PDA

View Full Version : Cavalvry



Musket
11-16-2015, 04:38 PM
Title says all will there be some of them horses up in this war? I want to have a War Horse style thing going on.:cool:

A. P. Hill
11-16-2015, 05:16 PM
Cavalry was not much of a factor in this campaign. Stuart's cavalry fought dismounted and on the extreme left of Lee's line past the cornfield and rested their left on the north Potomac River.

There will, I think, be 4 legged creatures in this, it's just not sure when. However that said, now that they are funded, they can now pay riggers and animation genius' to put the critters in. ;)

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-16-2015, 05:19 PM
You need cavalry! Its the only reason for infantry to train the caree formation xD

Numitor
11-16-2015, 05:32 PM
I doubt the volunteer units were actually able to form square. It wasn't really necessary since old-school cavalry charges were impractical and costly.
But yeah, cavalry is important for scouting and keeping those artillerists on edge.

Szotu
11-16-2015, 05:34 PM
Cavalry is really important unit in whole art of war.

A. P. Hill
11-16-2015, 05:59 PM
You need cavalry! Its the only reason for infantry to train the caree formation xD

Wrong war my friend. That formation was never used in the ACW. ;)

Szotu
11-16-2015, 06:16 PM
Alternate history on da way!

Numitor
11-16-2015, 06:38 PM
Well, the square formation was used but not as frequently as in previous wars.

Murch
11-16-2015, 07:40 PM
damn well better be cav or we're disbanding

JaegerCoyote
11-16-2015, 09:19 PM
There will be cav according to them.

Etherton
11-16-2015, 11:17 PM
They already stated clearly Cav and Arty are coming around beta time. So dont worry yourselves younglins

R21
01-18-2016, 01:21 AM
I thought i'd resurrect this thread rather than start a new one. Cavalry will be in the Game by the sounds of things but i'm wondering how capable cry Engine is with this type of stuff (Like I imagine animating them for different circumstances and terrain is more difficult than animating a Soldier).

The reason I mention this is it can be quite jarring when say, in Game, a Horse runs into an obstacle at full speed and just comes to a dead-stop because the Game Engine said "you're blocked here" and i'm wondering if the Devs have put any thought into this like having Horses able to jump Small obstacles or have the Player fall off if they were to do what I mention (just go full speed at a solid object that's too high to bypass).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1gZEVU1q-o

like in this Video, when it hits a solid object (at about 0:18) it just gets re-oriented and carries on running with no Speed loss.

SHoGUN
01-18-2016, 03:32 AM
How is it that I keep seeing messages from people saying cavalry wasn't a big part of this campaign? On both sides (esp Union) there were whole cavalry companies (as well as scouts or mounted infantry), and in lots of different references there are statements saying cavalry played crucial roles, completely contradictory to what people are saying.

FirstDiv2Corps
01-18-2016, 06:45 AM
How is it that I keep seeing messages from people saying cavalry wasn't a big part of this campaign? On both sides (esp Union) there were whole cavalry companies (as well as scouts or mounted infantry), and in lots of different references there are statements saying cavalry played crucial roles, completely contradictory to what people are saying.

There's involvement in a campaign, and involvement in the battle. In the campaign, yes, exactly as you said: scouts, recon patrols, etc.

During the actual Battle of Antietam, not so much. Confederate cavalry stayed around Nicodemus Hill while Federal cavalry did some patrolling near the lower fords, but stayed on the far side of the Antietam away from the fighting. In terms of the fighting on Sept. 17, it was an infantry and artillery slug fest.

SHoGUN
01-18-2016, 09:37 AM
They were still used though. And they would've been absolutely crucial for Officers

BloodBeag
01-18-2016, 11:08 AM
Infantry and artillery are a definite feature of the game but I think they were slightly unsure about Cavalry as they are difficult so they would be coming I think during the final stage of the game before release if at all.

Morgan
01-18-2016, 12:01 PM
Infantry and artillery are a definite feature of the game but I think they were slightly unsure about Cavalry as they are difficult so they would be coming I think during the final stage of the game before release if at all.

Where did you get that information, particular the last part of your comment? Can you please provide a link to an official statement?

BloodBeag
01-18-2016, 12:18 PM
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1947432146/war-of-rights/description

If you go near the bottom they say what will be added i each version of the game and it says that cavalry and artillery will be added in the early access stage which is the last version before release. There was a forum thread quite a long time ago that talked about adding cavalry but this was long before the kickstarter so they might be all for it.

Morgan
01-18-2016, 12:52 PM
Thanks for the link but I was referring to your comment "if at all". I haven't heard the Devs say that cavalry might not be in game at all.

BloodBeag
01-18-2016, 01:04 PM
I think it would have been difficult for them to get horses that were as realistic as everything else in the game with how small their team and funding was before their kickstarter and as A.P.Hill says, cavalry didn't play a major role at antietam. I'm pretty sure there was stuff said by the devs a long time ago though if one of them could sweep in and metaphorically RKO me and tell us what's happening with cavalry then this would be sorted out.

BloodBeag
01-18-2016, 01:13 PM
http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?452-What-about-cavalry&highlight=cavalry

found this. They say that cavalry is not a top priority but will likely be in a future update

A. P. Hill
01-18-2016, 01:31 PM
Cavalry is quite capable of fighting dismounted as they quite frequently did.

Organizing a cavalry company should not be hindered just because horses don't exist as yet, but again know that this branch of the military was limited in use during this campaign. Stuart's cavalry fought dismounted as a division on the extreme left of the CSA, and the USA only had one division active as well, Pleasanton's, and they remained pretty much retained by the middle bridge more or less as McClellan's headquarters guard.

SpectretheGreat
01-18-2016, 04:55 PM
Historically people aren't wrong in saying that Cavalry wasn't the biggest aspect of Antietam, but I see absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be added. They still had cavalry during the time and there is an entire section on the "Company List" for Cavalry, if the Devs were that unsure about Cavalry I don't think they would let tons of people make Cav companies just to tell them no, this is one of the few things that I believe would have to be decided at the start of the development cycle. Whether or not they decide to work on it until the end of the Alpha/Beta is ultimately up to them, but if they plan to expand to more battles to continue the lifespan of this game they will need to add Cavalry.

BloodBeag
01-18-2016, 05:09 PM
I'm sure they will add cavalry but probably not until near or at release

Andy
01-21-2016, 06:45 PM
If a realistic communication system is introduced into the game then it will be necessary for cavalry to be added or at least horses, because if it is not generals will never be able to relay information and orders to other regiments or even other companies. If a realistic communication is not put in the game then cavalry in my opinion will still be a fun aspect to the game. Even though it wasn't a large aspect of the campaign and that when it was there they were normally dismounted the use of horses just seems like an absolutely necessary aspect for communication, quick movement (if cav fights dismounted then they need to move fast to escape), pulling any sort of artillery / supply train (troops need bullets), and on top of all that it is just be another thing to completely submerse the player in the era. With cav it will cause players to question their own commanders and most likely cause panic and chaos in the ranks. In N&S for mount and blade it can be see causing chaos but in WoR a game with better graphics and in first person you would most likely see and hear (if in their TS / in ranger of ingame chat) chaos. However, if cav is added and it is incapable of being more realistic then M&B's cav then I will not see a reason for its existence. If the cav (when charging) doesn't kill or trample hostile players when ridding over them it will just decrease the pure destruction which it has the potential to cause.

So as a final not, if cav is added to the game and is capable of doing what it could in real life and is used for what it was used for in real life then great; however if it is just there to look pretty yet has no actually tactical value then I will say that its use in the game will slowly fade away.

Historical Player
01-24-2016, 10:26 PM
Cavalry wasn't really used for fighting as much in the Civil War. They were used to scout out enemy lines and occasionally attacking artillery or sharpshooters.

Henronicus
01-25-2016, 04:39 AM
Cavalry wasn't really used for fighting as much in the Civil War. They were used to scout out enemy lines and occasionally attacking artillery or sharpshooters.

That may be true but let's be honest, who is gonna play cavalry like that?(at least until they get killed alot and change tactics) Just like how almost all the kills made in North and South are made with bayonets, whereas it was pretty much the opposite in real life. Hopefully this game will encourage only the authentic tactics, but I suspect that everyone is gonna try to get a lot of melee kills early on.

Morgan
01-25-2016, 12:20 PM
That may be true but let's be honest, who is gonna play cavalry like that?(at least until they get killed alot and change tactics) Just like how almost all the kills made in North and South are made with bayonets, whereas it was pretty much the opposite in real life. Hopefully this game will encourage only the authentic tactics, but I suspect that everyone is gonna try to get a lot of melee kills early on.

Agreed, that is what always bothered me about the NW and N&S mod. The preferred tactic is to charge in with bayonets instead of slugging it out in line formations. Most battles that I have been a part of or watched videos of always turn into a melee brawl. I guess that has to do with scale of the game. If you have a 50 vs 50 on wide open terrain it is easy to spread out and make it more difficult to be shot. If units are packed in shoulder to shoulder and tried to charge in they would take serious casualties from an opponents volley.

I recently watched one video where one group was lined up in 2 ranks and the opponent with equal or slightly higher numbers just ran straight in without ever stopping to fire a shot. That just ruins it for me, they should have been cut down but most made it into melee range. If everyone just wants to melee why not just play vanilla warband. The other issue with those mods is the lack of a stamina system. Everyone can sprint infinitely which only makes the matter worse.

Anyway WoR Devs have already this game will not be like that so lets hope that is the case. I for one am really looking forward to it.

Willie Fisterbottom
01-25-2016, 02:44 PM
Agreed, that is what always bothered me about the NW and N&S mod. The preferred tactic is to charge in with bayonets instead of slugging it out in line formations. Most battles that I have been a part of or watched videos of always turn into a melee brawl. I guess that has to do with scale of the game. If you have a 50 vs 50 on wide open terrain it is easy to spread out and make it more difficult to be shot. If units are packed in shoulder to shoulder and tried to charge in they would take serious casualties from an opponents volley.

I recently watched one video where one group was lined up in 2 ranks and the opponent with equal or slightly higher numbers just ran straight in without ever stopping to fire a shot. That just ruins it for me, they should have been cut down but most made it into melee range. If everyone just wants to melee why not just play vanilla warband. The other issue with those mods is the lack of a stamina system. Everyone can sprint infinitely which only makes the matter worse.

Anyway WoR Devs have already this game will not be like that so lets hope that is the case. I for one am really looking forward to it.
Well thats the reason why so many love napoleonic wars, the shooting is bland and random. While the melee is one of the best i've seen in a game. Plus a skilled player can kill a lot more people in melee than he can shooting.

Morgan
01-25-2016, 03:38 PM
Well thats the reason why so many love napoleonic wars, the shooting is bland and random. While the melee is one of the best i've seen in a game. Plus a skilled player can kill a lot more people in melee than he can shooting.

To each their own, I am glad you enjoy that play style. I love the melee in many of the M&B mods though while I enjoy skill based combat in this type of game I prefer to line up in formations and shoot it out.

SemajRednaxela
01-25-2016, 05:15 PM
Most useful as scouts, finding the enemy and relaying infromation back to general and or officers with maps etc in the game.

Interesting to see them used as traditional dragoons to sieze objectives and harry or delay the enemy (potentislly dismounted as skirms).

And as stated, good for officers to enable them to see better.

Almanza P. Baker
01-25-2016, 09:02 PM
Most intelligent people realize that N&S is really only a melee fest. As an older gamer I don't credit this to the quality of the melee system in M&B but to what I call the Call of Duty Syndrome. Todays youth are all about rushing in and ending things fast, none of this strategy stuff for them. I foresee a large number of N&S members abandoning WoR pretty quickly once they find out that the game will be designed to slow things down and make it an actual shooter game.

Willie Fisterbottom
01-25-2016, 09:53 PM
Most intelligent people realize that N&S is really only a melee fest. As an older gamer I don't credit this to the quality of the melee system in M&B but to what I call the Call of Duty Syndrome. Todays youth are all about rushing in and ending things fast, none of this strategy stuff for them. I foresee a large number of N&S members abandoning WoR pretty quickly once they find out that the game will be designed to slow things down and make it an actual shooter game.

Well thanks for telling everyone who enjoys North and South that they're stupid.

Henronicus
01-25-2016, 10:04 PM
Well thanks for telling everyone who enjoys North and South that they're stupid.

He isn't explicitly telling them they're stupid(although quite a few of them are). He's simply saying it's a different play style than crap AAA games like call of duty. The stupid players will leave quickly, wanting to play call of duty, whereas all the intelligent ones will stay and appreciate War of Rights for how unique it is.

That being said, assuming bayonets add barrel sway and make aiming harder, cavalry might be able to fight mounted pretty effectively if they flank properly(basing off my previous post about how people will probably try to get melee kills a lot at first) since most people probably will have them off to shoot better.

Willie Fisterbottom
01-25-2016, 10:49 PM
He isn't explicitly telling them they're stupid(although quite a few of them are). He's simply saying it's a different play style than crap AAA games like call of duty. The stupid players will leave quickly, wanting to play call of duty, whereas all the intelligent ones will stay and appreciate War of Rights for how unique it is.

That being said, assuming bayonets add barrel sway and make aiming harder, cavalry might be able to fight mounted pretty effectively if they flank properly(basing off my previous post about how people will probably try to get melee kills a lot at first) since most people probably will have them off to shoot better.

See i agree you're gonna have idiots and trolls in any game, including this one and that's what i think some people are forgetting, people are going to do silly things no matter what because it isn't real life. I'm sure many people intend to play historically line up fire listen to the officer and all that. But you're still going to have people who run off and do their own thing and there's nothing wrong with that. (And to keep this related to the thread.) For example you might have one cavalry man just run off from the rest of his squad, do a huge circle around the map, show up to the house the general is located in and attempt to murder him. People will do unrealistic things no matter how realistic the game is, but that's what makes video games fun.

I myself don't enjoy call of duty but someone isn't less intelligent or stupid because they enjoy a more fast paced game.

A. P. Hill
01-26-2016, 01:03 AM
... But you're still going to have people who run off and do their own thing and there's nothing wrong with that. ...

Actually there is plenty wrong with that. You're forgetting the mechanics that have been stated that people who go running off on their own will tend to tire sooner, (including their horse,) they lose bonuses by not following their captain, they have a better chance of getting killed than if they're in a group .... and their spawn time goes to pot because they're nowhere near their standard bearer, so if they run off and get killed they'll spend most of their time waiting to respawn instead of playing. BUT, I didn't say anything. ;) (Not to mention there are no points for individual kill counts.)


... People will do unrealistic things no matter how realistic the game is, but that's what makes video games fun. ...

They may at first, until they find out as stated above it'll be a waste of their time ... and ultimately the unrealistic players as has been hinted at ... will vaporize from the rolls of the players.


... I myself don't enjoy call of duty but someone isn't less intelligent or stupid because they enjoy a more fast paced game.

No, they're not necessarily stupid, they're just almost completely removed from reality of any kind since those types of games tend to be ultra unrealistic ... and Yes I understand the concept of science-fiction ... (personally I play AD&D quite a bit, and of course we all know that's not realistic.)

But you made the most arguable point about this whole perception of people doing their own thing:
because it isn't real life. And I agree, as long as their actual living breathing life, and their own life blood is not in jeopardy, then computer games will always have this issue.

Andy
01-26-2016, 09:40 PM
Actually there is plenty wrong with that. You're forgetting the mechanics that have been stated that people who go running off on their own will tend to tire sooner, (including their horse,) they lose bonuses by not following their captain, they have a better chance of getting killed than if they're in a group .... and their spawn time goes to pot because they're nowhere near their standard bearer, so if they run of and get killed they'll spend most of their time waiting to respawn instead of playing. BUT, I didn't say anything. ;) (Not to mention there are no points for individual kill counts.)



They may at first, until they find out as stated above it'll be a waste of their time ... and ultimately the unrealistic players as has been hinted at ... will vaporize from the rolls of the players.



No, they're not necessarily stupid, they're just almost completely removed from reality of any kind since those types of games tend to be ultra unrealistic ... and Yes I understand the concept of science-fiction ... (personally I play AD&D quite a bit, and of course we all know that's not realistic.)

But you made the most arguable point about this whole perception of people doing their own thing: And I agree, as long as their actual living breathing life, and their own life blood is not in jeopardy, then computer games will always have this issue.

Now, I realize that many people as talked about before my comments have stated that in N&S it all turns into a melee brawl and many more have stated that WoR will not cause that due to its historical accuracy; however, I do not think Cavalry can be implemented or any other historically accurate combat without a realistic communication system. If cav is to implemented to scout out the enemy and the relay information then there must be a realistic communication system to relay that information otherwise people will be sitting in a TS some where informing others abut combat or troop movements that are taking place half way across the battlefield. Also, without the realistic communication system part of the confusion of war will be lost, for example with a TS every man can hear the officer at all times but in a realistic communication system young Private James could (if not paying attention) be cut off from his comrades and stranded in the woods. Also, with a realistic communication system cav would play a bigger and more tactical role since they would be forced to relay information quickly. With the realistic communication (if added) would make it so armies could be split in half and completely cut off from the others, regiments could be surrounded and their team never have a clue. It would allow more realistic combat scenario such as the fight for little round top or the 2nd Mississippi's defense of a railroad cut against the 6th Wisconsin. Without the implementation of realistic communication the only use for cav will be a flat out charge, or to just look cool; however as stated above, with a realistic communication system such as the one in the direct communication in Arma 3 or the local chat in DayZ cav will have a purpose and sticking with your men will have a whole new meaning.

Morgan
01-27-2016, 12:45 PM
I would love to see that but that would require everyone to agree to not use TS or similar VoIP software.

In addition to the roles you mentioned cavalry can also dismount and secure flanks or attempt to buy time for the infantry such as Buford did at McPherson's Ridge.