Very early cavalry strat?

[uberfish]

So cavalry are getting nerfed in BTS primarily because of MP?

 

[futurehermit]

I'd rather have cav plus catapult stacks. Even though you move slower you can solve this by having more stacks. Generally I'd send half my cav and all my cats in one or two stacks aimed at key cities. The other cats on reserve to swat their counterattack. Then once they stopped counterattacking I'd split into more stacks. The attack goes slower than the all out cav offensive but losses are lower and because the wounded cavalry units can heal and then catch the cat stack you don't really lose much momentum.

The problem with cavs vs longbows and pikes in high culture cities is that you are expending a lot of hammers to take them. It wouldn't be unusual to lose 3-4 cav taking a city defended by 6 pikes/longbows with full culture defense. Your loss in hammers is greater than theirs.

All I can say is that in single player I haven't had that experience. I don't find I need catapults/siege. I would, however, gladly accept some loss in hammers (it's never as severe as you make it seem) to take their whole empire in about 5-7 turns (which is what I did to HC in my 1600AD Kublai win, for example).

 

[futurehermit]

So cavalry are getting nerfed in BTS primarily because of MP?

I would imagine that they are deemed too powerful in SP as well. I certainly consider them that way.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Good point about momentum.

If the target spent hammers/time/effort to build many a pike and longbow, then they are nowhere near chem... pillage them into the stone-age while trebs with escorts gather.

They aren't spending time/effort to build big numbers of pikes and longbows. They just have them already. Even when they have gunpowder (likely for me in a monarch game by the time I get MT or chemistry) they will still have lots of pikes and longbows left around.

Pillaging is definitely an option if I am playing a SE style rush, but usually I want that land to be worthwhile ASAP and don't want to rebuild everything. I'll spend enough worker turns fixing the AI's mistakes, let alone trying to rebuild things I would want in the city anyway.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

All I can say is that in single player I haven't had that experience. I don't find I need catapults/siege. I would, however, gladly accept some loss in hammers (it's never as severe as you make it seem) to take their whole empire in about 5-7 turns (which is what I did to HC in my 1600AD Kublai win, for example).

If you can take their entire empire in 5-7 turns with cavalry, surely you can take it in 10-14 turns with catapults and cav/grenades. They only move twice as fast (at most - often they are restricted by terrain). Is that so long that it makes a huge difference and is worth increasing your casualties over?

 

[madscientist]

My earlier post I said I was playing as Victoria and just got miliary tradition ealry (liberalism to nationalism, researched milt trad). I used the new tech and cash to upgrade horse archers (i did not make any knights), build cavalry and attach my neighbor Roosevelt who was busy fighting Hannibal on teh other side. I was very impressed how fast ans furious my early cavalry fcould penitrate roosevelts deep cities while macemen/trebs simultaneously took border cities. I now have a nice new vassal and a friend in Hannibal to combat a large Roman (agustus) and Korean empire on teh other side of a pangea map. This thread has helped me alot in this game, thanks to all!!!

 

[futurehermit]

If you can take their entire empire in 5-7 turns with cavalry, surely you can take it in 10-14 turns with catapults and cav/grenades. They only move twice as fast (at most - often they are restricted by terrain). Is that so long that it makes a huge difference and is worth increasing your casualties over?

Imo: YES!!! That is 5-7 turns earlier that you are hitting your next opponent, which can make a big difference, actually

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Imo: YES!!! That is 5-7 turns earlier that you are hitting your next opponent, which can make a big difference, actually

Maybe. But with cats and cav, I don't lose so many cav so I can launch the war earlier and I will still be fighting fit for the next opponent. Cav cost so much that I find it takes a lot of effort to raise an army of 40 of them.

 

[futurehermit]

I just mass-whip extensively during this peroid, but tbh I just don't find I am losing that many cav. Tbh I'm not really sure why you are having so many problems. What time period are you usually attacking? I'm talking 30 cav divided into 2 stacks (with constant reinforcements) ca. 800-1200 AD.

In my Kublai game I wiped out HC in 5-7 turns and then took out Ragnar then Alex by 1500AD and won in 1600AD. That is some fast conquering imo