So with the expansion reworking the Hordes, can we do something with Cavalry?

[Oscaretti]

Not using cavalry as Poland ? You can make 100% cavalry armies and use 73% cav combat ability to disintegrate any hostile army even with the insufficient support penalty.

 

[fred.erick]

Not using cavalry as Poland ? You can make 100% cavalry armies and use 73% cav combat ability to disintegrate any hostile army even with the insufficient support penalty.

I actually played as Poland recently and their Winged Hussars completely rule.

As a general rule, however, more experienced player than myself say they use very little cavalry to infantry ratio, with HUGE amounts of artillery (check out this very thread for examples.)
That suggests to me that both artillery and cavalry aren't represented like their historic counterparts.

 

[Will Steel]

The main drawback to cavalry is their cost, though. Just about everywhere in the game. A nation that can easily afford 10 infantry for it's max forcelimit, cannot ever afford the same number of cavalry.

Cavalry seems to be intended to be used in mass numbers only by major powers.

 

[Grand Historian]

I actually played as Poland recently and their Winged Hussars completely rule.

As a general rule, however, more experienced player than myself say they use very little cavalry to infantry ratio, with HUGE amounts of artillery (check out this very thread for examples.)
That suggests to me that both artillery and cavalry aren't represented like their historic counterparts.

I see the AI do it too. Cavalry/Artillery ratios/uses are in need of a revision.

 

[Thrake]

Early game cav rules. The amount I field is only limited by my economy and ratio penalty. Saying that Poland shouldn't build more than 2 cav says a lot...

 

[gothos]

For most countries starting around tech 12 or 15, artillery becomes the better killer than cavalry. Countries like Poland and Hungary that get good cav. power and cost ideas and invest in Aristocratic for even more, can effectively use cavalry even in the lategame (if you're not fielding cavalry as Poland/PLC you're indeed doing it wrong), but without those bonuses, Artillery's fire concentration ability wins out. You can only get how much, 8 cav to flank? While you can fill the back row with 30 artillery that will damage the enemy every day without getting hit back. On top of that, fire phase comes first, so a devastating 9 vs 0 on the first fire phase when you're packing 35 cannons will more or less decide the battle, the same way a good first shock phase does in the early game (due to fire being non-existant).

 

[fred.erick]

I see the AI do it too. Cavalry/Artillery ratios/uses are in need of a revision.

I'm pretty sure the developers instructed the AI to use ratios based on what players were using successfully.
In my recent game, I'm facing hordes of Turkish and Chinese (Ming) artillery. Something like 60K infantry and 40K artillery.
The result was several engagements, where a force of 10K infantry and 30-35K artillery got caught and was decimated.
That at least makes sense, but considering artillery rarely gets killed at all before an army is routed, means more and more of it survives for the next battles, while infantry and cavalry die.
So, in my imaginary scenario, when the front row is weakened, cavalry should be able to wreak havoc on the back row of artillery (let's say 50-60% losses) - the price of neglecting to protect your most valuable battlefield equipment.
The beauty of such a change is that I don't think the AI should be taught new strategies - only a different force composition.

Can't say I have more to add without someone giving an official explanation, but to me the idea changing the current army composition, to give better roles for both cavalry and artillery, is very exciting.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I will even use more cavalry in sub-Saharan Africa/India/China, to say nothing of Muslim tech starts. The main limiting factors to cavalry are:

1. Expense
2. They still take manpower

As a result, unless I'm playing a true regional power/major it's hard to field lots of extra cavalry, but if I can afford it without tanking advisors/monarch points I will, because cavalry is more manpower efficient. They have ~2x damage in the shock phase for *most* early game techs (and later ones too, but the fire multiplier starts taking off on infantry and especially arty then). In the tech 13-16 range they start falling off relative to artillery, because fire phase roughs them up so much, so after tech 16 I start using them for flanking only unless I am a nation with a big +cav combat boost.

 

[gothos]

I'm pretty sure the developers instructed the AI to use ratios based on what players were using successfully.
In my recent game, I'm facing hordes of Turkish and Chinese (Ming) artillery. Something like 60K infantry and 40K artillery.
The result was several engagements, where a force of 10K infantry and 30-35K artillery got caught and was decimated.
That at least makes sense, but considering artillery rarely gets killed at all before an army is routed, means more and more of it survives for the next battles, while infantry and cavalry die.
So, in my imaginary scenario, when the front row is weakened, cavalry should be able to wreak havoc on the back row of artillery (let's say 50-60% losses) - the price of neglecting to protect your most valuable battlefield equipment.
The beauty of such a change is that I don't think the AI should be taught new strategies - only a different force composition.

Can't say I have more to add without someone giving an official explanation, but to me the idea changing the current army composition, to give better roles for both cavalry and artillery, is very exciting.

Interesting. There could be a new battlefield mechanic... cavalry on both sides faces off on the flanks, and if one side overwhelms the other, that flank "collapses" and the winning cav can overrun the second row... unless this is already the case?

 

[fred.erick]

Interesting. There could be a new battlefield mechanic... cavalry on both sides faces off on the flanks, and if one side overwhelms the other, that flank "collapses" and the winning cav can overrun the second row... unless this is already the case?

Unless I'm grossly mistaken, flanking only works against the front row, and even then only if the cavalry unit is "near" the enemy front unit,
while historically battles usually played the way you described.

Now, I know "realism" isn't an argument, but if we want to model the effectiveness of mobile cavalry against armies that had their artillery exposed, I believe this addition will do wonders.
For the very least, so we won't have armies with 40 regiments of infantry and artillery, with just 4-6 cavalry regiments.

 

[migalhone]

I agree that artillery should be revised.

 

[zsImmortal]

Well you do suffer the penalty that the artillery is more likely to be in the front rank...

Mass artillery like it is used in game is absurd. How can you supply so many cannons and for those cannons to never be under threat?

 

[Zakath]

Mass artillery like it is used in game is absurd. How can you supply so many cannons and for those cannons to never be under threat?

It's not as if an artillery regiment consists of 1000 artillery, it's just the number of men needed to field the artillery properly. Assuming an artillery regiment is something like a battery of 12 cannon, that comes out to a gun crew of 6-10 each so assume the round number you have 120 in the gun crew. Throw in the required farriers to keep the horses healthy, quartermasters to make sure powder and shot makes it to the battle and some attached infantry etc and you'll probably come up to about 4-500 men at a stretch. Using 1000 men for a regiment then isn't _that_ wrong, so it's probably done as a convenience to make everything be 1000 men per regiment.

Mind you, it's still a very heavy artillery ratio with 12 cannon per 1000 men, but it isn't flat out absurd like it would be with 1000 cannon per 1000 men.

 

[Will Steel]

I always assumed that an artillery regiment had a just around 20-30 cannons, and around 200-300 men to hold them, and rest were all regular infantry or light infantry that are deployed near those cannons.

I mean, not even First French Empire at it's height in 1812 ever had 1,000 field cannons, let alone anyone else.

 

[gaius valerius]

It's not as if an artillery regiment consists of 1000 artillery, it's just the number of men needed to field the artillery properly. Assuming an artillery regiment is something like a battery of 12 cannon, that comes out to a gun crew of 6-10 each so assume the round number you have 120 in the gun crew. Throw in the required farriers to keep the horses healthy, quartermasters to make sure powder and shot makes it to the battle and some attached infantry etc and you'll probably come up to about 4-500 men at a stretch. Using 1000 men for a regiment then isn't _that_ wrong, so it's probably done as a convenience to make everything be 1000 men per regiment.

Mind you, it's still a very heavy artillery ratio with 12 cannon per 1000 men, but it isn't flat out absurd like it would be with 1000 cannon per 1000 men.

Isn't that absurd though (plus the number 12 is merely personal make-believe)? It still is a far-fetched ratio and by that account having 10 stacks or arty in later game amounts to 1200 pieces??? Not even Napoleontic warfare at its height saw that number of cannons on one side.

Arty really needs a revision, like you say in the line of 'batteries'.

 

[zsImmortal]

It's not as if an artillery regiment consists of 1000 artillery, it's just the number of men needed to field the artillery properly. Assuming an artillery regiment is something like a battery of 12 cannon, that comes out to a gun crew of 6-10 each so assume the round number you have 120 in the gun crew. Throw in the required farriers to keep the horses healthy, quartermasters to make sure powder and shot makes it to the battle and some attached infantry etc and you'll probably come up to about 4-500 men at a stretch. Using 1000 men for a regiment then isn't _that_ wrong, so it's probably done as a convenience to make everything be 1000 men per regiment.

Mind you, it's still a very heavy artillery ratio with 12 cannon per 1000 men, but it isn't flat out absurd like it would be with 1000 cannon per 1000 men.

I don't disagree with that, the idea that anyone can stack mass artillery and wipe an army before shock is pretty ridiculous however. Even during the Napoleonic wars, cannons weren't killing whole regiments when trading the opening shots.

 

[JagLover]

It's not as if an artillery regiment consists of 1000 artillery, it's just the number of men needed to field the artillery properly. Assuming an artillery regiment is something like a battery of 12 cannon, that comes out to a gun crew of 6-10 each so assume the round number you have 120 in the gun crew. Throw in the required farriers to keep the horses healthy, quartermasters to make sure powder and shot makes it to the battle and some attached infantry etc and you'll probably come up to about 4-500 men at a stretch. Using 1000 men for a regiment then isn't _that_ wrong, so it's probably done as a convenience to make everything be 1000 men per regiment.

Mind you, it's still a very heavy artillery ratio with 12 cannon per 1000 men, but it isn't flat out absurd like it would be with 1000 cannon per 1000 men.

Sounds about right. It clearly isn't a thousand cannon, or just the crews (and divide by six) as that would be a nonsense.

Those sorts of ratios are nearly feasible by 1810. Say 80,000 men with 30 artillery regiments making 300 cannon.

 

[Will Steel]

I wonder if they could split artillery into 'batteries' and 'staff' and 'soldiers' during battle, like in HoI Darkest Hour where every piece of equipment is counted. The battery part of the regiment would work exactly like cannons should (extremely weak when caught by cavalry), the staff part being just as weak and represents the artillery crew and such. And the soldiers part represents regular infantry that will act and fight as regular infantry in battle like those in proper regiments, and also try to protect those cannons and crew from cavalry.

Maybe it would be too complex for EU games...

 

[yerm]

Just have artillery width = flanking width and that problem is done with.

For cavalry, what would be really cool, is if you could actually have them ride the back row during fire phase and swap into the front during shock. Not sure how it would work or if its feasible, but let them employ some of the advantages artillery currently exploit.

As for historical arguments... cavalry were largely employed in smaller numbers by most nations, and many times the heavier use of them was based on the drafting/levy/whatever situation of a nation which necessarily involved having an "elite" pool of mounted units and their retainers rather than larger numbers of poorer equipped men. Since eu4 armies are all standing armies, the best analogy would be a nation that has money but not available men, and generally that IS what happens (until tech 13ish or a bit) when a nation with the cash but not the force limits will go harder on cavalry while a nation that has financial woes will keep only a flank force. Totally fine.

The idea that massed cavalry should stay relevant into the 1700s, even for a horde, is garbage. Just because the game restricts hordes heavily, prevents infantry troop type ugrades, etc, doesn't mean that's what actually happened. Central Asian nations could and did make excellent use of musket-armed infantry and were perfectly good (and arguably above the curve) at military innovation; this stereotypical 13th century all-mounted steppe cavalry was not what Russia spent the 17th-19th centuries expanding into.

 

[zsImmortal]

As for historical arguments... cavalry were largely employed in smaller numbers by most nations, and many times the heavier use of them was based on the drafting/levy/whatever situation of a nation which necessarily involved having an "elite" pool of mounted units and their retainers rather than larger numbers of poorer equipped men. Since eu4 armies are all standing armies, the best analogy would be a nation that has money but not available men, and generally that IS what happens (until tech 13ish or a bit) when a nation with the cash but not the force limits will go harder on cavalry while a nation that has financial woes will keep only a flank force. Totally fine.

The idea that massed cavalry should stay relevant into the 1700s, even for a horde, is garbage. Just because the game restricts hordes heavily, prevents infantry troop type ugrades, etc, doesn't mean that's what actually happened. Central Asian nations could and did make excellent use of musket-armed infantry and were perfectly good (and arguably above the curve) at military innovation; this stereotypical 13th century all-mounted steppe cavalry was not what Russia spent the 17th-19th centuries expanding into.

That's only true for Western Europeans though. The Ottomans (at least for the early part of the game), for example, had much more cavalry than infantry (though their infantry was exceptional and required much more maintenance). The Arabic peninsula nations usually used mounted troops. IIRC the Qizilbash were mostly mounted troops. The Mughal army and its successor states (except for maybe the Maratha, not sure) usually had a huge portion of cavalry (through the Zamindar system). Some of them get discounts or cav combat efficiency (along with greater cav to inf ratio), but it still fails to portray their great reliance on mounted troops because of the prohibitive cost (and the generally poor areas they have to work with vs. Western Europe).

Then you get to the Hordes who should have great reliance on cavalry but have no real way to actually do it. Even after adapting to firearms, they still largely relied on cavalry but they're too poor to actually field any decent quantity (nowhere close to historical dependence).