Matrix Games Forums

Ahauschild,

I agree you can win with that unorthodox army composition. That’s why I think some unit stats should be changed to give a balanced army the upper hand.

My suggestions are:

Artillery shouldn’t be able to move/turn and fire in the same turn, and should be more vulnerable to flank/rear charges.

Skirmishers shouldn’t be able to form squares. Any skirmishing unit in plain terrain should be wiped out by a charge.

Cavalry needs a lot of tweaking in my opinion. Cav units should be 5000 men strong, and more vulnerable to inf fire. Any cav standing at close distance in front of a formed inf unit should be doomed.

Turning should cost cav a lot of MP, to make the “advance past the enemy - make a U turn – charge” tactic impossible. A player would need a clear straight path to the target in order to charge.

OTOH, cav in general should be easier to reform –lights easier than heavies though- and more capable –especially the heavy variety- of disrupting the enemy’s formation with a flank/rear charge. This would make cav good at flanking –with a wide detour, not the current U-turn I think we all use- and at chasing fleeing units, but a lot more weaker in frontal fire exchanges and unable to hold a line against inf.

I like your idea of making arty able to fire at 25% over obstacles. And I would eliminate howitzers, nobody use them anyway.

But that still (usually) leaves a division that can potentially be replenished and come back to fight you. I'd rather completely remove one enemy unit from the locality than simply reduce a few.

As POWs they'll come back too, and POWs don't help your NML as KIAs do. I capture enemy cavalry for the horses, and artillery so I don't have to build them, and then punish the infantry all I can to keep them running...I'd rather get NML for killing them in battle than letting them starve on a boat somewhere [;)]




I thought howitzers sounded fun, so built some. When I actually used them in battle I was VERY disappointed.

If they would help sieges, I might have a use for the howitzers I capture, but I still wouldn't build any.


I agree completely with Carburo's ideas on Cavalry.

ORIGINAL: Malagant

But that still (usually) leaves a division that can potentially be replenished and come back to fight you. I'd rather completely remove one enemy unit from the locality than simply reduce a few.

As POWs they'll come back too, and POWs don't help your NML as KIAs do. I capture enemy cavalry for the horses, and artillery so I don't have to build them, and then punish the infantry all I can to keep them running...I'd rather get NML for killing them in battle than letting them starve on a boat somewhere [;)]

Trust me, my POW's never come back [;)]. The only time they do is when the war's over, so they are then irrelevant. And I've probably not played on a high enough difficulty level or as a difficult enough country for my NML to do anything other than go up almost every turn until it reaches 1000, so winning the war is more important to me.

Capturing horses and artillery is always fun, too. [:)]

The only time they do is when the war's over, so they are then irrelevant


so winning the war is more important to me

I find it far easier and quicker to have a series of three or four battles where I kill ten thousand enemy, causing huge loss to his NML, than to capture them and have to camp an army on his capital while I hope that army isn't needed elsewhere.