Knights

[RichardThompson]

Imagine some Knights charging an equal number of Cavalry Lancers (say Normans vs Carolingians):

4 Undrilled, Superior, Armoured Knights, Lance (@20P)
4 Undrilled, Superior, Armoured Cavalry, Lance (@16P)

In the impact phase both sides would have 8 dice but the Knights would have +POA for a 'Knightly Lance'. This seems OK to me.

In the melee phase the Knights would have 8 dice and the Cavalry only 4. Where knights really twice as effective in melee?

I have read various explanations for this advantage in other threads:
- Knights were trained from birth - this is probably covered by them being Superior
- Knights fought in shallower formations - Did they fight in shallower formations than other Lancers?

I'm not sure whether or not Knights should have an advantage in this melee.

However, if they should, why not give them +POA instead of giving them 2 dice/base so that the advantage is not so overwhelming.

ATM Knights are much better value than Cavalry Lancers.

[olivier]

I'm not sure whether or not Knights should have an advantage in this melee.

Historical reports of encounter between Frankish Kn and Muslim lancers or Byzantine lancers tell the contrary

And BTW
- lancers can tun and move, Kn can't
- Lancers move at 5, Kn only at 4
- Lancers have their full potential on a smaller front ( it's better against shooting, and manoeuvre)

Personally, I rather like CV lancers than KN

[RichardThompson]

I'm not sure whether or not Knights should have an advantage in this melee.

Historical reports of encounter between Frankish Kn and Muslim lancers or Byzantine lancers tell the contrary

Did knights also do better than Europeans classed as Cavalry Lancers?

If knights were indeed better trained, more heavily armoured and better armed than other troops with the same classification then fine, the rules should give them an advantage.

Personally I feel a +POA would be more appropriate than giving them double the number of dice.

And BTW
- lancers can tun and move, Kn can't
- Lancers move at 5, Kn only at 4
- Lancers have their full potential on a smaller front ( it's better against shooting, and manoeuvre)

Personally, I rather like CV lancers than KN

Knights also have the option of fighting two deep if they wish.

Knight armies seem to be more popular than cavalry lancer armies.

[Cerberias]

Once you start playing more games you'll realise that knights aren't all that great, sure they fight well, but are much too easily avoided and are very expensive. The cav lancers by contrast are much more manouverable (turn 90 and move is insanely good), and faster. Aswell as being cheaper. I'm much more afraid of a drilled cav lancer army than an undrilled knight army - with almost anything I play with.

[david53]

Once you start playing more games you'll realise that knights aren't all that great, sure they fight well, but are much too easily avoided and are very expensive. The cav lancers by contrast are much more manouverable (turn 90 and move is insanely good), and faster. Aswell as being cheaper. I'm much more afraid of a drilled cav lancer army than an undrilled knight army - with almost anything I play with.

Playing the games will sort out a lot of things ie why did I bother to bring Drilled Superior Armoured impact foot skilled sword when all you do is stick some LF in front of them.

[olivier]

Did knights also do better than Europeans classed as Cavalry Lancers?

Certainly, as they are an evolution of them. As soon they begin to adopt the fighting techniques, all the West evolve to Kn

Knights also have the option of fighting two deep if they wish.

And lose half of their fighting power??

Knight armies seem to be more popular than cavalry lancer armies.

May be more popular but certainly not more successful!

[RichardThompson]

Once you start playing more games you'll realise that knights aren't all that great, sure they fight well, but are much too easily avoided and are very expensive. The cav lancers by contrast are much more manouverable (turn 90 and move is insanely good), and faster. Aswell as being cheaper. I'm much more afraid of a drilled cav lancer army than an undrilled knight army - with almost anything I play with.

I have played at least sixty games with FoG so I have plenty of experience of troop interactions.

I agree that Cavalry are faster and more manoeuvrable than Knights and that drilled troops are more useful than undrilled.

The point I was trying to address is whether Knights have too much of an advantage in melee.

I personally feel that they do and a +POA would be sufficient.

[david53]

Once you start playing more games you'll realise that knights aren't all that great, sure they fight well, but are much too easily avoided and are very expensive. The cav lancers by contrast are much more manouverable (turn 90 and move is insanely good), and faster. Aswell as being cheaper. I'm much more afraid of a drilled cav lancer army than an undrilled knight army - with almost anything I play with.

I have played at least a hundred games with FoG so I have plenty of experience of troop interactions.

I agree that Cavalry are faster and more manoeuvrable than Knights and that drilled troops are more useful than undrilled.

The point I was trying to address is whether Knights have too much of an advantage in melee.

I personally feel that they do and a +POA would be sufficient.

Which club are you in Richard.

[RichardThompson]

Once you start playing more games you'll realise that knights aren't all that great, sure they fight well, but are much too easily avoided and are very expensive. The cav lancers by contrast are much more manouverable (turn 90 and move is insanely good), and faster. Aswell as being cheaper. I'm much more afraid of a drilled cav lancer army than an undrilled knight army - with almost anything I play with.

I have played at least a hundred games with FoG so I have plenty of experience of troop interactions.

I agree that Cavalry are faster and more manoeuvrable than Knights and that drilled troops are more useful than undrilled.

The point I was trying to address is whether Knights have too much of an advantage in melee.

I personally feel that they do and a +POA would be sufficient.

Which club are you in Richard.

I have been playing ancient wargames for about 30 years and used to go to the Peterborough club.

These days I play FoG with one regular opponent - usually a couple of games every three weeks so about sixty in total.

However, we have plenty of armies to choose from and have tried out most troop combinations.

We tend to discuss what we would like to change in the rules after each game. These discussions are the basis for the series of posts I have made over the last couple of days.

I wasn't part of the rules development process and don't play in competitions so I'm not familiar with the thinking behind some of the rules.

[RichardThompson]

Did knights also do better than Europeans classed as Cavalry Lancers?

Certainly, as they are an evolution of them. As soon they begin to adopt the fighting techniques, all the West evolve to Kn

There was a steady evolution from Armoured Cavalry with Lance, to Armoured Knights to Heavily Armoured Knights.

The increase in the power of the charge is handled very well by the rules.

The armour would have steadily got heavier, so I guess an 'Armoured knight' would have been better protected than 'Armoured Cavalry'. A difference in armour is usually handled by a +POA in melee.

Were there any other radical changes that would justify giving them two dice per base in melee?

Knight armies seem to be more popular than cavalry lancer armies.

May be more popular but certainly not more successful!

Drilled, heavily armoured Knights seem to be successful.

Especially Late Byzantine ones that are supported by shooty cavalry.

[Cerberias]

I don't mean any offence but playing against the one opponent isn't really giving you a full range of the rules as you don't really experience other peoples playing styles and their takes on the rules.

[olivier]

The armour would have steadily got heavier, so I guess an 'Armoured knight' would have been better protected than 'Armoured Cavalry'.

1st crusader Kn were less armoured than ghilmen, the fashion to protect the horse with "caparaçon" came from the contact with eastern cavalry.
Kn were used to fight in melee but not the Cv who like more a "hit and run" tactic, that was the main difference.

Drilled, heavily armoured Knights seem to be successful.

That's an another beast!
You began with a comparability between :
4 Undrilled, Superior, Armoured Knights, Lance (@20P) and
4 Undrilled, Superior, Armoured Cavalry, Lance (@16P)

not between a 4 Drilled, superior, Heavyly armoured Knight (@ 26 AP) and
a 4 Drilled, Superior, Armoured Cavalry, Lance (@17 AP)

A a big expense in budget for the kn and less for the Cv

Especially Late Byzantine ones that are supported by shooty cavalry

I hadn't never impressed by this army and his result...
On other hand HYW English, Seljuk Turk, Ottomans, Swiss all without Kn have a fair share of success

[RichardThompson]

I don't mean any offence but playing against the one opponent isn't really giving you a full range of the rules as you don't really experience other peoples playing styles and their takes on the rules.

I have read many of the posts on this forum and on the FoG Yahoo group so I think I am reasonably familiar with the arguments about the rules. I had been lurking here for a long time before I decided to register!

Are you saying that only club and competition players should be allowed to make suggestions?

I regularly submitted suggestions for changes to DBM and several of them were adopted.

I have learned from the process of debating these ideas over the last couple of days and I hope I have given the rule authors some useful suggestions.

[RichardThompson]

You began with a comparability between :
4 Undrilled, Superior, Armoured Knights, Lance (@20P) and
4 Undrilled, Superior, Armoured Cavalry, Lance (@16P)

I chose this comparison because this was the point in their evolution when mounted swordsmen suddenly became twice as effective in melee.

I was hoping to discover the rational behind knights having two dice and everything else having one.

I still don't know the answer!

[pezhetairoi]

I think you do know the answer -- to make them twice as powerful as lancer cavalry, and encourage single rank deployment.

I'm guessing that you don't agree with that assessment. Fair enough. I might not either. However, the authors felt that it is justified. They probably looked at the historical records for the number of Cavalry vs Knight face-to-face match-ups and found that the knight almost always won. The dice and POAs have been set to ensure similar statistical results, same with knights versus foot types. It believe it is as simple as that. It's mechanical, and not an elegant simulation of real life.

Note that they have also included a number of drawbacks to the Knight troop type, to allow opponents "historical" methods of exploiting the knights weaknesses. Again, I feel sometimes that these are forced on to the system rather than being built in, like LF and LH only getting 1/2 dice. But overall I think it is the results that matter the most. I've played a few games that looked better on paper but were easily exploited by very competitive players (that essentially ruined the simulation).

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing that you are unhappy with the knight's performance, and maybe that's what this post is about. Fair enough, lets talk about that!

[RichardThompson]

I think you do know the answer -- to make them twice as powerful as lancer cavalry, and encourage single rank deployment.

I'm guessing that you don't agree with that assessment. Fair enough. I might not either. However, the authors felt that it is justified. They probably looked at the historical records for the number of Cavalry vs Knight face-to-face match-ups and found that the knight almost always won. The dice and POAs have been set to ensure similar statistical results, same with knights versus foot types. It believe it is as simple as that. It's mechanical, and not an elegant simulation of real life.

Note that they have also included a number of drawbacks to the Knight troop type, to allow opponents "historical" methods of exploiting the knights weaknesses. Again, I feel sometimes that these are forced on to the system rather than being built in, like LF and LH only getting 1/2 dice. But overall I think it is the results that matter the most. I've played a few games that looked better on paper but were easily exploited by very competitive players (that essentially ruined the simulation).

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing that you are unhappy with the knight's performance, and maybe that's what this post is about. Fair enough, lets talk about that!

The title of this forum is Field of Glory 2.0 which suggests the authors are looking at a major revision rather than say just an amendment sheet. I assume they set up the forum because they were actively looking for input. I have been a bit surprised by how negative some of the responses have been to the suggestions that have been submitted.

My objection to how knights perform in melee is that it is not 'an elegant simulation of real life'. I agree with it handles some interactions well but feel it is a little clumsy in others (such as the one I used as an example).

My suggestion would certainly weaken Knights but it could be balanced out by:

- Making break-off moves voluntary
- Giving ++POA for Armour two grades better
- Giving mounted bowmen a short effective range
- etc.

In any case Knights would still be a viable troop type even if they only got one dice in melee (people still use Cataphracts).

There are now 42 posts in this forum and most of them would change the balance of the game in some way. I have no idea which (if any) of these ideas the rule authors will adopt. The changes will interact with each other in complex ways but eventually some new balance will emerge.

I hope the new set boosts the weaker troop types and makes more armies viable for competitions. One way to do this is to restrict the power of knights, horse archers and the other currently fashionable types.

The current rules are probably the best set I have used but I believe they can and will improve as they evolve.

[david53]

In any case Knights would still be a viable troop type even if they only got one dice in melee (people still use Cataphracts).

Now many do you see taken in an open competion then?

Since I have played many events over the last two years they are few and far between why cause most are undrilled and only get one dice in combat against Knights.

I have no idea why they get two dice but if you play the rules thats what you face. Like you say you can have your say as why you think its wrong fine, me I like most of the rules as they stand. But I'm sure some things will change and if i want to play FOG I either will agree or not.

[david53]

I hope the new set boosts the weaker troop types and makes more armies viable for competitions. One way to do this is to restrict the power of knights, horse archers and the other currently fashionable types.

.

Must disagree coming from a compition player not great but do enjoy them I would have to disagree with you about what you class as fashionable troops.

Knights don't think they are as fashionable as you think well not in the games and people I have played against. Now if i was Hammy I would have the results of the last five open british tournements to be able to show you the winning armies.

In the second I know your wrong about horse archers from a person who uses Horse Archer armies almost constantly me they are picked by very few people, last years Britcon had two LH Skythian armies mine's and Dave Ruddock. So no not a popular choice for people now if you were talking about Lancer armies now they are fashionable just look at how many Lancer armies were at Britcon this year.

Please explain how restricting those troops will allow other armies to be picked for compations.

[RichardThompson]

In any case Knights would still be a viable troop type even if they only got one dice in melee (people still use Cataphracts).

Now many do you see taken in an open competion then?

Since I have played many events over the last two years they are few and far between why cause most are undrilled and only get one dice in combat against Knights.

I have no idea why they get two dice but if you play the rules thats what you face. Like you say you can have your say as why you think its wrong fine, me I like most of the rules as they stand. But I'm sure some things will change and if i want to play FOG I either will agree or not.

I am told they appear in competitions restricted to periods that don't have knights.

If Knights only get one melee dice cataphracts might even start to appear in open competitions as well!

[david53]

1 Later Seleucid
2 Late Republican Roman
Alexandrian Macedonian
4 Later Carthaginian
5 Dominate Roman
6 Later Ottoman Turkish
7 Principate Roman
8 Early Achaemenid Persian
8 Ordonnance French
10 100 Years War English (Continental)
10 Mid-Republican Roman

These are the top 10 most played armies from the list on this site not a mass of LH or Knight armies.