The Cossacks!

[Eh up me duck]

One of the most common fallacies seen on these forums is that "X is not unbalanced/broken because a clever player can work around it". It is showing up in this thread too.

You don't have to be clever to win as an Eastern nation. If it weren't for buthurt like this thread I wouldn't even be aware that their units are "inferior". And I'm not even a great EU3 player, I've never done a Bar world conquest for example.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

StupidGenius, by eastern cavalry you mean "light cavalry", right? Then I don't think it's right to say that West adopted it. Gunpowder stripped cavalrymen of armor and they were forced to behave as their Eastern friends like Hungary Hussars or Russian/Ukranian/Whatever Cossacks. And I still think that different tech group troops should be balanced, displaying different tactics.

Eastern cavalry does NOT mean 'light cavalry'. 'Light' and 'heavy' are relative. Polish and middle period Hungarian Hussars were heavy cavalry. Cossacks were light cavalry. The Dragoons of the 18th century came in light and heavy variants despite neither version wearing armour except for helmets.

If a cavalryman has a lance and is charging at at formation head on, he's heavy cavalry. Doesn't matter how armoured he is. French knights mostly just had unarmoured horses, a helmet and a mail shirt anyway. Cuirassier's were pretty much the same despite being in a gunpowder dominated age, just trading the mail shirt for a breast plate so ditching the shield was the only real armour loss. 30 years war cuirassiers had armoured limbs as well and were mostly light cavalry.

Europeans were moving towards light cavalry before guns became popular with chevauchée during the hundred years war and the Spanish had light cavalry centuries earlier. With the rise of pike formations pretty much all western cavalry became light cavalrymen.

Cossacks being the exception, in general eastern cavalry was heavier than western cavalry.

Gunpowder destroying the armoured knight is a myth. The pike formation did that a century earlier. The introduction of light field guns in the 30 years war actually revitalised heavy cavalry since they broke pike formations and made frontal charges viable again.

 

[Hydro Globus]

If a cavalryman has a lance and is charging at at formation head on, he's heavy cavalry. Doesn't matter how armoured he is.

This. By the actual (differently worded) definition, even tanks count as heavy cavalry now.

 

[Buladelu]

If a cavalryman has a lance and is charging at at formation head on, he's heavy cavalry. Doesn't matter how armoured he is. French knights mostly just had unarmoured horses, a helmet and a mail shirt anyway. Cuirassier's were pretty much the same despite being in a gunpowder dominated age, just trading the mail shirt for a breast plate so ditching the shield was the only real armour loss. 30 years war cuirassiers had armoured limbs as well and were mostly light cavalry.

Europeans were moving towards light cavalry before guns became popular with chevauchée during the hundred years war and the Spanish had light cavalry centuries earlier. With the rise of pike formations pretty much all western cavalry became light cavalrymen.

Cossacks being the exception, in general eastern cavalry was heavier than western cavalry.

Gunpowder destroying the armoured knight is a myth. The pike formation did that a century earlier. The introduction of light field guns in the 30 years war actually revitalised heavy cavalry since they broke pike formations and made frontal charges viable again.

I understand heavy cavalry != armored cavalry, but I imagined that after decent guns were introduced cavalry role has changed. It was no more "tank", but fast and mobile force, striking were the enemy was weaker. And I think that's the tactic that eastern cavalry used. Also maybe gunpowder wasn't the only reason to remove armor, but it certainly helped: AFAIK last advancement in heavy armor appeared just before decent guns.

Anyway, all of it is pretty much irrelevant. The point is eastern cavalry like Cossacks was important and very able.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

I understand heavy cavalry != armored cavalry, but I imagined that after decent guns were introduced cavalry role has changed. It was no more "tank", but fast and mobile force, striking were the enemy was weaker. And I think that's the tactic that eastern cavalry used. Also maybe gunpowder wasn't the only reason to remove armor, but it certainly helped: AFAIK last advancement in heavy armor appeared just before decent guns.

Anyway, all of it is pretty much irrelevant. The point is eastern cavalry like Cossacks was important and very able.

Like Closet Skeleton said - it was pikemen that removed armour from western cavalry, 16th-17th century firearms were not very effective or accurate yet, and were mainly used to shoot at tightly packed enemy infantry. Three quarter-armour from the period actually could withstand bullets, and was literally bulled-proved during production (smith fired at it to ensure that there's no penetration).

Also eastern cavalry!= just russian cavalry. PLC's cavalry was used to directly engage enemy.

 

[Comradebot]

You don't have to be clever to win as an Eastern nation. If it weren't for buthurt like this thread I wouldn't even be aware that their units are "inferior". And I'm not even a great EU3 player, I've never done a Bar world conquest for example.

Wow, all I ask is for a more accurate representation of Eastern military and for one to be capable of using Eastern military units effectively for at least as long as they lasted historically.

And you call it butthurt. Classy.

 

[AndrewT]

Reminders:

- It is against the rules of these forums to insult another forum member, regardless of provocation.

- Threads are to stay on topic (which in this case is Cossacks and similar forces in EU3/4) or they will be closed. Non-game historical and nationalistic discussion may only take place in the OT forums.

Infractions have been handed out, and if there are any more insults or continued off-topic posting, this thread will be closed.

 

[Gunnarr]

some cossock song for you to listen to while reading this thread:

[video=youtube;HIWVItFfPXA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIWVItFfPXA[/video]

[video=youtube;7vacPe-ZBW0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vacPe-ZBW0[/video]

[video=youtube;uUOeuPBU0GQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUOeuPBU0GQ[/video]

I like the cossocks. one thing i did not like about EU3 was how that one cossock state (by the crimea) would keep forming from a collapsing mongol empire, except it would form as a muslim country most of the time. though that is not really what this is about, and to fix that perhaps changing provence religion should be a bit harder

 

[unmerged(612669)]

StupidGenius, by eastern cavalry you mean "light cavalry", right? Then I don't think it's right to say that West adopted it. Gunpowder stripped cavalrymen of armor and they were forced to behave as their Eastern friends like Hungary Hussars or Russian/Ukranian/Whatever Cossacks. And I still think that different tech group troops should be balanced, displaying different tactics. Western Europe gets it's share of technology and idea bonuses, and that's why Russians usually have to use bigger forces to win, but they still can win even a great general with the same army size sometimes, so it's not the same difference as between West/East and Middle East.

That is a misconception, heavy cavalry survived, even in the east for a very long time; I already mentioned Napoleon who's cavalry included large numbers of Metal Armor clad Curaisers (sp) during the 1813 campaign one such unit of those nearly got to Tsar Alexander I, and were only repelled by a charge of Cossack Cavalry.

The idea that western cavalry was superior is laughable; both the way western nations like Austria and Prussia and France reformed it's cavalry, America's cavalry being formed by a Polish Officer, and actual examples of "western" vs "eastern" cavalry dispute that idea.

Just read what Napoleon had to say about Polish and Cossack cavalry. The different nations developed different ways. What let some of the western armies dominate was the way they would adopt the new and abandon things which didn't work. Adopting Uhlan and other eastern forms of cavalry shows that as far as they were concerned the types of cavalry developed at home needed work.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

That, or you can fight smart and wait for the proper moment to attack. The AI tends to split its armies every now and then, take 'em apart piecemeal when they do. Have you checked what kind of units you're sending your cavalry heavy army against? Cavalry doesn't tend to fare that well against, say, pikemen, though I'm not sure if the game actually renders that. Also, western armies generally had more funding, training, and equipment, especially when it comes to infantry, which is why you're not winning 1:1 fights without some good generals or better tactics.
Also, you seem like you're getting pretty angry. Try to calm down, it helps make for better discussions.

I get annoyed when accused of nationalism; I'm not Polish or Russian or Cossack or well even eastern; and yes using actual facts and examples is furious.

Cavalry actually does very well against pikemen in eu3, and I don't think calling an ignoramous an ignoramous is annoyed I think it is informed. He goes against everyone and assigned a random arbitrary date to claim something that never happened happened all the while accusing me of being a nationalist.

Historically do you dispute that Swedish cavalry was trounced by Tatar cavalry during the 1650s? they are in eu3 terms not strictly eastern; but according to the idea that in the 1650s western cavalry had so outpaced eastern is well; I hope anyone suggesting it is a troll or joking. I agree western nations did develop infantry tactics in ways eastern nations didn't; but in term of funding lets not forget a western infantryman was more expensive. British infantry was entitled to red meat, cheese, bread, and later on even rice, a Russian soldier would just be given a few grots. Western Cavalry didn't outpace Eastern Cavalry; which is why eastern cavalry did well.

on gameplay mechanics your suggestion is to win when you outnumber them which is exactly what I do at the moment; at least until I modernize which is very easy because you are mostly to full centralization from your westernization.

Also would you please tell me what a western army is? Prussia was nothing in 1650, Austria struggled against the Ottomans and failed to defend their capital on their own, Saxony's army proved to be over estimated during the great northern war, the Swedes lost the struggle for dominance to Russia. Does what you say about western armies apply to Spain Venice, Bavaria, Denmark etc?

P.S. try not to be condescending; nobody insulted you and when insulted by somebody who has an ethnocentric view of history accusing me of nationalism because I didn't agree that in 1650 cavalrymen from Wessex genetically became better then the Polish Hussars I think I am well within rights to say they have no knowledge of history and not only that Joe claims you do win 1 vs 1 battles as eastern tech which according to your post isn't true.

Ignoramous just means somebody who is ignorant; and in the 1650s the Swedish cavalry who attacked Poland while the Polish Army fought the Russian one where defeated by Tatar Cavalry.

To be clear the term "western" when applied to tactics doesn't always make too much sense. Being western didn't give any advantage; adopting the latest technologies and the correct tactics did. French and British Soldiers had a tendency to outperform other armies; but does the same bonus make sense for Denmark or for Saxony or Thuringia?