Slitherine

I'm using 3 Knights because I'm pretty sure I'm going to be able to absorb the 4th knight with other troops, thus my concern is how well the Cataphracts will hold up vs the knights. They are both superior, so will not count that in the statistics.

Impact:

Knights 6 Dice Advantaged vs Cataphracts 6 Dice Disadvantaged:

On average the knights will get 3 hits and the Cataphracts will get 2 hits requiring a test:

Impact Test:

On average they will have received 1HP3 (-1) and lost vs Lancers (-1) but nothing else. Assuming they have a general attached they will be at a small risk of disruption, so we'll consider them disrupted. They have a 50% chance of losing a base, so we'll take a base off them.

Melee:

Knights 6 Dice disadvantaged vs Cataphracts 5 Dice (lose 1per3=4 dice) Advantaged:

On average the Cataphracts will get 2.5 hits and the knight will get 2 hits requiring a test:

Melee Test:

On average they will have received 1HP3(-1), but that's all, so if they also have a General attached, they will probably succeed and not become disrupted.

However the Cataphracts now will be on the advantage because 'on average' they will win every combat and be able to bolster at the end of the next turn. What's more, if ever the Knights lose a base they are in a whole world of hurt.

I know this is a very simple scenario and dice don't roll average. There is every chance that every Cataphract hits and every knight misses, or vice versa.

What is everyone's experiences? Have many people used Armoured Knights?

Ian

Those are armoured knights? Not Heavily Armoured.

Yes the Cataphracts could win as a freakish death roll is much worse for the knights. But where do you get the six cataphracts in the armoured knight period?

I think armoured knights are good and costed well in period, but in open where the can run into heavily armoured they have real problems. Cataphrracts are more of a draw but a LOT more expensive on a per dice basis.

hazelbark wrote:Those are armoured knights? Not Heavily Armoured.

Yes the Cataphracts could win as a freakish death roll is much worse for the knights. But where do you get the six cataphracts in the armoured knight period?

I think armoured knights are good and costed well in period, but in open where the can run into heavily armoured they have real problems. Cataphrracts are more of a draw but a LOT more expensive on a per dice basis.

It's not a historical matchup. The guy I'm playing is building an early crusader army. I agree that he's going to not enjoy going up against Heavily Armoured Knights in open comp, but the only army that I have that is at least gives him a reasonable fighting chance is my Saka and Palmyran type army. The other armies I have are Offensive Spear armies, which I'd basically cream him (I think).

Huscarls vs his foot = mashed foot
Freemen vs Knights = mashed knights.

It's not a foregone conclusion, but I think I'd prefer to be the Vikings than the Crusaders. So I'm taking my horsey types as Palmyrans to try out that list.

He out-guns me with Knights, so he should do well I think.

Ian

I think the Nikephorians get 4 Cataphracts Heavy Armour & 6 Armoured Knights - but they're on the same side

whitehorses wrote:but they're on the same side

THey're on the same time... for now.

We are talking Romans here!

Ok, Byzantines, but they called themselves Romans... and even behaved like Romans most of the time

I have fought indo parthian versus medieval french a couple of times, using three battlegroups of six cataphracts against two battlegroups of four knights. On both occasions two out of three of the cataphract battlegroups went disrupted and subsequently broke. The third, supported by elephants defeated the knights. Without the support of the elephants I dont think any of the cataphract units would have survived.

MatthewP wrote:I have fought indo parthian versus medieval french a couple of times, using three battlegroups of six cataphracts against two battlegroups of four knights. On both occasions two out of three of the cataphract battlegroups went disrupted and subsequently broke. The third, supported by elephants defeated the knights. Without the support of the elephants I dont think any of the cataphract units would have survived.

Yes, I'd not put Heavily Armoured Cats vs Heavily Armoured Knights - I think that's just banking on luck, but I think Heavily Armoured Cats vs Armoured Knights is a differnent matter. The only advantage the Knights have is on impact and whilst that can be devistating, it can easily go the other way also! Then it will be all down hill for the knights!

Ian

Hi All,

Well, I had the game last night and this is (interestingly) what happened:

The enemy knights move up to about 6" away from a mixed formation of a BG of Palmyran Cataphracts beside a BG of Roman Legionaries, the Knights slightly off to the side of the Cataphracts so that they would threaten the flank if I moved directly forward, and the Legionaries were about 1-2" further forward than the Cataphracts:

4 Knights = Knights/Armoured/Superior/Undrilled/-/Lance/Swordsmen
6 Cataphracts = Cataphracts/Heavily Armoured/Superior/Drilled/-/Lance/Swordsmen
4 Legionaries = Heavy Foot/Armoured/Superior/Drilled/-/Impact Foot/Skilled Swordsmen
2 Legionaries = Light Foot/Unprotected/Superior/Drilled/Bow/-/-

I wheeled the Cataphracts around their full 4" and wheeled the Legionaries around to provide a solid line. Knowing that the Knights would have to test to not charge. It was a little risky, as if the Knights succeeded in halting the charge I would have to test the next turn and charge a unit of 4 Knights with a unit of 6 Cataphracts... the legionaries would not have had the movement to get to the knights.

As it turned out the knights charged without even trying to halt the charge:

Impact:

Cataphracts did one hit on the Knights and the Legionaries did 2, one from rear support shooting, and one from the legionaries themselves.

Knights did 5 hits on the Cataphracts and 1 hit on the Legionaries.

Cataphracts have to test with:

+1 for general
-1 vs Lancers
-1 for 1hp3
-1 for 2 more than received
-1 for threatened flank (close to table edge)


I rolled a disrupted and lost a base.

I felt a substantial relief at this, however whilst the actual combat didn't go anywhere near my prediction, the result was exactly the same.

Melee:

I can't remember the exact number of hits, but it was something like 2 from the Legion and 3 from the Cataphracts with the Knights inflicting 1 or 2 to each, where they lost a base and went disrupted.

Now, I had extra dice in the subsequent melee as I had overlaps, but it was still interesting to see. Naturally, it wouldn't have been anywhere near as pleasant with Heavily Armoured Knights.

Regards

Ian

If you model this fully its about 60/40 favour of the cataphracts, assuming both sup, but can go badly wrong for either.

But then again the cataphracts are a lot more points as 6 bases to 4.

If you have H Arm Kn its about 60/40 in favour of the knights.

The death rolls cause the kn problems. If they fail to win the first round its a problem. This is not that uncommon.
Si

shall wrote:If you model this fully its about 60/40 favour of the cataphracts, assuming both sup, but can go badly wrong for either.

But then again the cataphracts are a lot more points as 6 bases to 4.

If you have H Arm Kn its about 60/40 in favour of the knights.

The death rolls cause the kn problems. If they fail to win the first round its a problem. This is not that uncommon.
Si

On that rationale, do you think that Cataphracts are overpriced? Or Knights underpriced?

Ian

Neither when taken in context of everything they can come up against ...

I would rather have 16 Unprot HW guys than 4 H Arm knights in straight fight, but I wouldn't want the former against superior bowmenas they are then almost worthless!!!

I think Armoured Knights are about right overall cf Cataphracts. They have huge potential as there are many troops where the H Arm is worthless. There are some troops where the Knightly lance is more valuable than the H Arm of the cataphracts.

Si