Armored Fighting Vehicles (Tanks) evolution path

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. Even the earlier dragoons are sometimes shown with the 'floppy' tailed cap. The major consideration is that the graphic should be Distinctive and as close to unmistakable as we can make it. The French dragoons, unlike many others, were distinctive - no confusing tricorns or helmets that could get them mistaken for ordinary cavalry or cuirassiers later.
2. Dragoons were always armed with some kind of carbine or short musket and were supposed to be able to fight on foot (even if they became less likely to do so as time went on) so none of the Anti-Cavalry bonuses apply when facing them. Since for much of their existence they were on inferior horses and not trained or expected to charge, their 'firepower' somewhat compensates for what would otherwise be ridiculously low combat factors compared to other contemporary 'real' Cavalry.

Exceptions to these general rules, like the British Heavy Dragoons, Frederick II's Prussian Dragoons or the US Army's early cavalry which did charge effectively, are best shown as UUs or as variations on the Heavy Cavalry (which is what Fred's dragoons and the Heavy Dragoons really were in use and function).

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. Even the earlier dragoons are sometimes shown with the 'floppy' tailed cap. The major consideration is that the graphic should be Distinctive and as close to unmistakable as we can make it. The French dragoons, unlike many others, were distinctive - no confusing tricorns or helmets that could get them mistaken for ordinary cavalry or cuirassiers later.
2. Dragoons were always armed with some kind of carbine or short musket and were supposed to be able to fight on foot (even if they became less likely to do so as time went on) so none of the Anti-Cavalry bonuses apply when facing them. Since for much of their existence they were on inferior horses and not trained or expected to charge, their 'firepower' somewhat compensates for what would otherwise be ridiculously low combat factors compared to other contemporary 'real' Cavalry.

Exceptions to these general rules, like the British Heavy Dragoons, Frederick II's Prussian Dragoons or the US Army's early cavalry which did charge effectively, are best shown as UUs or as variations on the Heavy Cavalry (which is what Fred's dragoons and the Heavy Dragoons really were in use and function).

1. Ain't that the same caps as French Grenadiers of the same time? And about carbines Dragoons carry. should it be flintlocks or matchlocks particularly this is Earlymodern Unit
2. And Dragoon enabling tech please. Same as ones that activates Pike and Shotte? (Firearms. I don't really agree with Metal Castings being enabling tech)
3. Did US Army of early days have heavy chargers cavalry comparabe to Cuirassiers? What are they? the same Lightdragoons or militia cavalry of some sort?
(Historically US Army cavalrymen are gunny. they were even the first to adopt repeating pistols--Walker Colt Revolver)

4.

And regarding to Dragoons as Light cav evolution path. What to do with Standard Civ6 'Cavalry' of Industrial Era if you cited that Cuirassiers of Earlymodern has no successor in Industrial Era but will become Medium Tanks in Modern Era.

Cavalry (Civ6)

Back to the list of units The Cavalry is an Industrial Era light cavalry unit in Civilization VI. It upgrades from the Horseman (or its replacements, except for the Hetairoi) or the Malón Raider and requires Horses. In the Gathering Storm expansion, the Cavalry primarily upgrades from the...

civilization.fandom.com

Particularly vulnerability VS Anticavalry. Should it resume? and how to balance out if so?
And what to do with Cossacks in Civ6? (Since they did NOT replace any standard cavs in Imperial Russian Army since Peter I recruited them. Russian Army did also field generic cavalry force in addition to Cossacks).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. Ain't that the same caps as French Grenadiers of the same time? And about carbines Dragoons carry. should it be flintlocks or matchlocks particularly this is Earlymodern Unit
2. And Dragoon enabling tech please. Same as ones that activates Pike and Shotte? (Firearms. I don't really agree with Metal Castings being enabling tech)
3. Did US Army of early days have heavy chargers cavalry comparabe to Cuirassiers? What are they? the same Lightdragoons or militia cavalry of some sort?
(Historically US Army cavalrymen are gunny. they were even the first to adopt repeating pistols--Walker Colt Revolver)

4.

And regarding to Dragoons as Light cav evolution path. What to do with Standard Civ6 'Cavalry' of Industrial Era if you cited that Cuirassiers of Earlymodern has no successor in Industrial Era but will become Medium Tanks in Modern Era.

Cavalry (Civ6)

Back to the list of units The Cavalry is an Industrial Era light cavalry unit in Civilization VI. It upgrades from the Horseman (or its replacements, except for the Hetairoi) or the Malón Raider and requires Horses. In the Gathering Storm expansion, the Cavalry primarily upgrades from the...

civilization.fandom.com

Particularly vulnerability VS Anticavalry. Should it resume? and how to balance out if so?
And what to do with Cossacks in Civ6? (Since they did NOT replace any standard cavs in Imperial Russian Army since Peter I recruited them. Russian Army did also field generic cavalry force in addition to Cossacks).

1. No. French grenadiers of the 17th century wore Fur caps with a smaller trailing 'bag' of cloth. Dragoon caps were all cloth. Grenadiers in general wore either fur hats of increasing size until they became the fur 'busbys' of the French Garde Imperiale at the end of the 18th century, or metal-fronted cloth or fur caps with elaborate designs on the metal front, even gilding.
2. I don't do Tech since I think any Tech Tree that I will ever play again has to be drastically revised from Civ VI's abomination.
3. US Army always used smaller horses than the big Cuirassier horses, but they also didn't weigh their men down with armor. Also, not only did they adopt the repeating pistol, they also were among the first to issue a rifled carbine or rifle to their mounted troops, the Hawken version of the Harper's Ferry Model 03 (1803), originally flintlock, later converted to percussion cap.
4. I suggest that any unit that carries over to the next Era with no other change should be subject to a Graphic-Only change: replace Cuirassiers with a Cavalry-like model, or replace an early 'Lobster' helmetted English Civil War-era Cuirassier with a late Napoleonic Cuirassier (similar to the model in the game now) for the Industrial Era.
5. I suggest that any Anti-Cavalry Bonus becomes redundant when everybody has rifled firearms - the old mechanic of something to keep enemy horses from running over you (spears, pikes, bayonets) is of no consequence when you can shoot the horses before they get within 200 meters of you. Anti-Armor bonuses against later armored vehicles should be the new Bonus applied from the Modern Era on, and having nothing to do with the earlier 'Anti-Cav Bonus', since it represents entirely different weapons against entirely different targets.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ That's modding direction to have Melee and Anticav merged into one category in Earlymodern Era. and that successors shouldn't have to fear charging horses particularly if you cited that 'Black powder riflemen of 1850s could easily hold their ground against cavalry charge of any kind as long as they didn't lose too much men against enemy cannon barrages (200 meters at maximum range is the range of 1850s Rifled musket used by riflemen of that era). Still what Unit_Cavalry of Industrial Era tries to represent IRL? Medium 'Line' Cavalry of the 1700-1840s or cavalry armed with rifled carbines of 1830s-1840s (and Napoleonic Uniforms were also worn by that time as well particularly on Mexican side-the US Army at that time chose Germanic style uniforms (Either Prussian, Austrian, or Bavarian, or combination of both) until 1850s when they switched to French Second Empire ones). and if Dragoons are not vulnerable to Pike and Shotte of 1500s or even Fusiliers of the 1680s and YET requires no RESOURCE_HORSE, what about its successor in Industrial era? (or Napoleonic graphic representation isn't appropriate but instead this CAVALRY (as successor to Dragoons) should look more Wildwest like in Civ5 so to reflect tactical shifts towards dismounted combats, which means the same invulnerability against such infantry can be saftly inherited)
And about differences between Horse cavalry and Mechanized cavs. it has alot to do with coding which in theory should not be big problem (in coding sense it has to do with Tag class that Horse cavalry and Mechanized iterations now use separate receptor class which Old anticavalry malus and New Antitank vulnerability are no longer shared). Should the same difference applies to Tankbuster promotion for Fighters as well that it shouldn't affect Pre-tank Heavycavalry much? Is it still easy to target Cuirassiers on fighter cockpit like targeting medium tanks from the same spot?

Tank Buster (Civ6)

Back to the list of promotions Tank Buster is a Tier III Promotion for air fighter units in Civilization VI. It requires Strafe. +17 Combat Strength against cavalry units. The last battles of World War I featured the first appearance of tanks, and generals soon sought a way to destroy these...

civilization.fandom.com

Just finished 17th-18th Century Dragoon floppycap. Is this what Dragoon looks like when mounted isn't it?

Below is preview (Photo only)

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

i would say that there could be an alternate evolution of tanks depending on the player's choices and the world they live in. suppose most of the world consisted of hilly or mountainous terrain. in that case, treads and wheels would be cast aside for legged machines- spider tanks, not japanese mecha. the drivetrain for a vehicle would change many things about it: the armor it can carry, the gun it can carry, its movement speed, where it can move best, and what terrain it gets an advantage on.

for instance, a spider legged tank would have less armor and the same attack as a treaded tank, as well as move slower- but it gets no movement speed decrease over hills. a hovertank has very fast speed but low armor and attack. and so on.

 

[Ozymandias]

The first Dragoons appeared about 70 years after the first Harquebussiers or Reiters (in 1618), and from the beginning were not regarded as 'cavalry' but as mounted infantrymen armed with full-sized arquebus or matchlock muskets.

Dragoons were indeed the first mounted/dismountable long arm gunpowder mounted troops, but "Reiters" are often directly associated with the caracole maneuver/tactic.

These Reiters (and, admittedly, terminology can quickly become problematic during this era) were cavalrymen armed with matchlock pistols. The "caracole" maneuver entailed these guys riding around in a circle, firing when they were closest to the enemy, and reloading as they went around the rest of the carousel circle ...

Let's just say that it wasn't a successful enough combo of firearms and horses for even the names to be much remembered.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Dragoons were indeed the first mounted/dismountable long arm gunpowder mounted troops, but "Reiters" are often directly associated with the caracole maneuver/tactic.

These Reiters (and, admittedly, terminology can quickly become problematic during this era) were cavalrymen armed with matchlock pistols. The "caracole" maneuver entailed these guys riding around in a circle, firing when they were closest to the enemy, and reloading as they went around the rest of the carousel circle ...

Let's just say that it wasn't a successful enough combo of firearms and horses for even the names to be much remembered.

As @Boris Gudenuf suggested earlier. Reiters began as 'Light Lancers'.. less armored but not without one (roughtly the same armor patterns as any pikemen at that time), but within few years they discarded lances in favor of pistols (newly invented weapons, noted that pistols reiters and later cavalrymen wield fires large calibre rounds. even the same musket rounds). Alternatively referred to as Pistoliers. pistols are used simply as substitutions to lances as it was supposed to be easy to use. and supposed to have a reasonable AP against Knights (at this time they were now called either Gendarmes or Demilancers. same armor and armored horses but now government salarymen rather than feudal landowners.)
The reasons Reiters has to be less armored is because they were originated in South Germany. and at that region expensive destreriers (or other similiarly big warhorses) aren't as much available as in France. (or elsewhere with extensive grain fields required to raise any kind of good breed horses), any cavalrymen had to make do with whatever horses available to them, even what considered 'Second Best' to French Gendarmes is the Best to these germans. and thus came different cavalry tactical approach so to match French Gendarmes.. Reiters tend to ride smaller horses compared to Knights and Gendarmes.
With this once pistols became available, they were undoubtly the first to use ones instead of knight lances. hoping to outdo them with firearms supposed AP capabilities.
When First Pistoliers appeared, they did NOT phase out Heavy Lancers immedieately even within their generation or lifetime. Demilancers/Gendarmes still being fieled for about a man's lifespan until these heavy armor men did the same thing as Reiters--dropped lances and totted guns. Why is it so slow to phase out Gendarmes (Knights in game terms)? ain't reiters/pistoliers THAT good or didn't horse pistols packed the same AP power these men expected?
Alternatively around the same time Reiters were first formed in South Germany. 'Mounted Arquebusiers' were invented in France (Harquebusiers) ... similiar units were supposedly raised by Italian CSes as well, but i'm not sure if they initially do dismounted cavalry action or horseback gunslingings? but within a man's lifetime they were converged with Reiters as well as other pistoliers (including rearmed Gendarmes) to become Cuirassiers.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Dragoons were indeed the first mounted/dismountable long arm gunpowder mounted troops, but "Reiters" are often directly associated with the caracole maneuver/tactic.

These Reiters (and, admittedly, terminology can quickly become problematic during this era) were cavalrymen armed with matchlock pistols. The "caracole" maneuver entailed these guys riding around in a circle, firing when they were closest to the enemy, and reloading as they went around the rest of the carousel circle ...

Let's just say that it wasn't a successful enough combo of firearms and horses for even the names to be much remembered.

The 'caracole' was one of several attempts to make use of the new-fangled gunpowder weapons while riding a horse. Like most of them (at least until reliable repeating pistols were invented and marketed by S. Colt) it was less than successful.
It was replaced by attempts to combine pistol fire with a mounted charge, which were almost equally unsuccessful since a mounted charge requires speed to make best use of the impetus of man and horse while getting any accuracy out of your single-shot pistol requires that you wait until the last moment to fire at close range and then get your sword out in the fraction of a second between firing and meeting the enemy (Montecucolli, an Austrian general of some reputation at the time, said the accurate range of a pistol was "the length of your own horse" meaning you had to fire no earlier than the moment when your horse's head was even with the enemy horse's head). Against enemies who were not distracted by fumbling pistol and sword and charged in at high speed, this tactic almost universally failed utterly. It got so bad that some of the best commanders, like Gustaphus of Sweden and John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) of England flatly forbade their troopers to use pistols.
The final straw of the pistols/charge combination was the Battle of Mollwitz in 1741, when Frederick of Prussia's cavalry attempted to fire pistols and was chased off the field by the Austrian cavalry who charged them swords in hand. Frederick was so incensed at the failure of his cavalry that he started major reforms, requiring them to train and practice at making long distance (up to a kilometer) controlled charges ending with a full speed closing with the enemy in regimental or brigade strength. They were so successful that everybody in Europe followed suit and pistols were relegated to use on guard duty or ceremonies until the next century.

 

[Patine]

There are some other advantages to this:
Dragoons from the late Renaissance on were also used for scouting, patrolling, raiding - all the 'traditional' Light Cavalry roles, making them the real functional successors to previous light cavalry.
All of Peter the Great's original Russian cavalry were Dragoons and the US Army cavalry first formed in the 1830s all had dragoon-type functions and training, so there are two potential UUs using the Dragoon unit as well.
Having them be 'one Era behind' also illustrates the Heavy Cavalry/Cuirassiers lack of Purpose in the Industrial Era - they clung desperately to the old role of charging Battle Cavalry, but were woefully inadequate at it in the face of rifled artillery and infantry with massed rifles.
Medium Armor I would call Medium Tanks, representing the 20 - 30 ton vehicles with effective high explosive firepower, but that's a quibble: the nomenclature should primarily reflect what the game calls both the light and heavy 'cavalry' line of upgrades.

France and Austria-Hungary still had notable Cuiassier/Kurassier corps going into WW1, I remember reading, and the latter still had a lot of Hungarian Hussars. Then Captain (right from Lieutenant) George Patton went practically right from chasing Poncho Villa's bandits in the Border War on horseback to commander of the American Tank Company (using French and British tanks) under the AEF in Europe, and came to see armour as the wave of the future he wanted to ride the crest, something that very much motivated how he conducted his command, strategy, and views as a General in WW2, and his lobbying, with varying degrees of success, for reform of the U.S. Army in the Interwar period.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

France and Austria-Hungary still had notable Cuiassier/Kurassier corps going into WW1, I remember reading, and the latter still had a lot of Hungarian Hussars. Then Captain (right from Lieutenant) George Patton went practically right from chasing Poncho Villa's bandits in the Border War on horseback to commander of the American Tank Company (using French and British tanks) under the AEF in Europe, and came to see armour as the wave of the future he wanted to ride the crest, something that very much motivated how he conducted his command, strategy, and views as a General in WW2, and his lobbying, with varying degrees of success, for reform of the U.S. Army in the Interwar period.

I believe there were over 100 Cavalry Divisions in the armies of the major belligerents in Europe when the war started in 1914. That means over 300 Cavalry Regiments, almost all of which still carried titles dating back to the 18th century at least: hussars, uhlans, dragoons, cuirassiers, Carabiniers, etc. And the attitude of most of the officers in the cavalry can be summed up in the saying that circulated among German cavalry officers before the war:
First there is the Kaiser, then the cavalry officer,
and then the cavalry officer's horse.
After that there is Nothing,
and after Nothing the infantry officer.

In their actual use, though, you'd be hard put to find any difference among them: light, heavy, Cuirassier, Uhlan, Cossack, etc, they all carried sabers or swords and thought they'd get a chance to use them if they just charged fast enough and caught the enemy looking the other way. Didn't happen enough to make a difference.

Major mechanization/motorization of the horse cavalry didn't really take place until the mid 1930s and later: like the rest of the armies, the horsemen simply kept trying to pretend that WWI Never Happened. Heck, the German Army, which was required to have 3 cavalry divisions by the Versailles Treaty, still issued lances to them until 1932!
In game terms, this is all like keeping your favorite Heavy Chariot unit around until the Atomic Age and expecting it to survive combat with anything from the later Eras . . .

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The 'caracole' was one of several attempts to make use of the new-fangled gunpowder weapons while riding a horse. Like most of them (at least until reliable repeating pistols were invented and marketed by S. Colt) it was less than successful.
It was replaced by attempts to combine pistol fire with a mounted charge, which were almost equally unsuccessful since a mounted charge requires speed to make best use of the impetus of man and horse while getting any accuracy out of your single-shot pistol requires that you wait until the last moment to fire at close range and then get your sword out in the fraction of a second between firing and meeting the enemy (Montecucolli, an Austrian general of some reputation at the time, said the accurate range of a pistol was "the length of your own horse" meaning you had to fire no earlier than the moment when your horse's head was even with the enemy horse's head). Against enemies who were not distracted by fumbling pistol and sword and charged in at high speed, this tactic almost universally failed utterly. It got so bad that some of the best commanders, like Gustaphus of Sweden and John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) of England flatly forbade their troopers to use pistols.
The final straw of the pistols/charge combination was the Battle of Mollwitz in 1741, when Frederick of Prussia's cavalry attempted to fire pistols and was chased off the field by the Austrian cavalry who charged them swords in hand. Frederick was so incensed at the failure of his cavalry that he started major reforms, requiring them to train and practice at making long distance (up to a kilometer) controlled charges ending with a full speed closing with the enemy in regimental or brigade strength. They were so successful that everybody in Europe followed suit and pistols were relegated to use on guard duty or ceremonies until the next century.

1. And thus is this the reasons why 'Gendarmes' (Knights in game terms, but being government owned salarymen rather than landowners or feudal lord henchmen) stood the challenge imposed by pistolier for another century after the latter was introduced?
And did this prove that Harquebusier is more practical approach of heavy cavalry evolution by Earlymodern Era?
2. And in game terms. what are 'armorless' charging cavalry like The Scots Grey (listed as Heavy Cavalry) and British Heavy Dragoons? (The Brits aren't really fond of Cuirassiers)
3. Did the Mollwitz moments that Frederick II instructed every class of cavalry and Dragoons to charge home at regiments in the same fashion as Cuirassiers?
4. And even with Cavalry of the Great War did dismounted in combat. is this endeavour still inadequate to prevent mechanizations of cavalry force in 1930s? didn't Submachine guns and Assault Rifles as well as machine pistols (like UZI) practical weapons on horseback?
EDIT: Sorry for a bit late reply. i'm working on Polyreme 3D model for modding.