Cavalry gone wild (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series



Message


all5n -> Cavalry gone wild (4/22/2012 4:45:06 AM)

I have noticed that the addition of the cavalry unit has fundimentally changed the game to the point where few other infantry units are used. I have noticed some players stop using other infantry subfomrations altogether.

Cavalry is overpowered against infantry at the moment. When you look at the cavalry attack rating versus infantry, it seems too high. The current attack rating of 80 should be lowered to 50 or so at a bare minimum. The thought of an infantry unit with machineguns and rifles being grossly outmatched by mounted units does not make sense to me.

Besides the fact that cavalry is overpowered at the moment, this is a WWII era game. Cavalry engagements/units were totally obsolete in WWII, something that was rare or a part of antiquated armies.

Vic, i think something needs to be done about this in the next patch.

Thanks for listening.




AdamRinkleff -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (4/22/2012 7:51:20 AM)

I won't lie, I'm really just looking for a 1v1 opponent with some experience. You know, we could play some games, and edit the .at2 file and balance things out. I find there are a lot of things that need to be adjusted. I've actually never had someone beat me with mass cavalry, but I'd like you to try! In all honesty, cavalry was mostly out-dated in WWI! I say mostly because it did achieve some significant use during WWII on the eastern front. My opinion is cavalry should have a high supply carry, but a low attack rating. This would resemble its usage by the Russians who conducted numerous raids deep behind German lines.




Josh -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (4/22/2012 9:49:23 AM)

Maybe you're right All5n, I find that cavalry can be *very* potent in the early stages of a game. I usually create a few cavalry units and they become highly experienced very fast, *but* I also find that as the game moves on their usability decreases. Once they're facing Armour and Mg's they die pretty fast, so then I use them for recon and cutting off supply lines.




Kraftwerk -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (4/22/2012 7:52:33 PM)

I think they take up more supplies. Theyre fairly powerful in the early game, but nothing a few armored cars cant fix. The golden age of the cavalry wanes pretty quickly too.

Depends on the map settings as well.

And for 10 Cav, you can get 8 rifles, 1 mortar and 1 mg, which is considerably better. Its just not fast.

Cav is good only because of its movement range, making it easy to encircle enemy forces in the expansion phase of a 1 on 1 game when your front line isnt solid. But a few armored cars in reserve will make short work of the interloping cav.




all5n -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (4/25/2012 8:40:52 PM)

Before i experienced this, i would have agreed with you.

However, there is not enough oil to support the number of armored cars needed for what you suggest, especially early in the game.

I am beginning to thing the only real solution is to have your own massive cavalry formations and make sure you are the one doing the attacking. But this only fuels the problem that cavalry have become an all-important subformation type.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kraftwerk

I think they take up more supplies. Theyre fairly powerful in the early game, but nothing a few armored cars cant fix. The golden age of the cavalry wanes pretty quickly too.

Depends on the map settings as well.

And for 10 Cav, you can get 8 rifles, 1 mortar and 1 mg, which is considerably better. Its just not fast.

Cav is good only because of its movement range, making it easy to encircle enemy forces in the expansion phase of a 1 on 1 game when your front line isnt solid. But a few armored cars in reserve will make short work of the interloping cav.





LazyBoy -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (4/26/2012 7:34:30 AM)

I have to agree with all5n, I have faced cavalry in 2 games.
The first they over whelmed my infantry units.
These units had high proportions of MG's and Mortar's.

The 2nd game I am using them to attack and they really kick butt.
I do get the feeling of playing to the game mechanics rather than something semi historical.

I think Infantry should play a bigger roll than cannon fodder.

Most if not all WW2 armies were primary Infantry based.




british exil -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (4/26/2012 10:00:23 AM)

I mostly (playing the AI) use my cav as the flank guards. They have good recon and can warn my center if anything is creeping up on me. A few cav units shoot out in front as a recon in advance, being used a bit like skirmishers. Make contact and fall back a bit but always trying to keep the enemy in view.
I thus get information as to what units I will be facing with my main force. Do I need to build new units? Do I need to research or even upgrade?

As the campaign wears on the cav units normally just do rear line work,(sit around doing nothing on lower supplies),or they just do a bit of partisan work causing disruption here and there.

Of course this is vs the AI. IRL my cav soon loses the role thy have in the beginning as a human will crush the cav very early.

But then again cav on a high hilltop is not going to be forced off to lightly. Tanks can't climb the steep hills, so the Inf has to rise to the task, as an observation post on a hill manned by cav is vital too and must be taken out.

Mat




Vic -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (4/26/2012 7:09:06 PM)

Now you have to keep the production points in mind here... you can build 30 infantry or 10 cavalry. 30 infantry will be better then 10 cavalry even if cavalry is attacking!

The reason i made a cavalry individual 2.5 times more better on the offensive versus soft targets then infantry individual is that they have more mobility and can outmanouver their enemies. Yes i presume some room for movement within the battle.

Keep in mind that except for the offensive (surprise bonus) they are not better then regular infantry (while costing 3 times as much!) and thus very vulnerable to counter attack.

best,
Vic




Meanfcker -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (5/4/2012 4:44:57 AM)

Hi Guys. I am almost certainly the guy that everyone is bitching about. :-)
I have been giving everyone a good look at the possibilities of maneuver warfare with cav being a big part of my maneuver groups.
Cav are not over powered. Sure, they hit hard, but they can't take a hit at all.
At the start of most games, almost every player that I have come across does the same thing.
Invest massively into production and then form a line and out produce the other guy. Yawn.
Several guys talk about cav being obselete by WW2, and ironically they treat this game as if they are stuck in WW1, form a line and artillery grind.
The game is fine just the way it is. If I have fighters, you guys don't complain that you have to build fighters. If I have cav, then you have to have cav. Just a fact of live, like rain and taxes.
Also, my aquaintences and myself have taken to squeezing the economy for a rush. If you choose to invest in infrastructure instead of a lot of cav and tanks at the start of the game, then you are probably going to loose a few cities in the rush. That is the fault of your decision, it is not because cav is hitting too hard. I have seen guys burn tons of fuel, bombing and straffing my cav and hunting them down with armored cars, and it thrills me. If they just build enough cav to hit back with, it would neutralize my own cav. Instead they piss away all of their oil and then I hit them with my tanks.
I will not build big armies that look like everyone elses just because that is what everyone else is doing.
I am just trying to add maneuvere and mobility to my style of play. If I had to sit and artillery grind every tile away from the enemy, I would quit playing this game and look for something else.
This game is perfect. Vic, please don't change a thing. I think they should name a holiday after you for what you did with this game.
Thanks and cheers.




Josh -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (5/4/2012 10:37:59 AM)

"...I am just trying to add maneuvere and mobility to my style of play..."

A plus 1 in my book. You have to have some sort of frontline, other than that it's all about maneuvre speed and mobility. You don't want to hit hard where your opponent is, you want to hit hard where he's not.
I've seen games where they build lines packed with units, almost like a dam. You build the dam higher and so the water rises higher, and so on. Like WWI really. Now that can be fun, but it limits gameplay/fun. Personally I prefer to build a line that can hold... just. Especially in wooded terrain, hills and such. The rest I use for recon, deep penetration and then encirclement. Blammo.
Oh, you do need some sort of reserves too because *sometimes* your forces deep behind enemy lines can get into all sorts of troubles [:D] There's always the danger that you are the one being pocketed. 




Meanfcker -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (5/4/2012 11:21:42 AM)

Josh is quite correct in his assesment.
In spite of All5n's statement that I make cav to the exclusion of other infantry, I do in fact make big combined infantry units, just not as many as my opponents, to be sure.
I use them to securely hold the key points and the rest of my production goes into mobility.
I dislike the mindless production race of WW1 style play, and therefore squeeze off a big rush to hit my opponent before they can form a proper line. Every player that I have played is always trying to slow things down and make everything more predictable. I repeat, if the game is changed to be more accomodating to a WW! style of play, I will lose interest.




Madlok -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (5/5/2012 6:54:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: all5n
When you look at the cavalry attack rating versus infantry, it seems too high. The current attack rating of 80 should be lowered to 50 or so at a bare minimum.


The current attack is 65 not 80. Maybe you play some mod.




jomni -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (5/8/2012 2:28:26 AM)

This is the reason why I prefer to start a game where all territory is divided between the players.  It's more realistic that way too.

Nothing wrong with the use of cavalry and the stats.




all5n -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (5/10/2012 9:44:50 PM)

I agree its a good gimmick to catch someone off guard. It's not different than spamming low-level units in RTS games for an early rush. Not really all that interesting, and only works until people learn what you are about.

There is no question that its fair and a valid strategy - the game allows it.

I just don't think that it enhances the game or makes it more interesting to require massive cavalry buildup at the start of every game, just in case the other guy is pulling a "cavalry rush".

Vic is right though, they are expensive and very vulnerable to counterattack.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker

Hi Guys. I am almost certainly the guy that everyone is bitching about. :-)
I have been giving everyone a good look at the possibilities of maneuver warfare with cav being a big part of my maneuver groups.
Cav are not over powered. Sure, they hit hard, but they can't take a hit at all.
At the start of most games, almost every player that I have come across does the same thing.
Invest massively into production and then form a line and out produce the other guy. Yawn.
Several guys talk about cav being obselete by WW2, and ironically they treat this game as if they are stuck in WW1, form a line and artillery grind.
The game is fine just the way it is. If I have fighters, you guys don't complain that you have to build fighters. If I have cav, then you have to have cav. Just a fact of live, like rain and taxes.
Also, my aquaintences and myself have taken to squeezing the economy for a rush. If you choose to invest in infrastructure instead of a lot of cav and tanks at the start of the game, then you are probably going to loose a few cities in the rush. That is the fault of your decision, it is not because cav is hitting too hard. I have seen guys burn tons of fuel, bombing and straffing my cav and hunting them down with armored cars, and it thrills me. If they just build enough cav to hit back with, it would neutralize my own cav. Instead they piss away all of their oil and then I hit them with my tanks.
I will not build big armies that look like everyone elses just because that is what everyone else is doing.
I am just trying to add maneuvere and mobility to my style of play. If I had to sit and artillery grind every tile away from the enemy, I would quit playing this game and look for something else.
This game is perfect. Vic, please don't change a thing. I think they should name a holiday after you for what you did with this game.
Thanks and cheers.





Meanfcker -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (5/12/2012 11:51:25 AM)

I personally find that the rush enhances game play much more than painting a solid line, three thick of infantry, and then out producing artillery to gain an advantage. As for the rush working until someone catches on... I will simply change it up all the time. This time I rush, next time I invest heavily into production.
I just don't want to play the exact same game style every game because that is how everyone else does it. Also, at the start, you only need enough cav to counter-attack with, not tons. You could probably ingnore the cavalry altogether if you practiced defense in depth instead of a solid thick wall of infantry at the border.
Really, the cavalry are just one quick way to hit my oppenent quickly, before they can paint a solid line of infantry right accross thier borders. If cavalry had not been included, you would probably be complaining that light tanks move to fast as I would try to use them for a rush in the same method.
I do in fact sometimes produce gobs of tanks for a rush. It largely depends on terrain.
Many of the players in this game play the exact same game again, and again on defferent maps.
I hope to help them break this bad habit. [:-]




Mad Russian -> RE: Cavalry gone wild (5/12/2012 3:22:23 PM)

Each of us has a different playing style. As the designer you set the tone for how your work is played.

For anyone not liking the way you design your scenarios they simply don't need to play them.

Good Hunting.

MR




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875