionlly, but either they move away after a whiff of musketry, or they charge home. If they do well after charging, the infantry is usually toast in a few turn at most, if not the cavalry bounces and is then subject to more musketry.
I just havnt experianced any extremes of this to be an issue.

Smirfy wrote: In this game "charge" is highly abstract, off course it would make no sense for infantry to charge uncommitted cavalry because they have more mobility and could avoid it, We are specifically talking about cavalry locked in combat with infantry on their flanks, on their rear or both. cavalry heavily outnumbered overwhelming units in succession because units can't join the melee because of. "Charge Rules". Ajacent Hexes need "melee rules" and a criteria for joining that melee

I think the main problem here is that the cavalry are unrealistically prone to getting stuck into attritional "slogs" that go nowhere for several turns... maybe the "fall back" outcome should occur more often than it does.

Possible game mechanic that have sense is easy. After 3 turns if cav unit is stuck in melee vs inf unit, other inf units can attack in melee but without charging mechanic added.

Jhykronos wrote:

Smirfy wrote: In this game "charge" is highly abstract, off course it would make no sense for infantry to charge uncommitted cavalry because they have more mobility and could avoid it, We are specifically talking about cavalry locked in combat with infantry on their flanks, on their rear or both. cavalry heavily outnumbered overwhelming units in succession because units can't join the melee because of. "Charge Rules". Ajacent Hexes need "melee rules" and a criteria for joining that melee

I think the main problem here is that the cavalry are unrealistically prone to getting stuck into attritional "slogs" that go nowhere for several turns... maybe the "fall back" outcome should occur more often than it does.

I think increasing break-offs is probably the ideal solution, though I think the Ottomans might be hurt a little bit by it because they rely on swordsmen cavalry who have a significant advantage in prolonged fights against enemy light cav and disrupted horse/kuiraissers.

Yup that's a major problem cavalry seem to be an attritional weapon instead of a the traditional shock one.

Smirfy wrote:Yup that's a major problem cavalry seem to be an attritional weapon instead of a the traditional shock one.

I think in this period there are cavalry for which an attritional model works and others where are more rapid resolution is a better representation - although for the latter resolution could be a bounce of course

panzeh wrote:I think increasing break-offs is probably the ideal solution, though I think the Ottomans might be hurt a little bit by it because they rely on swordsmen cavalry who have a significant advantage in prolonged fights against enemy light cav and disrupted horse/kuiraissers.

The problem with increasing break offs is that overall it tends to favour "shooty" cavalry over shock cavalry, as they get more opportunities to shoot. (This is what happened when we tested increased break offs).