Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65

Thread: Tank Riders can also ride Cavalry

  1. #1

    Tank Riders can also ride Cavalry

    I noticed today that Tank Riders can also join an attack as an extra unit, even if the only "tank" taking part in the attack is a unit of Cavalry.

    I realize Cavalry counts as a tank for when attacking, but having tank riders be able to join an attack with no actual, steel, tanks, seems like an exploit.

    Tank Riders should only be able to join an attack when a vehicle with a tank-icon is also attacking.
    Last edited by Radiohead; 15-02-2012 at 05:53.

  2. #2
    Tiger tanks can shoot down planes
    Engineers can shoot down planes
    C47's can strategically bombard and strafe

    Need I go further?
    Gears of WaAAR! : A German Industrial Deck AAR (A glimpse into a card game that once was the best ever card game iv played to date)

  3. #3
    First Lieutenant madtemplar0's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the Throne

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    247
    This...is...amazing! I never knew that, now I will have to use it. Thanks!
    "Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." C.S. Lewis

    The Russians in Imperium Offtopicum: The Peshawar Lancers

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by nymet260 View Post
    Tiger tanks can shoot down planes
    Engineers can shoot down planes
    C47's can strategically bombard and strafe

    Need I go further?
    Cavalry is not a tank, it is only "considered a tank", for any other purposes cavalry is not a tank (and this should include bringing Tank Riders along as an extra unit), Cavalry is simply an infantry unity that can occupty a tank's slot on attack. If Cavalry was intended to have all other abilities of a tank, it would have a tank icon.

    What has the ability to kill what is an entirely different issue, and getting into the rock-paper-scissors of the game is, I would think, not productive and would adjust a dyamic that is working fine.

    Cavalry is not considered a tank for the purposes of anti-tank units, whether it's attacking or defending.
    Last edited by Radiohead; 15-02-2012 at 06:42.

  5. #5
    my point is there is a lot of inconsistencies and unrealism, why is cavalry any different? Same reasoning as to why an AT gun cant harm infantry when in real life it could.
    Gears of WaAAR! : A German Industrial Deck AAR (A glimpse into a card game that once was the best ever card game iv played to date)

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by nymet260 View Post
    my point is there is a lot of inconsistencies and unrealism, why is cavalry any different? Same reasoning as to why an AT gun cant harm infantry when in real life it could.
    Tank Riders says specifically:

    "One Tank Rider can be deployed for free in an attack if at least one friendly tank is attacking."

    Cavalry is not a tank, but merely "considered a tank". Ergo, Tank Riders can't accompany Cavarly.

    Tank Riders does not state: "can be deployed for free in attack if at least one friendly unit that is considered a tank is attacking."

    Tank-icon = tank, cavalry, no tank icon.

  7. #7
    Calvary is deployed as tank on attack.

    A tank rider comes in for free if you DEPLOY a tank on attack

    Does that make more sense now?
    Gears of WaAAR! : A German Industrial Deck AAR (A glimpse into a card game that once was the best ever card game iv played to date)

  8. #8
    Not deployed as a tank, deployed in place of a tank.

    Cavalry could be more accurately summed up as "May be deployed in place of a tank when attacking" since that is essentially what is occuring. It is still infantry when it attacks, and is considered infantry when damage is being delivered.

  9. #9


    Its deployed as a tank but is played as an infantry
    Gears of WaAAR! : A German Industrial Deck AAR (A glimpse into a card game that once was the best ever card game iv played to date)

  10. #10
    up to the Dev if he wanted it to be like that or not, but my personal opinion is that although i dont see it as a big issue, it would feel weird to see a inf probe deck using cav+riders even though the cav wouldnt have that tank slot to be deployed as such.

    To make sense, the Cav should atleast have that tank slot to be used as such tank to be able to use the riders together with them.
    A Dual Unit has Pros and Cons for beeing such, the Cav should only count as a tank for tank riders if there realy is a tank slot for them to be deployed as one.

  11. #11
    Second Lieutenant zeimer's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SeeLowe
    Posts
    138
    deep oper with tank riders and cavalry ?
    please fix that, two horses cant carry 9 new people that are depicted on the tank riders card, unless, they add a cart then put it behind the horse, which again gives a complete different level of combined arms mobility definition.

  12. #12
    Narfi are you sure that isn't how it works already? I'm not sure myself, but it seems like the tank riders should only be deployable w/ cavalry when said cavalry is being deployed as a tank. The 'may' in 'may be deployed as a tank', imho, would only fire if it could be deployed as a tank. Perhaps someone who can test this can do so and clear this up, as I"m pretty interested now. Seems I need to get some tank riders for my MA deck.

  13. #13
    i do not own a commie deck, and it was never mentioned here if or if not that is the case tvermote. So from the saying i expected that it would work even if u deploy cav in a inf probe doctrine or others without a single tank slot.

    if it only works on doctrines where the cav actually takes the Tank slot from the doctrine, then i dont see a problem with that for the game balance, its just a bit weird from a realistic standpoint, but so are many other things

  14. #14
    Lt. General Dotto1979's Avatar
    A Game of DwarvesCities in MotionCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 Complete
    Divine WindHearts of Iron III CollectionHeir to the ThroneMagickaMajesty II Collection
    Penumbra - Black PlagueSword of the StarsVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedHearts of Iron: The Card Game
    CK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Rio
    Posts
    1,387
    I agree with Radiohead, but not for the card not making sense. Tank rider calls for a tank on attack to be deployed. Cavalry can be deployed as a tank, which means it's not actually a tank, just can work as one. If cavalry is suposed to be considered a tank no matter what, it should have the tank icon on the top of the card.
    Another example, an AA deployed on defense cannot be target of a plane hit or kill and I also think that's the case of cavalry against tank hits or kills.

  15. #15
    I have seen exactly THIS COMBINATION used in action in a casual game I played....

    If this is the intention of the card or not is really up to the dev.

    HOWEVER I will even give you another effect of this which does lead to a kind of "exploit" in this combination in my eyes:
    I had air superiority in the sense I had more planes and aa guns out. In addition I had interdiction doctrine played out. And you know what? It was of no use since he had no actual steel tanks played out. Instead he just kept attacking with the cavalry using it as a tank together with the tank riders. My interdiction couldn't kill any tanks since both the cavalry AND the tank riders have a inf icon....(!!!)....he attacked only with inf with a doctrine which needs "tanks" (I forget which one it was - needs only 1 tank card)........which means he completely defied the tank icon requirement and I couldn't counter it with interdiction.

    But as I said - if this is an intended to be possible or not is up to the dev.

    Romdanzer

  16. #16
    thats not an exploit Romdanzer, thats exactly what the Cav should do since it has this special of beeing able to be deployed as tank without beeing vulnerable to AT.
    keep in mind the card costs 2W with only a damage in close combat, only the tank special makes up for its cost

  17. #17
    Well the problem is that together with tank riders and a doctrine which only needs 1 tank icon it becomes quite a strong combo invulnerable to any type of anti-tank cards/doctrines....

    Do we want that? - that is the question. Maybe. But it's quite strong if you ask me. And we all know how "strong" cavalry was in WW2 right?.......................................

    I mean ok we have unrealistic things in other aspects in this game. But come on - cavalry on the attack did definately NOT play a major role in WW2. This is going a bit far.

    Romdanzer

  18. #18
    cav and tank riders beeing to strong? 2x a simple damage token in Close combat beeing to strong just cuz u cant target em with AT?

  19. #19
    Well the attack is not the most strongest, yes.

    However the point is the COMBINATION that it is immune to AT and that in WW2 cavalry simple didn't play anywhere NEAR such a good attack role. In fact cavalry was near useless. Come on do we have to debate this role in WW2 at all??? Horses did not play ANY significant role in Attack in WW2. Not like tanks did. And for sure there where no "tank-riders" on cavalry.

    Romdanzer

  20. #20
    we are in a card game, not in a realism simulator.

    Cavalry has the worst possible stats for a combat card (2w for only damage in CC), its only value is that extra attribute to replace a tank, which makes it an intresting card.
    And as long as it does take a tank slot in an attack, i have no problem with tank riders added to it.
    Realistic? No, but that doesnt matter for a the game or u would need to complain about so many other things that are just as weird as this.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts