cavalry charges against pikes units

[Zurai]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I wouldn't quite say THAT. A single horseman colliding with a single pointy stick is in for a world of hurt. It'll be that much harder for a single pikeman to connect, but if he does, it's gonna hurt just as much.

The reason pikes are effective against horses is that horses aren't dumb. They won't charge into a field of sharp pointy things that they can't jump over and can't avoid. They won't knowingly commit suicide. A single pikeman doesn't provide that benefit - there's plenty of room for the horse to manuever.

[Zurai]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Pikemen were routinely issued small axes (or shortswords) as secondary weapons.

Which doesn't negate anything I said at all; indeed, it reinforces it. Pikemen wouldn't be issued alternate arms if the pikes were a viable melee weapon in its own right.

[Aikamun]

Pete Rose is my Pikeman trainer. His famous words, "Choke up on the bat, son, for more maneuverability." I can see them doing so if their formation has broken up or when fatigued.

Aikamun

[ February 17, 2004, 04:46: Message edited by: Aikamun ]

[Zurai]

I want to be clear here in case people are getting the wrong message (probably are, I'm good at sending the wrong message): I'm not opposed to a pike vs cavalry bonus at all - matter of fact, I was surprised there wasn't one. I simply enjoy debating. I apologize if I seemed overly critical or negative.

[Pocus]

There is also a problem with how narrow is the deployment area on the battlefield. Against big sized armies (200+ units), you will always find that your cavalry that you put on a wing, with order to attack rear, will fail to do anything 'flanking'-wise, and will stumble against the enemy center (which is a big mass), as soon as they move.

With a wider deployment area, and with a revision to the attack rear, then you would have proper usage for wings of cavalry.

Revision of attack rear:
It has been aknowledged by the devs that the bigger the formations are, in the front of your army, the lower the chances are that an enemy squad on attack rear will really attack rear. I'm unsure its realistic, but gameplay wise I can tell you that against any significant sized army, this 'magnet' effect is so strong that any attack rear order will fail miserably.

damn, I feel my english is worsening each days. Sorry...

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Pocus:

Revision of attack rear:
It has been aknowledged by the devs that the bigger the formations are, in the front of your army, the lower the chances are that an enemy squad on attack rear will really attack rear. I'm unsure its realistic, but gameplay wise I can tell you that against any significant sized army, this 'magnet' effect is so strong that any attack rear order will fail miserably.

I didn't know we had acknowledged that. AFAIK the attack rear order gives your soldiers a target from one of the rearmost units. If there are many units in the rear when target is selected there might be problems. Big armies in front does not affect the targeting.

The targeting works something like:
1 Select single rearmost unit.
2 Random chance of ignoring.
3 Repeat with second rearmost target etc

Hold and attack rear can be useful if you want enemies to split up a bit to choose more permanently rearmost targets.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Aikamun:
His famous words, "Choke up on the bat, son, for more maneuverability." I can see them doing so if their formation has broken up or when fatigued.

If you've ever seen a good medieval re-enactment, or held a 14' pike and then tried to actually do what you suggest, you quickly realize the ludicrousness of the idea. Choke up on a 14' pike, indeed! hah