Is it possible to stack infantry general and cavalry field marshal?

[Spelaren]

For cavalry?

 

[Eh up me duck]

Of course it's possible. Why wouldn't it be?

Not sure what you're asking...?

 

[Spelaren]

Of course it's possible. Why wouldn't it be?

Not sure what you're asking...?

Does using cavalry divisions with a infantry general and a cavalry field marshal stack the bonuses of both generals?

 

[Eh up me duck]

Does using cavalry divisions with a infantry general and a cavalry field marshal stack the bonuses of both generals?

No, cavalry and infantry are different types.

Edit - I am wrong. See below.

 

[el nora]

No, cavalry and infantry are different types.

Cavalry divisions are typed as infantry.

You can have both cavalry and infantry leader/expert on both your general and field marshal for a total of +30% to both attack and defense.

 

[Spelaren]

Cavalry divisions are typed as infantry.

You can have both cavalry and infantry leader/expert on both your general and field marshal for a total of +30% to both attack and defense.

Would it be worth it practically?

 

[Reman]

Would it be worth it practically?

Not really. Some people got really excited about cav-typing cheese when it was first discovered, but it practically only gives like +10%-20% to stats over regular infantry. This might sound like it could be worthwhile, but cav cost 20% more than infantry, make worse use of techs/doctrines, have worse terrain modifiers, use WAY more supply, etc. Even under the most optimized conditions (like having cav bonus high command, which some nations like Poland have), the effect is marginal at best.

 

[el nora]

Would it be worth it practically?

There's the odd circumstance. Once upon a time it was common to see 6-5 cav-inf MM doctrine from Bulgaria with stacked infantry + cavalry general field marshal and advisors on Atlantikwall defense.

it practically only gives like +10%-20% to stats over regular infantry. This might sound like it could be worthwhile, but cav cost 20% more than infantry, make worse use of techs/doctrines, have worse terrain modifiers, use WAY more supply, etc.

Those bonuses are independent of the actual number of battalions, whereas the maluses are. By splitting their priority weight, you can get the same +20% stats for less than the +20% cost and slightly less bad terrain mods. SF right left only gives infantry +10 org, which cav had already anyway, the extra defense is less than what would be gotten from the typing. And MM gives the infantry slightly more org and recovery but it's still worth splitting the typing for the extra stats in situations where you would want MM anyway (basically just static defense). SF right right does no favors for cav and MW even less.

 

[noobermenschen]

Would it be worth it practically?

It's situational. The earlier you fight the more effective they are. If you don't produce your own rubber and oil they can be a useful supplement to your few motorized or tank divisions for exploitation. If you are fighting through a lot of forest, mountains and swamps they are pretty fast compared to more expensive mobile divisions.

I use them a lot as Japan, keeping an army of 20 width in the field and maybe 1 or 2 armies of 10 width while slowly building up a force of 40 width MOT/Lt Tk units. I also have 24x20 width as Soviets in my current game though they are mostly plugging holes right now. China and the Warlords could probably get some use out of CAV depending on your strategy.