Cavalry Movement 3?

[SpencerH]

Why is the movement for cavalry and Chinese rider 3? Are we to believe that chinese horses are faster than every other horse

[Arrian]

The Rider is supposed to represent the Mongols, I believe. They were awfully mobile, those Mongols.

-Arrian

[Spatzimaus]

Remember that one turn corresponds to years or decades. The amount of distance the mounted unit travels isn't so much about how fast the horses run, it's more about how fast the supply lines allow the unit to advance. Historically, mounted units didn't move much faster, strategically, than foot units did because horses just didn't have the endurance to ride all day, while infantry could march for much longer. Then there's the food aspect; a horse pushed that hard needs a good amount of food.

Here's my rationalization, use it if you want.

Knights were not a force unto themselves, there just weren't enough of them for that. So, think of the "Knight" unit as being a foot army being led by noblemen. It's stronger, more durable, and capable of moving for longer periods of time than the standard swordsman. Same goes for Samurai; every unit in the battle wasn't a Samurai, most of the soldiers were still the usual pikemen, archers, and so on that made up the core of European armies. Ditto for War Elephants.

Cavalry and Riders (a.k.a. Mongols), on the other hand, are entirely mounted units, trained to operate without infantry support if necessary. The individual Mongol wasn't a heavily-armored and well-trained fighter like the Knight or Samurai, but the entire force was made up of people like him on horseback, which made for a powerful, mobile force. They didn't bring a big logistical structure along, largely depending on loot from the areas they captured to feed the horses.

[SpencerH]

I agree with both of you. The mongols certainly were mobile as an army. Does that mean that the chinese rider should have the same mobility as a modern MBT?

Its easy enough to change with the editor, I just wanted to get some other opinions.

[Arrian]

Well, I actually think that Cavalry should be faster than WWII Tanks (the CivIII Tank unit appears to be a Sherman). Modern Tanks like the Abrams... well, yeah, they're probably faster than a mounted unit on most terrain (dunno about unroaded, hilly terrain - horses might have the advantage there).

I suppose you could simply give the Modern Armor unit 4 moves and Mech Inf. 3 moves, if you really have a conceptual problem with Cavalry and Modern Armor having the same movement rate.

-Arrian

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, I actually think that Cavalry should be faster than WWII Tanks (the CivIII Tank unit appears to be a Sherman). Modern Tanks like the Abrams... well, yeah, they're probably faster than a mounted unit on most terrain (dunno about unroaded, hilly terrain - horses might have the advantage there).

I suppose you could simply give the Modern Armor unit 4 moves and Mech Inf. 3 moves, if you really have a conceptual problem with Cavalry and Modern Armor having the same movement rate.

-Arrian

Horses would be faster than tracked vehicles in the mountains but not anywhere else. A galloping racehorse is faster than a sherman on a track for 1 1/2 mile, but not cross-country, not if you want to keep your horse with 4 legs for any length of time.

I know from personal experience that people dont take into account the mass of tanks when comparing vehicle speeds. The tanks mass allows it to plow through small bumps that can wipe out the passengers in a lighter vehicle such as an apc.