Horses are too strong against tanks

[mlit77]

Hello all,

Panzer corps 1 was more realistic at this point. Horses had nearly no chances against tanks.
But with Panzer corps 2 I have fear to attack horses with a tank and fear to get attacked by horses.
When I attack a normal horse (15 points) with a "tiger 2" tank I receive 3-4 minus items.
When I get attacked attacked by a horse up to -5 items.

Is this realistic?

I think I will replay the whole game by replacing tanks by horses.

[Chepicoro]

Maybe the problem is the terrain... in close combat the infantry that mount those horses will inflict damage on your tanks,

[Horseman]

Hello all,

Panzer corps 1 was more realistic at this point. Horses had nearly no chances against tanks.
But with Panzer corps 2 I have fear to attack horses with a tank and fear to get attacked by horses.
When I attack a normal horse (15 points) with a "tiger 2" tank I receive 3-4 minus items.
When I get attacked attacked by a horse up to -5 items.

Is this realistic?

I think I will replay the whole game by replacing tanks by horses.

No cavalry (no infantry full stop) currently in the game can harm a Tiger 2 in the open. Therefore you must be fighting in close terrain which was/is the domain of the humble infantry. The results you're seeing are 100% realistic.

Also worth noting. In this period cavalry did not fight mounted. The horses were used purely for transport and they would dismount for combat (much like Dragoons of the past).

[smashtheaxis]

Also worth noting. In this period cavalry did not fight mounted. The horses were used purely for transport and they would dismount for combat (much like Dragoons of the past).

It would be cool if this was depicted by the cavalry unit models, i.e. having the soldiers stand next to the horse and only depict them mounted while the unit is moving.

[Retributarr]

Also worth noting. In this period cavalry did not fight mounted. The horses were used purely for transport and they would dismount for combat (much like Dragoons of the past).

It would be cool if this was depicted by the cavalry unit models, i.e. having the soldiers stand next to the horse and only depict them mounted while the unit is moving.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 'Suggestion' needs to be implemented!. Thank's for bringing it to our attention!.

[Horseman]

Also worth noting. In this period cavalry did not fight mounted. The horses were used purely for transport and they would dismount for combat (much like Dragoons of the past).

It would be cool if this was depicted by the cavalry unit models, i.e. having the soldiers stand next to the horse and only depict them mounted while the unit is moving.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 'Suggestion' needs to be implemented!. Thank's for bringing it to our attention!.

It's would be a nice cosmetic change but it's far from essential

[Retributarr]

Horses!... Yes!... we need some 'horse-sense':
..."smashtheaxis" wrote: ↑
"It would be cool if this was depicted by the cavalry unit models, i.e. having the soldiers stand next to the horse and only depict them mounted while the unit is moving":
... by"Horseman" » Sun May 24, 2020
"It's would be a nice cosmetic change but it's far from essential":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retributarr reply:
'True!...True! ... I just thought that their present "situational-posture/stance'... could indicate to me some kind of 'heads-up' warning... that I could be ambushed by incurring severe-damage to my armored vehicles.

While 'Cavalry' are mounted whether on flat-terrain or rough-terrain {Should not be lethal here???}... they are relatively harmless... however!... when dismounted in either of those terrains... they are now able to inflict concerning damage on what-ever!.

[Kerensky]

This comes up so frequently, I wonder if there is a education problem we need to solve.

There are various graphics for other events in the game, why not one for something as important as close combat events?

[Horseman]

This comes up so frequently, I wonder if there is a education problem we need to solve.

There are various graphics for other events in the game, why not one for something as important as close combat events?

Interesting point. Does seem lots of people don't understand close combat.

[Retributarr]

Mounted & Dis-Mounted Cavalry Units:
"While 'Cavalry' are mounted whether on flat-terrain or rough-terrain {Should not be lethal here???}... they are relatively harmless..."

As long as infantry are mounted on horses, how effective can they possibly be on a modern battlefield?. Not!... not hardly at all!.
They are practically totally useless!.
Once Dis-Mounted, however!... now... they can offer a measured effective resistive force... even... much more so in/on rough-terrain.

[KesaAnna]

I wish cavalry was this effective.

I'm hoping someday to see .... I don't know ... maybe a player - created Italian - Ethiopian campaign ? That is , a context where cavalry and horse - drawn artillery could serve realistically in your core.

[KesaAnna]

This comes up so frequently, I wonder if there is a education problem we need to solve.

There are various graphics for other events in the game, why not one for something as important as close combat events?

Like the air war overlay , I would like to see a close terrain / clear terrain overlay , given just how important this is in the game.

I , of course , have no idea if that would be a realistic addition / modification.

[Rood]

This comes up so frequently, I wonder if there is a education problem we need to solve.

There are various graphics for other events in the game, why not one for something as important as close combat events?

Interesting point. Does seem lots of people don't understand close combat.

Would be a good addition but rather difficult to implement I fear.
You could introduce an icon that shows up when you move a tank on a city or forest hex that would indicate that if attacked it would be use it's close defense instead of it's ground defense. A bit like an icon that shows a infantry unit can dismount but rather more explicit (different colour maybe).

[Horseman]

There probably needs to be something about close combat in the tutorial section.

The suggestion above with icons is also a good idea but I think it needs to be something more. Something that actually explains what close combat/close defence is all about.

Its easy for me to say things like "Pffftt your tank was in close terrain, no wonder the infantry smashed it up" but if its not actually explained in game how would a new player know?

Easy for me - I've got tons of experience with wargames/the PanzerX series so its already drummed into me to keep tanks out of close quarters. But what exactly is telling the new player whose never played a similar game before?

[Retributarr]

"Close Terrain... Versus.. Open Terrain!"... and the Consequences!:

To make this "Simple!":
Specimen: "Tank!"...
Positioned in 'Flat-Open-Clear Ground'... with no obstructions in its current occupied-hex... such as 'Hills'... 'Trees' or 'Swamps'... 'Cities'... 'Rivers' and such-like [IE: Close-Terrain]... . "Here"!... the 'Tank' is free and clear of any disadvantages or negative-effects of 'Close-Terrain' with its harmful consequences. It will now be able to function at its 'Optimal/Best-safest behavior'... or greatest invincibility.

Alternatively!... if this "Tank" is now... instead... occupying any kind of obstructed/obstruction-terrain [IE: Close-Terrain... ["Where Most Armored Vehicles have NO Close-Defense-Capability!"]...such as... 'Hills'... 'Trees' or 'Swamps'... 'Cities'... 'Rivers' and such-like... then!... it is now subject or vulnerable or susceptible... to extreme-danger where it can be 'easily-severely-damaged'... by other ground-units... especially 'Infantry' or 'Cavalry'... where in most-cases... Infantry and Cavalry does its best work in these terrain environments... as they have a 'High'-'Close-Defense-Rating' for such 'Rough-Terrain'... as well as the ability to take advantage of and then easily severely-damage or outright destroy units that have NO Close-Defense-Capability in Rough-Terrain.

-----------------------------------Additionally:----------------------------------------------------------
When a 'Hard category-unit is occupying a 'Rough-Terrain-Hex' [IE: Close-Terrain]... ... it is also subject to 'Injurious-Air-Attack'. The 'Air-Unit'... does not rely on close-defense to operate effectively here... when raining down damage to ground units that are in disadvantageous terrain. In these instances... the 'Air-Unit' will do more than the usual damage to a target... than it normally otherwise would.

[Tassadar]

It would be cool if this was depicted by the cavalry unit models, i.e. having the soldiers stand next to the horse and only depict them mounted while the unit is moving.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 'Suggestion' needs to be implemented!. Thank's for bringing it to our attention!.

It's would be a nice cosmetic change but it's far from essential

Cavalry most often had towed AT guns. Below an example of Polish WW2 cavalry with a towed Bofors 37mm AT gun. Would be probably just easier to replace the model with AT shooting back whan fighting hard targets in close terrain, using the same animation that's already present for some low caliber AT gun for each nation.