Cavalry in Rome

[unmerged(76495)]

So just realised something. The role of cavalry has pretty much consistent in all paradoxs games. They always start of as pretty strong, owning everything they see and generally being a pain in the ass for infantery oriented armies. But eventually as time progresses infantery becomes a far better cost-effective option and cavalry is primarily used for its speed. Not its value in combat. It was so in Europa Universalis, it was so in Victoria and IMO one might even say it is so very early in HoI. So my question is

Wil the same be true for Rome?

 

[Snall]

So just realised something. The role of cavalry has pretty much consistent in all paradoxs games. They always start of as pretty strong, owning everything they see and generally being a pain in the ass for infantery oriented armies. But eventually as time progresses infantery becomes a far better cost-effective option and cavalry is primarily used for its speed. Not its value in combat. It was so in Europa Universalis, it was so in Victoria and IMO one might even say it is so very early in HoI. So my question is

Wil the same be true for Rome?

In this era cavalry loses to infantry if done correctly. Man, the stirrup, what an invention. I imagine cav will just be yet another factor that improves your infantry performance? Or like the archers work except ahead of the line? Or maybe just used as flanking defense? I have no idea...lol

 

[comagoosie]

Maybe it is the opposite of what you think. Cavalry will start out worse than infantry but as time continues and inventions were made, cavalry importance will start to rise. Though, I can' imagine cavalry being worse than infantry.

 

[Zaku]

Well IRL cav was only used for flanking attack, and scouting in this era. At least Rome used them that way.
On the other handm there was some nations who had good heavy cav, maybe it will be represented in the game... for example macedonian hetaroi will be stronger than their roman counterparts, etc.

 

[Kingman]

And lets not forget about the much bigger "cavalry" units such as elephants


But yeah cavalry starts weak and as time goes on it becomes better and better, then ate the rennaissance ages it starts to go down again, since this game is going to be in a rome set, cavalry will be used because if its speed, and not shock value o


However maybe late game we can get a lot better ones, only time will tel

 

[Kentti]

Well, I think that every troop type has it own purpose EU:R. Light infantry as skirmishers, heavy infantry as the spine of your forces, archers to rain arrows at your enemy behind heavy infantry, cavalry to protect flanks and to flank enemy, horse archers to decimate pretty everethyng if the foe doesn't have cavalry to run them down and finally elephants to cause mass destruction .

So using a mix of all units will be much more important than in earlier EU's or crusader kings where you can win by having bigger force.

 

[unmerged(68442)]

I disagree heavy cavalry was the decisive arm of Philip II / Alexander the Great's army which is before game start, the Parthian's also have an elite heavy cavalry force that set the Romans packing numerous times

 

[Snall]

I disagree heavy cavalry was the decisive arm of Philip II / Alexander the Great's army which is before game start, the Parthian's also have an elite heavy cavalry force that set the Romans packing numerous times

Still not widely spread or able to be used widely, mainly because of fodder issues I imagine...I dont know..i need sleep now. Someone go make King go to the office so we get some more of the AAR...no Saturdays for you King!!

 

[Kingman]

I disagree heavy cavalry was the decisive arm of Philip II / Alexander the Great's army which is before game start, the Parthian's also have an elite heavy cavalry force that set the Romans packing numerous times

That is also true, i was talking generaly cavalry wasnt all that mighty, howver there are always exceptions(Macedon, Parthia, Carthage with their great numidian mercenaries), but in genreal like i said cavalry was used for its great speed.


Most factions will have basic calvary units(barbarians), however there will be exceptions(Macedon, Parthia, latter roman professional auxilias, etc...) and maybe i will even get to see chariots


EDit: Sry for my bad english comprehension but what is AAR

 

[unmerged(68442)]

EDiot: Sry for my bad english comprehension but what is AAR

I would imagine Snall is talking about this thread being updated http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346283

And I see what you mean about only certain historical factions having access to heavy cavalry, oh and the Seleukids used chariots at the battle of Magnesia so maybe you have a chance!

 

[Kingman]

Yeah i know the selecids used them but egipt was the "special" user of them

Oh and the britons also used them, however in their last great battle against roman troops, thi great weopon was their great demise

 

[Chaingun]

Hmm I hope that's just made tribe/faction/state specific. Romans weren't that great users of cavalry for sure.

 

[Kingman]

Yeah that is what we are talking about, some factions have great calvary units(Parthia, Macedon) while others dont (Rome, some barbarians), and there are also those with charitos(Just cant stop thinking about those ancient cars


It all depends on witch faction you chose of course


By the way i think romes armys should have two stages, 1s is before the marian reforms(Principes, velites, light calvary, etc.)

while after the marians reforms romes armys should be much more expensive but much better(legiunary cohorts , auxilias(light inf) and finally medium but expensive calvary

 

[comagoosie]

Hmm I hope that's just made tribe/faction/state specific. Romans weren't that great users of cavalry for sure.

mainly because they didn't need any cavalry. Nothing in stand in front of the legion!

 

[unmerged(51416)]

Well, cavalry should be effective (not as force on it's own, but as supplement - high flanking bonus) but pretty damn expensive. Just look at numbers of cavalry employed: clearly not impressive (just to remind: Pyrrhus had around 20,000 inf and whooping 500 cav)

 

[Zaku]

(just to remind: Pyrrhus had around 20,000 inf and whooping 500 cav)

Actually he had 3000 horsemen and 20 elephants at the battle of Asculum

 

[Zenobius]

Cavalry should be VERY effective in plains and desert terrain. See Carrhae. I hope this ismodelled in the game.

 

[cool-toxic]

Cavalry should be VERY effective in plains and desert terrain. See Carrhae. I hope this ismodelled in the game.

Which is like Eu.

 

[unmerged(51416)]

Actually he had 3000 horsemen and 20 elephants at the battle of Asculum

True o I remembered the number of slingers IMO numbers from around Heraclea are more worthy, as they include 'clean' hellenistic army, and around Asculum he already had his allies alongside.

My main point was Sekunda's various articles and books, where he (IMO rightfully) argues that only rich aristocratic country (like Philip's and Alex's Macedonia) could field enought heavy cavalry to be truly effective on the battlefields. Earlier we see like numbers well below 1000 cavalrymen, and disasters follow...

 

[unmerged(15623)]

mainly because they didn't need any cavalry. Nothing in stand in front of the legion!

Mainly cause the only region of Italy with anything but a half assed cavalry tradition was Campania, I'd say. And I'm certain that you know how many things could and did stand in front of legions.

In later times, they used lot more cavalry than a each legions allotment of 120. They just weren't permanent part of the war machine. And were more often than not, regional.

In any case, cavalry's prowess should ideally be region specific, reflecting areas of high horsemanship traditions. It would rock if regions like Numidia, Campania, Thessaley, Macedonia, Thracia, Armenia, some parts of Persia and of course the steppe would provide superior cavalry during the game.