Early Cav.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Early Cav.

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Early Cav.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Early Cav. - 11/8/2004 11:09:00 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

In most games I have played, it is standard practice to work with your low level units first, and then slowly buy or upgrade to higher level units later. However, I tend to often want to get my cavalry going asap, and feel as though I am cheating for not getting the lower grunt level work out of the way first. Wondering what others have to say in regards to this. I know one school of thought thinks the cavalry are some kind of expensive toy thing, and is often a luxury that is nice to have. I don�t know, I tend to like them for those quick and deep thrusts (blitzkriegs) into territory. Also it�s nice to have that large movement range for when you are on the go or run into those nasty surprises.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

Post #: 1

RE: Early Cav. - 11/8/2004 9:32:29 PM

pfnognoff

Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

I go with "let the situation determine" my builds rule.

Fo example if I'm Prussia or Austria, facing certain opening thrust from France, building cav regiments is too slow and too expensive. Austria needs some militia to bleed France a few more turns before the surrender, and Prussia just needs to save the manpower.

If I'm Russia, building Guards and Artillery comes first, but here Cavalry also gets higher priority if Ottoman is a decent player who likes to come in for a visit.

For Spain if diplomatic phase went well and I'm alliead with half the known world, I would go with building Cavalry even though the morale stinks, because when the war comes any advantage I could have is good.

As Britain I would go with Infantry first rule. Who needs more fast Cavalry that reduce your morale and cost more than ship-of-the-line?

Ottoman? If France is polite enough to pay for pledging alegiance, ocasional Imperial Cav regiment is a welcome morale boost.

As France, I would just go one corps at the time, Guards, Artillery, Cavalry until all is full, with ocasional militia to garrison cities, that can be upgraded later during peace.

When you talk about Cavalry Blitz, I would asume the most cost effective and safest would be to land GB cavalry in France while Le Grand Armee is away in the Eastern half of the map, or would you go Blitzing arround in some other situation?

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 2

RE: Early Cav. - 11/9/2004 12:05:09 AM

megalomania2003

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I know one school of thought thinks the cavalry are some kind of expensive toy thing, and is often a luxury that is nice to have.

Cavalry is essential to have in order to:

1. Inflict pursuit casulties/ minimize their effect (8 Cav is expensive for a pursuit loss but compare it to 24 inf - and if you did not bring any Cav you do not gain a pursuit if you win).
2. Gain Cavalry superiorty/ prevent your opponent from getting it
3. Extra morale (not relevant for Fr, GB, Tu or Sp)

With this in mind I would always aim to have at least som cavalry. Hov much would depend on which country I controlled. With Pr I would go for 3 Cav for every 14 inf (corps size for normal corps). With GB, whose regular corps do not contain Cav, I would still like to build the cav corp so that when Wellington takes the field a defeat, which can happen, is unlikely to destroy the army and let the enemy capture Wellington.

quote:

Also it�s nice to have that large movement range for when you are on the go or run into those nasty surprises.

I find that Cav is to useful and expensive to be left alone. For that reason I do not see the extra movement as a major advantege.

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 3

RE: Early Cav. - 11/9/2004 9:19:32 PM

Forward_March

Posts: 201
Joined: 6/26/2003
Status: offline

I think cavalry is a must. I always try a balanced approach to building. When I need more cav, I build some militia factors to act as garrisons. Guard and artillery I build a little quicker than cav...but I never send the boys out without cavalry support unless I just end up having no cavalry left.

I don't believe in sending them out to blitz through territory...trying to take undefended cities and whatnot. They're just too expensive in this game.

(in reply to megalomania2003)

Post #: 4

RE: Early Cav. - 11/10/2004 6:07:31 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

quote:

When you talk about Cavalry Blitz, I would asume the most cost effective and safest would be to land GB cavalry in France while Le Grand Armee is away in the Eastern half of the map,

Yes, that is one common exploit. Also it is nice to dash in deep for a turn, and sever a long supply chain, then watch the poor bastard forage himself half to death.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to Forward_March)

Post #: 5

RE: Early Cav. - 11/10/2004 8:42:37 AM

Forward_March

Posts: 201
Joined: 6/26/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin
Yes, that is one common exploit. Also it is nice to dash in deep for a turn, and sever a long supply chain, then watch the poor bastard forage himself half to death.

You play Nasty!! Guys like you would cause a player to garrison every city on the map. Ahistorical too. Clumsily led British cavalry was almost completely only battle cavalry...too heavy for anything else.

I've always believed that in EIA, in an action where one side was strictly cavalry would mean that the cavalry-only side would always have to fight using assault-defend chits. Any enemy infantry would have formed square and the cavalry would have been useless.
This would stop cavalry silliness.

It is silly to believe that a body of cavalry which would fit tidily in any K-mart parking lot could interdict the supply lines of an army. Europe was crisscrossed with roads and one single unit of cavalry couldn't block them all...this is why Spain gets so many guerillas, and Russia their 5 cossack units.

The only time that Napoleonic armies have ever been starved to death was when they were surrounded by an insurgent population a la' Spain and Russia.

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 6

RE: Early Cav. - 11/10/2004 9:03:24 AM

pfnognoff

Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Forward_March

I've always believed that in EIA, in an action where one side was strictly cavalry would mean that the cavalry-only side would always have to fight using assault-defend chits. Any enemy infantry would have formed square and the cavalry would have been useless.
This would stop cavalry silliness.

Why would you take Withdraw out of the consideraton? It is one and only chit a sole cavalry corps has when meeting the enemy main body. Especially Pippin's commandos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Forward_March

It is silly to believe that a body of cavalry which would fit tidily in any K-mart parking lot could interdict the supply lines of an army. Europe was crisscrossed with roads and one single unit of cavalry couldn't block them all...this is why Spain gets so many guerillas, and Russia their 5 cossack units.

The only time that Napoleonic armies have ever been starved to death was when they were surrounded by an insurgent population a la' Spain and Russia.

I think the plan would be to pillage the supply depots, and not trying to block the line of supply. If you send the cossacks to pillage a depot a single gar factor is enough to stop them, but if you send a couple of factors in your cavalry corps, that is another story.

But it would still be hard to starve them, because they can just place a new depot marker in any controled territory city in their supply phase and pay for food from there. I think the max you could do, is prevent reinforcements to be deployed directly into Le grand Armee in Russia if you take out a depot inside France where the chain starts.

Also the raid itself must be backed up with infantry landing to take the port and protect it while the cavalry roams.

(in reply to Forward_March)

Post #: 7

RE: Early Cav. - 11/10/2004 10:53:49 AM

Norden_slith

Posts: 166
Joined: 8/27/2003
From: expatriate german
Status: offline

Cavalry is simply a must.

In battle, first off, superiority gives you +1. Cavalry is what turns defeat into a rout or total desaster for the defeated. France can fight almost all of Europe, as long as she has the cavalry. Without it, battles are pure slugfests and as an alliance usually has more troops, France is bound to loose this, even while winning more battles than losing. Try playing 1813 and see what I mean...

I have just a few weeks ago witnessed the utter destruction of an austrian army by Napoleon (in 1805). They won the battle with lots of morale to spare and the following pursuit lead by Murat did cost Austria another 9 (!) cavalry. Add to this the one for breaking, makes 10 cav. Austria had 5 cavalry and lost in pursuit alone 4 cav and 15 infantry. Austria (Prussia was out already) offered peace at once.

Which is the next point, beeing able to survive a defeat and the pursuit. Only cavalry will take pursuit well. Sure, a single cavalry costs 15$, while 3 infantry cost 9$, but it is usually the manpower that counts, especially against France. Anyway, to retain an army in the field after a defeat, you need cavalry.

So, infantry is what puts the masses on the field, but cavalry is the decisive arm both in victory and defeat.

Norden

(in reply to pfnognoff)

Post #: 8

RE: Early Cav. - 11/10/2004 11:53:49 AM

megalomania2003

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:

When you talk about Cavalry Blitz, I would asume the most cost effective and safest would be to land GB cavalry in France while Le Grand Armee is away in the Eastern half of the map,

Yes, that is one common exploit. Also it is nice to dash in deep for a turn, and sever a long supply chain, then watch the poor bastard forage himself half to death.

Except that against a carefull (Not cautious) player this tactic will be usefull as there are several ways to guard agains either. - And when he catches your cavalry, and he doesn�t need to use that many troops for that purpose, you lose a lot of money.

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 9

RE: Early Cav. - 11/11/2004 4:31:49 PM

malcolm_mccallum

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline

I found that when playing against people who favoured the 'cavalry cutting the supply lines blitzkrieg' approach, those same people were the ones always advocating for playing without having to pay for Corps generation.

With one strength point at least on your forward supply points and the line being less than maximum spread, cavalry aren't going to be interdicting supply unless they are in several corps. Cossacks can pull this off but anyone wanting to waste corps and cavalry in this sort of enterprise pays a very high price for little gain.

Sure, he may have to make a forage roll but then he destroys your army which, in theory, now isn't as strong in cavalry as it should be.

IF, on the other hand, you can easily afford to raise spare cavalry corps and still beat his field army, why are you wasting energies cutting supplies when you should be encircling, outflanking, and destroying armies outright?

(in reply to megalomania2003)

Post #: 10

RE: Early Cav. - 11/13/2004 1:10:54 AM

Madcombinepilot

Posts: 52
Joined: 5/13/2004
From: Saskatoon, Canada
Status: offline

wow.

If you guys call Pippin nasty, don't play in our group. We have guys who build cavalry (not in large numbers, just 1's and 2's) simply to add options during the reinforcement phase.

Nothing like being able to flop a corps down when least expected.... Sometimes the political point loss (presumably from having your 1 factor corps whacked) can gain you the time needed to win a war.

(in reply to malcolm_mccallum)

Post #: 11

RE: Early Cav. - 11/13/2004 10:03:04 AM

megalomania2003

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Madcombinepilot

wow.

If you guys call Pippin nasty, don't play in our group. We have guys who build cavalry (not in large numbers, just 1's and 2's) simply to add options during the reinforcement phase.

Nothing like being able to flop a corps down when least expected.... Sometimes the political point loss (presumably from having your 1 factor corps whacked) can gain you the time needed to win a war.

I do not regard it as nasty to use 1 SP Cav corps. I simply regard it as a waste of resources as cutting the supply line with this size of corps is unlikely against a competent player.
Furthermore I would normally expext people to have better things to do with their gold than buying inf for 15 gold. If you really needed to pop up a corps why did you not have a garrison at that place (where you popped up the corps).

(in reply to Madcombinepilot)

Post #: 12

RE: Early Cav. - 11/15/2004 6:05:08 AM

Barbu

Posts: 46
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

A single DRM will mean a difference of 1.0 in morale loss inflected/received over 3 rounds as an average, not to mention superios intrisic morale for 3 nations, and an extra round in the event of victory. It's importance cannot be understimated. The value of infantry over militia is also usually way overrated.

(in reply to megalomania2003)

Post #: 13

RE: Early Cav. - 11/15/2004 5:26:04 PM

JRichert

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Memphis, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Madcombinepilot

wow.

If you guys call Pippin nasty, don't play in our group. We have guys who build cavalry (not in large numbers, just 1's and 2's) simply to add options during the reinforcement phase.

Nothing like being able to flop a corps down when least expected.... Sometimes the political point loss (presumably from having your 1 factor corps whacked) can gain you the time needed to win a war.

This reminds me of a game I played a long time ago. I was France, and I had just thrashed Austria, but she did not accept terms. Russia declared war in June, I believe. They place their reinforcements on the map, and I saw a 5 corps force on the Austrian border balloon to 10! Nappy's force had been whittled down to 80 factors, so I paniced and started retreating a bit, to fall back on my reinforcements. After receiving reinforcements, I turned to take the offensive in my last throw of the dice battle.

It turned out that the Monster Stack O' Doom as I called it was a mere 40 factors of troops...

(in reply to Madcombinepilot)

Post #: 14

RE: Early Cav. - 11/18/2004 6:38:34 PM

1LTRambo

Posts: 313
Joined: 8/31/2004
Status: offline

It can be smart sometimes to create nearly empty corp in order to confuse your enemy as to your true strength. Therefore, it makes sense to me to have a corp factor with only one cav factor in it.

(in reply to JRichert)

Post #: 15

Nearly Empty Corps - 11/19/2004 3:10:44 AM

Titi

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montr�al
Status: offline

First, not wanting to open an old debate, but it's one of the use of the public strength of corps, it reveals corps splitting and hollow corps in a nation army, even if not their locations.

Now about the use of cavalry : cossacks an freikcorps are good scouts, send them to battle the enemy stack ans you will know the number of factors inside and that for the lose of ZERO PP.

(in reply to 1LTRambo)

Post #: 16

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/19/2004 9:57:10 AM

oahunick

Posts: 11
Joined: 9/1/2004
From: Makakilo, Oahu
Status: offline

Excellent point Titi- The use of empty cav scout corps seems more prevalant in "secret" games.
Pippen's cav gambits are always employed by at least one of the 7 in any campaign.
The Freikorps/Cossack role of scouts is less a factor in Gentleman "public" games that most of us are aquainted with. On the other hand, the garrisoning of cities/depots is an important skill that falls into disuse/obsolescence in the Gentleman's game. It's a shame, but is outweighed by the overall avoidence of "nasty" (was that the word they used) gameplay or what Gentleman players call 'dirty pool'.

_____________________________

The Ultimate Triple Alliance??

1) Father Prussia
2) Mother Russia
3) Baby Turkey

(in reply to Titi)

Post #: 17

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/19/2004 1:05:34 PM

Norden_slith

Posts: 166
Joined: 8/27/2003
From: expatriate german
Status: offline

quote:

1) Father Prussia
2) Mother Russia
3) Baby Turkey

Hi oahunick,
If Prussia and Russia were the parents, Turkey would be a weird baby...

Norden

(in reply to oahunick)

Post #: 18

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/19/2004 4:51:11 PM

hlj

Posts: 83
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

a cav factor costs 15 gold and 2 manpower
that is for most, if not all the nations to high a cost for being sure what your enemy is attacking with, and to say it does not cost a pp is stupid, the money you loose you could have used manipulating, so in effect you lost money that could have helped your armies mobility or it could have been used for you to gain a pp through manipulating.

To sacrifice a cossack or freicorps to check the strength of an enemy army is more acceptable as they are free.

I could understand if you sacreficed an Infantry corps with one militia factor to be absolutely sure.

But a careful player is not totaly in the dark when he faces his enemy. I note how much MP each nation collect, and I note if they have manipulated for manpower. And this way I know how many factors they are going to build. If factors die in forage or in battle, I note that to. And thus I have a list of how many factors my enemy has. I would only check what was in his corps if he had an unrealistic amount of corps on the board in relation to my list of his forces.

(in reply to Norden_slith)

Post #: 19

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/20/2004 7:44:44 AM

oahunick

Posts: 11
Joined: 9/1/2004
From: Makakilo, Oahu
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

If Prussia and Russia were the parents, Turkey would be a weird baby...

Norden

< Message edited by oahunick -- 11/20/2004 5:48:30 AM >

_____________________________

The Ultimate Triple Alliance??

1) Father Prussia
2) Mother Russia
3) Baby Turkey

(in reply to Norden_slith)

Post #: 20

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/20/2004 7:58:31 AM

oahunick

Posts: 11
Joined: 9/1/2004
From: Makakilo, Oahu
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

quote:

1) Father Prussia
2) Mother Russia
3) Baby Turkey

Hi oahunick,
If Prussia and Russia were the parents, Turkey would be a weird baby...

Norden

Yes it would be a cruel looking child. Over 15 years I've seen this threesome called "the Edge" (map) Po', Broke, & Lonely" ($) and "Austria's Worst Nightmare" as well as "the Dream Team"!

Look the cav unit is worth it in recon mode ... blowing the 15/2 to find out if Messina's stack is hollow or is it Davout's? Gentlemen games even have savvy French players basically scaring Austria down to unconditional in 1805 this way.

_____________________________

The Ultimate Triple Alliance??

1) Father Prussia
2) Mother Russia
3) Baby Turkey

(in reply to Norden_slith)

Post #: 21

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/20/2004 10:16:40 AM

megalomania2003

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oahunick
Look the cav unit is worth it in recon mode ... blowing the 15/2 to find out if Messina's stack is hollow or is it Davout's? Gentlemen games even have savvy French players basically scaring Austria down to unconditional in 1805 this way.

But why waste a cav factor instead of a militia or inf factor? Given the fact that you have to supply it, as it will else likely forage itself to death, you wont need the extra movement on the counter.

(in reply to oahunick)

Post #: 22

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/20/2004 2:03:02 PM

Titi

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montr�al
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlj

a cav factor costs 15 gold and 2 manpower
that is for most, if not all the nations to high a cost for being sure what your enemy is attacking with, and to say it does not cost a pp is stupid, the money you loose you could have used manipulating, so in effect you lost money that could have helped your armies mobility or it could have been used for you to gain a pp through manipulating.

To sacrifice a cossack or freicorps to check the strength of an enemy army is more acceptable as they are free.

That's my original point : only use cossack or freikcorps for scouting. I agere that losing a PP or a regular cavalry facot is way too much for that result.

quote:

I could understand if you sacreficed an Infantry corps with one militia factor to be absolutely sure.

Even so, losing a PP is still too much. Try to use that infantry or militia factor in garrison instead in a city or a depot, a trivial combat will reveal the enemy strength without costing you any PP.

quote:

But a careful player is not totaly in the dark when he faces his enemy. I note how much MP each nation collect, and I note if they have manipulated for manpower. And this way I know how many factors they are going to build. If factors die in forage or in battle, I note that to. And thus I have a list of how many factors my enemy has. I would only check what was in his corps if he had an unrealistic amount of corps on the board in relation to my list of his forces.

I agree and was used to do the same when playing; until i reread the rules and discovered that normally it's a public knowledge and spare the "good" player from a lot of noting, and the others players of some darkness.

(in reply to hlj)

Post #: 23

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/20/2004 3:04:31 PM

megalomania2003

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Even so, losing a PP is still too much. Try to use that infantry or militia factor in garrison instead in a city or a depot, a trivial combat will reveal the enemy strength without costing you any PP.

Except if you are playing with the overwhelming numbers rule introduced in General (5+ to 1 is trivial)

quote:

I agree and was used to do the same when playing; until i reread the rules and discovered that normally it's a public knowledge and spare the "good" player from a lot of noting, and the others players of some darkness.

Most players I have meet (in ftf games), and I have played quite a few, play with the corps strengths as a secret so this tactic is still valid.

(in reply to Titi)

Post #: 24

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/21/2004 7:21:43 PM

Titi

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montr�al
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: megalomania2003
Most players I have meet (in ftf games), and I have played quite a few, play with the corps strengths as a secret so this tactic is still valid.

In every game i played, we also used the corps strength as a secret.
First, probably as yourself we find it more interesting to have that kind of Fog of War. Then because around a table, i have a lot of time for keeping the records while other players are moving, foraging, doing battle, i did like you and want to know the enemy total strength.
But on the computer, i won't wait for other peaople to move and i hope i won't see a report telling me for example that the XIII russian corps lose one step while foraging. First cause this will be an annoying report and second cause there will be no logic to know the loses of a corps but not it's stength.
So rather than a tool (like a report screen) telling me the manpower a nation has collected minus the expanses for building, economic manipulation and loses for forage and batlle, i would rather like to know the strength of each corps but not it's location, as per original rules even if rarely used.

(in reply to megalomania2003)

Post #: 25

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/22/2004 7:54:30 PM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

It is true that those who have good memory can often over-see the fog-of-war effect. This is why I like to buy extra counters and mix units between them asap. This way it becomes very hard to someone to guestimate how many factors I have in location A veruses location B, etc.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to Titi)

Post #: 26

RE: Nearly Empty Corps - 11/27/2004 8:49:03 PM

1LTRambo

Posts: 313
Joined: 8/31/2004
Status: offline

I agree with Pippin, and I have used that tactic to keep some opponents from attacking. This was done because I would have several low strength corp stacked just in my border. So they were leary to attack because they were unsure of the strength. Then I would shift units to that location and when I did attack, my stack was then strong. All the while, they were thinking the stack was that strong to begin with. Thus, they will be less likely to question your unit strength.