I know that they used to before HTTT, has DW brought them back to the increased speed?
Just wondering if it does, and if not, why?
Just wondering if it does, and if not, why?
Does Cavalry move faster than infantry?
- Thread starter xGhost4000x
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No. Infantry and cavalry move at the same speed, artillery a bit slower. Movement speed can only be increase by manoeuvre rating of a general or by roads.
The main gameplay reason is to make cavalry less overpowering, the same reason Military Tactics were introduced. From a realism standpoint, it has often been argued that cavalry does not move faster than infantry on a strategic scale, with Mongols and other steppe hordes as exceptions.
If it's for gameplay reasons then that's fine. But it's obviously nonsense that cavalry doesn't move faster, regardless of the scale. The only argument that can be made otherwise is that the infantry is using horses to travel, but not to fight. This may have been the case at times, but it was far from the norm.
- 1
Actually once you take into account the logistical nightmare of horses (They need to have feed brought with them, have to have fairly level surfaces, reshodding et cetera), and the consequently higher number of non-combat members to a cavalry unit they didn't move faster strategically, only tactically (That is to say a charging unit of cavalry could easily out pace a charging unit of infantry).
While cavalry is/was more mobile then infantry, it wasn't truly 'faster'.
While cavalry is/was more mobile then infantry, it wasn't truly 'faster'.
Oh really? I suppose that's why cavalry has been used since ancient times for scouting. Must be because it doesn't move faster, right?
- 1
- 1
It's not obvious nonsense. The main limit on army movement speed is logistics, not the movement speed of individuals within the army. Napoleon expected his armies to march about 20 km per day. A fit individual could easily outperform that, but when you have to move thousands of men with artillery, food, ammo, etcetera it's a small wonder the whole thing moves at all.
Tactically cavalry is of course faster, that's why they are used for scouting (+ the fact a rider has better line of sight than a foot soldier). But movement in EU3 is strategic and large scale. A thousand cavalrymen cannot gallop acorss hundreds of miles.
With artillery? Of course a combined arms army would move at the speed of the slowest item. We're talking about all cavalry here. It's nonsense. The whole point of cavalry is that it is faster. Are you honestly trying to claim that if you and I both left Paris for Berlin, and I had a horse and you were on foot, we arrive at the same time merely on account of our both needing to eat, sleep, and drink? It's complete rubbish! You're denying the whole concept of mobile warfare.
Argh. Not -a- horse, but an army of them. An army that needs to take care of the horses, bring supplies et cetera. A single rider or even a small amount wouldn't have the same concerns, but even the smallest unit - 1000 - would.
Scouting is not tactical. It's strategic. On a tactical level you can see the enemy with the naked eye or with a telescope. Yes, you can travel 100 miles with a horse a hell of a lot faster than on foot. Let's try it, you and me buddy. It sounds like fun. As long as I get the horse, okay?
Yes, but logistically speaking it's a bigger help for a lone rider than an army. That's the point.
He's spot on.
The supplies even for an all cavalry army still has to move in wagons in the baggage train. That is the greatest limit on speed even for an all cavalry army of these times (especially given the often poor roads back then).
The game doesn't have an option for a forced march (in which case an all cavalry army probably should be able to move a lot faster at the cost of morale or something).
The game doesn't have an option for a forced march (in which case an all cavalry army probably should be able to move a lot faster at the cost of morale or something).
Roads affect movement speed? Is that a DW thing because i'm pretty sure that's not in HTTT.
Edge, you come over very agressive and ad hominem. Just calm down.
Humans are endurance runners. Even on "short" distances we can keep up with horses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon. On even longer distance, a single fit man against a single fit horse isn't a foregone conclusion. Remember that horse overheat much faster than humans and require long periods of grazing. But this doesn't really matter, as we are talking about armies. Marching thousands of men and horses is a completely different matter than a single horse or man.
Mobile warfare is of course important, it was f.e. Napoleon's chief weapon. But it depended more on execellent organisation, rigoruous mapping, good logistics and smart manouevring than it depended on giving everyone horses.
Humans are endurance runners. Even on "short" distances we can keep up with horses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon. On even longer distance, a single fit man against a single fit horse isn't a foregone conclusion. Remember that horse overheat much faster than humans and require long periods of grazing. But this doesn't really matter, as we are talking about armies. Marching thousands of men and horses is a completely different matter than a single horse or man.
Mobile warfare is of course important, it was f.e. Napoleon's chief weapon. But it depended more on execellent organisation, rigoruous mapping, good logistics and smart manouevring than it depended on giving everyone horses.
It seems somewhat ironic that you insist on this differentiation between tactical level and strategic level (and you're wrong, too - scouting takes places on a wide range of scales, from tactical to strategic) , yet fail to grasp the difference between an individual or small group moving on horseback, and an army moving on horseback.
Not really. Scouting means that a small group of cavalry is riding out from the main army, looking for the enemy, then riding back again, perhaps over the course of a day. The wagons full of grain and spare harness and portable anvils for replacing horseshoes and thousands of lead bullets and barrels of gunpowder are left back at camp if all you're doing is scouting. If the army is advancing from one place to another, though, they have to bring all that stuff with them.
A galloping horse is much faster than a man, but horses can't gallop for hour after hour. A walking horse is about the same speed as a man. A horse pulling a big wagon is much slower than a man. In 1892 and 1893 the German and Austro-Hungarian governments staged a race between Berlin and Vienna; the first year by horse, the second year on foot. The horses were about twice as fast as the humans, true (72 hours versus 155 hours)... but over 25 of the horses in the race died of exhaustion, and the others were injected with morphine to make sure they could keep going at that speed. That's not very practical if you expect your army to fight a battle at their destination.
(And, of course, the riders weren't encumbered by the wagons full of stuff I mentioned before.)
Also you should consider the primary objectives of horseback troops from ancient times up to the late 19th century.
Its primary objectives were:
- to protect the main infantry body on its march from hidden enemy attacks (scouts, pickets) resp.
- finding the enemy main force (scouting),
- secure the main body from enemy cavalry during the battle, then finally
- fight the enemy's infantry in its back and flanks.
So in short: horseback troops were almost always supposed to operate (strategically or tactically) near infantry troops, therefor it does make sense to include this fact somehow in the game.
We could argue to change the cavalry speed with land technologies (cavalry tactics) but then we should play Victoria or HOI...
Its primary objectives were:
- to protect the main infantry body on its march from hidden enemy attacks (scouts, pickets) resp.
- finding the enemy main force (scouting),
- secure the main body from enemy cavalry during the battle, then finally
- fight the enemy's infantry in its back and flanks.
So in short: horseback troops were almost always supposed to operate (strategically or tactically) near infantry troops, therefor it does make sense to include this fact somehow in the game.
We could argue to change the cavalry speed with land technologies (cavalry tactics) but then we should play Victoria or HOI...
You cant really generalize, and i think cavalry and infantry moving at the same speed is a good overall compromise. Did western medieval cavalry travel the same speed as infantry? Maybe, but you cant really compare that to Mongol armies almost exclusively made of cavalry, that did move faster than the only-infantry in steppes.
There is also the question of horse breeding. A mule can get across great distances at low speed, but good luck if you wish to charge enemy on a mule (that would be really funny), same as French percheron is a stereotype of a medieval charger horse, but, as said previously, cannot run for very long distances, unless you want your horse to die (and you dont since they cost ALOT of money). Also the better breed horse you have, more logistics you need, more people and special foods etc, all of that is a big slow down.
There is also the question of horse breeding. A mule can get across great distances at low speed, but good luck if you wish to charge enemy on a mule (that would be really funny), same as French percheron is a stereotype of a medieval charger horse, but, as said previously, cannot run for very long distances, unless you want your horse to die (and you dont since they cost ALOT of money). Also the better breed horse you have, more logistics you need, more people and special foods etc, all of that is a big slow down.
Well, obviously the fastest pre-combustion armies have been cavalry armies. That´s not to say that cavalry armies could move faster than others under every circumstances. But it shows, that under certain circumstances, an army made up entirely out of horsed men, is faster (and at times considerably so) than an infantry army. For example, people bring up logistics. Well, if your army is small enough, and the land grassy enough, you´ll find the food for the horses along the way - there is no need to bring any.
I think the best reflection in the game would be, to grant cavalry a speed bonus, as long as the total number of units in the province does not exceed its attrition limit (possibly minus population*x, to reflect urbanity and make it a penalty for this, with x << 1, of course) - so you can have faster all cav-armies, but only small ones.
I think the best reflection in the game would be, to grant cavalry a speed bonus, as long as the total number of units in the province does not exceed its attrition limit (possibly minus population*x, to reflect urbanity and make it a penalty for this, with x << 1, of course) - so you can have faster all cav-armies, but only small ones.
Thoroughbred warhorses could not live off the land alone: they need special "power fodder" to give them enough nutrients and whatnot to be able to hold a full-armed knight and armour and still be able to charge into battle.