Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Jason...question on horses

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Jason...question on horses Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Jason...question on horses - 8/3/2008 8:47:36 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		It's been brought up in one thread that horses are capable of being moved by the player even if there are no rider/crews with them. I never use horses unless they happen to pop up as targets being used by the AI. So I've never had to "control" them. Are they like motorcycles where the rider dismounts and moves off on his own. In the case of the motorcycles, and correctly so, the motorcycles can't be moved unless the riders re-mount them. But I am hearing some people say that horses can be moved by the player even if there are no riders or crew with them. Is this true? Is this something that is in the new patch or has it been like that all along? I don't think a player should have control of dismounted horses at all. I picture them as being the same type of vehicle as a motorcycle. No rider...no movement. At the very most any movement by horses should be strictly random if they aren't mounted or crewed. Maybe an artillery barrage would cause them to "panic" and relocate. But it should not be under the control of the player if they are dismounted or un-crewed.

Dep

< Message edited by Deputy -- 8/3/2008 8:48:37 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series
Post #: 1
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/3/2008 9:19:17 PM   
TJD

 

Posts: 294
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

II don't think a player should have control of dismounted horses at all. I picture them as being the same type of vehicle as a motorcycle. No rider...no movement.

Dep


If you read about cavalry operations going back even to the Old West you'll find that mounts were never left unattended. A trooper was always detailed to look after them, to a ratio of say one trooper per six mounts, depending. Trained cavalry mounts were quite valuable and were not simply discarded or left to their own devices once the ride was over and the battle begun. A single man could control 6 mounts by stringing them along. It's a different story with motorcycles of course. Troopers were also expected to kill their mounts in event of ambush or crisis and use them for cover, and I suppose it might be possible to factor that into the game somehow. Anyway, my point is that it's perfectly realistic to give horses some degree of independent movement.

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 2
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/3/2008 9:41:31 PM   
Landser44


Posts: 25
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline 		The above post is right on - one of the advantages of dismoutning cavalry was that one man stayed behind to hold/tend to a small number of mounts and cound them move the animals up to re-mount the troopers and continue on.

_____________________________

Landser44


(in reply to TJD)
Post #: 3
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 2:07:35 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TJD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

II don't think a player should have control of dismounted horses at all. I picture them as being the same type of vehicle as a motorcycle. No rider...no movement.

Dep


If you read about cavalry operations going back even to the Old West you'll find that mounts were never left unattended. A trooper was always detailed to look after them, to a ratio of say one trooper per six mounts, depending. Trained cavalry mounts were quite valuable and were not simply discarded or left to their own devices once the ride was over and the battle begun. A single man could control 6 mounts by stringing them along. It's a different story with motorcycles of course. Troopers were also expected to kill their mounts in event of ambush or crisis and use them for cover, and I suppose it might be possible to factor that into the game somehow. Anyway, my point is that it's perfectly realistic to give horses some degree of independent movement.


Well here's a shock for you, but these games are NOT representations of the Old West. If artillery or mortar fire starts up in WW2 and you are some poor mope standing in the middle of it, you are NOT going to be leading your horses to safety. I don't care if they are Lippizan stallions that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, or old nags that you use to pull artillery caissons along. YOU, the handler are gonna be looking for the nearst, deepest hole in the ground in an artillery barrage. The horses are going to be on their own until it's safe to raise your head. Cavalry was obsolete before WW2 ever got started. With the excpetion of pack mules for mountainous areas, the Poles found out very quickly how suicidal cavalry charges were in the war.


_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to TJD)
Post #: 4
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 2:45:10 AM   
tide1212


Posts: 446
Joined: 7/25/2003
From: New England
Status: offline 		Deputy The player has control over dismounted horses yes you can move them around the map. Not meaning to give you a history lesson but the Germans, Russians and other East European countries used cavalry formations throughout WWII

Tide  

_____________________________

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 5
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 3:07:22 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tide1212

Deputy The player has control over dismounted horses yes you can move them around the map. Not meaning to give you a history lesson but the Germans, Russians and other East European countries used cavalry formations throughout WWII

Tide  


Russians and European countries used cavalry because they were effective in certain specific situations where armor couldn't be used or where guerilla forces might put them to use. Against armor or artillery, horses turn into McDonalds burgers very quickly. The Poles found that out when the Germans obliterrated their cavalry units with ease. I know there is probably some kind of romantic love for horses among some players, but by the middle of the war they were all but useless for tactical operations in large armies. Okay for pulling small artillery carriages if you didn't have trucks or Jeeps, but not something you want to be on when facing armor or even well dug in infantry.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to tide1212)
Post #: 6
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 7:33:19 AM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		Mayby you should make some history research, cavalry was used through WWII by Germans too for regular charges ;)

see this for  two German cavalry charges in Poland
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=132564

later in the war there were even SS cavalry divisions

btw "German obliterred Polish caalry" ... popular myth, propagated by GOebels propaganda (famous news reel where cavalry charge to Panzers is fake, filmed after the Polish campaign)
during Battle of Mokra 19th Volhynian Uhlan Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra

Apart from countless battles and skirmishes in which the Polish cavalry units used the infantry tactics, there were 16 confirmed cavalry charges during the 1939 war. Contrary to common belief, most of them were successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#20th_century:_World_War_II


_____________________________


(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 7
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 10:40:23 AM   
Dumnorix


Posts: 793
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline 		In JTCS meets PG3D the cavalry units have an own movementanimation and can fight more historical. Take a look !

H.Balck

(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 8
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 10:52:11 AM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		I find the Cavalry movement after dismount really useful. The Don Cossacks were used in ambush type attacks. Flank movements, recon. The US did not use cavalry to the extent of the USSR and Germans. But to get back on pint, the ability to have my horses move away from the dismount point a great help. They are a valuable commodity in Recon. They do draw fire in suspect areas. Dismount and have the Infantry go one way and horses move to the rear. I think it is great. Before it was annoying watch your mounts get trashed and there was nothing you could do. Now at least you can make the cavalry units a more useful tool then what it was. THANKS

(in reply to Dumnorix)
Post #: 9
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 4:29:03 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arkady

Mayby you should make some history research, cavalry was used through WWII by Germans too for regular charges ;)

see this for two German cavalry charges in Poland
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=132564

later in the war there were even SS cavalry divisions

btw "German obliterred Polish caalry" ... popular myth, propagated by GOebels propaganda (famous news reel where cavalry charge to Panzers is fake, filmed after the Polish campaign)
during Battle of Mokra 19th Volhynian Uhlan Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra

Apart from countless battles and skirmishes in which the Polish cavalry units used the infantry tactics, there were 16 confirmed cavalry charges during the 1939 war. Contrary to common belief, most of them were successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#20th_century:_World_War_II




Since you like to quote Wikipedia so much, lets not leave this out:
WW1:
Once the front lines stabilised, a combination of barbed wire, machine guns and rapid fire rifles proved deadly to horse mounted troops. For the remainder of the War on the Western Front cavalry had virtually no role to play. The British and French armies dismounted many of their cavalry regiments and used them in infantry and other roles: the Life Guards for example as a machine gun corps; and the Australian Light Horse as light infantry during the Gallipoli campaign. The German Army dismounted nearly all their cavalry in the West.

Why did Germans have cavalry? Not becasue they thought they were effective in combat. They had already found out how vulnerable they were in WW1. THe reason they had cavalry after WW1 was because the post-war German Army (Reichsheer) was permitted a large proportion of cavalry (18 regiments or 16.4% of total manpower) under the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. The rest of the world KNEW that cavalry would be little or no threat on the battlefields of any future. So the post WW1 German cavalry was mostly symbolic.

In the British Army, all cavalry regiments were mechanised between 1929 and 1941, redefining their role from horse to armoured vehicles to form the Royal Armoured Corps together with the Royal Tank Regiment

The US Cavalry abandoned its sabres in 1934 and commenced the conversion of its horsed regiments to mechanised cavalry, starting with the First Regiment of Cavalry in January 1933.

World War II
While most armies still maintained cavalry units at the outbreak of World War II in 1939, significant mounted action was largely restricted to the Polish and Soviet campaigns.

And that "myth"....here's some details of what REALLY happened:
A popular myth is that Polish cavalry armed with lances charged German tanks during the September 1939 campaign. This arose from misreporting of a single clash on 1 September near Krojanty, when two squadrons of the Polish 18th Lancers armed with sabres scattered German infantry before being caught in the open by German armoured cars.

[Guess what happened after the armored cars openned up on the cavalry. McDonald's burgers!!! ]

A more correct term should be "mounted infantry" instead of "cavalry", as horses were primarily used as a means of transportation, for which they were very suitable in view of the very poor road conditions in pre-war Poland.

By the final stages of the war only the Soviet Union was still fielding mounted units in substantial numbers, some in combined mechanised and horse units. The advantage of this approach was that in exploitation mounted infantry could easily keep pace with advancing tanks. This approach was also taken because of the high quality of Russian Cossacks as horse cavalry

Romanian, Hungarian and Italian cavalry had been dispersed or disbanded following the retreat of the Axis forces from Russia. Germany still maintained some mounted (mixed with bicycles) SS and Cossack units until the last days of the War. [And we all know how "magnificent" those foreign SS troops were in combat] BTW...just because Germany (and other countries) LISTED the cavalry units as BEING cavalry units, doesn't mean they actually WERE fully equipped cavalry units.

18th Indian Cavalry Regiment (later 18 Cavalry of Indian Army), fought in a dismounted role, in Tobruk as part of 9th Australian Division. The US 26th Cavalry Regiment (PS); a small mounted regiment of Philippine Scouts, fought the Japanese during the retreat down the Bataan peninsula, until it was effectively destroyed by January 1942. All British cavalry had been mechanised since 1942 and the last horsed US Cavalry (the Second Cavalry Division) were dismounted in March 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry
----------------------------------------
So while these horse-equipped units may have been around at the start of the war, their contributions were minimal at best. I don't think there is any any major battle where the cavalry "won the day". Unless it was to contribute a tasty source of food for armored and infantry forces





< Message edited by Deputy -- 8/4/2008 4:32:45 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Dumnorix)
Post #: 10
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 9:49:09 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline 		.

< Message edited by mwest -- 8/5/2008 5:14:28 PM >

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 11
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 10:14:53 PM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!....Have fun with the game, we can not relive a war but we can imagine the battles. We look at the battles and say What if...Am I better then....or just Crap I made a stupid attack......

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 12
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/4/2008 10:17:59 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		Too much realism.Wow!! First time I heard a complaint like that. Look pal...perhaps you should visit a game arcade and play Space Invaders or something else on that level. While I agree that making a game too micormanaged can take away from playability (I've seen a ton of suggestions for this game in another thread that are a perfect example of this), asking for large groups of horses to be led around by these "phantom handlers" all over the map is way too much silliness. Horses are just like trucks, only more vulnerable. They are just a means of transport. If you are worried about them getting wiped out, just hide them in the middle of a forest or jungle. At any rate, they are expendable commodities. The Infantry riding them are what you want to protect. If the Infantry dies, the horses are useless. I suggest you re-adjust your priorities. Unless you consider yourself some kind of dashing cavalry Colonel from the Old West leading unrealistic charges so that machineguns mow you down, all you need to do is mount them, ride them close to the objective, and get off. Who freaking cares if they get wiped out???? How many dam "cavalry charges" are you having per turn????

And BTW...it's MY thread. YOU don't get to guide it's "direction".

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 13
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 8:50:48 AM   
thegreatwent


Posts: 3011
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline 		I would suggest that Calvary horses, just as wagons, could be moved while "dismounted". There may be arguments made for reduced movement points as an irregular number of handlers would be present but I can't say they would be immobile.

_____________________________


(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 14
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 12:56:20 PM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		It is often forgotten that the German Wehrmacht of 1939-45 relied heavily upon horses. Not only was the majority of Army transport and much of the artillery dependent on draught horse teams; the Germans also kept a horse-mounted cavalry division in the field until the end of 1941. After withdrawing it, they discovered a need to revive and greatly expand their cavalry units in 1943-45. The Army and Waffen-SS cavalry proved their worth on the Russian Front, supported by other Axis cavalry contingents - Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and locally recruited.

(in reply to thegreatwent)
Post #: 15
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 12:59:46 PM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		About the US Cavalry

Cavalry groups were usually assigned to corps, but were occasionally attached -- by squadron -- to divisions. Cavalry was primarily intended for reconnaissance missions. However, during the war they were usually employed in defensive, economy of force, security, or screening missions. Armored field artillery, engineer, and tank destroyer units reinforced the cavalry groups for most missions.

Interestingly, the cavalry groups were almost never called to perform their primary duty: Later analysis showed that pure reconnaissance missions accounted for only 3 percent of their activities. The remaining 97 percent of missions assigned included: defensive operations (33 percent); special operations "including acting as mobile reserve, providing for security and control of rear areas, and operating as an army information service" (29 percent); security missions "blocking, screening, protecting flanks, maintaining contact between units, and filling gaps" (25 percent); and offensive operations (10 percent).

Thirteen mechanized cavalry groups fought in Europe. They were the 2nd (2nd and 42nd Squadrons); 3rd (3rd and 43rd Squadrons); 4th (4th and 24th Squadrons); 6th (6th and 28th Squadrons); 11th (36th and 44th Squadrons); 14th (18th and 32nd Squadrons); 15th (15th and 17th Squadrons); 16th (16th and 19th Squadrons); 101st (101st and 116th Squadrons); 102nd (38th and 102nd Squadrons); 106th (106th and 121st Squadrons); 113th (113th and 125th Squadrons); and 115th (104th and 107th Squadrons). In addition, the 117th Squadron served with the Seventh Army in Southern France and the 91st Squadron served with the Fifth Army in Italy.
Finally, a number of separate mechanized cavalry troops existed, among them the 56th (which remained in the U.S.) and the 302nd assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division in the Pacific.

In addition to the mechanized cavalry, the US Army fielded a number of horse-cavalry units during the war, including the 1st and 2nd Cavalry Divisions and the 56th Cavalry Brigade with the 112th and 124th Cavalry Regiments (Texas National Guard), and the 26th Cavalry Regiment (Philippine Scouts). Of these, only the 26th Cavalry fought mounted, during the Campaign in the Philippines in 1941 and 1942. The 1st Cavalry Division, the 112th and 124th Cavalry all were sent to the Pacific, where they fought dismounted as infantry. Finally, the 2nd Cavalry Division was originally activated in April 1941 as a racially mixed division, with one 'Colored' Cavalry Brigade and one 'White' Cavalry Brigade. It was inactivated in July 1942 only to be reactivated in February 1943 as a 'Colored' Division. It was sent to North Africa where it was inactivated again in May 1944 with its personnel reassigned to service and engineer labor units.

(in reply to marcbarker)
Post #: 16
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 1:49:40 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline 		.

< Message edited by mwest -- 8/5/2008 5:14:53 PM >

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 17
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 2:04:19 PM   
schaef

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 6/17/2007
Status: offline 		This discussion would also apply to the use of Motorcycles. They were mainly used as transport for trupps. The Kradschutzen Btls were used as recon units and as infantry. These units should be able to move unmounted just as the horses, for the same reasons discussed above.

_____________________________

Larry

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 18
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 3:14:07 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		Well after all this silliness and attempts to rewrite history, I can see there are more romantics who would like WW2 to have been fought like Old West cavalry vs Indians than historians that want to recreate things the way they really were. I will now ask Jason to either lock or delete the thread completely. When I see requests for unmanned vehicles to be moved around, I've pretty much reached my limit. You guys can go ahead and dump realism out the window when you play these games and have them all take place on Fantasy Island. That's not for me. I shudder to think what kind of balttles are fought in Tiller's game....trains being assaulted by whole divisions of cavalry, etc.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to schaef)
Post #: 19
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 3:24:30 PM   
Huib


Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline 		Yes delete the thread please. It's one of the worst I ever read.

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 20
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 3:31:30 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib

Yes delete the thread please. It's one of the worst I ever read.


If you hated is so much why did you bother reading it???

And you got to raise your post count by 1.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 21
RE: Jason...question on horses - 8/5/2008 4:50:13 PM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		Why not have a unit created as a transport column. independant of infantry? I tend to do area bombardment on areas where I think HQ's are, Transport and Artillery. Easy VP's....sending a few units behind the lines to tak out artillery and those transports is a great way to acquire points... Look at the DCG's You lose transport you lose the ability to attack in the next scenario... I used my Cavarly Unit as a Feint to draw fire from artillery...after the shells hit I have them dismount and go to cover. The horse go beyond the visual range so the are not at risk.... I hate spending points on replacing transports instead of replacing infantry

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Jason...question on horses Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.813