No heavy cavalry in the early period???

**ottomanfan** · February 22, 2010, 05:27 AM

Is this in any way historical or just for gameplay purposes because it seems ridiculous to me. If this is for gameplay purposes then it certainly doesnt improve gameplay in any way, particularly in multiplayer where there is a general lack of cavalry choices in the early period.

**Elmar** · February 22, 2010, 06:54 AM

A-historical.
Just like no starting Ship of the Line, advanced firing drills, grenadiers, light cavalry, etcetera in the campaign.

**dutch81** · February 22, 2010, 07:59 AM

Same as in RTW when as the Romans you would not field Triari until you were about to get your post Marian reform units ... I find it odd why you cannot get a balanced unit roster from the start and simply develop more advanced version of all these units later in the game ... why CA thinks it is fun to play with the base units until you develop your settlements more is beyond me.

**burden010** · February 22, 2010, 08:59 AM

Everyone likes unlocking new units... that's why. It's purely for gameplay purposes and it makes sense that way.

**emperor77** · February 22, 2010, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by burden010

Everyone likes unlocking new units... that's why. It's purely for gameplay purposes and it makes sense that way.

I disagree.

**Elmar** · February 22, 2010, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by burden010

Everyone likes unlocking new units... that's why. It's purely for gameplay purposes and it makes sense that way.

Except that unlocking units can happen in a more realistic way without screwing up gameplay.

Over time infantry drills did change, cavalry types were added, roles on the battlefield changed and newer, better ship designs did become available. Reflect that in the game, instead of totally bogus and arbitrary limitations which make no sense whatsoever.

**Inhuman One** · February 22, 2010, 11:35 AM

The limitations are fine, I do like unlocking new units and trying to get the most out of weaker units.

However, I do think that each faction should start with a more accurate standing army, including third rates, guard infantry and heavy cavalry. You would still need to research and build better barracks to be able to train more of those units and replace them when destroyed, but you would start out with some units like that. You would just need to be a bit carefull with them to keep them alive untill then.

**ottomanfan** · February 23, 2010, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Inhuman One

The limitations are fine, I do like unlocking new units and trying to get the most out of weaker units.

However, I do think that each faction should start with a more accurate standing army, including third rates, guard infantry and heavy cavalry. You would still need to research and build better barracks to be able to train more of those units and replace them when destroyed, but you would start out with some units like that. You would just need to be a bit carefull with them to keep them alive untill then.

true but i think that the type of unit should be defined differently for example, starting off with basic heavy cavalry units then unlocking elite and guard heavy cavalry later... its much more realistic/historically accurate this way... and i think its one of the reasons people dont do multiplayer with the early period units becase there is not much choice and the different types of infantry and cavalry are not available...

**SMIDSY** · February 23, 2010, 07:10 PM

Did anyone ever play Cossacks? They had a system where you had early heavy units and late heavy units. There was also an overlap as the fresh, unupgraded late period guys were still outmatched by the more upgraded older types. However, once the late period guys got upgraded, they far surpassed all others. Kinda like if the game started in like 1600 and you started out with matchlock musketeers and pikemen and all that business.
Actually, kinda like ALL the TW games up until now.

**dacder** · February 25, 2010, 11:39 PM

2 words winged hussars.though i do think it is very stupid

**Johan217** · February 26, 2010, 01:41 AM

In the TW universe "heavy is always better". Not just cavalry, but also artillery and ships for example. It's a bit too simplified to my liking. It's especially inappropriate in ETW, because during the 18th century there was actually a shift in military doctrine from heavy to lighter troop types.

Maybe they could have handled it a bit like in MTW, where you would have knights early in the game, but they would upgrade their armour or weapons through time.