Logic behind Cav vs Cav interactions

[companion]

This is one of the things that's been boggling my mind during my ECW campaigns...

So, pistol chargers and lancers bash heads, pistoliers discharge at "point blank" range, pistol ball reaches the lancer slightly earlier than lance tip reaches the pistolier, and, coupled with rather higher lethality of pistol balls compared to lances (because armors matter), pistoliers win the impact.
Alright, I get that.

But what is so special with [impact mounted] cavs that they will succeed with swords where lances have failed? As far as I could discern, both would approach at trot and only gallop at last stretch with intention of sticking cold steel at the opponent.

Also, if determined superior pistoliers can withstand impact mounted because they "will not waver," then why superior non-determined horses would waver and break? Especially the likes of Imperial Kurassiers whose heavy armor can withstand much of the sword impacts? (were there historical cases of superior curassiers meeting impact mounted cavs without prior battle fatigue, etc.?)

Any explanation and pointers to reading materials that explain what factors are at play here are greatly appreciated.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think the first thing to keep in mind is that POAs are primarily based on psychological, not physical interactions. Second, the game balances armies only against contemporaries. Impact Horse doesn't mean swords - Winged Hussars are Impact Horse, for example, and they use lances. Impact Horse is just cavalry that charges with unusual and intimidating speed and aggression.

First question. The game differentiates between Light Lances used by horsemen like the Scots, and Heavy Lances, used by traditional Gendarmes.

In the ECW army lists, there are only Light Lancers. These troops, formed in a somewhat looser formation, find it psychologically difficult to stand against a determined charge by a dense unit of horsemen. It's not an encounter you see much in the game, but Heavy Lancers are actually at +100POA vs Impact Horse - as they feel secure in their long lancers, dense formations, and heavy armor (which still offered some protection against pistols at least). However, I think by the time Winged Hussars arrive, the only Heavy Lancers are some units in the Spanish and French armies - not a foe they're likely to encounter!

Question two. Continental Kurassiers are graded Superior Armored Horse. Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol. Basically, the logic (if I'm understanding correctly) is that their heavy armor has led to them using a somewhat more defensive, slower fighting style, that can find it difficult to with stand a ferocious charge. Still, being Superior they often pass the initial cohesion test and then can go on to win the melee thanks to quality and armor. The only Kurassiers in the ECW are the Lobsters, which are only graded Average and thus are terrible. The battle of Roundway Down has a notable example of an action of Cavaliers vs the Lobsters.

Finally, Impact Horse only works in Open terrain. Putting your cavalry in even non-disordering terrain that is not Open - behind a hedge or wall, in or behind a small stream - cancels out Impact Horse POA, leaving you only to worry about the melee. This is because Impact Horse depend primarily not on their weapons, but the speed and aggression that intimidated their foes, which is difficult to maintain when crossing a hedge, stream, or weaving into broken ground or through village streets. There are a number of factors that go into Pistol (melee) vs Swordsmen melee, if you're interested in that I can dig up some old posts of mine.

[companion]

Question two. Continental Kurassiers are graded Superior Armored Horse. Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol. Basically, the logic (if I'm understanding correctly) is that their heavy armor has led to them using a somewhat more defensive, slower fighting style, that can find it difficult to with stand a ferocious charge.

This is what makes me confusing because "ferocious charge" is such a vague term. For example, in TYW timeline, what makes sword-charging, flimsily armored Hakkapeliitta more likely to overpower Imperial Kurassiers vis a vis, say, Transylvanian Boyars?

edit: i.e. more willingness to suffer catastrophic collision? more distance covered by gallop? more aggressive use of pistol?

[SnuggleBunnies]

I'm no scholar of the Thirty Years War, but I believe you answered your own question - yes, yes, and yes.

[companion]

I guess that's the best answer I could get at the moment, fair enough.

While we're at the topic of cavalry engagements, do you perchance know at which target armor level carbine becomes more effective against cavalry than bows?
I've been searching for carbine POA and Bow POA reduction formula vs armor but so far, no luck.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I don't know off the top of my head. Just going off of general feel, I prefer Bow for shooting if fighting cavalry in general, even with armor. Most armored cavalry (such has Horse or Armored Cossacks) are 33 armor, at which point I think Bows are still more effective at inflicting casualties. Even the armies that have 66 armor cavalry (Kurassiers, Late Gendarmes) will have supporting cavalry that is less well armored. Only the earliest Gendarmes are 100 armor, and again those armies will have supporting cavalry that is less well armored.

However - most armies don't have a choice between the two, so the point is moot. In addition, Bow cavalry tend to be Swordsmen, which are at a substantial disadvantage against Steady Pistol (melee) horse in the Open. So Bow is great for Light Cavalry, but using non-light Bow, Swordsmen cavalry against Pistol (Impact), Pistol (Melee) cavalry requires a lot of finessing, use of terrain, light support, and flank threats.

[Athos1660]

Winged Hussars aside, Determined Horses had the same armament (several pistols and a sword) and armour. Impact Pistol and Impact Mounted are two philosophies of charge that were used simultaneously during the same period. Impact mounted was too demanding for most units.

Squadrons using Impact Pistol tended to rely only on firepower, avoid the Shock of the Impact and often refuse the Impact. After shooting during the charge, they often consider the job done.

Squadrons using Impact mounted tended to draw the sword from the very start of the charge, focusing only on the shock of the Impact. They had no choice but to seek the Impact. So they focused on remaining as compact as possible and move at the same speed all together.

The issue with pistols is that they were accurate only at very short range. Yet lots of cavalrymen in Squadrons using Impact Pistol tended to shoot too early, ie when the enemy was too far, because of fright, inexperience, etc. So Impact Pistol was not very effective. On the contrary, cavalrymen in Squadrons using Impact mounted used their pistols at the right time, the melee, (when the enemy was close). Moreover, their impact was more effective as they were focused on it. In addition, some of the more experienced Squadrons using Impact mounted charge at the gallop which most other squadrons did not.

SnuggleBunnies already mentioned the very important psychological effect of a squadron coming at you with sword drawn, showing they don’t care of your pistols and will bump into you at full speed. But, physically, the impact by Impact mounted could also scatter the enemy cavalrymen at the Impact, totally weakening the enemy squadron.

more willingness to suffer catastrophic collision?

Nobody (and no horse in the first place) would accept to 'suffer a collision'.
Impacts were more like ship boarding than like two bulls colliding.
Which part of the horse could collide the other horse ? The head ? No.
The unit that won the impact was the unit that remained compact, slips though cracks and scatter the enemy unit, making each isolated enemy cavalryman very weak during the following melee.

more distance covered by gallop?

More distance = tiredness for the horses = defeat = the French left wing at Rocroi
Moreover, very few cavalry units used the Gallop during the 17th century. Only Elite ones.

Any (...) pointers to reading materials that explain what factors are at play here are greatly appreciated.

The only sources in English I know are :
- R. Brzezinski, R. Hook, The army of Gustavus Adolphus 2 : cavalry
- R. S. Love, "All the King's Horsemen": The Equestrian Army of Henri IV, 1585-1598", The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 510-533

[SnuggleBunnies]

Thanks Athos for the clarifications and corrections. Indeed, I think it is key to point out that the Impact Horse had a perceived willingness (in the eyes of their enemies) to close to a catastrophic collision, but that such a collision of two lines of horses basically never happened. Often that very willingness to close scattered the enemy before Impact, but if not, the two formations would either slow to a trot before contact or open up to avoid just such a disaster.

It's similar to the psychology of bayonet charges of the 18th and 19th centuries - massed combat in the open with bayonets between infantry formations basically never happened - it was the perceived willingness of one side to theoretically engage in such a combat that broke the morale of their opponents. If this failed, two sides would engage in a firefight. Of course, hand to hand combat on a large scale did occur in villages, towns, and fortifications, but that is something else entirely.

Although many of the specifics of tactics and armament had changed by the 19th century, I found that 'Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon' by Rory Muir still offers valuable insights into the psychology of gunpowder battle.

[companion]

Thanks for the answers.

@Bunnies: I was thinking about Ottoman later Sipahis when I asked about carbines. It does feel that carbines are inferior to bows in both vs cav and vs inf situation regardless of armor but I wanted to get some numbers instead of feels. I even played an ahistorical skirmish involving early Gendarmes as targets but bows still feel better.

@Athos: Thanks for a detailed answer but please allow me to restate my question again. If even a superior quality, clad in three-quarters armor, pistol impact cuirassiers would balk at a prospect of physical impact by a significantly less armed and armored foe, and thus fail to maintain cohesion even if just briefly at impact, why would they not suffer similar psychological shock against heavy lancers?

Edit: I read from snippets here and there that in history the trend did move from lances to pistols to arme blanche again but the particular... mechanics that compelled such changes escape me.
To me, in simplistic terms, heavy lancer just looks like a better armored impact mounted. So I think there must be some important doctrinal and/or behavioral differences between the two that made one fail and the other succeed against pistol impacts.

Edit2: In any case, thanks for the reading recommendations. I'll remember to make time to read those.

[Athos1660]

@Athos: Thanks for a detailed answer but please allow me to restate my question again. If even a superior quality, clad in three-quarters armor, pistol impact cuirassiers would balk at a prospect of physical impact by a significantly less armed and armored foe, and thus fail to maintain cohesion even if just briefly at impact, why would they not suffer similar psychological shock against heavy lancers?

First thing, I thought I made it clear that it was not only a matter of psychology but also of what happened at the impact...

As for cuirassiers vs heavy lancers, I suggest you see the texts I suggested above and how Gustavus Adolphus 2 and Henri IV dealt with them :
- both of them broke up the charge of the lancers with musketeers/arquebusiers among their cavalry (Commanded Shot),
- Henri IV charged the catholic gendarmes in very thin line ("en haye") with deep squadrons of cuirassiers/reiters who wouldn't shoot first but would immediately charge. Impact with deep squadrons proved more effective.
- Lances are cumbersome and useless in melee

[Athos1660]

If Henri IV won with his "Impact pistols", ie Cuirassier/Reiters, against Heavy Lancers (Gendarmes), it is because he asked them to forget their pistols and to charge (certainly with the sword) and seek the shock. He used them quite as Impact Mounted in deep squadrons.

If later Impact Pistols were defeated by Impact Mounted, it is, on the contrary, because they kept on using their pistols, instead of charging with the sword and seeking the shock.

[companion]

Interesting. My underlying assumption so far was that the game's impact PoA rules are more or less correct in their advantage/disadvantage interactions.
Your replies suggest that "impact pistol" is an overall inferior form of impact and accordingly shunned by most successful cavalries.

[Athos1660]

As I see it, Impact pistol is the norm ; Impact mounted is the exception, what some great officers strive for.
It can't be 'shunned' by most unit officers. Hard to prevent a cavalryman to shoot with his pistols during the charge.

[Athos1660]

As for determined superior Impact pistols being able to withstand superior impact mounted, I guess it is partly a matter of balance in game. Moreover, I guess that if pistol experts are able to calmly wait for their enemies to be at close range before accurately shooting (which requires rare qualities), such shooting can be devastating.

[companion]

Sorry if I'm dragging it too much.
How do you reason the disappearance of heavy lances in favor of impact pistols?
Pistol may have gained popularity as heavy cavalry's answer to pike infantries. But even when pistol became an impact weapon mainly for cavalry engagements, lances, which is a supposedly superior impact weapon than pistols according to your reasoning, never made a resurgence among Western heavy cavalries.

[SnuggleBunnies]

The lance did make a resurgence of sorts in the Napoleonic era, and it never went away in Poland.

[Athos1660]

Sorry if I'm dragging it too much.

Well I don't know much about lances. Someone else will certainly know best.

lances, which is a supposedly superior impact weapon than pistols according to your reasoning

I never said so. I talked about Impact Mounted, mainly with sword drawn.
Moreover, Impact is not only a matter of weapon. The gait, the size and configuration of the unit (thin line, deep squadron...), etc. are parameters that count as much. On the contrary, lances don't seem to be a superior weapon in cav vs cav fight (see Catholic Gendarmes vs Henri IV's cuirassiers).

How do you reason the disappearance of heavy lances in favor of impact pistols?
Pistol may have gained popularity as heavy cavalry's answer to pike infantries. But even when pistol became an impact weapon mainly for cavalry engagements, lances, which is a supposedly superior impact weapon than pistols according to your reasoning, never made a resurgence among Western heavy cavalries.

It seems to me that lances are usable mostly in thin lines but not very useful in deep squadrons. They seem vulnerable to guns, muskets, pistols, deep squadrons... Lances seem also more effective in duels.
There are also certainly sociological factors against the resurgence of lancers among Western heavy cavalries.

(edit)
Meanwhile SnuggleBunnies answered. Indeed, how did I forget the Napoleonic lancers ? Well I had knights and Gendarmes in mind

[companion]

Napoleonic lancers I think are altogether different animal than the heavy/shock cavalries on topic here as they seem to have been treated as light horses.

I have to admit that I feel even more confused than when I first started but I'll let it rest for now.

[rbodleyscott]

The battle of Roundway Down has a notable example of an action of Cavaliers vs the Lobsters.

Sometimes nicknamed "Run Away Down" because of the performance of the lobsters.

[rbodleyscott]

Edit: I read from snippets here and there that in history the trend did move from lances to pistols to arme blanche again but the particular... mechanics that compelled such changes escape me.

Pike and Shot is a top down design, not a bottom up design. We have our theories as to why things happened as they did, but ultimately as long as we get the right historical effect, we don't worry too much about the reasons for that effect.