Skirmishers or Dismounted Cavalry

[Sykes]

Which do you prefer?  Both seem to serve the same function on the battlefield.  However, skirmishers seem to be cheaper with better range (weapon depending). 

If you had to chose between the two, which would you field the most? 

Would enjoy hearing your opinions...

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Sykes

[Col_Kelly]

Good question, my choice definitly goes with skirm cav

. They're faster

. Bigger unit size (750 instead of 500)

Two advantages that largely make up for their two disadvantages (imo) : cost and shorter range. These guys can run behind ennemy lines, cap supplies, destroy arty without losses, flank brigades and most importantly they can be used as a tactical reserve to plug an opened gap in your lines. This is basically a safety net on the defensive and an irreplacable distraction tool on the offensive. 

[The Soldier]

For snipers: skirmishers

For literally everything else: cavalry.  If you're the CSA, you can make up the range disadvantage with plenty of 1861 Enfields.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 hour ago, Col_Kelly said:

Good question, my choice definitly goes with skirm cav

. They're faster

. Bigger unit size (750 instead of 500)

Two advantages that largely make up for their two disadvantages (imo) : cost and shorter range. These guys can run behind ennemy lines, cap supplies, destroy arty without losses, flank brigades and most importantly they can be used as a tactical reserve to plug an opened gap in your lines. This is basically a safety net on the defensive and an irreplacable distraction tool on the offensive. 

This. Lots of this. They are like free safeties that can fix mistakes quickly through sheer speed. Or take advantage of a misplaced wagon, or a routing brigade, effortlessly. 

Recon, also, always nice to have one throwaway cav unit armed with some crap that was harvested from the battlefield parked in a place with brilliant sight lines. They can see what's coming and make a tactical withdrawal (read that: run away, run away; said in the voice of Ser Robin) if needed. 

1 hour ago, The Soldier said:

For snipers: skirmishers

For literally everything else: cavalry.  If you're the CSA, you can make up the range disadvantage with plenty of 1861 Enfields.

People play the South? 

[Hitorishizuka]

7 hours ago, Sykes said:

Which do you prefer?  Both seem to serve the same function on the battlefield.  However, skirmishers seem to be cheaper with better range (weapon depending). 

If you had to chose between the two, which would you field the most? 

Would enjoy hearing your opinions...

 

Cavalry, only due to learning about the sniper weapon scaling if you actually field skirmishers of your own. I'm okay with sucking it up on certain maps if it's worth it but on some maps the AI just fields SO many skirmishers that giving your own good weapons is actually detrimental.

[Sykes]

Also, is it wise to scatter skirmishers & cavalry throughout your divisions (one cavalry brigade per-division)? 

Or would it behoove me to dedicate an entire Division/Corps to cavalry & skirmishers (group them all together)?

Thoughts?

 

[Fred Sanford]

12 minutes ago, Sykes said:

Also, is it wise to scatter skirmishers & cavalry throughout your divisions (one cavalry brigade per-division)? 

Or would it behoove me to dedicate an entire Division/Corps to cavalry & skirmishers (group them all together)?

Thoughts?

 

My first Union play-through I organized my corps to put all my infantry in the first two divisions, cav & skirmishers together in the third division, and all artillery in the fourth division.  I did that so that is was easy to use the 'order by division' feature and it worked well.  The problem came when I played Gettysburg, and none of my corps' 4th divisions EVER showed up, so I played Gettysburg without artillery. Needless to say, I reorganized my army after that battle.

So my advice is to beware of specialized divisions.

[Jamesk2]

Every division should have at least 2 infantry brigade to make effective use of the "Combine Division" feature (not necessary need to be use as an exploit).

[Col_Kelly]

 

13 hours ago, Fred Sanford said:

My first Union play-through I organized my corps to put all my infantry in the first two divisions, cav & skirmishers together in the third division, and all artillery in the fourth division.  I did that so that is was easy to use the 'order by division' feature and it worked well.  The problem came when I played Gettysburg, and none of my corps' 4th divisions EVER showed up, so I played Gettysburg without artillery. Needless to say, I reorganized my army after that battle.

So my advice is to beware of specialized divisions.

Cavalry needs to be used in disivions as one unit on its own is always gonna be useless and vulnerable (especially against arty). It's fine if they don't show up in a battle or two (like Gettysburg) but if you're going to use them, use them 'en masse' just like Napoleon did.

Artillery however needs to be spread among divisions for the reason you stated

[Aetius]

I spread artillery out for the same reasons - I had one Shiloh game where my artillery division was stuck defending the Hornet's Nest alone.

I keep cavalry together for survivability reasons, especially on Legendary where you really can't afford full-size units. It's also a lot easier to just hit the division button to gather all the cavalry together, instead of having to dig them out of the list.

[Fred Sanford]

Allow me to clarify- I operate my cav en masse for the reasons stated above, but the artillery and skirmishers are dispersed throughout the divisions.

[barrydylan]

On 3/28/2017 at 6:03 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

People play the South? 

Would it not get boring playing as the North over and over again? I alternate between both sides. And in comparison I find playing as the CSA more challenging and interesting as well.