Because there's a tech level difference between those two units of 14, which is over 150 years disparity. The way the engine is set up you can't "improve" units and they can't progress over time just that new units get unlocked so that's it.

But Winged Hussars was the best cavalary in the history ...

Winged hussars arent even hussars, they are heavy lancers. They were also part of a quickly declining military of the polish state, which by the 18th century was tiny and poorly equipped, being the elite of a small badly equipped army is like being the best pupil of a special school ;)

They are possibly the most overrated unit in the history of warfare...

Originally posted by Fluffy Fishy:

Winged hussars arent even hussars, they are heavy lancers. They were also part of a quickly declining military of the polish state, which by the 18th century was tiny and poorly equipped, being the elite of a small badly equipped army is like being the best pupil of a special school ;)

They are possibly the most overrated unit in the history of warfare...

The decline and quality of the hussar was solely due to the weakening state economy and the degradation of the people.

They aren't Hussars, they are heavy lancers, its also no real excuse that the economy declined so they declined, either they are a great unit or not? Most declining states still manage to keep their best soldiers properly equipped, especially as they are the cream of their army. Winged Lancers just didn't adapt or innovate with the time, they just remained an out of place heavy cavalry unit in a world dominated by real hussars.

Originally posted by Fluffy Fishy:

They aren't Hussars, they are heavy lancers, its also no real excuse that the economy declined so they declined, either they are a great unit or not? Most declining states still manage to keep their best soldiers properly equipped, especially as they are the cream of their army. Winged Lancers just didn't adapt or innovate with the time, they just remained an out of place heavy cavalry unit in a world dominated by real hussars.

U are really stupid. 0 information about our history. I will show you few battles :

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Kircholmem
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Po%C5%82onk%C4%85
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Hodowem
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Beresteczkiem
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_K%C5%82uszynem
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Kokenhausen
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Chocimiem_(1621
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Wark%C4%85)
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwy_pod_Parkanami
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Wiedniem

more?

Originally posted by Fluffy Fishy:

They aren't Hussars, they are heavy lancers, its also no real excuse that the economy declined so they declined, either they are a great unit or not? Most declining states still manage to keep their best soldiers properly equipped, especially as they are the cream of their army. Winged Lancers just didn't adapt or innovate with the time, they just remained an out of place heavy cavalry unit in a world dominated by real hussars.

BTW when i am speaking winged hussar i dont mean that they have wings on the back, but i mean unit like this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im9UXi-rgJY

6:09 look at this range

That unit still isn't a hussar, its a heavy lancer... call it winged or polish or whatever you like, its still a lancer.

The examples you give are almost entirely based on victories over poor quality enemies that rely on numerical advantages over quantity, should they have faced a properly organised and drilled army they would have been completely massacred.

If you charge any half decent shock cavalry unit into a bunch of poor morale light infantry such as the ones fielded by the Ottomans or Russians you will see the same results, they will instantly waver and disorganise forcing a mass rout which is what happened historically.

Try charging some Winged Hussars into some Austrian, French, English or Spanish infantry of the time and you would see some very different results.

They look quite impressive, but their impressivness is mainly due to the fact their enemies are so weak.

Originally posted by Fluffy Fishy:

That unit still isn't a hussar, its a heavy lancer... call it winged or polish or whatever you like, its still a lancer.

The examples you give are almost entirely based on victories over poor quality enemies that rely on numerical advantages over quantity, should they have faced a properly organised and drilled army they would have been completely massacred.

If you charge any half decent shock cavalry unit into a bunch of poor morale light infantry such as the ones fielded by the Ottomans or Russians you will see the same results, they will instantly waver and disorganise forcing a mass rout which is what happened historically.

Try charging some Winged Hussars into some Austrian, French, English or Spanish infantry of the time and you would see some very different results.

They look quite impressive, but their impressivness is mainly due to the fact their enemies are so weak.

Another example vs west enemy :

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Lubiszewem
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Obertynem

BTW Sweden army was bad?

Originally posted by El Mathador:

Originally posted by Fluffy Fishy:

That unit still isn't a hussar, its a heavy lancer... call it winged or polish or whatever you like, its still a lancer.

The examples you give are almost entirely based on victories over poor quality enemies that rely on numerical advantages over quantity, should they have faced a properly organised and drilled army they would have been completely massacred.

If you charge any half decent shock cavalry unit into a bunch of poor morale light infantry such as the ones fielded by the Ottomans or Russians you will see the same results, they will instantly waver and disorganise forcing a mass rout which is what happened historically.

Try charging some Winged Hussars into some Austrian, French, English or Spanish infantry of the time and you would see some very different results.

They look quite impressive, but their impressivness is mainly due to the fact their enemies are so weak.

Another example vs west enemy :

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Lubiszewem
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Obertynem

BTW Sweden army was bad?

The Polish Hussars (/həˈzɑ:r/, /həˈsɑ:r/, or /hʊˈzɑ:r/; Polish: Husaria [xuˈsari.a]), or Winged Hussars, were one of the main types of the cavalry in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between the 16th and 18th centuries. When this cavalry type was first introduced by Serbian and Hungarian mercenary horsemen at the beginning of the 16th century, they served as light cavalry banners in the Polish army; by the second half of the 16th century and after Stephen Báthory's reforms, hussars had been transformed into heavily armored shock cavalry. Until the reforms of the 1770s, the husaria banners were considered the elite of the Polish cavalry.

With the Battle of Lubiszew in 1577, the 'Golden Age' of the Husaria began. Between then and the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the Hussars fought many battles against various enemies, most of which they won. In the battles of Lubiszew in 1577, Byczyna (1588), Kokenhausen (1601), Kircholm (1605), Kłuszyn (1610), Chocim (1621), Martynów (1624), Trzciana (1629), Ochmatów (1644), Beresteczko (1651), Połonka (1660), Cudnów (1660), Chocim (1673), Lwów (1675), Vienna (1683), and Párkány (1683), they proved to be the decisive factor against often overwhelming odds. For instance, in the Battle of Kluszyn during the Polish–Muscovite War, the Russians outnumbered the Commonwealth army 5 to 1, yet were heavily defeated.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars

The swedes werent exactly a western power, their army was slightly better quality than the turks and russians but they had far less manpower. They still werent trained to anything like western european standards.

lots of units fought in many battles successfully, its still no real truth to whether they were as special as you like to think, mainly due to the absence of properly drilled enemies.

The russians and ottomans often outnumbered their foes 5-1 and still lost, take the seige of senj for example when an ottoman force of 40,000 was fought off by 700-800 men. poor quality enemies give poor test examples.

Polish lancers are meh cav

What are you even talking about with crazy western propaganda, films are a terrible source for history in general, there are only a handful of even half decent references in film.

The winged "hussars" didn't really have a significant role in the battle of Vienna, credit where credit is due with the huge number being organised to charge at once but they didn't even get deployed against fresh enemies, they were sent in to basically do very little. The real hard hitters of the fight were the Austrians, whos infantry and artillery were far superior and influential than a late to the party bunch of overegged pony riders.

The poles also haven't saved Europe many times at all, they are just in a convenient place between western and eastern powers to spread propaganda that they have, kind of like sinai is historically one of the most hotly contested parts of the world despite not really having anything in it.

Hungarian/Slavic Balkans was the real place for the best cavalry, as the meeting point between Europeans and the Ottomans, it was this region that inspired the Ulhans who would go on to replace the winged "hussars". Winged "hussars" arent even original it was the Turkish Deli cavalry who inspired the poles to bother to wear wings...

Its pretty hard to argue western eurocentrism when its being argued that actually its Turkish and Eastern European cavarly that are great, just not the overrated polish cavalry.

Out of interest who are the "real" and who are the "pseudo" historians?

Originally posted by Fluffy Fishy:

What are you even talking about with crazy western propaganda, films are a terrible source for history in general, there are only a handful of even half decent references in film.

The winged "hussars" didn't really have a significant role in the battle of Vienna, credit where credit is due with the huge number being organised to charge at once but they didn't even get deployed against fresh enemies, they were sent in to basically do very little. The real hard hitters of the fight were the Austrians, whos infantry and artillery were far superior and influential than a late to the party bunch of overegged pony riders.

The poles also haven't saved Europe many times at all, they are just in a convenient place between western and eastern powers to spread propaganda that they have, kind of like sinai is historically one of the most hotly contested parts of the world despite not really having anything in it.

Hungarian/Slavic Balkans was the real place for the best cavalry, as the meeting point between Europeans and the Ottomans, it was this region that inspired the Ulhans who would go on to replace the winged "hussars". Winged "hussars" arent even original it was the Turkish Deli cavalry who inspired the poles to bother to wear wings...

Its pretty hard to argue western eurocentrism when its being argued that actually its Turkish and Eastern European cavarly that are great, just not the overrated polish cavalry.

Out of interest who are the "real" and who are the "pseudo" historians?

hahahahahahahah

No actual answer? Its starting to look like the fantasy you are playing out in your head might not be true after all

I will not discuss with the idiot anymore.