Polish Cavalry Rock.

[AlexDetrojan]

Played a game in Roi Soleil as the Polish vs Ottomans and I have to say Polish Cavalry rock. Winged Hussars and Armoured Panceri slice through the dreaded Ottomans with ease. Nice.
Cheers
Alex

[KiwiWarlord]

Played a game in Roi Soleil as the Polish vs Ottomans Winged Hussars and Armoured Panceri slice through the dreaded Ottomans with ease.

No slicing involved as the Poles all have Melee Pistol.
The Ottomans have the outdated slicers which have no effect in melee against pistol so beating up Ottomans is easy-as as long as the pistoleers are steady.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Yes, any Horse with Melee Pistols, Polish or not, can cut through Ottoman cavalry easily in the open; though the Impact effect of Winged Hussars and other Shock Horse is special. But yes, cavalry Swordsmen are at 0POA vs 100POA when fighting melee pistols, unless the melee pistols are Disrupted or Disordered. So Ottoman cavalry need to concentrate on disrupting with skirmishing light horse archers, or standing in Rough or Forests when facing off against later Western cavalry.

[Scartabelli]

The Melee Pistol thing always boggled my mind. I'm not even sure what it is even supposed to be representing. Because if it means the cavalry unit with said "modifier" is using pistols as their primary close combat weapon then I don't get why devs decided to make it better in close combat that Swordsmen. We can clearly see in the period that this game covers that just like using pistols in caracole turned out to be a dead-end in the development of cavalry tactics the same happened with using pistols in charge or the following melee. European armies started abandoning these ideas already in the time period of the game finding out that good old fashioned melee weapon is far better choice thus pistol becomes a back-up weapon. The best example of this would be how Swedish cavalry was affected in this regard after contact with Polish cavalry that never... "subscribed" to this idea, rather keeping pistols as backup weapons only.

The most garish example of this would be the Battle of Kropimozja (near Kokenhausen) where Swedish cavalry, including Hakkapeliitta and Gustav's Guard Cuirassiers (Livfanan), got absolutely mauled in melee despite numerical superiority. It was a classic example of swords (and other melee weapons) against pistol using cavalry.

Who knows, maybe in a future installment the devs could separate Melee Pistol into two categories Pistol(main) - as used first before drawing your melee weapon, and Pistol(backup) representing the later shift in the cavalry tactics which in-game would be better than both Swordsmen and Pistol(main)

Making Ottomans worse in melee than their European counterparts also seems weird to me.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well the game originally ended in 1648, with the later 17th century being added on as a free DLC. In that context, the melee pistol designation makes more sense, representing troops who rode into contact with multiple loaded pistols, firing at point blank range in relatively ordered ranks. In the Wars of Religion, even lancers started carrying pistols as back-up for the melee.

Perhaps another explanation is that melee pistols are really an abstraction of a more 'orderly' unit, trained for close combat. After all, Polish Winged Hussars and Cossacks are pistol melee as well, so that Poles at Kropimozja would be represented as on even terms with Swedish cavalry in melee in game (and the Hussars of course greatly superior overall, being Highly Superior Impact Horse). This reasoning would also explain the dynamic where cavalry Swordsmen (such as Russian and Ottoman cavalry) are at -100 POA against melee pistols, unless those units are Disrupted or Disordered. It represents cavalry Swordsmen as just as good fighters one on one, but unable to capitalize on their somewhat more individualistic martial skills until the enemy formation is loosened up, either by the terrain or morale loss.

This is similar to the dynamic between Infantry Swordsmen (Janissaries, Hadjuks etc.) vs Pike and Shot. Steady Mixed Foot cancel out the +100 Swordsmen POA, but Disrupted or Disordered Pike and Shot don't, leaving them at a severe disadvantage in the melee.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well the game originally ended in 1648, with the later 17th century being added on as a free DLC. In that context, the melee pistol designation makes more sense, representing troops who rode into contact with multiple loaded pistols, firing at point blank range in relatively ordered ranks. In the Wars of Religion, even lancers started carrying pistols as back-up for the melee.

Perhaps another explanation is that melee pistols are really an abstraction of a more 'orderly' unit, trained for close combat. After all, Polish Winged Hussars and Cossacks are pistol melee as well, so that Poles at Kropimozja would be represented as on even terms with Swedish cavalry in melee in game (and the Hussars of course greatly superior overall, being Highly Superior Impact Horse). This reasoning would also explain the dynamic where cavalry Swordsmen (such as Russian and Ottoman cavalry) are at -100 POA against melee pistols, unless those units are Disrupted or Disordered. It represents cavalry Swordsmen as just as good fighters one on one, but unable to capitalize on their somewhat more individualistic martial skills until the enemy formation is loosened up, either by the terrain or morale loss.

This is similar to the dynamic between Infantry Swordsmen (Janissaries, Hadjuks etc.) vs Pike and Shot. Steady Mixed Foot cancel out the +100 Swordsmen POA, but Disrupted or Disordered Pike and Shot don't, leaving them at a severe disadvantage in the melee.

Perhaps a less abstract overall way of doing the whole melee pistol thing would have been to have a sword & pistol poa that gave a moderate advantage versus sword only ie +10-25 or so, but also have a deep pistol poa that would provide say a 50 poa vs sword or sword & pistol unless disrupted, in which case they’d be equal. Deep pistol would be reserved for “cuirassiers” and Reiters.

[Athos1660]

If I ain’t mistaken (I’m new to this game and use a French version of it), there are two kinds of line cavalries for the late 17th century in P&S (ie 'not-light' cavalry) :
- Those charging while brandishing a sword or a lance in the case of the Winged Hussars (shock cavalry) with an ‘Impact mounted’ advantage (Winged Hussars, French shock cavalry without amour…).
- Those charging at a trot and firing pistols during the charge with an ‘Impact pistol’ advantage.

That matches well papers about the gaits of the cavalry charges in the Europe of the 17th century I’ve just glanced at. They were written by French Historian F. Chauviré : here and here (in French ; summary in English).

According to him, only a few armies/elite troops were able to charge at full gallop, closely-spaced, brandishing swords and abstaining from firing their pistols (Polish winged hussars, Charles XII’s Swedish cavalry, French Maison du Roi/gendarmerie…).
The others charged at (more or less) quick trot with the sword. The trot was a gait some generals did favor btw. Some of them didn’t allow firing pistols during the trot. Others just couldn't prevent it or didn't want to. For example, Duras, Marshal of France, wrote to Louvois, the French Secretary of State for War, that it was hard to prevent a cavalryman from firing his pistol during a charge.

The fact that Impact pistol doesn't give any impact PoA against impact mounted (unless the Pistols are high quality determined horse) while Impact mounted gives impact PoA against impact pistol seems to show the superiority of the charge in full gallop and that of the 'shock cavalry'.

As for the melee phase, PoAs and overall close combat powers seem quite similar for those both kinds of line cavalry, with variations by country and veterancy and a little advantage to 'shock cavalry'. Both have Melee Pistol+100. It seems to me normal as they carried the same armament.

However, as I said, I am a beginner in the game. Thus I may have misunderstood things. Please correct me

[StuccoFresco]

Following closely as I'm interested in the matter.