|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 15, 2017 8:07:46 GMT
I've noticed a couple of threads lately which in one way or another are questioning the effectiveness of Knights.The introduction of 3.0 has seen a few rule introductions of rules that tweak the combat system that have made Kn less effective than it was in 2.2...the QK on a draw for Bd or Cb/Lb for instance.So maybe some opinions are that Kn are too weak or other troop types are too powerful.
Maybe the rationale is that Kn are not behaving the way as perceived.There have been threads on different troop types which basically say that some troop classifications do not portray some troops accurately (i.e. Lh types like Ancient British light horse vs Mongols).
Cavalry types are typically graded into 1 of 3 types of mounted Lh,Cav or Kn to reflect fighting styles.I know this is for simplicity for the rules but maybe we are missing something...foot have a larger range of Ps,Ax,Wb,Bd,Bw,Sp and Pk.Ive deliberatly left other types like (art.El,Wwg etc.out for now)But what we see is foot are defined by weapon type as well as fighting style, but not so with mounted?
To get to the point I notice there is no divide in the effectiveness of mounted types by weapon class as some Cav and Lh also carried Lance and could charge home.Also the introduction of the stirrup is praised as a major change to mounted warfare but a Kn element with Stirrup and added horse armour is as just as effective as a Kn without.Maybe for 3.1 if it ever happens the difference in mounted classifications could be expanded?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 15, 2017 8:56:05 GMT
I've noticed a couple of threads lately which in one way or another are questioning the effectiveness of Knights.The introduction of 3.0 has seen a few rule introductions of rules that tweak the combat system that have made Kn less effective than it was in 2.2...the QK on a draw for Bd or Cb/Lb for instance.So maybe some opinions are that Kn are too weak or other troop types are too powerful. Maybe the rationale is that Kn are not behaving the way as perceived.There have been threads on different troop types which basically say that some troop classifications do not portray some troops accurately (i.e. Lh types like Ancient British light horse vs Mongols). Cavalry types are typically graded into 1 of 3 types of mounted Lh,Cav or Kn to reflect fighting styles.I know this is for simplicity for the rules but maybe we are missing something...foot have a larger range of Ps,Ax,Wb,Bd,Bw,Sp and Pk.Ive deliberatly left other types like (art.El,Wwg etc.out for now)But what we see is foot are defined by weapon type as well as fighting style, but not so with mounted? To get to the point I notice there is no divide in the effectiveness of mounted types by weapon class as some Cav and Lh also carried Lance and could charge home.Also the introduction of the stirrup is praised as a major change to mounted warfare but a Kn element with Stirrup and added horse armour is as just as effective as a Kn without.Maybe for 3.1 if it ever happens the difference in mounted classifications could be expanded?
Haardrada,
I am not convinced that the modification of was meant to weaken the Kn, but to prompt their historical usage.
The difference of infantry troop types reflects the variety of terrain which they can be effectively employed; most of which would not be ideal for cavalry.
You overlooked the mounted troops that could dismount (3Kn//4Bd, Cm//Sp, Cm//3Lb, or LH//3Bw) and mounted infantry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 15, 2017 10:00:16 GMT
I've noticed a couple of threads lately which in one way or another are questioning the effectiveness of Knights.The introduction of 3.0 has seen a few rule introductions of rules that tweak the combat system that have made Kn less effective than it was in 2.2...the QK on a draw for Bd or Cb/Lb for instance.So maybe some opinions are that Kn are too weak or other troop types are too powerful. Maybe the rationale is that Kn are not behaving the way as perceived.There have been threads on different troop types which basically say that some troop classifications do not portray some troops accurately (i.e. Lh types like Ancient British light horse vs Mongols). Cavalry types are typically graded into 1 of 3 types of mounted Lh,Cav or Kn to reflect fighting styles.I know this is for simplicity for the rules but maybe we are missing something...foot have a larger range of Ps,Ax,Wb,Bd,Bw,Sp and Pk.Ive deliberatly left other types like (art.El,Wwg etc.out for now)But what we see is foot are defined by weapon type as well as fighting style, but not so with mounted? To get to the point I notice there is no divide in the effectiveness of mounted types by weapon class as some Cav and Lh also carried Lance and could charge home.Also the introduction of the stirrup is praised as a major change to mounted warfare but a Kn element with Stirrup and added horse armour is as just as effective as a Kn without.Maybe for 3.1 if it ever happens the difference in mounted classifications could be expanded?
Haardrada,
I am not convinced that the modification of was meant to weaken the Kn, but to prompt their historical usage.
The difference of infantry troop types reflects the variety of terrain which they can be effectively employed; most of which would not be ideal for cavalry.
You overlooked the mounted troops that could dismount (3Kn//4Bd, Cm//Sp, Cm//3Lb, or LH//3Bw) and mounted infantry.
Thanks for your reply Robert, I didn't mention the dismounting as I've seen the threads involved discussing the effectiveness of Kn vs whatever element.Plus I didnt want to over complicate my post.Clearly Kn were considered too powerful in 2.2 but maybe too weak in 3.0? |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 15, 2017 21:06:45 GMT
Haardrada,
I am not convinced that the modification of was meant to weaken the Kn, but to prompt their historical usage.
The difference of infantry troop types reflects the variety of terrain which they can be effectively employed; most of which would not be ideal for cavalry.
You overlooked the mounted troops that could dismount (3Kn//4Bd, Cm//Sp, Cm//3Lb, or LH//3Bw) and mounted infantry.
Thanks for your reply Robert, I didn't mention the dismounting as I've seen the threads involved discussing the effectiveness of Kn vs whatever element.Plus I didnt want to over complicate my post.Clearly Kn were considered too powerful in 2.2 but maybe too weak in 3.0?
Haardrada,
I would not describe Kn as being ‘too weak’ in 3.0 as they are still lethal when launched at the at the enemy and at right moment. What I have experience is the change in the way they are used, vulnerable if expected to work miracles as a single element, but as part of a group with cavalry or light horse, my money is on the mounted group.
That said, the changes to close combat results with regard to equal scores have tempered the ‘fear factor’ knights previously evoked.
One of the more interesting historical matches played were those involving the III/25c Khawarij 658 – 873 AD (5 x 3Kn, 5 x 3Wb plus bow and LH). I have yet to test them against an Arab Conquest army with their large number of blade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 15, 2017 21:31:41 GMT
Thanks for your reply Robert, I didn't mention the dismounting as I've seen the threads involved discussing the effectiveness of Kn vs whatever element.Plus I didnt want to over complicate my post.Clearly Kn were considered too powerful in 2.2 but maybe too weak in 3.0?
Haardrada,
I would not describe Kn as being ‘too weak’ in 3.0 as they are still lethal when launched at the at the enemy and at right moment. What I have experience is the change in the way they are used, vulnerable if expected to work miracles as a single element, but as part of a group with cavalry or light horse, my money is on the mounted group.
That said, the changes to close combat results with regard to equal scores have tempered the ‘fear factor’ knights previously evoked.
One of the more interesting historical matches played were those involving the III/25c Khawarij 658 – 873 AD (5 x 3Kn, 5 x 3Wb plus bow and LH). I have yet to test them against an Arab Conquest army with their large number of blade.
I enjoy reading your battle reports and the valuable observations you make of the outcomes they are very enlightening.Since the switch from 2.2 to 3.0 I have enjoyed the transition and agree that Kn are no longer as feared as before and I would rarely now take my full complement of Norman Kn into any battle,preferring to use different combos of suplimentary foot to shoot in attacks or flush out bad going...and I find you have a much better game. Using my Late Swiss against historical opposition you find the shoe is on the other foot and you have to find ways to break up and defeat Kn heavy armies which isn't always easy. On the whole I think 3.0 has got it about right. |
|
