Western cavalry - any point?

[TheLoneGunman]

I think the reasoning behind the reduced speed of cavalry was that strategically they moved pretty much at the same pace as infantry.

The only time they were faster was tactically in an actual battle.

Which can be represented with flanking and shock values.

 

[kizzak]

imo, the key is that the cavalry wasn't made up of just the mounted warriors doing the fighting

IIRC, most cavalry was made up of noblemen and would have had servants of all sorts and plenty of luxuries not to mention the basic supplies and necessities needed to keep the fighters and their horses going; so I doubt they would have been traveling at a speed any faster than the infantry they were chasing other than occasional skirmish groups sent to attack the back of the retreating army.

 

[Fronzel]

Moving from place to place, cavalry really don't move faster than infantry. Horses have rotten stamina. If you tried to gallop a horse across a country, you'd just kill it.

Cavalry zipping around the place like race-cars might be fun, but it bears no resembalance to reality. Good riddance.

 

[wright1331]

So you consider it normal for 2 armies to fight then the winner teleports right through the losers army and waits for him in the next province, maybe in the era of blitzkrieg and panzers it was possible to punch through the enemy lines but this isn't hoi. Or maybe they use the same road together looser on the left lane and winner on right lane and wave at each other.

And oh gosh loosing a fight then winning the next oh my thats soooo stupid, i guess.

well I dont think this was the best example

either way, I think he ment that IF.... His Calvary army beats an army on foot, that he should be able to chase them down faster than most of them can run away. Meaning this would be better represented by his troops having the upper hand in the next skirmish, and not possibly being penalized by arriving later

-------

I think the reasoning behind the reduced speed of cavalry was that strategically they moved pretty much at the same pace as infantry.

The only time they were faster was tactically in an actual battle.

Which can be represented with flanking and shock values.

I do agree that Cavalry shouldnt be able to move around the world map faster than the Infantry. I never relized that they factored in Flanking in the battles, this would help to offset the new change I would imagine

 

[TheLoneGunman]

well I dont think this was the best arguement, or even a good way to respond to him

either way, I think he ment that IF.... His Calvary army beats an army on foot, that he should be able to chase them down faster than most of them can run away. Meaning this would be better represented by his troops having the upper hand in the next skirmish.

Technically, didn't he already beat them and chase them down by inflicting such heavy losses during the battle?

 

[Fronzel]

I think he ment that IF.... His Calvary army beats an army on foot, that he should be able to chase them down faster than most of them can run away. Meaning this would be better represented by his troops having the upper hand in the next skirmish.

When the battle is in the next province?

Kills from pursuit would be more sensibily included in the results of the battle itself. Pursuits usually stop after a while.

 

[luitzen]

it's pretty stupid that cavalry and infantry have the same speed of movement now. how does that make sense?? imagine my surprise when i sent my cavalry to the province my opponents were running off to so i can annihilate them when they arrive and my cavalry got there a day later(!!!!) than their infantry. that is sooo stupid. the enemy was running away cuz they lost the first battle, and yet the 2nd battle the enemy managed to win!!! stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

That's nonsense. Why would your army want to pass a fleeing army and beat them in a new battle? It would have been much easier to slay them when they're fleeing.

 

[Profane]

Well to be perfectly honest i was a bit over the top with the sarcasm but the guy comes off as being addicted to the old school cav only armies, which were just plain bad. PI have gone and adjusted a few things so its no longer as beneficial for the player to run cav only armies and we the players are just going to have to figure out how best to abuse the new methods.

And to give a hint and some suggestions, aim for decisive battles what with the instant annihilation of 0 morale armies and high casualties in battles, preferably making the enemy attack you for the new high terrain modifiers. This can be accomplished in various ways such as placing a 10k army in the way of the enemies 20k army but having 2 other 10k armies reinforce the battle 1 day after it starts.

And for siege assaults its necessary to have 2k cav with them or you can loose your entire force to a single merc unit with a badly timed assault. Tbh keeping the cav around feels more like a workaround than actual strategy, assaults should stop at 15%-25% morale.

 

[ComTrav]

it's pretty stupid that cavalry and infantry have the same speed of movement now. how does that make sense?? imagine my surprise when i sent my cavalry to the province my opponents were running off to so i can annihilate them when they arrive and my cavalry got there a day later(!!!!) than their infantry. that is sooo stupid. the enemy was running away cuz they lost the first battle, and yet the 2nd battle the enemy managed to win!!! stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

so how am i supposed to keep a tight grip on my provinces now? just to get from sicily to the closest italian mainland province now with cavalry takes 25 days!!! so if i had an army in the north of italy and a rebellion in the south i couldnt even get there in time to clean house. does anyone know how i can mod the cavalry speed cuz im not putting up with this bullshit. what the hell am i supposed to do for 25 days while my armies are moving 1 fucking province, and then they win a battle and then they gotta go to the next province to LOSE a battle. stupid stupid stupid

If you have someone in Northern Italy and you want to send them to Sicily fast, you should probably use ships.

Doesn't help some of the other issues, though.

 

[unmerged(85507)]

Moving from place to place, cavalry really don't move faster than infantry. Horses have rotten stamina. If you tried to gallop a horse across a country, you'd just kill it.

Cavalry zipping around the place like race-cars might be fun, but it bears no resembalance to reality. Good riddance.

But isn´t a walking horse (normal speed) faster than a walking man?

Okay, I realize the player is meant to be encouraged to use mixed armies. And because it is easier to make a force surrender blitzkrieg-style exploits via cavalry are meant to be prevented.

 

[Profane]

But isn´t a walking horse (normal speed) faster than a walking man?

Okay, I realize the player is meant to be encouraged to use mixed armies. And because it is easier to make a force surrender blitzkrieg-style exploits via cavalry are meant to be prevented.

a walking horse is also faster than a camp follower but the noble on top of the horse sure isn't going to be setting up his own camp or doing any manual labor

there are of course exceptions to that where horse armies did fully utilize they're higher strategic speed and in those cases much kickass and victoglory ensued, happily nomads favorite targets were generally other nomads.

 

[sprites]

4k for flanking , with 10k inf for fighting and storming

 

[SeverusFelix]

From a historical perspective, I find it amusing that people are complaining that, from as early as Mil Tech 5, Longbows, Cavalry loses its place as king of the battlefield and becomes a useful support arm and nothing more.

Furthermore, it must be considered that cavalry does not imply a fully horse-mobile unit, especially before the nineteenth century, any more than Patton's armies were bouncing around to a man in tanks.

 

[Nilmerf]

Moving from place to place, cavalry really don't move faster than infantry. Horses have rotten stamina. If you tried to gallop a horse across a country, you'd just kill it.

Cavalry zipping around the place like race-cars might be fun, but it bears no resembalance to reality. Good riddance.

You've shown your lack of knowledge on horses! A horse can trot all day, and the best ones do so without breaking a sweat. It's by far the most efficient form of riding, and you can cover a hell of a lot of ground.

I'm not sure what to think of cavalry being as slow as infantry, though. It's true what's been said about nobles/baggage trains in western Europe, but in eastern Europe and especially the Mongol states mobility warfare was all important.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

I am personally split in this debate that men on horse back should have faster movement.

Over short distances, yes they are more mobile, especially later in the game's time frame. But at the same time, setting and breaking camp takes longer, as there's simply more to do.

It would be nice to have "Range" added to CAVs movement. Two speeds if you will. A CAV army could go maybe two provinces at high speed, but no more. And they would have to rest afterwards, so they would recover moral slower.

This would enable that 'rescue' you need every so often, or that blitz attack... But only if you prepared for it ahead of time, and only within a limited range.

Another concept that has finally been crystallized is that the speed of CAV is on the battlefield, and is well represented with flanking and shock. I feel the move makes you deal with "the army" as a whole, not "the INF Army" and "the CAV army", and never the twain shall meet.

Us modern humans are spoiled by hopping in the auto and driving across town and country in minutes and hours. Given the wagons and paraphernalia that accompanied CAV units that carried the important essentials... like food ...didn't, can't, and won't travel at the speed of the Cavalry rider. Even when traveling the 'roads' of the day, the loads couldn't be pulled at full gallop all the way across the country.

In many cases, it's a simple case of no longer having or being able to process the concept that a 20 mile drive could take all day.

T

 

[Profane]

What i would like to see is unit mobility stat(like morale) going up with tech and possibly being affected by sliders and national decisions, also province improvement that reduces the travel time in that province by a % (such as roads, improved roads, highways etc)

Also the ability to do "forced march" where you exchange unit readiness(morale) for higher speed would be interesting.

Strategic mobility is a very important factor in war and as such is barely modeled at all, just maneuver stats on generals.

But balance that by preventing units from arriving before a retreating army as long as they are moving between the same provinces. (attacker should not be able to get defensive terrain bonuses while hunting down a retreating enemy, and you can still be creative by moving forces around the battle province and having the pursuing force "reinforce")

 

[vicotnik]

I actually remember reading that the efficiency of human movement means that a human could cover long distances faster than a horse. I'm not sure how long the distance would have to be or how accurate it was, but maybe cavalry should slow the army down! With respect to it being more than support from the Longbow period I assume that Severus means the English tactics against the French cavalry that did indeed work very well. Nuno Álvares Pereira got some English longbowmen along with the corresponding tactics to beat the numerically superior Castillian army as well.

A problem with this is that Longbowmen were expensive to train, which is the reason that muskets eventually were better despite being inferior weapons for a long time.

 

[hothmir]

Take away point for me from this discussion is what the new numbers on the ledger represent. Multipliers!! Who knew? (Well, obviously a lot of you did). Time to reconfigure the army to add some horse. I had wondered why I was losing so many battles that in 3.1 I would probably have won.

 

[vicotnik]

I found a little race to illustrate my point: Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

In that example over 22 miles the horse still wins, but not by much. I assume that a human would win over a longer distance, and most inter-province distances are certainly longer than that! In the actual battle the horse is obviously much faster though.

 

[luitzen]

I found a little race to illustrate my point: Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

In that example over 22 miles the horse still wins, but not by much. I assume that a human would win over a longer distance, and most inter-province distances are certainly longer than that! In the actual battle the horse is obviously much faster though.

I knew about that race and I agree it's a very good example.

Someone mentioned that horses would win always and were made for running all day. While this is true, this only applies to the best horses and such horses did not exist back then.