Guerrillas

Matrix Games Forums

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Guerrillas

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 12:53:04 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

Ok, any of the guys playing against me or any of my team mates that have guerrillas will probably agree with my following comments.
They are possibly one of the most powerful units in the game.
I feel very stongly that they should be made available to all factions and perhaps should be less expensive for Arab people in this game.
I was thinking something like Arabs get level one right away and get level II at the same price that other factions pay for level I and so on.
All factions should have the opportunity to purchase this immensely powerful unit though.
When starting a new game, I usually regen if one of the players gets an Arab nation, just because guerrillas are so damn dangerous.
Any one out there agree with any of this?

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 2/18/2013 1:23:37 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 2:11:51 PM

Webizen

Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

I tend to agree with you. Just like cavalry is so darn powerful, yet everyone has access to cavalry. My problem with cavalry is that it can move and fight so well in terrain not well suited to it.

Why don't you explain in more detail why you think the guerrilla unit is so powerful. I'm sure that would help Vic evaluate your claims. I've tried to make a case about cavalry being overly powerful but guess I haven't done a good job of validating my claims. Vic is not convinced as yet.

_____________________________

Roy, aka Tac2i

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 2

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 2:39:30 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

Regarding cavalry. I am just finishing "Soviet Military Operational Art - In pursuit of Deep Battle".
The author, Col. Glantz is recognized as the west's leading expert authority on the development of Soviet Operataional Art.
On pages 140-141 he is speaking on Operational force structure at the end of 1943 and heading into 1944. Col Glantz points out and I will quote vebatim; "The Cavlary-Mechanized Group became a regular participant in operations where the terrain and wheather conditions inhibited operations by regular tank armies".
This cavalry mechanized group had a force composition that was about half cavlary. Also, the Russian civil war, and the Russian Polish war both occurred after the trench stalemate in the west, but both were wars of fantastic maneuver by large armies with tanks and cavalry, albeit moslty infantry.

Now to guerrillas. Like real guerillas, they should never stand and fight. They must be broken into small groups and infiltrated into the enemy operational and strategic rear. This is where they have their biggest infuence on tactics, by denying reinforcemets and supplies to the front. Used in co-operation with conventional forces, they can stall an enemy advance with just a few men and they can dramatically shift the front line in an offensive. Level III can continue to function 15 tiles back from the front for two or three turns wthout food, and they have insane movement range, which allows them to evade pursuit while cutting more road/rail lines feeding the front.
Once they are understood they are too powerfull to be reserved for only one faction.

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 2/18/2013 5:22:42 PM >

(in reply to Webizen)

Post #: 3

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 3:09:51 PM

kombrig

Posts: 165
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

In the current ATG there is simply too much cavalry. It's too easy to create large cavalry masses. I would make it twice expensive. (Sorry for the off-topic comment).

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 4

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 3:19:53 PM

Webizen

Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

I don't think its off topic. Both cavalry and guerrilla deserve a good discussion and this as good a place as any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kombrig

In the current ATG there is simply too much cavalry. It's too easy to create large cavalry masses. I would make it twice expensive. (Sorry for the off-topic comment).

_____________________________

Roy, aka Tac2i

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 5

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 3:54:33 PM

Vic

Posts: 3419
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: online

I am keeping note of whats discussed here. I might tune them both down just a little bit in a next version. I guess the cavalry might indeed needs to have a little less offensive power when attacking dense terrain and the guerilla's could do with a little bit less turns-without-supply on the higher research levels. In the meantime you can of course mod these SFtypes and experiment a little with them to see what settings you think are more realistic.

_____________________________

Victor Reijkersz Designs
www.vrdesigns.nl

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 6

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 4:01:17 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

Cavalry are already very expensive and they cant take a hit.
Thier utility shrinks in the later game just as they did in reality, but they are fine just the way they are.
I would not endorse a single change to cavalry.

(in reply to Webizen)

Post #: 7

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 4:06:49 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

Please don't tune either of them down. It is largely a matter of every one coming to grips with them as they are, not how they wish them to be.
Guerrillas are very expensive and require a serious commitment to use. If you water them down they will not be used at all, they are hardly used at all now except by myself really.
What I am proposing is the exact opposite, I wish to bring them into general usage, not obsure, specialized use.
Cavalry was hardly used at all until I came along and upset the applecart. I wish for Guerillas to realize a similar emergence.
I believe that we pay too much for higher level techs anyway and that is why they are never used.
Here is an example. On an X-large map, four players, staff II costs 463 pps. Staff III costs 1390 pps.
Do you have any idea how many tank factories you could put down for the cost of staff II? Staff III is not even in the realm of possibility.
So for me to invest all the way to guerilla level III is a major commitment.
If either of these units is watered down, they will be used less and less and the game will become narrower in scope and lose some of its interest for me.
With any negative changes to guerillas, you may as well remove them from the game altogether, as no one uses them anyway.
It should be apparent to anyone who as read any of my posts, that I wish for more Operational freedom, not less.
These units are both fine just the way they are. I only raised the issue because I feel that every faction should have access to guerillas.
In a team game, the team that has them has an incalculable advantage, but only if the player has the will and creativity to use them.
Meanie.

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 2/18/2013 4:39:29 PM >

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 8

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 5:11:17 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

And while I am bi tc hing about things, I have been generating maps for hours trying to find one that doesn't leave one team with a real or perceived disadvantage. Most generated maps have isolated cities that are a big disadvantage in a team game.
Any imrovement in this area would be very well received.
Meanfcker.

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 9

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 6:04:55 PM

Webizen

Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

+1 - improvement here would be most welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker
Most generated maps have isolated cities that are a big disadvantage in a team game.
Any improvement in this area would be very well received.

Meanfcker

_____________________________

Roy, aka Tac2i

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 10

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 6:31:05 PM

jreid

Posts: 98
Joined: 10/27/2007
Status: offline

Well, I'm all for many units having utility, but Cav is used so much now that it makes the game seem odd. It's strange to see these massive cavalry armies all over the map. It's almost like they should need their own resource, there are so many of them, but the whole thing just seems a bit silly.

I don't recall the British, German or US forces having really any combat cavalry at all after the first stages of WWI. Transport for non US armies, perhaps, but not these wicked Cav armies.

I wasn't aware of their significant use on the Easter front, but what is the rationale for their extreme offensive power and their great movement, especially in rough terrain?

Is it just to make the game not so resource dependent and therefore more fun for those who lose their Raw and Oil?

Regarding guerrillas, they are very powerful in the ways that Mean mentions. But I just find the whole thing tedious.

I'm spending half my time tracking the damn 1 unit strengh things that Mean throws off from his Guerrilla "motherships" and this aspect of manual note taking and behind the lines fly swatting is just not a lot of fun for me personally. I watch the replays and jot down each hex they go to before they disappear and I'm very close to saying forget it and just winging it. Which means I will lose my supply lines, cities and resources to 10 guys with rifles who apparently don't need to eat

But all of that being said, it's still a great game and any adustments to units should be thought out very carefully, perhaps in a beta.

But as I said, it's a great game and I'll keep playing it regardless. Loads of fun

(in reply to Webizen)

Post #: 11

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 7:15:44 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jreid

Well, I'm all for many units having utility, but Cav is used so much now that it makes the game seem odd. It's strange to see these massive cavalry armies all over the map. It's almost like they should need their own resource, there are so many of them, but the whole thing just seems a bit silly.

I don't recall the British, German or US forces having really any combat cavalry at all after the first stages of WWI. Transport for non US armies, perhaps, but not these wicked Cav armies.

I wasn't aware of their significant use on the Easter front, but what is the rationale for their extreme offensive power and their great movement, especially in rough terrain?

Is it just to make the game not so resource dependent and therefore more fun for those who lose their Raw and Oil?

Regarding guerrillas, they are very powerful in the ways that Mean mentions. But I just find the whole thing tedious.

I'm spending half my time tracking the damn 1 unit strengh things that Mean throws off from his Guerrilla "motherships" and this aspect of manual note taking and behind the lines fly swatting is just not a lot of fun for me personally. I watch the replays and jot down each hex they go to before they disappear and I'm very close to saying forget it and just winging it. Which means I will lose my supply lines, cities and resources to 10 guys with rifles who apparently don't need to eat

But all of that being said, it's still a great game and any adustments to units should be thought out very carefully, perhaps in a beta.

But as I said, it's a great game and I'll keep playing it regardless. Loads of fun

I mostly try to use them for the purpuse of raising your general friction to unbearable levels. I shudder when I imagine myself fighting a determined and skilled opponent who understands these things. Exactly as you say, tedious. But I would not wish to see them eliminated, which is what will happen if they are watered down in the least. As Allan pointed out in his post, I spent a lot of pps on those techs. In my case, investment in production would not have given me the same return as my investment into guerilla research, so it was a no brainer really. You guys are just lucky that I wasted so many at the start, figuring out not to stand and fight with them. If I knew then what I know now, I think you guys would have been frustrated to tears and maybe have given up. I am pretty sure that your offensives would never have really gotten started.
That all being said, I spent 329 pps to get that ability. That is a serious commitment. Not many players would have the nerve to go all the way like that when they are obviously about to be jumped on three sides.
They are awesome, but expensive and very difficult to use correctly.
Once again, I would like to see them become available to all factions, at a price of coarse.

(in reply to jreid)

Post #: 12

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 7:30:49 PM

Webizen

Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

I can't really comment authoritatively on guerrilla units as I've not used them much or had to defend against them. It would seem cavalry would be good guerrilla hunters because of their speed and recon abilities. Perhaps guerrilla movement needs toned down some. I'm assuming they are on foot and not horseback.

Re this quote by jreid about cavalry: "their extreme offensive power and their great movement, especially in rough terrain"

My point exactly. They seem to move through rough terrain types like it was plains and fight in this terrain extremely well even when it isn't well suited to cavalry operations. Vic mentioned only tweaking it a little, not nerfing them completely. We certainly do not want remove the operational maneuver warfare that ATG is so good at simulating. Some minor tweaks to cavalry and perhaps guerrillas is all that is required.

_____________________________

Roy, aka Tac2i

(in reply to jreid)

Post #: 13

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 7:49:17 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Webizen

I can't really comment authoritatively on guerrilla units as I've not used them much or had to defend against them. It would seem cavalry would be good guerrilla hunters because of their speed and recon abilities. Perhaps guerrilla movement needs toned down some. I'm assuming they are on foot and not horseback.

Re this quote by jreid about cavalry: "their extreme offensive power and their great movement, especially in rough terrain"

My point exactly. They seem to move through rough terrain types like it was plains and fight in this terrain extremely well even when it isn't well suited to cavalry operations. Vic mentioned only tweaking it a little, not nerfing them completely. We certainly do not want remove the operational maneuver warfare that ATG is so good at simulating. Some minor tweaks to cavalry and perhaps guerrillas is all that is required.

What other type of unit would be able to quickly concentrate punching power in rough terrain, if not cavalry.
I would leave them alone.
If the movement range of guerrilla three is reduced, why would any one bother sacrificing production to invest in them?
May as well remove them.
Do not turn them down.
Make guerrillas available to all.
Meanie.

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 2/18/2013 7:50:34 PM >

(in reply to Webizen)

Post #: 14

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 8:01:31 PM

Webizen

Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

@Meanie, I think you are looking at it from only one side. The flip side is that infantry in rough terrain types (good cover, easy to hide, etc) should be able to rip men on horseback to shreds, or so it would seem to me. Could be wrong but that is where my thinking is at this time.

_____________________________

Roy, aka Tac2i

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 15

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 8:02:49 PM

jreid

Posts: 98
Joined: 10/27/2007
Status: offline

But where were Cavalry used as combat units in WWI and WWII?

I might be missing something, but wasn't the war fought with infantry (mostly), artillery, tanks and airpower on land?

I don't recall large cavalry armies leading the charge (litteraly, I guess) into France in 1940, or Russia in 1941 or back across France in 1944.

As a matter of fact, when was the last time Cavalry was used so decisively? The Mongols in the 14th century?

But I also don't want to see it a game where when you lose your Raw and Oil, then you're done, although that might be a bit closer to reality.

There should be options and the game is very fun as it is. So, I don't know.

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 16

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 8:06:46 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

According to Col Gantz, cavalry were used as combat and pursuit units all accross the Ukraine from 1918 to 1944

(in reply to jreid)

Post #: 17

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 8:13:36 PM

Webizen

Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

I don't doubt that at all. A look at a topographic map of the Ukraine reveals that much of it is good terrain for cavalry operations.

Update: Here is a PDF document I found interesting re US Cavalry during the time period in question. It appears of all the major combatants of WWII, only the Soviets continued to employ any significant horseback cavalry capability into the later years of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker

According to Col Gantz, cavalry were used as combat and pursuit units all accross the Ukraine from 1918 to 1944

< Message edited by Webizen -- 2/18/2013 8:29:57 PM >

_____________________________

Roy, aka Tac2i

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 18

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 9:28:22 PM

LazyBoy

Posts: 187
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

Cavalry in our period, were used as fast moving mounted infantry and should have the same combat abilities as infantry.
They should get a combat advantage when fighting in good cavalry terrain.

On attack, they are more powerful the infantry in fortifications, forest and cities.
In all the above they would have fought as infantry only using their mobility to get them places quickly.

They have the same defensive value as infantry.

On Guerrillas, I have not faced Means new tactics, but in the game I have been playing with him, I have targeted his Guerrilla formations as away of depleting his production, (200 cost to 100 for infantry) a good return.

(in reply to Webizen)

Post #: 19

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 9:33:15 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

On Guerrillas, I have not faced Means new tactics, but in the game I have been playing with him, I have targeted his Guerrilla formations as away of depleting his production, (200 cost to 100 for infantry) a good return.

I made the same mistake with you at the start, wasting too many in combat.
Now that I know how to use them, they are very cost effective.

(in reply to LazyBoy)

Post #: 20

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 9:33:47 PM

Webizen

Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

Like the game of chess, between equally skilled players, ATG is a game of winning small advantages. You lose a few resource hexes and 2 to 3 cities and you are going to have a tough time overcoming that. Throw in an unequal kill/loss ratio over a few turns and its gets even tougher. Cavalry and guerrillas aren't going to save you.

After the Battle of Kursk and the disaster in North Africa, both in May 1943, the Wehrmacht should have overthrown Hitler and sued for peace. It was over. Same type of turning points come in ATG and most players simply give it up and start another game. One just needs to be careful not to give it up before that turning point. Also, it can still be some fun and learning to be had in a losing cause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jreid

But I also don't want to see it a game where when you lose your Raw and Oil, then you're done, although that might be a bit closer to reality.

_____________________________

Roy, aka Tac2i

(in reply to jreid)

Post #: 21

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 9:45:32 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

The long and short of it is this, they should not be reduced or "tuned down" in any way.
They should be made available to all factions.
I bet that most of the guys that play the "Mean way of war" would not like to go back to the line warfare of the past.
The game is much more fun and exciting when it is highly mobile.
Our last 2v2 (Mean, Web v Kombrig, Iroduke) was so fluid throughout that it was like liquid, and it was stinking fun, I tell you.
Please do not make any changes that would tend to reduce the speed of the offensive.
Meanfcker.

(in reply to Webizen)

Post #: 22

RE: Guerrillas - 2/18/2013 10:54:09 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

I can't really comment authoritatively on guerrilla units as I've not used them much or had to defend against them. It would seem cavalry would be good guerrilla hunters because of their speed and recon abilities. Perhaps guerrilla movement needs toned down some. I'm assuming they are on foot and not horseback.

In the book "Born to run", Christipher McDougall sites several US races where men (the ultimate marathon running machine on the planet) win against horses in 50 to 100 mile races. Come up with something better than that please.
Wingate's Chindits and Merrills Marauders were the cream of the army, that must be born in mind. Read up on their campaigns and you will see that my recent use of guerrillas is approaching reality.

Do some serious reading and you guys will find a few things perceived by popular history are distorted.
There was hardly any tank on tank fighting in WWII. Most of it was tank on infantry and tank against prepared defenses.
Most tank armies and mechanized armies were composed mostly of infantry with tanks adding punch.
As infantry hand held, anti tank weapons became better and more plentiful, tank numbers decreased further.
All of the "Old World" armies used massive amounts of horses. The russians and the Finns made extensive use of Combat Cavalry formations.
Western history writers write books that will be popular in the west and make money, so they talk about "our" heroes.
How many of you have read about the Korsun Pocket, or the Vistula-Oder Offensive?
Much of what happened on the eastern front has been largely ignored in the West.
Cavalry continued to see extensive combat in the east until `1945, do some serious reading.
The units are fine the way they are, just make guerrillas available to everyone.
Meanie.

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 2/18/2013 11:25:35 PM >

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 23

RE: Guerrillas - 2/19/2013 12:06:41 AM

Webizen

Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

@Mean: you make some good points although I'm not entirely convinced that cavalry can't be tweaked a little without destroying its value. That said, I'm not looking for an historical simulation of historical battles. That is why I like the random games in ATG. It has been my ideal wargame for about 5 years now: WW2 era technology matched up with the best random game generator I've ever come across. By the way, guerrilla troops are not marathon runners ; )

RE: "Our last 2v2 (Mean, Web v Kombrig, Iroduke) was so fluid throughout that it was like liquid, and it was stinking fun, I tell you." ...Meanie

The most 'stinking fun' I've had in awhile.

< Message edited by Webizen -- 2/19/2013 12:10:25 AM >

_____________________________

Roy, aka Tac2i

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 24

RE: Guerrillas - 2/19/2013 1:29:16 AM

all5n

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Republic of Texas
Status: offline

Having played ATG since beta testing to the current version, i can safely say that the addition of cavalry has fundamentally changed the game. I will leave you to consider that statement as good or bad as you see fit.

A third to a half of the per-turn production in the 4 games i am in is dedicated to Cavalry. Cavalry has better mobility than light tanks in many cases, especially when the weather turns. Its offensive punch against soft targets makes it too good to not use heavily.

Cavalry charge against heavily entrenched infantry? No problem. With only a .25 deduction to the attack power, its one of the better options for that task. Even better with 3+ hex sides, which is very easily doable with the inherent great mobility.

It is vulnerable to counter-attack. Good thing the mobility often lets you remove the cav from the front line after a successful attack. Rinse and repeat for the next turn.

PP for tech upgrades? No way. Have not seen more than 2-3 total tech upgrades per game (mg, light tank II, heavy artillery usually -- thats it). Its hard to justify tech when you can just roll over your enemy by building more cavalry and light tanks.

(in reply to Webizen)

Post #: 25

RE: Guerrillas - 2/19/2013 1:56:11 AM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

You will all admit, if any player tried to go too heavy in cav and not enough inf or tanks, they would be swept off of the battlefield in a couple of turns.
Cavalry don't stand up to any form of armor, and they dont hold ground the way a large well mixed infantry unit can.
They add punching power, to be used liberally on the offensive or the defensive, that is all.
They are not too powerful, everyone is just not thinking outside the box.
In our last 2v2 Webizen and I effectively neutralized most of our enemy's cavlary with a well organized recon screen using halftracks.
Any of the players from that last game are welcome to comment on this, but I know that I am right.
I think that once everyone gets a load of our new mobile formations, cavalry wont seem that bad anymore anyway. :-)
Meanie.

(in reply to all5n)

Post #: 26

RE: Guerrillas - 2/19/2013 2:52:17 AM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

As per my last post, I bet there will be some serious talk about half tracks soon....

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 27

RE: Guerrillas - 2/19/2013 5:00:18 AM

LazyBoy

Posts: 187
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

Cavalry have the same defensive stats as infantry, admittedly they are hard to mix in MGs AT etc,
but can be done by having a supporting formation of these weapons

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 28

RE: Guerrillas - 2/19/2013 6:58:52 AM

kombrig

Posts: 165
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

Currently the game should be called: ATG: the world of overpowered cossacks. It's simply unrealistic for WW II period. I myself would like to see more realism. Otherwise we might just as well introduce flying fire-bursting dragons with amazing manouver abilities.

Cavalry was indeed used in the East until 1945, but was it like 1 percent (or even less) from the overall Soviet force? In ATG: WOC it's something like 25-50 percent of forces.

(in reply to LazyBoy)

Post #: 29

RE: Guerrillas - 2/19/2013 7:09:55 AM

kombrig

Posts: 165
Joined: 9/12/2012
Status: offline

In summary: there is something wrong with the cavalry in the ATG when compared to the real world. In real WW II the cavalry was a minor player. I don't know what was the exact reason. I suspect it was at least partly tied with the fact that cavalry horses weren't growing on trees but were an expensive resource to raise, train and maintain.

The secret of Russian/Soviet larger cavalry masses were the cossack areas (especially Don and Kuban). But in ATG there seems to be cossack areas everywhere.

Edit:
If I sounded like I wanted to be rude towards pro-cavalry people (especially Mean), then I didn't want to do that.

< Message edited by kombrig -- 2/19/2013 7:25:46 AM >

(in reply to kombrig)

Post #: 30