A question for those that play without mods

[PPQ_Purple]

It's been ages since I played without mods that significantly change the unit roster so I have a question. Gameplay vise when does cavalry (the unit) become prominent in game? Is it closer to the Rifleman / Grenadier era or to the Infantry era?

 

[civac]

That depends on your tech path. Still, in a majority of cases I would say they appear significantly closer to rifle men/grenadiers, especially if you go for cuirassiers beforehand.

It's also possible to skip cavalry entirely.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Basically I am asking because I need to make a custom model for a custom civ and I need to know if it should fit better graphically with one or the other.

 

[s.bernbaum]

I mainly play without mods, except for BUG. I always have rifles before cavalry. Sometimes I get cuirassiers before rifles but often not, so my mounted troops go from knights to cavalry. I very rarely use grenadiers at all. In any case, I always have cavalry before infantry.

 

[Lennier]

In BTS, Cavalry comes with rifling plus MT. So you'll never have cavalry without rifles. By the time infantry (the unit) appears, cavalry are obsolete.

 

[civac]

Cavalry do fine vs infantry and especially MGs.

 

[Qactus]

Cavalry do fine vs infantry and especially MGs.

Erm... "do fine" as in "get brutally slaughtered at the gates"?
Cavalry campaigns can be very successful against anything including Rifles. If you're using spy revolts wisely and maybe add airships to recon, plan spy deployment and injure top defenders, it can be an extremely quick and deadly campaign without the need for siege.
But against Infantry? Well, maybe against the last AI it's possible if you have the numbers and don't care anymore about losses.

 

[civac]

I was specifically replying to the notion that cavalry become obsolete when infantry is available which is just wrong.

No, you cannot ram cavalry into mass entrenched infantry. They still do fine in most situations. For cavalry specifically, the step from riflemen to infantry is not even that big.

 

[Fish Man]

Erm... "do fine" as in "get brutally slaughtered at the gates"?
Cavalry campaigns can be very successful against anything including Rifles. If you're using spy revolts wisely and maybe add airships to recon, plan spy deployment and injure top defenders, it can be an extremely quick and deadly campaign without the need for siege.
But against Infantry? Well, maybe against the last AI it's possible if you have the numbers and don't care anymore about losses.

@Lennier

Cavalry + cannons do plenty fine against infantry if you have the numbers. Once you start facing tanks you may need either infantry or artillery of your own (or tanks, of course). But combat 1 pinch cavs vs, say, combat 2 infantry is about 16.5 strength vs about 19 strength, which is more than doable if you take down defenses and send in massive amounts of siege first.

 

[Qactus]

... if you take down defenses and send in massive amounts of siege first.

Sure, also there's a bunch of units that are "doing just fine" against Longbows (smallprint: during an Engineering rush after sending the Trebs in)

 

[Fippy]

I guess the point was Cavs are never really obsolete, they can beat Infantry on open field and are doing fine as support units at minimum until they can be upgraded to Gunships.

 

[6K Man]

Even Macemen and Longbows do fine against Infantry, with enough siege support.

To answer the OP, Cavalry become prominent around the time of Riflemen. They both need the Rifling tech, so they're more or less equivalent-era units. With that said, you'll need a lot of them to take down promoted, fortified Riflemen in AI cities, unless (again) you're willing to wait for siege support.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Sure, also there's a bunch of units that are "doing just fine" against Longbows (smallprint: during an Engineering rush after sending the Trebs in)

Given enough artillery spearmen will beat tanks.

 

[TheBirdMan]

Given enough artillery spearmen will beat tanks.

Only a human would try that.


But in the real world, we have "seen" something close to it. The Zulus against the british in South Africa in 1879. Or early in the Etiopians defend against Italys army in 1895 and again in 1936..

 

[TheBirdMan]

And BTW:

Don't tell me the africans didn't have artillery...... They have had it for milleniums

 

[PPQ_Purple]

But in the real world, we have "seen" something close to it. The Zulus against the british in South Africa in 1879. Or early in the Etiopians defend against Italys army in 1895 and again in 1936..

Actually Etiopia had quite a modern army for its time in the 1870's. They most definitively were not going up against the Italians with spears. In the 30's not so much. But than, that's why they lost.

 

[Lennier]

I guess the point was Cavs are never really obsolete, they can beat Infantry on open field and are doing fine as support units at minimum until they can be upgraded to Gunships.

Do you actually build cavalry once infantry is available, or just keep them around for support? Yes, combat-4 or 5 commando cavs are great to take nuked cities (or snag workers), so I'm not going to delete cavs just because I have access to infantry. But I'm not going to dump hammers into very many after infantry is available. And there are a number of other support roles for your surviving cavs to do.

 

[civac]

Fair enough. They are obsolete in that you will hardly build anymore after having access to infantry. Commando cavs being one exception. The existing cavs are still fine though. They are also better against MGs than infantry.

 

[Fippy]

Do you actually build cavalry once infantry is available, or just keep them around for support? Yes, combat-4 or 5 commando cavs are great to take nuked cities (or snag workers), so I'm not going to delete cavs just because I have access to infantry. But I'm not going to dump hammers into very many after infantry is available. And there are a number of other support roles for your surviving cavs to do.

I have won deity conquest games (normal speed, no help from Mara etc) with Cavs where the last AIs already had Infantry, so yup that is correct i did continue building them.
They are an overall amazing unit with their withdrawal chance & pinch already after 2 promos (so always), and honestly if i have 50+ of them in my stack i am not afraid of Infs.
Efficient? I dunno, but fun.

 

[krikav]

WIth enough numbers, anything is possible.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/nobles-club-271-peter-of-russia.667982/page-2#post-16041039

That aside, Cavalery promoted with charge is something I use to counter machineguns frequently.

And to answer the original question, they are much closer to rifles/grenadiers than infantry for me, in almost all games.
Some games with alot of naval shuffling, I don't build mounted at all, in which case I build them closer to infantry if I build them at all, just because it's so handy to have at least some two-movers in the stack.