View Poll Results: Should Cavalry upgrade to Tanks?
Yes - it's a natural progression. Now if only I could upgrade my girlfriend to Alyssa Milano with a few new techs... 28 36.36%
No - Cavalry is formidable enough. Isn't the game easy enough already, you fool? 20 25.97%
No - Cavalry has nothing to do with armor. I think the Mech. Infantry upgrade is goofy enough. 23 29.87%
Yes - but only if the city has the "glue factory" improvement to deal with the leftover horses. 6 7.79%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools
Old January 17, 2002, 22:48   #1
FNBrown
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEM
Prince
 
FNBrown's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Posts: 527
Upgrade Cavalry?
Doesn't it seem reasonable that, if Infantry upgrades to Mechanized Infantry, Cavalry should upgrade to Tank?

Just wondering...
FNBrown is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 02:39   #2
FNBrown
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEM
Prince
 
FNBrown's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Posts: 527
Just 8 votes so far? Come on, people... throw me a fricken' bone here...
FNBrown is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 02:46   #3
Dis
ACDG3 SpartansC4DG Vox
Deity
 
Dis's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 17,354
well people have cited cases of cavalry upgrading to tanks in the 30's. But that doesn't mean it should be in the game. So I say no. It will be just another unit the AI doesn't upgrade.
__________________
Focus, discipline
Barack Obama- the antichrist
Dis is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 02:54   #4
FNBrown
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEM
Prince
 
FNBrown's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Posts: 527
That's sort of my point. Although the U.S. Army phased out the Cavalry because of the arrival of tanks, they didn't necessarily "upgrade" their cavalry soldiers to drive them.

I think Cavalry would actually upgrade to Mech. Infantry better than standard Infantry...
FNBrown is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 03:05   #5
Calorman
Chieftain
 
Calorman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 49
I don't see why not. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most tank divisions actually part of much older cavalry regiments?

My brother-in-law (who served in the Gulf) was a tank operator with the Queen's own Hussars, a centuries old cavalry regiment I believe.
Calorman is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 03:10   #6
Dis
ACDG3 SpartansC4DG Vox
Deity
 
Dis's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 17,354
yeah it's not like it takes a rocket scientist to "drive" a tank or fire a gun.
__________________
Focus, discipline
Barack Obama- the antichrist
Dis is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 03:17   #7
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by FNBrown
Just 8 votes so far? Come on, people... throw me a fricken' bone here...
Well I agree that Cavalry should be upgraded, but not to Tanks. How does a horse get turned into a Tank? I'd say Rifleman or Infantry. After all, take away the horse, and you only have an ordinary soldier.
Willem is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 05:11   #8
FNBrown
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEM
Prince
 
FNBrown's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Posts: 527
The only problem with upgrading Cavalry to Rifleman or Infantry is the loss of movement... which is the big advantage of Cavalry in the first place, if you ask me.

Good point about the Hussars...
FNBrown is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 05:24   #9
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by FNBrown
The only problem with upgrading Cavalry to Rifleman or Infantry is the loss of movement... which is the big advantage of Cavalry in the first place, if you ask me.

Good point about the Hussars...
Well yes, which is why they shouldn't upgrade to Tanks. It would be far to easy to suddenly have a powerful force. That's why they didn't allow an upgrade in the first place I'm guessing. At least with Rifleman/Infantry, it wouldn't provide any real advantage, just defensive. In my own game I'm allowing them to upgrade to Rifleman since I don't want to have all sorts of useless units in my queue when I get to the modern era. Same with my Swordsman etc.
Willem is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 05:25   #10
Dis
ACDG3 SpartansC4DG Vox
Deity
 
Dis's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 17,354
no, no, no. the horse doesn't get turned into a tank. The men who ride the horses, now ride tanks. It is that simple. Of course the upgrade cost should be extremely high. Because steel is needed to make the tank.
__________________
Focus, discipline
Barack Obama- the antichrist
Dis is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 05:32   #11
FNBrown
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEM
Prince
 
FNBrown's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Posts: 527
Maybe the upgrade cost is reduced with the "Glue Factory" city improvement.
FNBrown is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 05:41   #12
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by FNBrown
Maybe the upgrade cost is reduced with the "Glue Factory" city improvement.
I'll try it out next time I fool around with the Editor.
Willem is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 05:58   #13
Atahualpa
Spanish CiversCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Latin Lovers
Emperor
 
Atahualpa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: voice of reason
Posts: 4,092
look at it from a playbalancing point of view and not from a historical accurate or realistic point of view.

Keep in mind: the civ that has leos workshop then sure has TOO BIG of an advantage!!! Because cavalry is the only offensive unit till tanks arrive.

If it is realistic or not
I mean yeah great, actually I think Civ3 should only take the real world as a model, not trying to accurately reflect every part of it.
Its a game after all. If you want real life, then switch off your computer

ata
Atahualpa is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 06:27   #14
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally posted by FNBrown
Just 8 votes so far? Come on, people... throw me a fricken' bone here...
FNBrown: Have you ever heard about different time zones and that some people sleep in their nights and don't hang out in Apolyton?

A clear "yes" vote, as in military history the tank forces were the true successors of the cavalry. As for the leftover horses, well, they used to die after a couple of years anyway, just don't grow the heards anymore and let the horses move the artillery (as they did even during WWII).
Harovan is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 06:31   #15
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
... Because steel is needed to make the tank.
Oh, really? I thought it was only oil and rubber... That's just as ridiculous as only rubber for infantry.
Harovan is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 06:39   #16
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph


FNBrown: Have you ever heard about different time zones and that some people sleep in their nights and don't hang out in Apolyton?
What, people actually sleep???
Willem is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 06:44   #17
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Willem
What, people actually sleep???
Well, or do something more amusing, assumed they have a g/f
Harovan is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 06:50   #18
FNBrown
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEM
Prince
 
FNBrown's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Posts: 527
Well, it's 3:45 a.m. in my time zone...

Guess that answers the girlfriend question....
FNBrown is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 08:43   #19
Manstein3
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 34
Tank units are of the same tactical use as the former cavalry. In ancient and early indurstrial times, there were heavy riders and light ones, called hussars, dragoner (the heavy ones, I think), and so on.
Light cavalry had reconnaissance or avantgarde function, I mean, to investigate the battlerfield and get informations of the enemy's strength, and to make surprising attacks. The same do the modern light tank units.
From a strategical point of view though, modern tank units are the core of at least an offensive army. Cavalry has never been that important on the battlefields.

And it is true, many tank units got 'upgraded' from cavalry units.
It is silly to argue in a superficial way that a horse cannot be transformed into a tank. It is the fighter who makes the cavalry attack. And the tank attack needs the same spontaneity and mind-quickness, and really the same tactical theory a cavalry man needed.
Manstein3 is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 09:01   #20
Spiffor
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG LegolandApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Spiffor's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: jihadding against Danish Feta
Posts: 6,182
Yes
I don't like having useless units in my queue, and I like having the computer build up-to-date units. And the only mobile land unit following cavalry is the Tank.
Spiffor is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 09:01   #21
Combat Ingrid
Prince
 
Combat Ingrid's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:30
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Smothered in delicious yellow chemical sludge.
Posts: 782
I guess this is mainly a balance question. You can easily upgrade your defensive troops, but if you want to upgrade your offense you need to build them from scratch.

As someone said, if you have Leo's and are first to get tanks, you could easily swarm the map with them immediately, which would give you a too big adventage over the other civs.

IMO, the way it works now gives the defender more time to respond to new threats, making blitzkriegs more interesting as an attacker (you need to build all these tanks quickly while you still have the tech advantage)
__________________
The enemy cannot push a button if you disable his hand.
Combat Ingrid is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 09:34   #22
Swissy
Civilization III MultiplayerTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersCivilization III PBEMRise of Nations MultiplayerIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerBtS Tri-League
 
Swissy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,436
I believe that the first armor units in the American, English and French armies were converted cavalry units. I am uncertain as to the Germans. I do remember that Rommel was an infantry officer in WW I. So the German may have just assigned their best men to the panzer units. The Communists "reformed" the armed forces of Russia and China. That means the calvary which was mostly noblemen and cossacks and other untrustworthy elements (to loyal to previous government) were disbanded. So for the most part it does seem sensible to allow upgraging, at the appropriate costs.
__________________
"The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved - loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."--Victor Hugo
Swissy is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 09:38   #23
Akka
Prince
 
Akka's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In front of my computer.
Posts: 512
The most obvious answer that comes to my mind when I read this question, is that YES, the cavalry should upgrade, BUT the attack jump is damn too high (6=>16). What it lacks is an intermediate unit between cavalry and tanks. I don't know, perhaps an attack-enhanced infantry, or changing cavalry to dragon, and put cavalry in the industrial era making it 10-5-3 ?.
__________________
Science without conscience is the doom of the soul.
Akka is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 10:14   #24
Delta-V
Settler
 
Local Time: 14:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16
A short history of cavalry
Quote:
Originally posted by Manstein3
Tank units are of the same tactical use as the former cavalry. In ancient and early indurstrial times, there were heavy riders and light ones, called hussars, dragoner (the heavy ones, I think), and so on.
Dragoons, actually. It wasn't until WWII that tanks were generally used as Cavalry. Even in the early part of WWII, tanks were still mainly used to support infantry. Of course, Guderian's panzers changed that pretty quick.

Quote:
Light cavalry had reconnaissance or avantgarde function, I mean, to investigate the battlerfield and get informations of the enemy's strength, and to make surprising attacks. The same do the modern light tank units.
The US pretty much did away with the light tank concept. A modern US Armored Cavalry unit actually has more firepower than a similiar sized tank or mech infantry unit. Most of the european armies still use light tanks or armored cars for reconaissance.

Quote:
From a strategical point of view though, modern tank units are the core of at least an offensive army. Cavalry has never been that important on the battlefields.
On the contrary, Cavalry has always been the decisive combat arm, at least until the invention of the rifle. Early infantry formations (phalanx, mostly) were extremely vunerable to flanking attacks. Typically, the 2 cavalry forces would face off until one fled the battlefield, then the victorious cavalry could ride around behind the enemy infantry. It wasn't until the Roman maniple and the well-trained Roman army that an infantry force was flexible enough to effectively turn and face a cavalry charge from the flank or rear, and then it was still devistating to the morale of the troops.

Even through the Middle Ages, cavalry remained a decisive factor. Heavily armored knights could easily ride down infantry formations. Cavalry could finally, for a short time, make frontal assaults. Pikemen, with 18-foot long pikes, put an end to that, but still couldn't turn and fight quickly to combat a flanking cavalry charge. Massed longbowmen put the final end to massed heavy cavalry, but lighter, faster cavalry could still surprise the longbowmen.

With the invention of the rifle, infantry had the range and firepower to shoot down the cavalry before the charge reached their line. Cavalry switched to a more supporting role, reconnaissance and pursuit. Finding themselves rather vunerable on horseback, Cavalry would often fight dismounted. This proved effective, esp in providing a mobile defense. Buford's dismounted cavalry at Gettysburg, for instance.

This lead to the formation of horse-born infantry that were not equipped to fight mounted, such as the British Mounted Infantry of the Boer War, and the Australian Lighthorse that fought in WWI.

So, while Infantry remained the mainstay of armies throughout history, cavalry has almost always been the decisive arm of the army.
Delta-V is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 10:46   #25
Colonel Kraken
PtWDG Legoland
Warlord
 
Colonel Kraken's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
The most obvious answer that comes to my mind when I read this question, is that YES, the cavalry should upgrade, BUT the attack jump is damn too high (6=>16). What it lacks is an intermediate unit between cavalry and tanks. I don't know, perhaps an attack-enhanced infantry, or changing cavalry to dragon, and put cavalry in the industrial era making it 10-5-3 ?.
This is *exactly* what I intend to do in my game. I am going to make the Russian Cossack the industrial age Cavalry for everyone. I will rename Cavalry to Dragoons and name the industrial age cavalry 'Cavalry'. I will then have Cavalry upgradeable to tanks, albeit at quite a high cost.

The Russians will still have the Cossack, but it will be very cheap, or I was thinking the Russian UU could be very cheap artillery. Either way, they get swarms of something, which is indicative of Russian military philosophy.

. . . I think . . .
Colonel Kraken is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 11:05   #26
Colonel Kraken
PtWDG Legoland
Warlord
 
Colonel Kraken's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 296
There is something I've found out while modifying unit stats with the editor. I haven't thoroughly put it to the test yet, but . . .

I basically increased all unit's movement ratings by one (more or less). Thus, typically, foot soldiers have a movement of 2 and horse units have a move of 3.

I have found that my cavalry no longer retreats from foot soldiers. I know this happened before when elite units attacked --they'd go for the gusto and fight to the death, but veterans and lower would always retreat unless they had started with only one hit point.

Now it seems that the units never retreat. It seems that, unfortunately, Firaxis made the code something like "movement 2 units are able to retreat from movement 1 units" instead of "units with a higher movement rating can retreat from units with a lower movement rating." The second one would make much more sense to me. (Another example of ill thought out coding?)

Like I said, I haven't fully/scientifically tested this yet. If it's true, this is the solution to those of you who believe the retreat option is simply too powerful. (I would tend to agree; however, I do enjoy the retreat option).

Just thought all of you would like to know.
Colonel Kraken is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 11:39   #27
Zealot
King
 
Zealot's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,267
Yes. Anything else would be against the "Theory of Evolution".

Who's Alyssa Milano anyway?
Zealot is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 13:24   #28
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Zealot

Who's Alyssa Milano anyway?
A television celebrity in North America, a real babe. She stars in a show called Charmed I believe.
Willem is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 13:26   #29
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
There is something I've found out while modifying unit stats with the editor. I haven't thoroughly put it to the test yet, but . . .

I basically increased all unit's movement ratings by one (more or less). Thus, typically, foot soldiers have a movement of 2 and horse units have a move of 3.

I have found that my cavalry no longer retreats from foot soldiers. I know this happened before when elite units attacked --they'd go for the gusto and fight to the death, but veterans and lower would always retreat unless they had started with only one hit point.

Now it seems that the units never retreat. It seems that, unfortunately, Firaxis made the code something like "movement 2 units are able to retreat from movement 1 units" instead of "units with a higher movement rating can retreat from units with a lower movement rating." The second one would make much more sense to me. (Another example of ill thought out coding?)

Like I said, I haven't fully/scientifically tested this yet. If it's true, this is the solution to those of you who believe the retreat option is simply too powerful. (I would tend to agree; however, I do enjoy the retreat option).

Just thought all of you would like to know.
Well it makes sense. The foot soldiers are now considered "Fast", and someone on a horse can't retreat from a fast unit, if I'm not mistaken.
Willem is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 13:41   #30
Trifna
King
 
Trifna's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:30
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: of anchovies
Posts: 1,478
When in history did ya ever saw the people on horses beeing upgraded to horses?!

It's not like upgrading men, which you only upgrade their weapon and the men is already formed, it's from equitation to tank driving!
__________________
Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!
Trifna is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:30.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team