Of course you're right. Mistakes were made. (Somehow I was thinking about 20 defense and 3 breakthrough, and calculated bonus for 2. Don't ask how or why, brain failure
)Corrected
Apart from supression, does CAVALRY has any use?
- Thread starter him_15
- Start date
-
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.
Of course you're right. Mistakes were made. (Somehow I was thinking about 20 defense and 3 breakthrough, and calculated bonus for 2. Don't ask how or why, brain failure
)Corrected
Another thing to note is that Cav's speed lines up pretty well with HArm/HTD/HSPAA/HSPArt speed, so if you want a HARM/etc unit that can overrun infantry without spending more than you need to, CAV + HARM/etc fits the bill.
I've definitely used 6xCav,2xLSPArt,1xHTD as a cheaper, slower breakthrough division in some games.
I've definitely used 6xCav,2xLSPArt,1xHTD as a cheaper, slower breakthrough division in some games.
not really.
There are plenty of jungles/forests/rivers/low_infrastructure that disagree with you.
Post removed.
@TheDungen friendly reminder, commenting or quoting on Moderator's post (yellow color) is not allowed regardless of the reason. PM instead (to PM, just click on the user name and after click on "Start a Conversation") .
No need to reply to this of course.
@TheDungen friendly reminder, commenting or quoting on Moderator's post (yellow color) is not allowed regardless of the reason. PM instead
(to PM, just click on the user name and after click on "Start a Conversation") .No need to reply to this of course.
Yep, cavalry can really shines in Africa, South America, and Asia. I have found with Japan and China now being very challenged in 1.3.3 to find resources and MIC, cavalry is an inexpensive alternative to motor. I am sure that will apply now to smaller minors and Commonwealth nations also. If you want something faster than foot but can't afford/don't have the resources for motor, Cav with eng and recon can move pretty good.
What's strange about it? Horses eat a lot, they eat stuff that's very poorly concentrated energy compared to the dense gasoline used by trucks, they eat even when not being ridden, get sick and die in bad conditions and are impossible to repair if they get shot. Cars only use significant amounts of supplies when driven, use a dense and easily transported fuel, and are possible to repair on the battlefield if needed. Finally, the motorized battalion needs a meager 50 trucks to carry 1000 combatants that, as cavalry, would need their individual horses (plus probably a load of spares).
I used an all cavalry army to take over the whole world by 1940 so I would say they can do a "little" more than just suppression.
I typically play Italy or Axis Minors. In HOI 3 the main goal was to help out Germany a little and push them over the edge vs. Russia while trying to take Ukraine and maybe the caucuses.
That doesn't work in the latest patch of HOI 4 because Germany is utterly incapable of conducting Barbarossa. You have to carry most of the weight (to the point where it's easier perhaps to take out Germany, build for a year, and then take Sov's yourself.
Anyway, my recent work-around as Italy was I spammed the shit out of light armor with cav instead of MOT and thrust into Russia with that. After I took Russia I replaced the CAV with MOT.
That doesn't work in the latest patch of HOI 4 because Germany is utterly incapable of conducting Barbarossa. You have to carry most of the weight (to the point where it's easier perhaps to take out Germany, build for a year, and then take Sov's yourself.
Anyway, my recent work-around as Italy was I spammed the shit out of light armor with cav instead of MOT and thrust into Russia with that. After I took Russia I replaced the CAV with MOT.
In theory, cavalry should give speed (but less than motorized), be able to maneuver faster in mountains and jungles, and require less supplies (no need for gasoline). They also serve as a platform to put down riots and chase protesters. Although those would be civil protests, it's different fighting back partisans and revolts.
Not really.
A horse needs about 6-7 kilos of fodder, and about the same in water.
Every horse.
As long as you can source the food locally, no problem.
But in the jungle that might very well become a problem (i am not sure horses can munch down jungle undergrowth) and definitly is in the desert.
It also is a problem in the desert where, if anything, water requirements go up while food still cannot be sourced locally.
Since supplies mostly mirrors the drain batallions put on your logistics system cavalry would actually go as hard, if not more so, than motorized.
Every cavalry man needs a horse, plus at least one replacement. Also horses to carry ammunitions, supplies, additional weapons. Probably as much as three to four horses for every cavalry men all told.
Lets go with two then.
Cavalry division would have around 10000 to 20000 men.
Lets, again, go low.
20 000 horses, each needing 14 kgs of supplies per day.
That goes up to 280 tons per day, nearly 2000 tons per week.
That is also about the same amount, just for horse fodder, as a German division on the Western Front in 1944 draw all in all.
Thats a lot of supply meight.
Cavalry only keeps cheap in terms of supplies as long as fodder and water are sourced locally. If that is no longer the case they get very expensive very quickly.
Also in mountains, deserts and jungles horse attrition should be brutal. Horses dying of sickness has always been a much bigger military problem than horses dying of enemy action.
So, in general, small units of cavalry would be able to exist from what little mountains could provide, but even the smallest unit of cavalry would have to source massive amounts of water and fodder in jungle and desert.
Here's some real numbers for a WW1 British cav division ...
"The original cavalry division consisted of a ninety-six man headquarters, as well as 6,872 cavalrymen in four brigades, 1,682 artillerymen in four artillery batteries, 191 men in a Royal Engineers field squadron and another 206 men in the engineers signal squadron, twenty-six men in an Army Service Corps headquarters, and four field ambulances with 496 men. This made a total of 9,269 men, 9,518 horses, 425 wagons, twenty-three cars, 412 bicycles, eighteen motorcycles, twenty-four 13-pounder guns, and twenty-four Vickers machine guns"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_cavalry_during_the_First_World_War
Spain can easily win the civil war in MP with Cav. Its how you win before the USSR volunteers even get to show up.
Also, even without the combo ministers, 40 width cav with the appropriate amount of motorized rocket artillery is extremely good for everywhere in the world that has bad logistics and will always be a running battle. Like China, or Africa. Throw on a Logi II, upgrade infra once or twice, and you now have the fastest best division on the continent. Makes encirclement a breeze.
Then since you dont need much in the way of rifles, or really any arty, you can start producing mechanized and get some mech+motorized rocket artillery.
Its way cheaper than SPGs, wont slow yer division down, takes less supply, and doesnt take but 20 motorized arty per brigade.
Sadly to make them REALLY good, you have to research all the way down the infantry techs, AND the arty techs to get to tower rocket artillery, so you can get the AT bonus for yer rifles, and get the rocket artillery bonus of 15%.
If you do get that though, you have one of the best combos in the game. Mechanized which with darn near 1500 defense and huge hardness, is a great wall, and Cavalry with amazing soft attack to encircle whatever is facing your Mech.
Its really the only time ill ever use Mech, is if I also go Cav.
China benefits from it alot once the Japanese break through your lines, if you have Cav behind your lines you can cut off the 'snakes' and destroy some Japanese units. If your spain player did his job and destroyed at least one Japanese division, and you destroy 4 more in 37, Japan really has no chance of beating you. It simply doesnt have the firepower anymore.
Also, even without the combo ministers, 40 width cav with the appropriate amount of motorized rocket artillery is extremely good for everywhere in the world that has bad logistics and will always be a running battle. Like China, or Africa. Throw on a Logi II, upgrade infra once or twice, and you now have the fastest best division on the continent. Makes encirclement a breeze.
Then since you dont need much in the way of rifles, or really any arty, you can start producing mechanized and get some mech+motorized rocket artillery.
Its way cheaper than SPGs, wont slow yer division down, takes less supply, and doesnt take but 20 motorized arty per brigade.
Sadly to make them REALLY good, you have to research all the way down the infantry techs, AND the arty techs to get to tower rocket artillery, so you can get the AT bonus for yer rifles, and get the rocket artillery bonus of 15%.
If you do get that though, you have one of the best combos in the game. Mechanized which with darn near 1500 defense and huge hardness, is a great wall, and Cavalry with amazing soft attack to encircle whatever is facing your Mech.
Its really the only time ill ever use Mech, is if I also go Cav.
China benefits from it alot once the Japanese break through your lines, if you have Cav behind your lines you can cut off the 'snakes' and destroy some Japanese units. If your spain player did his job and destroyed at least one Japanese division, and you destroy 4 more in 37, Japan really has no chance of beating you. It simply doesnt have the firepower anymore.
Which army are you referring to? Because, for example, the Red army cav would have divisions of 5000 to 8000 men.
I often use cavalry as a substitute for motorised. The key difference is there's no disadvantage in using cav instead of inf unless you want line artillery, and the speed is improved too. I take care to make a 1:4 ratio of inf to cav when I dont have a massive amount of line artillery in my inf because they are useful for a variety of situations, like mobile defence, jumping from province to province to defend, and supporting tanks and mot in a breakthrough while being slightly faster than infantry.
The biggest benefit of all is that it takes no extra special equipment at all to convert to cav from inf, and you get extra speed.
The biggest benefit of all is that it takes no extra special equipment at all to convert to cav from inf, and you get extra speed.
Well, it does take more Infantry equipment to convert from Inf to Cav (120 for Cav vs 100 for Inf), so Cav does cost a bit more to produce.
And there are other differences between Cav and Inf besides speed and higher Inf Eq requirements. Cavs have greater suppression (2.0 vs. 1.0 for Inf) and a beneficial impact on division Org (+2.5), but, on the other hand, Cav consume supplies (0.12 per brigade) and benefit less from improvements in Support Weapons tech than regular infantry (e.g., by the time you've taken Support III (1940), Infantry have accumulated +15% on both defense and breakthrough, while Cav have just +6% on each). Also, I think (but haven't specifically tested) that Cav do not enjoy boosts from doctrines that specifically apply to just "Leg infantry."
And there are other differences between Cav and Inf besides speed and higher Inf Eq requirements. Cavs have greater suppression (2.0 vs. 1.0 for Inf) and a beneficial impact on division Org (+2.5), but, on the other hand, Cav consume supplies (0.12 per brigade) and benefit less from improvements in Support Weapons tech than regular infantry (e.g., by the time you've taken Support III (1940), Infantry have accumulated +15% on both defense and breakthrough, while Cav have just +6% on each). Also, I think (but haven't specifically tested) that Cav do not enjoy boosts from doctrines that specifically apply to just "Leg infantry."
Outside of suppression, how does CAV stack up to other troop types. Let's take a look at some numbers between CAV and INF and MOT.
The following templates have 1940 support weapons and 1940 infantry weapons in the mix. No doctrines as far.
CAV are faster, have more suppression, and better ORG.
The infantry have better defense and breakthrough. Also, the INF are cheaper, use significantly less supply, and train faster. The training time probably doesn't matter to some players (especially with other battalions in play), but if your goal is quickly trained divisions, CAV loses to INF for spam purposes.
I find the supply difference quite telling. The extra cost isn't that much, given how easy it is to manufacture infantry kits, but the supply cost is meaningful. Swapping all INF to CAV for the ORG benefits would put a strain on supply regions that did not exist before.
What about MOT?
MOT have similar firepower values to CAV. CAV has better ORG. Obviously, MOT is faster. And obviously MOT costs far more, and you need some oil and rubber to get those trucks. What is most telling, though, is that CAV uses more supply than MOT. Historical, but probably a surprise to some players. Also, MOT trains faster than CAV. Again, not a big deal in many situations, but something to keep in mind.
CAV is actually an interesting choice for non-suppression tasks. It has some real trade-offs with INF and MOT.
The following templates have 1940 support weapons and 1940 infantry weapons in the mix. No doctrines as far.
CAV are faster, have more suppression, and better ORG.
The infantry have better defense and breakthrough. Also, the INF are cheaper, use significantly less supply, and train faster. The training time probably doesn't matter to some players (especially with other battalions in play), but if your goal is quickly trained divisions, CAV loses to INF for spam purposes.
I find the supply difference quite telling. The extra cost isn't that much, given how easy it is to manufacture infantry kits, but the supply cost is meaningful. Swapping all INF to CAV for the ORG benefits would put a strain on supply regions that did not exist before.
What about MOT?
MOT have similar firepower values to CAV. CAV has better ORG. Obviously, MOT is faster. And obviously MOT costs far more, and you need some oil and rubber to get those trucks. What is most telling, though, is that CAV uses more supply than MOT. Historical, but probably a surprise to some players. Also, MOT trains faster than CAV. Again, not a big deal in many situations, but something to keep in mind.
CAV is actually an interesting choice for non-suppression tasks. It has some real trade-offs with INF and MOT.
Last edited:
Lack of the doctrine boosts is what hurts cavalry the most though.
Mobile Warfare Cavalry - gets the only generic army wide boosts like +division speed etc.
Superior Firepower Cavalry - gets the soft attack/hard attack boosts and in case of Airland Battle actually the only +ORG boost for cav in game (70->75), but is missing stuff like +20% defense boost from Mobile Defense.
Grandbattleplan Cavalry - gets army blanket upgrades, but doesn't get ORG boosts, and no +def boosts again.
Mass Assault Cavalry - only generic army blanket upgrades, again.
When we start comparing INF/MOT to CAV including doctrine upgrades, cavalry loses some of it's charm. One good thing though, is Cavalry counts as infantry for MIL High Command purpose, which is benefit over MOT.
I did a USSR run where I went heavy divisions comprised of heavy tanks and cavalry and it worked well. Motorised are about five times the cost of cavalry, and if they're not going to actually speed the division up (since heavy tanks only go 5 or 6 km/h) or make a big difference to the combat power of the division, they're not worth that.