I've had Victoria for years, and have never used them. What are they? How are they different from Infantry/Cavalry? Is there any purpose to building them?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
From Vickywiki:
to be honest I've never used them too, for me they are useless. I prefer just standard infantry
to be honest I've never used them too, for me they are useless. I prefer just standard infantry
The text says it pretty well, they are mostly useful at cleaning up rebels and partisans and such.
Under some circumstances however they can be useful. If you are fighting in a area mostly devoid of soldiers but with high attrition such as Africa their added speed can really help you fight the attrition.
Also if you have a stack of say 10 divisions, and want to have a tank or artillery attachment, but don't won't to have the speed of the entire army slowed, you can attach them to dragoons. They are a little weaker, but they are substantially faster.
Finally you can attach engineering corps to dragoons, and they can even dig in and get a defensive bonus.
Under some circumstances however they can be useful. If you are fighting in a area mostly devoid of soldiers but with high attrition such as Africa their added speed can really help you fight the attrition.
Also if you have a stack of say 10 divisions, and want to have a tank or artillery attachment, but don't won't to have the speed of the entire army slowed, you can attach them to dragoons. They are a little weaker, but they are substantially faster.
Finally you can attach engineering corps to dragoons, and they can even dig in and get a defensive bonus.
That's not a bad idea, but it can be a little dicey, because dragoons don't have the defense stat that pure infantry divisions have.
When I have large empires that need rebel whacking, or when I'm attacking large land empires, I always have one or more dragoon armies. 3 divisions with 1 guard (for extra fire), 1 regular and 1 engineer, can take care of quite a bit of annoyances.
And in the late game, if you choose the speed option in speed vs firepower (actual name of the tech, I forget), they should get even faster.
I created a little Corps of 4 Dragoons each with horse artillery and they seemed to work okay=good balance of mobility and firepower, though I was not overwhelmed at how they performed.
There is something on VickyWiki about the "declining value of cavalry" but I'm not sure how salient that is for Vicky Rev 2.01 let alone for the latest version of VIP. It seems like a lot of the stuff on VickyWiki was written about an early version of the game.
I have adopted a custom of creating Corps of initially three divisions: 1 Reg-supplemented; 1 Artillery; 1 Guard. Then as soon as I can add an Engineer than later add an HQ. I find that this is about as large as I generally want a Corps to get and the bonus from attacking from multiple directions is so great that it doesn't seem to be beneficial to make them bigger.
Based on the sense of that "declining value of cavalry" I've neglected cavalry and don't feel I've really used them properly. I've thought of trying a corps of three Hussar Cavs but they are so costly I never manage to build more than one before I'm afraid they are losing their timeliness.
How late is "too late" to build Cav? Do they actually lose their power as the game progresses?
There is something on VickyWiki about the "declining value of cavalry" but I'm not sure how salient that is for Vicky Rev 2.01 let alone for the latest version of VIP. It seems like a lot of the stuff on VickyWiki was written about an early version of the game.
I have adopted a custom of creating Corps of initially three divisions: 1 Reg-supplemented; 1 Artillery; 1 Guard. Then as soon as I can add an Engineer than later add an HQ. I find that this is about as large as I generally want a Corps to get and the bonus from attacking from multiple directions is so great that it doesn't seem to be beneficial to make them bigger.
Based on the sense of that "declining value of cavalry" I've neglected cavalry and don't feel I've really used them properly. I've thought of trying a corps of three Hussar Cavs but they are so costly I never manage to build more than one before I'm afraid they are losing their timeliness.
How late is "too late" to build Cav? Do they actually lose their power as the game progresses?
I find cavalry to only really be effective against other countries' regular early in the game, probably 1850 and earlier. At that point they have a good shock value, and opposing units have poor organization/morale. (you'll know the opposing army had their morale broken when they retreat; if instead they take the punishment until they're dead, then it was the fire value that chewed them to bits. Indeed I was quite surprised at how well the Spanish cavalry performed against Carlist Spain in my recent VIP:R game).
Around 1850 or so, artillery begins to have similar shock value as cavalry, and then rapidly gets better and better shock, making cavalry really only useful for their speed.
A few decades after 1850, cavalry will tend to get completely slaughtered by opposing regular army forces, as their defense is zero. Their shock stinks relative to artillery, and their fire value is terrible.
However, for big empires (think autocratic Russia), cavalry can be useful for rebel whacking, and they are much faster than dragoons. In those cases though, I typically don't bother with hussars, but instead go for cuirassiers (extra shock to break morale) or just unbrigaded (cheaper). The +1 speed and puny extra fire from hussars doesn't seem that useful.
Around 1850 or so, artillery begins to have similar shock value as cavalry, and then rapidly gets better and better shock, making cavalry really only useful for their speed.
A few decades after 1850, cavalry will tend to get completely slaughtered by opposing regular army forces, as their defense is zero. Their shock stinks relative to artillery, and their fire value is terrible.
However, for big empires (think autocratic Russia), cavalry can be useful for rebel whacking, and they are much faster than dragoons. In those cases though, I typically don't bother with hussars, but instead go for cuirassiers (extra shock to break morale) or just unbrigaded (cheaper). The +1 speed and puny extra fire from hussars doesn't seem that useful.
Oh yeah, the other reason to focus on shock and morale breaking when making a rebel whacking crew, is that you don't want to totally annihilate your rebels, but just get them to disappear. Because once they're no longer revolting, you want the POP to go back into the mine/farm/factory and help your economy.
If you shoot them all to shreds, then they're dead, and not really able to be working, are they?
If you shoot them all to shreds, then they're dead, and not really able to be working, are they?
Interesting. So the time period when Cavalry (one of the more expensive units in the game) is most useful and cost-effective is when most countries are the most strapped for cash. Classic tradeoff
Interesting. So the time period when Cavalry (one of the more expensive units in the game) is most useful and cost-effective is when most countries are the most strapped for cash. Classic tradeoff
There are times where a mere 12.000 cav+c could defeat like 300.000 plain infantry at compareable tech in the early game. odds of 1 to 25 and still win.
You can do that with 6 Jominnian devissions of cav+c at 2000 strenght, full maintainance, with an added nutcase general on youre own turf (the best shock/morale generals often have a wee bit attrition) against a force of 30 clauswitzian full strenght plain infantry devissions, on plain grassland.
the 6 devissions of 2000 strenght cost the same in upkeep as 1 devission of 12K btw.
That is i roughly estimate the maximum advantage that can be had in the early game where total morale and shock still determine victory and casualties/contact can be kept to a minimum. There are no occasions i think later in the game where better odds could be gotten against for ex. a major power if the money or manpower base is lacking. It usually only works for the first 20 or so years, and then it starts to change quite fast, and guards, engineers and artillery become better alternatives.
A good ingame example of this is Texas. Eventhough it lacks manpower in 1936 to get their army to full strenght, they can get every starting devission up to about 2000 strenght each. With Houston at the command of a fully stacked Texan army like this, you can defeat far larger Mexican forces under Santa anna's command fairly easily, but strenght of devisions has to be micromanaged a bit.
So in general is it better to have 6 Divisions at 2000 strength than 1 division at 12,000 strength?
I never bother with Dragoons.
And Cav is really only good for whack a mole revolt killers, which they are best at.
And Cav is really only good for whack a mole revolt killers, which they are best at.
Last edited:
Only in the early game, where armies win on morale, and few strenght loss is occuring due to the low fire and defense value's.
After 20 years, the fire and defense value of units will go up, and then you will start to take far more casualtys. in the late game a battle is almost never won on morale, rather fire values are so high that most devissions get all their strenght wpied out even before they can have lost their morale. Theyll storm themselfs to dead if needed to, and more so a Jominian than clauswitzian.
So after 20-30 years, you better start to give those devissions far more strenght, or they could get anihilated.