 |
|
Calorman
|
|
I don't see why not. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most tank divisions actually part of much older cavalry regiments?
My brother-in-law (who served in the Gulf) was a tank operator with the Queen's own Hussars, a centuries old cavalry regiment I believe.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Manstein3
|
|
Tank units are of the same tactical use as the former cavalry. In ancient and early indurstrial times, there were heavy riders and light ones, called hussars, dragoner (the heavy ones, I think), and so on.
Light cavalry had reconnaissance or avantgarde function, I mean, to investigate the battlerfield and get informations of the enemy's strength, and to make surprising attacks. The same do the modern light tank units.
From a strategical point of view though, modern tank units are the core of at least an offensive army. Cavalry has never been that important on the battlefields.
And it is true, many tank units got 'upgraded' from cavalry units.
It is silly to argue in a superficial way that a horse cannot be transformed into a tank. It is the fighter who makes the cavalry attack. And the tank attack needs the same spontaneity and mind-quickness, and really the same tactical theory a cavalry man needed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Delta-V
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Manstein3
Tank units are of the same tactical use as the former cavalry. In ancient and early indurstrial times, there were heavy riders and light ones, called hussars, dragoner (the heavy ones, I think), and so on.
|
Dragoons, actually. It wasn't until WWII that tanks were generally used as Cavalry. Even in the early part of WWII, tanks were still mainly used to support infantry. Of course, Guderian's panzers changed that pretty quick.
quote:
Light cavalry had reconnaissance or avantgarde function, I mean, to investigate the battlerfield and get informations of the enemy's strength, and to make surprising attacks. The same do the modern light tank units.
|
The US pretty much did away with the light tank concept. A modern US Armored Cavalry unit actually has more firepower than a similiar sized tank or mech infantry unit. Most of the european armies still use light tanks or armored cars for reconaissance.
quote:
From a strategical point of view though, modern tank units are the core of at least an offensive army. Cavalry has never been that important on the battlefields.
|
On the contrary, Cavalry has always been the decisive combat arm, at least until the invention of the rifle. Early infantry formations (phalanx, mostly) were extremely vunerable to flanking attacks. Typically, the 2 cavalry forces would face off until one fled the battlefield, then the victorious cavalry could ride around behind the enemy infantry. It wasn't until the Roman maniple and the well-trained Roman army that an infantry force was flexible enough to effectively turn and face a cavalry charge from the flank or rear, and then it was still devistating to the morale of the troops.
Even through the Middle Ages, cavalry remained a decisive factor. Heavily armored knights could easily ride down infantry formations. Cavalry could finally, for a short time, make frontal assaults. Pikemen, with 18-foot long pikes, put an end to that, but still couldn't turn and fight quickly to combat a flanking cavalry charge. Massed longbowmen put the final end to massed heavy cavalry, but lighter, faster cavalry could still surprise the longbowmen.
With the invention of the rifle, infantry had the range and firepower to shoot down the cavalry before the charge reached their line. Cavalry switched to a more supporting role, reconnaissance and pursuit. Finding themselves rather vunerable on horseback, Cavalry would often fight dismounted. This proved effective, esp in providing a mobile defense. Buford's dismounted cavalry at Gettysburg, for instance.
This lead to the formation of horse-born infantry that were not equipped to fight mounted, such as the British Mounted Infantry of the Boer War, and the Australian Lighthorse that fought in WWI.
So, while Infantry remained the mainstay of armies throughout history, cavalry has almost always been the decisive arm of the army.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Colonel Kraken
|
 |
Grand Rapids, MI
Nov 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
The most obvious answer that comes to my mind when I read this question, is that YES, the cavalry should upgrade, BUT the attack jump is damn too high (6=>16). What it lacks is an intermediate unit between cavalry and tanks. I don't know, perhaps an attack-enhanced infantry, or changing cavalry to dragon, and put cavalry in the industrial era making it 10-5-3 ?. |
This is *exactly* what I intend to do in my game. I am going to make the Russian Cossack the industrial age Cavalry for everyone. I will rename Cavalry to Dragoons and name the industrial age cavalry 'Cavalry'. I will then have Cavalry upgradeable to tanks, albeit at quite a high cost.
The Russians will still have the Cossack, but it will be very cheap, or I was thinking the Russian UU could be very cheap artillery. Either way, they get swarms of something, which is indicative of Russian military philosophy.
. . . I think . . .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Colonel Kraken
|
|
Grand Rapids, MI
Nov 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
There is something I've found out while modifying unit stats with the editor. I haven't thoroughly put it to the test yet, but . . .
I basically increased all unit's movement ratings by one (more or less). Thus, typically, foot soldiers have a movement of 2 and horse units have a move of 3.
I have found that my cavalry no longer retreats from foot soldiers. I know this happened before when elite units attacked --they'd go for the gusto and fight to the death, but veterans and lower would always retreat unless they had started with only one hit point.
Now it seems that the units never retreat. It seems that, unfortunately, Firaxis made the code something like "movement 2 units are able to retreat from movement 1 units" instead of "units with a higher movement rating can retreat from units with a lower movement rating." The second one would make much more sense to me. (Another example of ill thought out coding?)
Like I said, I haven't fully/scientifically tested this yet. If it's true, this is the solution to those of you who believe the retreat option is simply too powerful. (I would tend to agree; however, I do enjoy the retreat option).
Just thought all of you would like to know.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
There is something I've found out while modifying unit stats with the editor. I haven't thoroughly put it to the test yet, but . . .
I basically increased all unit's movement ratings by one (more or less). Thus, typically, foot soldiers have a movement of 2 and horse units have a move of 3.
I have found that my cavalry no longer retreats from foot soldiers. I know this happened before when elite units attacked --they'd go for the gusto and fight to the death, but veterans and lower would always retreat unless they had started with only one hit point.
Now it seems that the units never retreat. It seems that, unfortunately, Firaxis made the code something like "movement 2 units are able to retreat from movement 1 units" instead of "units with a higher movement rating can retreat from units with a lower movement rating." The second one would make much more sense to me. (Another example of ill thought out coding?)
Like I said, I haven't fully/scientifically tested this yet. If it's true, this is the solution to those of you who believe the retreat option is simply too powerful. (I would tend to agree; however, I do enjoy the retreat option).
Just thought all of you would like to know. |
Well it makes sense. The foot soldiers are now considered "Fast", and someone on a horse can't retreat from a fast unit, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2002 07:48
|