springer
Posts: 414
Joined: 5/14/2009 Status: offline
|
The reason I started these AARs is to look into cavalry. I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I really like it. It breaks up the WWI feeling ATG can get in the early stages and adds the feel of old AT with its wild mobility. On the other hand, I think it may be too powerful. Not only can it run rings around a variety of enemy, it has the holding power of regular infantry. Thus, the Golden Horde doctrine is a way for me to play around with a toy scenario to test whether my feelings/observations hold. I continue those tests here. I saw that 2.04 aims to address the imbalance of CAV by making it more expensive. I agree with this. Training men and horses that can work together to be fast combat units should be expensive. Is it enough to disrupt the Golden Horde Doctrine? For this second "Golden Horde" AAR, there are a few changes from the first one: A. Lessons learned from the first AAR are applied. (1. support CAV with Anti-tank support, 2. Don't combine units of different speeds into the same unit.) B. I haven't downloaded the 2.04 patch yet, but this AAR was played with the relevant 2.04 rules (CAV = 300 pts each to build; trains take 20 raw). I also stuck to the two major "Golden Horde" self-constraints. No oil-burning units (besides the initial armored cars), no factories (as will be seen, the construction of one factory would have been useful...). In addition, only the following 4 SFTs could be built: HORSE, STAFF, CAV, ATG. I decided to use ATG units instead BAZ units so that I am restricted to the use of only one infantry-type unit, which is the CAV. That way, the effects of CAV can be more clear. The game ends when both Eden and Basra have fallen to the French, or when the Arab Forces have taken just one city. So here it goes...
< Message edited by springer -- 5/21/2011 5:48:58 PM >
|