The complaint about Cavalry...
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
The complaint about Cavalry...
Is that these units are TOO deadly against early war tanks, especially in close terrain. Why? Because they have a hard attack of 1 against the close defense on early war tanks of 2. 1 attack against 2 defense is quite deadly, something like 40% or 50% kill.
Well it occurred to me that cavalry are more like RECON(high speed, 3 vision, low combat stats) units than they are INFANTRY(2 or 3 speed, 2 vision).
If cavalry was changed to be a recon class, this problem would go away. Cavalry would lose their ability to access the close defense of tanks (this is what makes them so deadly), and they would gain the ability to move in phases (staggered recon movement).
Also, when infantry attack them in open terrain, they will fight the Cavalry's Ground Defense, and if infantry engages them in close terrain, infantry will have the advantage of attacking the Cavalry's Close Defense while using their own Ground Defense, thus giving standard infantry an advantage against Cavalry in close terrain.
Thoughts?
Well it occurred to me that cavalry are more like RECON(high speed, 3 vision, low combat stats) units than they are INFANTRY(2 or 3 speed, 2 vision).
If cavalry was changed to be a recon class, this problem would go away. Cavalry would lose their ability to access the close defense of tanks (this is what makes them so deadly), and they would gain the ability to move in phases (staggered recon movement).
Also, when infantry attack them in open terrain, they will fight the Cavalry's Ground Defense, and if infantry engages them in close terrain, infantry will have the advantage of attacking the Cavalry's Close Defense while using their own Ground Defense, thus giving standard infantry an advantage against Cavalry in close terrain.
Thoughts?
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Problem is historically the Polish army was 10% cavalry and these troops were not considered recon assets , but "fire brigades" of quality MOUNTED Infantry that could race and plug gaps in a line etc rapid offenses etc. I believe they were organised in 11-12 Brigades in which they had organic artillery, bicycle mounted infantry and even some tankettes.
But in fact, weren't they merely chewed up by the tanks? I'm not saying the Polish didn't put forth and fine and brave effort, but they had little effect against even PzI's and II's.Problem is historically the Polish army was 10% cavalry and these troops were not considered recon assets , but "fire brigades" of quality MOUNTED Infantry that could race and plug gaps in a line etc rapid offenses etc.
You have to remember that the Polish campaign was the first use of mass tanks in a blitzkrieg fashion. It was not just the technology that defeated the Poles, but the shock of the new style of warfare.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
No, it was the techology, the shock and that they were strategically surrounded on three sides ( and then a 4th when Russia joined in, doh)macattack wrote:But in fact, weren't they merely chewed up by the tanks? I'm not saying the Polish didn't put forth and fine and brave effort, but they had little effect against even PzI's and II's.Problem is historically the Polish army was 10% cavalry and these troops were not considered recon assets , but "fire brigades" of quality MOUNTED Infantry that could race and plug gaps in a line etc rapid offenses etc.
You have to remember that the Polish campaign was the first use of mass tanks in a blitzkrieg fashion. It was not just the technology that defeated the Poles, but the shock of the new style of warfare.
What I am sayin is that the Polish cavalry fought like infantry, but had the mobility of , uh cavalry:) The problem with making them recon class is that they will be slaughtered by German infantry(and tanks) too easily. Since defensivley they had the same assets as an infantry unit and fought the same way, they should have the same ability vs tanks as infantry. Perhaps to represent that the cavalry units were smaller, their nominal strength should be 5 sp's instead of 10? So an infantry unit represents a division , a cavalry unit a brigade? This likly too will make them too weak though....
OT: Grats on the sexy Tiger I upgrade.TheGrayMouser wrote:No, it was the techology, the shock and that they were strategically surrounded on three sides ( and then a 4th when Russia joined in, doh)
What I am sayin is that the Polish cavalry fought like infantry, but had the mobility of , uh cavalry:) The problem with making them recon class is that they will be slaughtered by German infantry(and tanks) too easily. Since defensivley they had the same assets as an infantry unit and fought the same way, they should have the same ability vs tanks as infantry. Perhaps to represent that the cavalry units were smaller, their nominal strength should be 5 sp's instead of 10? So an infantry unit represents a division , a cavalry unit a brigade? This likly too will make them too weak though....
I'd have it too... damn this Panzer Corps Team logo, it never changes!
I absolutely disagree that the French cavalry are any threat, I say give the AI more of those, since they are easy to crush even on Manstein.
Paratroopers vs. unsuppressed French cavalry in a forest.
Admittedly this was an attack done with a super-elite unit, thanks to the +3 initiative hero. But even without the hero, all I'd do is bombard once then attack.
In the open, PzIVD slaughters cavalry, because the cavalry has very bad initiative relative to the PzIVD, and they get slaughtered because of their abysmal 3 ground defense.. I often attack unsuppressed 15 strength cavalry with a 2-3 star 12 strength PzIVD and walk away unscathed, doing 8-9 damage.
Paratroopers vs. unsuppressed French cavalry in a forest.
Admittedly this was an attack done with a super-elite unit, thanks to the +3 initiative hero. But even without the hero, all I'd do is bombard once then attack.
In the open, PzIVD slaughters cavalry, because the cavalry has very bad initiative relative to the PzIVD, and they get slaughtered because of their abysmal 3 ground defense.. I often attack unsuppressed 15 strength cavalry with a 2-3 star 12 strength PzIVD and walk away unscathed, doing 8-9 damage.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
LOL : OT , dont you have the power to give yourself any avatar you desire? Im concerned if I keep babbling on these forums too much theyll take away my tiger and give me some clunking, unsexy, mechanical nighmare like a Ferdinand
I see your point about cavalry in other armies and especially within the DLCS which is a smaller focus and there will be more of them to deal with... Hmmm Take away their 1 HA value? Bah that wouldnt work as then any Hard unit with a single SP could block them.....Obvioulsy rebalancing every unit in game for one unit doesnt make sence either. I do stand by that they should fair as well vs tanks when on the defencive as well as any other infantry unit, not sure what players are seeing though, certainly they shouldnt do better ! Maybe their initiative could be tweeked?
I see your point about cavalry in other armies and especially within the DLCS which is a smaller focus and there will be more of them to deal with... Hmmm Take away their 1 HA value? Bah that wouldnt work as then any Hard unit with a single SP could block them.....Obvioulsy rebalancing every unit in game for one unit doesnt make sence either. I do stand by that they should fair as well vs tanks when on the defencive as well as any other infantry unit, not sure what players are seeing though, certainly they shouldnt do better ! Maybe their initiative could be tweeked?
I don't have a problem with them. Every unit is powerful in their own terms.
Everyone forgets the Polish Calvary had the best AT gun in WW2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wz._35_anti-tank_rifle
And I don't understand why everyone complains about the Polish.
They lasted longer than most countries in WW2, even France. They were fierce fighters and had good equipment like the Pzl 23b bomber.
The Polish were so fierce they were in the British and American armies.
Everyone forgets the Polish Calvary had the best AT gun in WW2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wz._35_anti-tank_rifle
And I don't understand why everyone complains about the Polish.
They lasted longer than most countries in WW2, even France. They were fierce fighters and had good equipment like the Pzl 23b bomber.
The Polish were so fierce they were in the British and American armies.
I see your French Cavalry and raise you Soviet Cavalry.deducter wrote:I absolutely disagree that the French cavalry are any threat, I say give the AI more of those, since they are easy to crush even on Manstein.
Changing Cavalry to Recon instead of Infantry class won't change your battle. Your elite infantry will still have access to the cavalry's close defense attribute and decimate them.
Changing Cavalry to Recon WILL change the second combat result though, instead of accessing the Close Defense of my recon car (1) the cavalry would be fighting against its Ground Defense rating (6).
If we change the cavalry units, next thing people will complain about is normal infantry killing their tanks. After all, even "normal" Polish infantry has the same HA and CD, and higher GD.
I don't like the proposed change at all. It would be artificial (most cavalry units were not recon units), and it can well make cavalry useless. As it stands now, this unit has a good niche. Yes, it is obsolete by the end of war (as in reality), but in early war its a mobile unit which can kick some serious ass in close terrain. At the same time, in open terrain there is not much it can do against a tank, even PzI (the odds are something like 4/1 in tank's favor). What does it mean? Don't put your tanks in close terrain, you will be punished. A mobile infantry unit is exactly what's needed here. It is both realistic, and has good gameplay implications.
Also, let's not forget that "recon" class in this game means more a "recon armored car", not recon in general. And consequently, this class also has some special rules associated with it, like a bonus against AT units and low entrenchment rate. It will be no good to try to stuff what is an almost normal infantry unit into recon rules framework.
I don't like the proposed change at all. It would be artificial (most cavalry units were not recon units), and it can well make cavalry useless. As it stands now, this unit has a good niche. Yes, it is obsolete by the end of war (as in reality), but in early war its a mobile unit which can kick some serious ass in close terrain. At the same time, in open terrain there is not much it can do against a tank, even PzI (the odds are something like 4/1 in tank's favor). What does it mean? Don't put your tanks in close terrain, you will be punished. A mobile infantry unit is exactly what's needed here. It is both realistic, and has good gameplay implications.
Also, let's not forget that "recon" class in this game means more a "recon armored car", not recon in general. And consequently, this class also has some special rules associated with it, like a bonus against AT units and low entrenchment rate. It will be no good to try to stuff what is an almost normal infantry unit into recon rules framework.
If we change the cavalry units, next thing people will complain about is normal infantry killing their tanks. Wink After all, even "normal" Polish infantry has the same HA and CD, and higher GD.
I don't like the proposed change at all. It would be artificial (most cavalry units were not recon units), and it can well make cavalry useless. As it stands now, this unit has a good niche. Yes, it is obsolete by the end of war (as in reality), but in early war its a mobile unit which can kick some serious ass in close terrain. At the same time, in open terrain there is not much it can do against a tank, even PzI (the odds are something like 4/1 in tank's favor). What does it mean? Don't put your tanks in close terrain, you will be punished. A mobile infantry unit is exactly what's needed here. It is both realistic, and has good gameplay implications.
Also, let's not forget that "recon" class in this game means more a "recon armored car", not recon in general. And consequently, this class also has some special rules associated with it, like a bonus against AT units and low entrenchment rate. It will be no good to try to stuff what is an almost normal infantry unit into recon rules framework.
Absolutely agree...
Tim van der Moer - CEO The Lordz Games Studio
http://www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
http://www.panzer-corps.com
http://www.commander-games.com
http://www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
http://www.panzer-corps.com
http://www.commander-games.com
Re: The complaint about Cavalry...
Thoughts:Kerensky wrote:Is that these units are TOO deadly against early war tanks, especially in close terrain. Why? Because they have a hard attack of 1 against the close defense on early war tanks of 2. 1 attack against 2 defense is quite deadly, something like 40% or 50% kill.
Well it occurred to me that cavalry are more like RECON(high speed, 3 vision, low combat stats) units than they are INFANTRY(2 or 3 speed, 2 vision).
If cavalry was changed to be a recon class, this problem would go away. Cavalry would lose their ability to access the close defense of tanks (this is what makes them so deadly), and they would gain the ability to move in phases (staggered recon movement).
Also, when infantry attack them in open terrain, they will fight the Cavalry's Ground Defense, and if infantry engages them in close terrain, infantry will have the advantage of attacking the Cavalry's Close Defense while using their own Ground Defense, thus giving standard infantry an advantage against Cavalry in close terrain.
Thoughts?
- 95% of people think "German tank = Tiger tank vs Polish cavalry = cavalry with sabres";
- German Panzer I & II tanks were not real tanks, you should have already known about it;
- Cavalries for different countries can be modeled accordingly (infantry / recon / whatever); thats a nice idea for the future ;
-
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:38 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
I agree - no changes needed.
I had a few hard moments fighting cavalry, usually when they attacked my tanks in forests. This comes as a surprise since they have good movement range and can catch you unaware, but this is just something you have to learn to take care of.
They are not overpowered, but can cause damage by surprise.
I have 2 units in my core at the beginning of '40 DLC and they do the job of recon and very mobile inf.. Changing them would make them useless.
I had a few hard moments fighting cavalry, usually when they attacked my tanks in forests. This comes as a surprise since they have good movement range and can catch you unaware, but this is just something you have to learn to take care of.
They are not overpowered, but can cause damage by surprise.
I have 2 units in my core at the beginning of '40 DLC and they do the job of recon and very mobile inf.. Changing them would make them useless.
If someone wonders, thats how the Polish Cavalry looked like (photo taken during the battle near Bzura river):
http://www.mojeopinie.pl/img/zoom4/batt ... a_1939.jpg
Equipped with AT rifles and AT guns, and with a high mobility, it was a force to be reckoned with.
http://www.mojeopinie.pl/img/zoom4/batt ... a_1939.jpg
Equipped with AT rifles and AT guns, and with a high mobility, it was a force to be reckoned with.