Dismounted Cavalry

[Sykes]

Dismounted cavalry are essentially skirmishers with the same weapons as skirmishers.  Is there a point in using dismounted cavalry? I find that I have more luck and success using cavalry as shock troops to dismantle routed enemy units.

I'm currently preparing for the battle of Fredericksburg and was wondering if I should have ALL shock cavalry?

Thanks!

[veji1]

To be honest shock cavalry didn't really exist in the context of the civil war, actually cavalry should suck at melee in this game and only be efficient against arty, supplies or routed units in that role. A player should be sort of forced to use cav as fast infantry most of the time if properly modelled.

[Hitorishizuka]

Personally, I would only dismount ranged cavalry if there was a hole in my lines that I desperately needed a unit to stand and fill for an extended period of time so they get the benefit of cover bonuses.(ideally with fortifications nearby so they stop running). They're going to die a lot for it anyway and will be an expensive trade but if that's what it takes to save your line or save the battle, it's what needs to be done.

Ranged cavalry can actually do good damage but you have to micro them and the flow of battle needs to be either defensive or at least a bit back and forth.

[Sykes]

Would you suggest not using dismounted cavalry & instead use ranged skirmishers? Save the horses for troopers/dragoons/raiders aka shock cav?

[Hitorishizuka]

6 minutes ago, Sykes said:

Would you suggest not using dismounted cavalry & instead use ranged skirmishers? Save the horses for troopers/dragoons/raiders aka shock cav?

No, because shock cav melee ratings have been nerfed enough that while they will still win, they'll win slowly enough that in various circumstances you'll get faster and safer kills from ranged cavalry.

Ranged skirmishers are also all generally better to be the very expensive super long range rifle guys if only from a practical standpoint of the repeater ones taking too much micro. Using either to plug gaps is also bad practice.

What I'm saying is that -if- you need to do it, that's what dismounted cavalry are there for. You shouldn't plan on needing to and eyeing either ranged cavalry or skirmishers with that in mind--in that case take more normal infantry because you feel there's going to be a problem. Both ranged cavalry and dedicated skirmishers have a different optimal role than that and they coexist alongside melee cavalry, one is not strictly better than the other.

[Sykes]

Just curious, do we get Buford after Fredericksburg at all either in the barracks or with rep points?

[Wright29]

When you're in the woods or some kind of cover, dismounted cavalry take less damage than when mounted. It also allows you to man fortifications, which can be a mixed bag. I think they hide better as well, not 100% sure about that though. 

[A. P. Hill]

I think too many here give far too much importance to Cavalry as it was used in the American Civil War.  It was not used like it was in the European conflicts most are use to playing.

[Hitorishizuka]

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

I think too many here give far too much importance to Cavalry as it was used in the American Civil War.  It was not used like it was in the European conflicts most are use to playing.

How is this even vaguely relevant to the capabilities of the units that we have in-game?

[The Soldier]

Well, time for me to rear my head here. Suppose now is better than never to come onto the official forums for UG:CW.

For me, shock cavalry are a bit pointless now.  Before, they could aid in melee with infantry and deal some heavy damage (I could consistently get 3,500 kills with LeMatts in Grand Battles with some of my Shock Cavalry), but with the nerf they can't do much.  Besides, the main role of cavalry for me is for them to flank and Rout enemy units, with a secondary mission of hunting Artillery and Supplies if practicable and side objective of Scouting.  Shock Cavalry can only do the latter two effectively - they can't flank and rout enemy units without fully committing themselves and making themselves very, very vulnerable.  Carbine Cavalry can fulfill all 3 roles perfectly well, and furthermore they can do it cheaper because they're not losing men in melee and they don't need costly LeMatts to get an upgrade over the default weapons (Smiths and Sharps 1859s are much cheaper), and if I do want to give them good weapons, Spencers captured via the absurd Skirmisher scaling can turn them into absolute monsters.

 

So yea, out with the saber and in with the carbine.  Also; I call them "mounted skirmishers" because they fill the same role perfectly well (if not better) and thusly, I don't bother with camp-made skirmishers anymore (and because of the aforementioned absurd Skirmisher scaling, I don't run skirmishers with scoped rifles).

[Hitorishizuka]

1 hour ago, The Soldier said:

Well, time for me to rear my head here. Suppose now is better than never to come onto the official forums for UG:CW.

For me, shock cavalry are a bit pointless now.  Before, they could aid in melee with infantry and deal some heavy damage (I could consistently get 3,500 kills with LeMatts in Grand Battles with some of my Shock Cavalry), but with the nerf they can't do much.  Besides, the main role of cavalry for me is for them to flank and Rout enemy units, with a secondary mission of hunting Artillery and Supplies if practicable and side objective of Scouting.  Shock Cavalry can only do the latter two effectively - they can't flank and rout enemy units without fully committing themselves and making themselves very, very vulnerable.  Carbine Cavalry can fulfill all 3 roles perfectly well, and furthermore they can do it cheaper because they're not losing men in melee and they don't need costly LeMatts to get an upgrade over the default weapons (Smiths and Sharps 1859s are much cheaper), and if I do want to give them good weapons, Spencers captured via the absurd Skirmisher scaling can turn them into absolute monsters.

I wouldn't sleep on Shock Cavalry. They're still by far your best options for dealing with enemy skirmishers, beefed up or not, and they're still very strong on countercharges where you have them just behind your lines at a strong point that you know the enemy is going to charge into and you can then send them in to turn the tide.

If you don't have shock cavalry then dealing with enemy skirmishers is basically down to your own infantry getting into range (hard because they just run away) or accepting that they're going to keep poking your brigades from out of range. Artillery are a waste shooting them, ranged cavalry lose that duel hard once they start turning because of lack of cover, and your own skirmishers aren't really all that useful.

[The Soldier]

@Hitorishizuka

Yea, Shock Cav are still the best option for dealing with Skirmishers.  However, since I don't run skirmishers, enemy skirmishers are armed with M1855s - which isn't much of a problem to deal with.  They're always going to be in range of my Infantry Brigades, they just get blown away if they tried to engage for any length of time.

[Nicolas I]

7 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

...enemy skirmishers...Artillery are a waste shooting them...

Unless you shoot them from very close, then it has some effect. It happened to me, I was pushing them towards my lines so they got in harm's way. My artillery gave them the "coup de grace" and routed them, then it was a piece of cake for my cavalry. But I admit this is quite a rare case, I essentially agree with you.

Cavalry is most effective on routed units, for maximum damage, minimum losses and quick melee. When attacking too strong units with cavalry you risk not only bigger losses but longer melee which may give close by enemy troops an opportunity to run to you and severely hurt you

Edited March 1, 2017 by Nicolas I

[Jamesk2]

10 hours ago, The Soldier said:

So yea, out with the saber and in with the carbine.  Also; I call them "mounted skirmishers" because they fill the same role perfectly well (if not better) and thusly, I don't bother with camp-made skirmishers anymore (and because of the aforementioned absurd Skirmisher scaling, I don't run skirmishers with scoped rifles).

There is no point in using skirmishers if  you don't use the longest range rifles possible (Whitworth and up). They can sneak around and behind enemy lines to deliver morale-crushing flanked/rear flanked shot, snipe artillery even when they're standing close to infantry, or just generally dealing damage without fear of retribution. Carbine Cavalry only works when you have ample space to maneuver and at least semi-equal number of infantry brigades to hold the enemy infantry in place. In that case having another Infantry doing the flanking may be even more effective.

[The Soldier]

@Jamesk2

I don't have the time to always keep an eye on my flanking Carbine Cavalry units, so when they're in the flank, I dismount them so they become less squishy, so in case I do forget about them, they don't get flanked and loose 500 men like an Infantry Brigade would.  Furthermore they're cheaper to maintain if I they do lose men.  Most Grand Battle maps have enough space to make maneuvers, like Antietam or Stones River to turn a flank (although Chancellorsville, my next battle, is probably going to see cavalry take a back seat).

 

By the way, may I say this is all with my current Union play through of the campaign - I've got so many damn men compared to my last Confederate run that I'm just drowning in then, and didn't bother with a lot of weaker Cavalry or Skirmisher units.  More men to hold the line is always good.  I'm going into Chancellorsville with 122 thousand federals, 90% armed with rifles, and 450 guns, a good majority of which are smoothbores - twice the number of Confederate men and triple their guns.  This is wonderful. So yea, that's probably affecting my opinion right now, we'll see how it changes on my next Confederate run.

[Sykes]

All these responses are immensely insightful and appreciated.  When forming new divisions, I always have a hunch in determining; should I create a skirmisher unit or a dismounted cavalry unit.  

[waldopbarnstormer]

The Problem I am having with my cavalry in my confederate campaign is having not enough carbines to equip my brigades. I was only able to equip 2 brigades with sharps 1855s over 500 men as all I had in the other carbines was enough for 400 at most. After brandy station and Rio hill I have over 1000 Spencer's.

[The Soldier]

Fun fact: You can dismount Shock Cavalry with "M", even if it's not on the Hotbar.

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198032821964/screenshot/93851007466956751

"Get me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!"

Medieval action right there.

Edited March 1, 2017 by The Soldier

[Sykes]

1 hour ago, The Soldier said:

Fun fact: You can dismount Shock Cavalry with "M", even if it's not on the Hotbar.

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198032821964/screenshot/93851007466956751

"Get me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!"

Medieval action right there.

If this is true (and I'll try this tonight) this is clutch....  Great find!  Didn't know this was possible.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Sykes

[A. P. Hill]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 9:07 PM, Hitorishizuka said:

How is this even vaguely relevant to the capabilities of the units that we have in-game?

It's relevant in our differing perceptions of what we think Cavalry is or should be and what it actually was during the conflict.

All accounts of history of the time report the very ineptness of the Union Horse.  It wasn't until late 1863 early 1864 that the North put any kind of real effort into making the mounted arm an effective part of the armies.   For every player's efforts here at making Yankee Horse anything other than what it was until 1864 I find very unhistorical. Confederate Horse didn't do any better, but the South organized and used their Horse troops far more effectively and efficiently than the North ever did until 1864.

It's perception.  You wan the civil war cavalry to be everything it was touted to be in the earlier European conflicts, when in reality it was never anything like that at all.

So in my mind, the game's actions of the cavalry are probably a lesser "problem" in my mind than it is in many other's here trying to use it in ways it was never meant to be used. 

[Jamesk2]

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

It's relevant in our differing perceptions of what we think Cavalry is or should be and what it actually was during the conflict.

All accounts of history of the time report the very ineptness of the Union Horse.  It wasn't until late 1863 early 1864 that the North put any kind of real effort into making the mounted arm an effective part of the armies.   For every player's efforts here at making Yankee Horse anything other than what it was until 1864 I find very unhistorical. Confederate Horse didn't do any better, but the South organized and used their Horse troops far more effectively and efficiently than the North ever did until 1864.

It's perception.  You wan the civil war cavalry to be everything it was touted to be in the earlier European conflicts, when in reality it was never anything like that at all.

So in my mind, the game's actions of the cavalry are probably a lesser "problem" in my mind than it is in many other's here trying to use it in ways it was never meant to be used. 

Well, in my defense, I did wanted to run a pure infantry-artillery campaign, until I had to deal with the nasty charges from AI.

[A. P. Hill]

In defense of your defense of yourself, ....  ....

I run a pure infantry/artillery army.   I have no cavalry and I have no skirmishers ... except those I break from brigades during the actual fight.

And the AI can be dealt with ... I see any cavalry coming 3 brigades at a minimum target it.  they don't last very long.

[Hitorishizuka]

4 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

It's relevant in our differing perceptions of what we think Cavalry is or should be and what it actually was during the conflict.

All accounts of history of the time report the very ineptness of the Union Horse.  It wasn't until late 1863 early 1864 that the North put any kind of real effort into making the mounted arm an effective part of the armies.   For every player's efforts here at making Yankee Horse anything other than what it was until 1864 I find very unhistorical. Confederate Horse didn't do any better, but the South organized and used their Horse troops far more effectively and efficiently than the North ever did until 1864.

It's perception.  You wan the civil war cavalry to be everything it was touted to be in the earlier European conflicts, when in reality it was never anything like that at all.

So in my mind, the game's actions of the cavalry are probably a lesser "problem" in my mind than it is in many other's here trying to use it in ways it was never meant to be used. 

No. That isn't vaguely what the OP posted about nor what the posters actually staying on-topic are talking about. No one is talking about perceptions of what some mythical cavalry should be, everyone is talking about how to use the units in-game, just the same as we are in practically every other topic. Stop making things up to try and justify shoehorning Civil War facts into every thread.

[The Soldier]

@A. P. Hill

Hitorishizuka's right. Doesn't matter what cavalry was used as in the actual war, this is a game.  Doesn't matter if it's a historical game either, it's a game, period.  History can be used as a backdrop and basis for content, but unless it's supposed to be 100% a simulator, then history should never be the sole basis for balance.

Edited March 3, 2017 by The Soldier

[veji1]

eh that is very wrong... because then why on earth do they bother putting in the real weapon names and stuff, why not add aliens and laser beams ????

The point of this game is to have fun playing as a general in the civil war. As all games the first goal is to have fun, but if you can have fun using your cavalry units as they were used at the time rather than having them reenact napoleonic charges, it's better.