Slitherine

philqw78 wrote:

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.

I disagree. I think it looks left...

anyways, on a more serious note, I do find it interesting that knights only fight in one rank. Why is that? I recently went to an open tournament, and Cataphracts bounced from my spear in a four-base unit square. Then I fought knights and the same things happened, but they were in one rank.

It's not a question of effectiveness, it's just weird that some cavalry fight in two ranks and others don't because it looks right...

I think it looks right for Sparta to win all the time everywhere. So can I roll eight die per base because it looks right?

ATXPaul wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

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.

I disagree. I think it looks left...

anyways, on a more serious note, I do find it interesting that knights only fight in one rank. Why is that? I recently went to an open tournament, and Cataphracts bounced from my spear in a four-base unit square. Then I fought knights and the same things happened, but they were in one rank.

It's not a question of effectiveness, it's just weird that some cavalry fight in two ranks and others don't because it looks right...

I think it looks right for Sparta to win all the time everywhere. So can I roll eight die per base because it looks right?

I wonder if the rules were writen in Korea would the knights still be that good?

Would catafracts also not look better in line?

ATXPaul wrote:anyways, on a more serious note, I do find it interesting that knights only fight in one rank. Why is that?

Because they fought in shallower formations than Ancient cavalry, cataphracts included.

Cataphracts are very good against contemporary opponents. They are disadvantaged in anachronistic (fantasy) battles.

If you don't like this, don't play anachronistic (fantasy) battles. If you are "forced" to play in open competitions, and you are determined to win at all costs, don't use cataphracts.

Simples.

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 ?

Would this passage of the Alexiad do? It refers to the Byzantine's opinion of the Franks in the eleventh century.


"For this reason, as he was cognizant both of Frankish armour and our archery, the Emperor advised our men to attack the horses chiefly and 'wing' them with their arrows so that when the Franks had dismounted, they could easily be captured. For a Frank on horseback is invincible, and would even make a hole in the walls of Babylon, but directly he gets off his horse, anyone who likes can make sport of him"

Anna Komena, Alexiad

I haven't got time to find other similar quotes but I don't recall anything similar being said about other lancer cavalry before the Normans started throwing their weight around in Italy and Sicily in the eleventh century.

rbodleyscott wrote:

ATXPaul wrote:anyways, on a more serious note, I do find it interesting that knights only fight in one rank. Why is that?

Because they fought in shallower formations than Ancient cavalry, cataphracts included.

Cataphracts are very good against contemporary opponents. They are disadvantaged in anachronistic (fantasy) battles.

If you don't like this, don't play anachronistic (fantasy) battles. If you are "forced" to play in open competitions, and you are determined to win at all costs, don't use cataphracts.

Simples.

Fair enough. I don't mind it, I just thought it was weird. But I had no idea that knights more commonly fought in shallower formations! Now I know that, and my mind is better for it.

Thanks!

jlopez wrote:

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 ?

Would this passage of the Alexiad do? It refers to the Byzantine's opinion of the Franks in the eleventh century.


"For this reason, as he was cognizant both of Frankish armour and our archery, the Emperor advised our men to attack the horses chiefly and 'wing' them with their arrows so that when the Franks had dismounted, they could easily be captured. For a Frank on horseback is invincible, and would even make a hole in the walls of Babylon, but directly he gets off his horse, anyone who likes can make sport of him"

Anna Komena, Alexiad

I haven't got time to find other similar quotes but I don't recall anything similar being said about other lancer cavalry before the Normans started throwing their weight around in Italy and Sicily in the eleventh century.

Also worth pointing out that at this date the Byzantines themselves were also lancers. Arab lancers also fared but poorly against "Frankish" knights.

So whatever their "material" advantage (or not), they clearly had a different attitude which (as any skuleboy kno) may have a lot more effect in warfare than equipment.

For this reason, as he was cognizant both of Frankish armour and our archery, the Emperor advised our men to attack the horses chiefly and 'wing' them with their arrows so that when the Franks had dismounted, they could easily be captured. For a Frank on horseback is invincible, and would even make a hole in the walls of Babylon, but directly he gets off his horse, anyone who likes can make sport of him"

Anna Komena, Alexiad

Ever heard something like PROPAGANDA

Then why do you not take into account what arabs wrote about the invincible varangian guard ..

In the case of KN , I strongly suspect european sense of superiority

KN often fought KN, easely routed MOB ( ban and arrière-ban ) but had a hard time against professionnal soldiers ( not militia as in the low countries ) . When the KN manoeuvred they easely and regularly defeated low countries armies .

Muslim tactics of the 12th century also speak of lance charges and they were sometimes very successfull but the image of the unstopable charging KN is a beautifull one so let's keep this perfect image and stop discussing it

bahdahbum wrote:but the image of the unstopable charging KN is a beautifull one so let's keep this perfect image and stop discussing it

Revisionism has its place, but one of the main attractions of the Ancient/Medieval period is the variety. If some of that variety is to some extent caricature, well who cares, it is the game that counts.

In any case, not everyone takes a reductionist view of military history, and those who don't have as much right to play a game reflecting their view of history as those who don't.

In Field of Glory we have attempted to remain in the middle ground - not accepting some conventional views of military history, but not rejecting all.

bahdahbum wrote:
Ever heard something like PROPAGANDA

You'll forgive me if I prefer Anna's propaganda to yours.

one thing just kept on bugging me: the saxons are swordsmen, but historicaly they used spears aswel, i propose they are swordmen, and light spear

Sirstroud wrote:one thing just kept on bugging me: the saxons are swordsmen, but historicaly they used spears aswel, i propose they are swordmen, and light spear

Which saxons? They come as: Impact foot swordsmen; Lt Spear Swordsmen; Offensive spear; Defensive spear. Depends which bit of history and part of the world you take. The posh ones can be Heavy weapon instead, and the peasants Mob.

bahdahbum wrote:
Then why do you not take into account what arabs wrote about the invincible varangian guard ..

Which bit of drilled elite heavy armour heavy weapon does not take into account their alleged invincibility?

Maybe they should be impact foot skilled sword.

philqw78 wrote:

Sirstroud wrote:one thing just kept on bugging me: the saxons are swordsmen, but historicaly they used spears aswel, i propose they are swordmen, and light spear

Which saxons? They come as: Impact foot swordsmen; Lt Spear Swordsmen; Offensive spear; Defensive spear. Depends which bit of history and part of the world you take. The posh ones can be Heavy weapon instead, and the peasants Mob.

the early saxons, i was sure they used spears for the most part... could of been mistaken though

1. Break-off moves should be voluntary.

Consider some armoured cavalry who get shot twice and then charge into some unprotected bowmen. If the cavalry have a ++ POA in melee why would they they want to break off and get shot at again?

The game is also more fun when the players get to make the decisions.

2. Break-off moves should require a CMT.

3. Should break-off moves should have the option of ending facing away from the enemy?
Or would this make some armies even more slippery?

4. Should impact foot be able to make break-off moves?
This could simulate the behaviour of Roman Legionaries falling back in front of advancing pikes.

Please could you increase the recommended base depths for 15mm:

Infantry: 20mm
Cavalry: 40mm
Chariots: 60mm

It can be difficult to fit modern 'big 15mm' figures onto the current bases. This would make armies look prettier and stack better.

The existing base depths must of course also be permitted.

I guess the same logic would apply to other scales but I have less experience of them.

Please change the rear support rules so even troops of lower quality can provide support.

I have read many accounts of historical battles where the better troops were in the first line and the peasants in the second.

Under FoG there is no advantage to deploying like this.

This would also make 'Poor' troops better value than at present.

In the explanation at the front of the DBM rules it said:

Horse archers attacking infantry spearmen could sit still on their horses 200 paces away and shoot, but did not. Why should should they? They could and did instead in turn gallop by the infantry 10 paces away and be equally safe from being caught. The closer the range shot from, the easier it is to hit the target, the more likely that hits will penetrate the armour and the moreinjury inflicted after penetration.

This logic seems reasonable to me!

Under FoG the shooty cavalry have no incentive to close the range!

I would suggest mounted Bowmen should have a short range of 2MU and a long range of 4MU.

This would also help HF since the cavalry would have to close to within charge range to shoot at full effect.

RichardThompson wrote:Please change the rear support rules so even troops of lower quality can provide support.

I have read many accounts of historical battles where the better troops were in the first line and the peasants in the second.

Under FoG there is no advantage to deploying like this.

This would also make 'Poor' troops better value than at present.

Perhaps BGs could count rear support as either half+ of equal/better quality troops or equal numbers of troops who are a bit worse? Thus at Gaugamela the massed persian levy could give some support to the average troops of the front line. This mihght be a useful counterweight to other proposals to reduce the number of BGs that count towards army break.

grahambriggs wrote:

RichardThompson wrote:Please change the rear support rules so even troops of lower quality can provide support.

I have read many accounts of historical battles where the better troops were in the first line and the peasants in the second.

Under FoG there is no advantage to deploying like this.

This would also make 'Poor' troops better value than at present.

Perhaps BGs could count rear support as either half+ of equal/better quality troops or equal numbers of troops who are a bit worse? Thus at Gaugamela the massed persian levy could give some support to the average troops of the front line. This mihght be a useful counterweight to other proposals to reduce the number of BGs that count towards army break.

Oh, i haven´t seen this topic. I have posted a suggestion concerning this. Is about big units with 3rd and 4th ranks getting "autosupport" from themselves.

Not sure if this one has been raised yet:

On the Impact POA tables on the reference sheets, a large chunk is qualified by "any one of ..."
On the table on page 96 of the main rules this does not appear.

It looks as though "any one of..." was inserted in the reference sheets by mistake. It is almost redundant anyway, because all the relevant POAs are mutually exclusive, except for heavy chariots with light spear.

From p96 it appears that the intention is for heavy chariot light spear to get a POA against, for example, heavy chariot bow, with both getting a + for being a heavy chariot and then the light spear giving another +. With the "any one of...", the light spear POA can't be used if the heavy chariot one applies.

Removing "any one of..." from the impact POA tables in the reference sheets (both at the back of the book and the downloadable ones) so they match the one in the main rules would remove any doubt about this without affecting any other POAs.