Why cavalry IDs?

[plloyd1010]

Does anyone have any idea why APL thought that cavalry ID letters were necessary? They seem to serve no function other than forcing one to parse the counters. Artillery ID, I get. Cavalry ID, I don't.

[Greyfox]

I think it is so that you can pair it with a particular dismounted unit.

[plloyd1010]

I think it is so that you can pare it with a particular dismounted unit.

I figured that much. So far I haven't seen a rule, special or otherwise, which only allows some cavalry troops to mount or remount. So far it has been all or none. There is also no rule about the horses being run off, preventing remounting by a particular troop. So that leaves the question of, why distinguish between individual troops for dismounting and remounting? It appears rather superfluous to me.

[Schoenwulf]

This reminds me of a query that I posted a while back regarding trucks. After units are unloaded, and assuming the vehicle is not destroyed, why can't it be requisitioned by the opposing side for their transport purposes? While equine transports may run off, vehicles don't usually do so. So, if they aren't destroyed, why not ride to save a little energy?

[Shad]

This reminds me of a query that I posted a while back regarding trucks. After units are unloaded, and assuming the vehicle is not destroyed, why can't it be requisitioned by the opposing side for their transport purposes? While equine transports may run off, vehicles don't usually do so. So, if they aren't destroyed, why not ride to save a little energy?

My guesses:

Game Design Answer: to simplify the ruleset and flow of play

"Real World" Answer: I don't want to be driving an enemy vehicle through an active battlefield lest my own comrades shoot me!

[Hugmenot]

The real world answer wins!

[Schoenwulf]

Just put a flag or insignia on the door, like all those German T-34's. The situation that I had at the time was rapidly retreating enemies, and the trucks would have allowed some closure w/o really getting in a war zone per se'.