• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Biges

Lt. General
18 Badges
May 10, 2005
1.688
142
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • 500k Club
  • 200k Club
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II
In Victoria things were easy. In the first third of the game cavalry is an ultimate weapon, their shock would crush most uncivs and/or infantry armies pretty quickly, also cavalry is way faster.

But in V2 my impression is that cavalry is not that clear winner and actually even when fighting univs, I'm better off using infantry and artillery from the start (especially in non-clear areas).

What do you think?
 
My magic combination is: x INF with x-2 ART (or x ART if you're at full supply and fighting an unsupplied army) and 2 CAV. The CAVs prevent flanking in the early game and the ART increases the damage output. The extra INF are there in case some of your units get de-org.
 
I go light on the cav ... if at all. When playing small nations, the infantry is better from a defensive standpoint. You get more mulitpler's for defence. Of course, I back it up with Arty.
 
That's late in the game when you can get Guards. I usually do if I'm playing vanillia. If I'm playing PDM, the numbers don't make sense if it is an offensive war with a lot of hills and rivers.
 
I guess it would make sense to stop having cavalry after Machine Guns and/or Bolt-action rifles are invented. Im not shure how this is modelled in Victoria 2, but in real life the invention of the Machine Gun and more rapid firing rifles changed warfare from the old style(Napoleon to Crimean war) to the new like WW1.
 
The main purpose of keeping cavalry around is for (much) faster occupation of provinces, playing as a great power or a respectable secondary is worth having around cavalry corps of 3 or 4 brigades just for that, even at the end of the game, in fact even in WWII horses were used in big numbers for transport

If you are a minor just trying to survive it`s harder to make the case for expensive full cavalry corps, maybe just 1 or 2 brigades embedded in larger inf+art corps
 
its usually good to have a separate cavalry army for offensives that you can combine with others in big battles if need be. Btw, expense should never be a consideration in Victoria 2 unless it is VERY early or you are pursuing a full-on dreadnought spam. When you can, always recruit guards because they are like infantry but have the speed stat of cavalry.
 
Me? I go for substantial cavalry in the early game. If I intend to abuse uncivs, I send in the cav. The speed and recon makes the ideal for swiftly wiping out the bad guys.

The speed and recon value of cav also makes them useful against civilized powers. The key is to win battles, and then beat the retreating stack to the next province, when YOU get the defense bonus. And since they have higher recon values, they occupy faster and reduce the dig-in bonus of any pesky defending infantry. And they can flank in combat if you have the advantage in numbers.

When guards come into the picture, cavalry gets retired to strictly unciv/rebel duty. It's easier to police your African colonies using faster cav or even hussars than it is to waste guards doing that stuff.

Along small fronts with bad terrain, I still end up using infantry/artillery stacks because static defense warfare does not favor cavalry. But when possible, I prefer to fight mobile wars these days. If possible, I would prefer to never, ever fight a WWI style conflict.
 
Thanks for your opinions, especially about guard infantry working as an effective replacement for cavalry.
 
Thanks for your opinions, especially about guard infantry working as an effective replacement for cavalry.

You are quite welcome. :)

Bonus advice for polite people: When trying to decide what kinds of army techs to research, always research tactics first, then weapons. Tactics techs reduce the damage you take in combat, making them the most important. Hordes of irregulars are meaningless in the face of even regular infantry with up to date tactics.

That's also why experienced players who are running Prussia try to take France out first in 1836. Prussia starts with an early advantage in tactics, neutralizing France's mobilization advantage. :)
 
Do Calvary still attack from 2 squares away while Infantry can only attack from one? If that is the case, then it always makes sense to have 2-4 stacks of Calvary in each Super-Stack both for the extra attacks on the flank units as well as the recon bonus. Other than that, separate stacks of Calvary for occupying provinces and chasing down retreating units! Woot!
 
Yes, but width is finite. It is possible, especially with higher techs and bigger armies, that there's no real room for cav to attack diagonally.

The recon bonus is nice, but when planes become available, they have such ridiculous levels of recon, coupled with their ability to support in the way artillery supports, that cav really become obsolete.

And even guards have comparable recon to cav, so if you have guards, and you are meeting width, cav aren't helping that much.
 
The recon bonus is nice, but when planes become available, they have such ridiculous levels of recon, coupled with their ability to support in the way artillery supports, that cav really become obsolete.

And even guards have comparable recon to cav, so if you have guards, and you are meeting width, cav aren't helping that much.
Not really so. Interwar cavalry (invention of a 1918 tech) has 4 recon, so it becomes once again better than guard, recon wise. Of course plane's recon is much higher, though its maintenance is ridiculously higher, too. A brigade of plane is more expensive than a dreadnaught. And support value of plane is overrated. I'd rather have a 40s/40s (att/def) artillery with 100% support supporting a cavalry, than a 20s/20s plane with 50% support supporting a infantry.
 
Yes, but width is finite. It is possible, especially with higher techs and bigger armies, that there's no real room for cav to attack diagonally.
The recon bonus is nice, but when planes become available, they have such ridiculous levels of recon, coupled with their ability to support in the way artillery supports, that cav really become obsolete.
And even guards have comparable recon to cav, so if you have guards, and you are meeting width, cav aren't helping that much.
From my experiency CAV is quite useful until machine guns come around. In open terrain maybe even longer.
Guards on the other hand seem to come at insane cost for rather mediocre benefits - considering that income is much smaller in AHD compared to vanilla, I have rarely used more than a single guard division in my games...
And, yes, planes are insane. But a 1914 tech, when CAV is mostly useless anyway. :(

Btw, CAV can also be a great support unit. Look at hussars: Great recon, and stats are good enough for rebel hunting.

Not really so. Interwar cavalry (invention of a 1918 tech) has 4 recon, so it becomes once again better than guard, recon wise. Of course plane's recon is much higher, though its maintenance is ridiculously higher, too. A brigade of plane is more expensive than a dreadnaught. And support value of plane is overrated. I'd rather have a 40s/40s (att/def) artillery with 100% support supporting a cavalry, than a 20s/20s plane with 50% support supporting a infantry.
That being said, is there any reason why you should NOT build pure-ART armies during the later game? I did not notice any specific penalty for frontline ART units in the files, so it seems to me they are always better than INF...
 
That being said, is there any reason why you should NOT build pure-ART armies during the later game? I did not notice any specific penalty for frontline ART units in the files, so it seems to me they are always better than INF...
That is my impression as well. Especially as their maintenance is somehow even cheaper than infantries.

There was once suggestion in some mod that cut artillery's discipline to 50% or less, so that it wouldn't fit for front line. However, since artilleries right now don't know to retreat behind fresh inf/cav reinforcements once their initial covers are depleted, that suggestion dees not work well in reality.
 
Thanks again (for explaining tactics etc.)

Actually mentioning artillery, I'm quite surprised that its maintenance cost is so low, if I remember correctly, in V1 artillery brigades were quite expensive.