Bear Cavalry Vote

[Battlegrinder]

I've finished the LDD prototypes for my bear Cavalry, and could use some help selecting the final design. I have two lances, two bears, and two helmets that I can't decide between.



Here we have the Armored Bear, Slit Helmet, and High Explosive Lance.




And here we have the Unarmored Bear, Goggles Helmet, and Boomstick Lance (lance with shotgun attached to the end).





EDIT: Forget to mention this at first, but even the "umarmored" cavalry will be equipped with armor, It'll just be made with paint and modeling putty instead of bricks.

[loafofcheese]

I think bear cavalry should be more dragoon-like, so mobile infantry, basically.

[Battlegrinder]

I think bear cavalry should be more dragoon-like, so mobile infantry, basically.

I've considered making dragoons or horse archers several times, but outfitting an entire squad with horses is so much more expensive than building an APC or IFV to stick them in. A group of 5 horses (each hauling 2 minifigs) is about 45 CP, a size 10 APC with tougher armor and equal speed is 25 CP. I'm willing to pay extra to make a unit a little cooler than the most efficient design, but not that much more.


The idea that I'm working toward with bear cavalry is to make them an elite anti-cavalry unit, able to put out a lot of damage and smash opposing cavalry units quickly, while my conventional cavalry (who will be using the HE Lances) punches through the enemy's line and starts smashing up artillery, heroes, support personnel, and other key targets.

[BFenix]

I won't vote since I think both options are pretty awesome. But they do look more badass and menacing with armor.

[IVhorseman]

I've considered making dragoons or horse archers several times, but outfitting an entire squad with horses is so much more expensive than building an APC or IFV to stick them in. A group of 5 horses (each hauling 2 minifigs) is about 45 CP, a size 10 APC with tougher armor and equal speed is 25 CP. I'm willing to pay extra to make a unit a little cooler than the most efficient design, but not that much more.

This is the best argument for replacing CP with Unit Inches I've seen to date. Brikwars should *always* value style over efficiency.

[Quantumsurfer]

This is the best argument for replacing CP with Unit Inches I've seen to date. Brikwars should *always* value style over efficiency.

Damn, you're absolutely right.

Also, this may the most even vote I've ever seen. Useless to you, grinder.

[Battlegrinder]

This is the best argument for replacing CP with Unit Inches I've seen to date. Brikwars should *always* value style over efficiency.

Maybe, maybe not. Buying 5 horses instead of one APC does give you more mobility (all the troops in the APC have to go to the same place, dragoons can split up), and provides your opponent with a larger number of enemies to deal with, instead of a single target to concentrate his fire against. Because my preferred tactic is to tie down an enemy with lots of basic troops (supported by small numbers of above-average soldiers) and then apply pinpoint pressure with a small elite force, building dragoons diverts too many resources away from either the bulk infantry or the special forces, without really increasing the combat power of either. Someone who use a more mobile army might find the extra maneuverability provided by Dragoons worth the cost. Both armies are still stylish, we just choose to concentrate our limited reserves of it in different areas.


That's one of the reasons I'm leery of ditching CP, as I feel that it works fine in its current form, without as many drawbacks as is generally perceived.