What kind of Cavalry do you use?

Hussars for the recon. Cavalry disintegrate in battle anyway so i don't bother sending them in, therefore combat stats are redundant.

It seems the benefits are not much compared with the research points lost, BUT, you told it: gast attack. It´s just too damn good to not research it.

Cavalry is useless

I find the difference between the cavalry classes a bit too low as well. You indeed have the feeling that it does not matter. In Victoria I you at least had seperate stats for fire and shock attacks. In that way at least dragoons did differ a lot from other cavalry. IMO they should bring back the shock and fire attack, but I can understand that they will not bring that back, even not by expansion.

In the early game they can be good for flanking attacks (if you outnumber your opponents).
Later the hussars are decent for occupation troops (typically assembled from non-accepted cultures) - they are slightly faster and have good recon values.

However, unless my memory has failed me completely, the aeroplanes are also in that three - and those are GREAT! Fastest units in the game, best recon - supplies half combat value as support...

Guards have the same recon (2) as basic cav, the same speed as all cav's except hussars, the same defence as Cuirassiers, and higher att than all cav.

coco2 said:

Guards have the same recon (2) as basic cav, the same speed as all cav's except hussars, the same defence as Cuirassiers, and higher att than all cav.

Click to expand...

Guards are 2 tech-levels higher than cav, require accepted culture soldiers, the highest maintance of any pre-1900 unit and is the uberunit unit 1900...

Cavalry have 3 benefits:
a) Recon
b) Speed
c) Manoeuvre

Recon is the ability to occupy areas quicker, and the ability to reduce or retain a dug-in modifier.
Speed is how quick the unit moves.
Manoeuvre is the ability to shoot at a unit 2 spaces away.

In general manoeuvre is isn't valuable as the cavalry is rarely in position to benefit, and its worse combat stats mean that you are worse off is it ends up closer to the fighting which happens a lot more often.
Speed is only relevant if the whole force moves at that speed, but it does give the ability to get to a battle faster, or to avoid an enemy force, or to overtake a retreating force and fight it as the defender.

There are two units missing from your list. The first is guard in the infantry line. This has the same speed and recon as Cavalry, but with better combat capabilities. This means that once you have guard cavalry below Hussars only have an advantage in Manoeuvre. Hussars are probably still worth it for their extra recon and speed.
The second is plane which is the bottom of the cavalry techs - a late game tech - but is has Recon 10 and Support 0.5. So can supplant Hussars for occupation and also provide a recon boost in combat as it will fight in the back rank.

Their role is capturing ground thus you should use Cavalry until 1870, Hussars until 1919 and then aircraft.

But really, the differences are negligible in this version; just spam Guards.

All of the military tech trees are important if you want a good army, but in my opinion the artillery tree is the least important. even the last one.

The good part of cavalry is killed by the number of division that can be set on the field.
Cavalry in V2 can attack a unit 2 blocks away when infantry only 1 (diagonal). But as the front is easily full, cavalry become useless.
Maybe increase their range to 3 or 4 would make then usefull.

I used to use mostly hussars for the recon, but then they'd get useless later on when the tech comes around that increases recon for cavalry but not for the other cavalry types, so now I only use cav. They're just supporting troops, together with artillery, for my guard-based armies though.

I think with the rebel Problem more or less solved cavalary as it is has lost its rebel-chasing-purpose for me.

So...my current army composition in the mid-game (1860-1900) is roughly 1/3 guards, 1/3 artillery, and 1/3 cavalry (dragoons). In addition, my standard battle arrangement is a first row full of dragoons supported by a full set of artillery, while the guards stay at home, act as the reserve force, and relax. Furthermore, I agree with most of the comments above. How does this all make sense to me??? Or to put it another way, why do I find it useful to recruit and fight with loads of cavalry?

1. In most games I have lots of non-core provinces with non-accepted cultures.
2. In those provinces, you can't recruit guards. From a combat perspective, the dragoons are the best choice. They have as good of combat stats as regular infantry, and they have way better recon.
3. In non-core provinces, it takes a lot more soldier pops per brigade than in core provinces (perhaps 3:1 but can't remember for sure off-hand). This means you can take a lot more casualties in non-core pops before you lose any brigades.
4. In core provinces, recruitment from accepted-culture pops is a combo of guards and artillery. Ideally the artillery units are from the primary culture and the guards are from the secondary culture(s).

If a soldier is going to have to die, then the ideal situation is that they are from a non-core, non-culture pop. If they have high militancy and a rebel tag, then they become the choicest morsels of cannon fodder.

It is certainly true that for any given battle, I would be better off using a front row of guards. However, if your game planning involves leaving paths of destruction in your wake, then over time the guard-supporting pops will take a beating.

Please note that I typically play this game as an overzealous warmonger type. None of the comments above make sense if you play peacefully.

My primary use for cavalry-units is to serve as colonial troops.
Hence I use Hussars everywhere I can, they are good at beating up unciv-armies, fast at occupation and can cover lots of land when I have to keep my empire together. And they are dirt-cheap compared to Guards, which form the backbone of my field-armies back at the continent.