Cataphacts & Principate Romans

[seansmith]

I would appreciate people's thoughts about Cataphacts. How are they best used and are they worth the points?

A superior drilled, heavily armoured cataphact with lance and sword costs 20 points. However, an knight who is superior, undrilled, armed with knight lance and sword costs 232 points. They both get the same number of dice in the impact phase, but the melee phase Cataphacts gets one die per base vs Knights who get two die per base. Inaddition the knights lance cancels the cataphacts lance in the impact phase. However, the cataphacts are drilled.
I look forward to your comments.

I am thinking of an army with Armenian ally. It will have:

Legionaries HF Average Drilled Armoured - Impact foot Skilled swordmen - 6
Legionaries HF Average Drilled Armoured - Impact foot Skilled swordmen - 6
Legionaries HF Average Drilled Armoured - Impact foot Skilled swordmen - 6
Auxiliary foot MF Average Drilled Protected - Light spear Swordmen - 6
Auxiliary foot HF Average Drilled Armoured - Light spear Swordmen - 6
Cataractarii Ct Superior Drilled Heavily armoured - Lancers Swordmen - 4
Auxiliary cavalry Cv Average Drilled Armoured - Light spear Swordmen - 6
Auxiliary cavalry LH Average Drilled Unprotected Javelins Light spear - - 6
Equities sagittarii LH Average Drilled Unprotected Bow - - - 6
Commander in Chief FC - - - - - - CinC 1
Sub-General TC - - - - - - - 1
Fortified Camp CAMP - - - - - - - 1
Ally-General TC - - - - - - - 1
Armenian Cataphacts Ct Average Undrilled Heavily armoured - Lancers Swordmen - 4
Armenian horse archers LH Average Drilled Unprotected Bow - - - 6
Armenian archers MF Average Undrilled Unprotected - - - - 8

[carlos]

Cataphracts are really good... in period!

As for your army list I used 4 * 6 Avg legionaries in Warfare and they're terrible. They will lose to almost everything in the game and you only need to hit them twice to force a cohesion test through shooting. You really need the numbers, the quality and the skilled swordsmen. Otherwise they're almost filler.

[nikgaukroger]

In the ally I'd go for a 2nd BG of horse archers rather than the MF archers - far more usful IMO.

[carlos]

I'd bump the cataphracts to unites of 6. They need to make an impact (!!!) and are best with a general in the front rank. You also need to think on how you are deploying so having the cataphracts in 2 units, one main army and the other the ally, is counterproductive, since you'll need 2 generals to make them do 2nd moves.

[Niceas]

Having just used some cataphracts against some German warband types, they weren't too bad. I did throw a general into the front rank, (as did my opponent) and they did have to break off and charge again before breaking the warband.

I won my fights, so got the +2 on the death dice roll, and charged both times 'en haye'.

I'm not sure that a 6 stand unit in a single rank would not get in its own way. Maybe in 15mm. That would be huge in 25mm, and I don't think I'd do it.

[rbodleyscott]

Having just used some cataphracts against some German warband types, they weren't too bad. I did throw a general into the front rank, (as did my opponent) and they did have to break off and charge again before breaking the warband.

I won my fights, so got the +2 on the death dice roll, and charged both times 'en haye'.

I'm not sure that a 6 stand unit in a single rank would not get in its own way. Maybe in 15mm. That would be huge in 25mm, and I don't think I'd do it.

Cataphracts aren't meant to be "en haie", they are not knights. They fight 2 ranks deep in melee and only get one dice per base in melee. Generally you should use them 2 ranks deep.

In my Sassanid army, last time I fielded it, I used 3 BGs of 4 bases of cataphracts. (Legal under the final lists). The fact that one of the 3 BGs had no commander with it had a noticeable effect on the combat (they lost). OTOH, the fact that I had 3 BGs rather than 2 allowed the one that broke through to charge in the flank the enemy the other surviving BG was facing.

So as far as I can see it is swings and roundabouts - the larger BGs give more benefit from commanders, but less manouvreability.

[Niceas]

Having just used some cataphracts against some German warband types, they weren't too bad. I did throw a general into the front rank, (as did my opponent) and they did have to break off and charge again before breaking the warband.

I won my fights, so got the +2 on the death dice roll, and charged both times 'en haye'.

I'm not sure that a 6 stand unit in a single rank would not get in its own way. Maybe in 15mm. That would be huge in 25mm, and I don't think I'd do it.

Cataphracts aren't meant to be "en haie", they are not knights. They fight 2 ranks deep in melee and only get one dice per base in melee. Generally you should use them 2 ranks deep.

In my Sassanid army, last time I fielded it, I used 3 BGs of 4 bases of cataphracts. (Legal under the final lists). The fact that one of the 3 BGs had no commander with it had a noticeable effect on the combat (they lost). OTOH, the fact that I had 3 BGs rather than 2 allowed the one that broke through to charge in the flank the enemy the other surviving BG was facing.

So as far as I can see it is swings and roundabouts - the larger BGs give more benefit from commanders, but less manouvreability.

I was wondering about that. But, given the situation, I did not see any reason not to deploy in one line since I wanted to cover as much front as possible. As it turned out, the cataphracts were fighting 8 bases of warband who were 4 wide and 2 deep, so whether the cataphracts were 2 wide, 2 deep or 4 wide, 1 deep it seemed to be the same.

I suppose that with the cataphracts two stands deep you could aim for one end of the warband BG or the other, and hence reduce exposure to overlaps in the melee phase, but that seems to be taking advantage of geometry somewhat. (At least in that situation).

[ethan]

I was wondering about that. But, given the situation, I did not see any reason not to deploy in one line since I wanted to cover as much front as possible. As it turned out, the cataphracts were fighting 8 bases of warband who were 4 wide and 2 deep, so whether the cataphracts were 2 wide, 2 deep or 4 wide, 1 deep it seemed to be the same.

I suppose that with the cataphracts two stands deep you could aim for one end of the warband BG or the other, and hence reduce exposure to overlaps in the melee phase, but that seems to be taking advantage of geometry somewhat. (At least in that situation).

I think in general if you are forced to fight something that is that much wider and have no prospects for reinforcements coming up to fill in, you should go one deep to try and get the maximum effect on impact, after all that is the only time you will be even on dice and if you have POA advantage there you should maximize it. Basically, you have to hope you win on the charge.

[hazelbark]

I think in general if you are forced to fight something that is that much wider and have no prospects for reinforcements coming up to fill in, you should go one deep to try and get the maximum effect on impact, after all that is the only time you will be even on dice and if you have POA advantage there you should maximize it. Basically, you have to hope you win on the charge.

yes I think the trick is to figure out if you get the POA advantages at Impact then go wider. If not go narrower.

[shall]

yes its a tactical choice.

I too have gone 1 rank at times when facing a larger opponents for maximum potential impact damage

Its kind of a double or quite plan. If you win the impact round then you are more, likely to hammer things and you will generally either DISR troops or more to make up the dice or if you leave them in good shape you tend to break off and try again. Its a problem if you face an army with lots of shooters as they can put a lot of firepower onto you which can then even hurt H Arm Cataphracts.

Si