A theory on motorcycle riders/cavalry vulnerability

10-04-2006, 06:32 AM,

I find that cavalry and motorcycle riders are the most vulnerable units in the game. Loaded lorries, although quite vulnerable as well, still do not suffer from the absurd dangers of mounted transport.

My hypothesis is this:

H1: motorcycle riders and cavalry are impacted on by the mode of transport that is not capable of "movement on its own" such as trucks and halftracks. When a retreat result is scored on the combined rider/mount, the mount is unaffected, but the rider cannot retreat, and is thus eliminated. Thus trucks and halftracks may retreat, and are not subject to the same harsh results as a motorcycle rider or cavalry unit.

This would explain why motorcycles still exist after being fired upon but the riders perish.

This hypothesis does not stand when tank riders are concerned. Thus the mechanics of direct fire on tank riders must be different.

A second hypothesis is thus:

H2: tank riders, motorcycle riders, and cavalry all have a mounted defense of either half, or of "1".

A third hypothesis is:

H3: tank riders, motorcycle riders and cavalry all have a mounted defense of either half or of "1" AND are attacked by the hard target direct fire strength by AT guns and tanks.

This would explain why a T-34 carrying riders would be disrupted and retreat on a hard attack of 16 from a 4 SP StuG unit, while the infantry would suffer a 16-4 (half defense) or 16-1 (defense of 1) attack, resulting in the loss of an entire 6 SP unit. The same theory would apply to motorcyles and cavalry.

This theory then categorizes motorcycles and cavalry as "soft" while riders are "hard".

I'm not sure if any of this is right, but I sure would like to know how these results are calculated!!

Cheers!

Leto

Big Dawg · 10-04-2006, 06:36 AM,

No wonder you beat the hell out of me.

McIvan · 10-04-2006, 11:04 AM,

Riders are killed off routinely, no matter how many are in a hex, by firepower of 1 (from blind artillery, for instance), so I'm not sure I agree with your theory about hard plus soft firepower. I have seen 12SP of my motorcycle riders die from a single blind arty shot at strength 1 from a max 4 gun arty unit which could well have been only two guns (if I remember the scen correctly).

I think the designers just made a decision that mounted cavalry should be exquisitely vulnerable, and ended up applying the same mechanic to tank riders, motorcycles and I suppose bicycles.

Interesting musings though and who knows, you could be quite right :) I was quite taken with the "no retreat" theory on reading the first sentence.

As the Matrix boys are delving into the mechanics, and as some of them frequent these boards, maybe they might be able to tell us exactly what is going on (and if it will be changed!).

schnurbart · 10-04-2006, 12:03 PM,

lol...think all that means mark suspect enemy positions and dismount before it sees you..

Mike Abberton · 10-05-2006, 01:19 AM,

I don't have the books in front of me at the moment, but I think that tank riders are actually considered separately from other mounted units, certainly from truck/HT riders. I think it has to do with riding "on" a tank versus "in" a truck/HT, especially since an armored tank probably riccochets bullets/shrapnel pretty well.

I cannot remember, though, whether cavalry/motorcycle troops are treated like tank riders or if they just have a really low defense when mounted. I know there are anecdotes out their of some of the actual cavalry charges during the war being slaughtered en masse, but it doesn't seem like the casualties should be that high.

You're theory on retreats sounds intriguing and would certainly explain the difference between trucks/HTs and horses/motorcycles. Personally, I could never understand the idea that horses cannot move on their own, anyway. It seems like with trained calvalry horses, that one man staying with the mounts could lead them to safety and return if called for. Motorcycles, on the other hand, obviously can't move on their own.