Heavy cavalry completly unusefull in game .

[jo the greek]

After many examples both in Multiplayer campaing and battle map
i realised that Heavy cavalry is completly unpractical for the game.

Sure has some use but that use is very limited.
Its more practical to have 2 or 3 Indian cavalry with about same amount of money than one heavy.
More beats quality cause in horses event like surrounding the enemy cavalry or even infantry can cause great damage and many lancers together can do destructive charges.

I only use heavy cavalry for prestige

[Ahlerich]

i never cared about cavalry stats in etw. i only use cavalry to get cannons and stop enemy cavalry until my infantry is there to butcher them.
thats maybe why i find the etw gameplay so much more boring then in previous games

formations, unit stats, unit types all doesnt really matter much as u are doing fine butchering the enemy with extremely simple tactics/methods

the way i use cavalry it makes little difference if its militia cavalry or high end heavy cavalry - and as i always succeed this way there is no need to change tactics

[jo the greek]

i never cared about cavalry stats in etw. i only use cavalry to get cannons and stop enemy cavalry until my infantry is there to butcher them.
thats maybe why i find the etw gameplay so much more boring then in previous games

formations, unit stats, unit types all doesnt really matter much as u are doing fine butchering the enemy with extremely simple tactics/methods

the way i use cavalry it makes little difference if its militia cavalry or high end heavy cavalry - and as i always succeed this way there is no need to change tactics

It seems that you camp with cannons and wait

[Ahlerich]

It seems that you camp with cannons and wait

yep indeed, mostly, most of the time that is what i do.

if the enemy does the same i sneak up on him using as much cover i can get so then its slightly different but the cavalry role i use is the same.

[morteduzionism]

After many examples both in Multiplayer campaing and battle map
i realised that Heavy cavalry is completly unpractical for the game.

Not for me.

Sure has some use but that use is very limited.
Its more practical to have 2 or 3 Indian cavalry with about same amount of money than one heavy.
More beats quality cause in horses event like surrounding the enemy cavalry or even infantry can cause great damage and many lancers together can do destructive charges.

Isn't that faction specific?

Not all factions can recruit "Indian Cavalry," right?

I suppose if those are the tactics you use then I guess heavy cavalry may not be practical.

Personally, I don't use my cavalry to engage with infantry unless it's to chase routers. I'm not sure what you mean by "surrounding the enemy cavalry."

I use my cavalry (heavy and medium) to engage other cavalry on the flanks. I use light dragoons to engage other missile cavalry if present. Depending on the mix and number of units on the enemy flank I may use the light dragoons to pin down their (missile) cavalry and charge with the heavies and medium.

That tatic, for me, chops up enemies nicely.

After their flanks (cavalry) are destroyed I then move my cavalry back and wait...

Once the main battle line and enemy reserves have been committed I'm free to swing the cavalry around and attack their guns.

For me, I couldn't rely on medium cavalry alone to do that. Especially provincials! Whenever I've tried to use just medium or a combination of medium/light they've broken every time. This is mainly against other medium (Regiment of horse) cavalry.

[Tim1988]

I find them very usefull (especially against the AI). I use them to defeat the enemy cavalry on the flanks. When I've done that, my light cavalry will go for the enemy artillery, while the remaining heavies swing behind the enemy lines. This will force the enemy into squares (allowing my infantry to slaughter them), or they get charged in the rear, causing massive morale hits.

I agree that massed lancers can also do this job, but i find that they require a too much micro, which is hard if you are trying to advance the rest of your army as well. Also, as you state that 3 lancers is a good as a heavy cav, to equal 2 heavy and 2 light cav (which is what i normally take) that's already almost half of your army's slots taken up, leaving you space for few infantry and arty.

Heavy cav. all the way for me.

[Whooz]

Use my cavalry to get those pesty lonely cannons

[magman]

Having a unit or two of cavalry in a stack is helpful for dealing with fleeing foes and artillery.

But cavalry really shines as a separate branch! You can send 4 units past enemy armies into thier rear, split it up, destroy tons of stuff and get away before they can pull enough troops off the line to deal with them.

So E:TW Cavalry
Tactically Limited
Strategically Essential

[Halvars-XII]

Myself (mainly) use the Heavy Cav (or any cav i have) to attack the enemy from behind and cuasing them to drop morale, then support the cav with infantry bayonets! ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................the .......................enemy runs home and cry's to mommy xD

[joedreck]

It's simply guys. You don't know how to use heavy cavalry. That's why you think they are useless. Sure after muskets are standard the knights were useless, but found new role in this time as supporter for the infantry. Try to attack if your enemy change his position or on the flanks, in his back and you will see, that they are very helpful.

[Humble Warrior]

It's simply guys. You don't know how to use heavy cavalry. That's why you think they are useless. Sure after muskets are standard the knights were useless, but found new role in this time as supporter for the infantry. Try to attack if your enemy change his position or on the flanks, in his back and you will see, that they are very helpful.

Exactly.

Forget Medievel knights. Use 18th century cavalry as support, oppose fast moving enemy cavalry, to break a weakened flank\rear and to generally mop up. Remember, cavalry are Human, more so, they wear pretty clothing and cloth hats- not the sort of stuff to stop any kind of bullet (amazing really), so they die at the drop of a hat. Medievel heavy cavalry would crush 18th century heavyy cav in a 1 on 1 melee battle. I`ve always felt that 18th century warfare was one of the strangest period of war.

If you find that your cavalry tend to wait by the sidelines most of the time in a battle, then you`re doing it right.

[Rolling Thunder]

Medievel heavy cavalry would crush 18th century heavyy cav in a 1 on 1 melee battle.

In fairness though, plate armour dosen't offer that much protection from anything aside from melee.

[Condottiere SOG]

In fairness though, plate armour dosen't offer that much protection from anything aside from melee.

and a proper thrust or slash will cleave even armour...

[Humble Warrior]

and a proper thrust or slash will cleave even armour...

No it won`t. Those sabres they use will not go through plate and only maybe even chainmail. And I was talking about melee. Tis why I said 1 on 1 with another cav unit. Also Medievel Heavy cavalry horse were tougher things too compared to 18th century horse. I reiterate that Mediaeval Heavy cavalry would slaughter 18th century Heavy cavalry in melee.

[Rolling Thunder]

and a proper thrust or slash will cleave even armour...

Say WHAT!?


A slashing attack will not go through chainmail, and a thrust will have a hard time of it (and you're never going to make a good thrust with a broadsword). As for plate, just forget it. That stuff is impenetrable to swords and pretty much invulnerable to anything else except maces, mauls and axes.

@Sarge: You don't know much about Medieval warfare, do you? Knights owned the battlefield. They charged, and the infantry broke. If the infantry didn't break, they pulled back and charged again. And again. And again, and eventually, the infantry broke. They were not slow, and they were not particularly stupid by medieval standards.

You know what stopped knights from being the kings of the battlefield?

Guns? Nope, guns didn't become truly powerful enough to stop a charge until about 1600.

Longbows: Never enough, and took ten years of training.

It was the pike. Pikes stopped cavalry being the only deciding force (and were the only thing that gave infantry any kind of chance against a cavalry charge). Not guns. Not longbows. Pikes.

As for the Renaissance - what, you mean the 1450s onwards, when knights started to use the famous full-plate armour? Armour stopped being used around the late 1500s - gunpowder only became sufficiently effective to stop a knight charge, like I said, with the implementation of the musket as a mass-issue weapon. Even then, cavalry still used curiassar plate and very heavy armour until about the late 1600s.

[SonOfCrusader76]

It's simply guys. You don't know how to use heavy cavalry. That's why you think they are useless. Sure after muskets are standard the knights were useless, but found new role in this time as supporter for the infantry. Try to attack if your enemy change his position or on the flanks, in his back and you will see, that they are very helpful.

Correct. And don't try to use them as Medieval cavalry. The horses are not armoured, neither is the rider. Attack from the flanks or rear, and don't attack squares (unless they have no bayonets for some reason).

Edit: @OP - the word you're looking for is 'useless'; just thought I'd help you out with that one.

[♔Darmoth♔]

I think their point is that most of the time lancers or medium cavalry can accomplish the same, whilst being cheaper. However I'd still prefer to have heavy cavalry if trying that against elite units.

Personally I prefer to use a unit of heavy cavalry in reserve to accompany and help keep my general safe, or on occasion place them behind my artillery to help them if they get charged by melee units (infantry or cavalry) because the heavy cavalry is more likely to be able to hold their own in a sustained melee.

[Kuhndog]

I use them because they can get around quickly so if I get flanked I can respond more quickly than I can with Infantry. Also, I use them to charge the enemy cannons or to engage enemy infantry from behind while my infantry is engaged in melee with the same enemy infantry.

[kesa82]

Curassiers tire more quickly than light cavalry, so they aren't as good as light cavalry / Hussars at chasing down routers.

They don't have carbines, so they aren't much use as a screen. Though dragoons are a very light screen . If the infantry come too close those dragoons best re-mount and retreat another 200 yards.

Where curassiers excel is in hooking around their flank and hitting them in the rear. Their charge bonus / shock is very good. Lancers have better initial charge bonus / shock, but if the infantry doesn't break and / or the Lancers can't disengage, they are as weak as light cavalry / Hussars in an infantry melee, whereas Curassiers can melee.
Lancers seem to be a little lighter so they don't tire as quickly.
So, do you prefer Lancers who charge and chase, or Curassiers who charge and melee ?

When overrunning artillery , sometimes the artillery crew does melee stubbornly before breaking, and sometimes your cavalry gets a face full of canister before they reach the artillery crews , when they have to charge them from the frount.
In both cases, Curassiers take fewer casualties in the stubborn artillery crew melee, and curassiers are less likely to break , more likelyto continue the charge, if they get a face full of canister.
These are important considerations if the enemy has 3 or 4 artillery units and shooting your bolt on just one unit isn't enough, you have to take them all out with one cavalry unit.

Personally, I just love Curassiers. It's the closest thing to armored knights on the 18th century battlefield, and they considered themselves as such. You don't see it in the game, but curassier regiments were staffed by the most pedigreed or most moneyed of the aristocracy, they got the best of the recruits, and they were mounted on the biggest , healthiest, and most expensive horses.
I like their breast plates , every one of which was prooffed by firing a pistol into it, so every breastplate, no matter how polished , laquered , or gold trimmed it was , had a shot dent in it.
Unfortunately the breastplate animation in the game is rather crappy. It looks like they are wearing a dull lead barrel-shaped plate. In reality, this surviving piece of armor glittered like chrome, or was laquered in a mirror finish black. In either case it was resplendent. Like I said, I love Curassiers.

[Inhuman One]

Heavy cavalry lasts longer in melee. And especially in the early game they are lethal when bayonets are not used yet. And of course infantry can lack in firepower before fire by rank is used.

Later on they still have uses for artillery which will become an increasing danger through the game. And when fighting against factions that field swordsmen, axe men or other melee infantry aside from pikemen, they remain perfect for destroying these units with a single charge.

Usually I have about 2-4 units of cavalry in an army. Carabineers are my favorites though, they can line up behind the infantry and give some extra firepower and can switch to melee for light cavalry duties such as mopping up routers, taking out cannons and such.

I cant stand dragoons, they look hideous with those inaccurate helmets.