Cavalry Armies, Infantry, Riflemen and Cities

[del62]

What are the recommended guidelines on using a cavalry army at either size 3 or 4 against a city containing a veteran infantry and a veteran rifleman, should the infantry / rifleman be redlined first or not, and what should be the minimum hitpoints of your army to use it.

 

[Pacioli]

In this case, I would generally try to redline the infantry and the rifleman with other cavalry or artillery, if possible, before sending in the cavalry army. If redlining via other units is not possible, I would send the cavalry army in if this was one of the last cities to be conquered before getting a peace treaty. Generally, I become very cautious with my cavalry armies if they have less than 60% of their maximum hit points.

How one answers your question del62 will probably show a little of the player's style. I don't consider myself to be overly aggressive when warring but not overly passive either. Good question!

 

[vmxa]

It is pretty rare for me to have any bombardment units tagging along with cav armies. If you have them, may as well use infantry armies instead for the better defense. They have the same attack value.

I do not sweat rifles with cav armies, especially 4x ones. They can take down two and sometimes do so well I will hit a third one.

Infantry is another story. They can handle them, but it can have any number of out comes. I have even killed 3 infantry with a cav army, but you can easily have 1 drop you into the red.

So I want tanks for infantry, then it is a cake walk again and of course MA armies fear nothing.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I just try to outnumber the enemy and bombard with artillery, ships, or planes before you attack, sending cavalry in first because they can retreat

 

[CKS]

With a healthy cav army, I wouldn't worry about rifles. Even with 3 units and no military academy, its attack bonus balances out the city defense bonus for a rifle.

A 4-unit cav army will do okay against infantry, but I'd prefer to bombard them first. Fortified in a hill city will be nasty if you don't - here I'd redline the infantry first. On grass, I'll attack 2-3 hp infantry.

A fully-healed 4-unit cav army will almost always take out a redlined TOW without dying. I find this situation unpleasant to be in.

 

[Spoonwood]

Artillery can help, especially with infantry as Pacioli points out. However, as VMXA points out they aren't necessarily, and you shouldn't sweat it. If you play on a pangea, there's no question in my mind... always 4-cavalry armies. They rarely ever lose, and they can even defeat fortified infantry often enough (even on a hill sometimes)... though it's no guarantee as VMXA points out. If you need to ship armies overseas you might want some 3-cavalry armies.

If you attack healthy infantry with an army though, make sure that it has a full 16+ hp or maybe 15. But, if has any real trace of wounds (1 hp doesn't count, 2 hp is worth considering as wounded, 3 hp is *really* worth considering as wounded in this situation), don't attack with a cavalry army against an infantry. Let it heal and attack soon after it heals.

An 8 hp cavalry army can take out a fortified rifle. It's a *tad bit* risky, but as I recall, not too much (my memory might fail me here). A 7 hp army seems risky I don't think I'd attack with it, and don't even bother consider attacking with a 6 hp army, let it heal (under almost all situations, of course). Better to play a little cautious with armies than too boldly. With 9 hp or higher I'd go for one attack, and then make sure it can heal in the same spot covered by something else, or that it can run away to safety.

For cavalry that aren't in armies, you want to use Pacioli's idea (o. k., it's not really his per se, but it is in this context). Redline units with artillery, then use those veteran or elite cavalry to attack. Artillery helping out armies only really comes as near-ideal if you've used all other cavalry doing something else.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

I here about combat calculators all the time. I have no interest in a game that 'calculated.' When to attack or defend or pull back for recovery or reinforcements, its all about keeping track of the modifiers and your current goal. Modifiers like offensive/defensive values, hit points(experience), terrain, city size & improvements. Current goals like how badly do you need to end this war and how bad do you want that town or resource.

 

[CKS]

While I don't use combat calculators myself, I think the whole point of them is to see how the modifiers affect your chances so that you can make more informed decisions as you work toward your goals. While some people like to work out their chances of winning a battle in their head, or intuit their chances based on experience, others don't. Either way, the choice to attack or not depends on a whole lot more than what the chances of winning are.

 

[Raliuven]

It is pretty rare for me to have any bombardment units tagging along with cav armies. If you have them, may as well use infantry armies instead for the better defense. They have the same attack value.

I disagree for several reasons. This is for PTW, I know things are little different with C3C. First, why would I load up an army with units that cost 90 shields (Infantry) than units that cost 80 shields (Cavalry)? That's 40 extra shields per 4 unit-army. Second, I need to do something with that Elite* Cavalary that won the leader that made the army in the first place. Third, since nothing is going to attack my 4 unit-Cavalry army, why not pay less and get the extra movement point? The Cav army can pick off a few redlined units here and there and return to the stack.

I do send Artillary with my Cav Armys - some of them, especially once infantry make an appearance. I send them off to weaken the big cities while my other armies clean up the wandering units and weak cities, pillage tiles if needed, etc. Using combat settlers and RR, you can usually move an arty stack pretty quick. The Cav Army is just there to make sure the AI leaves the arty alone to do its job. Then I wack the redlined units with elite Cav or Tanks as individual units. Fish for more leaders and kill more units.

I think that sending a Cav army against an fortified infantry in 12+ city on a hill is armicide. Need Arty to even the odds. Properly used, you can have a few arty stacks moving around the board with relative ease, attacking multiple cities at one time. If you are waiting for a few rounds between healing your amries, what's the difference?

Of course I will probably never win a medal for the fasts conquest . . .

 

[vmxa]

You don't drag artillery with cav armies, you just don't. If you want bombardment, may as well use infantry and who cares about shields at that point in the game anyway. PTW, C3 it does not matter. Yes armies are not as good, but if you read the whole thing you should have gathered that I would not be attacking infantry with cav armies in the first place, unless there was some special reason.

If all I was going to face was infantry, I would take that *cav and put it in a town to retire or disband it to speed up a built in some town.

Why on earth would I want to slow down a cav army and run it at the speed of artillery? I do not need bombardment to kill rifles. I do not even have enough artillery to use, if I wanted. Talk about shields, they are 90. I am only going to have a handful on each landmass.

I don't take them on invasion, they are just to bust up landing parties.

Actually to moment you put that army in a town, it can come under attacking. It can also come under attack from bombers and then take damage and get killed by other units.

"I think that sending a Cav army against an fortified infantry in 12+ city on a hill is armicide. Need Arty to even the odds. Properly used, you can have a few arty stacks moving around the board with relative ease, attacking multiple cities at one time. If you are waiting for a few rounds between healing your amries, what's the difference?"

Who mentioned attacking infantry on a hill?. I am pretty sure I said I would want tanks for infantry. I merely stated that a cav army could kill infantry, not that is was a preferred method.

If you have some arguements to make at least make them against what my points were, not some hypothetical scenario. I have fielded more than 100 cav armies in a single game, I am well versed in what they can and cannot do.

Here is the salient point. You will slow down the army to a 1 move unit with artillery. You will do that to beat up units that the army will kill without bombardment. To what end? Better to cover ground and take down towns quickly. If I must use cav armies on infantry, then I will use 1 army per infantry and not sweat a bit.

I roll up 3 or 4 cav armies to the town and take it down. I grant you that PTW will make all armies less formidable than C3C, but not weak.

So again, if you are going to go with artillery and move at their speed an infantry army is better. It has the same attack value and is many times stronger on defense. Depending on the point in the game and the strength of the opposition, move in a cav and it may get attack. Move in the infantry army and it will not be attacked and will survive most attacks.

Face a strong enough foe and you cannot put in any army and hold it. Armies are only left alone in the field and only if no bombers can reach them.

 

[Raliuven]

vmxa - I certainly respect your experience and my intention was not to cause offense. If I did, that was not my intent. At no point did I suggest you didn’t know what a Cav army could do or not do. If that is what you or anyone took away from my post, that was not my intent and it was not what I said at any rate. I didn’t even address what a cavalry army could or could not do, other than to say that attacking a 12+ size city on a hill defended by fortified infantry with a Cav Army was armicide.

My first paragraph was arguing against your comment that an infantry army should accompany artillery (in summation). I rarely have more than a dozen armies on the board, not a hundred. Certainly your skill to create a hundred cavalry armies is beyond question. If you can make 100 armies, then who cares if a few die risking an attack against anything? And I agree, at that point, who cares about 40 shields and I wouldn’t be sweating either.

My point was to ask why you would create an infantry army. I get your point that they have a much better defense. They also have a movement of a 1 which matches artillery. My point was that a Cavalry army providing cover can do other things at the same time and since armies are generally not attacked because of the AI fear of flags, Cavalry will do fine for protection. I agree that adding bombers to the mix changes the equation, but we were not talking about bombers either. Once bomber are in play, your armies are probably tanks – at which point, cavalry and infantry armies are both inferior. I also didn’t mention putting the army or artillery into a city to be attacked. Armies stay in the field unless there is no other choice.

My intent was not to refute everything you said - I didn’t quote your entire paragraph. Later I agree with your position that Cavalry vs. Infantry is dicey and then added my solution. Yes, tanks are the solution to infantry, but while you are waiting for tanks, what do you do about the 12+ city on a hill with 1 or 2 fortified infantry? Since the entire game is hypothetical, I was bringing up an extreme situation where a combat settler + artillery + cav army + RR could be a solution. For that matter, just cavalry could take the city with enough artillery – you might lose units, but you don’t need an army for the actual assault. If you find yourself army-poor (and I usually am army-poor), then this is an alternative. And with a combat settler, often you can put your artillery stack close enough to bombard in 1 round. If you are looking to protect the city made by the combat settler, then an infantry army might be of use, though I find that 3-4 infantry in a city without a flag is usually enough to repel an invader.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

My point was to ask why you would create an infantry army. I get your point that they have a much better defense.

I think (from his later post) that what he meant was "If you're going to have an Artillery Train, you might as well make Infantry Armies." Since he says he doesn't use Artillery when he goes on the offensive, he's able to fully utilise the mobility of the Cav armies - if he had to worry about a siege train, he might as well use Infantry Armies because he wouldn't have the mobility.

 

[vmxa]

That is all I was saying. In fact no real need for an army, if I am gong to bombard everything to red. Bombarding town after town with a large stack artillery is very tedious and slow.

 

[del62]

A related question is are cavalry armies better or worse than the slower tank armies?

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Situational. Considering how much earlier they're available, particularly if you beeline for them, it's entirely possible to overrun the entire world (even a Huge Pangaea) with Cavalry Armies before Tanks are even available. CavArmies are cheaper and (barring Panzers) more mobile than Tank Armies, but are weaker (not a terribly huge consideration with *Armies*). In the long run, I'd say CavArmies are more *useful* than Tank Armies due to the length of time they're available, but I won't get into a "better or worse" argument.

 

[del62]

Hi Chaos

I am talking about the situation when you have tanks are available, if you have researched combustion(for the necessary transport for 4 unit armies) and replacable parts (for faster workers, artillary and civil engineers) you are not far from tanks

I have a demi-god game where I am in this situation, so every army I produce I have to decide whether it is better to fill with tanks or cavalry

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

For me the question is tank army or wait for modern armor. Kind of depends on what you are going up against.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

cav armies and bombers will provide both fast conquest AND bombardment. And bombers are available well before tanks...

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I just finished my first Regent game where I had to attack Infantry wih guerillas, fortunataly my ally got rid of their rubber and the enamy infantry attacked me on mountains

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Hi Chaos

I am talking about the situation when you have tanks are available, if you have researched combustion(for the necessary transport for 4 unit armies) and replacable parts (for faster workers, artillary and civil engineers) you are not far from tanks

I have a demi-god game where I am in this situation, so every army I produce I have to decide whether it is better to fill with tanks or cavalry

What are your enemies defending with, and how much artillery support (including bombers) do you have available? If they're defending primarily with Rifles, you can get away with Cav Armies. If they're defending primarily with Infantry, you should only build Cav Armies if you have enough Arty to mangle the defenders - even with the Army bonus, Cavs don't do well attacking fortified Infantry in cities. If you don't have sufficient artillery to maintain dominance where you're fighting, go with Tanks.