19-05-2003 08:04									#1
	Loving Light Cavalry Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I am finding the light cavalry line to be the most versatile and useful in the pre-Gunpowder game, and I was wondering if anyone else thinks this way. The game says they're strong against light infantry and ranged cavalry, but I also find them to be very effective against foot archers. They are by far the fastest unit available at the time, with a speed of 41 compared to 30 for heavy cav, ranged cav, and light infantry (at the elite jav upgrade level). They are weak against heavy infantry, but their speed should let them escape the slow heavy inf pretty easily. They also won't be effective against heavy cav, due to having lower attack and armor, but again they can outrun the threat.

So far I generally like to build an early army of half heavy inf, half light cav. The light cav can quickly respond to any invasion, unless it's by heavy inf or heavy cav, in which case I send in my own heavy inf. I haven't been attacking much early, since I like to wait and build up a bunch of seige weapons first. When I do attack, I'll add archers or gunpowder inf to the heavy inf, but I still like to keep the light cav around to respond to any unexpected threats. Their speed is great for this role. And I still find them incredibly useful for the same purpose - quick response - when they turn into armored cars.

By the way, please no bestiality jokes about my subject.

	19-05-2003 13:52									#2
	Suffering from ads?

How do you use heavy cavalaery then?

So far I just prefered using heavy cavalery to tackle both light infantry and archers.

While we're on the subject, do you bother building light infantry at all? After all, you can counter the archers with cavalery and it works much better too.

	19-05-2003 16:58									#3
	Remove this text

I almost never build heavy cavalry in the early game, nor light infantry. There's nothing these units can do that light cavalry can't also do, plus the light cavalry is faster. Granted the heavy cavalry is stronger (more attack, more hit points, more armor). However since this is mainly an early game strategy for me, the resource requirements of heavy cavalry make light cavalry more appealing. Since heavy infantry already require metal, and metal is hard to get early, it's hard to build heavy cavalry which also require metal. Light cavalry only require food and wood, which are the most abundant early in the game.

Later in the game, my army will be composed of a mix of heavy infantry and gunpowder/modern infantry, plus a whole ton of tanks and armored cars and of course artillery. But in the early game, I've settled into a pattern of just heavy infantry and light cavalry. I guess I'll keep playing this way until I get my butt kicked, then I'll try something else!

	21-05-2003 02:42									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

a -

Yep. My favorite early game unit also. And, since I like playing the Russians, I like them even more.

I would also like to learn the Mongols at some point, because of their excellent cavalry line all-around.

- L.

	21-05-2003 03:14									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

While on the subject: albiedamned, what nation are you using with your HInf and LCav strategies?

	21-05-2003 03:24									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Well so far I've only been playing the demo, although I grabbed the retail at lunch today and I'll be playing that tonight! I've played all 4 in the demo, but I like Egyptians and Germans the most. And of course Egyptians have unique light cav units while Germans have uniqe heavy inf units. But honestly, I like them more for the bonuses than their units.

	21-05-2003 05:35									#7
	Put an end to popups!

Egypt is a tough one to be up against. Especially with wonder victory. They can really crank them out. Unfortunately I was too late to realize they were going to win with a wonder victory. I was ahead in tech and nuked a couple wonders but they had taken over another civ and had 15 wonder points.

Being able to build 2 wonders / city is pretty damn nice.

	21-05-2003 09:36									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by albiedamned I almost never build heavy cavalry in the early game, nor light infantry. There's nothing these units can do that light cavalry can't also do, plus the light cavalry is faster.

5 heavy cav can last a lot longer than 5 light cav in a battle. Your simply trading speed for efficency. I LOVE to use heavy cav as a flanking attack. Even 5 heavy cav that i send running around a mountain to hit the enemy from behind, wow, they tear apart **** with that 100% attack bonus!

	21-05-2003 10:18									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

Actually the 100% bonus is when attacking from the side - I forget the number but it's actually less from behind. But anyway, it's more than just taking speed over efficiency. It's also less resources, since heavy cav are more expensive than light, and furthermore, the resources they cost (gold and metal) are much harder to come by then what light cav cost (food and wood).

	21-05-2003 11:18									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

no its 100% from rear, and 50% from side, pretty sure of that.

	21-05-2003 12:41									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

It is 100% from the side and 50% from the rear, im 100% sure of that

	21-05-2003 19:00									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Don't know if you want to hear but i rarly use cavalry

i attack with infantry/artillery combinations and so far i'm very sucsesfull with this straegy.

	21-05-2003 20:23									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Only units I've been finding mostly useless are airplanes... until stealth tech. AA is just too cheap and easy in this game. At least in my experience.

Ships suck too- they always suck in these games. I seem to always end up playing only land maps just to forgo ships.

	21-05-2003 21:01									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by albiedamned Actually the 100% bonus is when attacking from the side - I forget the number but it's actually less from behind.

No, 100% from behind, 50% from side. Why would it be the other way around? That makes no sense.

	21-05-2003 21:02									#15
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by dearmad Only units I've been finding mostly useless are airplanes... until stealth tech. AA is just too cheap and easy in this game. At least in my experience. Ships suck too- they always suck in these games. I seem to always end up playing only land maps just to forgo ships.

Try sticking a commando around the enemy town you want to attack, all AA is disabled within his radius

	21-05-2003 22:24									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Bridger, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the flank damage. It says it specifically on page 61 of the mini strategy guide, in the Tricks & Tactics part written by BR. 100% extra damage from the side, 50% extra from the rear. It does make sense actually - if your units are in a line and they start taking fire from the rear, they can quickly turn around and direct fire to the rear while staying in a line. But if they take fire from the side, it takes a while to rearrange the line to face the side and direct the full firepower of the line to the target. These concepts were all lifted from Gettysburg, which BR was a big part of.

	03-06-2003 01:55									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

<>

Actually, these concepts were lifted from the battlefield. It's more apparent in a game like Medieval Total War, but consider the ratio of the number of men that can face the front (and turn to the rear) vs the number of men that can face the side of a formation. Geometry of frontage... -- HtL

	03-06-2003 02:13									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

yes, its IS 50% from behind and 100% from flank, read up somewhere and I know youll see it, you musta just got them mixed up, no worries.

	03-06-2003 03:04									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

yeah, i love the light cav as an egyptian player. i play with an even mix of light cav and chariots; light cav takes care of archers and light infantry, cav archers take care of heavy infantry and siege weapons. They also get a bonus against cavalry, so I can take care of them too. They are also a wonderful raiding force.

I usually don't launch major attacks till Industrial, and just use my cavalry for raiding and defence. I start building infantry in Gunpowder, focusing on light inf over heavy (bout 2:1). I entrench them in important locations, and use them to stop enemy advances until my fast cavalry can hit their flank.

Before I hit Industrial, I like to churn out as much heavy cav as I can. I try to get the Statue of Liberty built before I hit Industrial, so as soon as I hit it, I can attack your army with a huge swarm of tanks and armoured cars, not to mention fully upgraded infantry and siege. No waiting for over 1000 oil for me.

Usually don't get to Modern/Information, with games ending at ~ 35-40 minutes. Good thing, too, Mod/Inf ages are giving me some difficulty right now. Comp nukes too damn much.

Last edited by deadfuse on 03-06-2003 at 05:28

	03-06-2003 04:16									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I like the light cavalry as well. They manuever easily and get out of trouble quickly. I use a mixed force of cavalry with about 75% light and 25%heavy. When Dragoons appear, I start adding them in too.

I've been playing the Germans in the Conquer the World mode and their unique heavy infantry combined with a covering force of light cav is unstoppable.

	03-06-2003 04:49									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard <> Actually, these concepts were lifted from the battlefield. It's more apparent in a game like Medieval Total War, but consider the ratio of the number of men that can face the front (and turn to the rear) vs the number of men that can face the side of a formation. Geometry of frontage... -- HtL

then if its so effective why do we need a special damage bonous for it in RoN? Probably because the armies are smaller and more freelance... but then why did armies line up into nice formations in real life when it makes them easy to flank and screw with?

Anyways, I use light cav more too. I dunno, its just that with heavy cavalry they cost so much and take so long to build and they still get slaughtered by Heavy infantry like pikemen. So do light cav, but atleast they cost less. The speed thing isn't that much of an advantage.. you cant really micromanage it so that your light cav can avoid the heavy infantry while attacking archers/light infantry/siege/dragoons because they'll all be in a big group.

	03-06-2003 05:40									#22
	Put an end to popups!

I have just recently discovered the inexpensive joys of light cavalry. They have made my victories far more decisive and early.

	03-06-2003 13:28									#23
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Yes, my first couple of conquest type games were a nightmare, because somehow I forgot I could build stables... I was getting slaughtered by the AI trying to capture its cities with infantry. And then I discovered the cosacks! Churning out dozens of these guys to harass the enemy (then retreating into forts), or flanking archers/arquebusiers/crossbowmen during battles made the game much, much easier. (using siege weapons to attack cities as well )
Now I'm trying to figure out some new tactics for modern ages.

loke

	05-06-2003 02:44									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Harpoon ... but then why did armies line up into nice formations in real life when it makes them easy to flank and screw with?

Frontage and control, with broad frontage to keep from getting overlapped by the enemy and enough depth to keep the formation from getting penetrated. The flanks can then be exploited, that's why the cavalry was often placed to protect the flanks...and threaten the enemy flank. The nice formations fought better (before firepower made them obsolete). "Shoulder to shoulder" is good for morale (not to mention it's harder to run away with the formation behind you). You could fight more efficiently with proper spacing of ranks and files, with your personal flanks protected unless you were on the end of a rank. Easier to maneuver nice formations too.

	05-06-2003 19:43									#25
	Remove this text

I try to play with balanced forces- its cheaper and more efficient this way. If I find my opponent is building lopsided armies, of course I will adjust.

But light cavalry are excellent. All cavalry are excellent actually.

	05-06-2003 19:59									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Playing mostly as the British, I've found a combination of Light Infantry and their superior Foot Archers do well. I also like to build them up as I know they eventually merge into Highlanders when the Enlightenment Age comes up. God bless them and their kilts... they do really well. I have yet to find a good use for Heavy Infantry in any age except the anti-tank stuff later on.

For cavalry, I tend to go with the heavy stuff. Most importantly because they're more dependent on Iron than the Food and Wood my infantry choices require... I usually have plenty of stuff to make heavy cavalry.

	05-06-2003 20:05									#27
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Made a point of using a few light cavalry to scout around the map (along with the explorers on auto), and found them very useful. Fast enough to wipe out a group of citizens or run away if I walk into an enemy army. Very good for keeping tabs on the enemy, and causing him very cheap strife.

Good for racking up those bonus ruin thingys too.

	05-06-2003 21:16									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Now that you mention it, Light Cavalry are better for early game scouting than scouts. Scouts cost wealth and metal (in Classical+) while LC cost food and timber, as well as being faster and having a slightly bigger LOS.


But as far as anti-archer goes, Heavy Cavalry are better.

Last edited by Anun Ik Oba on 05-06-2003 at 21:38

	09-06-2003 11:22									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm usually building heavy cav, I usually don't have much use for metal. Where would it go, heavy infantry, which costs food and metal? Nope. I need food for Light Infantry, which counters heavy infantry by gunpowder. Against enemy calvary, I fight it off with my own. Wealth and Iron are what I find are always stockpiling, I usually find myself running short of food and wood. Therefore, knights get built. I would use hussars, except for the fact I never have resources for them. Food and wood is just used way too often to build cities, citizens and your economy in general as well as whatever siege and infantry you're building.

	12-06-2003 03:24									#30
	Tired of ads?

Yeah, LC is very, very useful pre-industrial (I find tanks more useful than armored cars later on).

The expense associated with HC makes them a very bad choice if you're playing a map that has you situated far from mountains. Food should never be a problem, and wood can be rectified much easier than metal.

Therefore, when people make the argument that HC is better because 5 HC will last longer despite the unit type than 5 LC I tell them "yeah, but because of costs and difficulty getting resource requirements by the time you have 5 HC I'll have 10 LC." And it's true.

When I invade pre-industrial I put my HI on attack (once early defenses are down) and put my LC on attack units (or whatever it's called), while my artillery on attack buildings (raze, I believe). This is particularly devestating because the LC run around destroying villagers so even if enemy reinforcements drive you back you're artillery have destroyed their buildings and your LC have destroyed their villagers. It makes it very hard to reclaim what they've lost before you can mount a second wave.

I've found this to be very successful, especially coupled with Ankor Watt (because it throws in free LI to balance your HI out on general attack).

- PTM