Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Cavalry Melee penalty in woods is to extreme


LegioX

Recommended Posts

If a unit is vulnerable only to another one of itself, that seems pretty bad.  Still, if you're not going to buff shock cavalry (it still needs improvements), then nerf the melee abilities of skirmishers.  Or make it so shock cavalry can shoot and reload in melee.  Seems like a fair trade-off if you historical nuts aren't going to listen to other gameplay changes and hold onto your historical beliefs and not bother to take into account good game design.

Oh wait.

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

One other thing that has not been mentioned yet because of the shock cav nerf: due to the fact that unit stats scale significantly based on difficulty (see: multiple 3* units that basically have 100 melee, regardless of unit type), two 3* artillery units will eventually beat back a single shock cav unit that runs into them if they're stacked on top of each other. This being because those artillery units have 100 melee, ask not how that is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a bit late to the party but here is my radical suggestion; give carbine cavalry sabres and pistols.

Now I am not an expert on the acw but from what I have read cavalry were equipped with a range of weapons from swords and pistols to shotguns and breechloading carbines. Why not give every cavalry unit a standard sabre and pistol and then allow selection of different carbines.

By the 1860s cavalry in the offensive role was overtaken by technology, see the battle of balaclava in the Crimean war for an example of infantry fighting off cavalry without forming square. A unit of rifle equipped infantry could decimate charging cavalry before they got to close for melee. I don't think the US army had the same tradition of elite cavalry as in Europe plus the mountainous and forested terrain was much different to the open fields of Europe. US cavalry was used like dragoons, fast moving light infantry which excelled at reconnaissance, raiding, seizing critical terrain and holding it dismounted until reinforcements arrived.

In this game I use close combat equipped cavalry for 4 tasks

1. Scouting, they have good field of visibility and can get out of trouble fast. Can cover lots of ground.

2. Fighting enemy cavalry.

3. Chasing down skirmishers in the open.

4. Hunting artillery, I usually group them with carbine cavalry for extra damage and consider them successful if they divert artillery and a brigade or two of infantry to chase them away even if they don't inflict many casualties.

I usually operate 2 carbine cavalry brigades and 1 melee brigade together, the carbine brigades can cycle fire and retreat then I send in the melee brigade or I keep them close to deter enemy cavalry. By 1863 I encounter too many skirmishers equipped with repeaters or other nasty weapons that cause me heavy casualties in my cavalry so I have started favouring ranged cavalry more for their flexibility in role over melee cavalry. To counter skirmishers in woods I use my own skirmishers, detached skirmishers or a good old bayonet charge to clear them out. Like I have said before cavalry should not be very effective in woods, even in Europe at the battle of quatre bras the fleeing British infantry sought shelter from the French shock cavalry in bossu wood.

Edited by waldopbarnstormer
Spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the course of this discussion I thought it would be of interest to many of you, if some period reading would be provided to help color the many opinion based posts in this thread.

This is an 1863 History of the U.S. Cavalry written while the war was in progress as the text goes from the beginnings of the very first Cavalry regiment formed in the United States, to June 1st 1863.  The book is written by a Mr. Albert Brackett, who was Major 1st US Cavalry/Colonel 9th Ill Vol. Cavalry/& Chief of Cavalry Department of Missouri.

It's presented as neither an argument for or against any opinions in this thread.  As I said, I just thought some of you would enjoy a good read.    For those of you interested, it should be noted that this work covers all of the events of the US Cavalry from it's founding, so some of the early reading may be somewhat dry to some of you.   If you want to get right into the section pertinent to the ACW, you can find the opening paragraph on pages 221/210. Paragraph starting with "Many Cavalry officers had ..."  (What I mean by the page listing is this is a google copy eBook, there are several pages that are part of the book but not identified as pages, yet the page count of the google eBook differs from the page numbers of the actual book.) Page 221 is the eBook page, and page 210 is the page on the leaf of the book.

Enjoy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Soldier said:

If a unit is vulnerable only to another one of itself, that seems pretty bad.  Still, if you're not going to buff shock cavalry (it still needs improvements), then nerf the melee abilities of skirmishers.  Or make it so shock cavalry can shoot and reload in melee.  Seems like a fair trade-off if you historical nuts aren't going to listen to other gameplay changes and hold onto your historical beliefs and not bother to take into account good game design.

Oh wait.

Given that there are people who when we first started complaining that 20pdr Parrotts were overcosted and not performing to their stats responded that it was okay since it was historical that it was a disliked gun, there's just no common ground here. (And the devs have gone on to unsuccessfully attempt to buff the dumb things twice, so that should tell people where they fall.)

 

7 hours ago, Lillibullero said:

2 things are weird in this game:

1. Mounted shock cavalry in deep forest.

2. Artillery firing from the deep forest.

Really? If you're complaining about those I don't see why you haven't taken it all the way and complained that artillery don't care about elevation any more and have perfect spotting provided by other units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Given that there are people who when we first started complaining that 20pdr Parrotts were overcosted and not performing to their stats responded that it was okay since it was historical that it was a disliked gun, there's just no common ground here. (And the devs have gone on to unsuccessfully attempt to buff the dumb things twice, so that should tell people where they fall.)

Oh.  Great.  More reason to just ignore their ramblings then, better if the devs do so as well.  Not that their opinion doesn't count, but what they currently want is just underthought and based solely on history.  If you thought the 20pdr Parrott was in a good position, I don't know what to say to you.

I don't go off on people like this too often, but come on, you guys just don't know the least in game design.  And yes, I can say that with authority because I'm involved in one on Steam right now, however much that's worth to your thoughts.

Edited by The Soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, waldopbarnstormer said:

I am a bit late to the party but here is my radical suggestion; give carbine cavalry sabres and pistols.

Now I am not an expert on the acw but from what I have read cavalry were equipped with a range of weapons from swords and pistols to shotguns and breechloading carbines. Why not give every cavalry unit a standard sabre and pistol and then allow selection of different carbines.

 

I thinks that's a good idea. basically we should dispense with the distinction between shock and rifle cavalry.

All cavalry should be able to be used as it was in the ACW which is mainly is a fast scouting and skirmishing force AND opportunistic charger.

This means that cavalry should be made very good in melee in the open when mounted, but brittle. This would mean that if your cavalry brigade happens upon a skirmishing group in the open or an arty battery, squish squash they can trample over them. If you use them to charge an infantry brigade, well they should dish out great damage in the initial shock, but except if the infantry brigade routs straight away they should really suffer as well and be well spent. IE a cavalry brigade charging an infantry brigade should be a once per battle or twice per battle at best occurence. And of course mounted cav should be horse trash in terms of melee in the woods and slow moving there, and just as bad as skirmishers in terms of melee when dismounted

Otherwise cavalry should be made somewhat faster (or should I say nimbler and more manouvereable, it seems to hesitate for a while before a charge or a change of direction, once it's moving in one direction the speed is ok) so that it can be used by the player in its most regular roles : to scout the battle field and see what is where and to go somwhere fast, dismount and then fix ennemy units / harass them, before leaving again.

dispense with the shock/rifle cavalry distinction, give cavalry the flexibility it needs and here you go.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lillibullero said:

20pdr Parrots is very good now, even better than 24pdr howitzers imo, because of that long range of the shells and canister.

Not really the place for this, but meh.  I tried a battery of 20pdrs at the Siege of Jackson - plenty of open ground to the south for the 20ppdr Parrott to stretch it's legs.  Performed terribly, on average it gets 3 kills per volley of shell shot.  A battery of 24pdr Howitzers does so much more at the same range.  Also; it's shell range is horrible.  Not more than that of the 10pdr Parrott or the 3-Inch Ordnance Rifle (shell range usually stops at around the halfway mark for most rifled guns - the 20pdr Parrott has shell stop about a quarter of the way).  Hell, I had a battery of Whitworths at the same place and those shitty things performed better than the 20pdr Parrott.

17 hours ago, waldopbarnstormer said:

I am a bit late to the party but here is my radical suggestion; give carbine cavalry sabres and pistols.

Now I am not an expert on the acw but from what I have read cavalry were equipped with a range of weapons from swords and pistols to shotguns and breechloading carbines. Why not give every cavalry unit a standard sabre and pistol and then allow selection of different carbines.

That...you know what, that's not a bad idea.  I could go with that.  Gets rid of a useless unit and instead moves that functionality to the rest of the cavalry.  I could put up with weapons being more expensive for that.

However, do note that means skirmisher carbines and cavalry carbines probably won't be interchangeable anymore.  Take that for what it's worth.

Edited by The Soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, The Soldier said:

If a unit is vulnerable only to another one of itself, that seems pretty bad.  Still, if you're not going to buff shock cavalry (it still needs improvements), then nerf the melee abilities of skirmishers.  Or make it so shock cavalry can shoot and reload in melee.  Seems like a fair trade-off if you historical nuts aren't going to listen to other gameplay changes and hold onto your historical beliefs and not bother to take into account good game design.

Oh wait.

 We are talking about skirmishers in the forest... which is very specific setup.. its terrain best suited for their combat style, therefore they should excel in it.. taking that from them would be same as taking speed in the open from cavalry...

horse is not a good option how to chase somebody through forest.. especially if that person has a rifle and you have a saber... why is this so hard to understand.. is beyond me..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JaM said:

 We are talking about skirmishers in the forest... which is very specific setup.. its terrain best suited for their combat style, therefore they should excel in it.. taking that from them would be same as taking speed in the open from cavalry...

horse is not a good option how to chase somebody through forest.. especially if that person has a rifle and you have a saber... why is this so hard to understand.. is beyond me..

Did I ever specifically mention skirmishers in forest in that post?  No.  Don't go assuming, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

There's no reason something as common as skirmishers should be invulnerable under a condition as common as forest...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...

It seemed your main concern not long ago, that may be why he answered about that topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nicolas I said:

It seemed your main concern not long ago, that may be why he answered about that topic.

Yes, but now I've moved on.  Skirmishers in general need a nerf, melee is one of them because currently, skirmishers in the open can stab infantry brigades to death and can even stand up to shock cavalry if you have enough.  Which shouldn't be.

And yes, I am getting off-topic with ways of making shock cavalry remotely viable.  The OP is about cavalry in forest, which I'm perfectly OK with having the nerf to their melee power.  So...yea. : P

Edited by The Soldier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cavalry should definitely be made faster, I have had instances where my cavalry have struggled to out run charging infantry, maybe give them a run button for short bursts of speed.

For me melee strength in this game is not about whether an individual skirmisher is better in melee than a normal infantry man but it a more abstract concept, skirmishers should lose to cavalry and infantry in melee because of the advantages of close information, weight of numbers, and the weapons they are equipped with. Infantry should suffer a penalty in forests because they the close formation hinders them and the close ranks are disrupted by the trees and rocks, but they should still smash skirmishers because they have bayonets and weight of numbers. The skirmishers will have the speed advantage because of their loose order formation so should be able to run away but if caught they should suffer heavy casualties quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 2:49 PM, The Soldier said:

Yes, but now I've moved on.  Skirmishers in general need a nerf, melee is one of them because currently, skirmishers in the open can stab infantry brigades to death and can even stand up to shock cavalry if you have enough.  Which shouldn't be.

And yes, I am getting off-topic with ways of making shock cavalry remotely viable.  The OP is about cavalry in forest, which I'm perfectly OK with having the nerf to their melee power.  So...yea. : P

Seems that we agree after all then. :)

I think others have posted how they use melee cavalry to make it viable. One of those was chasing off skirmishers in the open. So I think you are right that skirmishers in open should not be standing up to formed infantry or any cavalry for that matter.

I am going to take a look at the book on US Cavalry posted by @A. P. Hill to learn more about cavalry doctrine in the ACW. It has always been my understanding that cavalry use in the US was, with few exceptions, not used like traditional "shock" cavalry in Europe for a number of reasons, terrain being one of them. Reflecting the historical doctrine or usage of different unit types should also be part of good game design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2017 at 8:01 PM, A. P. Hill said:

In the course of this discussion I thought it would be of interest to many of you, if some period reading would be provided to help color the many opinion based posts in this thread.

This is an 1863 History of the U.S. Cavalry written while the war was in progress as the text goes from the beginnings of the very first Cavalry regiment formed in the United States, to June 1st 1863.  The book is written by a Mr. Albert Brackett, who was Major 1st US Cavalry/Colonel 9th Ill Vol. Cavalry/& Chief of Cavalry Department of Missouri.

It's presented as neither an argument for or against any opinions in this thread.  As I said, I just thought some of you would enjoy a good read.    For those of you interested, it should be noted that this work covers all of the events of the US Cavalry from it's founding, so some of the early reading may be somewhat dry to some of you.   If you want to get right into the section pertinent to the ACW, you can find the opening paragraph on pages 221/210. Paragraph starting with "Many Cavalry officers had ..."  (What I mean by the page listing is this is a google copy eBook, there are several pages that are part of the book but not identified as pages, yet the page count of the google eBook differs from the page numbers of the actual book.) Page 221 is the eBook page, and page 210 is the page on the leaf of the book.

Enjoy. :)

Having done my thesis on the Union Cavalry during the early portion of the War Between the States (through the McClellan period). I believe perhaps some light on period cavalry tactics might help. I do have a copy of Brackett's work on my bookshelf, along with many other cavalry references.

Cavalry in the United States was always deemed as "light cavalry." Never intended for the heavy shock methods of the French Cuirass. The 1st and 2nd Dragonns were (better known as the 1st and 2nd Cavalry to Civil War battle fields) were equipped to move rapidly and dismount in order to fight in thick (forested terrain). As was the Regiment of Mounted Rifles (3rd Cavalry).  They were, however, also armed with heavy sabers to be used if needed. 

When the War broke out the regular cavalry units were scattered so much that out of 6 regiments only 7 companies were available at 1st Bull Run. They were nominally armed with the traditional carbine/revolver/saber that was the typical load out at the time. 

Many subsequent volunteer units had trouble finding enough weaponry and quite often only had 1 company armed with carbines per battalion due to shortages early in the conflict. Until production caught up to demand.

The straightforward shock charge was already known to be a thing of the past and was taught as such at West Point.  A rifle armed adversary could decimate a frontal cavalry charge. As they did to poor Farnsworth at Gettysburg or to the 6th Regulars at Malbern Hill.

Instead the officers were being trained to use terrain and fight dismounted while keeping a portion mounted for quick strikes. In effect a regiment might keep 1 battalion mounted in action while 2 dismounted.

The best examples of modern cavalry warfare and what it would become in the Civil War are shown by Buford, Gregg, Sheridan, Stuart, Wilson, Forrest, Wheeler, and others. Move rapidly. Delay and possibly hold the enemy until the main army arrives. Scout the enemy and ascertain their movements whenever possible. And dream of finding that big wagon train.

If we want the game to go historical, we should have a weaponry option of the trifecta of carbine/revolver/saber. Yet perhaps make it more expensive.  While keeping the other sub ideas less expensive so you can build up to it as they did in the War itself.

Increase the power of a charge at the flanks or rear while keeping the frontal charge suicidal. Woods are best to fight in dismounted for cavalry as the tactics said to do.

The only thing I would really like to see is improved rate of Fire and power in the carbines to make them more realistic. The Spencer should be a savant, yet it is woefully unrealistic as is the ability of the late Sharps mode.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buford Protege said:

Having done my thesis on the Union Cavalry during the early portion of the War Between the States (through the McClellan period). I believe perhaps some light on period cavalry tactics might help. I do have a copy of Brackett's work on my bookshelf, along with many other cavalry references.

Cavalry in the United States was always deemed as "light cavalry." Never intended for the heavy shock methods of the French Cuirass. The 1st and 2nd Dragonns were (better known as the 1st and 2nd Cavalry to Civil War battle fields) were equipped to move rapidly and dismount in order to fight in thick (forested terrain). As was the Regiment of Mounted Rifles (3rd Cavalry).  They were, however, also armed with heavy sabers to be used if needed. 

When the War broke out the regular cavalry units were scattered so much that out of 6 regiments only 7 companies were available at 1st Bull Run. They were nominally armed with the traditional carbine/revolver/saber that was the typical load out at the time. 

Many subsequent volunteer units had trouble finding enough weaponry and quite often only had 1 company armed with carbines per battalion due to shortages early in the conflict. Until production caught up to demand.

The straightforward shock charge was already known to be a thing of the past and was taught as such at West Point.  A rifle armed adversary could decimate a frontal cavalry charge. As they did to poor Farnsworth at Gettysburg or to the 6th Regulars at Malbern Hill.

Instead the officers were being trained to use terrain and fight dismounted while keeping a portion mounted for quick strikes. In effect a regiment might keep 1 battalion mounted in action while 2 dismounted.

The best examples of modern cavalry warfare and what it would become in the Civil War are shown by Buford, Gregg, Sheridan, Stuart, Wilson, Forrest, Wheeler, and others. Move rapidly. Delay and possibly hold the enemy until the main army arrives. Scout the enemy and ascertain their movements whenever possible. And dream of finding that big wagon train.

If we want the game to go historical, we should have a weaponry option of the trifecta of carbine/revolver/saber. Yet perhaps make it more expensive.  While keeping the other sub ideas less expensive so you can build up to it as they did in the War itself.

Increase the power of a charge at the flanks or rear while keeping the frontal charge suicidal. Woods are best to fight in dismounted for cavalry as the tactics said to do.

The only thing I would really like to see is improved rate of Fire and power in the carbines to make them more realistic. The Spencer should be a savant, yet it is woefully unrealistic as is the ability of the late Sharps mode.

Good information. 

You make many good points, but I do not see a change coming.There is a game requirement that demands a separation between hussar type melee cavalry and dragoon type mounted infantry. When history meets play style in a game; play style has to win.

As you pointed out, there is no heavy shock cavalry in this war. Currassier were never popular in the States, light cavalry's effectiveness on this side of the Pond was established long before Natty Bumpo and Chingashgook chased Magua through the forest. 

Personally, just once on the flank of a pivotal battle, I would love a 750 man three star cavalry unit. Each trooper a skilled horseman armed with a Spencer Rifle with a saddlebag full of cartridges, a LeMat sidearm, and a saber. And, yes, I would be HAPPY to pay for coursers over rounceys for every man in this elite unit. (Can you imagine the effect on stamina and melee alone right out of the box with that option? Or the ungodly price of replacing that unit's veterans?)

Ah, well. Still one hell of a game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

... When history meets play style in a game; play style has to win. ... 

And I of course politely disagree.  When history meets play style, play style should be modified to adapt to historical reference.  What's the point of selling the game "on accuracy" if you're going to allow players to break that accuracy?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

And I of course politely disagree.  When history meets play style, play style should be modified to adapt to historical reference.  What's the point of selling the game "on accuracy" if you're going to allow players to break that accuracy?

Fair enough. You make a good point. But this is an eternal debate; it shows up time and time again.

I am a champion of historical accuracy whenever possible, but if a factor within a game breaks the dynamic or becomes OP because of the constraints of the game, it must be handled accordingly. 

Bottom line: If the game isn't fun, who cares how realistic it is? 

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...