Is Cavalry worth it - discussion

[Kryndude]

I wrote this thread some time ago in an attempt to properly evaluate unit types and combat modifiers. I have no knowledge of programming so I'm still not certain if the combat calculator I made is 100% accurate, but I concluded that it was close enough to the real game numbers. However, yesterday, I discovered that this spreadsheet still gets referenced a lot even though it seems to be misinformation according to my calculations, so I posted a reddit thread trying to clarify that. Then I got into an argument with /u/Iwassnow on whether cavalry is worth it. He introduced me to a much better combat simulator and I was able to verify my own test results with it.

In the discussion we had on reddit, /u/Iwassnow argued that cavalry is almost never worth the cost because the difference it makes is insignificant compared to other combat modifiers such as discipline, and because the small advantage you get from utilizing cavalry isn't worth the micromanagement and cost, especially in single-player against the AI.

My argument is that there are certain tech levels that make cavalry significantly stronger for a specific period of time, so it is not optimal to dismiss cavalry entirely. You may choose to not bother with the micro, but that doesn't change the fact that, if you are willing to put in the effort, you could played the game a bit more optimally.

I decided to bring the discussion over to this forum because 1. reddit format is not suitable for extended conversation and 2. I'd like to hear what others think of this topic.


So here's an infantry vs cavalry comparison chart that I made back when I was doing the analysis. I picked a few tech levels with different infantry to cavalry strength disparity to see if there's a correlation between my test results and the pdxsimulator.

Here's why I chose these tech levels for comparison based on the table above.

Tech 4 - strong cavalry (no artillery)
Tech 6 - weak cavalry (no artillery)
Tech 9 - relatively even
Tech 18 - strongest cavalry (with and without artillery)
Tech 23 - moderately strong cavalry (with artillery)
Tech 32 - Cavalry suffer heavy losses but still wins the fight (with artillery)

12% / 2% means that against a control-group army consisting of only infantry (and artillery) with no military modifiers applied, an infantry army with 5% discipline made it 12% more likely to win and suffer 2% less losses than the base army.



Here's how it looks on pdxsimulator. Some of the screenshots won't upload properly for some reason, so I'll attach a zip file instead.

Tech 4 - infantry base VS cavalry base

I chose to include maximum ratio of cavalry with a little bit of room left for battle losses, because if cavalry is stronger than infantry that's what you would want to do.




Conclusion.

From what I can tell, there seems to be a strong correlation between my calculations and the sim result, and one thing I can say for certain is that discipline does not render cavalry meaningless. Now, whether it's worth the cost is a different issue and it would vary from time to time. If it allows you to win an early war, it would be worth it. If, in mid-game, you're in a cavalry-weak tech level and you need to start snow-balling your economy with buildings, it'd definitely not be worth the cost. If, in the late-game, money becomes abundant and cavalry gives you edge in terms of strength per combat-width and manpower, then cavalry would become viable again.

So far my opinion is unchanged. Cavalry can be viable. Neglecting it entirely just isn't the optimal way to play the game. I am, however, eager to hear what others have to say.

 

[Piotrzeci]

Saying cavalry is almost never worth it's cost is simply not true. In the early game it's really good due to a 2 units flanking range and not just 1 like infantry, they also mostly deal the damage in shock phase, so you can focus your early generals on the shock value, their stats are higher too. While I agree they might not really be useful in a larger army or once useful canons come in and Fire value is more important, but they work great early on. Snowball of first decades is important and it's better to pay a bit more for a better army than save cash.

 

[Kryndude]

Saying cavalry is almost never worth it's cost is simply not true. In the early game it's really good due to a 2 units flanking range and not just 1 like infantry, they also mostly deal the damage in shock phase, so you can focus your early generals on the shock value, their stats are higher too. While I agree they might not really be useful in a larger army or once useful canons come in and Fire value is more important, but they work great early on. Snowball of first decades is important and it's better to pay a bit more for a better army than save cash.

I believe that's one of the few exceptions that was mentioned by /u/Iwassnow. I go far as to say that cavalry is worth it even in mid/late game due to powerspike form certain tech levels. Not always, since you might be behind in economy or not in need of expensive military improvements, but the choice is there.

 

[petertju]

I remember a video from Arumba vaguely about it. One point about it is the actual cost from cavalry compared to infantry, you can have 2,5 more infantry for the same price. So the comparison of 1 vs. 1 division is not really correct, it should be 2,5 vs. 1.

 

[Kryndude]

I remember a video from Arumba vaguely about it. One point about it is the actual cost from cavalry compared to infantry, you can have 2,5 more infantry for the same price. So the comparison of 1 vs. 1 division is not really correct, it should be 2,5 vs. 1.

I disagree. Your strength is restricted by combat width, and manpower is also one of many resources you have to take into account. It's not as simple as 2.5 infantry vs 1 cavalry. If you're fighting an evenly matched enemy and you need every bit of edge you can get, and if cavalry can provide you with that, you could argue that 2.5 times the cost is worth it.

edit: So then the question is whether cavalry helps you win battles and, if it does, by what margin. I tried to answer that in my unit analysis thread.

 

[iClipse]

One of the things that's often neglected is that Cavalry is useful in trying to stackwipe the opponent.

Say, a simple war. Very early game. You have 14 regiments (10 infantry + cav) and your opponent has 2 stacks of 10 regiments (so 20 in total), you can very easily win that war by stackwiping the enemy stacks. If they're on top of each other, don't engage. The moment they're split, you can swoop in and stack them.

EU4 single player is not simply a game where you always have equal numbers as your opponent and always have your combat width filled. Especially early game. You have to try to have more than your opponent in a per stack basis, and cavalry helps making your stacks overpower the enemy better. So a 1 for 1 comparison simply doesn't do it justice.

 

[Kryndude]

You have to try to have more than your opponent in a per stack basis, and cavalry helps making your stacks overpower the enemy better. So a 1 for 1 comparison simply doesn't do it justice.

It does help you evaluate individual strength of unit types. First step to figuring out the strongest single stack you can field at a given tech level is deciding which unit types you want to use. Then you have to decide the army comp, and infantry vs cavalry comparison helps you with that. It's not totally irrelevant, although it has its limit as you pointed out. That's why I did a few tests with the pdxsimulator to see if it agrees with my calculation, so far I think it does.

 

[ImAdrian]

I always just use the number of cavalry needed to cover my flanking range. That means 4 cav at tech 1-16, 6 cav at tech 18-22, and 8 cav at tech 23+.

 

[Miganto]

If you're looking at 1v1 (which you seem to) then yes, most of the time it's not really worth the extra cost, but they're not meant to be looked at that way, you're missing a key stat that makes them stronger than infantry and that's the flanking range, so your maths has to consider that you are building an army in such a way that you face enemies where you can use your flanking range never / at times / most of the time / always.

It's the same idea as artillery cost more because their benefits are a) they can fire from the back row and b) they assist in sieges. If you just do a 1v1 of them verses infantry then you can also equate that they're not worth it, but most calculations will assume art is on the back row because that's where they will be most of the time and where their benefit really shines.

You have to include the average benefits of all aspects of each to get a full 'value', at the moment it seems like you've taken the absolute minimum value of the cavalry and as you come back with some positives, it means that cav are pretty good if utilised correctly.

Something like;
5v7 units, but 2 are cav in the first, all are inf in the second. The first option (with cav) wins by so much that the extra cost of cav is very much worth it compared to having extra infantry, but again this is 'best case scenario' where your cav are fully utilised. I'm sure you get my point

 

[Kryndude]

I always just use the number of cavalry needed to cover my flanking range. That means 4 cav at tech 1-16, 6 cav at tech 18-22, and 8 cav at tech 23+.

Here's my thoughts on what the ideal army comp is.


1. Infantry is stronger than cavalry

>> use only infantry if
a) you don't like micromanaging armies
b) you don't care about stack-wiping straggler armies

>> cover your flanking range with cavalry if
c) you're willing to micro for better chances of stackwipes



2. Infantry is weaker than cavalry

>> don't bother with horses if
a) you don't like micromanaging armies
b) it's before late game and you'd rather invest the gold into snow-balling your economy

>> use as many cavalry as you'd like without triggering the ratio penalty if
c) gold is abundant
d) you need better military

 

[Vin55]

I normally have at least 4 cav bats early game and 6 to mid end game, the rest infantry and art. evenly matched and it works fine, I mean obviously if you are Poland or antother nation with cav buffs, you should build more of it, but yeah.

 

[Kryndude]

If you're looking at 1v1 (which you seem to) then yes, most of the time it's not really worth the extra cost, but they're not meant to be looked at that way, you're missing a key stat that makes them stronger than infantry and that's the flanking range, so your maths has to consider that you are building an army in such a way that you face enemies where you can use your flanking range never / at times / most of the time / always.

It's the same idea as artillery cost more because one of their benefits is a) they can fire from the back row and b) they assist in sieges. If you just do a 1v1 of them verses infantry then you can also equate that they're not worth it, but most calculations will assume art is on the back row because that's where they will be most of the time and where their benefit really shines.

You have to include the average benefits of all aspects of each to get a full 'value', at the moment it seems like you've taken the absolute minimum value of the cavalry and as you come back with some positives, it means that cav are pretty good if utilised correctly.

Something like;
5v7 units, but 2 are cav in the first, all are inf in the second. The first option (with cav) wins by so much that the extra cost of cav is very much worth it compared to having extra infantry, but again this is 'best case scenario' where your cav are fully utilised. I'm sure you get my point
View attachment 660551

View attachment 660552

I do acknowledge the limits of my 1v1 tests, which is why I verified them with the simulator to see if the 1v1 results can be used to predict full combat-width battles. I deliberately neglected the flanking range advantage cavalry has because it's a situational bonus and, in theory, past mid game you're supposed to fight full-width battles most of the time. My argument is that in specific tech levels cavalry can be worth using in even full-width battles, and thus the ideal army comp in those situations (given that money is less of an issue) would be max number of cavs just below the infantry to cavalry ratio.

 

[Miganto]

I do acknowledge the limits of my 1v1 tests, which is why I verified them with the simulator to see if the 1v1 results can be used to predict full combat-width battles. I deliberately neglected the flanking range advantage cavalry has because it's a situational bonus and, in theory, past mid game you're supposed to fight full-width battles most of the time. My argument is that in specific tech levels cavalry can be worth using in even full-width battles, and thus the ideal army comp in those situations (given that money is less of an issue) would be max number of cavs just below the infantry to cavalry ratio.

Indeed so your info is a useful baseline for equal / max CW fights and if you are able to get into a better situation than that, then you will get better results by far by using some cavalry in your army

 

[Kryndude]

I normally have at least 4 cav bats early game and 6 to mid end game, the rest infantry and art. evenly matched and it works fine, I mean obviously if you are Poland or antother nation with cav buffs, you should build more of it, but yeah.

This can go both ways. In some tech levels, you're better off using no cavalry at all, and in other levels you want more than your flanking range, given that money is not an issue, of-course. See my original post for details.

In-depth Analysis of Unit Types & Combat Statistics (Error found, check my comments plz)

This is a follow-up to my previous post: In-depth Analysis of Land Combat, Unit Types, and the Viability of Cavalry Table of Contents Introduction Best Infantry Best Cavalry Best Artillery Infantry vs Cavalry Combat Stats Comparison a...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Kryndude]

Indeed so your info is a useful baseline for equal / max CW fights and if you are able to get into a better situation than that, then you will get better results by far by using some cavalry in your army

Yep, I even used die roll 9 for my inf vs cav comparison for each tech group to exaggerate the importance of fire phase, because many people argued that the initial fire phase advantage infantry has over cavalry simply eliminates cavalry's shock phase advantage, which isn't always true. The table I used for this post is with die roll 4.5 tho. So if you want to be conservative about when to use cavalry you can check out the attached files in my previous post.

 

[ImAdrian]

I deliberately neglected the flanking range advantage cavalry has because it's a situational bonus and, in theory, past mid game you're supposed to fight full-width battles most of the time.

Depends also if you are in singleplayer or multiplayer.
In single player, even in late game, you can very often catch armies of the AI that are under combat width. Especially if you're fighting a lot of different countries, and they can't all afford full width.

 

[Kryndude]

Depends also if you are in singleplayer or multiplayer.
In single player, even in late game, you can very often catch armies of the AI that are under combat width. Especially if you're fighting a lot of different countries, and they can't all afford full width.

I agree, so if anything cavalry should be more viable in singleplayer. The counter-argument was that in singleplayer you don't need optimal gameplay to beat the AI and that micromanaging cavalry is not worth the benefits of doing so. While I agree to that statement alone, I don't think it's a relevant argument in terms of evaluating what is optimal.

Multiplayer is a different story because 1. you almost always fight full combat-width battles and 2. you need to give movement orders real time which makes micromanaging cavalry less feasible.

 

[Bignucciox]

In my opinion cavalry became more relevant with the introduction of mercenary companies, especially manpowerwise. Before the companies got into the game all of my mid-late game infantry was made of mercenary regiments making manpower irrelevant.

 

[Vin55]

This can go both ways. In some tech levels, you're better off using no cavalry at all, and in other levels you want more than your flanking range, given that money is not an issue, of-course. See my original post for details.

In-depth Analysis of Unit Types & Combat Statistics (Error found, check my comments plz)

This is a follow-up to my previous post: In-depth Analysis of Land Combat, Unit Types, and the Viability of Cavalry Table of Contents Introduction Best Infantry Best Cavalry Best Artillery Infantry vs Cavalry Combat Stats Comparison a...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

I know but I am normally in a position were I have that kind on money, and to preserve manpower I stick with one design and upgrade all armies by the extramenu (dont know how to call that xd).
I mean over 50percent of the time cav is worth it and why not if you have the money but obviousily overall buff to your army are better and should be priority number1

 

[Kryndude]

I mean over 50percent of the time cav is worth it and why not if you have the money but obviousily overall buff to your army are better and should be priority number1

Over 50% of the time is being quite generous. You do have to consider the cost (as you've mentioned) and the fact that even with equal luck, high average die roll exaggerates fire phase advantage of infantry. Here's the results with 9 average dice rolls. If we compare the A-B values with simulations results, around -100 'Men' differential leads to equal amount of winrate improvement to discipline 5% but with much better kill/death ratio. If we take that as a standard we only get tech 11, 19, and maybe 18. If we lower the standard to -50 'Men' then we get tech 3, 4, 10~13, 18, 19, and 23. Other tech groups have different cavalry peak times.