I've seen a number of people complain about the "un-natural" upgrade of cavalry to helicopters. For those who do not know, it should be noted that this is what actually occurred within the US military.

The former civil war era cavalry units were updated during the Vietnam war to Air Cavalry.

Here's a link to a wikipedia article. Also, the major motion picture by Mel Gibson, We Were Soldiers, presents the informative transition of these units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(United_States)

Scroll down to the section regarding the VN war.

I will bite, All I got to say is. That is just one brief page on one calvary Div. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(United_States) look at it. The very first line explains it very well thank you. Then read thru the history a bit and learn a little. We did not go from horses to flight let alone Helicopters.

I do know enough to know what you just said was total rubbish. Speaking as far as the US is concerned. All US Army units are supported by air support that does not make them Calvary. Hell all army's in the world are supported by more than one type of unit. It has nothing to do with what horse and helicopters share in common because they share absolutely nothing in common other than history of a name.

As far as helicopters go, for the modern era, the Kiawa, would be more fitting than a Cobra model that is currently in game in my opinion. As well to say a modern armor (M1A1) upgrade would fit just a perfectly if not better than a attack helicopter upgrade.

I don't know of a single Army division anywhere in the world at any given time that just has one type of unit including calvary divisions. Calvary of the old and modern share no resemblance or anything in common what so ever other than a hostorical tradition of the units history.

The only reason I would say the calvary unit in game upgrades to a helicopter is simply because nothing else does. Again calvary of the old and new have absolutely nothing in common with one another. NOTHING other than the sharing of a name with a rich historical background.

It kind of sucks yes that one of the games most powerful units upgrades into such a weak one. But maybe that was done for balance so army's needed to be restructured in the modern era and not continue their dominance (if they were calvary based and doing well). I don't know. I do know nothing beats having a medic 3 attack helicopter. It never defends and it moves around the map faster than the previous mounted unit.

Cavalry upgrading to helicopters CAN be rationalized with cavalry upgrading to armored cars/reconnaissance units. In this way, the only inaccuracy is their still being classed as mounted instead of armored, their need for horses instead of oil, and their graphic representation.

Personally, I have changed them to upgrade to either tanks OR gunships.

I would likely bet that the upgrade is so because of balancing issues: if everyone could upgrade their horses (which you could have a lot of at the turn of ages) to tanks, basically whoever has the most money sitting around can spam cavalry and upgrade them to city busting tanks.

Talk about "unnatural upgrade", I wonder why nobody has ever complained about war elephant to cavalry. So the elephants mutate into horses?? :lol:

So Civil War Cavalry units sat-out WWI, WWII and Korea and waited to reform in Vietnam with helicopter gunships?

That's about the craziest thing I've heard in a long, long time.

Yes... there are "Cavalry" units in Vietnam flying choppers... I'd like to mention there are also US Cavalry units in WWII using tanks. Ask General Patton about that for a prime example.

Many Cavalry units literally were ordered to shoot their horses when they were mechanized into tanks... so upgrading cavalry to tanks is not only logical, it's true history... heck their's even been movies made about horse cavalry units that upgraded to tanks, so let's stick a fork in this ridiculous premis that Civil War Cavalry units sat on their thumbs (and horses) and waited till Vietnam to get choppers... uterly, uterly incorrect statement there.

Now YES... there are definately copter cavalry units... and armored ones... which is why in my mod a cavalry unit can upgrade to either tanks or choppers.

I would likely bet that the upgrade is so because of balancing issues: if everyone could upgrade their horses (which you could have a lot of at the turn of ages) to tanks, basically whoever has the most money sitting around can spam cavalry and upgrade them to city busting tanks.

Thats honestly why I think it was done. Calvary in game are a defining unit in alot of situations for a fairly long period of time. More so I think than any other unit.

They took a strong unit and made it so it upgrades into a so-so one. I don't even think they used the term calvary in a historical context as much as they just used it in the literal.

Calvary in the historical sense in which this topic is about has nothing to do with a specific type of unit. Since the miltary of old and new share nothing in common except a given units history of what it initially started out as.

Altho now that I think about it, if I had a OH-58 Kiowa (sorry I spelled it wrong in my first post) model I would most definately put it in place of the AH-1 Cobra model in game.

Dunno about that. I'm fairly happy with getting Helicopters in the game. They don't get ridiculous city-busting power, but they are better suited to fast wars by being hyper-upgraded to Blitz. I prefer fast wars, so I don't mind having the copters.

Not incorrect. Fact. It is a fact that historical elements of the cavalry did get converted into the air cav.

It is indeed true that there was a progression to get there, I never stated that there wasn't, and if you had bothered to read the wiki article, you'd see that the cav did gradually adopt mg's and some mechanization before being converted into the air cav. Yet the fact remains, that it finally did turn into the air cav, and for a singularly obvious similarity.

Speed and mobility.

The horse cavalry were the fastest and most mobile combat units in earlier forms of warfare, just as air cav is the fastest and most mobile combat unit in our more modern warfare. Even civ reflects the speed and mobility of choppers.

And no, airplanes are not COMBAT units.

And do keep in mind that horse cavalry actually did, albeit to a lesser extent, exist all the way until WW2. Remember the Polish cavalry that fought against the Nazi tanks? And they also existed in a limited role in WW1.

They certainly were obsolete, but scattered elements did exist...just like in our games.

WTF is it with these boards, man I hate them at times people are so dense and don't comprehend very well. Read the links people give you. Did you not look at the history of the cav division I gave you.


Anything modern is faster and more mobile than a bloody horse. Thats the only point you bring up and its a stupid one. It has nothing to do with why a Division is reffered to as calvary.
Every US military Division, BN, and company has some dumb modo saying something about being the first into the fight, or leading the way...

The only thing in common a modern cav unit has with the old is the black Stetson (that is part of the official military uniform for that unit.) You get it for doing well on a PT test and scoreing good at the range.) Thats it! Most cav units consist of armor and air, but they are most certainly not one or the other only.

They consist of every other supporting element that any other division needs..... Theres nothing special about them other than the units history and thats it. They are not primarally Air Units as you imply never have been never will be. If anything they are bloody armor units with air support.


Since every Army Division has helicoptor support. Not to mention Helicoptors once again didn't really show up on the battle field untill the Korean war and those where under powered PoS death traps.

You sir Fail. Absolutely fail! You have watched Apocalypse Now to many times. If you don't wanna read go join the military and find out first hand.

While I can see other peoples opinions or responses, tho I might not agree with them entirely and they might not agree with mine. You have no flipping clue what your talking about. You were given a link to a division that disproves the claim you make on its own and its only one of the many Cav. Divisions out there.


Edit: I gave a not so direct link in my first post so that is my bad. here it is again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_%28United_States%29

The very first sentence

The 1st Cavalry Division ("First Team") is a heavy armored division of the United States Army with base of operations in Fort Hood, Texas.

Something even more notable for those who think calvary divisions only consisted of Mounted or vehicled units again heres a nice tid bit for ya as well.

The last of the 1st Cavalry Division's mounted units permanently retired their horses and converted to infantry formations on 28 February 1943. However, a mounted Special Ceremonial Unit known as the Horse Platoon - later, the Horse Cavalry Detachment - was established within the division in January 1972. Its ongoing purpose is to represent the traditions and heritage of the American horse cavalry at military ceremonies and public events.[1].

The Division shipped out equipped as an Augmented Light Infantry Division. 1st Cavalry Division reported for its Port Call at Camp Stoneman, CA as follows:

UNIT STAGED DEPART ARRIVED
HHT, 1st Cavalry Division 21 June, 26 June, 11 July
HHT, 1st Cavalry Brigade 21 June, July 03 24 July.
HHT, 2nd Cavalry Brigade 18 June, 26 June, 11 July.
5th Cavalry Regiment 20 June, July 02, 24 July.
7th Cavalry Regiment 18 June, 26 June, 11 July.
8th Cavalry Regiment 18 June, 26 June, 11 July.
12th Cavalry Regiment 20 June, July 03, 24 July.
HHB, 1st Cavalry DIVARTY
61st Field Artillery Battalion July 03, 24 July.
82nd Field Artillery Battalion June 04, 23 June.
99th Field Artillery Battalion 23 May, 23 June.
8th Engineer Squadron 23 May, 18 June.
1st Medical Squadron
16th Quartermaster Squadron
7th Cavalry Recon Squadron 26 June, 11 July.
1st Antitank Troop
1st Signal Troop

As I already stated being a Cav division now adays does not bear anything in common with the Cav of old other than history and thats it. Light infantry. lol! Go fish.

Why is 101st Airborne still referred to as Airborne same reason. Its a tech in game and ironicly it actually is one of the enabling techs for calvary. Kinda Ironic isn't it. Maybe Firaxis had a clue what they were doing after all....

Just incase I have not stomped my point in clearly enough. heres the current make up for Ft. Hood 1st Cavalry Division

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/1st_US_Cavalry_Div.png/800px-

Sure looks like a hell of alot of armor battalions to me. For the record there is generaly 3-5 companys per battalion from my personal experiance all each with a 100+ soldiers. Not to mention support units such as artillery! woah whats fast and mobile about that? That stuff be heavy not fast and mobile like you suggest is what defines a calvary unit. :P

I am gonna take a wild guess and say the special troops are engineer attachments and other support units that most notably yoru movie which is a very poor reference did not depict very well.

I will do some looking in a bit. I wasn't at Ft. Hood. But I was a combat engineer thank you.:)

Talk about "unnatural upgrade", I wonder why nobody has ever complained about war elephant to cavalry. So the elephants mutate into horses?? :lol:
Obviously the elephant is replaced by a horse, at a price, that's the gold you spend to upgrade it. You misunderstand the use of "unnatural", nobody's suggesting the horse turns into a helicopter, just that there's such a vast gulf in technology between mounted riflemen and gunships.

cavalry - mounted (highly mobile) combat unit

when options other than horses, elephants, camels, and other animals became (and still become) available - the cavalry unit adapts/modernizes

(and for those who confuse this with calvary - well..... I hope you don't get crucified)

at one time club wielding soldiers were called "infantry" (depending upon their use in battle) and it's evolved through swordsman, musketmen, riflemen, etc - to what we recognize today.

it's the USE of the unit which dictates it's "designation"

Remember the Polish cavalry that fought against the Nazi tanks? And they also existed in a limited role in WW1
That's actually a complete myth... and you're perpetuating an untruth. You need to stop while you're behind.

That's actually a complete myth... and you're perpetuating an untruth. You need to stop while you're behind.


ZOMG, this proves it! http://groups.msn.com/2ndUSCav/ww2germancav.msnw
:lol:


Beginning in 1939, most of the many National Guard cavalry regiments were transformed into horse‑mechanized units (one horse squadron and one mechanized squadron ). This was an apparent compromise between horse loving senior officers and those who wished for modernizations.
http://members.tripod.com/1-101cav/ww2.html

So pretty much what happened was:

1. WW1 proved that mass cavalary was OBSOLETE. The main cause was machine guns. Horse infantry make ridiculously easy targets for machine guns to mow down. So any role that horse-mounted soldiers had in mass combat from the 19th C. was basically made obsolete.

2. The US Army attempted to modernize in between the WW's but there was some resistance, such that some horse-mounted troops existed even to WW2. But by the start of Germany's invasions, they were told to get real and adopt mechanization. It was even demonstrated in field exercises that the horses were only useful for logistical support (they still carry more than man in supplies).

3. In WW2, it made sense to convert cavalry to a recon / light mobility role because that was basically what they did with horses.
So basically it meant light armor, with light mechanized infantry, and anything else they could carry or could get back-up with from higher units (e.g. medium tanks from the next higher unit).


4. Origin of Air Cav.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._11th_Air_Assault_Division#11th_Air_Assault_Di vision_.28Test.29.2C_1963-65
About 11th Airborne
The division was briefly reactivated in 1963 at Fort Benning, Georgia, as the 11th Air Assault Division (Test). The division's mission was to test the concept of helicopter assault tactics, with the helicopters of the 11th Aviation Group. Those two years would mark the division's final mission. The division was inactivated for the final time in 1965 when its headquarters transferred to the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). This was accomplished by merging the 11th Air Assault Division with the 2nd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Georgia, and reflagging the merged units as the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). The colors of the 11th were inactivated while those of the 2nd were transferred to Korea, where the existing 1st Cavalry Division was reflagged as the 2nd Infantry Division. The legacy of the 11th Air Assault Division is perpetuated in the form of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), especially that division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team—of which the 1st and 3rd Battalions, 187th Infantry Regiment, are a part.
So really the 1st Cav (airmobile) was really the 11th airborne being experimented on with helicopters, and supplied with more men another infantry. Though there was a 1st Cav before that.

Conclusion
If anything, the horse cav units should upgrade to light, fast, combined arms units (basically an earlier, weaker mechanized infantry unit).

And really airborne units should be upgradeable to air cav as well. But really Civ skips the airmobile infantry.

So Civil War Cavalry units sat-out WWI, WWII and Korea and waited to reform in Vietnam with helicopter gunships?

That's about the craziest thing I've heard in a long, long time.

Yes... there are "Cavalry" units in Vietnam flying choppers... I'd like to mention there are also US Cavalry units in WWII using tanks. Ask General Patton about that for a prime example.

Many Cavalry units literally were ordered to shoot their horses when they were mechanized into tanks... so upgrading cavalry to tanks is not only logical, it's true history... heck their's even been movies made about horse cavalry units that upgraded to tanks, so let's stick a fork in this ridiculous premis that Civil War Cavalry units sat on their thumbs (and horses) and waited till Vietnam to get choppers... uterly, uterly incorrect statement there.

Now YES... there are definately copter cavalry units... and armored ones... which is why in my mod a cavalry unit can upgrade to either tanks or choppers.

Are upgrade costs moddable? If so, I think the upgrade costs for this are too low (though in general I think upgrade costs are too high)

Cavalry was used in WWI and WWII in auxilliary roles. I have no problem with cavs upgrading to tanks, though it should be very expensive.

Also- are upgrade costs moddable per unit?

I think it's good for the game that cav don't upgrade to tanks. Think of all the mega-experienced cavalry any warmonger is going to have. It would be fairly nasty to be able to upgrade all of those heavily promoted cavs directly into an instant hoard of armour, they would be unstoppable and anyway tanks are already powerful enough. I like it that tanks are not on the upgrade path, you have to build your factories and then roll them off the production line one by one. It's realistic, armies didn't just one day shoot all their horses and suddenly have 1000 tanks out of nowhere.

It's realistic, armies didn't just one day shoot all their horses and suddenly have 1000 tanks out of nowhere.

Well actually - they did (in far less than 10 years)

10 years - how many turns in Civ is that?


........ plus one turn to "upgrade" (years) and not usable until the next turn (more years)


sometimes the calculation of "Civ-turns to years" makes a little sense


- and yes, there IS an "air cav" and an "armored cav" - both serving two different functions

- not to mention the opposite - just because a unit is "horse-mounted" didn't/doesn't make it "cavalry"

(if that's the case, our local police force uses their cav units at the local college football games, lol)

That's actually a complete myth... and you're perpetuating an untruth. You need to stop while you're behind.ZOMG, this proves it! http://groups.msn.com/2ndUSCav/ww2germancav.msnw
:lol:

http://members.tripod.com/1-101cav/ww2.html
Proves what? That people are stupid and gullible, and often believe anything they see or read as "the facts" without ever once researching the subject to see if it's true, or more stupidity? :rolleyes:

Polish Cavalry NEVER charged German tanks... that's a flat-out myth, and one commonly believed by a lot of people who never bothered to research it or find out the truth.

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.

The first of them, and perhaps the best known, happened on September 1, 1939, during the Battle of Krojanty. During the action, elements of the Polish 18th Uhlan Regiment met a large group of German infantry resting in the woods near the village of Krojanty. Colonel Mastalerz decided to take the enemy by surprise and immediately ordered a cavalry charge, a tactic the Polish cavalry rarely used as their main weapon. The charge was successful and the German infantry unit was dispersed.

The same day, German war correspondents were brought to the battlefield together with two journalists from Italy. They were shown the battlefield, the corpses of Polish cavalrymen and their horses, alongside German tanks that had arrived at the field of battle only after the engagement. One of the Italian correspondents sent home an article, in which he described the bravery and heroism of Polish soldiers, who charged German tanks with their sabres and lances. Other possible source of the myth is a quote from Heinz Guderian's memoirs, in which he asserted that the Pomeranian Brigade had charged on German tanks with swords and lances. Although such a charge did not happen and there were no tanks used during the combat, the myth was disseminated by German propaganda during the war with a staged Polish cavalry charge shown in their 1941 reel called "Geschwader Lützow". In that movie Luftwaffe Avia 534B trainer planes of Czech origin acted as Polish PZL-11 fighters. After the end of World War II the same fraud was again being disseminated by Soviet propaganda as an example of the stupidity of Polish commanders and authorities, who allegedly did not prepare their country for war and instead wasted the blood of their soldiers.

Just one source of many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry) derailing the myth.

In late 19th century most modern armies gave up traditional cavalry that'd fight on their horses (wouldn't have been very clever to charge those mg:s and riflemen), but most armies still used horses for their mobility to move men between battles, these guys were called dragoons. They'd move mounted but fight on foot. Even in WWII most armies used horses for transporting men and supplies especially in Eastern front.

Anyway, my point is that modern day air cavalry are pretty similar to 19th and 20th century dragoons. They use their helicopters (horses) to get where they want and then fight on foot.

In late 19th century most modern armies gave up traditional cavalry that'd fight on their horses (wouldn't have been very clever to charge those mg:s and riflemen), but most armies still used horses for their mobility to move men between battles, these guys were called dragoons. They'd move mounted but fight on foot. Even in WWII most armies used horses for transporting men and supplies especially in Eastern front.

Anyway, my point is that modern day air cavalry are pretty similar to 19th and 20th century dragoons. They use their helicopters (horses) to get where they want and then fight on foot.

Good answer I like it. I will admit I did not fully recall or know how late Ft. Hood actually got rid of all their calvary units. But when I see the term Air Calvary that's what I think of being most accurate. Calvary were known for fast deployment. All Helicopters do is replace the horse or vehicle with flying transport unit.

As far as the US is concerned I honestly think that is the most accurately depicted representation of a Air Cav unit. Today its also called something different most of the time and entire bases are referred this method in which the troops that use to be stationed at FT. Hood helped pioneer at Ft. Campbell.

Air Assault

Ft. Campbell is not a calvary division nore an Airborne Division they are an Air Assault division and they have not been an Airborne Div for along time. But they still bear the Airborne patch because of its WWII history most notably. not because they are still an Airborne Division.

So basically Air Assault is one reason why I kept bringing up Ft. Campbell. The other was because people can not assume a unit is anything just because of a name.

Example again Ft. Campbell their have been no base wide Airborne operations their in a very long time. Though it is a requirement no matter what MoS you are to go to Air Assault School when being assigned to Ft. Campbell KY currently.

Though there are places where units are considered Air Cav, that most certainly does not represent gunships, which is the impression I got from what the OP was trying to say. Maybe I read it wrong. I am still trying to figure out why he even brought airplanes.

Edit just to clerify the major differences between Airborne and Air Assualt.

Air Assualt = Slingload (equipement which is slung under the Ch-47 or UH-60 currently), repeling from the UH-60 most notably, as well as being transported on these same birds and simply being landed on a FLS.

Airborne= plane + parachute + drop from a few hundred feet. wether its troops or equipment.

Wow. Y'all need to chill out a little. I was simply demonstrating a logical reason for why Civ caused cavalry to be upgraded to helicopters, and that this has happened, to some degree (obviously not 100%), in RL. The very article I posted included the history, which I later re-emphasized, about much of the cavalry becoming mechanized.

I mean, gosh, how anal are you people. Some of you are so lost in empty details, that you're missing the overall picture and point here.

The point is, as MMV stated so clearly, "it's the USE of the unit which dictates it's 'designation.'"

In the game, the use of helicopters is quite similar to the use of cavaly (not calvary, calvary is a religious term denoting the Passion of Christ, which is a different Mel Gibson movie :lol: :p ).

Indeed, Viljanen's point concerning Dragoons served to emphasize this.

Moreover, throughout the history of man, the role, function, and dominance (or lack thereof) of cavalry itself has changed repeatedly.

A military axiom, which the game actually seems to do a decent job illustrating, is that mounted units and infantry units took turns being dominant in the field. At some moments in history, cavalry ruled the battlefield, yet at others, infantry slaughtered cavalry (like the Swiss Merc).

Both Viljanen and MMV seemed to understand the concepts of both strategic and tactical mobility. The dragoon emphasized the mobility of transportation. In both RL and game terms, cavalry and helicopters indicate the same USE or FUNCTION, hence the historical linkage and similar naming of these units.

The points concerning old cavalry units currently being heavy armored or whatever other type of unit is rather meaningless, simply because, unlike the game, modern distinctions between "different" types of units no longer exist. Our modern militaries utilize Combined Arms, which in itself obsoletes any traditional, hereditary naming of units. We simply keep traditional names for esprit de corps, and so that we can have campfire stories to inspire those who are about to die with the legends from the past.

As to the Polish cavalry, my point still stands. They existed and they fought (making 16 cavalry charges!). My point concerning Nazi tanks wasn't to spread the myth that the Polish cavalry actually charged tanks in any specific battle, but that they were the elite of the Polish military, just as Panzer's were the elite of the German military--similar in fashion to the way you might headline the star of one sports team against the star of an opposing sports team (whether or not they've actually played against each other). At any rate, you still prove my point concerning their persistance in both history and their usage regarding speed.

Although many cav units had been upgraded, or replaced in function, by tanks in between the WW's, many world militaries lagged behind in realizing (or simply lacked the finances to adopt the new strategies) the changing nature of warfare and still retained cav units.

Horse mounted cavalry did not truly cease to exist until the advent and closure of WW2, which for obvious reasons forced them out of action. It should have happened during WW1, but some were slow to catch on either intellectually or productively and financially.

It's for these reasons, that it's wise that Civ doesn't replace them until after the tank age with helicopters. This reflects two things: 1) the delayed effect of responding to the changing dynamics of warfare and 2) actually possessing the industrial and financial ability to respond to the change.

Having to build our own tanks, instead of simply pressing a couple of upgrade buttons, corresponds to both 1 and 2 above.

Where Civ fails, however, is in reflecting modern Combined Arms. In our game, we still have non-mixed specialized units rather than a more...combined...feel.

Some of you need to pull that stick out of your...and be a little more helpful, rather than combative--yet, I imagine that this probably reflects your style of play! :p

This rule, by-in-large, doesn't affect me very much, since I recognize the longer dominance of infantry in the field, and thus tend to build few early game cav units in favor of the infantry who will, at most times, rule the field.

Spearmen due to their ability to utilize defensive bonuses (and their +100% against mounted), will slaughter horse archers in both attack and defense. Likewise with pikemen against knights and elephants. Cavalry can do nothing against riflemen, and also cannot employ defensive bonuses against rifle attack.

Used appropriately with siege units, axemen, macemen, musketmen, and riflemen dominate their ages.

Wow. Y'all need to chill out a little. I was simply demonstrating a logical reason for why Civ caused cavalry to be upgraded to helicopters, and that this has happened, to some degree (obviously not 100%), in RL. The very article I posted included the history, which I later re-emphasized, about much of the cavalry becoming mechanized.

I mean, gosh, how anal are you people. Some of you are so lost in empty details, that you're missing the overall picture and point here.

The point is, as MMV stated so clearly, "it's the USE of the unit which dictates it's 'designation.'"

In the game, the use of helicopters is quite similar to the use of cavaly (not calvary, calvary is a religious term denoting the Passion of Christ, which is a different Mel Gibson movie :lol: :p ).

Indeed, Viljanen's point concerning Dragoons served to emphasize this.

Moreover, throughout the history of man, the role, function, and dominance (or lack thereof) of cavalry itself has changed repeatedly.

A military axiom, which the game actually seems to do a decent job illustrating, is that mounted units and infantry units took turns being dominant in the field. At some moments in history, cavalry ruled the battlefield, yet at others, infantry slaughtered cavalry (like the Swiss Merc).

Both Viljanen and MMV seemed to understand the concepts of both strategic and tactical mobility. The dragoon emphasized the mobility of transportation. In both RL and game terms, cavalry and helicopters indicate the same USE or FUNCTION, hence the historical linkage and similar naming of these units.

The points concerning old cavalry units currently being heavy armored or whatever other type of unit is rather meaningless, simply because, unlike the game, modern distinctions between "different" types of units no longer exist. Our modern militaries utilize Combined Arms, which in itself obsoletes any traditional, hereditary naming of units. We simply keep traditional names for esprit de corps, and so that we can have campfire stories to inspire those who are about to die with the legends from the past.

As to the Polish cavalry, my point still stands. They existed and they fought (making 16 cavalry charges!). My point concerning Nazi tanks wasn't to spread the myth that the Polish cavalry actually charged tanks in any specific battle, but that they were the elite of the Polish military, just as Panzer's were the elite of the German military--similar in fashion to the way you might headline the star of one sports team against the star of an opposing sports team (whether or not they've actually played against each other). At any rate, you still prove my point concerning their persistance in both history and their usage regarding speed.

Although many cav units had been upgraded, or replaced in function, by tanks in between the WW's, many world militaries lagged behind in realizing (or simply lacked the finances to adopt the new strategies) the changing nature of warfare and still retained cav units.

Horse mounted cavalry did not truly cease to exist until the advent and closure of WW2, which for obvious reasons forced them out of action. It should have happened during WW1, but some were slow to catch on either intellectually or productively and financially.

It's for these reasons, that it's wise that Civ doesn't replace them until after the tank age with helicopters. This reflects two things: 1) the delayed effect of responding to the changing dynamics of warfare and 2) actually possessing the industrial and financial ability to respond to the change.

Having to build our own tanks, instead of simply pressing a couple of upgrade buttons, corresponds to both 1 and 2 above.

Where Civ fails, however, is in reflecting modern Combined Arms. In our game, we still have non-mixed specialized units rather than a more...combined...feel.

Some of you need to pull that stick out of your...and be a little more helpful, rather than combative--yet, I imagine that this probably reflects your style of play! :p

This rule, by-in-large, doesn't affect me very much, since I recognize the longer dominance of infantry in the field, and thus tend to build few early game cav units in favor of the infantry who will, at most times, rule the field.

Spearmen due to their ability to utilize defensive bonuses (and their +100% against mounted), will slaughter horse archers in both attack and defense. Likewise with pikemen against knights and elephants. Cavalry can do nothing against riflemen, and also cannot employ defensive bonuses against rifle attack.

Used appropriately with siege units, axemen, macemen, musketmen, and riflemen dominate their ages.

While thats nice,long, and BS'ey. I don't see how you already explained that as you suggest. Your first post States and I quote.

I've seen a number of people complain about the "un-natural" upgrade of cavalry to helicopters. For those who do not know, it should be noted that this is what actually occurred within the US military.

The former civil war era cavalry units were updated during the Vietnam war to Air Cavalry.

Your stance was not really open as you suggest it was. It says again and I quote from your opening post, " The former civil war era cavalry units were updated during the Vietnam war to Air Cavalry". One of your references for this was a bloody movie of all things.

It was not the same stance as the posters you mentioned. It left no room for discretion. It did not say "some". I am sorry but your full of it. Though I am not completely historically correct myself. I know dam well the super power that was and still is (regardless of its political correctness) didn't leave all its calvary sitting for years waiting for the development of the helicopter.

You don't say "some" so it leaves no room for you to imply anything other than what it says. its that simple.

I even gave you a bone that you obviously over looked which was the OH-58. It is probably the most common helicopter for US Army personnel to think of when referring to Aviation Calvary. That's even if they think of a helicopter at all and not armor.

Heres another nice kicker so we are clear on how narrow your original reference was and not as broad as you suggest it to be.

You said "civil war calvary" and "Vietnam". So that leaves most countries out of the picture as well that you imply you were talking about.

Your second response further indicates you had no flipping clue what I was talking about since you brought up airplanes not being a combat unit? Who the heck mentioned anything about airplanes other than giving reference to how long the gap between winged flight and helicopter flight was, to warrant a stupid response that says airplanes are not combat units. Are you high?!? seriously

I see what your saying now but it was not your initial stance which kicked this off is not even close to the one you say it is now. Its not even in the same bloody ball park.

Go fish.




FYI to show how arrogant you are. Airplanes can be a combat only unit. My example.

A-10, AKA: The Warthog. It is one big bloody gun with wings.
It is the oldest of aircraft still deployed by the main force of the United States which is a tech leading nation. Look it up they are an unbelievable well designed aircraft. With a multi function purpose but only one role, that's to kill anything and everything its sights on the ground with limited air to air combat capabilies.

I might come off like jerk. I can accept that when I see such stupid claims like your opening post and then of all things you do it again in your second.

I like pizza :mischief:

To stick purely to the game for a moment, I think Cavalry _should_ upgrade to tanks, but like upgrading sailing ships to oil-powered ones, the upgrade cost should be punitive.

And regarding the whole "1st cavalry kept their horses until Vietnam" thing, read the Wiki page:

The last of the 1st Cavalry Division's mounted units permanently retired their horses and converted to infantry formations on 28 February 1943.

So they went Cavalry - Infantry - Helicopter anyway.

Yeah, whatever dude. I was simply guilty of painting with too broad of a brush in my opening thread. I wasn't going for details. That's what the article was for.

The point still stands that the first chopper units looked to the cavalry for their naming and function. They did not look to the infantry or to the armored units for this inspiration.

There is a greater correlation (in use and function) between cavalry and choppers, than to infantry and choppers.

The temporary conversion of cavalry into infantry units was simply filler until they were revived as choppers. In fact, to be pedantic here (since you desire it so much), this has occurred often throughout history.

As I stated above, mounted and foot units have gone back in forth as being the dominant unit in warfare. At each point in history that the foot soldier possessed the advantage, what do you think the horse soldier did? Well, he got off his horse and fought on foot. He, in effect, retired that horse unit (just like the 1st cav retired their horse units in 1943). The nounted unit became obsolete.

As time passed, however, a new military breakthrough would once again place the advantage of battle to mounted units. What do you think happened then? Well, for those who could afford it, they got off their feet and got back onto horses. In effect, unretiring the mounted unit and recommissioning it for service.

None of us pay any attention to the time that was spent on foot rather than on horseback. We do not point out any discontinuity. We simply notice that the function of the earlier mounted unit was quite similar to the function of the later mounted unit. That one became the natural, or at least next progression and successor of the other. None of us acknowledge that a period of time existed when virtually no one (because of obsoletion) actually fought on horseback.

Does anyone really think that knights simply traded in their swords for muskets? No, this did not happen. Knights became obsolete before muskets were invented. When this happened, former knights became foot soldiers. Now certainly, some aristocrats may have remained on horse during battles bcz this gain them a sign of prestige and authority, but the idea that mass units of knights actually charged to their deaths upon the waiting, hungry pikes of infantry is an absurd fantasy. That would be very nearly as stupid as riding on a horse (or running on foot for that matter) into machine gun fire.

Does our game in any way reflect this regular obsolence of the mounted warrior? No. Does anyone complain about the horse archer not upgrading to a longbowman before it upgrades to a knight? No.

Does anyone complain about the maceman or musketman not upgrading to a cavalry unit (which would simply reflect the historically accurate occurence of giving a foot soldier a horse and a gun) before having the chance to upgrade to a marine? No.

Does anyone complain that we cannot upgrade back and forth between mounted and foot soldiers, which would indeed be the historically accurate portrayal? No.

Why?

Two reasons: Firstly, ignorance of the fact that horse units have often been obsolete, secondly, that different mounted units obviously possess the same rapid function in their respective eras.

So, the detail that cavalry men didn't immediately trade in their horses for choppers is of little import (just as knights didn't become cavalry men overnight either). What is of consequence, is that choppers revived the role and function of "cavalry" units. That is what the game portrays, and my entire goal for mentioning it.

Yet, if we follow the logic of your contentions, then in fact, every mounted unit should first upgrade to an infantry type of unit before it can be upgraded to the next successor of the mounted unit.

Might I now, with your permission of course, recommend a book that (amongst many other things) discusses the evolving strategies and flip-flopping nature of the importance of mounted units in military history.

It is written by General Montgomery, and is entitled "A History of Warfare." An excellent read.

http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/konyvek/alt/info/m/montgomery_i.html

I used to like pizza too, but now that I'm getting older the grease upsets my tummy. :)

... I'd like to mention there are also US Cavalry units in WWII using tanks. Ask General Patton about that for a prime example...

If we only could! He could write us some great War Academy articles.

The worst thing about turning cavalry into helicopters is that you have to park your horseys for ages in those mite-infected stables, paying maintenance until you place your hands on far, far away Advanced Flight. But that's still better than CIV III, when you simply had to disband or suicide all your horses. And choppers are insane if you can add blitz to them.

see why don't we have a horse carriage pulling two shot-gun hicks as an upgrade from calvary. This new unit could cause collateral damage, as their driver was usually drunk from wiskey .... okay bad idea.

Remember the Polish cavalry that fought against the Nazi tanks?


:rolleyes:

Uhmm, no, I don't remember that, because it didn't happen. What I do remember is the myths going around about this being true.

To say the truth , and as already stated , the cavalry -> tank upgrade makes more sense both gamewise as historically wise.

Gamewise because it cuts the stupidly long time that cavalry has as a unit ( really, is almost like rifles - > mechanized infantry without nothing in between )

Historically wise, because tank units in most countries ( not all... in some tank units were seen as armoured mobile arties and the crew was assigned accordingly ) came from cavalry units and the tactics of tank usage ( atleast the post blitzkrieg ones ) are clearly a copycat of the old cavalry charge at a flank... much more than the Apache hit and run tactics ( it was designed to attack armoured columns from the cover of trees or small hills and run away , remember? )

I am afraid to say that according to my new sources the calvary of old got mutated into. (Drum roll)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycbc4fHY1v8