The strange thing is this - cavalry has a BETTER defence against pure heavy anti-tank weapons than heavy armour Tanks such a Tigers, IS-2's and Sherman Jumbo's.....
now combine cavalry with tank riders and you have quite a decent attack which can circumvent big at-guns better than combining the tank riders with heavy tanks!! /(i.e. which negate heavy armour)
Is this your intention?
Romdanzer
its not vulnerable to AT guns, but hey u can simply Pin the Cav or just use any other killing unit to might hurt them.
The cav works as a nice alternative, but as a standalone unit+ riders it is pretty weak compared to a real tank+riders.
Remember that defense deploys last, u can decide to use AT gun against a tank or MGs etc if he comes with cav.
thats how i think it should stay, riders just shouldnt be able to be tapped onto the cav when the cav doesnt have a tank spot to be used as such, like in Inf probe etc.
If you want help visualizeing it guys, Horses can carry two people and the 'tank riders' ride on horses with the cavalry and dismount.
Im honestly surprised this wasnt noticed in the card testing. Considering how broken Tank riders used to be.
Personally though, I like the idea of a 'stealth tank' deck. Infantry probe decks that have a meeting engagement to take advantage of riders and cavalry. Defanity worthly of intensive testing.
It should really just be fixed outright as not a viable target for Tank Riders to accompany on attack.Originally Posted by M4j. Maniacal
Can you use tank riders with cavalry if attacking with infantry probe or infantry attack? It certainly should not be a tank in this case.
Anyway, I just thought that while deploying units cavalry could be counted as a tank, thus allowing tank riders on a tank doctrine.
I'd say that's worth testing for sure. I'll check it out this week if I get time.
In response to the arguments about "realism" and visualization", I suggest you do some research on Russian "Tachanka" units. They were cossack cavarly pulling carts. The carts were loaded with rear-facing maxim machine guns.
As for the in game balance factor, I don't really think allowing tank riders on Cavalry is overpowered.
_________________________
Chinese Relativity Axiom: No matter how great your achievments, or how miserable your failures, there will always be at least 1 billion people in China who won't give a damn.
Yeah I have to say I agree with westylj and others here. Aside from whether or not you think its historically accurate to have tank riders go with cavalry, which is debatable, its not exactly OP to begin with. If you substitute a cavalry for a tank you are already giving up the battle phase attack for a close combat attack (usually). From a gaming balance perspective, allowing flexibility in attacking is never a bad thing.
The one thing I would say is that in situations where the cavalry is used as an infantry, such as in inf probe/inf attack, it should not allow tank riders to go with it, as that is stretching the wording on the cards a bit much.
I thought I'd include this picture of a tachanka unit, just so you didn't all think I was making it up:
_________________________
Chinese Relativity Axiom: No matter how great your achievments, or how miserable your failures, there will always be at least 1 billion people in China who won't give a damn.
For those who needed proof, I did some hard science for you all.
Tank Riders can ride Cavalry, even in an all-infantry attack (IE an attack where all units should be considered infantry, and none a tank)
Can we agree to fix the card now?
Last edited by Radiohead; 17-02-2012 at 03:42.
like i said befor, that should not be possible cuz in that case the Cav is NOT deployed as a tank.
not so much cuz of balance, just that it doesnt go together with the card text in my opinion.
If Cav uses a Tank slot like in Combined arms, then yes tank riders should be allowed
If theres no Tank slot, then no riders.
Should never be possible. Because Cavalry is not a tank.
I don't think its so bad actually. It goes with the idea that the soviets have the best infantry, so why not let them get a 4 on 3 infantry attack? Its not like tank riders is an uber power card, just a damage soak.
I agree with narfi, but with some reserve. A card "deployed as" is not treated as the type it's mimicking. For example, AA employed on defense as airplane can't be target by fighters, because it's not an airplane. The same with cavalry, which cannot be target of ATs. The thing is that tank riders refers to only while the card is being deployed and by the lulz of deployment only, the card could be considered a real tank, unlike the target thing I mentioned, that happens after deployment. The debate I think should be if while being deployed the can be treated as a real tank.
if u would count cavalry as a tank for AT guns while beeing deployed as tank, u would also have to count AA guns as Air when deployed as such in defense?
That would be a horrible idea then.
The point of those *can be deployed as* is that it doesnt have the weakness of beeing a dual unit.
You didn't understand. What I meant was that only while being deployed, when not already on combat, they could be considere a tank. During combat they should not be counted as one. That would be why you can deploy an AA as an airplane, but not fight as one. Those cards say they can be considered a certain kind of unit when deployed. This ability to mimic is for the use of a doctrine only, not during the fight.
oh yea i thought u wanted to change it so it counts as the deployed unit in combat.
Cavalry also doesn't count in a Swap with "Quantity has a Quality All It's Own" even when that card is used on attack.
You would think if it was actually considered a tank in attacking, it should be swappable with Quantity has a Quality All It's Own, if that card is being used on attack.
Cavalry simply takes the place of a tank if the doctrine requires one, but otherwise it doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) inherit any other properties of a tank.
Quantity is different from tank riders. With Quantity you are swaping, and cavalry counts as a tank when being deployed, not swaped.
Exactly my point, it only gets counted as a tank for doctrine-requirement purposes. Doesn't gain other tank qualities, abilities, advantages or disadvantages.
Posting Permissions
