Western cavalry - any point?

[Profane]

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.

I don't claim to be a horse expert but even i do know that this statement is completely and utterly wrong. There are different breeds of horses each with its own strengths and weaknesses such as the steppe ponies stamina, those are like the horse version of Haile Gebre Selassie or something :rofl:

 

[Asehujiko]

How about a national decision like "reorganize the cavalry to be self sufficient" enabled by default for nomadic countries and available to those who own any of their culture provinces or whatever that speeds up cavalry with some massive plutocracy move and a manpower decrease because nobles would be absolutely furious after being told to lug their own stuff around and wouldn't join the army when that happens.

 

[luitzen]

I don't claim to be a horse expert but even i do know that this statement is completely and utterly wrong. There are different breeds of horses each with its own strengths and weaknesses such as the steppe ponies stamina, those are like the horse version of Haile Gebre Selassie or something :rofl:

There were at that time no horses which could carry a knight on full speed across an entire country.

 

[Profane]

There were at that time no horses which could carry a knight on full speed across an entire country.

There are at this time and all times no horses that could or can carry a knight across an entire country at full speed, except possibly one of those micro countries. Horses aren't cars.

What i am talking about are steppe ponies that nomads rode, each nomad would have several horses and would change horse regularly so the effort of carrying him was spread, in this manner a entire army would travel across the steppes in amazingly short times (for the era) at no point would they ever move at full speed only an utter fool would waste his horse pointlessly.

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

i dont see any point in lowering the cavalry speed , the cavalry in history were only better than the infantry cause they were faster

 

[Profane]

i dont see any point in lowering the cavalry speed , the cavalry in history were only better than the infantry cause they were faster

Wrong, ever read up on how the ottoman siege of Vienna was broken? That wasn't because of speed.

In game the reason or at least part of the reason is the ability of all cav armies to consistently get defensive terrain bonuses against retreating opponents, and on top of that with the terrain bonuses being significantly increased its simply a necessary game balance.

For cavalry fans the method of employing cavalry would be to pin the enemy with infantry then use your cavalry to smash him at a point of your choosing, in other words the decisive weapon.

 

[unmerged(106498)]

Riding a horse is obviously faster than moving on foot, both on a strategic and a tactical level. Anyone who is confused about this has obviously never riden a horse. The reduction in cavalry speed is a bad idea imo. Instead of making them slow to reduce their power, they should instead have an increased cost.

Cavalry troops are not your typical peasants with the addition of a trained horse. They are often nobility or at least members of a higher class than the serfs with pitchforks making up your bulk infantry troops. The way to balance cav should be obvious, make them cost more instead of nerfing their speed. I'd say a 50% increase in cost should be adequate to balance with their speed.

 

[luitzen]

There are at this time and all times no horses that could or can carry a knight across an entire country at full speed, except possibly one of those micro countries. Horses aren't cars.

What i am talking about are steppe ponies that nomads rode, each nomad would have several horses and would change horse regularly so the effort of carrying him was spread, in this manner a entire army would travel across the steppes in amazingly short times (for the era) at no point would they ever move at full speed only an utter fool would waste his horse pointlessly.

I agree with you about that. I was arguing against someone who stated horses would be able to do that. It still stands that modern horse breeds are superior to horses used back then.

 

[Fuhrab]

Quick reply: Cavalry/Mounted armies are faster. The Duke of Lancaster and the Black Prince's escapades through southern France and Brittany during the 1350's come to mind as an example in point (each man's command traveled 20-30 miles per day vs. 6 miles per day when Edward III ravaged northern Normandy with a full infantry/mounted army). France's John II disbanded his infantry outside Amiens (I think) before riding down to Poitiers to intercept the Prince due to the infantry's slow rate of march.

I agree with Antracer's proposal of having a limited range within which cavalry can pass a mixed/INF army. I haven't played HttT yet... (I own it, but I'm waiting for my new PC to arrive before I install it) so I'm not sure how the modifiers work. From what I've gathered the tactical benefits of CAV are there and I'm certain that within the balancing limits of the game, they reduced movement for a reason. Meh, I say. Meh.

On the bright side: we now have to acclimate ourselves to new methods of waging war.

 

[Avisian]

I don't think it is a good move to lower cavalry speed. As for going-before-the-rfunning-defenderf-in-the province scenario I would recommend:

If you are going to a province to which a hostile army already retreats from your current province you can never arrive before all the enemy stacks going in that direction, however you inflict some form of extra attrition when he arrive because of the persuit to the fleeing enemy based on the chasing troops, where cavalry inflicts 50% more then infantry thanks to their speed and mobility.

 

[GregoryTheBruce]

An army mounted entirely on horseback (e.g. the Mongols?) should be able to march faster than an army than requires wagons, etc. for transport. I'd agree that maybe this should vary by nation; after all, a feudal army has camp followers, etc. and so should move only at infantry- or wagon-speed.

Customary marching speed for cavalry...is five to eight miles an hour. Over easy ground that amounts to twenty-five to forty miles a day.

(from Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World)

The 13,500 Greek mercenaries who formed the core of the army of Cyrus the Younger, claimant to the Persian throne. Cyrus and his Greek mercenaries conducted the most impressive march prior to the age of Alexander the Great. Cyrus was able to force march his army across Asia Minor in 3.5 months by using the Persian highway and supply depots. The march from Sardes to Tarsus took 107 days (including 34 days of actual marching, 71 days of rest, a day of fighting for the Cilician Gates, and a day to cross the pass). The average rate of march was 25.7 miles per day, but for every day of marching there was two days of rest. The total distance covered was 222 parasangs (765.9 miles).

(from Tulane's History 310: Military)

Granted, ancient examples. Nevertheless, you can see that in the most legendary march of the period, the infantry barely averaged the lower range of cavalry marching speed.

EDIT: Note, I'm not particularly educated about this, and I do think that cavalry should have the same travel speed as infantry, because of camp followers, etc. But a national modifier would certainly be nice.

 

[unmerged(59077)]

To suggest that cavalry moved at the same speed as infantry is more than unreasonable, simply becasue the reverse was true in almost every mass deployment of horse armies, from the ancient times until WW2 (I remember a very long and detailed debate I participated in on the HoI forum, detailing just how much strategic and tactical mobility Soviet Cavalry had compared to other units of the era...they were pretty darn fast over good roads and amazing over broken terrain, which made them pretty decent at escaping encirclements).

Further, it mucks with any country bordering the Steppe - there's a reason why the main invasion routes such as the Crimea-to-Moscow line which went over easy fords and flat grounds was so heavily fortified over time - there was no way to spot and intercept even the very enormous horse armies (100K!) that the Crimean Khan would bring without fixed defenses blocking their way even with Russian armies (which were still fairly mobile and cavalry heavy compared to their western counterparts).

Fighting in Central Asia/Eurasian Steppe with infantry should not be viable until the late 1600s. Reducing horse speed is the wrong way to go about it. If man's vaunted long-distance prowess was a real strategic reality, Horse-Nomad armies wouldn't be as much of a vehicle for building great Empires as they were in history.

----

Generally speaking, in Western Europe infantry walked over roads, making them faster, whereas the Horse, even when in significant independent units, couldn't really go around the infantry because of the ditches, hedges, fences and canals that Eastern Europe didn't have; not to mention far more frequent castles and towns.

Even then, small horse units definitely have great mobility. Chevauchee was done on horseback. Russian princes raided each other on horseback. Tang armies (China's most illustrious military dynasty of mostly-native origin) fought on foot but moved around on horse.

Granted, cavalry already has less attrition to deal with, but again, if it's faster than infantry, it's because that's how it was.

 

[unmerged(173517)]

horses are definetely faster than humans. for those of you that dont think so have you ever seen a horse? :rofl:

i dunno about you but my game is so much about breaking up rebel sieges at 88% and by nerfing cavalry speed the game would be unplayable for me. i just want the ability to get across the map FAST. i really dont care about the battlefield aspects of INF vs CAV, i just want speed. for all i care the knights can ride fast and then dismount to fight so the horses can be rested. id be perfectly happy with that

IMO cavalry has been nerfed enough with lower battlefield modifiers, starting the battle with a fire phase (which is TOTALLY illogical), and higher costs. to take away speed now is just another unhistorical nail in the coffin of cavalry. battles should of course start with a shock phase. it's really stupid that cavalry is getting such a bad rap. cossacks in WW II were renowned for their speedy horses and small cannons mounted on top of them. just cause cavalry means that a person rides a horse doesnt mean that he's gonna use a sword.

a human vs a human+horse = human+horse by a wide margin.

instead of complicating the issue they shoulda just let the AI have all cav armies. but no they made all these stupid changes to battle mechanics, movement speed, modifiers etc to give AI armies, that for some reason always include infantry, a chance.

 

[Nilmerf]

As someone who works with horses for a living, reading some of the comments in this thread is really quite cringe-inducing. Horses can cover ground over any distance much faster than a human. Forget what you've seen in the movies, riders do not gallop unless they need to; the most efficient form of riding is the trot which does not tire out a good horse whatsoever. Forget about modern breeding, a horse is a horse and warhorses of the time would be in exceptional shape. And keep in mind that knights would have multiple horses with them, using their specifically designated charger only in battle.

In EU3, cavalry should be balanced in different ways rather than a speed reduction. Obviously higher cost, as well as higher attrition especially in the winter months due to lack of grazing available. The tactics modifier is a good one to encourage mixed armies, especially in the west where all-cavalry armies were rare. As it is now it the experience of playing as or against an eastern nation is less immerse than before. Some sort of national idea could fix that as well.

 

[truth is life]

IMO cavalry has been nerfed enough with lower battlefield modifiers, starting the battle with a fire phase (which is TOTALLY illogical), and higher costs. to take away speed now is just another unhistorical nail in the coffin of cavalry. battles should of course start with a shock phase. it's really stupid that cavalry is getting such a bad rap. cossacks in WW II were renowned for their speedy horses and small cannons mounted on top of them. just cause cavalry means that a person rides a horse doesnt mean that he's gonna use a sword.

The fire phase coming first makes perfect sense. Supposing I, leading a band of cavalry, attack a band of infantry with any reasonable amount of discipline and organization, what's going to happen first? Swording or shooting? Shooting, obviously, simply because you can do that at range while swording needs to get up close and personal. And certainly by the time the tercio was introduced, reasonably well-organized and disciplined infantry was fairly immune to cavalry charges as long as they could form up. The cavalry would spend itself on the pikes, while gunners would, you know, shoot them. Thus, fire first.

 

[Vice]

The problem was simple.

Players where using Cavalry as a tank force to conduct blitzkrieg style warfare. This was mostly unavoidable as we all now of the concept and the idea..and more importantly know it works.
The AI for all intents is focused on the plodding nature warfare of 1399-1820 and thus was very weak in the face of a 20th Century mode of warfare.


The simplest solution was the one they went with..slow the Cavalry down to Infantry speeds so that the player is in effect forced to use Cavalry in a manner it was used during this period.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

The problem was simple.

Players where using Cavalry as a tank force to conduct blitzkrieg style warfare. This was mostly unavoidable as we all now of the concept and the idea..and more importantly know it works.
The AI for all intents is focused on the plodding nature warfare of 1399-1820 and thus was very weak in the face of a 20th Century mode of warfare.


The simplest solution was the one they went with..slow the Cavalry down to Infantry speeds so that the player is in effect forced to use Cavalry in a manner it was used during this period.

Your explanation is far too simple and makes sense. For that I applaud you.

Unfortunately what you describe makes CAV historical by force instead of by virtue or nature of actual Cavalry use...

In this situation CAV is forced into historical use by using it in an unhistorical manner, no different than unhistorical use whilst being represented somewhat historically.

It's two sides of the same coin, and in the end just brings about the opposite argument.

A quick run through google on the subject and it becomes readily apparent that a trot by horse was faster, not galloping to the rescue faster, but faster. Wagons with supplies and paraphernalia belonging to Knights would slow a CAV unit down, but even then they could comfortably go 25-40 miles a day depending on ground. Horses at a trot can achieve 10-12 miles per hour, making 100 miles a day a reality given good conditions, fresh water and good ground.

Although many armies of the time used CAV together with everything else, there were many who did not, particularly to the east. The change has all but negated any realistic play in that part of the world. Raiding Cavalry armies were used all over the planet.

All that's been done is to negate one tactic in favor of another. Which I can understand. But to call it historical when someone such as I can discover it isn't...? Well, as my father use to say that horse don't fly.

In the final analysis, slowing CAV wasn't necessarily a wrong turn, it was a left turn...

And as we all know, neither of those is right.

T

 

[vicotnik]

The responses in this thread are indeed quite interesting, for various reasons. Do you really think that riding gives you special insight into how fast a horse can cover distances of several hundred kilometers? I have the advantage of both having ridden horses as well as doing military marches, and neither of these things tell me very much. As I see it there are a number of things to consider here.

1. Horses are faster over short distances, something everyone agrees about. This gives them the flanking capabilities they also have in the game as well as their high shock multipliers.

2. Over very long distances a human might actually outrun a horse due to the relative efficiency of human movement compared to that of the horse. Many people refuse to believe this despite things like the man vs horse race that is actually over a rather short distance.

3. When moving an army you are not going to treat it like a bunch of marathon runners which is why the man vs horse part means that some people are both wrong and right at the same time. On the other hand western armies rarely used pure cavalry at all.

4. If you actually use pure cavalry as well as replacement horses your army will be considerably more mobile. This was mostly a mongol thing though.

5. Just because you have horses doesn't mean that you can ride. In many cases, even in battles, it's not possible to actually use the horses due to terrain.

 

[unmerged(77825)]

Nerfing cavalry makes no sense whatsoever, and has made the game much easier. Sorry, but some of the fanboy reactions to critiscism of this move are utterly ridiculous. Cavalry SHOULD make a huge difference when campaigning early and it SHOULD be considerably faster than infantry. An army of 10,000 infantry versus 10,000 cavalry does NOT move faster! No matter how much you try bring up the man vs horse argument. There are numerous cases throughout history where a fast cavalry force have outrun a considerably less mobile force.

 

[King Nothing]

The problem with this thread is that there are way to many history references.. And also way to many personal references from people who seems to know shit.

Person A says that cavalry should be slow because of historical reasons and gives a long speech about slow wagon trains and nobility that can't set up camp on their own.. Then person B says that cavalry should be fast because of historical reasons and give a long speech about steppe nomads and mongols..
Is it strange that people can't agree?

Step 1 in a situation like this is to look for the actual problem. It's not untill you have found it that you can solve it... And the problem here is that EU3 have an extremely simplified unit system that can't differentiate between different types besides cavalry, infantry and artillery.
So, in this light. Is it possible to solve this problem? Yes and no. Or perhaps I should say yes and probably not. Yes because it can be solved for gameplay purposes. Which they haven't done.. And probably not in regard to history since there were just to much difference between different units even though they in EU3 is basically the same..