Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:26 am
by david53
Cerberias wrote:I keep them with swords because if you hit a flank charge you want to only be one poa down at the least, otherwise you could still lose the melee afterwards. You have to play quite well with the unprot cav, but they're easy to keep in one rank with the IC + superior + drilled status. The reason I take them is because i'm veering away from LH nowadays, because they're ignored easily in some situations, cavalry can never be ignored because a flank charge from cav is always going to be devistating. They force the enemy to peel off units to deal with them which splits up the enemy army, or risk a rolled up flank. You cant play them as agressively as light horse, but do more damage, and are quite cheap for each unit (52 pts). I'm tending to just use the light horse to support the cavalry with catching enemy light horse now, and to stop march moves early on so you can pin the enemy in places that you need them pinned.
Also, protected may be better in some circumstances, but in evade formation it makes very little difference, and the unprotected status may tempt enemy light horse to charge you, which holds them up. Protected cav cost more points, will still be a poa down against most enemy cav (which you shouldnt be fighting with these guys anyway, except in a flank charge), still dont want to go into two ranks, and make sure that enemy light horse won't be charging you rashly.
As for the knights and lancers, I always like to have punch in the army and they can be deployed last, exactly where you want them, the enemy cant pull units away from other parts of the battlefield because they need them to deal with the cav, so can smash through a weak point in the enemy army.
Basically, they have more options than light horse, although you cant play them as agressively. They pose more of a threat so they won't be able to leave one unit to deal with two cav because you will get a flank charge if you're patient with it and draw them out. Wheras you can quite often leave one unit to deal with two units of light horse because the threat of a flank charge is greatly diminished. All numbers, meaning that I have 8 fighting bg's, ones that all pose a threat so the enemy must divide up to deal with them, opening up gaps in the process for my much more manouverable forces to go through.
It would be interesting to see how you fare against a LH army.
BTW you don't get many chances of flank attacks against an experienced player in FOG as a percentage of all moves, and single rank cavalry less so, if you do manage it your on a double plus at impact its in melee that you'll stuggle being unprotected you will nearly always be down.
Please do keep us informed it will be interesting to see how you get on, I don't know if your in the UK but your army at Britcon would be an interesting opponent.
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:12 am
by rbodleyscott
madaxeman wrote:philqw78 wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:I have little doubt that the knights in an Ilkhanid army formed up as a substantial sized unit. (Even if proportionately challenged). The same probably does not apply to any of the above.
I thought you thought I imagined them Richard. Or did I imagine that?
The Knights are probably in this list because the list is rendered less viable with them on the table. All the other examples of "colour" you cite would make almost unplayable lists into "almost-viable" or even "interesting" ones, and so all fail the "this is a serious recreation of battle, not just a game" threshold....
rbodleyscott wrote:And yes, it is a game. The principle used in devising FOG lists was to allow a little more leeway than is entirely justified by extant historical sources.
doh!
I said "a little".
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:05 am
by grahambriggs
madaxeman wrote:philqw78 wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:I have little doubt that the knights in an Ilkhanid army formed up as a substantial sized unit. (Even if proportionately challenged). The same probably does not apply to any of the above.
I thought you thought I imagined them Richard. Or did I imagine that?
The Knights are probably in this list because the list is rendered less viable with them on the table. All the other examples of "colour" you cite would make almost unplayable lists into "almost-viable" or even "interesting" ones, and so all fail the "this is a serious recreation of battle, not just a game" threshold....
rbodleyscott wrote:And yes, it is a game. The principle used in devising FOG lists was to allow a little more leeway than is entirely justified by extant historical sources.
doh!
I find it the other way. The knights strengthen this list. Enemies are in two minds whether to spread out to chase down the cowardly horse archers or concentrate to fight off the sweaty franks.
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:27 am
by Cerberias
Yeah, it could lead to some boring games when the other person doesn't play agressively and sits in a corner, you'd have to rely on shooting to punch a hole - which could fail miserably.. so you would probably see some draws against defensively minded players, but what armies don't?
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:53 am
by david53
Cerberias wrote:Yeah, it could lead to some boring games when the other person doesn't play agressively
Not at all I play with LH armies in the majority of games I play, its not boring games if people with heavy foot armies don't feel the urge to chase across the steppe against LH troops they can never catch. If you play LH armies you can't then blame people that don't take them as unagressive, what you do is have a plan against all types or armies likely to be encountered just a basic idea is good you can't use the same idea against a heavy foot army as you would against a LH army.
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:13 am
by Mehrunes
rbodleyscott wrote:The principle used in devising FOG lists was to allow a little more leeway than is entirely justified by extant historical sources.
Obviously some lists benefited far more from that principle than others!
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:14 am
by nikgaukroger
Mehrunes wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:The principle used in devising FOG lists was to allow a little more leeway than is entirely justified by extant historical sources.
Obviously some lists benefited far more from that principle than others!
Inevitably.
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:39 am
by david53
nikgaukroger wrote:Mehrunes wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:The principle used in devising FOG lists was to allow a little more leeway than is entirely justified by extant historical sources.
Obviously some lists benefited far more from that principle than others!
Inevitably.
I like the lists apart from the Dom Roms and maybe anyone with longbows
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:53 pm
by gelin
Cerberias wrote:I keep them with swords because if you hit a flank charge you want to only be one poa down at the least, otherwise you could still lose the melee afterwards. You have to play quite well with the unprot cav, but they're easy to keep in one rank with the IC + superior + drilled status. The reason I take them is because i'm veering away from LH nowadays, because they're ignored easily in some situations, cavalry can never be ignored because a flank charge from cav is always going to be devistating. They force the enemy to peel off units to deal with them which splits up the enemy army, or risk a rolled up flank. You cant play them as agressively as light horse, but do more damage, and are quite cheap for each unit (52 pts). I'm tending to just use the light horse to support the cavalry with catching enemy light horse now, and to stop march moves early on so you can pin the enemy in places that you need them pinned.
Also, protected may be better in some circumstances, but in evade formation it makes very little difference, and the unprotected status may tempt enemy light horse to charge you, which holds them up. Protected cav cost more points, will still be a poa down against most enemy cav (which you shouldnt be fighting with these guys anyway, except in a flank charge), still dont want to go into two ranks, and make sure that enemy light horse won't be charging you rashly.
As for the knights and lancers, I always like to have punch in the army and they can be deployed last, exactly where you want them, the enemy cant pull units away from other parts of the battlefield because they need them to deal with the cav, so can smash through a weak point in the enemy army.
Basically, they have more options than light horse, although you cant play them as agressively. They pose more of a threat so they won't be able to leave one unit to deal with two cav because you will get a flank charge if you're patient with it and draw them out. Wheras you can quite often leave one unit to deal with two units of light horse because the threat of a flank charge is greatly diminished. All numbers, meaning that I have 8 fighting bg's, ones that all pose a threat so the enemy must divide up to deal with them, opening up gaps in the process for my much more manouverable forces to go through.
I would dismiss the Kn, they will stay behind while you need mobility to outmanouver the opponent. However some kind of punch even locally is needed so i would opt for the Kursidh cavalry that can keep up the pace with the Mongols.
Here is a list:
4 TCs
2x4 Best Equipped Mongols Cv/S/Arm/Dr/Bw-Swd
1x4 Kurdish cavalry Cv/S/Arm/UnDr/Lancers-Swd
2x4 Mongol Cavalry Cv/S/Pr/Dr/Bw-Swd
6x4 Mongol Cavalry LH/S/UnPr/Bw-Swd
1x4 Frankish crossbowmen MF/A/Pr/UnDr/Cbw
1x4 Kurdish archers LF/A/UnPr/UnDr/Bw
You can count on winning the skirmishes even taking out some enemy skirmisher units and then you can dictate how the rest of the game will go. Eventually however you will need to charge in as only shooting, seldom totally breaks an enemy army
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:13 am
by Cerberias
drilled knights arent that much less manouverable than the kurdish cav, moreso in some circumstances, and pack a much larger punch.
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:28 am
by david53
Cerberias wrote:drilled knights arent that much less manouverable than the kurdish cav, moreso in some circumstances, and pack a much larger punch.
Thats very true but 64 points to 104 points is a bit of a difference thats an extra BG of LH there
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:09 am
by philqw78
david53 wrote:Cerberias wrote:drilled knights arent that much less manouverable than the kurdish cav, moreso in some circumstances, and pack a much larger punch.
Thats very true but 64 points to 104 points is a bit of a difference thats an extra BG of LH there
But the Knight have the frontage of 2 BG of Kurds and more clout.
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:22 am
by david53
philqw78 wrote:david53 wrote:Cerberias wrote:drilled knights arent that much less manouverable than the kurdish cav, moreso in some circumstances, and pack a much larger punch.
Thats very true but 64 points to 104 points is a bit of a difference thats an extra BG of LH there
But the Knight have the frontage of 2 BG of Kurds and more clout.
Yes I agree but only having one BG Knights leaves you a good chance of getting picked on, yes like other Knights they are deadly when they get into a fight.
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:33 am
by philqw78
david53 wrote:Yes I agree but only having one BG Knights leaves you a good chance of getting picked on, yes like other Knights they are deadly when they get into a fight.
A bit like Shirley Crabtree did?
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:29 am
by david53
philqw78 wrote:david53 wrote:Yes I agree but only having one BG Knights leaves you a good chance of getting picked on, yes like other Knights they are deadly when they get into a fight.
A bit like Shirley Crabtree did?
Come on Giant Haystack
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:44 pm
by ethan
I like the knights in this army, they are such an enormous threat. The power isn't so much in using them as giving the enemy a lot to worry about when they spread out to handle the LH.
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:22 pm
by gelin
ethan wrote:I like the knights in this army, they are such an enormous threat. The power isn't so much in using them as giving the enemy a lot to worry about when they spread out to handle the LH.
It depends. If you play against a good opponent who is not using Knights he will do his best to avoid them , at least frontally. Having the Knights means less BGs to outmanouver the opponent
If you play against an opponent with Knights he will most propably bring superior numbers to engage your Knights. If they engage you will have to support them or loset them. And if you are not in a tactical good position yet, this means trouble
So for the Mongols, i think that even if Drilled the Knights are a liability rather than an asset
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:41 pm
by nikgaukroger
gelin wrote:
So for the Mongols, i think that even if Drilled the Knights are a liability rather than an asset
I found with the Seljuks the Knights were extremely useful and made the army much better than not having them.
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:48 pm
by philqw78
gelin wrote:It depends. If you play against a good opponent who is not using Knights he will do his best to avoid them , at least frontally. Having the Knights means less BGs to outmanouver the opponent
Conversley giving a better player knights makes them far more dangerous. Horses for courses.
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:48 am
by Cerberias
if the knights are spent frivolously chasing light horse - yeah, they are useless... but who would do that? and not many armies can have large quantities of drilled knights, if they do.. then you're going to have many more units to just shoot them up with, with the knights just staying away until they see an opportunity.