Western cavalry - any point?

[GAGA Extrem]

Honestly, I am happy with the new mechanics.

Playing all CAV up to 1650 was boring and lame. Being able to outrun enemies with all-CAV and forcing them to attack after their retreat was gamey.

I agree that the lowered speed for CAV is somewhat uncomfortable, but honestly, the EU combat mechanics are even more abstract than the CK ones - in that game we had at least some different unit types... If EU had a province scale like HoI3, I would agree that CAV could be a bit faster. But with large provinces like this? Nope.

For all those who want fast CAV back: It is 2 clicks away in EU3/common/defines.txt, just set

1.0 #_MDEF_CAVALRY_SPEED_,

to

1.2 #_MDEF_CAVALRY_SPEED_,

All done.

The speed reduction might or might not be historical, but it was desperatly needed for gameplay balance.

 

[Darkrenown]

Curses, Gaga, I was about to post that exact same thing. Wasn't it 1.5 before though?

 

[unmerged(69928)]

Honestly, I am happy with the new mechanics.

Playing all CAV up to 1650 was boring and lame. Being able to outrun enemies with all-CAV and forcing them to attack after their retreat was gamey.

I agree that the lowered speed for CAV is somewhat uncomfortable, but honestly, the EU combat mechanics are even more abstract than the CK ones - in that game we had at least some different unit types... If EU had a province scale like HoI3, I would agree that CAV could be a bit faster. But with large provinces like this? Nope.

For all those who want fast CAV back: It is 2 clicks away in EU3/common/defines.txt, just set

1.0 #_MDEF_CAVALRY_SPEED_,

to

1.2 #_MDEF_CAVALRY_SPEED_,

All done.

The speed reduction might or might not be historical, but it was desperatly needed for gameplay balance.

I was just checking the defines file and typing this... :rofl:

The CAV value I have for 3.2b is 1.5... does this mean it got lowered twice...?

T

 

[Trin Tragula]

Imho the only loss of realism for the speed reduction of all cavalry armies are for the steppe nations, I never thought it made sense that cavalry had a higher marching speed than infantry for sedentary nations.

 

[Viljainen]

I think the best solution would be to have different unit types with different speeds available. The eastern tech groups could have faster cavalry and the latins could perhaps make a choice between slower but more powerful knights and faster but slightly weaker chevauchées.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

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.

Even light infantryman in late medieval could be better protected than a roman legionary of old (helmet, brigadine [a laced plate armor between cloth layers] and plate limb protection seem to have been a particularily common combination in 15th century West Europe, and was not considered heavy armouring at all).

Many were professional soldier and the ones that weren't were militia usually recruited from areas with established military tradition. In Italy, for example, infantry militia seems to have done battlefield drills to learn how to support their heavy cavalry.

The pitchfork peasants are the stuff of myth, more or less.

Most cavalry was usually not of the heaviest knightly kind, about 10%-20% roughly. Even the knights own lance usually had 2-4 additional lighter cavalrymen or mounted infantrymen (mounted longbowmen seem to have been a fad in late 15th century France and Burgundy) in addition to himself.

I'd still like to point out that the usefulness of cavalry as a rapid response and exploitation force was already recognized during early new age. Venice, for example, kept a large force of mounted crossbowmen as defense against Ottoman raids (or Frenchmen). The blitzkrieg-like chase after Jena-Auerstedt would be a good example of the exploitive ability of cavalry, in turn.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Curses, Gaga, I was about to post that exact same thing. Wasn't it 1.5 before though?

I was just checking the defines file and typing this...

The CAV value I have for 3.2b is 1.5... does this mean it got lowered twice...?

Yes, it is indeed possible that CAV had 1.5 before.
I think I reduced it to 1.2 in my GAGA Mod (not the HoI3 one ) - and since I didn't play vanilla anymore, I got used to the lower value...

...still, 1.2 is a decent choise between overpowered Blitkrieg CAV and slow ass INF like troops, isn't it?

 

[unmerged(39280)]

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.

Not true and i can provide exemples if you wish. It all depended on relative quality of infantry and cavalry formations doing the fight, terrain, etc.

I agree about the fire phase of curse - it is more logical to put it before shock.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

Yes, it is indeed possible that CAV had 1.5 before.
I think I reduced it to 1.2 in my GAGA Mod (not the HoI3 one ) - and since I didn't play vanilla anymore, I got used to the lower value...

...still, 1.2 is a decent choise between overpowered Blitkrieg CAV and slow ass INF like troops, isn't it?

I think so. I am thinking (as posted in the other thread about this) that after a spell of 'as delivered' values, a move to CAV at 1.2 and ART at 0.8 will be where I end up. It won't be enough to really blitz, but will be enough to get that "saved by the Cavalry" feeling.

I really got used to the ART change, it doesn't seem much but it it just felt alot better. Armies moved with a little more 'fluidity'... It also made the AI that much quicker in reacting, which was nice. Nothing like having them show up just before you're ready for a little excitement.

I'd be interested to see if the move alters AI army composition... I doubt they'll recognize the difference, but they may react to player army composition. I could see an all CAV stack as a rebel mop or as a booster unit.

Even so, with the casualty numbers I still don't see all CAV making a comeback, even if the speed was returned. Anything after tech 12 puts you in manpower depletion land pretty quickly if you go all CAV, and after that unless you can damage an enemy first, a CAV assault is a pretty good way to lose alot of guys.

In the modded land tables I used, the effect was the same. Casualties among CAV would force you to have to sit for rest periods to heal up before you could move on. It could also burn through 10,000 MP before you knew what hit you, so if anything the current model will make me feel 'right at home'...

T

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Had some second thoughts about CAV speed 1.2 a few minutes ago:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10550013&postcount=32

In general, CAV is still very strong on defence. In open terrain you will also notice almost nothing has changed during the first century. I have reached 1550 with my Holland game - and CAV is still crushing all opposition.

Although I think that mixed stacks will become superiour around LT 18, when fire finally becomes better.

 

[unmerged(69928)]

I just got done responding to it...

T

 

[sprites]

faster cav would be even more gamey than before
on one battle one of my 4k army totally destroyed a 15k enemy retreating army , if cav moves faster you'll be able to obliterate th AI army more often

but maybe giving the hordes alightly faster cavalry would be interesting

 

[unmerged(69928)]

faster cav would be even more gamey than before
on one battle one of my 4k army totally destroyed a 15k enemy retreating army , if cav moves faster you'll be able to obliterate th AI army more often

but maybe giving the hordes alightly faster cavalry would be interesting

I believe this may be the mighty terrain modifiers at work. With a maneuver general, any army that can get ahead of any retreating army has excellent opportunity to wipe anyone off the map. With -4 plus against, your 4K band would be nigh invincible to a moral depleted war weary band of men.

I'd be interested to see how 4K INF vs 4K mixed vs 4K CAV vs the retreating regiments compare in the same scenario.

Anyway you slice it, he who has the maneuver will be in the driver's seat.

T

 

[Septimius]

Cavalry

According to "Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages" by Michael Prestwich, Destriers (warhorses for knights) were the most specialized of horses, and not an ordinary animal. They were highly trained, expertly bred horses, and capable of carrying a heavy load. So this horse would be expensive to have, and thus, used by knights exclusively. This means there would be fewer of them, and they would need to be taken care of.

Also, according to Prestwich, men needed more than one horse; important men needed a "considerable number." That is, horses might become sick or lame, and remounts were needed. Warhorses were not suitable for riding long distances: "a knight would possess at least two other horses in addition to his charger." Most knights had as many as five or eight.

Now considering these facts alone, it is quite correct that on ordinary marching, having the necessary baggage and crew to support more than one horse per knight, would mean that even though cavalry is "faster" than infantry (which is obvious) its rate of march would be equivalent to infantry. Considering that an all-cavalry force would still need grooms and attendants with them (this is a strategic game, after all), I find it quite logical that the speed is reduced. Don't forget that horse needs to eat, and that it takes time to forage, which thus slows down rate of movement. The care of horses is more involved than just hopping on and riding away, especially on military expeditions. This is a mistake the horse proponents are making when speaking about horses traveling faster than men on foot.

[At least for Western cavalry. I do think the Mongol Hordes are a different proposition, but I haven't looked into that.]

The problem (I think) that the people who know about horses tend to make is that those people are viewing the horse, and not the cavalry formation: Rushing a cavalry unit from one province to another (say, over 20 miles, and that is way low on game terms) means that the horses will be exhausted when they get to their location (ahead of the fleeing enemy force), and would not offer the very advantage they supposedly have: shock. The charge (which is what they were used for) would be ragged. - Some horses would have gotten lame, others would not have the stamina, and still others may be supercharged, and so outdistance their companions, and hit the enemy forces piecemeal, and be wiped out. If the horses stood still until the enemy appeared, then the very shock effect is nullified.

I think the decision made by Paradox is probably the best one considering the actual way cavalry was used on the battlefied..

 

[unmerged(59077)]

The problem (I think) that the people who know about horses tend to make is that those people are viewing the horse, and not the cavalry formation: Rushing a cavalry unit from one province to another (say, over 20 miles, and that is way low on game terms) means that the horses will be exhausted when they get to their location (ahead of the fleeing enemy force), and would not offer the very advantage they supposedly have: shock. The charge (which is what they were used for) would be ragged. - Some horses would have gotten lame, others would not have the stamina, and still others may be supercharged, and so outdistance their companions, and hit the enemy forces piecemeal, and be wiped out. If the horses stood still until the enemy appeared, then the very shock effect is nullified.

I think the decision made by Paradox is probably the best one considering the actual way cavalry was used on the battlefied..

That's why you have a riding horse and a fighting horse and a pack horse, and your servants have horses and pack horses of their own. When the author of the book talks about "considerable numbers', that is what is had in mind. And it's not like marching infantry doesn't get tired.

Slow cavalry may make theoretical sense but history completely does not bear that out. Completely. And this is a historical game.

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...

Well, the purported dilemma has an easy solution. Person A is incorrect.

If someone can find me an example of an army on foot catching an all-mounted army (that doesn't want to get caught) in a real historical war, I'd be very grateful and rethink my position. Otherwise, cavalry speed is the first thing that gets fixed when I actually start playing the game.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

That's why you have a riding horse and a fighting horse and a pack horse, and your servants have horses and pack horses of their own. When the author of the book talks about "considerable numbers', that is what is had in mind. And it's not like marching infantry doesn't get tired.

Slow cavalry may make theoretical sense but history completely does not bear that out. Completely. And this is a historical game.



Well, the purported dilemma has an easy solution. Person A is incorrect.

If someone can find me an example of an army on foot catching an all-mounted army (that doesn't want to get caught) in a real historical war, I'd be very grateful and rethink my position. Otherwise, cavalry speed is the first thing that gets fixed when I actually start playing the game.

Aside from Steppe/Nomad armies, how many other armies were all exclusively mounted?

 

[unmerged(59077)]

Aside from Steppe/Nomad armies, how many other armies were all exclusively mounted?

Commonplace for smaller forces in Eastern Europe and North Africa, actually, especially when conducting small warfare (i.e. beating up the other guy's bodyguard, raiding the other guy's peasantry). Or in France when you're going all cheuvachee on your enemies; someone did mention the Black Prince here, no?

Or you know, mercenary cavalry banners in the Italian wars. Plenty of those, especially from the Balkans.

Granted none of those examples are 12K men big like the player tends to do in EU, but they're there, they're real, and they're fast.

So yes, I'm still waiting for that example where superior human infantry endurance ran a mounted army into a battle they didn't want to fight.

And as for Nomad armies, surely they're too important and too numerous to ignore, expecially considering the time period? Because frankly I'm really tired of 15K all-infantry Timurid stacks running around beating up Oirat cavalry.

On that note: is there a way to set cavalry speeds for different tech groups, through a triggered modifier, for example?

 

[TheLoneGunman]

Commonplace for smaller forces in Eastern Europe and North Africa, actually, especially when conducting small warfare (i.e. beating up the other guy's bodyguard, raiding the other guy's peasantry). Or in France when you're going all cheuvachee on your enemies; someone did mention the Black Prince here, no?

Or you know, mercenary cavalry banners in the Italian wars. Plenty of those, especially from the Balkans.

Granted none of those examples are 12K men big like the player tends to do in EU, but they're there, they're real, and they're fast.

So yes, I'm still waiting for that example where superior human infantry endurance ran a mounted army into a battle they didn't want to fight.

And as for Nomad armies, surely they're too important and too numerous to ignore, expecially considering the time period? Because frankly I'm really tired of 15K all-infantry Timurid stacks running around beating up Oirat cavalry.

On that note: is there a way to set cavalry speeds for different tech groups, through a triggered modifier, for example?

Couldn't nomad/steppe generals get a bonus to their maneuver ability? Or would it be unfair to make their foot infantry also faster?

It's tough to balance, because those smaller cavalry forces you mention never marched long distances to wage a large strategically important battle.

I agree things need to be fixed, I'm just not sure allowing a 12k strong all-mounted army to run circles around everything in sight and stomp them into the ground no matter what is the right approach. Especially when the AI doesn't seem to be able to exploit the same situation.

 

[Septimius]

That's why you have a riding horse and a fighting horse and a pack horse, and your servants have horses and pack horses of their own. When the author of the book talks about "considerable numbers', that is what is had in mind. And it's not like marching infantry doesn't get tired.

Slow cavalry may make theoretical sense but history completely does not bear that out. Completely. And this is a historical game.

A note: the way I read it, your argument seems to be headed the wrong way: The number of horses, the supplies needed to feed them, the men needed to take care of them mitigates against strategic speed, not support it.

Granted that cavalry is inherently faster. But show me a list of Western European battles that are PURE cavalry formations. And if they are, then they are localized, that is, relatively tactical engagments involving charges, or detached forces away from the main elements of the battle, or even raids against civilian forces.

However, a short listing of important battles on the field (in the early time frame of EU3) indicate the contribution of infantry to some extent: Nicopolis 1396; Tannenburg 1410; Agincourt 1415; Vitkov 1429; Constantinople (siege) 1453; Brunkeberg 1471.

The reason I mention these is because important battles were ususally mixed forces, and that pure cavalry forces in battles was RARE. Feudal European armies were mainly mixed units.

In general, the siege was more important than the battlefield during this period, and cavalry is less useful in that type of operation. I will concede that small tactical operations can be exclusively cavalry. However, these don't win wars: sieges do; occupation of provinces do.

So, according to scale, cavalry skirmishes would usually be sub-provincial movements, for the most part.

I believe the strategic impact of cavalry is also sub-provincial; that is, it is handled by the attributes within the battle itself. Cavalry pursuit would occur within a province and not out of it: It would occur near the battlespace. And, it would be pure pursuit: there is no valid reason to have a cavalry force move into a HUGE province and find the enemy if that cavalry force has broken contact with its foe. Rather, it would remain in contact and harass the enemy routing formation. With cavalry having superior speed in game terms, this pursuit will not take place, creating the anomaly of having cavalry waiting for the infantry it has just defeated.

Also, since EU3 is a grand strategic game, the scale needs to be taken into consideration. This is a question of symbolic forces represented as predominately of one kind or another. We can argue all day about "panzer" cavalry and "stick-in-the-mud" infantry, but the formations are not pure, just representative.

So what if small level skirmishes with cavalry are faster? In the scale of the game, it's not as relevant. At the level we're playing at, the "pure cavalry" army is false: it may be predominately cavalry, but not exclusively. The designers even say that artillery regiments don't represent 1000 guns, but all of the troops necessary to service the guns. The actual gun count is smaller. So, if you grant a regiment of 1K horse, how many extra men and material is off on the sidelines slowing them down?

Napoleonic Warfare of course had the cavalry charge, but again, this is in conjunction with Infantry, and is usually tactical. Therefore the speed advantage is moot. I admit to not being up to speed on Napoleonic era battles, it's been many years since I've studied the period, so I can stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.

So with that being the case, I still stand by my point. Tactical speed is not the same as strategic speed, and slow cavalry is as much realistic as "fast" cavalry.

Now given all that defense of my position, I still think that Asian cavalry forces are a completely separate case, and need special handling. In the Mongol hordes, they depended less upon baggage trains, foraging off the land, which increased their rate of march. So, it might be correct historically to increase asian nomadic cavalry speeds, but again, not so much for the Western counterpart.

 

[unmerged(59077)]

The reason I mention these is because important battles were ususally mixed forces, and that pure cavalry forces in battles was RARE. Feudal European armies were mainly mixed units.

Well, the underlying problem is that of course there's too little granularity and too many battles that would be considered quite large throughout EU's time period that happen with frightening frequency in the game.

With cavalry having superior speed in game terms, this pursuit will not take place, creating the anomaly of having cavalry waiting for the infantry it has just defeated.

With cavalry having the same speed as infantry, you can have fantastic situations like no pursuit at all, and retreating cavalry arriving in the next province AFTER the infantry that's pursuing them does. Please explain me that one.

So, if you grant a regiment of 1K horse, how many extra men and material is off on the sidelines slowing them down?

As many as none, or the entire train, depending on the situation. At the scale we're playing we also don't have the forts and towns that would provide supply or hinder movement. That said, why assume that you need your baggage train to engage the enemy?

Therefore the speed advantage is moot.

...no. Just no. Good Napoleonic-era light cavalry did run rings around the opponent even in hostile territory. It's just that at that point, cavalry couldn't deal with infantry head on anymore and rarely engaged. But they certainly performed a lot of functions that can only be simulated on a provincial level rather than the battle screen. It's not very important, however.

Now given all that defense of my position, I still think that Asian cavalry forces are a completely separate case, and need special handling. In the Mongol hordes, they depended less upon baggage trains, foraging off the land, which increased their rate of march. So, it might be correct historically to increase asian nomadic cavalry speeds, but again, not so much for the Western counterpart.

I'd settle for that. I'm still curious as to the possible modifiers that could be done, because 20K foot armies in north Turkmenistan or whatever chasing down horse are quite upsetting.