Horses

[Desparin]

A very good reason for forming square when faced with cavalry is that, as you pointed out, it secures the flanks and covers morale. This also awards the infantry with a way to cover all directions, provides officers and the colour party with greater protection. Furthermore, horses are generally adverse to charging into a densely packed formation of men - let alone men with bayonets facing outwards.

I recommend reading about Napoleon's campaign in Egypt - I believe it was the battle of the pyramids where 3 French divisions formed multiple squares to fend of thee Mamelukes they were fighting.

 Horses are also generally flighty creatures and this operates on a fear/pain basis. If a horse encounters something and registers a negative or scary reaction, then they will be highly unlikely to repeatedly go up against what registered that negative reaction.

See this here is the kicker for me, all the things you list ontop of what  I brought up are in no way or form exclusive for squares. The bayonets don't turn into rubber just because they are formed in a line, the amount of fire against a head-on attacker is 4 increased by 300% so the horses are even less likely to run into it. And the rear of a line is quite covered by turning around the rear rank as done by prussians in some engagement if my memory serves me right!

And as I understand it the pyramids were somewhat unique in the fact that the squares were not batallion squares but division squares, meaning that it would take one batallion to form one of the sides i.e. batallions formed in line essentially. So as you can see why I am very sceptical of the mythical powers asigned to squares by people.

The only real reason for forming a square is an attack from all directions or because the force attacking the front is so overwhelming it will just surround you anyway, obviously this dosn't deter the fact bayonetes will still be useful but the moral effect of keeping out cavalry or keeping cavalry away or even knowing you can keep it away in a square greatly improved the line infantrys capacity to survive.

The problem with Squares is ... well they didn't work as one would hope, cavalry could still get it and if the infantry behind wasn't watching well you'd get a jab in the back as it rode through the other side. Lancers were particularly useful but it wasn't uncommon for a side of the square to break and panic to set in.

Hekko, I never once claimed that squares have "mythical" powers. I was merely trying to state that squares offered somewhat more decent protection from cavalry than staying in line.

[Samuel J. Ahonen]

The problem with Squares is ... well they didn't work as one would hope, cavalry could still get it and if the infantry behind wasn't watching well you'd get a jab in the back as it rode through the other side. Lancers were particularly useful but it wasn't uncommon for a side of the square to break and panic to set in.

This is why you go "en masse". Forming a huge square-like blob that can fire and keep the cav. at bay. That's what I do in Commander Battle with my friends

[KillerMongoose]

Squares offer 360 degree protection, and the ranks are quite deep compared to a standard line of battle as well as the front ranks being braced for a charge. If you had a line that was several ranks deep and braced for a charge and the cavalry charged straight into it with no attempt at flanking then you'd probably see the cavalry be slaughtered. The thing is that you can't flank a square, it has no flanks.

[Oposum]

Not really, cavalry would slaughter infantry but with heavy losses. Even with braced bayonet, if horse would rush straight into it (think this one is highly improbable), it will be (probably) mortally wounded but it would still incapacitate you and few men behind you (it's pretty much like trying to stop a small car going 40km/h by bracing sharp stick). Cavalry was still far superior to infantry in Napoleonic times, but since supply of war horses and skilled men who would ride them was far from inexhaustible, usually you wouldn't send them to situations where they can suffer heavy losses for little gain.

I think squares were used since it gave better men:horsemen ratio all around, preventing easy cavalry breakthrough.

[GoldenEagle]

Not really, cavalry would slaughter infantry but with heavy losses. Even with braced bayonet, if horse would rush straight into it (think this one is highly improbable), it will be (probably) mortally wounded but it would still incapacitate you and few men behind you (it's pretty much like trying to stop a small car going 40km/h by bracing sharp stick). Cavalry was still far superior to infantry in Napoleonic times, but since supply of war horses and skilled men who would ride them was far from inexhaustible, usually you wouldn't send them to situations where they can suffer heavy losses for little gain.

I think squares were used since it gave better men:horsemen ratio all around, preventing easy cavalry breakthrough.

I kill cavalry head on charging anytime. Its just free kills, I don't even need a square.. So yea, don't over estimate the cav.

[Oposum]

I kill cavalry head on charging anytime. Its just free kills, I don't even need a square.. So yea, don't over estimate the cav.

You do realize I was not talking about cavalry in game?
Also, skilled cavalry does not charge head on, but cavalry's anti-infantry techniques aren't discussed in this thread.

[Desparin]

Cavalry have always been in use in warfare since the birth of the Egyptian Empire in about 3000 BC, albeit to pull chariots. Then we get Equites (Roman cavalry), Companion cavalry used by Alexander the Great (Macedon), Cataphraktoi used by the Parthians. Heavily armoured Knights of the middle ages, albeit this was not in great numbers, much like cavalry employed during the Napoleonic era.

Whether used as a scouting, light/heavy cavalry or skirmish role - horses were of significant battle importance right up until WW1 when the evolution of technology and weaponry effectively made them obsolete to mounting full scale charges - I would direct those who have not heard to The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred Lord Tennyson (also, his other poem, Charge of the Heavy Brigade) - it details a stunning yet altogether foolish mounted assault in the Crimean War.

[Duuring]

It all depends on the horse, too.

For example, at my riding school, there are horses who will ride trough four ranks of people without a single thought, and horses who stop for a single man. It's a matter of character and size, eventually. That's why we have 'heavy' and 'light' cav.

[DaMonkey]

I just wish the engine could support the movements of a real horse. Normally, horses will jolt away from shiny and/or pointy object coming towards them, regardless of what the rider wants it to do. In addition, I do not think the sword really needs to be longer, rather perhaps the rider leaning out of his saddle to slash something, as many of the shorter (such as hussars) cavalrymen did.

Edit: Oh, and perhaps fix it a little in terms of blocking. Nothing makes me more angry than when I block an oncoming attack, and it still hits my horse. In some cases, I see how this would be possible. However, in most cases, realistically, when you 'blocked' an attack, you would push the weapon away from you/the horse.

[Thunderstormer]

They should buff speed on heavy cav , shit is redicolous..its like riding a donkey with no legs in slow mo..Hussars and lancers can just catch up to you and slice you two times in the back and you are dead..I would also like them to increase the athletics on cavalrymen,

I do not understand why they should walk as slow as crippled people with downs syndrome when they are dismouned. They barely carry any weight at all and walk like grandma with 80 kg rucksack..

Maybe it's just me but I don't think the heavy cav really need a speed boost.  They can take 2-3 hits a good majority of the time, you start with a longer sword that usually 1 hits people compared to the light cav, and you get some armor depending on the unit you choose.  To me light cav is better against other cav because they are move manoeuvrable and faster than heavier cav while heavy cav is better against infantry because of the longer reach and the fact that you can take a hit and live a majority of the time.  By making heavy cav faster you are some what nullifying light cavs only real advantage and that is their speed.(Unless you make light cav even faster)


To the part of horseman being slow on the ground my guess they put it that way to emphasize keeping your horse alive.  Perhaps it is based off of some history where horseman were not as in shape as the infantry when it came to marching everywhere by foot. (IDK if this is true or not but it is my guess)  I am indifferent on whether they get a running buff or not.




and to Mr. Q.E.D.   I am guessing that the enemy's sword hits your horse first before it makes contact with your body's hitbox.(where the game actually checks to see if you are blocking). I am not sure if they could or would change it to where if you are blocking it automatically stops their attacks against your horse. Maybe give a wider range to where it picks up your blocks while on horseback? 

Adding leaning out from horseback would be a good idea but I don't think they would add it.  It would be a fun topic to discuss.

On a little mini rant.  Blocking on horseback in general seems a little wonky to me.  If they are attacking you from your left with a (their)left swing, you are suppose to block right but they end up hitting you because they hit around your block.  So the next time you block left against their left attack and it goes through your sword and cuts you because you didn't do the "right" block.  You can only hope that you have your body in right position so it catches your block and doesn't go through your sword.  I don't really agree with infantry blocking mechanics on cavalry.

[Duuring]

To ride a horse, you need to be in good physical state. Besides, troopers often marched besides their horses (alltrough the French seem to be the exception there). It's really just a matter of balance.

Frankly, I only noted that cuirassiers are really slower, which offcourse have the cuirass and the big helmet which will slow you down undoubtley.

I can name a few other reasons why it's kinda historical that horsemen are slower, but in the end: balance. They are meant to be on a horse.

[Duuring]

Well, obviously, fixed bayonets are longer then swords.

Cuirasses are heavier then you think, and while they look pretty smart on horseback, the size is actually ridicious. I prefer light cavalry anyway :p (RL Re-enactment, I mean.)
Sure, he can ran for a while, but a cuirass will eventually tire him out.

But as we can run forever IG, that's not really an issue.

[Duuring]

Jogging for 5 kms with full cuirassier gear? Well, besides the obvious heavy cuirass, you would have high bootes cutting the back of your knee. But I can't really say for sure - I never wore a cuiras nor had a conversation about that with someone who did.

Cuirass IG adds some body armour. In RL they could stop bullets from a range(they were actually tested), besides protecting against swords. Point blank range went offcourse right trough it. They were mostly for a psycologic effect - cavarlymen mostly got wounded on the arms and shoulders anyway. If you sticked your sword into someone during a melee you were sure to lose it.

But here I am, getting all historical again! Yeah, adding some speed to at least the lighter classes would be okay, I suppose. They have low accuracy anyway.

[Oposum]

Stamina issues aren't really important, rounds in the game last less than 10 minutes.
Cavalry's ridiculously slow on foot, since if they weren't they would be like foot officers on steroids - cavalry rankers have double 1h WPF than officers (as you might have noticed how easy dismounted cavalry can kill) and armored cavalry can tank hits and kill enemies while they're stunned (also they can survive hits which would kill any other class). They're quite powerful on foot as it is, making them faster would just unbalance them.
Light cavalry is only good against unprepared opponents and lancers. Good infantry can forever stay out of the light cavs tiny sword, while good heavy cavalry will slice you to pieces if you even try to close in. However, their fast horses allow them to pick battles they can win.
Heavy cavalry are unmatched in sheer killing potential, their only weakness is getting shot or getting their horse poked to death by banking lancers (which takes quite some time). In melee, infantry can't stand against heavy cav on open ground, light cavalry will get killed before they can even reach them, while dragoons, if they don't get lucky driveby hit, will get slaughtered even easier. Also, dismounted armored cav is extremely deadly when clearing out the houses (and similar places where running speed isn't so important).
Cav vs cav balance is in good state (not counting dragoons here, they just get slaughtered by everything) as is cav vs inf (again, not counting dragoons, as they just get slaughtered here too).

[KillerMongoose]

I highly disagree with your opinions on light cavalry, I've seen time and time again, hussars or lancers just mercilessly chopping up infantry even if they were prepared. Light cavalry can move within and around them faster than any other unit and slice them to pieces. I specifically remember during one round of a linebattle when I led the 7de as Austrian Hussars and we slaughtered the enemy artillery battery and went on to butcher two more infantry regiments. I do agree with you about dragoons though, I never saw them as being very useful. The only time they can really do any sort of real damage is when they all fire point blank during a charge which is just ridiculous. I urge anyone who thinks that that is possible to go and try to fire a flintlock weapon from the back of a horse running at full gallop.