Bring on the Cavalry, Light cavalry I mean

[Crazy_Banker]

I once played an entire campaign with a rule I could only use light cavalry (I thought this would make it more challenging). What did I find out? That mounted sergeants are the most underrated unit in the game. One they have the same charge stats as knights, two in the latter phases when dealing with many anti-armor bonus units they don't have this problem, three they are so cheap you can lose 5 units before it even comes close to the cost of one unit of knights, four in the desert they last a hell of a lot longer. Which brings me to my next point, am I just crazy (no pun intended) or does anyone else think hobliers are magnificent. Most players use charges from a flanking position and the enemy usually will rout immediately with a good line, missiles, and then a flank attack. So, the attack and defense stats that make Knights so impressive in a campaign game I think are mute points. Any comments?

[Odin]

I will comment.

I use light calvalry a lot, as I commented in Boyars tactics thread, to hunt down horse archers.

They have a lot of uses and for the cost are probably the best value units in the game. Mounted Sargeants are nice, I personally love Steppe Cavalry, and the Polish Retainer is a good unit to. Its just a matter of using them in the right spot. I would never use them as my main force they are always in support, but like you I would build more light cavalry then heavy.

I wouldnt say Knights and thier stats are moot... I mean these are the elite units here, and those attack values, specifically charge values are great in the right terrain. They also have good morale stats which is crucial if your in a jam and just need to have someone hold the line while you flank.

One of your main melee units has got to have good morale or you will be the one routing and your left with light cavalry to finish your battle. there are lots of good melee units but some of the foot soldiers take time to get, or are costly. Knights are a nice supplement, because often you will get disposable heir, or former princes once your heir takes over. Why not use them as holding units? That strategy was crucial for me when I played Poland, didnt get many high value heirs and used the ones I didnt want to take the Baltic and Scandanvia.

[_Aetius_]

Theres one perfect deterrant for light cavalry and that is *drum roll* HEAVY CAVALRY! Hence id rather have heavy than light cavalry in my army, light cavalry have speed but thats little use when a unit of chivalric knights plows into there side.

I mean I love light cavalry dont get me wrong, but they have heavy cavalry for a reason to destroy what light cavalry cant, almost everything.

Light cavalry in my armies are for chasing routed units or archers or flanking but for flanking heavily armoured knights are far superior and will cause more sustained damage than light cavalry who after the initial charge start to suffer because of their low defence ability and morale.

Give me the choice between having light cavalry say mounted sergeants on my armies wings or chivalric knights on my wings and CK would be picked everytime because light cavalry cant sustain long engagements.

[Hold Steady]

HOBILARS ARE MAGNIFICENT! Since you ask, I agree wholeheartily! If I can get my hands on any (early) cavalry I'll do it, since Hobilars or mtd Sarges are perfectly usable for flanking, harassing, in fact, for anything bút head on charging into any kind of infantry that can put a dent in a horse unit. Hobilars and such that can crash into the rear of say, men at arms, (while this unit is pinned to any kind of inf) will severely damage the unit and if you keep a bit of an eye on it, one hobilar unit will turn the tide of the battle if you let it hammer on the back of engaged troops.
The thing is, light cav (incl steppe and such) will be chewed up and routed if they attack a decend unit head on or when mired down in a general melee. And, they get freaky if flanked and threatened. The heavier the cav, the meaner it gets on head-on charges. And I'll be weary to engage spearmen from behind with light cav. I won't be with heavy cav..

Thing is, if you want something to take down archers, very light infantry or non-spear/halb infantry from behind (in accordance with pinning from front, or chase Horse archers, take light. If you want to do anything else, take at least medium. If you want a tank to drive through an enemy front, take the heaviest of the heaviest (Gothic, Lancers, Crusaders, Late royals).
I must say, If I want to stop a charge of an enemy Heavy cav, I would rather try to take 'em head on with spear units and flank them with medium cav, than take 'em head on with heavy cav..

[Procrustes]

Hobilars are great in early because their build requirements are so low, but they are prone to route - I stop building them once I can get mounted sgts. I pile the armor upgrades on my mounted sgts, too - it slows them down, but I figure it keeps them in the field a little longer.

Personally I'm not a fan of cav heavy armies - I tend to have one or two knights, two light cav and/or two mounted xbows/archers - the rest a mix of bows and infantry (which should include spears and some polearms and/or axes.)

[Ludens]

I pile the armor upgrades on my mounted sgts, too - it slows them down, but I figure it keeps them in the field a little longer.
Armour does not slow your units down directly, though it does make them tire faster in the desert or when it snows.

I like light cavalry as well, especially mounted sergeants, but I prefer horse archers. They are faster and can really disrupt your opponent. Of course, you need other units to exploit the disruption since many horse archers are weak at melee combat, but nothing is so satisfying as turning a well-organised enemy army into two or three disorderly masses and then charging in with heavy cavalry.