Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Cavalry is so good


Hitorishizuka

Recommended Posts

Just finished Union side on Antietam. If I was even a little more careful/less bloodthirsty I could have kept these Brigades alive (only kept 1 from shattering) but it was worth it. You have to baby them and be really careful about how you use them but they kill everything if they can get into melee. (Or you can just cheese reinforcements if you know they're coming in. Stage 1 Antietam, you can put 2 cavalry at the far south and instantly ruin Law and someone else's Brigade as they're trying to come on the map.)

Union_Antietam_Results.jpg

Union_Antietam_Brigades.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sepp Stuart said:

First i have to say... wtf...you had over 20k men more than the south...why carefull? :D

 

 

What kind of cav...you used in that battle?

 

With that many men on the field, local advantages still exist. Fronts are also designed so that the AI may have its infantry a couple Brigades deep in places and definitely with artillery nearby depending on how you advance. If you just try to run your cavalry in, even near the flanks, they're going to die.

Melee cavalry, basic weapon. Skirmisher cavalry requires a lot more micro due to their AI and how vulnerable they are to return fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came for the cavalry, stayed for the profile picture

Jeez each cavalry guy had to kill at least 4-5 men, that's intense. Every single one of those guys probably has PTSD. And yeah it is insane, just go in, have them fire a volley then go in a charge. Instantly wrecked. Of course they get shot and it's all over so you can say that balances it out enough.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The effect that Cavalry had in that era? Civil War Cavalry never made an effective charge against infantry brigades. American cavalry was never the equal of European cavalry in terms of melee, that was never the purpose of the American Cavalry. The US Cavalry were dragoons and nothing more. With the exception of Brandy Station, Hanover and a few smaller skirmishes, they rarely even fought other cavalry while mounted. If the DEVS have allowed Civil War cavalry to be anything more than the dragoons that they were then they've taken away from the realism of the era. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing as CSA I love to use like 3 full brigades of melee cavalry (with one having Lemat when possible for the extra damage). Max melee/charge bonus + cavalry Corps commander. They can be very strong but you have to have a real method here. Never ever charge them on massed enemies, they are here to chase the loners. It's a hunt !

@fallendownI understand your point and agree with it somehow. I'm Napoleonic wargame player first, and I like the way it is now for devious reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Acika011 said:

What intrigues me is that the name you gave to your general is so offensive you have to black it out every time you post a picture.

I have to say that i would take a 2000 man infantry unit over cav in almost every case. I just think its expensive and i lose them quite regularly.

*laughs* Oh, it's not, I just chose one name there and one name on here and I don't like to make it easy to link my various handles across the Internet.

I'd usually take the cavalry, allowing for the fact that they're probably twice as expensive. They are prone to getting lost if you don't baby them but the killpower and ability to remove routed enemy regiments, artillery, and supply instead of having to slowly shoot it out and repeatedly rout to shatter is worth it IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fallendown said:

The effect that Cavalry had in that era? Civil War Cavalry never made an effective charge against infantry brigades.

 

You know, after I posted what I wrote I thought "I'm probably thinking of earlier, aren't I?" Hah! You're absolutely right. I was thinking to 40-50 years prior where Napoleonic era charges were more interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Meagre Heart said:

You know, after I posted what I wrote I thought "I'm probably thinking of earlier, aren't I?" Hah! You're absolutely right. I was thinking to 40-50 years prior where Napoleonic era charges were more interesting.

FWIW, probably the most feared Confederate cavalry commander was Nathan Bedford Forrest, who indeed used them actually as mounted infantry. He conducted war of maneuver by using horses to get his brigade into position ahead of where Union commanders could react, cut their lines of communication, raid their supply, and so on, then fade before they can catch up to him. (Or to use it to make it easier on his men to pursue and harry a retreating force while staying much fresher.)

That said, later in the war the Union cavalry under Sheridan did get the opportunity to fight mounted sometimes, but it was a bit of a different campaign and different terrain, and he still had the majority of his troops fighting dismounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Meagre Heart said:

You know, after I posted what I wrote I thought "I'm probably thinking of earlier, aren't I?" Hah! You're absolutely right. I was thinking to 40-50 years prior where Napoleonic era charges were more interesting.

 

Yep, European cavalry has always totally outclassed U.S. Cavalry in the melee category. The Native Americans, especially the Sioux, outclassed them in melee, both mounted and dismounted as well. Cavalry in the United States, whether Confederate or Union, was nothing more than glorified mounted infantry. In fact, I passed through Brandy Station yesterday on the way to our farm. That's the site of the largest cavalry battle ever fought on the North American continent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, dowdpride said:

Well it makes sense really. If you look at the horses they're riding compared to a French lancer there is like a foot of height difference at least. Still, it will be effective against a thousand dudes in a field if you run 800 cav into them. 

Michele Ney suffered from the same delusion. Cavalry against trained line infantry with bayonets is dicey when the infantry have short range muskets. It's downright murder for them when they charge against rifled muskets firing minie balls.  

Sheridan threatened to court martial any man found carrying a saber, and insisted upon dragoon tactics using those quick firing repeating rifles issued to the cavalry. It was rather devastating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2016 at 1:59 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Michele Ney suffered from the same delusion. Cavalry against trained line infantry with bayonets is dicey when the infantry have short range muskets. It's downright murder for them when they charge against rifled muskets firing minie balls.  

Sheridan threatened to court martial any man found carrying a saber, and insisted upon dragoon tactics using those quick firing repeating rifles issued to the cavalry. It was rather devastating. 

I am not claiming charging a square of bayonets or a wall of muskets is anything other than suicide for a horseman, but charging into a disorganized and dispersed force or into the rear would have devastating consequences regardless of equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dowdpride said:

I am not claiming charging a square of bayonets or a wall of muskets is anything other than suicide for a horseman, but charging into a disorganized and dispersed force or into the rear would have devastating consequences regardless of equipment.

Agreed. And it kind of does that now. But, like many aspects of this soon-to-be excellent game, cavalry needs to be tweaked a might. 

Fix the line infantry's ability to shuffle and form line first, then worry about the cav. I'm tired of my infantry turning their ass to fire to back up ten feet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2016 at 11:30 PM, neogodhobo said:

I find cavalry to be utterly useless....I must not be using them right.

Use your infantry first to break up the enemy formation and then watch for a unit to be open for a flank and/or running away unsupported in a bad direction. Then charge that unit and then cavalry will crush them. In general never send cavalry in to a charge if their target can still be covered by other units, they'll just get shot to pieces. If you can't find targets like that, have them circling into the side/rear and kill enemy cavalry and skirmishers basically for free and pick off supply. If the enemy is attacking, cavalry might be able to get around to their artillery and take them out enmasse if they're not able to support each other. For best results, use 2 cavalry brigades together so they can tie up two units adjacent to each other and effectively protect each other -or- so they far more quickly overwhelm one brigade and preserve their condition and members. See below, I had two units of cavalry, circled them all the way around to the north in the first stage, and feasted on routing/exposed units as my infantry attacked from the south. Then I used them to chase down and eliminate enemy cavalry as opportunity presented itself. You can note that they were basically able to feast while taking very few casualties in return. Afterwards, I then babied them and kept them mostly in reserve and out of the pursuit meatgrinder.

Ranged cavalry instead need to play the flanking/shooting game against units already engaged...basically treat them as skirmishers you have to babysit constantly. Not a fan, just got Forrest's 3 star unit and I have no idea if I even want to bother using them. Definitely have to give them a different gun at least if I do...

Confederate_Shiloh_Brigades.jpg

Edited by Hitorishizuka
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2016 at 4:16 AM, dowdpride said:

I am not claiming charging a square of bayonets or a wall of muskets is anything other than suicide for a horseman, but charging into a disorganized and dispersed force or into the rear would have devastating consequences regardless of equipment.

So that's the thing, people never form square in this, seeing how skirmishers can get owned by horsemen (even in deep forests) I wonder if they never learned about how to form square... then again others have pointed out that skirmishers weren't sent out by themselves far on the flank like players like doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2016 at 2:37 PM, Alavaria said:

So that's the thing, people never form square in this, seeing how skirmishers can get owned by horsemen (even in deep forests) I wonder if they never learned about how to form square... then again others have pointed out that skirmishers weren't sent out by themselves far on the flank like players like doing.

forming a proper square is surprisingly difficult to do without a lot of training. With the small showing of cavalry in the civil war I doubt much time was spent on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dowdpride said:

forming a proper square is surprisingly difficult to do without a lot of training. With the small showing of cavalry in the civil war I doubt much time was spent on it.

While it is true that "forming squares" was practiced in training, I am not been aware of this particular formation ever having been used in the ACW.  Forming Square as I see it is a defensive tactic, used mostly against cavalry.  By the time of the ACW, entrenching became the defensive mechanism of choice for both armies as opposed to forming squares, which is why it is not a given command in any civil war games. 

Cavalry was also used entirely differently in the ACW than in the earlier European battles.  Only on rare occasions were cavalry ever engaged in massive battles. And then those battles were mostly cavalry against cavalry and not cavalry charging en mass into a line of infantry, unless the cavalry knew it had a decided advantage in numbers.

Weaponry of the time was mostly the reason why cavalry quit being used as a means of breaking a line of infantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

While it is true that "forming squares" was practiced in training, I am not been aware of this particular formation ever having been used in the ACW.  Forming Square as I see it is a defensive tactic, used mostly against cavalry.  By the time of the ACW, entrenching became the defensive mechanism of choice for both armies as opposed to forming squares, which is why it is not a given command in any civil war games. 

Cavalry was also used entirely differently in the ACW than in the earlier European battles.  Only on rare occasions were cavalry ever engaged in massive battles. And then those battles were mostly cavalry against cavalry and not cavalry charging en mass into a line of infantry, unless the cavalry knew it had a decided advantage in numbers.

Weaponry of the time was mostly the reason why cavalry quit being used as a means of breaking a line of infantry.

I wrote this already in the Steam forum for UGCW

I would like to see a melee penalty for cavalry when it charges Infantry brigades in line formation or a melee bonus for the attacked Infantry,
Cavalry charging artillery, skirmishers (detached/dedicated), supply wagons, routing infantry and infantry in marching column can stay as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite everyone's continuing unrealistic belief in the melee ability of Civil War Cavalry, I can assure you, mounted cavalry charges in this game are highly unrealistic. Civil War cavalry when confronted by infantry nearly always dismounted and fought on foot, whether in the defense or offense. The 8th Pennsylvania Cavalry was decimated by Jackson's troops at Chancellorsville as it tried to conduct a mounted charge down a road, with the commanding officer alone receiving 14 bullet wounds. There may have been effective cavalry charges against small bodies of troops like companies, battalions, or under-strength regiments, but we are playing at the brigade level in this game, and there was never a successful mounted charge by cavalry against a brigade of infantry. Even during the final days of the war with Sheridan's cavalry they would ride ahead, dismount, and block Lee's path.  No Civil War cavalry commander would ever waste the lives of his horses and men in a futile charge against infantry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fallendown said:

Despite everyone's continuing unrealistic belief in the melee ability of Civil War Cavalry, I can assure you, mounted cavalry charges in this game are highly unrealistic. Civil War cavalry when confronted by infantry nearly always dismounted and fought on foot, whether in the defense or offense. The 8th Pennsylvania Cavalry was decimated by Jackson's troops at Chancellorsville as it tried to conduct a mounted charge down a road, with the commanding officer alone receiving 14 bullet wounds. There may have been effective cavalry charges against small bodies of troops like companies, battalions, or under-strength regiments, but we are playing at the brigade level in this game, and there was never a successful mounted charge by cavalry against a brigade of infantry. Even during the final days of the war with Sheridan's cavalry they would ride ahead, dismount, and block Lee's path.  No Civil War cavalry commander would ever waste the lives of his horses and men in a futile charge against infantry.

This is already in the game. If you take a brigade of cavalry and frontal charge a brigade of infantry, they are likely going to lose as they take the first volley coming in and get decimated. Cavalry do not like getting shot at, that is already implemented. No one getting good results with cavalry in-game is doing charges down a road into fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...