A note on Nikeforian Kataphracts -- making units accurate

[khurasan_miniatures]

These chaps are the heavily armoured lance swordsman cataphracts, with archers behind! They are certainly impressive, with an iconic look (pardon the expression) from the Heath Osprey book -- the famous painting of one by Angus McBride.

FoG is the engine of my sales, you'll be pleased to hear, and lots of fellows who buy my Nikeforians do so for FoG. One thing I've noticed is, for the katafracts, they buy lancers. Sometimes they buy all lancers! First impression -- it's a natural, as that's what they are in the list.

But let me make a suggestion. These units actually fought mostly with an iron mace, only some of the men on the outside of the rear of the wedge being lance armed. The Praecepta Militaria, the leading "guide book" of the era, describes these warriors as mostly mace armed. So I believe them to be classified in FoG as "lancers" for effect, but they were macemen as a fact, riding forward and literally smashing the spears of their foes to send them fleeing!

And the archers only made up a relatively small percentage of the units, usually about a quarter to a fifth. They'd be safely tucked away in the middle of the back ranks, with lancers on either side of them.

A perfect unit of Nikeforian Kataphracts would be front element mace, shield, second element two lancers with an archer stuck in the middle.

Even better, if you are willing to double base them (they are only two bases anyway!) would be THREE ranks, interleaved on one 40mm x 60mm base -- one maceman, then two macemen, then finally lancer-archer-lancer. That would give a marvelous wedge-like look, as that is the formation the macemen fought in.

All the best,
Jon

[ShrubMiK]

Excess stock to get rid of?

But yes, that's how I always understand they should be.

[Skullzgrinda]

A perfect unit of Nikeforian Kataphracts would be front element mace, shield, second element two lancers with an archer stuck in the middle.

Even better, if you are willing to double base them (they are only two bases anyway!) would be THREE ranks, interleaved on one 40mm x 60mm base -- one maceman, then two macemen, then finally lancer-archer-lancer. That would give a marvelous wedge-like look, as that is the formation the macemen fought in.

I would like to see this. I like unit 'dioramas' that reflect the actual (to the extent we think we know it) combat styles and doctrine, and the concept is fun.

My only caveat with this is the extremely small BG size for this particular unit. With very small groups of models armed differently and performing different functions, one runs the risk of having the BG/diorama look like poorly disciplined soldiers, or a wild band of warriors. Painting styles and uniforms could pull it back together though.

I like the Nikeforians historically, and as eye candy. The list seems a bit flat but I know little about how to get the most out of troop types or list alchemy in this game.

By the way Jon/Khurasan, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the incredible service and speedy dispatch you provide as a matter of routine.

[ethan]

I like the Nikeforians historically, and as eye candy. The list seems a bit flat but I know little about how to get the most out of troop types or list alchemy in this game.

I have been toying with using a very late Thematic list (which is essentially the same troops) instead of Nikes. The advantage is that you get at least some internal LH, you can take some LF without having to take Skutatoi, if you do take Skutatoi they are IMO better (as double ranked defensive spear) and I think they may work better as a nearly pure Cv army. Yes, lots of your cav wind up being average instead of superior, but you have to save points somewhere. I belieev you can pretty easily get 8-9 BGs of cav, 4 of which are superior and 4-5 average, plus a LH plus a couple BGs of LF.

While not strictly historical if you want to use the Nike style cavalry you can also take a Moorish ally to get a few more skirmishers pretty cheaply which is also a useful option. FWIW I wouldn't bother with the Kataphracts IMO they don't work well with the rest of the army and just slow it down.

[philqw78]

FWIW I wouldn't bother with the Kataphracts IMO they don't work well with the rest of the army and just slow it down.

Depends what you want to do with them. Stick them to the flanks of the Varangians, 1 MU back, and some more lancers 1 MU back to the flanks of them. Anybody foolish enough to charge the Varangians must also contact the cats, unless only as wide as them. And they can all charge the same line of enemy at the same time.

[ethan]

FWIW I wouldn't bother with the Kataphracts IMO they don't work well with the rest of the army and just slow it down.

Depends what you want to do with them. Stick them to the flanks of the Varangians, 1 MU back, and some more lancers 1 MU back to the flanks of them. Anybody foolish enough to charge the Varangians must also contact the cats, unless only as wide as them. And they can all charge the same line of enemy at the same time.

But who is going to charge that mess in the first place? The Varangian Guard and Kataphractoi are both IMO too small to be a viable central focus for the army and too slow to work well with the cavalry.

Sure you can charge together, but you only have a 4 wide frontage of super troops, so have to committ the cavalry to a frontal action as well, which means your cavalry are tied down to a 3MU move with the Varangians. Granted, to have the Varangians in the first place you are forced into the later Nikephorian period so the cavalry is a considerably weaker as well and you can also get some Norman to bulk out the army...

If you want an Nikephorian style cavalrly based army IMO best to go without Kats.

[batesmotel]

FWIW I wouldn't bother with the Kataphracts IMO they don't work well with the rest of the army and just slow it down.

Depends what you want to do with them. Stick them to the flanks of the Varangians, 1 MU back, and some more lancers 1 MU back to the flanks of them. Anybody foolish enough to charge the Varangians must also contact the cats, unless only as wide as them. And they can all charge the same line of enemy at the same time.

But who is going to charge that mess in the first place? The Varangian Guard and Kataphractoi are both IMO too small to be a viable central focus for the army and too slow to work well with the cavalry.

Sure you can charge together, but you only have a 4 wide frontage of super troops, so have to committ the cavalry to a frontal action as well, which means your cavalry are tied down to a 3MU move with the Varangians. Granted, to have the Varangians in the first place you are forced into the later Nikephorian period so the cavalry is a considerably weaker as well and you can also get some Norman to bulk out the army...

If you want an Nikephorian style cavalrly based army IMO best to go without Kats.

The one time I've used my Nikephorians so far, I used the early version of the list and took both units of Kataphraktoi. I used them in conjunction with the lance, Bw* superior lancers and found that they gave the lancers the extra bit of punch they needed with out slowing them down too much since the Kataphractoi are drilled. (I took the two units of flankers and didn't use any allied LH. This was in 25mm using 40mm MUs.)

Chris

[philqw78]

But who is going to charge that mess in the first place? The Varangian Guard and Kataphractoi are both IMO too small to be a viable central focus for the army and too slow to work well with the cavalry. Sure you can charge together, but you only have a 4 wide frontage of super troops, so have to committ the cavalry to a frontal action as well, which means your cavalry are tied down to a 3MU move with the Varangians.

Nikes will have 3 Varangian, 2 Cat and 2 cav frontage, or take the Kn for 4 Kn instead of Cav. But at least a 7 base front, most of it re-rolling 1's and 2's, the rest just 1's. The line Cav stay further out to protect the flanks of this.

Granted, to have the Varangians in the first place you are forced into the later Nikephorian period so the cavalry is a considerably weaker as well and you can also get some Norman to bulk out the army...

If you want an Nikephorian style cavalrly based army IMO best to go without Kats.

What, and take the weaker Cav instead? The cats are fragile, but very very dangerous if properly supported. People just expect too much of them on their own.

[DavidT]

My experience with Nikephorian Cataphracts is that they have died in almost every battle. Because they are in BGs of 2, even when fighting with 2 BGs side by side, with support, one of the BGs invariably loses a round of combat, rolls a bad death roll, losing an element causing the BG ro evaporate in the JAP. The other BG of 2 is then left unsupported and quickly follows it companions. BGs of 2, even with Elite troops, are just too fragile.
In my last game, I charged a unit of Parthian Cataphracts in the flank with both units of Nikephorians - he survived the impact phase (he had a general fighting in the front rank which assisted all 4 of his elements - my general only helped 2 of mine) and then proceeded to win the melee against one BG which died, quickly followed by the other. 4 AP lost from a small army is bad news.

[batesmotel]

My experience with Nikephorian Cataphracts is that they have died in almost every battle. Because they are in BGs of 2, even when fighting with 2 BGs side by side, with support, one of the BGs invariably loses a round of combat, rolls a bad death roll, losing an element causing the BG ro evaporate in the JAP. The other BG of 2 is then left unsupported and quickly follows it companions. BGs of 2, even with Elite troops, are just too fragile.
In my last game, I charged a unit of Parthian Cataphracts in the flank with both units of Nikephorians - he survived the impact phase (he had a general fighting in the front rank which assisted all 4 of his elements - my general only helped 2 of mine) and then proceeded to win the melee against one BG which died, quickly followed by the other. 4 AP lost from a small army is bad news.

The trick is to have the Kataphraktoi BG(s) flanked on both sides with something less volatile like your Superior cavalry when you charge them in. It greatly reduces their vulnerability if they won't get overlapped. It should be rare for them to have a serious death roll if they're fighting against a single file of opposing troops.

Chris

[khurasan_miniatures]

The trick is to have the Kataphraktoi BG(s) flanked on both sides with something less volatile like your Superior cavalry when you charge them in. It greatly reduces their vulnerability if they won't get overlapped. It should be rare for them to have a serious death roll if they're fighting against a single file of opposing troops.

That's exactly what the praecepta calls for!

[khurasan_miniatures]

Excess stock to get rid of?

But yes, that's how I always understand they should be.

Ha ha, indeed! Under the assumption that customers would be buying primarily macemen, as that's what they primarily were, the kataphract mould has about three macemen for two lancers. But people only buy the lancers! That's because they are defined as "lancers" in the army list. But that's just for effect, to show that they are shock cavalry, and in fact the katafracts were mostly mace armed.

So now I have a huge pile of macemen! And I go through the stock of lancers very quickly, so have to get new models cast -- and a whole new pile of macemen!

Is there any downside to having them doublebased in a sort of diorama?

[khurasan_miniatures]

By the way Jon/Khurasan, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the incredible service and speedy dispatch you provide as a matter of routine.

Very pleased to hear you are satisfied! I try.

[ShrubMiK]

The list may classify them as lancers, but it does also have a nice picture showing macemen in the front and lancers at the end of the back row (although it's not quite a full wedge). You would think people might take the hint

[philqw78]

Is there any downside to having them doublebased in a sort of diorama?

They can't turn 90 if double based as they should then be 2 wide 1 deep. This is quite fundamental and I could see people in competitions arguing over it as it saves them a move getting back into formation.

[philqw78]

Why don't you sell the figures differently packed.

Cataphract front rank: 1 Maceman looking right, 1 looking left, 1 lancer
Cataphract rear rank: 2 lancers 1 archer

sort of thing

[khurasan_miniatures]

Why don't you sell the figures differently packed.

Cataphract front rank: 1 Maceman looking right, 1 looking left, 1 lancer
Cataphract rear rank: 2 lancers 1 archer

sort of thing

I was actually going to do that Phil! But it would be just the whole unit, three macemen, two lancers, and an archer.

[philqw78]

I just ordered 6 lancers, four clubbers, and 2 archers for the 2 BG. Clubbers and Archers I understand. Sometimes I have a girly night. for 2x

____lance
___club, club
_lance bow lance

Though I might add a standard to the front lancer to look pretty

[batesmotel]

I just ordered 6 lancers, four clubbers, and 2 archers for the 2 BG. Clubbers and Archers I understand. Sometimes I have a girly night. for 2x

____lance
___club, club
_lance bow lance

Though I might add a standard to the front lancer to look pretty

___club, club, club
lance, bow, bow, lance

Would probably look more massively wedge like and imposing on the table, and probably be more historically accurate since I think the formation for kataphraktoi is more of a blunt wedge than those used by Macedonian, Skythian and other cavalry in earlier periods. Replace one of the club in the front rank with a lancer if you want to include a standard.

Chris

[philqw78]

This is what mine look like. Thanks to Paul Crozier


http://www.flickr.com/photos/jospee/set ... 757655421/