Gameplay Balance

[antisocialmunky]

I almost never use cavalry to try to kill skirmishers. Main line infantry and shrug off missiles pretty well from the front.

On the other hand, if you're flanking with them and get the enemy with a formed charge from the rear... well. Its not really pretty.

I killed 1/2 of unit of Triarii with a formed frontal charge with those Iberian Lancers once. Many of the medium cavalry while not that ridiculous are fairly charge happy.

So in summation: Medium Cavalry is used to engage enemy cavalry and break units from the rear... and chase crap around the map.

[Arkanin]

What about 120 cavalry against 120 skirmishers? Thing is, the cavalry still lose. Most have a lower attack value than slingers and my best guess is that such a low lethality mitigates much of the charge bonus as well by causing the fight to take much longer. Cavalry would seem to me to inherently get the most benefit out of operating in the smallest time window possible, and the lower lethality (which may be good but may also require a rebalancing of cavalry) greatly stretches out the time window for players to react to cavalry, greatly reducing their effectiveness.

I almost never use cavalry to try to kill skirmishers. Main line infantry and shrug off missiles pretty well from the front.

On the other hand, if you're flanking with them and get the enemy with a formed charge from the rear... well. Its not really pretty.

I killed 1/2 of unit of Triarii with a formed frontal charge with those Iberian Lancers once. Many of the medium cavalry while not that ridiculous are fairly charge happy.

So in summation: Medium Cavalry is used to engage enemy cavalry and break units from the rear... and chase crap around the map.

I will try them some more. I would like to say I have found cavalry to flank units effectively... but so far I have found infantry to be much more effective.

[pezhetairoi]

speed is the catch though. You don't want your infantry taking too many losses in the meantime. Consider the broader implications, it's not just about winning a battle, but also about having enough troops left to continue and advance and fight more battles. Unless, of course, you have a very good logistics system to keep new troops shuttling to the fronts. Cavalry is a force multiplier that way.

[Gotthard]

The western cavalry overall is pretty bad (I wouldn't be caught dead with a Lusitianian "Elite" Cavalry, for example), but their eastern counterparts are ridiculously overpowered. Good luck stopping a frontal bodyguard cavalry charge with anything but a 3 unit deep stack of some excellent spearmen. Even then, you're going to lose a single stack for sure. Balance overall seems much better in the west than the east, my current Armenia game (H/VH) has me in Babylon in 245 BC. ( I was recently declared the 'most advanced' and 'richest' nation... how I have no idea.) This was accomplished with some Caucasian spearman, some slingers, and whatever units I could scrounge from my exceedingly low level barracks. My cavalry generals basically demolished everyone. Morale is either pathetically low on units, or unbreakable (my 9 units of spearman were broken by a 1/4 strength phalanx unit. Completely surrounded, charged from every direction... *SIGH*) A combination of poor morale, little effect for spears versus cavalry, and low attack values versus defense for most units make battles slow and painful, or exceedingly quick. As Armenia, I haven't seen the point of building anything other than the cheapest foot unit, their performance has been, at best, marginally better, and they are 3x more expensive.

However, I actually find archers to be quite balanced overall, there are times you want javelins, times you want stones, and times you want arrows. There is a WIDE variety of ranged units in the east and west, and they have varying skills and abilities. It's quite well done. The problems unit balance has in the east exist in the west as well, but they are markedly reduced overall, and it's MUCH harder to play there (which is perhaps your problem as you've played Romans and Lusitianians).

[JeffBag]

Mainly the east has the ludicrously overpowered combination of excellent foot/horse archers and incredibly powerful bodyguard cataphracts, which on your King or Heir grants you an over sized unit. Its pretty much shoot till 1/2 of the unit then instarout it with 1 charge.

As I said earlier, you have to use alt-attack on your cavalry units to bring out their swords rather than their crappy charge-only spears. Also, try to use cavalry groups consisting of 3 units instead; when they are massed their power increases exponentially, as they reach that critical mass where they just instantly rout anything they rear charge.

I used to think that cavalry was useless too, taking my Legions over Gaul with no cavalry support. However, when I got to Germania, and fought every battle heavily outnumbered sometimes even two or more full stacks to one, I realized how important that one unit of cavalry which was my General unit was. When the lines degenerate into chaos with Germans coming from every side and each unit of Principe holding two or more German units, the ability of even that crappy medium cavalry to run from point to point routing troops with single charges, was massively important.

When you flank a fresh unit, use infantry, when you flank an exhausted unit, use cavalry. The burst damage of cavalry doesn't show itself until late into the battle, and unlike javelins + heavy infantry/Gasaetae charge, they are limitless.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

The one big thing I don't get is how you are "losing" to skirmishers. I've never gotten routed by skirmishers in EB. I did in Vanilla RTW because their stats were bugged. Cavalry can rout skirmishers. It takes longer the earlier in the battle you do it when their morale isn't shaken and they aren't winded. But it's still possible.

Also, are your comments related to how effective units are in multiplayer? Everyone here is talking about singleplayer. That's what's confusing people.