How to use knights

[tyronec]

Regarding the formation with 3 knights facing off against 2 spear units. We can all see that this is a difficult situation for the Knights. It is really just a confirmation that Knights need to be employed in a mass formation, either lots of Knights or some Knights backed up by other troops. If the Knights advance in a line on alternate squares then they are just inviting the opposition to take them out either with shooting or by manoeuvering to get in a flank charge.

In Ancients you can use a 'skirmish' line of lancers or heavy chariots to pin down a line of good quality infantry. In Medieval it just doesn't work the same way, the Knights are more costly and often the infantry are cheaper, so here you have a high AP line of Knights being pinned down by low AP line of infantry.

[tyronec]

Regarding the formation with 3 knights facing off against 2 spear units. We can all see that this is a difficult situation for the Knights. It is really just a confirmation that Knights need to be employed in a mass formation, either lots of Knights or some Knights backed up by other troops. If the Knights advance in a line on alternate squares then they are just inviting the opposition to take them out either with shooting or by manoeuvering to get in a flank charge.

In Ancients you can use a 'skirmish' line of lancers or heavy chariots to pin down a line of good quality infantry. In Medieval it just doesn't work the same way, the Knights are more costly and often the infantry are cheaper, so here you have a high AP line of Knights being pinned down by low AP line of infantry.

[Geffalrus]

Regarding the formation with 3 knights facing off against 2 spear units. We can all see that this is a difficult situation for the Knights. It is really just a confirmation that Knights need to be employed in a mass formation, either lots of Knights or some Knights backed up by other troops. If the Knights advance in a line on alternate squares then they are just inviting the opposition to take them out either with shooting or by manoeuvering to get in a flank charge.

In Ancients you can use a 'skirmish' line of lancers or heavy chariots to pin down a line of good quality infantry. In Medieval it just doesn't work the same way, the Knights are more costly and often the infantry are cheaper, so here you have a high AP line of Knights being pinned down by low AP line of infantry.

Very true. In this way, I think the game does a great job of giving the knights a clearly different role from other lancers, especially Byzantine ones. Knights really need to be charging and putting enemy units in danger of breaking. And unlike Cataphracts in Ancients, the proliferation of xbows means that they can't act as a meat shield for massed archers like you can with a faction like Palmyra. For a similar point cost, dismounted foot knights fundamentally do that job better.

[pinwolf]

Regarding the formation with 3 knights facing off against 2 spear units...

2 knights vs 3 spear

[Sabratha]

There's one thing you forget is this is an unusual tactic in the Western and Southern Euro,and If about the Central and Eastern Euro,the AI will only use one battle formation of horses on the flanks even you place all your knights on the front like in Western Euro,Even in the Eastern Euro when both sides wanna have a blood spilled combat intent of destroy the enemy army they will still regularly put their knights on the front,Like I said,The First Battle of Tannenberg in 1410 AD too.The wedge formation you mentioned was also rare in Medieval,most common cavalry formation of that time was conrois(Tight formation).

Tannenberg is a somewhat controversial example for several reasons:
1. Długosz being our main source.
2. The fact that the source mentions that the Teutonic Order's guns fired twice before the main melee began would suggest that the artillery and some infantry were placed in front of the main cavalry body. The early guns of this period were certainly not able to shoot above friendly troops on an arc-trajectory.
3. I've seen interpretations of the battle that suggested that the initial Lithuanian charge was aimed exactly at these infantrymen and artillery, with the general cavalry melee being a result of a Teutonic counter-charge against the initial Lithuanian charge on the Teutonic left.

Personally, I'm not convinced of this interpretation, but we can't rule it out.

My main source is from the Osprey,the knights were deploy infront of the gonnes at there first,but then pull back to let the gonnes fire.Still the knights attacked poles' main line passing through their infantry after the Lithuanians failed at the poles right,but seems in FoG2 can't let the knights go passing through the friendly infantry or let the infantry clear the ways for them.

The interpretation that I mentioned (Lithuanians charged the Teutonic infantry and guns, then the Teutonic cavalry counter-charged the Lithuanians) assumes that the Teutonic counter-charge would have trampled some of their own routing infantrymen.

I could certainly believe that part to be true. Infantry men being trampled by their own knights does not appear to be a very unusual event at the battlefields of this period.

[Joch1955]

Interesting thread.

I have also been trying to find out the optimum use for knights, whether in front or on the wings, no wrong or right answer as far as I can see.It really depends on the tactical situation. However, I think Knights are most effective where you keep them as one large group where they can mutually support each other.

Whether Knights are not powerful enough is hard to say, they feel about right to me. They will easily plow through light troops/peasants and even against better quality infantry, repeated charges over a number of turns will usually punch through the enemy lines.

If the decision is made to beef up Knights, then thought should be given to giving infantry to ability to fortify their position. In the 14th century, it was common for infantry to setup on good defensive terrain and dig anti-cavalry pits, although I have not been able to find out how common that would have been in the 11th-13th century period.

[Gator007]

The French at Agincourt(?) are supposed to have ridden down some Genoese crossbowmen. That is pretty well attested in the sources.

[Joch1955]

The French at Agincourt(?) are supposed to have ridden down some Genoese crossbowmen. That is pretty well attested in the sources.

Hmm, I have not seen any references to Genoese crossbowmen fighting with the English at Agincourt. They were mercenaries who generally fought with the French. You may be thinking of the Battle of Crecy where Genoese crossbowmen fighting with the French were ridden down by their own side’s Knights as they were retreating from the battlefield.

[Tirean]

I have found mixed success with Knights, the more I have the less effective they seem. Somewhere between 4-5 seems ideal.

Would I want them stronger? Maybe not. Would I like them a bit cheaper? Probably.

[Sabratha]

If the decision is made to beef up Knights, then thought should be given to giving infantry to ability to fortify their position. In the 14th century, it was common for infantry to setup on good defensive terrain and dig anti-cavalry pits, although I have not been able to find out how common that would have been in the 11th-13th century period.

Yeah pits and field fortification... we have the Flemish at Courtrai using the ditches. That's entirely credible.

The notion of the Teutonic order using pits at Tannenberg/Grunwald 1410 has been almost universally rejected by scholars and historians now. There simply was no time for them to have done so, they arrived at the battlefield too late. Długosz either made those pits up himself in his chronicle to make the Brothers look more devious, or he himself was using a bogus source.

The French at Agincourt(?) are supposed to have ridden down some Genoese crossbowmen. That is pretty well attested in the sources.

Hmm, I have not seen any references to Genoese crossbowmen fighting with the English at Agincourt. They were mercenaries who generally fought with the French. You may be thinking of the Battle of Crecy where Genoese crossbowmen fighting with the French were ridden down by their own side’s Knights as they were retreating from the battlefield.
[/quote]

I think that's exactly what he meant - that French knights trampled some of their own infantry.

[VenG]

I will disagree that you don't need many knights, if concentrated at one place for a decisive punch, supported by shooters, they could do much damage.

[SimonLancaster]

I think some thought should also go towards the infantry that knights might be fighting. Many lists have lots of standard Defensive Spearmen. Some lists have little to no access to higher tier infantry like Armoured Spearmen, Lowland Spear or Scottish Spear, etc. Other lists have a lot of impact foot which gets mowed down by knights.

Knights in the right spot can be devastating. It might take a few attempts to cause disruptions but they often come.

[Geffalrus]

Knights cost as much as 2 defensive spears, but it takes a certain amount of luck, or multiple charges for that knight to break just 1 of those spears. I'd argue that knights are better value vs. more expensive infantry, specifically armored spears and offensive spears. This is because their powerful charge provides the same POA advantage vs. all average spear units, even the more expensive offensive and armored varieties. (Edit: I'm omitting for now the deep spear units) Just don't let your knights get trapped in melee combat with those units, obviously.

78 point late foot knights are currently the best foot unit for resisting mounted charges, but also the least efficient from a cost viewpoint. So long as the knights on horse don't get trapped into melee with the foot knights, repeated charges will feature a decent POA advantage for the mounted knights, and the foot knights will be taking repeated cohesion checks where their +1 bonus is cancelled out by the knightly charge -1 penalty.

The issue with this is that it can take a while to be successful with your knights. And during that time, your enemy can be shooting you, maneuvering cheap units to trap you, or winning elsewhere if you sank a lot of points into knights.

[Gator007]

Joch you are correct, I got hasty, but it is sort of well sourced that the French knights rode down some of the Genoese.

[Gator007]

Weren't the Scots supposed to have used pits or some sort of man traps at Bannockburn?

[Chherif]

Use it, but first day of battle. The were not there On second day, which was crucial. Onе of the reason for victory was that Scots drove the English into narrow field between the rivers. As a reslut the cavalry had no choice but to make attempts to break through the Scots in the forehead. I apologize in advance for the spelling.
I am not good a Englich