In last patch we had some changes in battle mechanism. So now I have question - how profitable is CAV now?
How profitable is CAV now?
- Thread starter moscal
- 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.
Profitable is not one of the first words that come to mind for cavalry, haha.
I would want to see evidence of them actually being worthwhile, because past evidence (in most cases) suggests otherwise w/o meme setups.
I would want to see evidence of them actually being worthwhile, because past evidence (in most cases) suggests otherwise w/o meme setups.
- 4
Indeed, people seem to forget that in the era of shock dominance, cav have twice the power that infantry do, they just cost 3 times as much; and due to flanking, if you can't fill out your frontline, you'll be worst off then someone who can. If money is no concern though you should always go heavy cav, and just blow out the flanks and moral damage. Especially since now that Fighting pips have been buffed to be more on part with Moral pips. So cavalry not normally balancing with Fire pips and having more pips in general means Cav are a worthy money sink before Canons need to be amassed.
Now there is argument of is it worth it in the long term; as an army with 10 cav and 15 infantry will cost a lot of money, money that could have been invested in other things like advisors or buildings; but if we're talking purely for the sake of getting the most pow you can in an army with no regard for cost; they are 100% worth it in the early game.
Last edited:
- 4
If you can spend 3x the money for like 10% better unit. Wouldnt you do it?
10% better sometimes, other times strictly worse despite the added cost, lol.
- 2
- 2
I allways like them... They start with more pips and deal damage to wider range... I say you were supposed to use them even before allways.
They seem to became more reliable thanks to artilarity not going front lines (wich hurt cavs most since art usually took sides of front line) but again:I loved them anyway
point is usually your cavalry doesn't die unless you lose the war. It only dies if you are losing. As long as you take adventegious picks you profit as long as you use cav.
If you are losing then you want to spam infantry anyway.
Last edited:
My very noobish experience with it is that now morale has become less important (arguably), doing damage has become more important. And Cavalry is decent at inflicting actual casualties. So they might be a little bit better if you're a nation that can use them well, i.e. Hordes, Poland.
Well they were always better for those nations. If you had some absurdly large damage modifiers they were so much better than infantry that you generally wanted as much cav as you could afford (or without hitting the ratio penalty, if Poland).
The morale changes have not really affected that outcome, although they are likely even better for the +cav combat ability countries/governments.
My point was more that in comparisson focusing on Morale has suffered, whereas focusing on casualties has not. Making cav a bit better not by buffing cav, but by making the alternative worse.
Cav seems to be worse. With extra forts your forces are taking extra attrition that extra attrition hurts cav units more due to them being more expensive for the same amount of loss. Cav units should get a small attrition resistance modifier imo.
I haven't done the math for combat but they seem to be around the same as always.
I haven't done the math for combat but they seem to be around the same as always.
send that 1 cav to occupy other lands atleast it will do someting useful
- 1