Yipeeeee ! Dismountable Units

[Belgolas]

Well calvalry were effective in WW1 so I can imagine they were effective in ETW. No you don't charge head on into infantry with bayonets but most of the time the infantry didn't have bayonets on all the time. So a head on charge to infantry with no bayonets is a good idea. Calvalry were even used in WW2.

[Sheogorath]

That is true and if the Napoleonic Wars indeed showed mainly bad results from the way cavalry was used, the comparison to WW1 would be fair. But history tells us otherwise:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit...n/c_eylau.html


Cavalry has always been mainly fighting other cavalry. A classic army deployment was to have infantry in center and cavalry on the wings. Hannibal used it and did not face muskets nor bayonets. Same thing can be said of 17th century battles in say the Thirty Years War. Of course cavalry could be used in the center as a reserve and Marlborough had that as his main strategy in his battles: attacks on the wings to make the enemy weaken his center and then send in a large cavalry force supported by infantry to win the day.

Dragons started out as mounted infantry but by the time of the Napoleonic Wars it was considered a part of the heavy cavalry force.


Well that is quite historical actually. Artillery needed either infantry or cavalry support as its main enemy was cavalry. It might try to loosen up its formation and even split up to attack the flanks of artillery.

The Light Brigade attacked the wrong target so no wonder they ended up taking heavy losses.


CBR

Considering the timescale involved (assuming you count chariots), WWI and the Napoleonic Wars are right next to each other. Cavalry had been in use for about three thousand years.
And while there were successes with cavalry, there were also miserable failures. Yes, this is true with pretty much everything in war, but in this case, most of those failures resulted from the use of cavalry outside their niche. Frontal charges against infantry. Or cannons.

And, I believe, cavalries main purpose was to fight infantry. Cavalry was the 'air force', it could win you a battle, but attempting to storm a city/fortification with it was probably a bad idea.

And they were still mounted infantry. While they could function as heavy cavalry, they typically had inferior horses (in most cases), and weren't regarded as being part of the 'true' cavalry force (again, in most cases).

Canister shot would do even worse things to cavalry than it would to infantry. Bigger targets meant more hits. A frontal charge against an artillery battery was a terribly stupid idea for ANY force. Infantry OR cavalry. Cavalry might close the distance more quickly, but artillery crews themselves were hardly harmless.
Either way, even an 'unprotected' artillery battery could inflict serious harm upon pretty much any attacker.

The target doesn't matter. The light brigades attack showed the effects artillery fire could have on cavalry. The French used their cavalry in the correct way and snuck around to take out one of the Russian batteries while it was concentrated on the British.

[Matt_Lane]

There should be a distinction here. Heavy cavalry with there large mounts and heavy blades are meant to crush enemy infantry and cavalry through weight and speed. Attacking infantry in defensive formation or in a prepared position is highly unlikely to succeed as the French found our in Waterloo. Instead an element of surprise is required, attacking from the flanks or using the terrain to mask their approach.

Light cavalry would be used as scouts, for foraging, chasing down routing troops or as a screen to mask an army's movement. Sending them in against infantry or heavy cavalry would be unwise.

I think having dragoons dismount in the game provides depth but they should not represent a serious infantry element as their carbines would not have the range of muskets and they were none more for their dash and daring rather than their solidity under fire.

[CBR]

I think having dragoons dismount in the game provides depth but they should not represent a serious infantry element as their carbines would not have the range of muskets and they were none more for their dash and daring rather than their solidity under fire.

I think it is a nice addition to Total War but I do wonder about how important they will be on the battlefield. Unless the battlefield size has been considerably increased then what is the point in having them.

But a force of pure cavalry will of course have more speed on the strategic map and dragoons acting as infantry in case of a fight. So maybe more for use as deep raiders than in the regular armies.


CBR

[CBR]

The target doesn't matter. The light brigades attack showed the effects artillery fire could have on cavalry. The French used their cavalry in the correct way and snuck around to take out one of the Russian batteries while it was concentrated on the British.

The (wrong) target meant everything for the Light Brigade as this illustration shows: half the shot fired came from enfilade fire and no room to spread out and/or outflank.


CBR