Knights

[azrael86]

It also concerns me that superiror troops used with an inspired general (eg Swiss pike) will now be almost invulnerable to fire from massed LH.

Try saying this out loud to, say, another wargamer and see whether they think it sounds reasonable .

Within period, that seems entirely reasonable, although quite why anyone using Swiss would either be able to afford an IC, or to a lesser extent want one, is unclear.

[terrys]

Anybody use them? I thought Knights were underpowered for their cost in FOG1. Taking away the more advantageous break point for superior (which in general is a very good thing) seems to make them even less attractive. In any medieval themed competitions I play in armies are almost exclusively based around pike or skirmishers to avoid having to fight the pike. Is anybody using an army with a stike force of knights and will they continue to use them if the battle groups of 4 now break on 2?

In an open competition I almost always take knight armies (HA of course). I've never found them underpowered. Changing the break point won't realy make any difference against pikes. If they absolutely MUST charge pikes and they lose the break point won't make any difference - the knights end up breaking off with 2 bases and still have to charge during the following impact phase (unless they end up fragged - in which case the pikes charge them down). It just speeds up the inevitable. 6 bases of average kights stand a better chance against pikes than 4 bases of superiors - assuming they can get the overlaps (without which you shouldn't be charging).
Most of the armies I use are based around 4's of superiors (knights, cavalry and armoured foot) and the change is significant. However, these units don't often fall to 2 bases and still remain to the end of the battle, so I'm prepared to test them out. One thing I have noticed so far is not that they break more often, but that they break a move earlier.

[philqw78]

Most of the armies I use are based around 4's of superiors (knights, cavalry and armoured foot) and the change is significant. However, these units don't often fall to 2 bases and still remain to the end of the battle, so I'm prepared to test them out. One thing I have noticed so far is not that they break more often, but that they break a move earlier.

Which makes them quite average.

[terrys]

Which makes them quite average.

I'd still prefer a BG of 4 superiors over a BG of 4 average.....Now if we were to say BGs of 6...........

[Polkovnik]

Most of the armies I use are based around 4's of superiors (knights, cavalry and armoured foot) and the change is significant. However, these units don't often fall to 2 bases and still remain to the end of the battle, so I'm prepared to test them out. One thing I have noticed so far is not that they break more often, but that they break a move earlier.

Just the point I have made in the FOG 2.0 Proposed Changes thread.

[Andy1972]

So do the costs stay the same if knights break at a 2?(in a 4 stand BG) They do not seem to me worth as much.. Thats alot of points for them to be unlucky on a death roll.

[rbodleyscott]

So do the costs stay the same if knights break at a 2?(in a 4 stand BG) They do not seem to me worth as much.. Thats alot of points for them to be unlucky on a death roll.

I am afraid that the value of detailed discussion on this board is going to diminish as the beta draft progressively deviates from its initial state - it won't get updated on this board.

However, just to get this particular thread on track, here is an alteration made today, which improve the survivability of both Superior and Average knights. (In compensation for their shallow formation)

[VMadeira]

Thanks for keeping us updated.

While this +1 on death rolls will make them a bit more resilient, it will have some side effects, which maybe negative, for example:

- The difference in value per point spent, between Cataphracts (Cat's usually being superior and on 4's) and Knights gets even greater, yes I know knights fight in shallow formation and Cats don't, but the +1 on death rolls has other uses....
- When shoot at, the knights/Chariots can get almost immune to the effects of loosing bases, if in 2 x 2 formation....

- Which makes me think that if I have to use superior knights I would definitively use them in 2x2, charge in this formation and only expand in melee....specially as the knights are often at a worst POA in impact then in Melee. Also IIRC undrilled knights would have rear support on this formation (I maybe be wrong here, please correct me if this is the case). This goes against the shallow formation they usually used.

Also does not solve the problem for superior lancer cavalry, which I believe will disappear from the table, with this change. The game has a problem with small average units that need to be solved (according to many people at least ), not with superior small units that make the game more interesting and colourful. This change in the rules does not solve any problem and it does cause some, so it will be a pity if it proceeds.

P.S.: I would like to be in the playtests, although to be honest I would not have the time to play the test games, so I did not apply to it.

[Andy1972]

Ah, ok. I am looking forward to seeing how that plays out. Thanks!

[philqw78]

However, just to get this particular thread on track, here is an alteration made today, which improve the survivability of both Superior and Average knights. (In compensation for their shallow formation)

In fairness 2 base BG should be added to this as they are particularly vulnerable to unlucky dice destroying them.

BUT

You have solved the problem of Knights being too hard by making them too soft. So you have made another rule to make them (too) hard again. Keep going down this road and can we can expect a rule that operates on alternate turns, in my turn they are hard, in your turn they are soft.

Why not sort out the change at the source instead of extending it to affect more and more subtle little things?

[rbodleyscott]

- Which makes me think that if I have to use superior knights I would definitively use them in 2x2, charge in this formation and only expand in melee....

It has been my practice to do this, but it is a losing tactic vs enemy knights deployed 4 wide, because even if you charge, you can only expand by 1 base before the melee, and (assuming even dice in the impact) the enemy will then have 8 dice against your 6.

[rbodleyscott]

You have solved the problem of Knights being too hard by making them too soft. So you have made another rule to make them (too) hard again. Keep going down this road and can we can expect a rule that operates on alternate turns, in my turn they are hard, in your turn they are soft.

Why not sort out the change at the source instead of extending it to affect more and more subtle little things?

Phil, if you want to take part in the beta, join it in phase 2. Don't just carp from the sidelines. Make concrete alternative proposals in a place where they will be guaranteed to be read - the beta board.

If you stay out and end up saying "I told you so", then I will be forced to say "I told you so".

[MatthewP]

I could say that if you dont want people to comment on version 2 Beta outside of the Beta forum dont post juicy tip bits in the non beta disscusion boards. But as someone not involved in the Beta version (no time) but desperate for any information i wont.

[rbodleyscott]

I could say that if you dont want people to comment on version 2 Beta outside of the Beta forum dont post juicy tip bits in the non beta disscusion boards.

People are welcome to comment, I just can't guarantee that comments posted on the non-beta forum will all be read by the team. Phil has been a valued commentator in the past, and it is a shame that he chose not to apply to join the beta.

[Fluffy]

I would like to point out that a +1 on death rolls for knights will make a shallow formation more viable as the number of dice (along with chance of loosing a base) gets more the wider a formation is.

By the same reasoning knights are more likely to loose a base than the same number of cats/cv as they fight twice as wide, so the +1 will not give them as big of an advantage as it seems at first.

(the same applies to chariots)

[VMadeira]

- Which makes me think that if I have to use superior knights I would definitively use them in 2x2, charge in this formation and only expand in melee....

It has been my practice to do this, but it is a losing tactic vs enemy knights deployed 4 wide, because even if you charge, you can only expand by 1 base before the melee, and (assuming even dice in the impact) the enemy will then have 8 dice against your 6.

Quite true, but I was thinking when knights face other enemies like spearmen or missile foot, against knights they have to be at least in 3 + 1, or will at a disadvantage in melee.

[VMadeira]

I would like to point out that a +1 on death rolls for knights will make a shallow formation more viable as the number of dice (along with chance of loosing a base) gets more the wider a formation is.

By the same reasoning knights are more likely to loose a base than the same number of cats/cv as they fight twice as wide, so the +1 will not give them as big of an advantage as it seems at first.

(the same applies to chariots)

Knights will fight in shallow formations if the rules incentivates them to do so, if not they will start to fight in other formations.
The +1 will make the knight's very resilient against death rolls if fighting in smaller frontage, so probably people will start to use them in that way, specially if they are concerned that the group will now autobreak at the loss of two bases.

[waldo]

However, just to get this particular thread on track, here is an alteration made today, which improve the survivability of both Superior and Average knights. (In compensation for their shallow formation)

In fairness 2 base BG should be added to this as they are particularly vulnerable to unlucky dice destroying them.

BUT

You have solved the problem of Knights being too hard by making them too soft. So you have made another rule to make them (too) hard again. Keep going down this road and can we can expect a rule that operates on alternate turns, in my turn they are hard, in your turn they are soft.

Why not sort out the change at the source instead of extending it to affect more and more subtle little things?

There is an awful lot of tinkering with knights. Was there that much of a problem with them before? They weren't killer armies and weren't dogs.

Judging from comments made by people involved in rules/army lists it boils down to "what troops are in army lists and aren't being used and how do we get them used". Armoured knights and superior knights in units bigger than 4 or average knights in general seem to be taking pride of place here.

But is it a case of them being less effective than they were historically? Perhaps the probem is that they are not cost-effective rather than being just in-effective. Armoured knights struggle against heavily armoured so of course they won't get taken in a non-themed tournament. And they are 25% more costly than armoured cavalry lancers (for the superior undrilled version) and suffer quite a few disadvantages in terms of manouevrability. Maybe armoured knights are too expensive rather than being ineffective against their historical opponents. A similar argument can be used for average knights - it's a cost problem rather than a rules problem.

In the case of armoured knights they now need 4 hits to take a death roll from shooting and can charge from 5 MUs. Against longbows (and MF archers in general) they are a lot more effective. Not to mention what happens when they dismount - the lose their +1 and suddenly fight deeper? They become easier to kill because they have ditched the softest target of a knight - the horse?

A scenario: unit of 4 armoured knights lines up against 8 longbowmen and moves up to 5 MUs. The longbows can't move for whatever reason. The archers get two shots at long range with 4 dice. If all hit the knights take a death roll needing a 1. If the knights charge in and fail to disrupt then they break off, again to outside effective range. If, however, the knights decided to wear more armour and put some on their horses and become heavily armoured they will cop 2 extra shots at short range at exactly the same POA and when they finally hit they will fight with exactly the same POA. Hmmm... that barding was really a waste of time.

If you want to change something which is truly ineffective have a look at third rank supporting LF archers.

Walter