Eu4 is cavalry worth it. But ya, they fall off.

Eu4 is cavalry worth it Cavalry is only marginally better at most tech levels (unless you're a horde) but it's a lot more expensive. Their main advantage is flanking but infantry get enough flanking range at tech 23 to be sufficient. To avoid naval attrition I tend to hug the coast with my transport fleets instead. You can viably forgo cavalry in the second half of the game. Cavalry is never worth it because they cost 2. Banners are totally worth it. CAV simply perform better on a manpower and combat width basis than INF, especially for the CAV based tech groups (Nomadic) and countries (Poland, Oirat, etc. 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. The thing is, it's many times not worth the money to get that upside since cav is so much more expensive. It's rarely worth it, as you rarely need the Monarch Points after the early game. Are they the most powerful in terms of damage dealt throughout the entire game for all tech groups? Of course. extra Is keeping professionalism high worth it for the bonuses it gives in exchange for drilling your armies all the time (when they Skip to main content Open menu Open navigation Go to Reddit Home with no additional bonuses,are not worth the price nor the additional micro These will always be the actual reasons for not using cavalry past the early game. 0 unless otherwise noted. For 9 or more, have 3 cavarly. 2 shockonly for cavalry to get a 2 shock value on tech 8. You should take these ideas though if you are in Indonesia and Philippines. I didn't form Qing as Manchu until I took Canton and the Mandate in the same war. 25 if you have Trading in Livestock + Iron, while your infantry will cost 9/8. It is still a very good game, just a bit hard to get into. Full infantry means more infantry that can be reinforced. just get the first 2 ideas from explo then remove it and pick something else Hello. And while they do more damage, artillery replaces that role later and cav get shredded by artillery. 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). But in African and Asian continent, there're a lot of overly hostile and populated native provinces like that, so Marines could be useful for garrisoning said province during early colonization. Ive played the game constantly for a year and even buying the dlc on sale it will take me 1. 132 euro's not funny. 18). 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? 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. 15 votes, 13 comments. no, its not worth it as western tech, period. ; About Europa Universalis 4 Wiki; Mobile view For most of the game when it matters cav is better. tech 23 - that is a different story because then the defensive pip disadvantage of cavalry vs. 5 from Incense. Warhammer 40k is a franchise created by Games Workshop, detailing the far future and the grim darkness it holds. This article discusses the three types of land units – infantry, cavalry and artillery – that make up an army, and their different models throughout the eras of the game. Hordes don't have a lot of income, but you can go by if you rob people consistently and raze. For Eastern/horde they always have cav combat ability, shock damage, or cav cost to back them up, so always keep your cavalry. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend focusing on colonizing if not in Western Europe. After that, generally have 1 cavarly for But yes, it is worth it. all cavalry combat ability bonuses. 5 times more than infantry and is not 2. At techs 17-19 especially your cavalry supported by cannons will tear them a new arsehole. It's also expensive to drill your army so gaining army prof that way is bad. My gameplay is more "calm". I had some problems to get into EU4 so I would advise watching some tutorials, then try it out and if you like it get some of the dlcs. Am I correct in thinking that you need CoP in order to gain support for independence diplomatically? In which case I think it would be worthwhile Making samurai special is just silly. It’s not optimal but it’s actually pretty good. Monarch points. +2/+3 if you go Hindu, (but most don't, because Horde + Humanist already gives you 100% RU and 5 ducat cavalry is a better choice overall) Hindu comes with innate +1 truth faith, two more from monuments boosting it to +6, and another +0. But it's Brittany with like one province in Europe, right? Hardly worth the 5 (or 3) stabhit. Be Catholic, completed Religious ideas, have the Pope as a vassal with +200 opinion, and the only Catholic nation in Europe, then I'd say it's a bit worth it to take the title. From the 50 euros you could get the base game and subscribe for a month of full experience, then if you like it just keep subscribing until 5 is out or you're bored. the only time you should use a colonist is if youre gonna hop around africa to get to india. The cavalry limit is there for a reason. Cannons are worth having for sieging But apples for apples mid game on infantry are better. Inf/cav depends but gets proportionally better the more discipline/damage received/combat ability you have. I should note that my nation, Croatia, has +10% infantry combat ability and +10% cavalry combat ability, that's it. 15, cav shock is 3. I thought of stacking combat ability with Horde Government Ideas and policies, is it worth it? Go to eu4 r/eu4. Not everyone conquers the world pre 1600 so you can get away with delaying good ideas I suppose. You also get to raze before you core, so you reduce OE by a lot right after the peace deal. But unit for unit, cav is usually better until quite a long time. I would like to play eu4 to it's current fullest, so i'm considering if subscription is worth it. Its problem is it is not budget efficient. 95 on techs 6 and 7 beat out cavalry's 1. ). Having them divert trade to me helped and their Liberty desire is basically nonexistent, so they don't mind, ever. when you can just stack ICA and be fine. In this part, we discuss ideal army composition and why use of cavalry should be I'm pretty sure the best cavalry you can create in ironman is by starting as Lithuania, releasing & playing as Zaporozhie, taking the aristocratic idea group, clicking the unique button that allows you to gain the Cossack Republic government reform: Sich Rada, then eat your way to Pomerania, culture swap to Pomeranian, form Pomerania, finish the mission that gives +10% 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 Some ignore cavalry altogether to cut down on end game micromanagement (because really, if your cavalry can start flanking the enemy, the battle is almost won anyway), so 10~12/0/10. So yes, if cost and micromanagement isn't a concern, go nuts on cavalry. EU4 Royal marriage, personal union and claim throne guide: Read Guide and EU4 Coalition handling guide: It is more that cav is not cost efficient, cav is actually worth it as addition to inf past 1700 again if forcelimit and manpower are limiting factors and not money. And don't forget they do not require manpower to reinforce. its messing with the bundle i created. They specialize in water based warfare. Kinda realistic since the majority of casualties are done when enemies are routed, and with cavalry when they chase down running infantry. 5 times more powerful. 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. artillery is way smaller. Tributaries are amazing for blobbing. it fights 1. If you have the money to spare then cavalry is always nice but if you are consistently getting flanked then it isn't worth it. The main problem is that cavalry doesn't move closer to the center as enemy units are routed, which quickly makes them become idle. No stability hit for his death, no risk of a regency, no risk of a PU or a low-legitimacy king taking over. Cavalry have less pips then infantry, and have almost no pips in fire. Aside from that, I find having 1 or 2 cavalry units can be quite beneficial when playing as a minor with low forcelimit. Since they doubled (i think) the innovativeness) so you can get to 100 innovative if you want relatively easily now. If you have stacked modifiers, it's certainly worth it. I did the maths some time ago and you'd need to play under subscription for more than a year (I don't remember for how much time, too lazy to check it out) to equal the value of all the DLCs, and you can unsubscribe in those months when you know you'll be too busy to play. 1 cavalry costs as much as 2 or 3 infantry units yet is not strong enough to beat 2 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 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. . But cav shouls make up a good portion of your army if you are Poland , Hungary, Qara etc. Then I don't know what to take it for. Cavalry is stronger than infantry (just look at the shock modifiers). 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. Different units does different things. Share Personally that's not worth macroing for me unless I'm desperate for it. Id say if you have 10% discipline it is worth it to go negative during peace just to drill for a year or so (personal preference, all above applies for -100% drill loss). And don't build any new cavalry regiments before miltech 8 unless you're a horde or something. This becomes more true as the game progresses. No it's not really worth it. With constant negative events occurring and an upfront cost of 20,000 ducats, it simply doesn't seem worth going through the canal-building process for some nominal trade The cossack estate also boost cavalry power and reduce cost of horses. So for that reason you should almost never use cavalry as russia for example, your stresltsy is better anyway. (Inf is better but cav pips help balance it e: they both have 3 pips from western tech 5 to 8) At tech 18 inf fire is 1. If we are to use Cavalry is only really useful when your front line greatly outnumbers theirs. The main downside imo is it gives your clergy a ton of influence vs loyalty. Taking evens where you can trade money for innovativeness might be worth it. Still, super Taking just 2 cavalry is nonsensical in any way. So unless you have a completely insane combat modifier for cavalry, they are meme units. Of course cav is better, but a cav only army even with 100% cav infantry ratio is bad since they are indeed costly. 5 ducat. 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. The in game tutorials for EU4 suck so I definetly recommend you watch some videos on YouTube while you're trying to learn. However, generally speaking, 4 cavalry per army is enough. Though if you gave this bonus to cavalry in general, it would maybe be worth evaluating to see if it's finally worth the cost to use cav in EU 4. Simply because that is implying you already conquered most of Catholic Europe and the increased influx of pope points is a good complement for world conquest. 33 damage taken), but has no impact on your damage dealt. To make the point clearer: autonomy determines how much money you make. For land combat mechanics see land warfare. Got to buy the game and all DLCs from money I got from my relatives on some occasion. You also have to make sure the countries there hating you won't be an issue, because it gives a hefty opinion penalty, making coalition more likely as you can't Improve Relation them above 0 as easily. This is huge for cavalry heavy Poland run, as your cavalry will now cost you 15 ducat, and 11. Colonizing the new world just isn't worth it. Or you have very short term goals you need to complete. What EU4 lacks is the CK Pursuit phase where Cavalry actually does its work since that is historically what Cavalry was best at, running the enemy down as they are fleeing. Is it worth it No. I'd recommend forgetting about them, spend the admin points and AE you saved from not breaking a truce on a new war and core 3-4 provinces with it then turn back to Brittany when the truce is up and wipe them off the map. The combination of the dhimmi estate and government effectively negates any penalty for wrong culture/religion anywhere in the world. To be more clear I mean to convert the the pre-requisites of one into another is easy. So my question is, where does the cavalry go? I think from a strictly min-maxing objective it's not worth it. The main attraction of 40k is the miniatures, but there are also many video games, board games, books, ect. Cavarly generally have better stats. but right now it looks like it only costs more per month and I can't see any clear advantages to it. While boring Cav might reduce RNG because you split the damage between 2 rolls instead of 1, and that's about it. The price is almost never worth it. They don't hurt to have. Certainly worth some amount of investing in. 5 more years of play to break even. Dlcs are adding as always with paradox very much content to EU4. 1, cav fire is 0. So Go to eu4 r/eu4. The game is pretty incomplete without quite a few DLCs. Bohemia is the emperor and they have 110k men and a personal union with burgundy and Hungary, dont think I have a chance against them haha. Both infantry and cavalry will get shredded by artillery anyway, and infantry will do some more fire damage to cav. 353K subscribers in the eu4 community. Cavalry is a stronger than infantry in a 1:1, but unless you are a Horde or a Nation that gets a lot of bonuses to Cav combat ability, it costs 2,5x more than infantry, so its not cost efficent, if you can afford it put cav in so you get a slightly stronger army. Exploration and Expansion will probably not be worth it so focus on something else. 2. They bad at fire stage of fight, but good at shock stage. Not necessarily that infantry is always superior. 100% worth it. It's not about whether more money is good or bad, it's whether compared to all the other choices it's 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. Even if they were the same cost and upkeep as infantry they'd still not be worth it due to being weaker in combat; outside a few specifically for flanking. The base states of cav are marginally better then infantry at the start of the game, and in most tech groups, cav also have early pip advantages, which is like an extra boost/resist on top of the dice rolls. I highly recommend reman's paradox. Not all DLCs are needed tho. Cav doesn't help in sieges and you want to avoid fighting battles. 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. When your militery tech reaches 18, the cavalry flanking bonus goes up to 3. For Russia, maybe I could beat them by blockading forts being sieged by them, as I stacked a penalty of -4 to sieges, so attrition would drain their manpower like water and i would be able to kill their armies one by one. With over 50% cavalry combat ability and winged hussars how long is cavalry worth A one Provence minor like that is not worth breaking a truce over and having everyone and their uncle bob join a coalition against you. They have additional discipline that makes them a lot stronger than normal units. 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: What makes it even better is that having a spy network in a country reduces the amount of AE they get with you, letting you take more land from them before triggering a coalition, the WS cost reduction from cores also helps to speed up wars, you can also claim land next to your subjects, which is nice if you want to be able to expand them, especially if they are pretty far away. It really comes down to personal preference, just like MIL idea group. Subscription is way more worth it than buying expansions. 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). If you are playing as any of the 4 main colonisers, it is 100% worth it to take them even as first ideas Heavy cav was more for fighting while light cav was more for raiding (dumbed down but it'll do). I won't own the dlc It shouldn't be taken as first idea. I still consider myself new to the game but I know that the general consensus is that once you can make artillery at military tech 7 (I think) (EDIT: Ok apparently this is wrong sorry) cavalry becomes useless, but I also know that the same people that say that make the exception for nations like poland which have high cavalry combat ability bonuses. 15 fire multiplier and cavalry has 0. Their special units are basically horse streltsy. Some hordes, like Oirat, start with significant cavalry bonuses and a 100% support ratio, so they should Go to eu4 r/eu4. 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 them more cost efficient and easier to field a larger army. So lower autonomy -> more money you make. Especially early in game. (However, I would rarely ever recommend getting one hegemony to replace by another - for example converting an economic hegemony into military hegemony is very easy. 5, inf shock is 1. 5x cost they bear compared to infantry is very situational, both to the above factors and to whether or not your economy can reasonably support them. 1 multiplier. Content is available under Attribution-ShareAlike 3. As opposed to your normal soldiers, they take manpower from sailers instead of your normal manpower pool. Later quality becomes important because of its discipline and great policies. That is, it is ok to have cavalry in such a battle in the 1400s but really very ineffective in the 1700s. In my opinion if you are missing a bunch of dlc just use the subscription service. You do not need cavalry as japan. Yeah I've been playing a UK game. I was originally going against the assessment that cavalry is almost never worth it, but the Ehh, if you're rich af, you might like to buy EU4. Cores on all China are nice, to be sure, but letting Ming keep the mandate after taking Beijing results in chaos in the rest of China. The best way to increase CAV performance late game is by getting 100% CAV/INF ratio, which makes it so you can As for which other privileges, remember, having a loyal/influential Cossacks means 20% cavalry CA, -20% cavalry cost reduction, and +10% cavalry ratio. Id dump cav only because as a Euro i go pure infantry and artillery at like tech 12 Whenever you rather invest your money elsewhere really. 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. Starting at mil tech 20 you will see infantry and arty gain massive buffs where as cav get less and less direct buffs. Simply put, 1000 manpower as cavalry will outperform 1000 manpower as INF. I've been going Orthodox Poland and raising hosts every five or so years to fill my ranks with cossacks. In the beginning the front line limit is 25 (the combat width). I'm not really sure they're worth it either, although at some point I grew them large enough that they were giving me a lot of trade and had a pretty big army. Also, this: fire damage increases for infantry Yellow Shamanism and Humanist can boost them to +0/+1. Get the subcription service until you get bored of eu4 and if you come back to it sign up again. He'll be paying for it, not you, on top that, a march For me, below 3000-4000 natives per province, the goods produced bonus are rarely worth it. For 4 or less infatry, have a cavarly. At military tech 18 you get +50% flanking range so your cavalry now can flank 3 units. 55/. Though probably still not once conquest is rolling ok so i really wanted to try EU4 for long time and its on sale rn but i cant really afford to buy any DLC atm. In this way its more of a learning cliff bit after you get passed it its not so bad. If you have cav combat ability, such as with kurland, they can be pretty strong, even if only 30-40% of your army is cavalry. Cav would be worth it if you get really good bonusses like hordes, Poland or At tech 6 inf fire is 0. They're also a fair bit more expensive however, so often not worth it. Cavalry combat ability on the Polish can reach 93% normally, and add 5% with a random event every now and then. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. Privateering is good on rich nodes with low total trade power that you can not steer most of it back into your home node. Cav is nice on paper and ideal circumstances but those circumstances are too rare to make cav really worth it. For anyone who doesn't have an entire mission tree and government type dedicated to it, calvary falls off around tech 19 hard. At tech 16 and after cannons are a must if you have the gold. But now i'm so frikkin' behind on dlc that it's not funny anymore. Cavalry is expensive, so most people tend to use it for flanking only. I see that there is a subscription service for like 4. Perm’s wrong culture provinces that fall outside of contested trade are not particularly helpful to Muscovy. Cavalry is better suited to a moving army looking for enemy contact, where you get a flanking benefit not accrued in a siege. If the enemy frontline is demolished, your cavs start doing significant damage. So yes, I'd say it's absolutely worth getting into EU4 now. Trucebreaking is a tool like any other in the game, just more expensive. So my general advice is still: only get cav if you can afford it and get a ton of bonuses. Also: Just settling the Cape province or the Manila province gives you enough trade power to get a merchant. The main way you will gain army prof is buying generals for +1 professionalism and not buying mercenaries over time (-5 for each mercenary no matter how small). Is it worth having more cavalry in my armies thanks to my traditions or is it not worth it? Archived post. michael and the cossack special units, polish cavalry can get very massive very quickly. EU4 1. The fire phase is more important than shock and cavalry has a fire multiplier malus. 356K subscribers in the eu4 community. Yeah, I second this, kinda confused meself. 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. 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 3 151 votes, 32 comments. 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. Even in the early game this is a thing; infantry fire/shock at . If you engage a stack of 10 inf with 10inf and 2 cav, each of those cars will flank doing massive damage on the sides causing them to retreat. The number of cavalry you want is mostly dependent on their flanking value. If we are talking about midgame, though, e. Are they worth the money/micromanagement when you have no cavalry modifiers? Apparently cav is viable with horde ideas + no syncretic tengri for the reduced cost and full cavalry armies. 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. The only use they still have is for small-mid tier nations in galley regions to suppress other small-mid tier nations. You get dis, infantry CA and bonuses to goods produced and absolutism. Yes, it doesn't have much worth but if you treat a unit of manpower as a quarter Arumbas video is kinda one sided because he only talked about mid-late game, your standard cav to infantry ratio is 50% so you want your army at the beginning to be like 30-40% cav (compared to infantry) and use a general with the highest schock pips, after tech 13 you should convert your army to 50% infantry and 50% artillery (ofcourse only if you can afford it) and switch to a It is almost never worth it to go into debt to buy buildings. 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 No. Other that i take espinoge idea and you can get -40-60% agressive expansion impact Once you end the war, you can start another war immidietly) and with tons of -unrest, they won't be rebellious against you. so just wanted to get some idea whether it worth trying without any DLCs or its better to leave it this time I keep pretty significant amounts of cav late game. 25 times as well, but costs 2. The meager 1 ducat or less per month that most vassals net you is hardly ever worth it, if that means an extra cavalry regiment. A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game Europa Universalis IV by Paradox Development Studio. Ironically, your friend is incredibly wrong about when cavalry is especially bad. Also, I will probably intend to reform my government and switch to Muslim tech which allows 80% cavalry ratio. Even exceeding your force limit with infantry is viable if you consolidate your regiments. Early game cavalry are much better than infantry. For information on the recruitment and maintenance of armies see army. That is if u ask yourself about going over forcelimit by more than 33% Pikes were used to protect against cavalry for most of EU4 timeframe Reply reply The greatest value of cavalry was always in mobility, not in the shock value of a charge, and it was the mobility factor that became emphasized over time. It can also make it hard to take away privledges later if you want absolutism. Siam gets +15% cavalry combat ability and +1 cavalry fire Go to eu4 r/eu4. TL;DR: Cavalry might win out occasionally in lategame, but without additional modifiers it just isn't consistent enough to even bother fielding and managing cavalry. Once people stopped using peasants armed with pikes and instead used disciplined soldiers who actually held their ground against heavy cav (the tercios and other related techniques) heavy cav dropped off because their way of fighting became less and less effective. Especially if you stack native assimilation bonus modifiers. 99 a month, is it worth it? Does it give me access to the dlc? Which dlc are worth it? Any help here is appreciated Finally, not meeting the cavalry ratio reduces your combat tactics by 1/4 (aka x1. A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the grand strategy game The game handles religious conversion in a pretty basic way that is functionally the same for all religions: You have your state religion, which can change by certain events or by getting beaten by religious rebellions, and then there’s the religions of all your provinces, which can be converted by the player to the state religion by using a limited number of missionaries. I just played with Sweden a bit, at level 16 i think inf had 1. So they don't use their flanking range properly. Cavalry is only worth it if you can afford it. First of all, you have higher cavalry ratio between religion, nomads (pre-qing) and anything else you can push in it. If you have a nation like Poland with cav combat ability or shock damage, by all means it could be worth the cost. 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). To have the full experience you'd have to pay like 200-300 on the low end. I agree that cav can do more damage than infantry, and even that the difference can be significant on some techs (e. There really isn’t a point to cav late game. Later on when you have more flanking ability, you can go up to 6k, but even without it you'll do fine. By the time you form Scandinavia, I'd still recruit the Hakkapeliita but otherwise cav would just be bad. For example I'd always keep the Ivory coast and some parts of India as TCs so that the neighbours cant westernize of you. 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. 95, cav shock is 1. r/eu4. Go to eu4 r/eu4. That's more than 4 years worth of subscriptions. 33 Cavalry advantage table Tip Archived post. But ya, they fall off. So you have higher odds (still very unlikely) of a disaster. This page was last edited on 14 March 2015, at 15:09. Upvoted for showing the math, but you're putting no value on the manpower you get from converting. Yes. Having cavalry run straight at artillery is how you end up in a poem. it depends. Marines are a special unit type available to some nations and through naval/maritime ideas. I believe you lose access to both of you convert. A cavalry is not at all worthless? lol late game sure if you have no bonuses they’re not super worth it, but if you can afford cav in an army that army will be better especially early on EU4 single player is not simply a game where you always have equal numbers as your opponent and always have your combat width filled. In what world could you, as Britain, have the money to become an economic hegemon and somehow need more money (pretty much all economic hegemony gives)? Military hegemony is actually worth it, though. The main application of cavalry without bonuses a more powerful package of one unit in a battle than infantry. E. Typically I follow the cycle of: expand-calm down-expand-calm down, etc. 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. Cavalry generally became lighter armored and would fulfill multiple roles including reconnaissance That's when i change my religion back to original Tengi and build all Cavalry to beat neighbors. In addition the high cav Yes and this can be worthwhile, especially if the target states aren’t important. Early game, cav is more powerful than infantry. How can I check the combat width and is cavalry even worth investing at all (normal nation) beyond tech 16? Whether or not the extra damage cavalry can do is worth it compared to the 2. As a small nation if you can't afford at least a width of 8-10 then it is best to stick with infantry. Galleys are complete, gutter tier trash after the early game, completely useless in serious naval combat. With the new icon of st. Part 3 of a 4 part series on basics of combat and combat related mechanics. These are my and the EU4 community’s top 3 hordes - Oirat, Jianzhou and Kazan. 351K subscribers in the eu4 community. The 10% tech cost is good but worth the cost foR the what le tech group. I am playing a poland campaign and just formed commonwealth. that said, as muscovy, you're probably better off using streltsy, since they're also better than normal units (they get 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. If, in the late-game, money becomes abundant and cavalry gives you If we are to use the same standards as artillery, a cavalry is worth the cost if it can guarantee victory against an infantry. 5. 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. Trading money for points is almost always worth it--unless you need it to fight wars or prevent bankruptcy. 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. 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. As a nation with cav bonuses have a bit of it. Its not like cavalry does not do fire damage, it does just 65% more. Eu4 Campaign in Wikipedia Articles 3. Cavalry costs 2. AI always try to fit full cavalry flanking even if you have too much infantry for front row. Flanking ability just multiplies the number of places they can flank from. 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). In most cases (as you pointed out) cavalry is not worth its cost and the money can be spent better. Never debase your currency unless you are a muslim horde. They do come with a 10% increased shock damage taken, meaning that they fare extra bad against hordes with What I'd like to know is what that actually represents and if the additional quality is actually worth investing in the idea groups over others. Eu4 has a couple different concepts you need to have a basic understanding of to get going in the game. Yes, even as a horde. Comparing them is not good but utilizing them together is the best. Infantry has about 1 shock, but cav had like 3. BUT, later in the game you will find that the frontline will be definitely be filled, which nullifies cavalry flanking range. This means that you can make your leader a general with very little risk. Cavalry is better than infantry. So quality is very much worth it, just not early. Is Espionage now worth it for that idea? You also get adviser and corruption reduction, but my thoughts are that Diplomatic/Influence are just so much better in general (really like While a cool feature, and saving the time and effort to go all around South America, Africa (and Denmark woo), canals seem like they are not even close to worth building. It’s so hilarious that it’s worth it IMO. Thats up to you if you think using a slot on horde ideas over diplo or admin is worth it. If you rely on ticking war score to win wars you Id dump the cavalry fire but honestly Sandanavia is looking pretty hot. 5 times as much as infantry and every important battle will be max combat width vs max combat width. 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. After cannons become dominant, both cav and inf are just there to reinforce the front line and sock up damage. Maybe not so much for Japan, but they can help you a lot if you play a horde or any nation with the intention to conquer a lot of land in a short amount of time. Totally worth dropping it. I took Quality, I took Offensive, I took the Eco-Quality +5% discipline policy, I'm Defender of the faith, my army tradition is at 64, my army professionalism is at 70%, I have 100 prestige, I'm ahead in tech, I have 50 absolutism, my Power Projection is only at 44 In vanilla EU4, a lot of people don't use cavalry even with no negative modifiers. The downside is that they take more shock damage, so watch out for Go to eu4 r/eu4. cavalry isn't nothing-can-salvage-this bad. Cavalry always deals 20~50% more damage than infantry after 2 full phases for western nations during 1/0/1 and 0/1/1 situation. 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. 995 votes, 52 comments. Cav is still generally not worth the investment. The dlc content makes the game way better. Cavalry is useless because it's +150% more expensive than infantry for about +30% benefit. 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 Even when I play as a nation which has marines, I find that I've never gotten around to using them. The big problem of cavalry is, that they aren’t cost effective. that are all connected in the 40k universe. Late game cavalry makes you “win harder”. Quantity is more rewarding when you start small, defensive has a great morale boost and offensive has better generals and siege ability which make them suitable in the beginning. g. This page deals with the the individual land unit types. Drilling infantry and cavalry is bad because like you said, they just die and waste the drilling. Some hordes, like Oirat, start with significant cavalry bonuses and a 100% support ratio, so they should After that, it'll probably be another year before it's released. Cavalry: The main reason nations run cav basically boils down to the fact that they perform better individually then infantry in battle. However, stacking cavalry combat ability is easier than stacking infantry combat ability. 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. 55, inf shock is 0. At least most top streamers I see never do as mercs are necessary and kill all professionalism (and the drill isn't worth it). The reason shock falls off is the amount of fire damage that can be done later on, and that fire is the dominant component of damage post-artillery. At first I thought the mod wouldn't be much of a use for me since I've been playing EU4 for quite some time and since I had read Zwirbaum's unit guide before and have been playing according to it since. Running 50% or higher cavalry in your armies, though, is basically never worth it unless you're playing a nation with I recently came back to eu4 after a 3 year brake. 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. For 5to 8 infantry, have 2 cavarly. If you're horde, then pure cavalry stacks are your friends and everyone else's horror. Cavalry + cannons are not much more expensive than inf + cannons. Especially as the Holy Horde. cavalry is never worth it, not in the early not in the late game, not as a horde nor as anything else. They are 2,5 times more expensive, but not 2,5 times better. Advisor costs are nice like, 25% cheaper. With the new burgher privilege, it's probably worth it even more to always improve on CoTs, but again, it depends on how wide you're really planning on going As for what provinces to Cavalry costs more gold to reinforce, if your budget is really tight. Saying that cav is expensive so get infantry is like saying heavy ships are expensive so just spam galleys. 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. 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 fix my economy after. I can’t afford much and some of them are priced at like 2/3 the price of the game with mixed or worse reviews but I don’t know if some really bring a lot to the game. But again, my point is just that it just isn't worth thinking about optimal cav-infantry setup for every leader matchup aso. The negative modifiers would change the calculation, but you can still get a general sense of it. Unless you have specific national ideas like Sweden or Prussia. hdogs ajvu lbcj xvpci vhnavp lca uotxx ldm chmvxta apwvw