Yeah. You asked for a situation, I gave one. This is a thread about cav being viable, I didn't think it was a question of whether it was viable in 1615 or 1780 or 1820 only.
Is Cavalry worth it - discussion
- Thread starter Kryndude
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
cavs don't replace cannons, no idea why you are comparing between the two
- 1
Mercs have generally made everything that affects manpower become more important. It's also made damage dealt/received modifiers more important.
But OP only examined Western units, for now. It would indeed be very interesting to see numbers about other Tech Groups.
Without the use of the higher flanking range, Western Cav isn't better than Western Inf in 1444. At best it is a touch better. So if it is possible to win a war with say 9/4, than it is possible to win the same war with 13/0 too. And if not, than 14/0 should suffice, which is still cheaper than 9/4.
Somehow I suppose, you are thinking about (way) better Cav, like Hordes Cav. Sure, the better the Cav compared to its Inf, the more attractive it is to fill a small army, which is already above FL, with Cav.
I have (almost) no experience with Hordes, so what would be the break even point, if I want to replace Cav with Inf to get the same military strength? Do I need 15,16, 17 or even more instead of 9/4? 16 or 17 should still be a bit cheaper than 9/4, but only if manpower allows recruiting regular units.
So yes, in case of superior Cav, low manpower, low FL and a highly critical war situation: Cav is a better solution.
If this is the only situation plus the problems with assaulting and unit deployment, Cav is represented in the game very purely. Almost useless.
In the attached file, for each tech group's Infantry VS Cavalry, dice 9, comparison chart, if the A-B value for morale is lower than -0.5, I think it's safe to say that cavalry is significantly stronger than infantry based on comparisons with simulation results. Whether it would be worth the cost and hassle would depend on your in-game situation.
Thank you, I will have a look at it.
One more little trick I recently discovered. Well, probably re-inventing the wheel once more.
Rebels of my nation get my values and unit types. If I choose for Cav the worst possible from Tech 1, Rebel Cav will be as weak as possible.
But as I don't have any Cav, I am not weakening myself.
- 5
- 1
as an opm why are you not calling allies to war, or joing a war via enforce peace? you'd also wanna just whitepeace the non co beligernets
I know mughals get 50% off artillery with age bonus, but is it really worth it to have 10k that early on?
Yes, definitely, I think so.
When I first attacked Vijy, he and his friends had 13 forts. With about +25% to +50% defensiveness. A lot of siege work, so my army was 50/0/40 at that time to do this job. That is an illustration of my former point about the importance of sieges and having no use and money for Cav.
For the battles:
This is not a textbook example. Attacking into the jungle and certainly not a necessary battle. But a helpful one. I had some manpower in reserve with slacken standards and I knew my army was very good.
25/0/25 is the optimal battle setup given my cavless army and the CW of 25. Level 7 artillery might be not very strong, but every spot occupied in the backrow helps.
I just reinforce with a 10-stack from the southwest to ensure the 2 to 1 superiorty.
The reason I win this battle with a stackwipe are all the modifiers. I have taken no military idea. This is just max AT, prestige, PP, Golden Era, a 5/6 general and a discipline advisor. Plus +5% disci from a NI and a strict ruler each. Tech advantage because of Renaissance and taking Mil Techs on time.
Just the typical player vs weak AI, no magic. But I had battles like this in mind, when I talked about not needing Cav, once the game has progressed some years.
Yeah if you want to micro it you can change all your units to trash and then change them back before you engage. It makes less of a difference than you'd think, though.
- 1
shrug
Just giving an example man. In 1444 it's conceivable that you wouldn't have an ally to join you via promise land or that you could run into other similar situation.
If you haven't tried Poland, they are like hordes in some ways when discussing cavalry. They are one of EU4's many, many edge-cases. But they are actually more formidable in some ways when it comes to horses.
Last edited:
I was under the impression that they made rebels use best troop type available rather than what player has selected due to this quite a number of patches ago?
My impression is that this change is from years ago, not recently. You can still type swap to play games with morale though.
- 1