New Model Army

[witheford]

Does any one else playing the English Civil War in Skirmish Mode find the New Model Army less than impressive?
My impression, based on a certain amount of Civil War military history reading, is that the NMA didn't just give the Royalists a run for their money, but delivered a series of war-winning drubbings at Marston Moor and Naseby. Although these victories were in part a result of superior numbers, they also reflected real improvements in Parliamentary troop quality, particularly in the cavalry arm, which proved capable of defeating the previously dominant Royalist horse.
Yet, playing at Sergeant-General level, I find my Parliamentary horse consistently outclassed by the cavaliers. Veteran Parliamentary cavalry put up a pretty good fight, but time and again the outcome of a roughly equal numbers clash is rout for the roundheads. In addition, even Veteran Parliamentary horse appears pretty ineffective in frontal charges against Royalist musketeers; I can understand horse shying away from Pike units, but, if they could survive the firepower of musketeers, why can't they deliver an effective charge home against other infantry?
Perhaps my historical understanding is at fault, or perhaps my style of play, but I had expected to find the NMA a more formidable anti-Royalist force than the Parliamentary troops of 1642 and 1643--yet the opposite seems to be case. Any comments?

[nikgaukroger]

Does any one else playing the English Civil War in Skirmish Mode find the New Model Army less than impressive?
My impression, based on a certain amount of Civil War military history reading, is that the NMA didn't just give the Royalists a run for their money, but delivered a series of war-winning drubbings at Marston Moor and Naseby.

Not Marston Moor. The NMA was not formed until 1645, that battle was in 1644. I presume for MM you mean the cavalry of the Eastern Association under Cromwell - which did go and form the core of the NMA horse and was the best performing Parliamentarian horse of the war.

Although these victories were in part a result of superior numbers, they also reflected real improvements in Parliamentary troop quality, particularly in the cavalry arm, which proved capable of defeating the previously dominant Royalist horse.
Yet, playing at Sergeant-General level, I find my Parliamentary horse consistently outclassed by the cavaliers. Veteran Parliamentary cavalry put up a pretty good fight, but time and again the outcome of a roughly equal numbers clash is rout for the roundheads.

Veteran Parliamentary horse is the equal of vetran Cavaliers, and better than the ordinary cavaliers by a small margin due to morale. A straight up fight between the veteran units of both sides is a 50:50 lottery, but the veterans should beat the ordinary cavaliers but it can be close as these are only a bit lower morale. Certainly the games I've played work out this way, I'd suggest that if yours aren't other factors must be interveneing - or you've just had a horrible streak of luck :/

[ In addition, even Veteran Parliamentary horse appears pretty ineffective in frontal charges against Royalist musketeers; I can understand horse shying away from Pike units, but, if they could survive the firepower of musketeers, why can't they deliver an effective charge home against other infantry?

In the open steady veteran horse should beat a musketeer only unit quite handily, even if these are also veterans.

[witheford]

Thanks, Nik, both for the correction re Marston Moor and, and the clarification on the balance of forces. I'll persist and see if either my generalship or luck improves.

[rbodleyscott]

Also the Royalists don't have any all musketeer MF units at Marston Moor or Naseby. Units with 15% pike do not count as all musketeer units. The 15% pike is deemed enough to repel cavalry - it is what later 17th Century armies used.