Traditionally your infantry would march towards the enemy and your archers would fire volleys over them at the enemy and your cavalry would for the most part be used to flank the enemy and/or chase routed units and/or depending on the type as a shock troop.

Endless Legend 'initiative' turns that on it's head and in relation to my army I am not really seeing the logical aspects of this design decision. 

It does not make sense for my cavalry to attack a full strength unit and then have my archer/support attack. It makes sense for my archers/support units to attack the enemy and weaken them before my cavalry go charging in. I am therefor left with the choice of weakening my cavalry so as to curb their initiative or allow them them to attack first and take greater damage.

This illogical and back to front way of engaging in combat is part of the base design and to be harsh, it is stupid and should be rectified. I am puzzled if the designer of this part of the game does not understand the basics of warfare or if it was done just to be different.

In my opinion, there are two combat uses to cavalry (and fliers) in Endless Legend:

1. Tactical Denial unit, rushing forward and pinning an enemy down. High Initiative, ideally high Defense and HP.
2. "Shock" unit, delivering high damage to already engaged units. Low Initiative, ideally high Attack and Damage.

Nobody is forcing you to create cavalry with high initiative. There may not be many ways to lower their initiative if you start with a high-initiative cavalry unit (especially since not all cavalry units can equip the weapons that carry initiative penalties), but you can improve the initiative of your other units to act before your cavalry if you want the "Shock" type of cavalry. If even that is out of reach, you should perhaps start to wonder what the intended purpose of the unit in question is.

Capt.TeddyBear wrote:

Traditionally your infantry would march towards the enemy and your archers would fire volleys over them at the enemy and your cavalry would for the most part be used to flank the enemy and/or chase routed units and/or depending on the type as a shock troop.

Endless Legend 'initiative' turns that on it's head and in relation to my army I am not really seeing the logical aspects of this design decision. 

It does not make sense for my cavalry to attack a full strength unit and then have my archer/support attack. It makes sense for my archers/support units to attack the enemy and weaken them before my cavalry go charging in. I am therefor left with the choice of weakening my cavalry so as to curb their initiative or allow them them to attack first and take greater damage.

This illogical and back to front way of engaging in combat is part of the base design and to be harsh, it is stupid and should be rectified. I am puzzled if the designer of this part of the game does not understand the basics of warfare or if it was done just to be different.

Little to late for a similar topic. The game is complete and done, and is probably nearing the end of the development, content-wise.

In addition to the points mentioned above plus the needs imposed by turn based as opposed to real time play, your views on what are the "basics of warfare" are a bit narrow. What you call traditional warfare was not universally true across all eras and all regions.

Warfare in the Mediterranean during Antiquity / Early Middle Ages transpired in the way you described as traditional, for the most part (Hannibal Barca and Alexander are some exceptions, in the sense they had their cavalries engage the enemy cavalry before infantry engaged). But warfare in Central Asia, focusing on heavy cavalry acting as shock troops, was very different. Indeed, the clash between Rome and Parthia is a prime example of two very different ways to conduct war, from both a strategic and tactical point of view. Likewise, warfare in the Middle Ages in Europe also transpired differently and the return to "traditional" tactics only occurred in the High Middle Ages with the advent of pike warfare. 

Besides, if you want to play by the "traditional" rules, you have the Broken Lords. They fight best in phalanx formations, and their cavalry has poor initiative but pack a big punch. 

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

In my opinion, there are two combat uses to cavalry (and fliers) in Endless Legend:

1. Tactical Denial unit, rushing forward and pinning an enemy down. High Initiative, ideally high Defense and HP.
2. "Shock" unit, delivering high damage to already engaged units. Low Initiative, ideally high Attack and Damage.

Nobody is forcing you to create cavalry with high initiative. There may not be many ways to lower their initiative if you start with a high-initiative cavalry unit (especially since not all cavalry units can equip the weapons that carry initiative penalties), but you can improve the initiative of your other units to act before your cavalry if you want the "Shock" type of cavalry. If even that is out of reach, you should perhaps start to wonder what the intended purpose of the unit in question is.

As you have already noted the issue is often the cavalry/infantry start with high initiative and you have to forego hitting power on archer/support units so they have enough initiative to attack first. I had this issue recently where I had to take a substantial hit on attack and damage just so my archer could shoot before my infantry moved. 

Why would anyone put infantry/calvalry up against a 100% fit unit instead of going against an 80% fit unit after the archer/support unit/s have attacked? But this is how the game often forces you to play because often it is not practical to buff up the initiative of the archer/support unit to go first.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

In addition to the points mentioned above plus the needs imposed by turn based as opposed to real time play, your views on what are the "basics of warfare" are a bit narrow. What you call traditional warfare was not universally true across all eras and all regions.

Warfare in the Mediterranean during Antiquity / Early Middle Ages transpired in the way you described as traditional, for the most part (Hannibal Barca and Alexander are some exceptions, in the sense they had their cavalries engage the enemy cavalry before infantry engaged). But warfare in Central Asia, focusing on heavy cavalry acting as shock troops, was very different. Indeed, the clash between Rome and Parthia is a prime example of two very different ways to conduct war, from both a strategic and tactical point of view. Likewise, warfare in the Middle Ages in Europe also transpired differently and the return to "traditional" tactics only occurred in the High Middle Ages with the advent of pike warfare. 

Besides, if you want to play by the "traditional" rules, you have the Broken Lords. They fight best in phalanx formations, and their cavalry has poor initiative but pack a big punch. 

I do not believe that my basics of warfare" are a bit narrow at all   

And their armies would have had the mix to suit the changing tactics etc. of that time and should they have had archers, and the enemy was within the range of the archers (or similar) I can assure you they would have fired first to weaken and disrupt the enemy and then the other units would have attacked.

But your response does support my base argument that the combat 'initiative' is brilliant and yet seriously flawed and I should be the one to decide which unit goes in which order.