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
).
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!
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.
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
).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!
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.
