Eu4 is cavalry worth it. There's gotta be some about Qing/cav supporters out there.

Eu4 is cavalry worth it Thats up to you if you think using a slot on horde ideas over diplo or admin is worth it. So you wanna keep 4 In most situations, cavalry are not worth their money. Humanist gives -2 in every province regardless of religion and even more in others faiths provinces and lowered separatism and higher religious unity. Could make the argument that including cavalry hedges against battles This is actually the better position for the cavallry to be in, since the most outward regiment would just get blown up instantly if cav and inf were both flanking it, and after that neither of the two could do anything else since they bnoth attacked at max flanking range, with the current deployment the cav can flank the first regiment, and once it falls can still go in deeper into the Poland gets a mission giving 50% more cav to inf ratio allowing 100% cav armies. Absolutely not. Thread starter Kryndude; Start date Dec 9, 2020; Jump to latest Follow so it does not help much to have more infantry than enemy. So my question is, where does the cavalry go? Cavalry almost always does more shock damage than infantry can do fire damage, even more so with Polish ideas and Cossacks estate, the problem is that they don't do very much fire damage and late game that can be an issue - fire phase comes first, so your cavalry won't do much damage in the first phase compared to how much infantry do, and there's a chance that they Are they worth the money/micromanagement when you have no cavalry modifiers? Absolutely not. 5 times as much as infantry and every important Is it worth it to form Scandinavia as Sweden now? I'd hate to give up the 20% infantry ability just to get more missions ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Paradox Development Studio. The cavalry maintenance is too disproportionate to their actual effectiveness over infantry imo. No ? Religious gives -2 unrest in true faith provinces only. Also worth noting, it decreases your losses in battles, which is a huge boost to both your manpower and your economy (money spent on replacements). It is of course possible to make cavalry extremely powerful if you're overloading your composition to accomodate them, but Cavalry are much more expensive than infantry and as such Cavalry-heavy compositions are inefficient - again, unless you're a horde. while i agree the cavalry should move more to the center, that should be based on cavalry ratio (a nation with 100% cav ratio would try to fill the entire width, one wtih 50% cav ratio would only fill 50% of the line), it doesnt change the point that cavalry flanking is useless. The Nobility privilege "Mansabdar - Cavalry force" provides an impressive −50% cavalry cost, scaling with loyalty. The number of cavalry you want is mostly dependent on their flanking value. It gets really crazy A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Paradox Development Studio. - unique mechanic is the Mansabdari System. And Considering a lot of your stacks only have 4 cavalry, would cavalry combat ability be worth worrying about? I'm thinking of playing as Kurland and getting quality + aristocratic ideas to get 35% combat ability but I'm wondering whether I should bother. Use cavalry if you can use them to flank; fight with enemy stacks below the army width. A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Paradox Development Studio. A 15% multiplied by the 2. Even playing Horde nations cavalry still costs 2. ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Well, but as I said, they don't really help in the early game and by midgame you should be strong enough to not really care about money. as a cav focused nation, cavalry is competitive with infantry armies. Got to buy the game and all DLCs from money I got from my relatives on some occasion. AI always try to fit full cavalry flanking even if you have too much infantry for front row. That is even worth it even if you are over force limit. Why Cavalry is Actually Good It varies over the game, for example cavalry gets another shock multiplier on 17, only for infantry to come back yet again in tech 20 and 21. You always have to drag slow infantery with it, as pure cavalry armies get a hefty combat penalty. When your militery tech reaches 18, the cavalry flanking bonus goes up to 3. With the new icon of st. It’s not optimal but it’s actually pretty good. Europa Universalis IV. It is exceptionally rare in single player to have lots of full engagement width vs full engagement width battles. fill out your combat width plus a bit with infantry, start with 4 cavalry and increase it by 2 for each tech that upgrades flanking range, and have your combat width in artillery. I find that most campaigns, due to cost and the decreasing importance of shock value, I abandon cavalry for more standardized inf and art armies The consensus among the best players is that cavalry is not worth it even if you are a horde, but I know I'm risking quite an upheaval by saying this You seem pretty fine, honestly. Yes. You can try getting an advisor to boost yourselves a little bit. If you're horde, then pure cavalry stacks are your friends and everyone else's horror. so play wise for everything beside early horde & muslim i consolidate away cavalry and spam infantry, and for hordes i do the opposite and consolidate away infantry and build what cavalry Cavalry fire isn't that good because their fire damage is miniscule compared to shock due to low fire offense pips against much higher enemy fire defense when cannons contribute half of their defensive pips at later techs. Even when I play as a nation which has marines, I find that I've never gotten around to using them. So Siam cavalry at tech 17 is 2. Members Online. The only other way to get it that is with national idea is offensive idea 5 for a 20% discount and fully completing offensive and innovative for a policy that gives a 10% discount. Correct me if I'm wrong, but cavalry is totally not worth the cash no matter what you play. Some hordes, like Oirat, start with significant cavalry bonuses and a 100% support ratio, so they should probably just go 100% cav for their frontlines. 5 fire and 9 shock at both stages is better than just having 3. There are times however where having more cavalry can be worth the extra cost of maintaining them. For example tech 18 introduces base flanking range of cavalry of 3 (without bonuses from ideas), which means on each side of your front line you can deploy 3 Obviously, cavalry's effectiveness drops off in the early-mid game, and as infantry combat ability modifiers begin to stack it's definitely worth dropping cav (to an extent), but damn folks. Still, super expensive. As the commonwealth having more infantry for the first half might be a good plan, but in the latter half of the game there is no reason for your combat stacks to not be 100% cav with arty of course. Cavalry can flank 2 units at the start at the game, that's why you want exactly 4 cavalry units (if your enemy has 16 units then you field 16 infantry and 4 cavalry to crush them). By the time you form Scandinavia, I'd still recruit the Hakkapeliita but otherwise cav would just be bad. Army professionalism in the way developers marketed it is bad. The main problem is you would ideally want infantry stacks to siege with because they are cheaper and can storm after a breach, and there’s no reason to siege with cav. From Europa Universalis 4 Wiki. Cavalry looks like worth more than 2. Cavalry has 2 main downsides: The performance per ducat is worse than INF, and exceeding the CAV/INF ratio has devastating debuffs. Is Cavalry worth it - discussion. that said, as muscovy, you're probably better off using streltsy This page deals with the the individual land unit types. so they keep drill. It’s just so good. This article discusses the three types of Cavalry have less pips then infantry, and have almost no pips in fire. Warhammer 40k is a franchise created by Games Workshop, detailing the far future and the grim darkness it holds. But it's Brittany with like one province in Europe, right? Hardly worth the 5 (or 3) stabhit. It’s so hilarious that it’s worth it IMO. If you're a horde then use as much cavalry as possible, they have extra bonuses with it and can just delete much larger enemy armies by focusing on cav. They're also a fair bit more expensive however, so often not worth it. Pirated Shogun 2, EU4, AOE 1 Cavalry are not worth the money they cost compared to the amount of damage they do, I forgot the exact math. 25 times as well, but costs 2. Just the CCA +15%? Better than +1 cavalry fire. Aiming for the cav ratio is pointless because cav is not all that good to begin with, except for their unique ability to flank. Yes, absolutely yes. A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about Paradox Interactive games and of the company proper. Slight correction, they get cavalry fire rather than combat ability which I'd argue is much worse for cav (they're all about shock, not fire). You do not need cavalry as japan. They don't hurt to have. before tech 11, cavalry fire is 0, so cavalry fire pips are worthless, but at tech 22, cavalry fire is 1 and cavalry shock is 3, so they have some value, but cavalry fire does not increase in later techs, so its value declines again) So currently the HRE looks like this, and has a combined force of 265000 Infantry, 80000 Cavalry and 66000 Artillery, aswell as a fleet of 4 Heavies, 43 Lights, 22 Galleys and 27 Transports. In the early game when cavalry dominates infantry and saves you manpower doing so, isn't it worth it nearly every time to keep your cav? A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Paradox Development Studio. If you can afford them 4 is enough early game, unless you have some cavalry related modifiers, like Poland for example, the you want more of them. This is incorrect. depends on what you mean by "worth it". Not everyone conquers the world pre 1600 so you can get away with delaying good ideas I suppose. Cavalry costs 2. At military tech 18 you get +50% flanking range so your cavalry now can flank 3 units. Cavalry is better suited to a moving army looking for enemy contact, where you get a flanking benefit not accrued in a siege. Cavalry costs more gold to reinforce, if your budget is really tight. Members Online 1100 hours in and can't play EU4 any more because I believe I can't play 'optimally'. 5 fire and 9 shock. 5 at tech 11 and +1. 5 times more powerful. Almost every game I play now, especially in Europe I end up deleting all starting cavalry units and end up using purely infantry until tech 7. Trucebreaking is a tool like any other in the game, just more expensive. 5 times what infantery costs. For information on the recruitment and maintenance of armies see army. Is stacking Cavalry Combat Ability worth it? Thread starter Smeeved; Start date Sep 21, 2015; Jump to latest Follow with one of the steppe hordes which benefit from +20% CCA and I was wondering if during the course of the game it is worth focusing on the quality of my cavalry by taking the aristocratic, quality and This is a guide on how to achieve the greatest Cavalry Combat ability possible in eu4. Also, this is an RNG game. . Cavalry normally don't get any modifiers to Fire damage until much later into the game, reaching +0. It's sometimes not worth competing with the AI if it goes for something like defensive or whatever. However, stacking cavalry combat ability is easier than stacking infantry combat ability. And using cavalry can change a victory into a stackwipe. Is there a defense for banner cavalry? The autonomy reduction, siege pip, and the tech cost reduction way early when compared to administrative and diplomatic ideas. So unless you have a completely insane combat modifier for cavalry, they are meme units. Content is available under Attribution-ShareAlike 3. For land combat mechanics see land warfare. Ironically, your friend is incredibly wrong about when cavalry is especially bad. (early game) If the cavalry end up in a fight without flanking (aka have an opponent in front of them), they still do more damage but reinforcement costs will increase more. That said, the rule of thumb is that cavalry bonuses can make cavalry worth it or even your best option, so it depends on the horde. Members Online My Basileus Manuel IV wrote the hottest military book of the century and then dropped a sequel 6 years later. Also, this: fire damage increases for infantry Unless your nation has some good cavalry bonuses it's usually not worth having more than 4, as your flanks can support 2 cavalry each. After that, it'll probably be another year before it's released. I am playing a poland campaign and just formed commonwealth. Given that you are somewhere late tech, some guides said that you want your combat width on infantry and your combat width on artillery, plus 2/4 cavalry on top of that. As a comparison: France and the Ottomans both have ~70000 units each. True, but siege ability is a rare ability for an idea group and a very nice pickup. You don't really get them in sufficient numbers to field full armies and operating independently they wouldn't have support from cavalry or artillery. Are they more realistically worth it if you have cavalry buffs? Like say you have the 1 or 2 government reforms that buff cav + Aristocratic ideas. Here are the ways to get cavalry ratio, without going into Custom Nation Religion Exclusive: +25% no-syncreti Tengri, +10% from loyal/influential Cossack, or +10% from Sunni I love roleplaying, this time i thought of a Mossi horde invasion into North Africa and Europe, thing is, i’m not sure if their cavalry bonuses are enough for this play style, only having 10% cav combat ability and 50% cavalry flanking ability ideas. The main attraction of 40k is the miniatures, but there are also many video games, board games, books, ect. Even if they were the same cost and upkeep as infantry they'd still not be Taking just 2 cavalry is nonsensical in any way. The entire point of being a horde is that you have uber powerful cavalry due to the shock bonus on flatland, combined with being able to field massive amounts of cavalry and having large combat modifiers to it. On many tech levels they do more damage than infantry so you lose less manpower, but the better alternative for this are If, in mid-game, you're in a cavalry-weak tech level and you need to start snow-balling your economy with buildings, it'd definitely not be worth the cost. Flanking ability just multiplies the number of places they can flank from. The question is if you have the money to support cavalry and if it is cost-effective to go with more infantry rather than intersperse cav in an army. 5 times as much, but with enough cavalry combat ability, it's still better than infantry (since cav is half as cost-effective as infantry, you do need quite a lot of it, but it's possible). Ehh, if you're rich af, you might like to buy EU4. r/eu4. Infantry numbers help in siege and negotiation, though. Most cases it is not “worth” (from a pure money efficiency standpoint) getting cav but there are other factors which you’ll learn with game sense. with new tier 5 government reforms you should take cavalry warfare to further decrease cavalry cost by 15% holy horde give you another 10% cav cost reducion, also if you'll be able to get trading in cows you can get another 10% cav cost reduction, so in the end all bonuses looks like this: And then you also got cannons. Infantry is just straight up Europa Universalis 4 Wiki Active Wikis Age of Wonders 4 Empire of Sin Cities: Skylines 2 Crusader Kings 3 Europa Universalis 4 Hearts of Iron 4 Hunter: The Reckoning Imperator: Rome Millennia Prison Architect Stellaris Surviving Mars Surviving the Aftermath Werewolf: the Apocalypse Vampire: The Masquerade Victoria 3 No it's not really worth it. It might indeed be worthwhile to mix in some cav into battle-oriented stacks at tech 18, then delete them at tech 20. Go to eu4 r/eu4. Some franchises and games of note: Stellaris, Europa Universalis, Imperator: Rome, Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron, Victoria and Cities: Skylines. Fam in the early games there are extremly limited amount of nations, where there are modifiers for specific unit types in the first place. With this much of a reduction in cost, it could be worth maxing out on the 75-85% cavalry ratio you'll have, if you can keep your nobility loyal. Cavalry are esentially always worth using unless you are strapped for cash or Manpower, while their massive early game advantage is not retained they are still a bit better However, generally speaking, 4 cavalry per army is enough. 2 shockonly for cavalry to get a Basically its only worth it when the walls are down, and you significantly outnumber the weakened garrison. Is cavalry combat ability really even worth it when they usually make up a tiny proportion of armies? Even in the late game I never put more that 4 cavalry in my armies and the rest is made up of a split of slightly more infantry than artillery. Cav would be worth it if you get really good bonusses like hordes, Poland or Sich Rada government. With over 50% cavalry combat ability and winged hussars how long is cavalry worth As for the cavalry ratio it just looks at the number of soldiers in a stack and how many are cavalry. For me, below 3000-4000 natives per province, the goods produced bonus are rarely worth A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Paradox Development Studio. For me, with most nations I use very few cavalry in general, and no more than 4 per stack, so I don't generally have a lot to spare for a siege. If, in the late-game, money becomes abundant and cavalry gives you The question is if you have the money to support cavalry and if it is cost-effective to go with more infantry rather than intersperse cav in an army. Sweden and Scandinavia get access to Hakkapelitta merc company that has -75% reduced cost/maintenance and +1 And the value also varies throughout the game(e. Most cases it is not “worth” (from a pure money efficiency standpoint) getting cav but there are In this part, we discuss ideal army composition and why use of cavalry should be situational. So my general advice is still: only get cav if you can afford it and get a ton of bonuses. Not all DLCs are needed tho. Cavalry is not useless because flanking is bad or something (it is btw, cavalry flanking is probably one of the most worthless modifiers in EU4). When you have more than 20X more Infantry (not Cavalry or Artillery) than the garrison. It's not about whether more money is good or bad, it's whether compared to all the other choices it's still good and after all, (imo) money is really not that important compared to monarch power, so I'd prefer to take anything else basically. As for how many to actually use, that depends on the nation. Cavalry have higher stats than infantry, and are great at flanking. that are all connected in the 40k universe. The “cavalry are useless” as with so many comments is a multiplayer comment imho, which misleads newer players playing single player. As far as cannons go, the more the better get your entire back row filled. They bad at fire stage of fight, but good at shock stage. ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Paradox Development Studio. 55/. Drilling infantry and cavalry is bad because like you said, they just die and waste the drilling. Does worth it for you mean Cavalry must be objectively better in literally all criteria, because the common reason given that infantry are better is that they are cheaper and that makes Part 3 of a 4 part series on basics of combat and combat related mechanics. The game is pretty incomplete without quite a few DLCs. Just make sure there is enough infantry so your cannons don't get on to the front line Cavalry is pretty bad without cavalry modifiers, and it's expensive, but in a few rare circumstances it can help a little bit so having 2-4 cavalry regiments can be worth the price if you're not poor. michael and the cossack special units, polish cavalry can get very massive very quickly. g. Cavalry is useless because it's +150% more expensive than infantry for about +30% benefit. Cavalry for the player is, unless you're a horde, going to make up a small portion of your armies. 5x cost of infantry in battle. As for the title question: Depends on what modifiers you got for Cavalry. In the beginning the front line limit is 25 (the combat width). You can use Chevauchée to deal massive flanking damage or Western But apples for apples mid game on infantry are better. The mainstream advice is to ditch cavalry starting mid game or so in favor of full infantry, unless you have bonuses. Cavalry is never worth it because they cost 2. This page was last edited on 15 November 2013, at 22:33. I wouldn't go overboard with stacking (unless roleplaying - its not the best lategame choice), but picking aristocracy should be worth it for cheaper cav and there is also +1 shock there. And then we'll have to see, but keep in mind that EU4 has 10 years worth of improvement, patches and DLCs, so it will take some time for EU5 to catch up. While cavalry costs more they also start out with an additional pip compared to infantry so they will basically always win against an infantry unit. This while other guides said that you want to go full on artillery, and infantry and 2/4 cavalry combined to get full combat width. Finally, not meeting the cavalry ratio reduces your combat tactics by 1/4 (aka x1. Early game cavalry are much better than infantry. And numbers and kill needed to A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Paradox Development Studio. Even exceeding your force limit with infantry is viable if you consolidate your regiments. Later on cavalry lacks fire pips. 95 on techs 6 and 7 beat out cavalry's 1. I thought of stacking combat ability with Horde Government Ideas and policies, is it worth it? Religious will always have better stability than Humanist. cavalry isn't nothing-can-salvage-this bad. I've seen a lot of people saying the cap is 93%. If the war was difficult and you really wanted to cripple your enemy for the rest of the game, you would trucebreak to drive the point home. Even in the early game this is a thing; infantry fire/shock at . By 1700s i would also build more cavalry (maybe in kill stack), closer to 60% they support at least in one kill stack. i'm not convinced its actually better though, but since you are doing holy horder, you should For what it's worth, this conversation on cavalry is less disconnected from reality compared to some of the people seriously defending innovativeness as a competitive mechanic in that thread we had the other day. 5 fire and 9 shock with no 15% bonus. In this part, we discuss ideal army composition and why use of cavalry should be no, its not worth it as western tech, period. Whenever you rather invest your money elsewhere really. Maybe gaining 100 drill in 2-3 years rather than 10 would make it worth it. And don't build any new cavalry regiments before miltech 8 unless you're a horde or something. Are they really worth having all your land be wrong culture? Besides the banner units are almost always cav (hot take alert) which suck. There's gotta be some about Qing/cav supporters out there. 33 damage taken), but has no impact on your damage dealt. Not being able to assault forts with breaches is also a downside, but nowhere near as severe as the other two. At tech 17 we have cavalry sitting at +0. If you're playing a nation with good cav bonuses such as Poland having more is a good idea, whilst a horde for example can have almost pure cav army. ; About Europa Universalis 4 Wiki; Mobile view I've been going Orthodox Poland and raising hosts every five or so years to fill my ranks with cossacks. I was wondering if it’s worth it to keep one or two cavalry units in a stack. Cavalry combat ability on the Polish can reach 93% normally, and add 5% with a random event every now and then. it fights 1. Normally I'd just change primary culture, but to do so, I'd lose banner units. If ducats aren't a In most cases (as you pointed out) cavalry is not worth its cost and the money can be spent better. 1 cavalry costs as much as 2 or 3 infantry units yet is not strong enough to beat 2 or 3 infantry units. Apparently cav is viable with horde ideas + no syncretic tengri for the reduced cost and full cavalry armies. If you have a nation like Poland with cav combat ability or shock damage, by all means it could be worth the cost. Starting at mil tech 20 you will see infantry and arty gain massive buffs where as cav get less and less direct buffs. 0 unless otherwise noted. So yes, I'd say it's absolutely worth getting into EU4 now. Not encouraging piracy, buy I pirate games before I decide to buy them. Assuming you use the full 800 points, you can get all kinds of cavalry buffs like +20% Cavalry Combat Ability, -20% Cavalry Cost (or -20% Regiment Cost in general is even better), +50% Cavalry Flanking Ability, +20% Shock Damage, +60% Available Loot, +40% Looting Speed, +20% Movement Speed, +2 Land Leader Shock, and of course just generally Europa Universalis IV. Millennia - Official Release Trailer Europa Universalis IV. If you engage a stack of 10 inf with 10inf and 2 cav, Many infantry types also have more fire defensive pips than shock defensive pips. If I were to pass the last Reform, I would lose my 35 Vassals who - as far as I know - each have 6 base force limit, so Unless you are a horde, or both extremely wealthy and limited by forcelimit, don’t bother with cavalry, the damage per ducat spent isnt worth it. But ya, they fall off. And even when you do use them, don’t use more than 4 per battle stack because their primary value is to flank the enemy, which they can do up to 2 spaces across(3 post 1650iirc). I'm thinking it's not worth it. In general, Cavalry is only worth it early or if you got insane modifiers. 0 all the way at tech 22, so early game this represents a massive boost to the damage your cavalry can deal (you can form Siam earlier in the game by culture shifting to Lao and forming Lan Xang, rather than going through the all cavalry combat ability bonuses. 5 fire and +3 shock, and 2 fire and 6 shock from units. The fire phase is more important than shock and cavalry has a fire multiplier malus. Poland also can get near or above 100% cav combat ability. That nice shock damage from cavalry is much harder to defend against. Learn a bit about Army professionalism as well! Part 1 - Combat Basics - • EU4 Cavalry is only really useful when your front line greatly outnumbers theirs. Early on, when this flanking value is 2, it is pretty much a waste for a nation with no cavalry bonus to have more than two calvary (one for each end of the front row). Revolution is absolutely worth it, particularly because you can fire it by 1714 by thinking ahead and having stab -1 by 1710 and instantly taking out 25 loans, I usually save for 15 years or so in order to Basically. 18inf 6cav would be 6/24=25%. 5 times more than infantry and is not 2. for horde tech its worth it until you unlock an infantry unit with comparable pips, and muslim tech fall somewhere between western and horde tech. If you see hanging/unused cavalry in battle it's not because you did'nt micromanaged your army "properly" like Arumba does but because initial Fire/Shock phases already routed some of opponent units. dupua bavpb xihjfm zxaze mnbrek wpbv lubup uue czdkwlt agfgbjt