PDA

View Full Version : Cavalry too Strong?



Thrust123
29th May 2005, 08:11
In skirmish mode, I choose as my army all cavalry (Cuirassiers with the French) against an "automatic" mixed army (cavalry infantry and artillery) of the Russians.
I just blow them out of the map.
Whatever happened to the "mixed arms" advantage?
Isn't the cavalry just too strong in this game?
Is it true, as some fellow said before that if you just build pure cavalry armies you will be able to always win in the campaign?
:(

Queeg
29th May 2005, 08:17
Cavalry is almost always overpowered in games of this type. Same is true in RTW. I usually try to exercise some self-restraint in building cavalry units.

I do wish they would reduce the effectiveness of cavalry against infantry squares. Based on the reading I've done, cavalry should generally be all but useless against a well-formed infantry square. That's not true in IG at present and it makes cavalry an all-purpose uber unit on the battlefield. Not good.

GenMoore
29th May 2005, 08:21
Cav was allways the most potent arm in an Army, they would be classed as tanks in this day an age.

They were fast and exploited the battle, going for the guns was a major task for cav, as well as piquet duty,makeing Inf form square so the guns can hit them harder, the cav in the game are just right, you have to remember thats what there for, to take advantage of a situation.

Gelatinous Cube
29th May 2005, 08:57
Maybe i'm just wierd, but I never use Cavalry and I'm just fine. I don't think Cavalry is worth it's cost. Although I can see how it might be overpowered in multiplayer and such.

beware_of_the_snowman
29th May 2005, 09:04
i dont know why my game seems to be so different to everyone else's... i always find that squares of riflemen cut down cavalry easily, in this game im playing now the prussians have all-cavalry armies and i never look like losing. i dont like cavalry because they're more melee-based and i prefer to keep a safe distance ;)

Kaizer
29th May 2005, 14:33
I do not either use cav, very simple I prefer cannons and infantry units (especial Imeprial army units).
I put my cannons in the middle and my infatry in the sides of my cannons while behind I have an army unit in case the opponent cav reach my cannons to enage them. But the result is always the same. The cav of the opponent can not reach my cannons. :)

Isledall
29th May 2005, 14:55
against the AI cav is strong :)
but once you got grenadiers and square formation.. that cav has a bit of trouble :) unless supported by inf that is...

but indeed... when you only got cav you just charge at the AI and you have a winner.... it is just not my fun...

I enjoy the march of all those soldiers.. setting up the guns and have a good firefight... that is why I want a drummer, officer who cares give a whole music corps..!! I want the extra fluff.. I need the extra Fluff....

GenMoore
29th May 2005, 15:56
I do not think you undersatnd what I have said.

The cav if near Inf will make them form square, the reason they do this is to allow there arty to fire on the square, being that the square is a tight formation, the arty will do more damage.

You can use the Cav for lots of things, they will move faster around the flanks of your army, therefore destroying the guns and INf in line from behind.

Not to use cav because you think they are expensive, will cost you the game, if the other side have them. ;)

But maybe i am getting to technical :o .

redboo
29th May 2005, 16:50
I have found that unless you are playing at high. You rellay don't have have to do combind arms. The infantry goes in to line to try attack you then send the cav in again.

GenMoore
29th May 2005, 18:19
High, is that on alcohol, marawana,or adrenaline. :D

Isatheprophet2000
29th May 2005, 19:42
Hi the cavarly is not too strong it is just the maps are too small and the artilery do not have grape shot. if they did the cav would be balanced,

The artillery almost become useless except when u set up a fire zone and when the army decides to march it takes a few out.

They could make it more historical with out sacrificing the game play. I mean why use the napolenic era if u are not going to stick to some kind of historical accuracy.

I say bigger maps, cannons have 5x the range of muskets, and have bouncing cannon balls, etc

so cannons 100
Muskets 20
As in reall life cannons have the edege. Once this is done, u can set amo limts to say 20 shots. People would say oh no they would wipe us out. True more units, or more time reinforcements, foritications etc. and the use of woods and buildings more. I have seen maps where i cannot enter buildings other than what the map make wants, which is very limiting and stupid in my view.

redboo
29th May 2005, 22:08
The big thing missing from cannons is grape shot cavalry should get massacred when trying a frontal assault on cannons. The charge of the light brigade would have been a bloodless victory using the game. On the defensive you would start having to hide from cannons by placing your army behind ridge like Wellington. Cavalry should also be much more expensive to train and maintain for everyone apart from the Russians.


I am currently playing on top of Mount Everest.

Broadside
29th May 2005, 22:15
I am currently playing on top of Mount Everest.
Oh yeah? Prove it! :D

redboo
29th May 2005, 22:43
I'll give you a wave.

Queeg
30th May 2005, 04:31
OK, I retract my complaint about cavalry being too powerful against infantry squares. After reading the posts of those here who say squares work just fine, I ran a few Quick Battles, various cavalry units against Grenadeers in square. Infantry won every time, as it should.

Of course, add artillery and other infantry to the mix and the square has its limitations. Again, as it should.

My respect for the game grows.

Gelatinous Cube
30th May 2005, 04:46
Oh yeah, Squares are amazing. If you have some veteran troops who can form up real quick, Cavalry becomes obsolete against you.

Daerov
30th May 2005, 05:39
The big thing missing from cannons is grape shot cavalry should get massacred when trying a frontal assault on cannons. The charge of the light brigade would have been a bloodless victory using the game. On the defensive you would start having to hide from cannons by placing your army behind ridge like Wellington. Cavalry should also be much more expensive to train and maintain for everyone apart from the Russians.


I am currently playing on top of Mount Everest.

Hopefully you wouldn't charge your own troops in this game, it's a lot harder to get confused when you can look down on troops than it was when the light brigade was wiped out by their own guys...

Nial
30th May 2005, 06:17
Polish Lancers........WOW ..But I agree that the better troops seem to handle the Cav. much easier. Deeper I get the better the battles seem to be.

Seeing the AI hold it's position and try to use the terrain to it's advantage, instead of being easily drawn into my lines of fire like earlier.

Randell
30th May 2005, 10:44
Hopefully you wouldn't charge your own troops in this game, it's a lot harder to get confused when you can look down on troops than it was when the light brigade was wiped out by their own guys...

The Light Brigade were not wiped out by charging their own guys.

Sotos
30th May 2005, 12:21
AI and units balance (Cavalry and Artillery) will become better at the upcoming patch

redboo
30th May 2005, 12:23
The light brigade was wiped out attacking Russian cannons a cross open ground. They were supposed to attack guns whose crew killed earlier in the day which the Russian’s were trying to move back to safety. Due communications errors they attacked the wrong guns destroying the brigade as an effective force. If you try this in IG you will win but in reality you would get wiped out. The number of times I’ve attacked enemy cannons with cavalry and only lost 2 or 3 men is just silly. People are trying find mod’s to this game to increase the range of cannons, sooner the better.

Nial
31st May 2005, 14:57
Actualy....as I remember...the Light brigade charged up a shallow valley. With hills on both sides and at the end like a U. Taking fire from both sides and in front. They still made it to the guns at the apex of the U. Not much left when they got there though.

Nial
2nd Jun 2005, 20:24
Just thought Id post this for flavor :) What Elan?

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.


2.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.


3.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.


4.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.


5.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.


6.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.



Copied from Poems of Alfred Tennyson,
J. E. Tilton and Company, Boston, 1870




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sithaka
2nd Jun 2005, 23:01
Actualy....as I remember...the Light brigade charged up a shallow valley. With hills on both sides and at the end like a U. Taking fire from both sides and in front. They still made it to the guns at the apex of the U. Not much left when they got there though.
actually if I remember it correctly "only" 200-250 of the 600+ died that day(off course probably 80% were wounded I guess). So while it was a horrible mistake, it wasnt that bad.

Captain.Crunch
2nd Jun 2005, 23:40
In skirmish mode, I choose as my army all cavalry (Cuirassiers with the French) against an "automatic" mixed army (cavalry infantry and artillery) of the Russians.
I just blow them out of the map.
Whatever happened to the "mixed arms" advantage?
Isn't the cavalry just too strong in this game?
Is it true, as some fellow said before that if you just build pure cavalry armies you will be able to always win in the campaign?
:(

Cavalry is just it back in these times it owned you can run men down with them. Have you tried using square formation of your men the Cav will be piked. Maybe a limit on how much cav one person can have........ as history wasnt all about cav.

(type name here)
2nd Jun 2005, 23:42
except mongolian history.

Captain.Crunch
2nd Jun 2005, 23:45
except mongolian history.

True..... but even they would have troopers im sure of it.

Shearer9
2nd Jun 2005, 23:46
True..... but even they would have troopers im sure of it.

only when they dismounted, for example to ambush with arrows or something I should imagine, as they were nomadic.

Captain.Crunch
2nd Jun 2005, 23:54
only when they dismounted, for example to ambush with arrows or something I should imagine, as they were nomadic.

Whilst cav rule I think its safe to say that they can be slaughtered by foot troopers also…… look at the victory of Agincourt.

Both armies rose before dawn and assembled for battle, the English numbering 5000 archers and 900 men-at-arms and the French between 20-30,000. English won !

A good commander can win in any situation

(type name here)
3rd Jun 2005, 00:07
I don't know, look at the mongolian empire, that group of nomads on horses carved the longest and largest empire on earth.

Shearer9
3rd Jun 2005, 00:12
I don't know, look at the mongolian empire, that group of nomads on horses carved the longest and largest empire on earth.

longest and largest CONTINUOUS LAND empire on earth ;)

(type name here)
3rd Jun 2005, 00:14
Whatever! :rolleyes:

Ironhand
3rd Jun 2005, 01:06
Whilst cav rule I think its safe to say that they can be slaughtered by foot troopers also…… look at the victory of Agincourt.

Both armies rose before dawn and assembled for battle, the English numbering 5000 archers and 900 men-at-arms and the French between 20-30,000. English won !

A good commander can win in any situation

Not a great example, IMHO. The battlefield, a freshly plowed field, was soaked by rain and turned into a muddy quagmire. Ankle deep at best, frequently waist deep, horses mired up to their bellies. Not a cavalry friendly field. Or for any armored man really.

And with the thick forest on either side, it was a head-on advance into a hail of arrows. Remember a trained longbowman could get off up to 12 unaimed ahots a minute. And stupid tactics didn't help. Like ignoring the men at arms/bowmen because they weren't worth what a captured English knight woukd be.

Had the field been dry, with the French chivalry able to launch a proper charge, it more than likely would of gone the other way.

A good game on this was SPI's Agincourt. In the solitare version, the French advance in the same old style, and get slaughtered in the same old style.

Captain.Crunch
3rd Jun 2005, 01:31
Not a great example, IMHO. The battlefield, a freshly plowed field, was soaked by rain and turned into a muddy quagmire. Ankle deep at best, frequently waist deep, horses mired up to their bellies. Not a cavalry friendly field. Or for any armored man really.

And with the thick forest on either side, it was a head-on advance into a hail of arrows. Remember a trained longbowman could get off up to 12 unaimed ahots a minute. And stupid tactics didn't help. Like ignoring the men at arms/bowmen because they weren't worth what a captured English knight woukd be.

Had the field been dry, with the French chivalry able to launch a proper charge, it more than likely would of gone the other way.

A good game on this was SPI's Agincourt. In the solitare version, the French advance in the same old style, and get slaughtered in the same old style.


I stand by what i say a good commander can win in any situation look at lord nelson....... and i could go on there are heaps of commanders out there that have been in the worst possible situation you could be in and still won.

You are most right the environment has a huge impact on any army.... however if it was dry i still think that the british would have shot them down as you say they blow of a lot of arrows in a minute....

Once they did reach them in that battle anyway the archers used hand to hand combat so it wasnt all arrows it came down to a bloddy hand combat with what ever they had at there use and mind you the archers have **** all for body protection the french knights where so well armoured that they sunk in the mud.

(type name here)
3rd Jun 2005, 01:41
the french knights where so well armoured that they sunk in the mud.

Really? LOL! :p

Captain.Crunch
3rd Jun 2005, 01:43
Really? LOL! :p

Uhmm yes LOL they sunk hard to..... in fact the british archers hit them over the head and pushed them more into the bud in the last part of the battle to kill them.