Late game land warfare

[unmerged(40258)]

EDIT: whoops, meant to say LAND WARFARE, not NAVAL.. could it be changed pretty please? /Edit

I am watching a great Napoleon movie, and paused a second to express a thought. In the battle of Eylau of 1807, the cavalry charge led by Murat really changed the outcome, saving the French from a clear loss.

In game terms, cavalry is not used in MP, or it might be just me that finds it rather obsolete. I always tend to build infatry+art armies in the late game. Do you do the same? and don't you find it rather historical inaccurate?

Thanks,
Fnuco.

 

[-Lyko-]

EDIT: whoops, meant to say LAND WARFARE, not NAVAL.. could it be changed pretty please? /Edit

I am watching a great Napoleon movie, and paused a second to express a thought. In the battle of Eylau of 1807, the cavalry charge led by Murat really changed the outcome, saving the French from a clear loss.

In game terms, cavalry is not used in MP, or it might be just me that finds it rather obsolete. I always tend to build infatry+art armies in the late game. Do you do the same? and don't you find it rather historical inaccurate?

Thanks,
Fnuco.

well in later battles armies had like 100k inf but only 5-10k cav so u could still have cav in late game to get better shocl value on plains etc. but if u don't ahve neough inf in a battle u'll get killed in the fire phase. and yes CAv was a shock unit in latter battles only used to charge into exposed flanks and make the enemy army to waver and flee.

 

[BurningEGO]

Preilish Ailau, Yes? Well, first, it was in Russia soil. Right in the middle of the winter. In case you dont know, muskets or whatever weapons the french and everyone used, couldnt fire in such a weather. Only Artilery could be used nicely. It was a complete stalemate. Bayonets arent the ideal for close combat. Cuirasiers had Sabres, and sabres are far better for melee combat. Not to mention that most troops werent even taugh on how to use the Bayonet. Specially the Russians. Cuirasiers also used a Cuirass (i think it is that the name used in english), which protected them from enemy gun fire. But Cavalry wasnt only "Shock Troops". Apart from the Cuirasiers, Don Cossacks, Hussars, and many others, there were Dragoons, Heavy Dragoons, and even Mounted Grenadiers, amongst others as well. (EDITED: eh, i forgot about the Mameluks... They were amongst the best cavalry troops in their time. Even Napoleon knew that)

But yes, in eu2 cavalry is pretty useless. Cavalry saved Napoleon a couple of times. Preilish Ailau as you said, and Aspern-Essling, where many french generals died. Lann was one of them.

P.S. i remember in one nappy, where i was playing as Austria, i beated a major french army composed of 100k troops (only inf and arty), with 100k cavalry. Engaged them in Milan, and their army was totaly wiped out, together with Davout, iirc. Call me lucky!

 

[Casluerj]

Yes, Cav is important and can even be decisive. In a balance fight between, lets say, Nappy and Welli in plain, Cav superiority can really decide a fight. However dont use more than 5-10k or you'll lose ground in fire phase. Since ppl dont use cav at all 5k will be enough to gain shock bonus.

 

[unmerged(40674)]

cav and siege tactic!

5k cav in each army is a good idea ideed..but it's always nice to have just a big cav division by itself....like about 50k...for couple reasons:
- they move real fast...so that u can break enemy sieges( when enemies fail in trying to assault your provinces)
- do not underestimate the power of shock...it's more important than fire value. In fire phrase, you lose not that many men. but once it changes to shock value...your 50k cav can sometimes just sweep through....and total kill the entire enemy division.
- it is also the best way to kill off rebels more faster than infantry and cannon.

and so, in late game, i always use about 150 k cavs into 3 divions to open up the fields sweep through anemy lines and loot their provinces. Next, i slowly move my infantry+cav+cannon up to siege the provinces. i mean lots of cannons...in every siege..i prefer to have about 100 cannons..just to capture the provinces as fast as possible. .

 

[Fredrik82]

Troy,
i couldn't dissagree more

That tactics of yours works very well in early tech warfare, but hardly in a later situation.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

and so, in late game.... i mean lots of cannons...in every siege..i prefer to have about 100 cannons..just to capture the provinces as fast as possible. .

Eh, in late game you are almost never sieging small fortresses, definitely never in the center of actions, perhaps some place far away, and thus 100 guns is not enough to get max siege speed. You need to consult the FAQ.