Slitherine

I don't know anyeone who thinks Knights are too strong.

The real reason is they were awesome killing machines versus all their contemporaries if they get on their hands on them. Only excepttions were selected pike and people who shot stuff from a distance.

They should be feared.

Same of spartan hoplites, roman legionnaries, gallic warriors, varangian guard etc.. and they all also met defeat .... so up to now nobody could give a neutral and material reason as to why the KN should be so fearsome in FOG and not other units that were renowed in their own good time

Well with the exception of gauls, that list you have is pretty top tier troops in the game, in their period as well.

Knights are historically pretty effective.

But that still do not explain why the KN always get 2 dice and not the others . So compared to others KN are too efficient . But let's stay to the topic of what might we consider to change and make teh game better and not discuss every detail . I made my proposal .

I was wondering if the player having the initiative should not have a bonus for flank march , +1 or +2 to the die roll .

In my experience, there are not many flank marches .

I agree with JILU's proposal : LF ( and LH) should be in some way " pushed back" by heacier units marching forward .

LH : limit movement to 6 MU, not 7 .

bahdahbum wrote:Same of spartan hoplites, roman legionnaries, gallic warriors, varangian guard etc.. and they all also met defeat .... so up to now nobody could give a neutral and material reason as to why the KN should be so fearsome in FOG and not other units that were renowed in their own good time

So they can fight effectively whilst in shallower formations than other troop types.

why them an not others ?what should the material reason be ...

bahdahbum wrote:why them an not others ?what should the material reason be ...

history for one.
FYI Chariots are the same way.

History ? KN were regularly defeated ...

For chariots I know and feel it is a way to simulate the special case hat are charots . What is the real difference between sarmatian cataphracts, ostroght lancers, frankish KN ....NONE .

bahdahbum wrote:History ? KN were regularly defeated ...

For chariots I know and feel it is a way to simulate the special case hat are charots . What is the real difference between sarmatian cataphracts, ostroght lancers, frankish KN ....NONE .

Well at this point, I shall say we disagree and move on.

bahdahbum wrote:History ? KN were regularly defeated ...

For chariots I know and feel it is a way to simulate the special case hat are charots . What is the real difference between sarmatian cataphracts, ostroght lancers, frankish KN ....NONE .

Indeed and Kn regularly get routed in FOG games, usually when they make the same mistakes as their rash historical counterparts.

Well they didn't fight each other for one and nor did they fight the same type of armies. I think the rules are fine where knights are concerned because they are designed for historical match-ups which is what they should be for. The easy solution is to play historical (more or less) match-ups or themed tournaments.

History ? KN were regularly defeated ...

And historically they rules the European battlefield for near 4 century!
In Belgium, it's more glorious to remember Courtrai than Mons-en-Peleve !

and the spartans dominated greece for 4 centuries, romans for 4 centuries .. so what about dumb KN why should they always have 2 dice even in melee ..what is the thing that makes them really different !

What is the magical thing that would allow hem to be better than other good units ... NOTHING ! if someone wants it to be historical, so the rules should be historical and confined to a certain medieval period !

KN are too strongh as simple as that or ...there is another solution : HA KN are much too numerous in the army lists !

Olivier : it is not Only Courtrai , but the KN lost to many armies , even in scotland but OK KN dominated european battlefields, so did roman legionaries, so did pikes in greece ...everyone had his own glorious time ! glorifying the european KN is no reason to make it a super soldier .

bahdahbum wrote:and the spartans dominated greece for 4 centuries, romans for 4 centuries .. so what about dumb KN why should they always have 2 dice even in melee ..what is the thing that makes them really different !

What is the magical thing that would allow hem to be better than other good units ... NOTHING ! if someone wants it to be historical, so the rules should be historical and confined to a certain medieval period !

KN are too strongh as simple as that or ...there is another solution : HA KN are much too numerous in the army lists !

Olivier : it is not Only Courtrai , but the KN lost to many armies , even in scotland but OK KN dominated european battlefields, so did roman legionaries, so did pikes in greece ...everyone had his own glorious time ! glorifying the european KN is no reason to make it a super soldier .

The reason they dominated the scene was to do with the culture of the time. Those same people who liked to charge around run their counties as well mostly badly. I too agrere why do knights get two dice, BTW stick some swiss pikes in front of the knights and see what happens there.

the spartans dominated greece for 4 centuries

When?

KN why should they always have 2 dice even in melee

Because if not, they'll must fight in 2 rank and that it's rubbish!

KN are too strongh as simple as that

Oh?! At Clichy do you play a killer army full of Kn to defend your cause?

Kn lost to many armies but ride on any cavalry who stay in front of them and many, many foot And each time at few against plentiful. I've found FOG correct on Kn except may be Armored Kn but in their period they are very nice. In FOG it's not a super soldier at 23 or 26 pts the fighting file, they are one of the most onerous fighting troops.

bahdahbum wrote:KN are too strongh as simple as that or ...there is another solution : HA KN are much too numerous in the army lists !

If armies with even medium numbers of knights were dominating tournaments I would be willing to agree with you but that does not seem to be the case.

Looking at the later period at Britcon the top 12 armies were: French Ordonnance, HYW Continental, Swiss, Aztec, Later Ottoman Turk, Santa Hermandad Castillian, Later Ottoman Turk, Christian Nubian, Latin Greek, Christian Nubian, Swiss & Swiss

I don't see any huge dominance of knights. Infact I would probably go as far as to say that quite a lot of the top armies had no knights at all.

If any troop type is preponderant it would be pikes or medium foot bow/longbow

KN why should they always have 2 dice even in melee


Because if not, they'll must fight in 2 rank and that it's rubbish!

why should it be rubbish for a KN base representing some real KN with less trained and armored sergeants and not for cataphracts or ostrogothic lancers ?

By the way, KN had a real difficult time against real trained infantry ( defensive spearmen for exemple ) not the ban or arrière ban , or MOB !

At Clichy I will have some KN as you know ( my army list has already been sent ) .

bahdahbum wrote:By the way, KN had a real difficult time against real trained infantry ( defensive spearmen for exemple ) not the ban or arrière ban , or MOB !

And in FoG knights charging protected defensive spear are at a - at impact and then assuming the spear don't disrupt they are at evens in melee.

If you have a BG of 4 knights in a line charging a BG of 8 spear 2 deep then at impact the odds are that the knights will lose about 4 hits to 3. That will mean there is a 66% chance of a base of knights being destroyed. In the melee it is likely to be 8 dice vs 6 so again there is a good chance the knights will lose.

When you consder that superior undrilled knights cost 23 per base and average protected defensive spear cost 6 that sounds like a good fight for the spear to be in.

In my experience knights are fine until the lose a co,bat at which point they tend to lose a base and then they are in quite serious trouble against any enemy that is in a coherent formation.

I never wrote that armies full of KN are winning armies . What I meant is that IMO KN are too good for the points they cost and for their real effect on terrain compared to other similar historical units ( cataphracts, byzantine or khazar lancers ....) .

I can understand why chariots or elephants are "special" but all elephants and chariots are the same . a trained KN and a similarly trained seleucid cataphract / Byzantine cavalrymen / similarly trained cavalry are NOT . That's were there is a problem !

KN were trained young ! what about parthian nobles or veteran units !

My simple question still lies unanswered : what is the material fact that makes KN so different of other lancers of other elite units that dominated their own era , that won may battles, that charged infantry as they did, that charged lance against lance ?

And for Olivier : Ok spartans only dominated Greece as a military power from about 500 BC to 350 BC

[quote="bahdahbum"]...
My simple question still lies unanswered : what is the material fact that makes KN so different of other lancers of other elite units that dominated their own era...

My answer is that this way their effects on the battlefield is best simulated (relative small numbers of warriors with a significant local impact).
Incidentally I'm not fond of Knights and I believe that on average Roman legionaries were better trained and more flexible.
But when it comes to simulating close combat, single rank/double dice is the way authors have chosen to represent them and
I found that the overall effect is quite historical and gamewise balanced, so don't see any reason to alter that.
Rgds/Guglielmo

bahdahbum wrote:My simple question still lies unanswered : what is the material fact that makes KN so different of other lancers of other elite units that dominated their own era , that won may battles, that charged infantry as they did, that charged lance against lance ?

It looks right.