Different cost in AP to create cavalry corps

[Stamb]

in one place it says that a cost is 10 AP and in another that it costs 34

1.png (309.27 KiB) Viewed 1220 times

what is the true value?


this is an example with other units:

2.png (243.51 KiB) Viewed 1220 times

Soviet t28

[malyhin1517]

You create 3 cavalry divisions of 8 points each and a cavalry corps of 10 points, for a total of 34 points. If you use existing cavalry divisions, it will cost 10 points.

[Stamb]

ah
thank you

[malyhin1517]

I usually create cavalry and rifle corps on the map, it's much easier and faster than in reserve through the menu.

[FortTell]

Do you think it is worth it to create on-map cav corps if you can create new ones from the build menu using newly-raised divisions? Seems like with the cav division limit falling sharply to 14 divs in January of 1942 creating new cav corps can go around that limit and net you an extra 20-30 cav divisions' worth of men. On the other hand, on-map corps can be made as Guards corps and even if not, attain that status quicker.

[malyhin1517]

Do you think it is worth it to create on-map cav corps if you can create new ones from the build menu using newly-raised divisions? Seems like with the cav division limit falling sharply to 14 divs in January of 1942 creating new cav corps can go around that limit and net you an extra 20-30 cav divisions' worth of men. On the other hand, on-map corps can be made as Guards corps and even if not, attain that status quicker.

The cavalry corps appear in December and you need it immediately for the offensive. If you create them from new divisions, they will have low experience and poor combat capability. Therefore, it will be better and faster to create corps on the map and use them immediately. And if you need cavalry divisions, then you can create them after the corps and send them to some theater for training.

[FortTell]

The cavalry corps appear in December and you need it immediately for the offensive. If you create them from new divisions, they will have low experience and poor combat capability. Therefore, it will be better and faster to create corps on the map and use them immediately. And if you need cavalry divisions, then you can create them after the corps and send them to some theater for training.

I get the point about being able to contribute to the counteroffensive, yet until late January tank divisions exist and will do fine enough to push in the center and in the south. North in blizzard is a slog any way.
Secondly, you can only create 8 cav corps in December, but 14 in January. That is 18 divisions extra.
Finally, a cav division costs 8AP to build in 1941 but only 2AP in January, which matters if you want to spam that cav quickly.

[Stamb]

in my game i dont need cav corps to push
im fine with RD and guards rifle corps

so i do not want to merge existing cav divisions to make a corps
i will just create new one and train them in reserve/battles only to preserve more cavalry divisions
as they are just great
you can drain CPP with them
you can scout with them
i even managed to win few fights vs German units, that were already beaten at the same turn, with a simple cav divisions

[FortTell]

i even managed to win few fights vs German units, that were already beaten at the same turn, with a simple cav divisions

Yeah, cav div + rifle brigade can push many a weakened German, especially if supported by artillery

[Stamb]

i am not sure, not in the game currently, but i think that you can not assign any SU to cavalry divisions

but even without any units or arty i did this

[Stamb]

i have one more question

is it possible to breakdown cav corps that was build in reserve even if cav divisions limit was reached?
if it is then there is a way to get unlimited cav divisions!

[FortTell]

i am not sure, not in the game currently, but i think that you can not assign any SU to cavalry divisions

Yeah, you cannot. But rifle brigades can be used on-map, too.

As for the second question, I think no? Can you even break down a corps in Reserve? And even if you can, the divisions remember being a part of the corps and the corps limit in not decreased.

[Stamb]

once corps is splitted it can be created again only from a divisions that were in that corps before?
i was reading in a manual about rifle corps or guards rifle corps and if i understand it correctly - you can use any divisions to form that corps again

[FortTell]

once corps is splitted it can be created again only from a divisions that were in that corps before?
i was reading in a manual about rifle corps or guards rifle corps and if i understand it correctly - you can use any divisions to form that corps again

Wow, just checked and you are right, you can get unlimited cav divisions by creating corps and breaking them down into divisions, then creating the corps again from new ones. Sounds abusable.

[Stamb]

despite playing as a Soviets for a first time i have good theoretical background by reading this forum

[Zebtucker12]

once corps is splitted it can be created again only from a divisions that were in that corps before?
i was reading in a manual about rifle corps or guards rifle corps and if i understand it correctly - you can use any divisions to form that corps again

Wow, just checked and you are right, you can get unlimited cav divisions by creating corps and breaking them down into divisions, then creating the corps again from new ones. Sounds abusable.

Pretty sure there is an production limit on cavalry squads.


Kind Regards Lee Cooper.

[AlbertN]

This is a 'get around'.

Pratically one can create a CAV Corp in the Reserve with 3 non existant CAV divisions. And then the CAV Corp can be split in 3 divisions.
There will be 1 CAV Corp less thus the system will allow to create a new one.

Rinse repeat, infinite CAV divisions to harrass the Germans.
Ontop of the fact they're pretty much unshatterable either - they can get pounded 4-5 times and rout away with 10 soldiers alive but do not shatter, except seldom times when their NM is 50 (as per Soviet NM is 45).

The solution is simple.
The total has to be Corps + Divisions, where 1 Corp counts as 3 divisions.

Players are now experimenting on the splitting a Guard Corp (where it has 3 Gd Rifle Divisions) and reform it with 2 Gd Rifle Divisions and a 3rd at random to have even more Gd Corps on map. (They should just be created by -3- Guard Divisions, and not 2 Guard and 1 Non Guard).

[loki100]

..
Pratically one can create a CAV Corp in the Reserve with 3 non existant CAV divisions. And then the CAV Corp can be split in 3 divisions.
There will be 1 CAV Corp less thus the system will allow to create a new one.

Rinse repeat, infinite CAV divisions to harrass the Germans.
Ontop of the fact they're pretty much unshatterable either - they can get pounded 4-5 times and rout away with 10 soldiers alive but do not shatter, except seldom times when their NM is 50 (as per Soviet NM is 45).

...

we're back to the question as to why the game design time should be spent on closing off every feasible exploitation that some players find? I mean this is as close to cheating as you can go and not start fiddling with your opponents save files (as some did in #1). So don't do it - problem solved?

this is the same as building constant airborne brigades, convert to Gds rifle and repeat.

yes you can do, maybe in an ideal world of limitless programming time it could even be stopped, but in truth its a poor use of limited capacity when there are things (like the editor) that are the focus and that the entire playing community benefits from.

I realise there are always a small part of the player base who work on the principle 'if its not coded out, I can do it', which is fine. But the solution then is to let them play each other rather than expect the game to redesigned to cope with them.

[AlbertN]

..
Pratically one can create a CAV Corp in the Reserve with 3 non existant CAV divisions. And then the CAV Corp can be split in 3 divisions.
There will be 1 CAV Corp less thus the system will allow to create a new one.

Rinse repeat, infinite CAV divisions to harrass the Germans.
Ontop of the fact they're pretty much unshatterable either - they can get pounded 4-5 times and rout away with 10 soldiers alive but do not shatter, except seldom times when their NM is 50 (as per Soviet NM is 45).

...

we're back to the question as to why the game design time should be spent on closing off every feasible exploitation that some players find? I mean this is as close to cheating as you can go and not start fiddling with your opponents save files (as some did in #1). So don't do it - problem solved?

this is the same as building constant airborne brigades, convert to Gds rifle and repeat.

yes you can do, maybe in an ideal world of limitless programming time it could even be stopped, but in truth its a poor use of limited capacity when there are things (like the editor) that are the focus and that the entire playing community benefits from.

I realise there are always a small part of the player base who work on the principle 'if its not coded out, I can do it', which is fine. But the solution then is to let them play each other rather than expect the game to redesigned to cope with them.

I perfectly agree in a perfect world there should not be a need to 'check' these things.

I come from tabletop gaming ( and still play on Vassal online ) - so there has to be a level of trust but in general people know also the other players. And in general both players are online (unless on plays via log).
Here at times one jump in a match vs some other person they have never spoken or talked with. So a player relies on the 'code' to prevent things to be abused.

I think it's a normal expectation in a computer game, to be coded to avoid abuses.
And tbh it's the case in like 99% of the games that I play / have played.

In general the matter is not just 'don't do it'. But the potential doubt that your opponent may do it? And do one has to -known- somehow all players they get pitched against in a match?

[loki100]

the build chart limits key off what exists vs what can be built. It works as a cap at any one time.

To recode it to some sort of historical trend ie what has been built+what has been lost + what has been converted takes an unknown level of time commitment and may well set off more problems than it solves. Not least the cap then can't be a simple fixed total it has to vary in some way.

So we substitute a clear simple rule for an opaque complex one, simply because a few people abuse it?

In the end the player base of this game series has always split between those who play with realistic restraint and common sense and those who look for every loophole. The best advice has always been play with those you are comfortable with and trust. If you want a game of loophole abuse there are fairly clearly a cadre of players available to you. If not ... find others. Since a full game feasibly takes 2+ years I'll stick to those I trust and enjoy their (electronic) company