has anyone tried making armies that are only calvary? for example or only infantry (i get that is pretty common since many nations don't have horses). would doing this be beneficial? maybe faster travel speed? or would it not be a good idea? also did this happen historically? thanks
-
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.
i've tried it as Parthia. My 30,000 Calvary stacks were being wiped out by stacks of 40,000 militia. Go figure.
Early on, all-cavalry armies are suboptimal. They might really shine once you can get the cataphracts, at tech level 15, but before that Heavy Infantry is probably a better choice.
Also, they cannot be used for assaults, so you would still need to keep some infantry armies for that
Also, they cannot be used for assaults, so you would still need to keep some infantry armies for that
Thats quite strange... as Parthia I always split my Cav from the Inf. I find it's the only way to make any head away at all, if you've got a 20k stack of Cav catching the Seleucid armies when they're still between 20-30k rather than the game ending 40-60k monster armies, you might just last long enough that you can get another white peace... *sigh*
According to the FAQ, cavalry is at 70% power vs heavy infantry, and with their higher upkeep and cost, I really wouldn't use a pure cavalry army in the early game.
Nitpicking: Calvary or Golgotha are the English language/Western Christian names given to the site, outside of ancient Jerusalem’s early 1st century walls, ascribed to Jesus's crucifixion. While Cavalry (from French cavalerie) were soldiers or warriors who fought mounted on horseback in combat.
Pedant /pɛdnt/
–noun
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
4. Obsolete. a schoolmaster.
[Origin: 1580–90; < It pedante teacher, pedant; appar. akin to pedagogue; see -ant]
–noun
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
4. Obsolete. a schoolmaster.
[Origin: 1580–90; < It pedante teacher, pedant; appar. akin to pedagogue; see -ant]
To return to the OPs original question:
In earlier versions of the game, I've run Parthia with cavalry/horse archer armies and have met with success. However, you have to optimize your country for using this kind of army, or you will lose more often than is practical.
1) Take Cataphracts as a national idea. The +100% to offensive makes your cavalry much more effective, and offsets their high cost.
2) Choose Hellenistic Warfare when the option becomes available. Roman warfare doesn't have the right kinds of bonuses for cavalry, and has no bonuses for horse archers. (Parthian Shot is only available for Hellenistic Warfare, I think.)
3) Optimize your cavalry/horse archer stacks just like you would with heavy infantry/archers. I recommend 2:1, but your mileage may vary.
4) Hire auxiliaries (cheap ones like militia) to conduct sieges and assaults, while you pursue defeated armies with your cavalry forces. There's nothing more depressing than having your very mobile and potent cavalry army sitting around conducting a siege when it could be off killing enemies.
I haven't tried it out with 1.2, but I don't imagine things are that different, other than now you can annihilate retreating armies if you catch them with low morale and while they are understrength.
In earlier versions of the game, I've run Parthia with cavalry/horse archer armies and have met with success. However, you have to optimize your country for using this kind of army, or you will lose more often than is practical.
1) Take Cataphracts as a national idea. The +100% to offensive makes your cavalry much more effective, and offsets their high cost.
2) Choose Hellenistic Warfare when the option becomes available. Roman warfare doesn't have the right kinds of bonuses for cavalry, and has no bonuses for horse archers. (Parthian Shot is only available for Hellenistic Warfare, I think.)
3) Optimize your cavalry/horse archer stacks just like you would with heavy infantry/archers. I recommend 2:1, but your mileage may vary.
4) Hire auxiliaries (cheap ones like militia) to conduct sieges and assaults, while you pursue defeated armies with your cavalry forces. There's nothing more depressing than having your very mobile and potent cavalry army sitting around conducting a siege when it could be off killing enemies.
I haven't tried it out with 1.2, but I don't imagine things are that different, other than now you can annihilate retreating armies if you catch them with low morale and while they are understrength.
I only use all cav for stomping peasants rebellions and the odd small barbarian stack. All cav doesn't have enough positives to be worth it for fighting actual wars. They lose too often, are too expensive, take longer to recruit, and can't assault in sieges.
I'd tend to totally disagree with needing to make militia armies for assault, but it's more personal preference. Assaulting usually fails (or I am hugely unlucky) unless you have already waited for a while regardless for the target to weaken. At this point, infantry will save you time, however where cavalry units will save you time is by laying siege to many more targets. Either one can be a time saver, but against a large empire I think small bands of cavalry running all over is way more effective. The enemy will either also end up running all over (and never catching you, because they don't do all cavalry), or you will just get many free territories instead of one if they don't.
I'll have to pay more attention, but I don't think horse archers are directly applicable as a replacement for archers (meaning the combat screen has archers behind infantry, but I don't think it has horse archers behind cavalry if you have no infantry, so the theorized bonus to front line would not be the same), but I can't swear to that without looking again. I just like horse archers because they perform at least decent against anything.
I'll have to pay more attention, but I don't think horse archers are directly applicable as a replacement for archers (meaning the combat screen has archers behind infantry, but I don't think it has horse archers behind cavalry if you have no infantry, so the theorized bonus to front line would not be the same), but I can't swear to that without looking again. I just like horse archers because they perform at least decent against anything
.
Last edited:
Late game, as the Seleucids, I made a 30k stack of elephants, and I use them to mop up enemy forces. My main forces for the initial border crossings are 30 to 40k stacks of mixed infantry and cavalry. I'll use 3 or 4 stacks of those for sieges and assaults. I usually assault again and again to try to end the war within a year.
After I defeat the enemy army, I send the elephants to where the enemy forces are retreating to.
I took the cataphract / cavalry path in the tech tree.
After I defeat the enemy army, I send the elephants to where the enemy forces are retreating to.
I took the cataphract / cavalry path in the tech tree.
JZ_UK said:Pedant /pɛdnt/
–noun
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
4. Obsolete. a schoolmaster.
[Origin: 1580–90; < It pedante teacher, pedant; appar. akin to pedagogue; see -ant]
Why am I assuming you are describing your self? MAybe as a native you use to speak slang (corkney maybe , do you), but as a non english speaking person I do get piss off by native spelling PROVENCE instead of PROVINCE and who get unhappy when they are told PROVENCE is the name of a french PROVINCE , having that name since the roman empire. Same apply for the case of CALVARY and CAVALRY.
Still OT, native who are unable to speak or spell correctly their own language are at best intellectually chalenged (or to make it straight having a very low IQ near to the medical definition of idiotism) but more surely being people without culture (the intellectual one, not the agricultural one) and for sure having a very narrow mindset as they also refuse any correction of their mistakes.
So it's easy to call pedant another fella, but fact the fella at least know how to spell, how to type correctly on a keyboard, and in more it seems the fella have knowledge in both religion (Golgotha colline) and also in foreign language (corkney or even yob are simply slangs, not language nor even dialect).
This forum, long time ago (4/5 years ago) used to be a friendly places where the discussions were almost intellectual. Since that time, more and more it became a place were uneducated, unpolite, underaged people come trying to force on others they own mediocrity, mediocrity not only related to the horrific way of spelling their own language, but and in my opinion is worst, mediocrity related to their own vision of the past history.
I precise that is not a rant, exemple of what I say are already in Rome Forum by dozen, and are by hundreds in the whole forum. REsult being peoples who made that forum a very particular places simply did not come anymore and mostly discussion are those kids of 6 years old can have ( my dad have a better car than your dad because my dad car is red like a ferari ....).
Have a nice day
ericB said:
Actually I contracted cavalry to "Cav" so no, while I may be guilty of using jargon we all understand I hardly think I've butchered the English language. Coincidently Coc kney is both an accent and a dialect (and possibly a label based on where a person was born), not slang, coincidently... as may be inferred from my location I don't have a cockney accent nor do I make much use of the dialect
If you intend to come charging in on your holier than thou pedant horse, be sure you're bearing down on the right target and have a weapon... :rofl:
At the best intellectually challenged? My word we're making sweeping statements aren't we? There's a wide range of reasons people misspell things, from laziness to dyslexia to simply not paying attention to making mistakes based on phonetics...
Coincidently... the term "idoitism" fell out of favour with the medical community, retardation or severe learning difficulties are more modern and acceptable terms.
Your syntax is wrong, "It's easy to call another fella a pedant" (I'm sorry mate, but seriously, if you come all guns blazing... do make sure you're in the right.) Coincidently... the little "
" at the end of my post implied a lighthearted tone to it, rather than a personal attack... I do assume that the poster would have recognized this as my intention.As I noted, you're misusing the word slang.
Nostalgia, like patriotism is a funny old force... suffice to say, I think you'll rarely come across a true golden age...
I won't list my qualifications, but I assure you, I am not uneducated... I do have another date with the gown and mortarboard in less than 2 months as a matter of fact...
Impolite, not unpolite.
underage does not require the "ed" suffix, indeed it is incorrect to attach it
I don't much care for cars, but its Ferrari :rofl:
I will thank you, you have one too mate
Look: we got a nice little cat-fight here, don't we?
Well, well … i can say, i found it – despite the risen dispute here – entertaining, both in a humorous and intellectual way.
Just one addition: Not "hard-boiled" pedantry (or whatever you might/wanna call it) should be the the playground for any "foreign-tong(ou)er" (excuse me this neologism, just seemed fitting), but intellectual interchange (or -course, if you prefer :rofl: ).
An example, maybe. I did not find in the english article on ellipsis, so i assume it (the ellipsis) is not used alike, but for me (as a german) it makes sense to do: An ellipsis may indicate left out words, groups of words or whole sentences, when used like this: [sentence] … [sentence], [words] … [words], [words] … [sentence] and vice versa. However, if used in german like this: [wor]… (e.g. assh…) or [wo]…[rd] it indicates an omittance within a word itself (not that common though) or at the beginning or at the end of it (assh… in my case completing to asshole).
Is this the case within the english language, too? (Hope to have myself explained accurate(ly) enough.)
But, certainly, ericB has some point in his sayings/writings, that i have to agree with. Not especially regarding this board, but many other boards as well and the internet in general.
ps: but i have to admit that i, personally, like that kind of orthographic nitpicking related to context, because many people make mistakes in that field and don't even know it - but phonetics does not (and should not) have to do anyrhing with it *hrhr* (though wordplays, that i really like, rely on that)
pps: concerning my grammar: please forgive me, but i never got (and maybe never will get) used to the english one, as i find it to undifferentiating, especially when it comes to nested sentences. the longer the sentence is, the more often you have to read it, to assess where one of the subsentences ends and another begins. it's more of an exploration of the semantic.
and now … nuff spoken ot
Well, well … i can say, i found it – despite the risen dispute here – entertaining, both in a humorous and intellectual way.
Just one addition: Not "hard-boiled" pedantry (or whatever you might/wanna call it) should be the the playground for any "foreign-tong(ou)er" (excuse me this neologism, just seemed fitting), but intellectual interchange (or -course, if you prefer :rofl: ).
An example, maybe. I did not find in the english article on ellipsis, so i assume it (the ellipsis) is not used alike, but for me (as a german) it makes sense to do: An ellipsis may indicate left out words, groups of words or whole sentences, when used like this: [sentence] … [sentence], [words] … [words], [words] … [sentence] and vice versa. However, if used in german like this: [wor]… (e.g. assh…) or [wo]…[rd] it indicates an omittance within a word itself (not that common though) or at the beginning or at the end of it (assh… in my case completing to asshole).
Is this the case within the english language, too? (Hope to have myself explained accurate(ly) enough.)
But, certainly, ericB has some point in his sayings/writings, that i have to agree with. Not especially regarding this board, but many other boards as well and the internet in general.
ps: but i have to admit that i, personally, like that kind of orthographic nitpicking related to context, because many people make mistakes in that field and don't even know it - but phonetics does not (and should not) have to do anyrhing with it
*hrhr* (though wordplays, that i really like, rely on that)pps: concerning my grammar: please forgive me, but i never got (and maybe never will get) used to the english one, as i find it to undifferentiating, especially when it comes to nested sentences. the longer the sentence is, the more often you have to read it, to assess where one of the subsentences ends and another begins. it's more of an exploration of the semantic.
and now … nuff spoken ot
Last edited:
I would like to offer an alliance to EricB, as long as I get a Causus Belli against JZ_UK. (Bleah, can I even do that ? I'm certain I couldn't offer an alliance if I was at war...)
Secret Master -- your tips here are worth twice their weight in gold. My only regret in life is that I purchased the regular version of Rome: EU, and thus, am unable to view your colonization guide. Er, colonisation guide, or whatever they are calling it in the UK these days.
Regardless, this game rocks, and once again, I am up way too late.
Secret Master -- your tips here are worth twice their weight in gold. My only regret in life is that I purchased the regular version of Rome: EU, and thus, am unable to view your colonization guide. Er, colonisation guide, or whatever they are calling it in the UK these days.
Regardless, this game rocks, and once again, I am up way too late.
errr... shouldn't that be it's. Pronouns don't require an apostrophe in their posessive form but that was clearly a contraction of "it is".
I see you pedantry, sir, and raise you a downright anal.
[N.b. to pre-empt any bashing of my anality: this post is meant in the spirit of friendly fun-pokery]
[Hey look! I used a colon there; now that's flash]
[Ooh! A semi colon too. I'm on a roll, baby! Yeah!]
FunkyDexter said:errr... shouldn't that be it's. Pronouns don't require an apostrophe in their posessive form but that was clearly a contraction of "it is".
I see you pedantry, sir, and raise you a downright anal.
[N.b. to pre-empt any bashing of my anality: this post is meant in the spirit of friendly fun-pokery]
[Hey look! I used a colon there; now that's flash]
[Ooh! A semi colon too. I'm on a roll, baby! Yeah!]
I thought sentences began with upper case letters. You are obviously mis-using the english language in a most grievous way, please don't do that.
Seeing how many similar topics pops up, I'll try to make a comprehensive list of current values and compare various troop types. In the same time (as soon as I'm back from holiday - about a week's time) I should finally release my Military Mod for 1.2, which is ready but not tested nor uploaded anywhere...