cavalry charges against pikes units

[Pocus]

I feel that the lack of specific bonus against charging units which mostly use momentum as a mean of attack (initially at least), when you use a longuer weapon, is a feature missing in the tac engine. I dont feel that the 1 hit of a repell attempt model rightly how difficult it would be to charge effectively with horsemen a square of pikemen. In my opinion, if a unit with a shorter weapon move at least xxx squares (xxx to be determined, can be 3) then it should be considered charging, and suffer greatly if attacking a longuer weapon-equipped unit.

[Wendigo]

Making mounted troops lose their 1st attack (lance in the case of knights) ineffectively when striking an opponent with a longer weapon might be a simple way to model this.

[Kristoffer O]

I like Wendigos idea. Rather simple yet noticable.

[Pocus]

I like it too. And I like that you see too that something could be done to enhance this aspect of the tac engine.

[Norfleet]

Why not add some factor of the number of squares moved prior to attacking to the damage inflicted by the by the repel attack? Then a charging horseman that runs into a pike and eats a repel attack becomes a kebab.

[Pocus]

I'm trying to envision what it does mean if a man with a shorter weapon move in direction of an enemy. Aside from charging, I dont see any other hypothese. I mean, he wont stop all suddenly before his enemy, then attempt to break his defence by play of sword.

=> so in essence you are right, a unit with a shorter weapon moving toward an enemy is always charging. The faster he moved, the bigger the damages he risks to get from the enemy weapon. Your rule would be cool too.

[Wauthan]

Well I'm sure a cavalry charge would be called off if they see a forest of pikes before them. I'm no expert in medieval warfare but surely pikes were used more like a barrier rather then as a meleeweapon? Can't imagine myself hitting a mounted soldier with a what's essentially a very pointy flagpole.

I thought the damage from polearms was already taking "chargeskewering" into consideration? If they don't then pikes should be worthless against most enemies. A weapon that long is impossible to fight with in melee. It only works if there's a lot of soldiers protecting eachother so the enemy can not slip past the points.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There is much that could be enhanced in the tac engine. I could probably write an essay on the matter.

I actually don't think it's so bad, aside from the inability to model flanking. The only other things that are grossly off are your troop type match ups -- which could be easily fixed.

Most obvious examples:
1) Pike/Spear vs. Cavalry (and flying?)
2) Elephants vs. Light Infantry
3) Missiles vs. Light Infantry
4) Light Cavalry vs. anything

1 & 2 could be addressed with Morningstar style attack/defense bonuses.

2 & 3 could be helped by allowing LI to spread out to 1 unit per "square".

4 is more complicated, and would take the addition of "shoot and avoid", and "shoot then attack" orders.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Wauthan:
Well I'm sure a cavalry charge would be called off if they see a forest of pikes before them. I'm no expert in medieval warfare but surely pikes were used more like a barrier rather then as a meleeweapon?

Exactly. Some time ago I suggested to remove the repel and instead subtract the sum of the differences between the length of the attacker's weapon and the length of the longest weapon of all the defenders in the attacked square. Thus a single pikeman would have little effect while 3 would inflict a rather severe penalty.

Now with this system, Hoburgs with pikes would be rather formidable.

[Jasper]

This "everyone should use only pikes" approach would give ridiculous results. Pythium legionaires attacking a unit of pike would get -12 to attack!

Pikes most certainly were melee weapons, and a "barrier" only in the sense that units that couldn't fight them didn't come close to them.