Armored Fighting Vehicles (Tanks) evolution path

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Here is basic premise
1. Cavalry (including ones using repeating carbine rifle (eventually shares the same lenghts, some service boltaction repeaters began productions without musket lenght variations (Enfield SMLE, Springfield 1903, Mannlicher Carcano)) has options either to remain the same horse cavalry they were (earns same tech powerups as Infantry as the game goes), or becomes
- Armored Cavalry (Comprised of light tanks, particularly those capable of fighting other tanks but sorely bad against cities)
- Medium Tanks (Good against infantry without AT support*)
2. Upgrade paths
- Armored Cavalry may becomes
A. Air Cavalry (Helicopters)
B. Modern Mechanized Infantry/ Mobile Infantry (Ones that used IFV since 1960s)
C. Main Battle Tank.
- Medium Tanks only upgraded to MBT

Here's discussion
1. In addition of being Cavalry evolution path (Assumed that 'Light' and 'Heavy' Cavalry now converged to Line Cavalry of 18th Century). Should Medium Tanks began its evolutionary path as Landship too? (Slow (as fast as a man's pacing at best), hard hitting.)
And if Landship is to join the game. this unit should be separate built and not an upgrade.

2. And if Mechas (large combat waker, AKA Giant Death Robot) is not going to be the final units of this evolution path. (There's very good reason not to follow Japanese Scifi anime that turned the entire world nuts. modern 'Fire and forget' ordnances (guided missiles, smartguns like GPS assisted Gun Howitzer that Ukraine used 'lend lease' weaponry against Russian invasion in this ongoing war, or other kind of guided ordnances) not only being very accurate, but also 'ignores armor' as well. there's discussions even cited that the GDR will be something akin to Superdreadnoughts if ones has been built anytime in the near future (too vulnerable to be of any real use while cheaper weapons are more practical against these thing as well as something else).
What should it be?
This 'Tank'?

or what else??

 

[mdl5000]

I would say:
cavalry > light > medium > heavy > main battle tank
light tanks will have better defense against infantry and machine guns, but will still be slower than cavalry, as a trade-off. one might be better for a civ than the other.
medium tanks will basically be better in every respect.
heavy tanks will be slower but more powerful still.
the main battle tank will be functionally the same as a heavy tank but will have better defense against antitank weapons.

"air cavalry" is more of an American term, if I remember, so perhaps the American civ can upgrade their cavalry to tanks and then to helicopters for essentially free

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

While tank units took traditions and titles and officers from the horse cavalry, how much of the horse cavalry's functions they inherited depended on which military they were in.
Most of the traditional cavalry's roles of pursuit, reconnaissance, and screening were actually taken up by the Light Tanks or, even more often, by Armored Cars after 1918, and it was this 'Armored Cavalry" that became Air Cavalry or helicopter-borne forces in the US Army.
The other set of traditional roles was the older function of Battle Cavalry - charging the enemy to break him on the battlefield, historically the role of heavier, armored cavalry on big horses. Those tank forces most closely associated with the previous horse cavalry were the ones that most often incorporated this action, like the British tank units almost all formed from horse cavalry regiments, and it was almost universally disastrous.
The Non-Traditional role of tanks was in direct infantry support, which was the original role of the Land Battleships in WWI: infantry, it had been found by ghastly practice, could not advance in the face of machinegun fire without help, and armored vehicles moving ahead of the infantry to destroy the machineguns with their own machineguns and light cannon was one of the more successful solutions. This was something Horse Cavalry almost never did: if they helped the infantry, it was by operating separately against the enemy flanks, not by advancing with the infantry.

The problem with these roles is that they all conflicted in the physical characteristics they demanded from the tanks and the organization of tank units that resulted. To support infantry heavy armor was required, but not speed: infantry support tanks tended to be not much faster than a man could walk and carried mostly machineguns and very light cannon with high explosive rounds, not antitank weapons. "Pursuit" or 'cavalry' tanks were light, lightly armored, very fast, with relatively long range. One Soviet officer, speaking of the US M3 light tank that exemplified this type (13 tons weight, 40mm of armor, a 37mm gun, but a top speed of over 70 kilometers per hour) put it succinctly: "It's a very nice tank, but it can't fight."

In organization, the light 'cavalry' tanks tended to be in reconnaissance units (motorized or armored), or units no bigger than regiments or brigades as screening and advanced forces. Support tanks tended to be under the infantry control ancd in units no bigger than battalions to be directly assigned to larger infantry units.

The Outlier to all of this was the German Army, which had come up with another solution to making the infantry advance: concentrate all the firepower possible to suppress the enemy machineguns, and have the infantry advance as fast as possible to disrupt the enemy defense in its entire depth. Therefore, they wanted tanks that could both carry heavier weapons forward than a man on foot could (easy to do, even with a light tank) and also move fast enough to overrun the entire enemy defense before the enemy could react. They also firmly believed that no force could successfully advance or defend unless it included everything it needed: not only infantry to support the tanks, but engineers to clear away obstacles or build obstacles where required, and artillery to smash enemy positions too big and tough for the tanks to handle on their own. The Panzer Division was not a tank unit (after the initial experiments), it was a Combined Arms unit in which all the elements were included: infantry, scouts, engineers, artillery, to help the tanks accomplish whatever mission they were given.

So, Tanks should be divided as follows:
Light Cavalry becomes Armored Cars, a distinctive name and unit that combines all the light armored vehicles. They should be the fastest ground units in the game, because their function is to move fast, disrupt enemy movement, seize important points, but their Combat Factors, though obviously much better than horse cavalry, will not be particularly overwhelming compared to contemporary non-tank units.
Landships were strictly siege units: they were slower than regular infantry (because they broke down constantly and their top speed was slower than a man can run). Unless you were facing deep and permanent Fortifications (i.e., the Western Front 1915 - 1918) they are pretty useless, and should probably only be a Special Unit or UU in the game.
Medium Tanks were the first real 'different' tank unit. Starting in the late 1930s, with vehicles like the German Pz IV, Soviet T-34, French SOMUA, tanks were built that had decent speed (40 - 50 kph), were armored against all infantry and light antitank weapons, and carried Cannon with good high-explosive capabilities (75 - 76mm). These were the vehicles that, combined with infantry, artillery, engineers, antitank and antiaircraft units that were all motorized or better yet, armored , formed the Panzer, tank, armored division and corps that defined offensive actions throughout World War Two and the immediate post-war period.
During the post-war period from 1945 to 1960 roughly, they got progressively bigger (30 - 35 tons in 1945 to 50 - 55 tons in the 1950s) better armed (76 - 85mm guns in 1945 to 90 - 100mm in the late 1950s) and much better protected (average 75 - 100mm armor in 1945, 150 - 250mm armor by 1958) - but their function, purpose and organization remained the same.
In 1959 - 1964 the first Main Battle Tanks appeared - the US M60 and Soviet T-64. They combined the armor and firepower of a heavy tank (105 - 125mm cannon with rangefinders) with the mobility and range of a medium tank, and became the standard for tanks other than specialized light vehicles for the next 60 - 65 years. This is the real "Modern Armor" so beloved of the Civ designers. Latest upgrades and design concepts include missile and anti-missile systems, night vision, fire on the move capabilities, composite and/or reactive armor, and most recently drones and other UAVs carried by the tanks themselves.
The next likely development (Near Future) for tanks will be smaller vehicles, made so by taking out the crew and replacing them with Autonomous AI systems. Several nations have experimented with these already. Bigger tanks, with 140mm main guns and weighing well over 60 tons, have been designed and even elements of them tested, but none have gone into production and are not likely to given the vulnerability of all large armored vehicles demonstrated in Ukraine in 2022: as part of a combined arms team now including missile artillery, guided weapons, UAVs and including extensive Stealth capabilities for survival, the current basic MBTs with upgrades are probably sufficient.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

If 'Light' and 'Heavy' Cavalry has been converged in Industrial Era (or Imperial Era if there's an extra era to add more units). what will there be solutions?
And what should successor to MBT looks like if these are going to be smaller than MBT and unmanned.
and names please? UGV? or Tankbot? or Robotankette?
And armaments these things carry? I don't think it will be the same big guns MBT carries or is it?

 

[Evie]

Why would light and heavy be merged though? It seems both went on existing.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Why would light and heavy be merged though? It seems both went on existing.

as separate entity huh?
if 1UPT Rules is used. ... Historically distinctions beween 'Light' and 'Heavy' cavanry became blurred in the Early Modern Era. at this time firearms became more prominent as primary weaponry for Infantry and Cavalry. while there's still clear cut between 'light', and 'heavy' cavalry in 16th Century. as follows..
Light Cavalry: Lancers type
- Hobilars (British isles and Irish)
- Ginettes (Iberians: Spanish and Portuguese)
- Cossacks (Eastern Europe particularly Ukrainians and Russians)
- Malon Rider (Mapuche)
- Sipahi (Turks, maybe 'heavy' as well)
- Stratiotai (Greeks or Armenians, they may not neccessary be lancers)
Light Cavary: Mounted Swordsman
- Croats (Croatia, actually mercs that works for both Austrians and French. A type of neckwear (Cravat) that symbolize Enlightenment Era originated from this people as French hired these mercs too)
- Hussars (Hungarian. first employed by Austrians, and later hired by everyone else in Europe, eventually the lable is used to refer to ultralight raider cavalry regardless of recruit stocks and this included domestically raised units... EVEN US Army has Hussars unit but they're gunslingers actually)
Light Cavalry: Firearms
- Harquebusier and Banderiers, (Both of which armed with short muskets and can shoot from horseback)
- Carabiniers (Same as above but may carry rifled weapons, note that 'carbines' originally means rifled firearms because it needs to have shorter barrel than usual so to load easily while rifling made barrel lenghts less neccessary)
- Pistolier (I'm not sure if light pistoliers did exists)
- Dragoons*

Heavy Cavalry: Lancers
- Man at arms/ Gendarme: (France and maybe others), basically late medieval knights reorganized into elements of permanent standing army, they were indeed recruited from 'Knight caste' but becomes salaryman subjected to government authority and not his overlords. more capable in foreign campaigns than medieval predecessors.
Other terms referring to the same unit: Demilancers
- Sipahi (Turks, maybe 'lights' as well)
- Gusars (Polish winged Hussars, also came from Hungary)

Heavy Cavalry: Pistoliers
- Reiter: (Germany) The earliest such heavy cavalry. also Mercs
- Cuirassier: One step evolution from Heavy Lancers.
By 17th C, the distinction began to fade as Gustavus Adolphus had to make do with available resources in 30 Years War. since cuirassiers are very expensive to field and thus only rich countries could do that in significant numbers. he had to instruct lighter cavalry (Harquebusiers, and Finnish Hakkapellitas) to charge enemies at full trot just like his available cuirassiers. and it proved successful so distinctions between 'light' and 'heavy' cavalry began to fade since then.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Evie, to answer your specific comment, yes, the armies kept on making distinctions between light (Uhlans, Lancers, Hussars, Light Dragoons) and Heavy (Cuirassiers, Carabiniers, Heavy Dragoons) right up to the beginning of the 20th century, and units and armies were very jealous and protective of their distinctive titles and uniforms and traditions.
BUT
Once everybody on the battlefield had rifled weapons (roughly, about 1860, or mid to late Industrial Era), the functional distinctions began to disappear, along with some of the equipment and weapon distinctions. The German Army famously armed all of its cavalrymen, regardless of their title, with lances late in the 19th century (and, by the way, kept them so armed until the beginning of the 1930s, a triumph of traditionalism over realism!) - but they also carried rifled carbines, and guess which weapon they actually used more? The cuirass disappeared except for ceremonial parades, because it gave no protection against a rifle bullet and nobody was getting close enough to bang on it futilely with a sword.
When they went into battle in 1914, all cavalry in every modern army pretty much acted the same way: they were Big Targets until they got off their horses and used their carbines and rifles just like regular infantry, and where they were useful during the war it was to move rapidly on horseback to someplace important and then hold it as dismounted infantry (in Eastern Europe and Palestine) - basically, Everybody with a horse became what was earlier called Dragoons, moving mounted but fighting dismounted.

The distinctions re-appeared when the cavalry began to convert to Armor: "light" cavalry actually accepted the new machinery better than "heavy" cavalry units, because the traditional light cavalry role was scouting, screening, pursuit and other 'off the battlefield' jobs, and armored cars and light tanks (once they got reliable enough) could do all of those much better (and faster) than anybody on a horse. The heavy cavalry had the problem that they were obsessed with the Great Battlefield Charge, preferably waving a sabre, which looked pretty silly from the hatch of a tank. Infamously, the US Army cavalry arm flatly refused any role that required them to give up their horses, so the US Army's Armor Branch was formed with Zero formal input from the old Cavalry Branch: the cavalry branch was simply disbanded as having lost all credibility to modern warfare, and all the cavalry units were converted to Armored Cavalry - light tanks and armored cars.

IF the game simply kept light and heavy cavalry right up to the start of the transformation into Armor but kept their mobility very similar, and the increased combat factor of rifles was also modeled accurately, the IRL events would be pretty closely modeled. That would show that, as actually happened, mounted cavalry became increasingly irrelevant on the battlefield throughout the 19th century because they could not survive in the face of the new firepower: von Bredow famously charged and overran enemy artillery twice in 1866 and 1870, but both actions were referred to as "Death Rides" because of what happened to the cavalry units that participated - and very few other troopers even tried it.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, that's more or less my thinking, that they should remain two cav units that at one point are (briefly) pretty similar in capacities, but that remain in separate upgrade lines because their stated purpose remain different and their equipment and capacities will soon diverge again.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yeah, that's more or less my thinking, that they should remain two cav units that at one point are (briefly) pretty similar in capacities, but that remain in separate upgrade lines because their stated purpose remain different and their equipment and capacities will soon diverge again.

While I think the 'categories' used in Civ VI need some revision, I also think keeping some kind of categorization of units is a lot better than having variations in relative effects by individual unit throughout the game, which would probably require that we all play with a split screen, one side the game map and one side a database of all the variety of units.
Consequently, assuming this view is acceptable, we also need to keep the categories reasonably consistent, and not have them randomly converging and diverging from Era to Era or at various Singularity points. Hence my take on the cavalry, which realistically could all be converged into one unit type for about a century, but then diverges again into Light and Battle armored units: why bother with extra complexity for what amounts to a single (partial) Era?
Don't everybody go all faint on me, but sometimes I do back the Simpler Solution . . .

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

While I think the 'categories' used in Civ VI need some revision, I also think keeping some kind of categorization of units is a lot better than having variations in relative effects by individual unit throughout the game, which would probably require that we all play with a split screen, one side the game map and one side a database of all the variety of units.
Consequently, assuming this view is acceptable, we also need to keep the categories reasonably consistent, and not have them randomly converging and diverging from Era to Era or at various Singularity points. Hence my take on the cavalry, which realistically could all be converged into one unit type for about a century, but then diverges again into Light and Battle armored units: why bother with extra complexity for what amounts to a single (partial) Era?
Don't everybody go all faint on me, but sometimes I do back the Simpler Solution . . .

And then again. regarding to Civ6 two different 'cavalries' of Earlymodern and Industrial Era. What Civ6 'Cavalry' as unit correctly listed as 'Light' Cavalry? If Cuirassiers* in Civ6 GS is sorely misplaced and wrongfully modelled. If you cited that distinctions between 'Light' and 'Heavy' cavalry no longer exists in 18th-19th Century (since 1740s when King Frederick II of Prussia demanded every 'lighter' cavalrymen to charge like Cuirassiers) i'm not sure if there's still distinctions left by then?... if so then 'Cavalry' in this sense now means 'Heavy Cavalry' that by 1740s doesn't neccessary wear armor, just ride heavy horses is enough distinctions because Kinetic Energy impacts generated by big horses are much stronger when chargings right?
In this setting. this also problematics because it doesn't apply to US Army. There 'may be' American 'Cuirassiers' in Early modern era (As colonists subject to London authorities) but there are no heavy cavalry of any kind in North American theatres since 1700s (War of Spanish Succession, which also fought on North America as well), what should be the name of 'Light' variations of the same era? Dragoons?? Hussars (There were no 'Cuirassiers in North America but there are 'Homegorwn Hussars' instead, both in Canada and USA)

*historically Cuirassiers began as Earlymodern 'knights' wielding dual pistols in place of couched lance and shield (originally German wheellocks, then various proto-flintlocks and later simplified 'true flintlocks', percussion caps (included those easily converted flintlocks) and the final evolution would be... of course... cowboy revolvers). same big horse but no bardings nor caparisons nor horse armor of any kind.

^ I'm not sure about this wheellock weapon but narration said it was a kind of carbine capable of horseback action and wield by 'Light Cavalry' (Harquebusiers and Banderies--the two that are organized as Cavalry from the beginning, and no Dragoons which usually wields bigger guns because they didn't generally fight on horseback, and originally organized as 'Infantry')

 

[BuchiTaton]

It depends of the design philosophy wanted for militar units in game. I see two extremes, A) More complex and variable net of paths with many unique roles avaible to all civs. or B) Simplified and clear roles plus unique units avaible from CIV, CS, Resources, types of Goverments, Religions, etc.
As an exercise of the second perspective:

	RECON	IRREGULAR	MELEE	RANGE	CAVALRY	SIEGE
IX	XCOM		Augmented Infantry	Ground X Vehicle	Vertical Lift Assault Aircraft	Hypersonic Glided Vehicle
VIII		Guerrilla	Assault Infantry	Main Battle Tank	Anti-Tank Helicopter	Multi-Rocket Launcher
VII	Commando		Shock Infantry	Heavy Tank	Attack Helicopter	Self-Propeled Gun
VI		Militia	Rifleman	Cannon	Dragoon	Howitzer
V	Adventurer		Musketeer	Culverin	Cuirassier	Mortar
IV		Levie	Pikeman	Arbalist	Knight	Trebuchet
III	Raider		Swordman	Bowman	Cataphract	Onager
II		Commoner	Axeman	Slinger	Chariot	Ram
I	Scout		Clubman

In this model Unique Units are not just the replacement of a regular unit, but a new unit with their own characteristics.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Where's Spearman in 'Melee' class (Which how can have 'Built in' Anticavalry as well). ?

 

[BuchiTaton]

^ Where's Spearman in 'Melee' class (Which how can have 'Built in' Anticavalry as well). ?

Well, reducing the number of role lines ended with a basic "Rock-Paper-Scissors" in the battlefield as "Melee-Range-Cavalry", so Melee and Anticavalry fused like also Light and Heavy cavalries did.

 

[Evie]

Not the biggest fan of reducing battlefields to a rock paper scissors but I need not be...

But I will say that in that perspective, spearman should really replace the axeman as the level II infantry. Axe-based fighters were never particularly common, whereas the spear has been the most ubiquitous of military weapons before firearms, and the (very terribly no good) idea that the spear is an anti-cavalry weapon is really, really wrong.

As for light and heavy cavalry recombining: the fundamental problem is that being hyperrealistic in the 18th century (by having only one cavalry type) require you to have an unrealistic XXth century.

The game mechanisms donot support having it both ways. It does not allow for a perfectly realistic unit list, because it does not allow you to demerge the lines once merged, but that's exactly what happened historically.

What you want to do cannot be done.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Not the biggest fan of reducing battlefields to a rock paper scissors but I need not be...

But I will say that in that perspective, spearman should really replace the axeman as the level II infantry. Axe-based fighters were never particularly common, whereas the spear has been the most ubiquitous of military weapons before firearms, and the (very terribly no good) idea that the spear is an anti-cavalry weapon is really, really wrong.

Definitively the examples of the table are not the best representation of historical warfare, there are also a note of visual recognition design. For example:
1- Clubman would use a wood carved club holded with both hands, with a beating animation.
2- Axeman would use a bronze axe, one handed chopping animation.
3- Swordman, one hand iron sword, with chopp and thrust animation.
4- Pikeman, two handed "fancy" pike.
Each unit have a very different weapon and animation to make them very recognitable.

Now talking about the old and trustworthy spear, the Irregular line represent that masses of poor trained support units with simple spears.

 

[Evie]

Ahhhhh, I see the logic there. It's not what I'd do but it makes sense!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Definitively the examples of the table are not the best representation of historical warfare, there are also a note of visual recognition design. For example:
1- Clubman would use a wood carved club holded with both hands, with a beating animation.
2- Axeman would use a bronze axe, one handed chopping animation.
3- Swordman, one hand iron sword, with chopp and thrust animation.
4- Pikeman, two handed "fancy" pike.
Each unit have a very different weapon and animation to make them very recognitable.

Now talking about the old and trustworthy spear, the Irregular line represent that masses of poor trained support units with simple spears.

The earliest 'club', in the form of a polished stone fastened to the end of a wooden 'handle', is a one-handed weapon (evidence from Catal Huyok, about 7000 BCE). The earliest actual pictorial of this weapon is on a Canaanite/Sumerian warrior shown with stone-headed club or mace and thrusting spear from about 3500 BCE
The 'axe' is basically a Bronze development, although earlier 'axe-like' concoctions were made out of wooden handles with obsidian or flint blades on them. The bronze axes are either one or two-handed, and the iconic Chinese 'dagger-axe' (ko) was a two-handed weapon, to which by the Shang Dynasty a point had been added to make a primitive Halberd.
So, I would reverse the animations: one handed for the club/mace, two handed for the Axe.

The Spear is another ancient weapon, shown on a fresco from Pre-Dynastic Egypt as well as early Mesopotamia. But the first indication of the spear with a shield held by men in a regular formation - that is, having both anti-cavalry and anti-anybody else who tries to get past all the pointy ends - dates from 2600 BCE, the beginning of the Bronze Age in Mesopotamia. That makes a distinctive Spear Unit that Civ has used since Ferever correct as to placement - Bronze tech - but too limited in effect: as stated, the Spear was the basic unit for the bulk of warriors who had any intention of getting close to the enemy. It's no accident that the ancient phrase was not "won by the sword" but "won by the Spear".

 

[BuchiTaton]

The earliest 'club', in the form of a polished stone fastened to the end of a wooden 'handle', is a one-handed weapon (evidence from Catal Huyok, about 7000 BCE). The earliest actual pictorial of this weapon is on a Canaanite/Sumerian warrior shown with stone-headed club or mace and thrusting spear from about 3500 BCE
The 'axe' is basically a Bronze development, although earlier 'axe-like' concoctions were made out of wooden handles with obsidian or flint blades on them. The bronze axes are either one or two-handed, and the iconic Chinese 'dagger-axe' (ko) was a two-handed weapon, to which by the Shang Dynasty a point had been added to make a primitive Halberd.
So, I would reverse the animations: one handed for the club/mace, two handed for the Axe.

The Spear is another ancient weapon, shown on a fresco from Pre-Dynastic Egypt as well as early Mesopotamia. But the first indication of the spear with a shield held by men in a regular formation - that is, having both anti-cavalry and anti-anybody else who tries to get past all the pointy ends - dates from 2600 BCE, the beginning of the Bronze Age in Mesopotamia. That makes a distinctive Spear Unit that Civ has used since Ferever correct as to placement - Bronze tech - but too limited in effect: as stated, the Spear was the basic unit for the bulk of warriors who had any intention of getting close to the enemy. It's no accident that the ancient phrase was not "won by the sword" but "won by the Spear".

The selection of a bigger two-handed wooden warclub over a smaller single-handed stone head warclub also have a visual reason. One handed warclub let the other hand idle while two-handed warclub provide a more powerful stand. The base model for these two-handed wooden warclubs are the Polynesian and Caribe-Tupian ones. Also the lack of the stone part avoid confuse it with metal.

About poleaxes certainly there were famous examples in ancient Egypt and China, but single hand bronze axes were also pretty common and usually combined with a shield in the other hand. For example in Far East the use of shields went in disuse later so a Shang or Yayoi warrior with shield and one-hand axe would feel more unique versus the later two-handed blade-pike polearm. Even Andean and Mesoamerican cultures achieved to used bronze axes plus shields.

The general animations transition is Beat>Chop>Slice>Thrust and 2>1>1>2 for a higger feeling of change and differentiation. Spear is also a cheap and very straight forward weapon (*) that is why I see it as the perfect option for the first two "Irregular" units. Those units should have a simple looking attire, so when you reach the medieval professional and fancy looking Pikeman the difference would be notorious despite both use a polearm.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Return to Earlymodern and Industrial Era. regarding toCavalry evolution paths...
Civ6.. if Light and Heavy cavalry did TEMPORARLY converge in Industrial Era (? 1740 when Frederick II of Prussia instructed all cavalry units (regardless of names, labels and original or optimal functions) to charge enemy full like Cuirassiers. This trend actually began a century ago by Swedes King Gustavus Adolphus, having lighter cavalry (harquebusiers and hakapellitas) to charge like heavyweight ones.
What should be 'Light Cavalry' units of Earlymodern era? if 'Heavy' choice is Cuirassiers (that should wear more armor and wield pistols and not carbines)
- Harquebusier
- Dragoon *
- Hussars ??
- Light Horse (Successor to Coursers, still lancer or mounted swordsmen)
And what about Industrial era ones?
And what 'Cavalry' of Industrial era should represent? Line Cavalry as invented by Frederick II of Prussia? or remain 'light' cavalry as it is now...
- If 'Cavalry' unit becomes' Heavy' what should be the name of 'Light' cavalry of the same era? (Dragoon? Carabinier? Hussars? (there were domestically raised Hussars in many countries that can neither hire, nor has Hungarian populations there) Mounted Rifles or what?)
- If 'Cavalry' remains 'light' what should be the name of 'Heavy' variants of the same era if Cuirassiers shouldn't be? .... Heavy Horse or what?
And what to do with Dragoons? when should this unit shown up? (Earlymodern or Industrial)

 

[Evie]

I'm not sure about names, but I have a suggestion to make.

Light Cavalry :
Dragoons (Early Modern) -> Cavalry (Industrial) -> Armored Cavalry -> Air Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry:
Cuirassier (Early Modern) -> no Industrial upgrade -> Medium Armor (or Tanks) -> Main Battle Tanks

Having the Heavy Cavalry line *not* get a unit in the Industrial era can serve to represent the merging of roles between heavy and light cavalry - that way, the Cavalry and Cuirassier unit would probably have pretty similar stats thanks to the Cavalry being one Era more modern than the Cuirassier, before diverging again when the next upgrade line (Medium Armor and Armored Cavalry) rolls around.