I ask this given that it appears the next DLC will focus on (or, at the very least, undeniably give flavor to) Hordes, whose armies can have an unlimited amount of cavalry.
Now, it's pretty much apparent by looking at late-game army compositions, that cavalry is pretty much useless once you hit a certain benchmark. It's very expensive, and in late game when fire becomes dominant, its cost fails to recoup its expenses meaning that most armies will usually only have three-five regiments of cavalry. (While it is beneficial for some nations with Cavalry-focused ideas like PLC/Hungary/Ottomans/et cetera to keep larger amounts of cavalry in their armies, they tend to be the exception that proves the rule.)
Likewise, the amount of cannon regiments in a lategame army can get ridiculous; with there being as much artillery as there are infantry regiments (at no penalty) and many important battles end with more or all the artillery surviving while the infantry are decimated.
So, really, this gist of this thread is this; I feel cannons are a little bit OP, or at the very least far to easy to get and stack, while Cavalry are a bit underpowered. So, here are my suggestions on what can be done;
Increase the cost of artillery - 40 or 50 would be the optimal choices. A cavalry regiment costs 25 ducats at base while an artillery regiment only costs 30. While Cavalry doesn't do the best job of recouping its cost, Artillery does since it can usually leave battles unscathed, so making the cost somewhat more prohibitive will at least make the amount of artillery that is present in a battle less egregious.
Give a tactical penalty for having too much artillery - in the same vein that having too much cavalry in an army is punishing, but I also feel that it should slow down the army's marching speed as well since artillery is much more difficult to move than people and animals. I can't say at which rate it should be, while I personally would want one less than cavalry (20/25/30%), I would be fine with the base 50% as long as there was something punishing you for having as many cannons as men.
Give cavalry the ability to flank artillery/back line - While trying to reduce the amount of artillery is all well and good, cavalry should still be relevant in the late game (Hussars/Uhlans/Cossacks were a major part of most Napoleonic armies). This was an idea someone else proposed in another thread which name escapes me, but it's a really good suggestion; giving cavalry the ability to directly threaten the back line and the artillery would make them important late-game. While I'm certain there would be more to this than just that which needs to be taken into consideration for balancing, I think this would be a really good way to offset late-game artillery while adding realism.
Now, it's pretty much apparent by looking at late-game army compositions, that cavalry is pretty much useless once you hit a certain benchmark. It's very expensive, and in late game when fire becomes dominant, its cost fails to recoup its expenses meaning that most armies will usually only have three-five regiments of cavalry. (While it is beneficial for some nations with Cavalry-focused ideas like PLC/Hungary/Ottomans/et cetera to keep larger amounts of cavalry in their armies, they tend to be the exception that proves the rule.)
Likewise, the amount of cannon regiments in a lategame army can get ridiculous; with there being as much artillery as there are infantry regiments (at no penalty) and many important battles end with more or all the artillery surviving while the infantry are decimated.
So, really, this gist of this thread is this; I feel cannons are a little bit OP, or at the very least far to easy to get and stack, while Cavalry are a bit underpowered. So, here are my suggestions on what can be done;
Increase the cost of artillery - 40 or 50 would be the optimal choices. A cavalry regiment costs 25 ducats at base while an artillery regiment only costs 30. While Cavalry doesn't do the best job of recouping its cost, Artillery does since it can usually leave battles unscathed, so making the cost somewhat more prohibitive will at least make the amount of artillery that is present in a battle less egregious.
Give a tactical penalty for having too much artillery - in the same vein that having too much cavalry in an army is punishing, but I also feel that it should slow down the army's marching speed as well since artillery is much more difficult to move than people and animals. I can't say at which rate it should be, while I personally would want one less than cavalry (20/25/30%), I would be fine with the base 50% as long as there was something punishing you for having as many cannons as men.
Give cavalry the ability to flank artillery/back line - While trying to reduce the amount of artillery is all well and good, cavalry should still be relevant in the late game (Hussars/Uhlans/Cossacks were a major part of most Napoleonic armies). This was an idea someone else proposed in another thread which name escapes me, but it's a really good suggestion; giving cavalry the ability to directly threaten the back line and the artillery would make them important late-game. While I'm certain there would be more to this than just that which needs to be taken into consideration for balancing, I think this would be a really good way to offset late-game artillery while adding realism.
- 75
- 6
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
