Calvalry

[calebmarkle]

This is purely speculation, but I'm assuming cavalry are inferior to infantry. Whether this is because they have lower org, use more equipment, use more supply or whatever they are likely worse when compared to infantry. Would it not make sense to immediately disband all cavalry to put their equipment in stockpile and train fresh infantry divisions? Seems like keeping the cavalry isn't worth the equipment they take up.
The same goes for the smaller garrison divisions which wouldn't hold up in combat against a real division
Edit: I messed up cavalry in the title

 

[svennnnnnnnnnnn]

Well they said they said battleships will be buffed beyond what they were in the actual war for gameplay purposes, they could do something like that for calvalry (hehe). Also the offensive nature of cavalry warfare could make them ideal candidates to being upgraded to armoured formations. Using cavalry in combat could give bonuses towards armoured formations which could be very valuable if you arent fielding large amounts of tanks yet to gain practical experience. Just speculation though.

 

[Aleks S. I]

I suspect cavalry will use less supply than motorized divisions, and be faster than regular infantry. So for areas like eastern Africa or the Balkans or Russia where supply will be low but you might want to have a force able to maneuver more quickly than infantry, cavalry would be your best option.

 

[Midden]

It's for a country that can't afford trucks.

 

[Number 7]

i can imagine japanese cavalry doing quite well in china where infrastructure is low. even if i had enough industrial capacity to make sure i had a large amount of trucks, i would still stick with CAV based on infrastructure.

in general i believe we wont face the whack a mole rebels like in hoi3, meaning cav's worth probably goes down a bit, as rapid response units they were really awesome in hoi3 as garrisons, especially since they are cheaper than full motorised divisions. But i can see their uses, especially as a less advanced nation, either technologically or industrially

 

[grandad1982]

They have a higher suppression rating so are good to control unrest.

 

[Bane5]

I remember somewhere they said the direct combat stats (attack, defense, etc) were the same compared to infantry as I think it should be.

They will be useful if you plan to go to war very early (Japan vs China, Poland against Germany, etc). I don't see them being a primary mainstay of any army though unless you go down the mobile infantry branch. Poland AI will probably go down the mobile warfare tree and the mobile infantry subbranch. They had 10% cavalry as part of their army historically.

Also confirmed, high suppression values still make them effective for garrisoning occupied territory.

 

[Denkt]

Cavalry is just mobile infantry fighting as dragoons. Cavalry represent also mobile non fuel transported infantry such as bicycle infantry.

Compared to infantry they are slightly worse in combat and slightly more expensive but more mobile and compared to motorised they are significant cheaper and probably better terrain modifiers but not as good in combat and not as mobile.

 

[Chukada]

i can imagine japanese cavalry doing quite well in china where infrastructure is low. even if i had enough industrial capacity to make sure i had a large amount of trucks, i would still stick with CAV based on infrastructure.

in general i believe we wont face the whack a mole rebels like in hoi3, meaning cav's worth probably goes down a bit, as rapid response units they were really awesome in hoi3 as garrisons, especially since they are cheaper than full motorised divisions. But i can see their uses, especially as a less advanced nation, either technologically or industrially

Honestly, Japan found cavalry to be pretty lack luster in China as well.

Hard to encircle a modern army with cavalry, and Japan had Mongolian cavalry at its disposal.

Cavalry weakness is actually needing all the extra horses imo. So greater supply consumption than leg infantry. It's strength is its badassary.

 

[Sharp163]

I thought horses weren't in the game?

 

[Scutatus]

This is purely speculation, but I'm assuming cavalry are inferior to infantry. Whether this is because they have lower org, use more equipment, use more supply or whatever they are likely worse when compared to infantry. Would it not make sense to immediately disband all cavalry to put their equipment in stockpile and train fresh infantry divisions? Seems like keeping the cavalry isn't worth the equipment they take up.
The same goes for the smaller garrison divisions which wouldn't hold up in combat against a real division
Edit: I messed up cavalry in the title

Cavalry will make good garrison units in occupied territory as they have better suppression than infantry. In the WWW Daniel fielded a Division of two Cavalry units with a Police support company for ultimate garrison-unrest suppression ability!

 

[geogus]

I ve always considered cavaly a good option for Italy in the early north african campaign.

My strategy is to race an force of motorized and armored division to Alexandria as fast as possible, only stopping to avoid being cut off.

Behind, infantry fill the gaps, engage britsh/iraq forces while i use cavalary to go inland provinces (usually very big and very low infra) to encircle and cut off the enemy.

Cavalary is effective in low infra or rugged areas, that slow down a lot armored and motorized units.

 

[gamedude]

See WW1. Cavalry became obsolete once the movable Machine gun just shrekts them together with more efficient rifles than muskets.

 

[Scutatus]

See WW1. Cavalry became obsolete once the movable Machine gun just shrekts them together with more efficient rifles than muskets.

Cavalry still had their uses, if used right. For instance, they were useful for reconnaissance and exploiting breakthroughs in the absence of motorized/mechanised/armour. They were also still pretty darned affective in open terrain, as shown in the Middle-east in WW-1 and (yes) Poland. The (in)famous charge of the Polish cavalry is an urban legend, but despite the myth (started as propaganda) they charged not tanks but a german infantry division - which they successfully dispersed, only being gunned down in a later engagement. Regarding the German army itself; despite the common view of a mechanised monster, the German army was never fully mechanised and still employed cavalry even into 1944. Each infantry division had a recce battalion of around 200 cavalry, right up to the penultimate year of the war!

 

[safe-keeper]

They move faster than infantry, and don't use fuel. That's two advantages right there. I like to use them for rebel suppression in BlackICE.

 

[gamedude]

Cavalry still had their uses, if used right. For instance, they were useful for reconnaissance and exploiting breakthroughs in the absence of motorized/mechanised/armour. They were also still pretty darned affective in open terrain, as shown in the Middle-east in WW-1 and (yes) Poland. The (in)famous charge of the Polish cavalry is an urban legend, but despite the myth (started as propaganda) they charged not tanks but a german infantry division - which they successfully dispersed, only being gunned down in a later engagement. Regarding the German army itself; despite the common view of a mechanised monster, the German army was never fully mechanised and still employed cavalry even into 1944. Each infantry division had a recce battalion of around 200 cavalry, right up to the penultimate year of the war!

Yep, Cavalry divisions were rendered (more than what it was used for pre WW1) useless and more integrated into infantry, secondary usages.

 

[Scutatus]

Yep, Cavalry divisions were rendered (more than what it was used for pre WW1) useless and more integrated into infantry, secondary usages.

You and I have Very different interpretations of the word "useless".

Being employed in reconnaissance roles means they had a use. Therefore, not useless. The Napoleonic Light cavalry Hussars of the Napoleonic wars would have recognised the recce role of cavalry in the 1940s german army instantly. The difference of course, is the 1940's version no longer got to take part in those wonderful full on, hell for leather charges.

 

[MagnusStultus]

See WW1. Cavalry became obsolete once the movable Machine gun just shrekts them together with more efficient rifles than muskets.

Cavalry in WW2 are just infantry with horses for mobility. Bicycles also got used to good use see Yamashita's Bicycle infantry.

Only in Nazi propaganda did cavalry charge with lance and sword like it was the middle ages (Poland really is a victim of horrible stereotyping in the memory of WW2).

 

[Loke]

Cavalry in WW2 are just infantry with horses for mobility. Bicycles also got used to good use see Yamashita's Bicycle infantry.

Only in Nazi propaganda did cavalry charge with lance and sword like it was the middle ages (Poland really is a victim of horrible stereotyping in the memory of WW2).

Thats not correct.

Italian cavalry charge on eastern front - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Savoia_Cavalleria_at_Isbuscenski

 

[Nelfe]

I thought horses weren't in the game?

There is cavalry units in the game, although you can't "produce" horses, they are abstracted into Weapons/Support Equipment.