Cavalry

[unmerged(9422)]

Sorry if this was already asked or said or anything, but..

Will there be cavalry units in the game? Cavalry did not play as important of a role in World War II, especially compared to infantry. But, there were cavalry units, so will we have them in HoI?

Thanks in advance!


Meiji-Tenno

 

[unmerged(5367)]

"Cavalry gave us an empire once, and will do so again"
-Great-great-great-great(ad nauseum)-great grandson of Djingis Khan.

Later:

-What do you mean we lost the first battle, and what IS this "soviet union"...

 

[Derek Pullem]

I'd guess (I'm not a beta yet ) that cavalry will be abstracted as motorised infantry

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
I'd guess (I'm not a beta yet ) that cavalry will be abstracted as motorised infantry

Thank you!
Cavalry was an important part in the war, so I am hoping for cavalry units. But, Infantry played a more major role. But cavalry was still very important.

Meiji-Tenno

 

[Ktarn]

I cant say anything without violating the NDA.
However heres an excerpt from the SGO preview: "Currently Paradox plans no fewer than eight different types of division: Infantry, Cavalry, Motorized Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Armored, Paratroop, Marines, and Mountain divisions."
The preview can be found here.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by Ktarn
I cant say anything without violating the NDA.
However heres an excerpt from the SGO preview: "Currently Paradox plans no fewer than eight different types of division: Infantry, Cavalry, Motorized Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Armored, Paratroop, Marines, and Mountain divisions."
The preview can be found here.

Thank you! I will go read preview now..
And, will marines be the only amphibious units? Or can you force other units to make amphibious landings but they won't do as well?

Meiji-Tenno

 

[unmerged(5184)]

Originally posted by Meiji-Tenno


Thank you! I will go read preview now..
And, will marines be the only amphibious units? Or can you force other units to make amphibious landings but they won't do as well?

Meiji-Tenno

I guess it's because the amphibious units of each country are called Marines.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by Patriote


I guess it's because the amphibious units of each country are called Marines.

Sorry, I didn't explain well.. I meant will other units be able to make amphibious landings. Such as: Could you have cavalry make an amphibious attack? They wouldn't be as effective as marines, but will just any kind of soldier do an amphibious attack. Understand? Thanks!

Meiji-Tenno

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
I'd guess (I'm not a beta yet ) that cavalry will be abstracted as motorised infantry

What's the hold-up? There are several of us new betas already in the beta forum.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Hmmm... I'll e-mail Johan - I thought something was strange when i got a bugzilla report before I got my access codes

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Hmmm... I'll e-mail Johan - I thought something was strange when i got a bugzilla report before I got my access codes

Curious - that shouldn't be.

I'd try emailing Patric instead - I think setting up access to the beta forum, and the downloads, is his department.

If you haven't already, try checking your PM box, and clearing it out if necessary.

 

[unmerged(8017)]

Really the terms used to describe unites in military terms have not changed over the years. In facts tactics them selves have not changed much (Iraq used that old horned bull against us in the Persian gulf, to bad they forget the right horn). Calvary is still used in military terms. It is just no longer a man on a horse with a sword or gun. Now its a couple men in a machine of some sort with a bunch of guns In many of there operation the german panzers could have been considered calvary.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by Delinquent Rock
Really the terms used to describe unites in military terms have not changed over the years. In facts tactics them selves have not changed much (Iraq used that old horned bull against us in the Persian gulf, to bad they forget the right horn). Calvary is still used in military terms. It is just no longer a man on a horse with a sword or gun. Now its a couple men in a machine of some sort with a bunch of guns In many of there operation the german panzers could have been considered calvary.

Not quite. During wwII, a number of nations, Germany and the USSR to name two, used traditional cavalry units, horses and all. In certain types of terrain, cavalry could go places armour couldn't and fucntioned as mounted infantry.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by PBI


Not quite. During wwII, a number of nations, Germany and the USSR to name two, used traditional cavalry units, horses and all. In certain types of terrain, cavalry could go places armour couldn't and fucntioned as mounted infantry.

Japan also used traditional cavalry. Japan didn't have as many armored military vehicles as the other major powers, and so depended more on horses. In southeast Asia, the troops also found and used elephants to use to carry supplies and stuff. I once saw some Japanese artillery being dragged over roads in China. Many of the roads in China were poorly built and got very muddy, so it was hard to transport things around. The artillery that I saw was being pushed and pulled by soldiers, dogs, donkeys, and horses. Not all artillery was transported like this. There were vehicles to drive around, pulling the artillery and other supplies. Just not too many.


Meiji-Tenno

 

[unmerged(8017)]

I know they still used Calvary then, but I was just pointing out Calvary has more than one meaning.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by Delinquent Rock
I know they still used Calvary then, but I was just pointing out Calvary has more than one meaning.

I know. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong or anything.. Sorry if it came across that way.
I was only speaking of how Japan still used "horse cavalry".

Meiji-Tenno

 

[Generalfeldmarschall]

in response to Meiji-Tenno's post, i just wanted to say i think the Japanese were the most impressive power of World War II. it is difficult to believe that a country with inferior weapons and equipment still was able to conquer most of southeast Asia.. and fight off the Americans for four years.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by Delinquent Rock
I know they still used Calvary then, but I was just pointing out Calvary has more than one meaning.

Now, yes

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by Generalfeldmarschall
in response to Meiji-Tenno's post, i just wanted to say i think the Japanese were the most impressive power of World War II. it is difficult to believe that a country with inferior weapons and equipment still was able to conquer most of southeast Asia.. and fight off the Americans for four years.

Yes, I also find this quite impressive.
Along with the Americans, some revolts in Southeast Asia were fought against, the British were fought in India and Burma, the Australians in New Guinea, natives in New Guinea, the Chinese, and in the end the Russians (But this part wasn't too impressive, as it was very short and little fighting. It was at the very end of the war), and also some others that I can't think of right now.

Meiji-Tenno

 

[unmerged(9523)]

It is also interesting how Japan became such a formidable country in such a short time to defeat Russia and fight America after being closed to the outside world for so long.