Cavalry? Am I missing something?

[Dorevai]

My stacks are 6/4 -> 8/4 early game and split to 3/2 -> 4/2, 2/1. Mid-game I try to get an economy to support 8/4/4 and then 8/4/8. I rarely ever expand my regiments beyond 8/4/8, but I have them attack together against AI doomstacks. The significance of artillery late game is pretty much omnipotent, and I favor defensive to bring costs down and improve siege times against large fortresses.

I have never noted the significance of an all cav army, but I've only played since HttT. I use them for the flanking and "combined arms" bonus, whatever that is. I figure bonuses are good and they're easily achieved, so I may as well. For me the more significant question is when to begin using artillery, and when to consider expanding the line infantry. These changes force me to renovate my transport fleets from an easy 10 cogs/flytes in the early game to a daunting 20 merchantmen late game, and make raising an army more restricted to my cores as I often expand heavily in tech groups that cannot build cannon.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

For me the more significant question is when to begin using artillery.

Short answer: LT 17 (0.5 fire modifier) or 18 (1.0 fire modifier) or LT 29 (1.5 modifier).
It is not really cost effective at this level, but it still is the best way to maximize firepower (and protetction) per frontage. I usually start to use it at LT 18, worked well even in most MP games.

And as a sidenote:
All-CAV is still overpowered in open terrain during the early game. It is not as bad as it was in IN, but it is still way more powerful than "combined arms". The first 50-100 years belong to all CAV - at least in open terrain

 

[Dafool]

LT 17 seems a little early for any major use of artillery. 29 (and the few levels that follow it) seems more appropriate. I've found it's usually not needed against the AI until the 17th or 18th century. It really shines mostly against those massive forts that show up in much of Germany, France, and Italy. Those are almost impossible to take without artillery.

 

[pushistik80]

As long as you are playing IN (Complete) this is correct. Once you hit HTTT, this is no longer the case.

I'm playing DW with the latest patch (hence the Golden Horde comment... in this patch you have to retake your provinces quickly or risk them defecting after little more than a year). On the steppe (and throughout all of Scandinavia and Poland/Lithuania) you have almost no mountains. So the WORST penalty you can ever have is -3 (-2 for terrain and -1 for river crossing).

I'm quite convinced that on very hard (morale penalty to player), all CAV armies is the way to go for eastern powers (unless you play one of the nations that are mostly in the mountains).

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

So I understand you get the combined arms bonus is the proportion cav/(inf+cav) is less than the cav_to_inf ratio in the technology file. What exactly is the combined arms bonus though, I once found something about it, but forgot where.

Furthermore, what happens if you have more cav than inf. I noticed the army name turns to red, but is this just a remnant of an earlier feature or is it actually some sort of penalty?

 

[unmerged(100060)]

Calvary have other big advantage early on: You loose fewer of them in a loosing battle. This is kind of a big deal during periods of low manpower. Calvary armies are more likely to win even with low moral.

Playing an eastern power I generally create 1 or 2 big all cavalry stack to beak big formations and use smaller infantry + 2/4 Calv stacks for mop up and siege. As western power I tend to break things down either 7inf/5cavl or 8inf/4cavl early on.

 

[TAMBOURINESNAKE]

So I understand you get the combined arms bonus is the proportion cav/(inf+cav) is less than the cav_to_inf ratio in the technology file. What exactly is the combined arms bonus though, I once found something about it, but forgot where.

Furthermore, what happens if you have more cav than inf. I noticed the army name turns to red, but is this just a remnant of an earlier feature or is it actually some sort of penalty?

You take more casualties without the combined arms bonus now. The number of cavalry turns red to indicate that you will take heightened losses if you go into combat.

 

[George LeS]

You take more casualties without the combined arms bonus now. The number of cavalry turns red to indicate that you will take heightened losses if you go into combat.

One thing I'm unclear about is just how this works. I get the ratio requirement (50%+1 for western, less for some others). But the effect on casualties puzzles me. The table starts at 0.5 as the tactics value, and rises to 4. Just what does this mean? Is it a range of 50% -500% more casualties? Or what?

 

[TAMBOURINESNAKE]

One thing I'm unclear about is just how this works. I get the ratio requirement (50%+1 for western, less for some others). But the effect on casualties puzzles me. The table starts at 0.5 as the tactics value, and rises to 4. Just what does this mean? Is it a range of 50% -500% more casualties? Or what?

Tatics from tech is unrelated at the source. Tactics also decreases casulaties inflicted on you, but its technology based. I am not positive on how it works, only that it does. I suppose in MP some could do some testing.

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

Tatics from tech is unrelated at the source. Tactics also decreases casulaties inflicted on you, but its technology based. I am not positive on how it works, only that it does. I suppose in MP some could do some testing.

I thought tactics and combined arms are parts of the same mechanic, where you get the casualties reduction from tactics if the cav_to_inf ratio is respected.

If it's not, than please explain how combined arms works.

 

[TAMBOURINESNAKE]

I thought tactics and combined arms are parts of the same mechanic. If it's not, than please explain how combined arms works.

They do the same thing. I read some more about it and apparently the Tactics bonus you see and get from tech IS the combined arms bonus. I thought they were different and I was wrong.

If you don't meet the combined arms requirements you take full casualties. If you do meet it then you take 1/(1 + tactics) casualties. With 4.0 tactics you take 20% the casualties.

Sorry.

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

Ok, so I remembered correctly. I got confused about someone telling me you get a penalty if you have more cav than inf in an army, and you get a bonus on casualy reduction, if you meet the cav_to_inf ratio, which I thought was total bullcrap.

 

[safferli]

Tactics is the CA bonus, that is correct. I'm not 100% sure how it works, but your casualties get reduced by 1/(tactics), could be 1/(tactics+1) only if you have the combined arms bonus.

 

[George LeS]

Since it starts at 0.5, 1/(tactics) would be counter-productive.

But I've never understood that. Looks a bit overpowered, but what do I know, these are land battles...

 

[jju_57]

That's not quite the same as the flanking mechanism so far as I know it. Cavalry can attack up to two units in on each side of the battle regardless of how many infantry there are. So having two cavalry units on each side (4 total) gives the maximum flanking bonus. Infantry on the other hand can only attack what's directly in front of them, or diagonal, but no further, hence making them less efficient than cavalry if you have more units in the battle than they do. This is what I've always heard. Infantry, so far as I'm aware, just sits on the side until a unit comes up directly in front of it or diagonal to it.

Starting in HTTT infantry can flank up to 1 square. Therefore a 12K inf vs. 10K inf will have all 12 inf on the frontlines and attacking. End end units attack diagnally. This is why they say you should have 2K cav + 12K inf vs. 10K inf. You still have 4 additional units attacking (flanking) over the defender. In essence this is the same as 4K cav + 10K inf vs 10K inf. In both cases you have 4 extra units on the frontlines over the defense.

Now unless you are outnumbered you NEVER need more than 2K cav in a stack. As long as you have more troops they will never be attacked and suffer any losses. So the best composition is to have your stack be 4 units larger than the enemy with 2 cav only. In other words your stack should be 2K cav + 2K inf + INF equal to the size of their cav + inf.

 

[Alanthiras]

Starting in HTTT infantry can flank up to 1 square. Therefore a 12K inf vs. 10K inf will have all 12 inf on the frontlines and attacking. End end units attack diagnally. This is why they say you should have 2K cav + 12K inf vs. 10K inf. You still have 4 additional units attacking (flanking) over the defender. In essence this is the same as 4K cav + 10K inf vs 10K inf. In both cases you have 4 extra units on the frontlines over the defense.

Now unless you are outnumbered you NEVER need more than 2K cav in a stack. As long as you have more troops they will never be attacked and suffer any losses. So the best composition is to have your stack be 4 units larger than the enemy with 2 cav only. In other words your stack should be 2K cav + 2K inf + INF equal to the size of their cav + inf.

Actually it is quite a bit better to have 10 inf 4 cav as opposed to 12 inf 2 cav when facing 10 units because cavalry does about twice the damage of infantry early game. So with 10 inf 4 cav you'll be hitting the edge units with 5 times the force that your opponent will be hitting any of you units at start. Now once the first units die on the edges you cavalry will (should) reposition. With a 4 cav you'll be hitting the new edge unit with 4.8 (2x cav) + .8 from the inf (since your infantry should have lost about 20% by that point.. whilst if you have 2 cav you'll be hitting them with 3.5 (1x cav) and .75 times 2 from the infantry (since your infantry should have lost 25% at that point). As you see the full infantry you previously had flanking will not be allowed to move back into flanking position since there's allready an infantry there.

Once down to the third edge unit 4 cav will be hitting for 4.59-ish whilst 2 cav will be hitting for 3.1-ish.

And thus I much prefer to run with 4 cavalry in my armies

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

Following this line of thought, you should only get cav.

 

[jju_57]

Actually it is quite a bit better to have 10 inf 4 cav as opposed to 12 inf 2 cav when facing 10 units because cavalry does about twice the damage of infantry early game. So with 10 inf 4 cav you'll be hitting the edge units with 5 times the force that your opponent will be hitting any of you units at start. Now once the first units die on the edges you cavalry will (should) reposition. With a 4 cav you'll be hitting the new edge unit with 4.8 (2x cav) + .8 from the inf (since your infantry should have lost about 20% by that point.. whilst if you have 2 cav you'll be hitting them with 3.5 (1x cav) and .75 times 2 from the infantry (since your infantry should have lost 25% at that point). As you see the full infantry you previously had flanking will not be allowed to move back into flanking position since there's allready an infantry there.

Once down to the third edge unit 4 cav will be hitting for 4.59-ish whilst 2 cav will be hitting for 3.1-ish.

And thus I much prefer to run with 4 cavalry in my armies

First off it is not 5 times. Two calvary cancel each other out. The difference is the two inner calvary vs 2 inf units that are flanking. And come LT 18 they are hitting just as hard.

But even early game this depends on terrain. If in mountains that .8 vs .4 for inf is taken away due to the terrain modifiers.

So compare a LT 5 inf vs cav shock phase. Assume leaders cancel each other out and run numbers for terrain.

According to the Wiki the base formula is ((attack rating + dice differential 0 to 9) - (defense rating + terrain) + leader difference) times tech modifiers times discipline times 6. So a lvl 5 calvary vs. lvl 5 men at arms with an identical dice roll has the following numbers:

((1 shock + 0 dice) - (1 shock def + 0 terrain) + 0 leader difference) = 0 times .9 (tech) times 1 (discipline) times 6 = 0 damage. Calvary MUST have a better dice roll to inflict damage.

The lvl 5 infantry using the same criteria has these numbers:
((1 shock + 0 dice) - (0 shock def + 0 terrain) + 0 (leader) = 1 times .44 (tech times 1 times 6 = 2.64 damage. With equal dice rolls and leaders inf does better.

It is when the dice rolls or leaders are much better that cav shines. For example offense rolls a 9 to 0 for defense:

((1 + 9) - (1 + 0) + 0 ) = 9 times .9 times 6 = 48.6 damage for cav
((1 + 9) - (0 + 0) + 0) = 10 times .44 times 6 = 26.4 for infantry

Bottom line is calvary early game still has to have better dice rolls and/or leader difference to make an impact.

 

[TAMBOURINESNAKE]

First off it is not 5 times. Two calvary cancel each other out. The difference is the two inner calvary vs 2 inf units that are flanking. And come LT 18 they are hitting just as hard.

When you get LT 22 the Cavalry win again as they get more pips.

 

[jju_57]

When you get LT 22 the Cavalry win again as they get more pips.

Once offensive fire modifiers hit 1.0 and above (LT 27) plus the very high fire pips for infantry things will be back and remain in favor of infantry.

The bottom line of the whole argument is that number one you always want to outnumber your oppenent by 4 units. Early game having 4 calvary is slightly better than 2 calvary and 2 infantry for those extra units. Come LT 18 on you are very safe using just 2 calvary units and 2 infantry as your flanking units. besides at that level you need to start thinking about artillery.

I would like to remind people that calvary only gets those hugh damage results if they haave the leader (shock numbers) advantage and/or dice rolls. And if fighting in mountains that dice roll has to be 7 or more to even bee seen in the results. A 4cav/1inf attacking a 1 inf army in mountains will probably do worse then a 2cav/3inf attacking a 1inf unit in mountains.