Why is cavalry cost and upkeep so low?

[Nerouin]

I can't help but notice that while heavy infantry costs quite a bit in cost and upkeep (for example, 2K and 850, respectively, for polybian legionaries), cavalry is very inexpensive; a unit of Roman cavalry goes for ~700 and costs ~300 in upkeep.

This seems odd, given that cavalry has the true killing power in the game. Is there any reason why it's so cheap?

[GRANTO]

i think mabey so that the ai are tempted to buy cavalry for there armys , im sure some one will give you a more in depth answer on the matter shortly.

[Braeburn]

I thinks its because

1. Roman Cavalry both Republican and Imperial are weaker than other cavalry units
2. They were meant to be auxiliary troops.

[LoGaL]

all the cavalry ingame costs less to force the AI to recruit it

[Dean Martin]

The cavalry costs are fine technicaly.

[Holy Harry]

Its not really correct though surely? I mean, you've got a base Roman infantryman. You pay for his supplies and wages. Then you've got your base Roman cavalryman. You pay his supplies and wages like the infantryman, but then you've got to pay for the horse as well, and horses won't find food everywhere, they are gonna need some. IMHO I think cavalry should be atleast the same as infantry, maybe more, atleast for Rome. Maybe not for horse dependant nations like Sarmatia or Parthia.

[Primo]

Cavalry is pretty cheap because the AI otherwise would never field it.

It is one of the things where realism has to be sacrificed to the limitations of RTW.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

It is being reviewed, however...

Especially if it is positively confirmed that the AI recruits on Recruitment cost, but what matters in the long run is Maint cost.

Many Maint costs will then be balanced vis a vis each other, and perhaps especially for the player, so that they are not faced with really illogical choices.

Elite, but rare, units may also well have their costs increased - so the player has to pay for those effeminate and pampered guard types!

I must admit I'd also be quite keen to revoke the myth that the Roman cavalry wasn't rather good.

[Primo]

I must admit I'd also be quite keen to revoke the myth that the Roman cavalry wasn't rather good.

The romans were known for their INFANTRY, not for their auxilia. If the roman cavalry had been good enough, the romans would have won the wars against Parthia and the other "horse nations".

Good tactics sometimes made up for it (For example: Lucullus), but that doesn't mean the cavalry itself was good, just their commanders.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

....

I've had the odd problem with some of the things you're written - but that one takes the biscuit.

Show me some hard, primary, evidence that Roman Cavalry wasn't just as good as any other cavalry of the 300BC to 300AD period and I'll be happy to debate with you.

Study Xenophon and all the detail of Carrhae (sic) and detail the reasons the Parthians won.

But please don't peddle myths - when there a lot more reasons that even just differences in cavalry quantity, which can often be a factor in military defeats. Please also don't forget that Roman Cavalry helped to re-conquer the West in the 5th century.

Roman Auxiliaries, btw, were fairly responsible for holding the 2nd largest empire the world has ever seen under control for 100's of years. There is precious little evidence that the Roman soldier wasn't damn good throughout the period - but continually let down my amateur leadership and the squabbling of monied-tyrants.

....not much change there then.

In short - for all our period the Romans beat, just about, everybody - and the cavalry were there as part of it.

[Primo]

I've had the odd problem with some of the things you're written - but that one takes the biscuit.

Show me some hard, primary, evidence that Roman Cavalry wasn't just as good as any other cavalry of the 300BC to 300AD period and I'll be happy to debate with you.

Study Xenophon and all the detail of Carrhae (sic) and detail the reasons the Parthians won.

But please don't peddle myths - when there a lot more reasons that even just differences in cavalry quantity, which can often be a factor in military defeats. Please also don't forget that Roman Cavalry helped to re-conquer the West in the 5th century.

Roman Auxiliaries, btw, were fairly responsible for holding the 2nd largest empire the world has ever seen under control for 100's of years. There is precious little evidence that the Roman soldier wasn't damn good throughout the period - but continually let down my amateur leadership and the squabbling of monied-tyrants.

....not much change there then.

In short - for all our period the Romans beat, just about, everybody - and the cavalry were there as part of it.

No need to take this that serious.

However, as you sure know there wasn't an unison "roman cavalry" - but loosely two types of them:

One recruited from roman citizens (the ones who hold their citizenship longer, i.e. from the regions of Italy and around) and one recruited from locals (like gallic cavalry) which I do not attribute to the "Roman Cavalry".

Hired Mercenarys don't allow you to make a judgement about the regular troops which the mercenarys replace/were added to, as you surely agree.

Also, when I was talking about the Parthians, I wasn't talking about Cannae, but about the general weakness of any legion (including the cavalry auxilia) to "horse nations". Which is a historical weakness you sure know about.

*runs of quickly before ur-Lord Tedric sees this post*

[Nerouin]

It is being reviewed, however...

Especially if it is positively confirmed that the AI recruits on Recruitment cost, but what matters in the long run is Maint cost.

Many Maint costs will then be balanced vis a vis each other, and perhaps especially for the player, so that they are not faced with really illogical choices.

Elite, but rare, units may also well have their costs increased - so the player has to pay for those effeminate and pampered guard types!

I must admit I'd also be quite keen to revoke the myth that the Roman cavalry wasn't rather good.

Roman cavalry was not bad, but the reliance was upon infantry.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Roman cavalry was not bad, but the reliance was upon infantry.

Yes, because decent war horses take a great deal of time to raise, train and maintain. The same was true for all the 'western' 'civilised' powers. Simply look at the numbers from all the Greek histories. The best were still very good 'Macedonian Companions = Ala Singularis'

The system then struggled a lot more when they came across the 'Horse Peoples'; those who lived, breathed and died with their horses and kept moving with their vast herds - the horses were their lives.

Roman power was indeed based upon their Infantry, but no different to the Spartans, or the Successor Phalanxes. Roman, Greek (perhaps a little less), certainly Spanish, Numidian, Gallic & especially German (which all became 'Roman') are all much the same.

[Anthropoid]

A while back I was procrastinating on the web and I was looking at the wiki pages for 8 or 10 famous Punic War era battles (this was like a year or more ago). I was mostly just browsing through to get a sense for what the major battles of the 2nd Punic war were, and then I noticed that it seemed that--for the battles that had wiki pages--the winner ALWAYS had more cavalry.

So, I made up this little Xcel sheet with what little data there was and did a statistical test of that small sample of famous battles.

And indeed, it was the case that for that sample, the probability that which ever side had the most cavalry won was way above random chance. I believe it was as small as 0.03.

Certainly this is nothing like an exhaustive historical analysis, but . . . I can if any of you guys are curious go dredge up the forum where I posted the synthesis of this analysis that would provide more details. Can't even recall which game/forum I was active in at the time--BLUSH--I'm such a 'game slut.'

There is of course to buttress the results of this little hypothesis testing I did, that quote that is listed in the text scrolls in the game window from Polybius. Something like

In times of war it is better to give battle with half as many infantry as the enemy and an overwhelming force of cavalry, than to be in all respects his equal.

Seems weird for a famous Roman general and statesmen to have acknowledged given Rome's reputation for being a infantry-centric military.

So, just to add some impetus to the discussion: if in fact having more cavalry was in anyway probabilistically linked to winning battles, it raises the question of why more of the ancient world leaders did not always strive to focus on cavalry? Ignorance? Custom? Economic constraints? Other pragmatic constraints?

[RafoutRoud]

A while back I was procrastinating on the web and I was looking at the wiki pages for 8 or 10 famous Punic War era battles (this was like a year or more ago). I was mostly just browsing through to get a sense for what the major battles of the 2nd Punic war were, and then I noticed that it seemed that--for the battles that had wiki pages--the winner ALWAYS had more cavalry.

So, I made up this little Xcel sheet with what little data there was and did a statistical test of that small sample of famous battles.

And indeed, it was the case that for that sample, the probability that which ever side had the most cavalry won was way above random chance. I believe it was as small as 0.03.

Certainly this is nothing like an exhaustive historical analysis, but . . . I can if any of you guys are curious go dredge up the forum where I posted the synthesis of this analysis that would provide more details. Can't even recall which game/forum I was active in at the time--BLUSH--I'm such a 'game slut.'

There is of course to buttress the results of this little hypothesis testing I did, that quote that is listed in the text scrolls in the game window from Polybius. Something like



Seems weird for a famous Roman general and statesmen to have acknowledged given Rome's reputation for being a infantry-centric military.

So, just to add some impetus to the discussion: if in fact having more cavalry was in anyway probabilistically linked to winning battles, it raises the question of why more of the ancient world leaders did not always strive to focus on cavalry? Ignorance? Custom? Economic constraints? Other pragmatic constraints?

Yeah, you didn't really come upon the real thing.

The number of horsemen you field isn't that important - using them to their full potential is.

Cavalry outnumbering their opponents cavalry were often checked by disciplined infantry that were deployed properly. - And that isn't just in antiquity.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

.... Economic constraints? Other pragmatic constraints?

Mostly it's these...

Train and equip a Roman soldier - serves for 25 years, he just needs food and maintenance - he will look after himself. Depending on how 'busy' they are, replacement rate will be, therefore, between about 5-10% per year. Lots of people available.

No cars or mechanical contraptions, so everyone moves at 'foot pace'. If you want to carry more or move faster, then it's: Horses; Mules; Donkeys; or Oxen (sic). So, there's a lot of these about.

However, raising and training war horses to be useful in the noise & din of battle is a whole other thing - the Steppe/Horse people specialised in that (and archers can be used at quite a distance, not necessarily getting to close quarters).

Breed the horse, suitable for military service after 2-3 years, train them = 4 years. Then you must replace them every 4-5 years, requiring a turnover-rate at least 5x that of the 'infantry'. They won't look after themselves either and suffer a whole lot more ailments.

Correct use of cavalry can be a winner - but maintaining cavalry is a big problem.

Ann Hyland's "Equus - the Horse in the Roman World" is rather a good read, and not nearly as dry as I thought it would be.

The Roman Army is also a good study in 'you need infantry to hold ground' - once the area was conquered, then infantry can police the area - a relatively few horsemen to patrol are all that's then necessary - and also hence the Cohors Equitata being the perfect garrison unit.

[Anthropoid]

Oh cool! A good book to read! Thanks Ur

Wow, 4 years to train a warhorse. That is like college for Equines.

ADDIT: Oh wow, this one looks good! What do you think Ur? Much newer than Hylands, and covers ALL of human history (including the training part which is rather fascinating to me); seem like a good alternate?

http://www.amazon.com/War-Horse-Hist...038353&sr=1-11

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Oh cool! A good book to read! Thanks Ur

Wow, 4 years to train a warhorse. That is like college for Equines.

ADDIT: Oh wow, this one looks good! What do you think Ur? Much newer than Hylands, and covers ALL of human history (including the training part which is rather fascinating to me); seem like a good alternate?

http://www.amazon.com/War-Horse-Hist...038353&sr=1-11

You're welcome. Yes, looks a good big book - bit pricey mind you. Me, I was particularly after Roman stuff.

PS - Don't forget the fist 2-3 years of a horse's life are simply to grow big enough!