Cataphracts V Roman Legionaries???

[miffedofreading]

Just had a very enjoyable game that had armenian cataphracts, heavily armoured superior lance and sword armed charging standard legionaries, average armoured, swordsmen

I believe that in the MELEE phase the factors cancel out except for the cataphracts armour advantage so they fight with a + POA fine happy with that.

Where something feels wrong is the impact phase. Surely the impact phase is where a charging cataphract would be at it's most dangerous?? The way we read it The impact foot legionary got a + POA because it was Impact foot against mounted, unless you are charging against shock cavalry. In this case it was the shock cavalry who charged so the romans still got the POA. Likewise the Cataphracts got a + POA for other lances. Which netted out as an equal odds fight.

So cataphracts have no advantage in the charge, but do have an advantage when stationery??

Can someone point out which factor we have missed here because that can't be right surely??

Ta

Andy

[recharge]

Rules not handy; but isn't there another + for mounted in melee with foot, also charging foot?

John

[Montagu]

Rules not handy; but isn't there another + for mounted in melee with foot, also charging foot?

John

It's only mounted vs LF or MF in the open.

EDIT: Removed part of my answer which turns out was wrong

GL!

[Seldon]

Well the POA for spearmen is different if charging or not charging so I don't think that both are considered to be chargin for POA table conditions, othewise you wouldn't have the line for "spearmen if not charging".

I am sure that they had something particular in mind when they decided that impact foot would have a + if being charged by shock cav and not if they charge shock cav.

[hammy]

The + for impact foot if not charging shock mounted does apply if the impact foot are charged by the shock mounted and if it is the cataphracts turn it is they who are doing the charging.

There are a few of POAs that only apply if not charging, impact foot vs shock mounted (essentially the foot form tightly and unleash a last minute volley of missiles), pike and spear vs shock mounted (to be at their best against hard charging mounted they need to be in a solid formation ideally braced) and defensive spear who are not really meant to attack things.

During development there was a lot of tweaking of POAs and the version in the rules works well. One older version had the cataphract legionary battle + tp the cataphracts at impact but even in melee (superior sword trumped all sword) which meant that legionaries were actually far too good against heavily armoured mounted.

As it stands there is a slight advantage to the lancers as if they win the legionaries are at -1 on their CT.

[miffedofreading]

Hammy,

VERY slight with the -1 on the CT at impact only.

I am completely bemused as to how charhing chock cavalry have a better value in melee than they do in impact? I can't find any other instances in the rules where this happens. Even my useless numidian light cavalry armed with a tea towel to wear, a pointy stick and riding a donkey have an advantage in impact that they do not have in melee. Which is of course not their job they are skirmishers.

BUT cataphract cavalry armed mive a massive lance, riding a shire horse and wearing a volvo don't get any benefit at all?? I understand charging pike or long spear is dangerous, but Romans are notoriously vulnerable to heavy mounted troops, there are several historical instances of who legions being run down by very heavy horse.

I will of course go with the rules as published and the game was very enjoyable, but I am rather surprised at the way cataphracts charging poorly equipped soldiers is handled. In this case of course Romans are poorly equipped for this role. The factors would have been the same for a gallic warband of naked fierce warriors with nothing but swords and attractively decorated shields being run down by the entire Volvo equipped cataphract horde.

I guess my cataphracts must be riding diesels

[OldenTired]

Hammy,

VERY slight with the -1 on the CT at impact only.

I am completely bemused as to how charhing chock cavalry have a better value in melee than they do in impact? I can't find any other instances in the rules where this happens. Even my useless numidian light cavalry armed with a tea towel to wear, a pointy stick and riding a donkey have an advantage in impact that they do not have in melee. Which is of course not their job they are skirmishers.

don't forget the break-off. if your cataphracts don't disorder the legion after charging them (on even POAs) and beating them in melee (on +1 POA), then they get another free go at it in your next turn.

if they do disorder, then you have them over a barrel.

[corbon]

Hammy,

VERY slight with the -1 on the CT at impact only.

I am completely bemused as to how charhing chock cavalry have a better value in melee than they do in impact? I can't find any other instances in the rules where this happens. Even my useless numidian light cavalry armed with a tea towel to wear, a pointy stick and riding a donkey have an advantage in impact that they do not have in melee. Which is of course not their job they are skirmishers.

BUT cataphract cavalry armed mive a massive lance, riding a shire horse and wearing a volvo don't get any benefit at all?? I understand charging pike or long spear is dangerous, but Romans are notoriously vulnerable to heavy mounted troops, there are several historical instances of who legions being run down by very heavy horse.

I will of course go with the rules as published and the game was very enjoyable, but I am rather surprised at the way cataphracts charging poorly equipped soldiers is handled. In this case of course Romans are poorly equipped for this role. The factors would have been the same for a gallic warband of naked fierce warriors with nothing but swords and attractively decorated shields being run down by the entire Volvo equipped cataphract horde.

I guess my cataphracts must be riding diesels

Or they read their history? I'm no expert but my understanding is that Cataphracts 'charged' at the trot only and often more or less stood off at spears length and jabbed at their opponents with their long(er) spears. Their chief advantages being scariness, heavy armour and longer weapons. And they were somewhat vulnerable to swordsmen, who had to get up real close to use their short weapons - close enough to be able to target the unprotected bellies of their (relatively) slow moving or even stationary horses.

While the legions were given a rough time by various cataphract opponents, they usually won anyway. The 'ridden down' legions are usually against somewhat lighter equipped cavalry - the hard charging kind.

[durrati]

Think you are worrying to much about just the factor at impact rather than the net effect. The overall effect is quite often catafracts will win the impact and then go on to give the foot a right spanking in the melee. Just as often the foot will win, there will then be a probably indecisive melee followed by the cataphracts rallying back to charge in again to have another go. If the foot continue to win over the course of a few turns, and resist a few charges, the cataphracts will lose the occasional death throw and they will slowly get ground down after launching repeated charges, which seems reasonable - this is a decent sized 'if' however.

Also, your classic cataphract armies have bowed armed LH with them as well - save the cataphract charge for when the foot have been disrupted by shooting and things start to look really nasty for the foot.

So, whatever the POAs are in any given phase, the overall outcome will be either the foot get spanked or the mounted rally back, which seems fair enough. Looking at your numidian pointy stick donkey rider example, whatever the POA at impact are, this does not change the fact they will be slaughtered if they charge into combat with heavy foot - as they should do.

[nikgaukroger]

Legionarii defeated by catafracts had usually been softened up in some way beforehand a la Karrhae.

[hammy]

Even my useless numidian light cavalry armed with a tea towel to wear, a pointy stick and riding a donkey have an advantage in impact that they do not have in melee. Which is of course not their job they are skirmishers.

No they don't. Light spear armed cavalry will be a POA down against legionaries.

You have to remember that the impact phase includes short range missile fire and that against solid formed foot most cavalry will struggle to actually charge home.

Lancers charging disrupted legionaries have a very good chance of fragementing them and a reasonable chance of breaking them on impact.

If you assume 6 dice vs 4 (i.e. disrupted legionaries) then the most likely result is a narrow win to the lancers and the legionaries will then be testing at -3 (-1 for 1 hit per 3, -1 for disrupted and -1 for lancers).

Light spear armed cavalry are a POA down at impact so against disrupted legionaries the fight is actually even and if the legionaries lose (less likely) they will only be testing at -2.

[OldenTired]

Even my useless numidian light cavalry armed with a tea towel to wear, a pointy stick and riding a donkey have an advantage in impact that they do not have in melee. Which is of course not their job they are skirmishers.

No they don't. Light spear armed cavalry will be a POA down against legionaries.

You have to remember that the impact phase includes short range missile fire and that against solid formed foot most cavalry will struggle to actually charge home.

Lancers charging disrupted legionaries have a very good chance of fragementing them and a reasonable chance of breaking them on impact.

If you assume 6 dice vs 4 (i.e. disrupted legionaries) then the most likely result is a narrow win to the lancers and the legionaries will then be testing at -3 (-1 for 1 hit per 3, -1 for disrupted and -1 for lancers).

Light spear armed cavalry are a POA down at impact so against disrupted legionaries the fight is actually even and if the legionaries lose (less likely) they will only be testing at -2.

the main lesson being, "don't charge undisrupted HF".

[miffedofreading]

Thanks guys,

All valid points, I will accept my diesel powered Volvo cataphracts for what they are. I was perhaps expecting a little much of them, they were my ace in the hold for last nights game whereas actually my armoured superior cavalry on the other flank did much better against their opponents.

Typical, the glory boys with the shiny armour do the swaggering around while the grunts on the other flank do all the hard work

Best game I have played anyway a lot of fun

Andy

[stenic]

the main lesson being, "don't charge undisrupted HF".

I beg to differ. My cataphracts have given HF a serious spanking in the 3 games I've used them, twice vs Romans and once vs Gauls, in all games the Hf were steady.... at the beginning.

Isn't there a lance POA too for impact or is that melee ? (My rules are not to hand)

Steve

[philqw78]

yes, at impact, but it is cancelled out by the impact foot POA if the impact foot did not initiate the charge

[shall]

All good replies and yes we tryto read out history and make the game realistic

Basically IMP Ft HF who are in good shape were pretty good at resisting mounted charges if they hold together at impact - and were in history. Better still with long pointy sticks of course.

Thus the net evens at impact on this. Note that the Cataphract put a -1 on cts and this ia quite a big effect around that cusp of 7 on 2 dice. The legionaries only give such a - vs foot. In melee the cataprhacts are at a + so will do better. The break off rules are crucial here or the Romans would in trouble.=w ith too many Melee phases at a -.

The end result of a few 1000 computer simluations feels very right overall and it has done on the tabletop everytime I have tried it.

Basically this is fight with big risks to both sides unless there is some serious softening up done.

From 4 games of Roman vs Parthian.

• 2 fights with Romans and Catapjhracts at impact quite early. Romans won both after a struggle. Parthains lost all 4 BGs each time to Roman losing 1 or 2.
  
  2 fight with lots of skirmishing - first game LH got in a mess and got caught in front of Cataphracts (horrible), 2nd game they figured it out and the Cataprhcts followed up the shooting to glory in a big way hitting 2 DISRed BGS and wiping them out in very quick style

Thus on average it works well and with good skill by either side the game can be swung substantially

Si

[OldenTired]

2 fight with lots of skirmishing - first game LH got in a mess and got caught in front of Cataphracts (horrible), 2nd game they figured it out and the Cataprhcts followed up the shooting to glory in a big way hitting 2 DISRed BGS and wiping them out in very quick style

Thus on average it works well and with good skill by either side the game can be swung substantially

Si

this is the thing i haven't mastered yet. getting the LH shooty types into to soften up the HF before the lancers go in.

a matter of smaller LH BGs?

[miffedofreading]

Very difficult to soften up armoured legionary types. Most weapons only hit on a 5,6 and you need at least 2 maybe 3 hits to cause a cohesion test.

[Montagu]

An FYI, the book explanation for the Break Off rules don't use the word 'must' break off. It uses other wording that after reading it quickly 2 times didn't sink in as obligatory.

In any case, wouldn't the leader of the BG stay in melee if that was more advantageous to his troops rather than breaking off and charging? It seems to me that the mobility of mounted troops would give them the choice of when/where to engage but wouldn't automatically force them to act in a way that was to thier disadvantage.

[miffedofreading]

I thought it was obligatory?