Cavalry Melee penalty in woods is to extreme

[Fred Sanford]

43 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

I don't care about chasing units through thick forest

And the title of this thread is...?

43 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

...currently shock cavalry struggle to catch up to skirmishers while in the open (and when they do catch up, there's a chance the skirmishers can fire point-blank and just Rout them, while the Shock Cavalry rarely fire their weapons), carbine cavalry can beat them in a fight, and they're slow in slicing up artillery.  They're completely pointless, even right from the get-go.

This is a different issue that the thread starter posted, and I agree with you on these.  Shock Cav should have its uses in open terrain in the applications you mentioned, but forested or rough terrain is a different matter.  Using them as hooved panzers, though, would be overkill.  They weren't 'breakthrough' cavalry in the ACW like Napoleonic Lancers and Cuirassiers. 

[Fred Sanford]

21 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

Forrest used his cavalry as mounted infantry more than anything.   His slogan was ... "Get there first with the most"  (modernized for some of you folks.)   And the best way he could get units in the field of battle faster than his opponent was mounted ... almost to a man he always dismounted his  troops in conflict.  So not really "shock cavalry".

And considering the CSA cavalry troops supplied their own horses privately, they wouldn't be in a position to easily replace the high attrition to horses that would result from bringing them directly into the line of fire- such as would be expected of shock cavalry in particular.

[Wandering1]

So what we're saying is that you're asking the player to dismount his shock cavalry every time he wants to do a charge? 

Which is to say just imposes a small micromanagement overhead for people to use shock cavalry in general.

I could be wrong here, as I have never seen personally how they re-enact the Battle of Sacramento in Kentucky, but the texts clearly describe it as a cavalry charge and not just a dismounted infantry charge; something about there being riderless horses that dislocated one of Forrest's shoulders during the melee in his first combat. Not that it should be representative of all the later charges that he did, but the fact is that he had to deal with a melee involving horses.

[JonnyH13]

Shock cavalry (and all shock units in general) can still dominate in a melee fight even against modern soldiers (no soldier can survive being run over by a formation of horsemen).  Key word is "melee".  The main problem involving shock units is getting into melee range without being utterly destroyed by enemy fire.  Back then it was much harder for cavalry to be shot down before impacting the enemy lines (that is what Pikes were for) but as weapons increased in accuracy, range, and rate of fire, men and horses became rather large targets, easy pickings for the increasingly unskilled soldier (better weapons means the skill requirements to achieve a certain feat gets lower, after all it is much easier to hit a target at 200 meters with a modern scoped rifle than it was to hit it with an unrifled musket).  That meant that shock units could no longer get into melee range without taking horrendous losses and therefore were disbanded.  That does not mean that shock units simply do not fight well, after all I am quite sure a trained swordsman can win against a equivalently trained modern day soldier in a melee fight (no shooting of course).  It is just the situations in which a shock unit is ideal in grows fewer and fewer.  UGCW, with the game set to brigade scale and volley fire only, it is quite easy for the shock cavalry to close in and crush the enemy infantry (of course in dealing with bayonets (the equivalent of the pike), it is often disastrous to attack the enemy infantry head on, not to mention the fire you will take if they are able to get off a volley.  Flank attacks work so much better.).  Like all things, shock cavalry has its uses in the right situations.  It is up to the you to make that situation happen.  

Of course in regards to this topic shock cavalry is quite vulnerable in the trees as they cannot traverse the forest faster than the man on foot.  In fact, without a path/road, all units mover very slowly in a forest (another thing that is lacking in this game: the importance of roads).  Forests are full of obstacles, some bigger than others.  The advantage goes to the being that can move through these obstacles with speed and efficiency.  Compare the horse and man, the man wins in the forest.  If one is not careful with the horse, they can trip and fall and quite possibly not get up again.   

[Wandering1]

One thing to note: speed modifiers do apply to forests. Units move slower in trees, whereas roads give normal movement speed. It's just that the movement AI won't take into account optimal path to get to the destination in the least amount of time; it just uses the shortest route.

[Jamesk2]

Once again, the discussion in the thread is getting dominated by players who want the game to stay true to history as best as it can. While it's not an unsound idea, when applied to the game we're having it's full of problems:

1. Relegating the cavalry usefulness to an even more situational level will inevitably lead to players stop using them in favour of more universal unit. Then it will beg the question of "What is the point of keeping an unit that is both a-historical and useless gameplay-wise?".

2. The main mode of the game is the campaign, and (I presume) it's only there that players can use or meet Shock Cavalry. At this state of implementation, it's a stretch to call the campaign "historical". I mean sure there are the same battles that were fought in the ACW with the terrain that is re-created to be as truthful as possible, but the most important thing in the battle - the forces that each size bring to the field most likely will vary wildly from history.

3. In the end, most people who play this game want to WIN. While people may voluntarily choose to handicap themselves in one way or the other (I refuse to use the combine division exploit, and at least one player choose to play the game Ironman - that is, no reload at any point). But I don't see anyone who choose to get his army smashed in Frederickburg as the Union and accept the lost "because it was historical". Are we being pretentious to ask for 100% historical capabilities of units in a game where ultimately the goal is to change history?

4. At the Brigadier General level, Shock Cavalry is not required to have a successful campaign. People who dislike including Shock Cavalry because of historical reasons can just ignore them when building their army. It's only at higher level of difficulty that they become hard to replace, and at those levels it can be argue that it's the player playing against a set of challenges, and they should be granted every tools that the game offer.

[The Soldier]

35 minutes ago, Jamesk2 said:

Once again, the discussion in the thread is getting dominated by players who want the game to stay true to history as best as it can. While it's not an unsound idea, when applied to the game we're having it's full of problems:

1. Relegating the cavalry usefulness to an even more situational level will inevitably lead to players stop using them in favour of more universal unit. Then it will beg the question of "What is the point of keeping an unit that is both a-historical and useless gameplay-wise?".

2. The main mode of the game is the campaign, and (I presume) it's only there that players can use or meet Shock Cavalry. At this state of implementation, it's a stretch to call the campaign "historical". I mean sure there are the same battles that were fought in the ACW with the terrain that is re-created to be as truthful as possible, but the most important thing in the battle - the forces that each size bring to the field most likely will vary wildly from history.

3. In the end, most people who play this game want to WIN. While people may voluntarily choose to handicap themselves in one way or the other (I refuse to use the combine division exploit, and at least one player choose to play the game Ironman - that is, no reload at any point). But I don't see anyone who choose to get his army smashed in Frederickburg as the Union and accept the lost "because it was historical". Are we being pretentious to ask for 100% historical capabilities of units in a game where ultimately the goal is to change history?

4. At the Brigadier General level, Shock Cavalry is not required to have a successful campaign. People who dislike including Shock Cavalry because of historical reasons can just ignore them when building their army. It's only at higher level of difficulty that they become hard to replace, and at those levels it can be argue that it's the player playing against a set of challenges, and they should be granted every tools that the game offer.

Thank you.

[Slobodan]

5 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:

Once again, the discussion in the thread is getting dominated by players who want the game to stay true to history as best as it can. While it's not an unsound idea, when applied to the game we're having it's full of problems:

1. Relegating the cavalry usefulness to an even more situational level will inevitably lead to players stop using them in favour of more universal unit. Then it will beg the question of "What is the point of keeping an unit that is both a-historical and useless gameplay-wise?".

2. The main mode of the game is the campaign, and (I presume) it's only there that players can use or meet Shock Cavalry. At this state of implementation, it's a stretch to call the campaign "historical". I mean sure there are the same battles that were fought in the ACW with the terrain that is re-created to be as truthful as possible, but the most important thing in the battle - the forces that each size bring to the field most likely will vary wildly from history.

3. In the end, most people who play this game want to WIN. While people may voluntarily choose to handicap themselves in one way or the other (I refuse to use the combine division exploit, and at least one player choose to play the game Ironman - that is, no reload at any point). But I don't see anyone who choose to get his army smashed in Frederickburg as the Union and accept the lost "because it was historical". Are we being pretentious to ask for 100% historical capabilities of units in a game where ultimately the goal is to change history?

4. At the Brigadier General level, Shock Cavalry is not required to have a successful campaign. People who dislike including Shock Cavalry because of historical reasons can just ignore them when building their army. It's only at higher level of difficulty that they become hard to replace, and at those levels it can be argue that it's the player playing against a set of challenges, and they should be granted every tools that the game offer.

Well, I play on brigadier  General level and use my cavalry mostly as Shock (Melee) Cavalry...but I find latest patch really good in regards how it has been tuned. 

For instance, at Rio Hill small battle, I specifically formed one full (750 man) brigade dedicated to chase done those pesky Union skirmishers. It performed good on open field but once I used them to charge in woods, I got 1:1 ratio of kill:lost on single 210 man Union 3* skirmisher brigade. So...should I be displeased that my Shock Cav under-preformed in woods? Especially since it cut to pieces artillery and skirmisher units on open field? 

My point is: let devs model units as close as to historical, and players can chose how to use them - that's most fun imo. I personally will continue to use Melee Cavalry to chase down skirmishers, artillery and wagons and to attack already routed infantry.

[Jamesk2]

25 minutes ago, Slobodan said:

For instance, at Rio Hill small battle, I specifically formed one full (750 man) brigade dedicated to chase done those pesky Union skirmishers. It performed good on open field but once I used them to charge in woods, I got 1:1 ratio of kill:lost on single 210 man Union 3* skirmisher brigade. So...should I be displeased that my Shock Cav under-preformed in woods? Especially since it cut to pieces artillery and skirmisher units on open field?

Regarding the performance of Shock Cavalry, it's important to compare it with performance of different types of unit in the same situation. For example, taking supply wagon can be done with Carbine Cavalry (and on the large picture is having limited value anyway), attack artillery can be performed by Skirmishers, and enemy Skirmisher can be beaten by swarming them with detached Skirmishers. The only task that used to be Shock Cavalry-only is counter charging enemy infantry, but since most of the melee that the player found they're on the defending side happens in the woods now I'm thinking to switch to infantry anyway.

[Slobodan]

1 hour ago, Jamesk2 said:

Regarding the performance of Shock Cavalry, it's important to compare it with performance of different types of unit in the same situation. For example, taking supply wagon can be done with Carbine Cavalry (and on the large picture is having limited value anyway), attack artillery can be performed by Skirmishers, and enemy Skirmisher can be beaten by swarming them with detached Skirmishers. The only task that used to be Shock Cavalry-only is counter charging enemy infantry, but since most of the melee that the player found they're on the defending side happens in the woods now I'm thinking to switch to infantry anyway.

I think that's the point, you can use different type of units for same tasks - but you need to use them differently to achieve same goals.

That allows different "player styles"...isn't that a beautiful thing  ?

 

[Jamesk2]

58 minutes ago, Slobodan said:

I think that's the point, you can use different type of units for same tasks - but you need to use them differently to achieve same goals.

That allows different "player styles"...isn't that a beautiful thing  ?

 

But if some unit does not have at least one unique thing that they do really well and can't be replaced, then they will most likely not get built, like how most players did not choose to have Carbine Cavalry in the past.

[veji1]

13 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:

Once again, the discussion in the thread is getting dominated by players who want the game to stay true to history as best as it can. While it's not an unsound idea, when applied to the game we're having it's full of problems:

1. Relegating the cavalry usefulness to an even more situational level will inevitably lead to players stop using them in favour of more universal unit. Then it will beg the question of "What is the point of keeping an unit that is both a-historical and useless gameplay-wise?".

2. The main mode of the game is the campaign, and (I presume) it's only there that players can use or meet Shock Cavalry. At this state of implementation, it's a stretch to call the campaign "historical". I mean sure there are the same battles that were fought in the ACW with the terrain that is re-created to be as truthful as possible, but the most important thing in the battle - the forces that each size bring to the field most likely will vary wildly from history.

3. In the end, most people who play this game want to WIN. While people may voluntarily choose to handicap themselves in one way or the other (I refuse to use the combine division exploit, and at least one player choose to play the game Ironman - that is, no reload at any point). But I don't see anyone who choose to get his army smashed in Frederickburg as the Union and accept the lost "because it was historical". Are we being pretentious to ask for 100% historical capabilities of units in a game where ultimately the goal is to change history?

4. At the Brigadier General level, Shock Cavalry is not required to have a successful campaign. People who dislike including Shock Cavalry because of historical reasons can just ignore them when building their army. It's only at higher level of difficulty that they become hard to replace, and at those levels it can be argue that it's the player playing against a set of challenges, and they should be granted every tools that the game offer.

I play to have fun personally. And to me a well thought out cavalry in game would be a unit that allows to you to  move a lot faster than infantry and then dismount, annoy the hell of uncovered flanks or expose arty and then move out.

If it was me I would actually make cavalry as mediocre as it is in shock BUT make if significantly faster than it is now, because at this stage it can't move around the map that well, whereas it should be able to move around, dismount, probe, mount and leave, repeat and repeat... And if you don't have cav yourself to keep it in check it should really be a major nuisance.

[DeRuyter]

14 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:

Once again, the discussion in the thread is getting dominated by players who want the game to stay true to history as best as it can. While it's not an unsound idea, when applied to the game we're having it's full of problems:

1. Relegating the cavalry usefulness to an even more situational level will inevitably lead to players stop using them in favour of more universal unit. Then it will beg the question of "What is the point of keeping an unit that is both a-historical and useless gameplay-wise?".

2. The main mode of the game is the campaign, and (I presume) it's only there that players can use or meet Shock Cavalry. At this state of implementation, it's a stretch to call the campaign "historical". I mean sure there are the same battles that were fought in the ACW with the terrain that is re-created to be as truthful as possible, but the most important thing in the battle - the forces that each size bring to the field most likely will vary wildly from history.

3. In the end, most people who play this game want to WIN. While people may voluntarily choose to handicap themselves in one way or the other (I refuse to use the combine division exploit, and at least one player choose to play the game Ironman - that is, no reload at any point). But I don't see anyone who choose to get his army smashed in Frederickburg as the Union and accept the lost "because it was historical". Are we being pretentious to ask for 100% historical capabilities of units in a game where ultimately the goal is to change history?

4. At the Brigadier General level, Shock Cavalry is not required to have a successful campaign. People who dislike including Shock Cavalry because of historical reasons can just ignore them when building their army. It's only at higher level of difficulty that they become hard to replace, and at those levels it can be argue that it's the player playing against a set of challenges, and they should be granted every tools that the game offer.

The point of a historical wargame, or the campaign in your example, is to change history whilst using the weapons, troops and tactics available in the time period you are recreating. So no, we are not too pretentious too ask for historic and accurate unit capabilities within the confines of the game mechanics. I would expect balancing for gameplay in a FPS shooter or other MOBA game, but not in a historical wargame. I should certainly hope that most people in this discussion would be interested in the historical aspect of the game, including having accurate unit capabilities.

Back to the OP - even in eras with dominant shock cavalry it would have problems fighting infantry in the woods. It would not be ideal to send heavy cavalry like cuirassiers into woods to root out riflemen, you'd send in a unit of light infantry instead. A player should be free to do it in the game, but with the expected consequences - lots of empty saddles.

 

[The Soldier]

36 minutes ago, DeRuyter said:

I should certainly hope that most people in this discussion would be interested in the historical aspect of the game, including having accurate unit capabilities.

Back to the OP - even in eras with dominant shock cavalry it would have problems fighting infantry in the woods. It would not be ideal to send heavy cavalry like cuirassiers into woods to root out riflemen, you'd send in a unit of light infantry instead. A player should be free to do it in the game, but with the expected consequences - lots of empty saddles.

 

You fail to realize the fact it's a game.  If a game is to be fun and balanced, then all it's aspects should be included in that.  In this case, Shock Cavalry.  I would be perfectly fine if sabers and pistols were cheaper and more widely available than carbines and served as a cheap stepping stone to carbine cavalry (like Farmers, Re-Bores, and M1842s are), but currently Shock Cavalry are entirely separate units with upgradable weapons of their own.  Since it's laid out like that, it MUST be competitive with other comparable units, like Carbine Cavalry, otherwise it gets thrown in the corner of uselessness.

As for the OP - I've already made myself clear that I don't care much for the nerf to cavalry in forest.  However, now my concern is that skirmishers are literally 100% invulnerable while in forest, and regardless of how that was in reality, this is a game, and something needs to counter it.  Cavalry are currently the only unit that can catch up, but as the same time, they can't kill them in woods.  Skirmishers therefore need to have their melee abilities gibed overall.  It's also realistic since they're in loose formation versus the tight formation of regular line infantry.

[JaM]

Skirmishers should be invulnerable in the forest!   they are supposed to fire from cover, they ignore formations, they dont walk at enemy in line... of course chance to kill them in such terrain should be very small... a lot smaller than against Line infantry... man hiding behind tree or a rock is extremely small target... very hard to spot, even harder to hit...

[The Soldier]

11 minutes ago, JaM said:

Skirmishers should be invulnerable in the forest!   they are supposed to fire from cover, they ignore formations, they dont walk at enemy in line... of course chance to kill them in such terrain should be very small... a lot smaller than against Line infantry... man hiding behind tree or a rock is extremely small target... very hard to spot, even harder to hit...

Why do people use these damn ellipses all the time?  Those triple periods are annoying as hell to read.

It's a game.  There's no reason something as common as skirmishers should be invulnerable under a condition as common as forest.  Something needs to be able to kill the buggers.  And like I said, skirmishers, due to their loose formation, should get a flat melee penalty, so you can kill the things quicker in the open and in cover, otherwise they have enough time to run away and escape.

Edited March 7, 2017 by The Soldier

[JaM]

again, its civil war game, and you should be using civil war tactics to get rid of skirmishers... anything else would result in game that will have nothing in common with CIVIL WAR...

[The Soldier]

2 minutes ago, JaM said:

again, its civil war game, and you should be using civil war tactics to get rid of skirmishers... anything else would result in game that will have nothing in common with CIVIL WAR...

Taking a few (reasonable) liberties should not be out of the question.  Something like this shouldn't completely shatter Civil War theme.

Edited March 7, 2017 by The Soldier

[JaM]

liberty in what?  that soldiers in prone position, of firing from cover should be easier to kill than those standing in line shoulder to shoulder? that's not liberty that's inaccuracy..  There are plenty of historical sources, where skilled group of skirmishers equipped with repeater rifles defeated huge number of ordinary infantry deployed in line... skirmishers are  a lot smaller target, they are in open formation, can do whatever they want to find best shooting position.. in terrain like forest they should be unbeatable... (while line infantry would practically lose any visibility of whats going on in front of them after first few salvos...)  only way how to get rid of them would be sending own skirmishers, or send infantry in bayonet charge, but take a lot of casualties...  you are supposed to trade lives for the ground when fighting skirmishers with line infantry.. thats what it has been back there.. thats why tactics changed in late 19.century into infantry tactics used during WW1...

[The Soldier]

Making it so skirmishers are more vulnerable in melee than line infantry is not a liberty.  Doing that so Cavalry actually have a chance against them in any terrain is.  That is a reasonable liberty.  You're clearly in the group of "historical accuracy above everything" - you don't make good games.  Stuff needs to be countered in some way, not be some god-king over the battlefield.  I hope you understand that, but something tells me you're just going to retort with some other historical argument that, at this point, is meaningless.

You've got bigger problems if you think making cavalry effective against skirmishers is some total turn-off to historical accuracy,

Edited March 7, 2017 by The Soldier

[DeRuyter]

31 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

You fail to realize the fact it's a game.  If a game is to be fun and balanced, then all it's aspects should be included in that.  In this case, Shock Cavalry.  I would be perfectly fine if sabers and pistols were cheaper and more widely available than carbines and served as a cheap stepping stone to carbine cavalry (like Farmers, Re-Bores, and M1842s are), but currently Shock Cavalry are entirely separate units with upgradable weapons of their own.  Since it's laid out like that, it MUST be competitive with other comparable units, like Carbine Cavalry, otherwise it gets thrown in the corner of uselessness.

As for the OP - I've already made myself clear that I don't care much for the nerf to cavalry in forest.  However, now my concern is that skirmishers are literally 100% invulnerable while in forest, and regardless of how that was in reality, this is a game, and something needs to counter it.  Cavalry are currently the only unit that can catch up, but as the same time, they can't kill them in woods.  Skirmishers therefore need to have their melee abilities gibed overall.  It's also realistic since they're in loose formation versus the tight formation of regular line infantry.

No I fully realize this is a game, maybe you missed my point. In some types of games what you suggest may work or be accepted, but this is a historical wargame and I for one expect unit types to act as they did historically. In other words the player should be rewarded for using historical tactics.

You want something to counter skirmishers in the woods fine I have your solution: Skirmishers.  That is what happened in the ACW and what should happen in the game.

 

 

[The Soldier]

23 minutes ago, DeRuyter said:

You want something to counter skirmishers in the woods fine I have your solution: Skirmishers.  That is what happened in the ACW and what should happen in the game.

Then what's the point of shock cavalry?  If they're so completely useless at such prices, you may as well remove them since no one is going to use them.  This is where balance comes in, not historical accuracy.  Think of it in those terms from now on, please.

If you do want to keep shock cavalry so terrible, then just say they should be removed.  Nice and simple and avoids all this useless historical accuracy talk since we're past that now.  Let me help you list out why they're terrible -  Carbine Cavalry can do everything Shock Cavalry can do, if not better.  Including melee.  Remove the damn things or make them better.  I've offered up various ways to buff them without directly making their melee better.  Read those if you wish, or go right for the throat and say that they have to be removed.

At the very least, the developers are going against your historical opinions and are looking at shock cavalry again.  Huzzah for better game design prevailing!

Edited March 7, 2017 by The Soldier

[A. P. Hill]

1 hour ago, The Soldier said:

You fail to realize the fact it's a game. 

You Sir, also fail to realize that while it is a game, it is a game based on historical content, and not a fantasy. And therefore the developers cannot, nor can the players seeking realism, be faulted for using real information regarding the time period.

I suggest that if you want to play a fantasy style game that perhaps you might look elsewhere, and stop trying to eschew the developers intent of providing a history based entertaining game system.

Thanks.

[The Soldier]

25 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

You Sir, also fail to realize that while it is a game, it is a game based on historical content, and not a fantasy. And therefore the developers cannot, nor can the players seeking realism, be faulted for using real information regarding the time period.

I suggest that if you want to play a fantasy style game that perhaps you might look elsewhere, and stop trying to eschew the developers intent of providing a history based entertaining game system.

Thanks.

No, you can't be faulted for using real information.  But the historical accuracy argument can only go so far - you guys are taking it too far, hence why I'm not bothering with your arguments there anymore.  That's the current position of all you defending the uselessness of shock cavalry.  Game balance and design must come before historical accuracy for the sake of good and inclusive gameplay.  Useless shock cavalry means they must be improved, or in the most extreme cases, reworked or removed.

By the way, I'm not "eschewing the developers" intent - they already said they'd look into adjusting shock cavalry on the Steam Forums.  I'm defending their position, not only my own, Hill.  Good you said that, now I can break this out and make all of you accept the fact that gameplay trumps hardcore realism.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/502520/discussions/0/133258593395543716/?ctp=3#c133258593398846645

Like I said, you guys really need to understand that what you're proposing is just terrible game design, regardless of how inaccurate it is.  And considering I've not heard anyone say anything to that, I think I'm correct.

Edited March 7, 2017 by The Soldier

[Nicolas I]

4 hours ago, DeRuyter said:

You want something to counter skirmishers in the woods fine I have your solution: Skirmishers.  That is what happened in the ACW and what should happen in the game.

Exactly ! I was also annoyed by the damn skirmishers when first playing. Now I send two detached skirmishers units against them to have a 1,5/2 to 1 ratio.

Shock cavalry is still useful against skirmishers in the open, to disturb/destroy artillery, to flank the enemy and to chase routed brigades. So it's not useless as some pretend. Its use is quite historical which, surprisingly, fits an historical game.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Nicolas I