All-cav armies vs mixed, 1419-1490

[unmerged(10416)]

Is it just my inagination, or do - in the early period - 10k cavalry fight way better than 10k cav + 1k infantry????

My all-cav armies seem to slice through the AI's 50/50 armies like a knife through butter. But whenever I accidentally add inf to my cav it's like I lose my luck, and the battles as well.

Is this some quirk in the battle calculation? Or just my superstitious imagination?

 

[JohnMK]

Cav is supposed to be better in these years. As far as adding 1k inf and it's no longer pure cav, that sounds odd. Hopefully that's your imagination. Also keep in mind cav only get an advantage on plains or desert. Elsewhere it's neutral or (now) detrimental.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

This new system makes cav unattractive in the beginning, middle, and end of the game. Why build cav at all, unless you fighting against France or Poland? (not to mention non-Westerners).

This also makes Aristocracy worth less.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Rebels

 

[JohnMK]

I haven't seen such a mis-assessment on these boards in a long time.

Cav are in fact damn useful. Keep a contingent of 15k cav, and when you see a battle looming on a plains or desert province, get it there and you'll increase your odds of victory markedly. If you have no cav and your enemy has even 100 cav, he has cav superiority and it's as if his leader had a shock value of 5. (That's the mathematical effect of cav superiority, +3 shock). Cav are also a way of acquiring mobility.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Yes, John, I agree that they are good on the battlefield at certain times. But smart players are not going to move their infantry armies across the plains and deserts.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

As long as diplo-annexing is around, Arisocracy will never be worthless. And Cavalry won't be either. Especially not in the Middle East and Africa (Also the steppes and East Europe.)

 

[JohnMK]

Originally posted by ryoken69
Yes, John, I agree that they are good on the battlefield at certain times. But smart players are not going to move their infantry armies across the plains and deserts.

And if you can never touch plains & desert then you'll just about lose every war.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Not if you are fighting in Spain, Austria, Bohemia, or Scandinavia.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by JohnMK
I haven't seen such a mis-assessment on these boards in a long time.

Cav are in fact damn useful. Keep a contingent of 15k cav, and when you see a battle looming on a plains or desert province, get it there and you'll increase your odds of victory markedly. If you have no cav and your enemy has even 100 cav, he has cav superiority and it's as if his leader had a shock value of 5. (That's the mathematical effect of cav superiority, +3 shock). Cav are also a way of acquiring mobility.

Cav superiority is only +1 shock, though.

 

[JohnMK]

Where's your source? I've heard and believed +3 for a long time, and from my experience it would seem it's that large as well. Obviously I'd love the cav advantage to be reduced slightly, I think we all would.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Yeah, I don't like the whole "Btw, I just killed your 56,000 man and 5,000 cavalry army with my 8,000 cavaly army" They don't even retreat. They just DIE! (even though that example may be a little extreme.)

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by JohnMK
Where's your source? I've heard and believed +3 for a long time, and from my experience it would seem it's that large as well. Obviously I'd love the cav advantage to be reduced slightly, I think we all would.

Check the numbers what appears during the battle. If you have cav superiority,you have +1 during shock phase. Besides, it was always like that, since boardgame and EU I.

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by JohnMK
If you have no cav and your enemy has even 100 cav, he has cav superiority

I'm not sure but doesn't there have to be a difference of over 2000 cavalry (or something like that) for one side to get cavalry superiority?

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by SJG
I'm not sure but doesn't there have to be a difference of over 2000 cavalry (or something like that) for one side to get cavalry superiority?

You need twice the number of enemy cavalry. Obviusly, if he doesn't have any, and you do,you have cav superiority.

 

[unmerged(547)]

Originally posted by KwangTiger
Yeah, I don't like the whole "Btw, I just killed your 56,000 man and 5,000 cavalry army with my 8,000 cavaly army" They don't even retreat. They just DIE! (even though that example may be a little extreme.)

Although, perhaps it is an extreme example, more than likely an infantry army couldn't retreat from the all cavalry force in some cases. As they turned to flee, the cavalry ran them down and decimated them.

 

[Earl Grey]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
You need twice the number of enemy cavalry. Obviusly, if he doesn't have any, and you do,you have cav superiority.

Is this cav superiority modifier used in every terrain?

 

[JohnMK]

Just plains & desert.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by JohnMK
Just plains & desert.

And now when you have more cavalry, you get -1 penalty to BOTH fire and shock phase in non-plain terrain.... I never use pure cavalry armies now, except as reinforcing force on plains.

 

[daedalus]

Still, the initial question remains, In to 1.06, no beta, is it better to have 10,000 cav only or 10,000 cav + 1,000 inf? It seems to me that pure cav armies are more effective early in the game.