Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelloid
In addition to not just melting against pikemen, cavalry also get a defensive bonus just for being cavalry. Actual military theory suggests the opposite (cavalry is worse at attacking and defending than infantry because they need to control the horse and fight, whereas the infantry can just concentrate on fighting - heavy cavalry's primary use is therefore running down light infantry).
Ok, this was much longer than intended. Lets just sum up by saying I wish people who did games like this were better at doing their homework.
|
Wow.
I disagree with a lot of this.
Show me a source please that suggests actual military theory suggests that cavalry is worse at attacking and defending than infantry because of the need to control the horse.
Off the top of my head I'd say this ignores:
A: Superior elevation of the cavalry man.
B: Significant training of war horses, to attack, to stand over, to crowd.
C: Ability to cover distance at speed.
D: Shock effect of calvalry ie., momentum.
E. Superior reach of the typical cavalry.
F. The ability of the horse to be cover (ala american indians)
G. The ability to transport goods and or be food.
No military unit is invulnerable. It certainly is a game of rocks, scissors, and paper, that has been played time and time again.
Cavalry get a defensive bonus because the cost of these units were such that it was foolhardy to deploy them without training - whereas it was common to deploy huge masses of levees (infantry) with no training - and sometimes no weapons.
For example, even in WWII, in many companies, the Russians at Leningrad issued 2 guns for every 5 soldiers. The ones that didn't have guns were expected to pick them up off the ones that did.
The 'troops' had no training - and were shot by their officers at the merest hint of disobedience.
Or the us airforce - our airmen are highly highly trained. Those planes are *expensive*. The more expensive the munition, the easier to justify additional training, equipment, care in deployment etc.