PI please rebalance Cavalry, look at in game unit description for ideas!

[1alexey]

Something the community argees almost unanomiusly, is that cavalry sucks. It is only usefull in early game, and is weak in midgame, an almost totally useless agter tech 22.

But it doesn`t have to be!

Well, first of all, the current ingame setup of fire and shock modifiers is pretty horrible. Cavalry was good at "fire" phase if you had the right kind of cavalry. While at least half of Western tech cavalry units heavilly relied on fire, in-game fire modifiers of cavalry make cavalry worthless at that phase, and cavalry doesn`t have enought fire defence pips to survive fire phase. Cavalry that is "suposed" to be focused on "fire" phase is worthless due to weapon modifier, and cavalry that is suposed to be focused on Shock, can not survive fire phase to deal damage later.

What I want to propose is a slight change in the way cavalry and infantry are balanced thrugh the tech tree, so that cavalry is still usefull at Napoleonic times and you would want to have close to historic numbers of cavalry(1/4 to 1/6 of army during Napoleonic wars). It would also introduce varaety of unit composition for armies, something that doesn`t exist currently, as the most effective composition is 4 CAV +Maxfrontage of Infantry+ Maxfrontage of Artillery.

So this is my concept:
1. "Classify" cavalry units into "Armoured", "heavy" and "light" by manuver(still only one cavalry unit for a nation, but manuver difference should also be present). Armoured cavalry has better defence pips but manuver of 2(Latin knights, Curasiers), Heavy cavalry balanced in terms of pips, has manuver of 3. Light cavalry is weaker in pips, but has manuver of 4. Hence light cavalry is better at phase where enemy`s lines are broken, and frontage is not fully filled since it can flank from higher distance, while armoured is strong but can not flank for long distance, and heavy is just balanced.
2. Change the way weapon modifiers progress. Make cavalry fire arround the same or even slightly more than infanrty`s after tech 14, when western tech get`s caracole.
3. Make cavalry`s shock modifier grow somewhat weaker, so that by mid-game the difference is less than 1.5 times, the infantry`s.
4. Make cavalry have comparale number of pips to infantry.

Cavalry is overally more manpower efficent, but costly, that is, by the way what your ingame diescription of some in game cavalry units says, like Prussian Uhlan cavalry

The first Uhlans were created in the early 18th Century. They were used primarily for reconnaissance for the more the Heavily Armored Cavalry, as well as being assigned to skirmishes. Later on in the 18th Century they became an essential part of the military's structure due to their light armor making them fast and agile on the battlefield and for their high shock value against their enemies, which in some cases turned the tide in Battles. The Uhlans were a good alternative to large Infantry Armies as they were not only heavy hitting but also more cost effective. This allowed smaller Nations with less manpower to actually put up an effective fight, as armies on foot were also slower compared to their mounted counterparts

.

Than way, your army composition becomes more interesting, important and dependent on circumstances.
If you`re rich country but with few manpower, your armies are more cavalry heavy, and your prefered type of cavalry should be heavy or armoured.
Nations that do not have manpower problenms can field lighter cavalry, that would allow them to flank from futher away, and deal more damage when the enemys lines are broken.
Nations with lots plains would want more cavalry and can rely on it for longer, like PLC, nations without big fields, less cavalry, but stronger hitting.

Also, depending on your generals and ideas, you may want a fire focused or shock focused calarly, and Aristocratic ideas and some country ideas that focus on cavalry become much more usefull as well.

In early game, cavalry will decide who win`s the battle. In later portions of the game, your infantry and artillery will decide who wins battles, but cavalry will determine how many enemies will manage to flee as cavalry will provide the extra force concentration against the broken lines, which is it`s one of it`s historicall role during Napoleonic times.

What i think would be a good end-game modifiers are this:

And cavalry pips:


Obviously, other tech groups will need to be rebalanced, but for now, let`s keep the discussion to western tech.

Discuss?

 

[Xeorm]

I don't think the engine would support more than 1 type of cavalry, nor do I think it should. Having one type of cavalry is fine though. Keeps things simple, doesn't complicate the system, and is still workable.

The two main issues I've seen with cavalry being useful have been that:

1. They have bad fire weapon modifiers, as noted, and don't scale high enough with shock to make up for it. It doesn't take too long until they're inferior by cost to straight infantry. Which isn't, necessarily, bad. Having more expensive but still strong troops isn't an awful thing. After a time, I think of them as "elite" troops. Still better per man than the infantry they're replacing, but not always worth the cost. Though I will admit to not checking the later values all too well. I don't play games long enough to get there, and so far have assumed that that's the case (that man for man, cavalry is better than infantry). If infantry are ever straight up better than cavalry, that needs to be changed.

2. It doesn't take long until that front line is filled, and maneuver becomes useless beyond crushing an already defeated foe. Not an awful role, quite a necessary one, were it not for the preferred method of killing an opponent to be catching the retreating army with little morale so you can mop up and eliminate the army entirely.

 

[1alexey]

I don't think the engine would support more than 1 type of cavalry, nor do I think it should. Having one type of cavalry is fine though. Keeps things simple, doesn't complicate the system, and is still workable.

You still have one type of cavalry to use for your army, just right now, all cavalry units have manuver of 2. I propose to change that so different cavalry has different manuver, namely 2, 3 an 4. All the chages can be modded in the current game with modding files.

1. They have bad fire weapon modifiers, as noted, and don't scale high enough with shock to make up for it. It doesn't take too long until they're inferior by cost to straight infantry. Which isn't, necessarily, bad. Having more expensive but still strong troops isn't an awful thing. After a time, I think of them as "elite" troops. Still better per man than the infantry they're replacing, but not always worth the cost. Though I will admit to not checking the later values all too well. I don't play games long enough to get there, and so far have assumed that that's the case (that man for man, cavalry is better than infantry). If infantry are ever straight up better than cavalry, that needs to be changed.

Infantry is better man for man after tech 18 at least. Pip difference in work.

2. It doesn't take long until that front line is filled, and maneuver becomes useless beyond crushing an already defeated foe. Not an awful role, quite a necessary one, were it not for the preferred method of killing an opponent to be catching the retreating army with little morale so you can mop up and eliminate the army entirely.

That niche is too small due to too small manuver value compared to frontage. In fact my proposal would expand the niche to be big enought to be actually usefull.

 

[Xeorm]

You still have one type of cavalry to choose from, just right now, all cavalry units have manuver of 2. I propose to change that so different cavalry has different manuver, namely 2, 3 an 4. All the chages can be modded in the current game with modding files.

I'd still say I'm not sure how well the system would handle changing maneuver values based on which brand of pips were selected. Plus I think you'd have weird troubles with making it balanced. That and how odd it would be to balance based on pips how many cavalry you can have flanking. Any army small enough and caught out of position is gonna melt, but at the same time if you dock pips enough to make it balanced, you'd run a very thin line between making them straight useless due to how the pips work.

 

[1alexey]

I'd still say I'm not sure how well the system would handle changing maneuver values based on which brand of pips were selected. Plus I think you'd have weird troubles with making it balanced. That and how odd it would be to balance based on pips how many cavalry you can have flanking. Any army small enough and caught out of position is gonna melt, but at the same time if you dock pips enough to make it balanced, you'd run a very thin line between making them straight useless due to how the pips work.

Manuver is a separate property of each unit just like pip, that is present in game files, but is not shown in the interface.

An yes, armies that face enemies with a lot of light cavalry and can not defeat them in the open, are in trouble, that is how it should be.

 

[sinkingmist]

This is the kind of thing you can mod, and should mod, and release it so everyone can play it and find out how much better it is (assuming you did a good job of it).
Then maybe Paradox will listen.
Until then, I doubt they would undertake what would amount to a significant rebalancing exercise, as it would be immensely time-consuming, and, unlike with a mod, a poor job of it by Paradox would be considered unacceptable by the community.

 

[Incompetent]

I think the problem isn't that late-game infantry devastate cavalry in the fire phase (this is accurate, at least against dedicated charge cavalry). It's that late-game infantry are a brick wall against cavalry even in the shock phase. Cavalry might have a better shock modifier, but they don't have enough pips to break through unless they have a genius shock general. Infantry shock pips shouldn't keep going up so fast - in fact, they should stagnate in the late game as infantry switched from 'pike and shot' formations to using the musket/rifle as their sole weapon. A rifle with bayonet is an OK melee weapon, but it's never going to be better than a true spear. Bayonet charges in the 18th/19th century were more about demoralising the enemy (or causing an already demoralised enemy to break) than they were about inflicting large numbers of casualties).

 

[1alexey]

I think the problem isn't that late-game infantry devastate cavalry in the fire phase (this is accurate, at least against dedicated charge cavalry). It's that late-game infantry are a brick wall against cavalry even in the shock phase. Cavalry might have a better shock modifier, but they don't have enough pips to break through unless they have a genius shock general. Infantry shock pips shouldn't keep going up so fast - in fact, they should stagnate in the late game as infantry switched from 'pike and shot' formations to using the musket/rifle as their sole weapon. A rifle with bayonet is an OK melee weapon, but it's never going to be better than a true spear. Bayonet charges in the 18th/19th century were more about demoralising the enemy (or causing an already demoralised enemy to break) than they were about inflicting large numbers of casualties).

Square formation did help a lot though. Also, half of cavalry units are suposed to be skirmishers, and have more fire pips than shock pips. Hencewhy fire modifier needs adjustment as well.

What do you think about the pips proposed?

This is the kind of thing you can mod, and should mod, and release it so everyone can play it and find out how much better it is (assuming you did a good job of it).

I play it myself at the moment.

Then maybe Paradox will listen.
Until then, I doubt they would undertake what would amount to a significant rebalancing exercise, as it would be immensely time-consuming, and, unlike with a mod, a poor job of it by Paradox would be considered unacceptable by the community.

If enought people see the problem, they will listen. They did add Reiter at level 10 after all the topics about how useless western cavalry was. I just proposed one of the possible solutions.

And they polished CK2 balance quite a lot.

 

[grandad1982]

Since we have multi cav type systems in CK2 and Vic2 I don't see why it wouldn't work here. Also a general rebalancing would be a good idea. Infantry shouldn't be so shock heavy later in the game.

 

[Incompetent]

Square formation did help a lot though. Also, half of cavalry units are suposed to be skirmishers, and have more fire pips than shock pips. Hencewhy fire modifier needs adjustment as well.

Square formation was strong against cavalry, but it was very vulnerable to artillery (as were all tight formations) and also had problems against infantry. Well-drilled infantry could be ordered to change formation quite quickly, but still, the element of surprise meant that they could often be caught in the 'wrong' formation. (Likewise with the order to affix bayonets, especially with early bayonets that prevented the gun from being fired.) This is a good justification for some kind of 'combined arms' bonus actually, instead of a penalty for too many cavalry.

As for half of the cavalry being skirmishers, this is true. I think the reasoning here is that skirmishers were a poor match for regular infantry in head-on, front-line combat, and their strength was more on the flanks. Firing from a horse is more difficult than firing on foot, which justifies a poor fire modifier to some extent, but then again, dragoons would often dismount in combat. So maybe overall, cavalry fire modifier should be only a little worse than infantry, as you suggest. I like your idea of having a choice of different cavalry types as well - I think more could be done with the unit types system to make the choice of type feel like it has more impact. But at the very least, heavy shock cavalry needs to be made stronger in the late game than it is now.

 

[kvk]

I like these ideas, Cav is too weak it's true, and is it just me or should nations with different tech groups not get worse units on top of their worse tech, or at least get a bit better units than they have now (every tech group thats not western)

 

[Peanutcat]

+1

 

[Charles Louis]

A part of the problem with expecting historical proportions of cavalry, is that many of the functions of cavalry are off the battlefield. Unless the game reflects those capacities in maneuver bonuses (shaving off a day or two when pursuing an army, selecting more favorable terrain, better attrition) then its hardly a surprise cavalry is under-represented. In battle, infantry is queen and artillery is king.

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

I like these ideas, Cav is too weak it's true, and is it just me or should nations with different tech groups not get worse units on top of their worse tech, or at least get a bit better units than they have now (every tech group thats not western)

It's not just you, but I don't have the motivation right now to make a proper forum rant on the subject. I think most people who care about the senselessness of the situation have pretty much given up.

 

[Novacat]

I agree cavalry is far too weak.

It's not just you, but I don't have the motivation right now to make a proper forum rant on the subject. I think most people who care about the senselessness of the situation have pretty much given up.

Im fine with non-western groups having weaker units for the most part. The problem is twofold.

Non-western countries often get much weaker NIs, so even if a non-western country westernizes its all for naught because western countries get better NIs.

The balance between non-western tech groups is screwy. It seems like the tech/unit quality of a tech group is directly defined by its distance from western civilization, so Eastern and Ottoman tech groups are obnoxiously strong while Chinese is pitifully weak even by non-Western standards. China is a good example. Historically, they were able to resist colonialism very well, having only fell to colonialism after EU4's end date. In EU4, however, its by far one of the weakest tech groups, even the Indians and Muslims are stronger despite being largely subjugated by EU4's end date.

 

[caintheconfused]

Is it worth pointing out that the age of the cannon and rifle infantry was a big reason that cavalry's role was reduced, and its reflection here is the general weakness of cavalry passed, say, the mid-game? While even Napoleon did keep a strong cavalry in toe, their purpose wasn't to dominate the battlefield. Scouts, lead units, or for chasing down broken units; guards for the artillery, but nowhere near the beasts of the field as they were during cavalry's peak of importance.

Of course, gameplay wise, it would be nice if armies weren't best when left 90?% infantry, and I'm sure there's some way to figure a means to make cavalry relevant from a gameplay perspective again, sadly I just don't know what it is.

 

[Novacat]

The problem is that balance is so bad that theres no reason to use any more than just a token amount of cavalry, and even then that is questionable. Cavalry cost 2.5 times as much as infantry, but are losing to infantry in 1:1 ratios. As it is, I feel that either Cavalry should have its cost and maintenance reduced to infantry level, or their strength should be buffed to actually make it worth the 250% price tag premium on it.

 

[1alexey]

The balance between non-western tech groups is screwy. It seems like the tech/unit quality of a tech group is directly defined by its distance from western civilization, so Eastern and Ottoman tech groups are obnoxiously strong while Chinese is pitifully weak even by non-Western standards. China is a good example. Historically, they were able to resist colonialism very well, having only fell to colonialism after EU4's end date. In EU4, however, its by far one of the weakest tech groups, even the Indians and Muslims are stronger despite being largely subjugated by EU4's end date.

Please keep the discussion to western tech cavalrty-infantry balance. Other tech groups can be dealt when west is balanced.

Is it worth pointing out that the age of the cannon and rifle infantry was a big reason that cavalry's role was reduced, and its reflection here is the general weakness of cavalry passed, say, the mid-game? While even Napoleon did keep a strong cavalry in toe, their purpose wasn't to dominate the battlefield. Scouts, lead units, or for chasing down broken units; guards for the artillery, but nowhere near the beasts of the field as they were during cavalry's peak of importance.

Rifles only arrived to Crimean war and American Civil War, which is 1854 and 1861 respectivly. Before that smothbored muskets were used, and their range was low. And while rifles existed at the time, they couldn`t sustain the rate of fire fue to need for bulet to be kicked down the bore, into rifling, and they were useless outside hunting.
Cavalry should not be weak even at late game.

 

[Incompetent]

Rifles only arrived to Crimean war and American Civil War, which is 1854 and 1861 respectivly. Before that smothbored muskets were used, and their range was low. And while rifles existed at the time, they couldn`t sustain the rate of fire fue to need for bulet to be kicked down the bore, into rifling, and they were useless outside hunting.

Actually, rifles were used in combat towards the end of the EU era by specialist units: by the late 18th century, a rifle was deadlier than a musket in the hands of a sharpshooter, because he could aim it accurately from a long distance away (whereas a common soldier would simply shoot in the general direction of the enemy, making the accuracy of the weapon irrelevant). The mid-19th century is when rifles replaced muskets for mass infantry fire, with the introduction of breech-loading rifles.

 

[1alexey]

Actually, rifles were used in combat towards the end of the EU era by specialist units: by the late 18th century, a rifle was deadlier than a musket in the hands of a sharpshooter, because he could aim it accurately from a long distance away (whereas a common soldier would simply shoot in the general direction of the enemy, making the accuracy of the weapon irrelevant). The mid-19th century is when rifles replaced muskets for mass infantry fire, with the introduction of breech-loading rifles.

Yes. But how many of those were present(proportion to army size)? Outside of sniping officers, what was the use of it?

And the thing was not about breech loading, but about bullet form changing, with cyliner shaped bullet that would deform when shout and fill in the rifling, which ment you could rifle old mussle-loade fintlocks and they would function fine as rifles(but sure, breach loading helped). But that is offtopic, and outside of game timeframe.