Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6064761">Mounted combat has never been simulated well, but it is also fair to say that mounted combat is a mixed bag.&nbsp; The horse is a health buffer, but also a burden, as when it dies you usually are knocked down, a dangerous situation for an armored rider.&nbsp; Secondly, against pikes and &quot;reach&quot; weapons, the mounted rider is at a serious disadvantage.&nbsp; What makes this worse in game is that these many weaknesses are easily simulated, but the few strengths are not.&nbsp; As you are aware it requires a pretty steep buy-in for the mounted combatant to gain any useful advantage, while all a fighter on foot needs is a pike.Clasically the calvary were &quot;shock and awe&quot; troops, they were not favorable in large numbers.&nbsp; While they did not go unused, the simple costs of maintaining a horse in addition to a soldier relegated them to limited numbers.&nbsp; Traditionally mounted warriors made only quick passing attacks that did little real damage and served to disorganize enemy troops.&nbsp; Most mounted warriors used horses for travel purposes, as the animal was far too valuable to risk too often in combat.&nbsp; Visual depictions of mounted riders historically are really just to make people of importance stand out.Mounted combat IMO really demands more a whole class dedicated to riding and attacking while doing so, and simulating historical &quot;reality&quot; should not be its goal, since that for the majority if situations, mounted combat wad highly unfavorable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6064761"] Mounted combat has never been simulated well, but it is also fair to say that mounted combat is a mixed bag. The horse is a health buffer, but also a burden, as when it dies you usually are knocked down, a dangerous situation for an armored rider. Secondly, against pikes and "reach" weapons, the mounted rider is at a serious disadvantage. What makes this worse in game is that these many weaknesses are easily simulated, but the few strengths are not. As you are aware it requires a pretty steep buy-in for the mounted combatant to gain any useful advantage, while all a fighter on foot needs is a pike. Clasically the calvary were "shock and awe" troops, they were not favorable in large numbers. While they did not go unused, the simple costs of maintaining a horse in addition to a soldier relegated them to limited numbers. Traditionally mounted warriors made only quick passing attacks that did little real damage and served to disorganize enemy troops. Most mounted warriors used horses for travel purposes, as the animal was far too valuable to risk too often in combat. Visual depictions of mounted riders historically are really just to make people of importance stand out. Mounted combat IMO really demands more a whole class dedicated to riding and attacking while doing so, and simulating historical "reality" should not be its goal, since that for the majority if situations, mounted combat wad highly unfavorable. [/QUOTE]

Verification