|
|
Post by Roland on May 14, 2020 14:23:14 GMT
Researching and collection models to add a Late Roman army or two to my collection. Never having had any previous armies that included 4Kn, my question is do folks feel that 3.0 accurately reflects cataphracts in game play? It seems like 4Kn share 3Kn weaknesses with additional drawbacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 14, 2020 14:36:33 GMT
I quite like them.
They have the same hitting power as 3Kn, but they don't go charging off into danger...as so many of my knight based armies seem to do... especially their Generals.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 14, 2020 14:44:10 GMT
Am I incorrect in understanding that they recoil against 3Kn on ties?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on May 14, 2020 15:00:22 GMT
Am I incorrect in understanding that they recoil against 3Kn on ties? No, you are correct in this one, they are recoiled by 3Kn on ties. I like 4Kn for the reason that Joe points out - lots of QK capability, but no pursuing issues đ P |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on May 14, 2020 17:01:33 GMT
Nothing worse than your knight general pursuing lh across the table to their eventual doom.
Well one thing worse is fitting 4 knights on a 30x40 base without having to snap their necks off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 14, 2020 17:53:04 GMT
I have not made my mind up yet as 3Kn persuing into overlaps is dangerous, but they do have a slight advantage over 4Kn making them recoil on a draw. However, 4Kn don't persue into possible overlaps like 3Kn and other Kn(Hvy.Ch).So it's which option is the best choice?
I have 4 Chinese armies that have a mix 3Kn/4Kn options.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 14, 2020 19:22:31 GMT
We have been pondering Cataphracts recently. The Recoiling v. Knights on Equals was thrown in to 3.0 at the last minute to "equalize" the element in relation to Knights who Pursue. Not sure there are any historical examples to justify.
But getting to the topic of how to accurately represent Cataphrats - we have pondered making them a general +4 but taking away Shock (explaining why they don't pursue). So they would be more like heavies grinding through foot then blowing it away. It would also give them more resilience v. Bow Shooting.
Maybe mount on 60X60 (for 25s) to make more room for 4 figures but reflect clumsy nature?
Because many used bows allowing Flees like Cav has also been suggested but I'm not sure about that and would need some historical examples.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 14, 2020 21:27:52 GMT
Would Cataphracts have charged at the gallop? Surely the weight of their armour would certainly make it difficult to perform effectively?... Is it not more plausible that they charged at a trot in order to best retain close formation much as recommended by later Cavalry Generals?
It has also been argued that the Cataphracts in Asian armies did not use impetuous charges at first but gradually evolved shock tactics.The chained Cavalry used by the Xianbei (Hsein-pi) being an example.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammurabi70 on May 14, 2020 21:56:45 GMT
Would Cataphracts have charged at the gallop? Surely the weight of their armour would certainly make it difficult to perform effectively?... Is it not more plausible that they charged at a trot in order to best retain close formation much as recommended by later Cavalry Generals? It has also been argued that the Cataphracts in Asian armies did not use impetuous charges at first but gradually evolved shock tactics.The chained Cavalry used by the Xianbei (Hsein-pi) being an example. FWIW I do not think any horse charge would be done at the gallop. My understanding is that throughout history horse units have charged at the trot but perhaps there are those, like Phil Barker, who have actually got on a horse and been involved in such activities. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 14, 2020 22:21:03 GMT
I've been on a horse too(Fox armoured cars and a chieftain tank!) and have been studying battle tactics for over 30 years from several eras of Warfare. Charges at a gallop are considered more of psychological value versus infantry but are considered of less value and effect that those performed at a trot, this was advocated by Lassalle. Custer's and Jeb Stuart's Cavalry went at it at the gallop at Gettysburg and were noted for the injuries to several riders who collided. Normally horses will shy before contact and rarely charge home so a charge at a gallop is possibly more risky for the rider.
... Or to use Phil Barkers very own words on Knights,DBA 3.0 page 3 "Parthian and similar cataphracts in full armour on fully armoured horses trotting in tight formation".đ
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 15, 2020 3:14:17 GMT
I remember in WRG5th-6th the description of the Mounted Types stated the gait at which each type of cavalry manoeuvred and charged - given that the normal move and the charge move were different with charges being completed before normal moves. I am not sure whether the description carried on into WRG7th where the charge move was an additional move conduced after normal moves.
All I can remember of the text is that Super Heavy Cavalry (Cataphracts) manoeuvred at the walk and charged at the trot according to PBs sources (and/or experiences) when he wrote those rules.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 15, 2020 10:14:58 GMT
We have been pondering Cataphracts recently. The Recoiling v. Knights on Equals was thrown in to 3.0 at the last minute to "equalize" the element in relation to Knights who Pursue. Not sure there are any historical examples to justify. But getting to the topic of how to accurately represent Cataphrats - we have pondered making them a general +4 but taking away Shock (explaining why they don't pursue). So they would be more like heavies grinding through foot then blowing it away. It would also give them more resilience v. Bow Shooting. Maybe mount on 60X60 (for 25s) to make more room for 4 figures but reflect clumsy nature? Because many used bows allowing Flees like Cav has also been suggested but I'm not sure about that and would need some historical examples. Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games I have a few historical examples of Cataphracts pursuing Tom. At the battle of Magnesia in 190 BC, Antiochus III at the head of his Cataphracts broke and pursued the Roman left wing all the way back to the Roman camp, where they were repulsed by camp guards. By the time he returned to the battle he found his centre and left wing had already been routed. Antiochus III did the same thing 27 years earlier at the battle of Raphia in 217 BC, where at the head of his Cataphracts he broke Ptolemy IVâs left wing and chased them off the field of battle, only to return some time later to find the rest of his army already in rout. (Sources: âArmies of the Macedonian and Punic Warsâ by Duncan Head, and see Wikipeadia for a list of ancient sources)However, it could be argued that these two engagements are indicative of the type of personality of the commanding general rather than a characteristic of Cataphracts. (By the way...I quite like your suggestion of Cataphracts losing their âquick killâ ability but gaining a higher
combat factor, which would also make these fully armoured horsemen a bit more resistant to shooting.
Iâm always on the lookout for good ideas...and you are often a good source of these.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 15, 2020 13:01:45 GMT
If you remove QK from Kn(X) but give them CF4...
They might miss their QK against Sp and Pk, and Bd will still QK them on ties without any QK in return.
I'm OK with the latter, while the rugby scrum with Sp (and Pk) is intriguing. Not sure about it (yet).
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 19, 2020 19:13:39 GMT
Thanks for the responses - ancients being a bit out of my wheel house.
Stevie: I'm guessing these were "strategic" pursuits of a broken foe rather than "tactical" out of control advances against a perhaps temporary reeling opponent (even foot "pursue" in such instances).
"KNIGHTS" representing all those horsemen that charge at first instance instead w/o shooting, with intention of breaking through and destroying enemy as much bey weight and impetus as by their weapons...medieval knights" then strangely "cataphracts ... trotting in tight formation..."
It seemed the difference came from the "victory or death" attitude of the knight making for a powerful but rash charge (so Shock with Pursuit) against the steady drive (well trot) of the Cataphracts (so +4 no Shock, no Pursuit). My instinct is that at the moment of impact the medieval knight accelerated with little thought of formation while the Cat plowed in in a tight formation thrusting with his lance somewhat like a spear. So we hear of individual knights penetrating through opposing lines (sometimes with dire consequences).
So we are going into playtest with this set of attributes for Cats.
By the way we have already dispensed with Light Mounted getting Shock v. Knights as the point system and Knights having to Pursue already creates the proper effect.
But what about Cats? Did they have any special weakness against Light Mounted with Bow? Did they rashly Pursue them? Should they be only +3 v. Mounted?
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 20, 2020 7:29:22 GMT
So we are going into playtest with this set of attributes for Cats. By the way we have already dispensed with Light Mounted getting Shock v. Knights as the point system and Knights having to Pursue already creates the proper effect. But what about Cats? Did they have any special weakness against Light Mounted with Bow? Did they rashly Pursue them? Should they be only +3 v. Mounted? TomT I have some historical examples of Light Horse fighting Cataphracts Tom:-  Battle of Immae/Orontes in 272 ADThe Roman Emperor Aurelian had his light cavalry break ranks to make a âfalse flightâ, which the Palmyran Cataphracts pursued. When they they were exhausted and disordered the Roman light horsemen turned, surrounded and destroyed them. (Again this could just indicate the personality of the Palmyran commander) Battle of Emesa in 272 ADAurelian tried the same tactic as at the battle of Immae but something went wrong and the Cataphracts rode down his light horsemen. Battle of Augusta Taurinorum (Turin) in 312 AD The Roman Emperor Constantine used his lighter horsemen to defeat the Cataphracts of his rival Maxentius by drawing them in and surrounding them. Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 ADConstantine again used his light horsemen to defeat the Cataphracts of his rival Maxentius (but we are not told exactly how they did this). I would speculate that Light Horsemen facing Cataphracts would be similar to that of âPeltastsâ facing heavy Hoplites...in both cases the faster, lighter, and more nimble men would evade and run away from the charges of the slower, heavier, more ponderous troops, all the while pelting them with missiles (either javelins or arrows). Itâs hard to catch someone who is lobbing stuff at you when they move faster and they already have a dozen or so paces head start... Interestingly the mounted Knights of the Crusades didnât seem to have the same problem against the Saracen light horsemen...perhaps because the Knights charged impetuously and pursued them (something that Spears and 4Kn donât do in DBA). As for combat factors, I think that a CF 4 against foot (but no âquick killâ) and a CF 4 against mounted (all that armour has to make them better than mere Cv), with 4Kn never pursuing but recoiling from 3Kn, is about right...although Iâve not play-tested this to see if there are any unwanted play-balance or knock-on effects. (All the above are âHouse Rulesâ of course) It would make them a sort or mounted equivalent of Spearmen, and having a CF of 4 against foot makes them more resistant to shooting (otherwise whatâs the point of all that heavy armour for the horses if they are just as vulnerable as Cv when shot at?). |
|
)
