The problem with speed 1.2 is that CAV-only armies will outrun retreating stacks again. Now take into account that (1) the terrain penatlies are more severe - giving the retreating units even less chance to win or even tie the next battle and (2) with the new combat system (morale defeat in the first 12 days = army destroyed), the first retreat of an army - even asap after 12 days - will mean unavoidable destruction.
With this I feat battles would become even more deceicive. And the AI, which usually doesn't play the "all CAV" strategy will perform even worse on the battlefield...
Maybe this was the very reason why they reduced CAV speed to 1.0.
A few thoughts...
Most AI nations have better generals than you do, early game when CAV is most effective at least... At 1.2, a 2 pip maneuver general should arrive at or when you do. The speed difference of 0.2 is such a low value compared to the original 1.5, that it could actually become quite risky to rely on the tactic of jumping ahead. Gone are the days of the sure defensive position, except in small leaderless battles, which aren't supposed to be the norm now in this decisive army age. And heaven help you if they have a good maneuver general, you won't even be able to use the tactic at all, speed increase or not.
A good maneuver general would allow you the same flexibility with INF with the current system, so the tactic question is moot. Whoever has the most maneuverability is going to win the battle anyways. Is it a huge deal to have it won by an army of CAV or an army of BOTH...?
Even with the speed at 1.0, if I have that maneuver, what's to stop me from building an all CAV army and do it anyways??? I'm sure someone has tried this already. What was the result...? Does it change because you got there a day sooner...?
I do agree with you that the terrain bonuses are killers. I actually would like to see them lessened. I think they went a bit overboard here, and actually made the get ahead of the advancing army an even easier tactic to use.
As I've stated, Maneuver is King. With such heavy modifiers, position now accounts for a
huge part of the outcome. Just because I arrived first doesn't mean I'm organized, familiar with the lay of the land or anything of the sort.
Just arriving troops should have to 'get' fortified to be that effective, which takes time. Also, many battles of the era were fought on 'fields' of battle, not in trenches or fortifications. Those kinds of things are located in the 'siege' part of the program. On the fields the first arrival has the advantage of a little rest and choosing to have the sun at his back or the slight elevation. Is that worth -4 or -5...? I wouldn't think so. A river, sure. A small knoll, hardly.
What I really miss is the ability to send CAV as a second, or bolstering army, where it's speed gave me some flexibility.
The 0.2 value is small, but is just enough to get help get CAV to that battle that's going badly. I like that "saved by the Cavalry" notion that's in every movie since they invented the western. Sure it's a cheesy premise, but from a tactical standpoint, sending a CAV force that can travel fast and effect the battle outcome vs. sending an army that won't and losing the initial battle is a sound strategy decision. Whether it was employed in history or not, which I can't imagine that it wasn't, is also moot, as this is alternate history.
Once ART and heavy fire INF roll along, they have alot of firepower to bring to bear even with the terrain modifiers. You aren't going to get out of it for free.
It's a sound battle doctrine to use. It's not 'gamey'. The conditions, units and program make it seem that way, but if you can send your CAV to chase down and kill the enemy, you do. If you can send them round the mountain or across the valley and meet them on a field of your choosing, you do. You don't simply let them run away.
Sorry for the wall. I haven't done one in awhile, and the fingers just kept going and going...
T
