Slitherine

What is the reason why CV lance is weaker than KN lance ?

The early K lance ( norman for exemple ) seems not that different from lances used by byzantines Cv , cataphractoîs , Mongols ..

Latter KN use a heavier lance, but from my knoweledge after 1200 or is there another reason ?

Jacques

Its to get the effect of the realtive dominance of knights as lance users par excellence right - don't get hung up on the physical technology.

bahdahbum wrote:What is the reason why CV lance is weaker than KN lance ?

The early K lance ( norman for exemple ) seems not that different from lances used by byzantines Cv , cataphractoîs , Mongols ..

Latter KN use a heavier lance, but from my knoweledge after 1200 or is there another reason ?

Jacques

My understanding is that troops in FOG are catergorised and differentiated by function, therefore it is not a matter of comparing and examining the actual equipment but how the troops operated and how effective they were. IMO Knightly Lance takes into account their armour and the greater impetus of their charge (armour does not otherwise affect Impact combat but does affect Melee).

The same comment might also apply to one of your questions on another thread about Cav armed with Bow and Lance. It is the historical use and effect of the troops that is categorised in FOG with Lancer ability, not whether they carried one about.

Cheers,

Steve

We have some historical comparitives available. Norman/Frankish knights regularly fought Byzantine cavalry and the knights were ackowledged by the Byzantines to be virtually unstoppable frontally.

Lance armed cavalry (e.g. Companions) vs Normans is a little trickier to differentiate. Generally in the rules a Companion cavalryman or a cataphract lancer is better (i.e. has a higher impact factor) than a bow or bow/lance armed cavalryman, reflecting the emphasis on shock tactics of the former group.

In a combat between a knight and a cavalry lancer the rules give the knight lancer an edge. I think it's a reasonable assumption - in FOG knights are european knights, not chariots or cataphracts or sarmatians, as you have in DBM. Knights were raised and trained from early youth to charge with the lance and sword. They had attitude!

OK. I hear many people ( on french speaking forums ) complaining about the unstoppable knights
It is not as much about their strenght, but more about the feeble difference of price of units for efficacity .

bahdahbum wrote:OK. I hear many people ( on french speaking forums ) complaining about the unstoppable knights
It is not as much about their strenght, but more about the feeble difference of price of units for efficacity .

More things need to be taken into account than the troops' ability in close combat.

We are convinced that the points differential is correct for knights relative to bow armed cavalry - who are not only faster, but able to shoot and, importantly, to evade.

Where the balance may not be quite right is the cost of lance armed cavalry, who cannot shoot or evade. It seems to be about right relative to bow-armed cavalry but not relative to Knights.

This means that the cost-effectiveness of lance armed cavalry depends very much on the pool of opponents.

In an open tournament they may not be cost effective. However, if we lowered their points cost, then they would be over-cost-effective in themed tournaments.

I hope that theme tournaments will become common on the FOG circuit. The army list books are specifically designed to facilitate themes.

If Nikephorian Byzantine armies (for example) fight within theme, they probably will not meet any Knights. (Although in the latter part of the list they get a few of their own).

bahdahbum wrote:OK. I hear many people ( on french speaking forums ) complaining about the unstoppable knights
It is not as much about their strenght, but more about the feeble difference of price of units for efficacity .

I am currently looking at this. And I think we need a little practice with this.

Just receiving the KN charge is a mistake. I think the non-knights need to think through:

1) make sure their lines are longer so in melee they get more dice
2) have rear support and generals so you can survive the cohesion roles. If you can bounce off any of the KN the overlaps should give you advatnges on teh ones cutting through.
3) have an extra BG to attck the KN breaking through in the flank.
4) the KN are probalby the main force of the enemey army you need to be especially driving in their flanks and attacking their weaker BGs.
5) defensive spear are pretty decent if the dount get unlucky.

Lance armed cavalry are cost effective even against Kn. They must just not to fight Kn head on

In my experience knights are a rather brittle hammer. Even when they are winning there is a risk they will lose bases and one base from a Kn BG makes a big difference. They don't cost twice as much as similar lancer cavalry but if you look at the numbers superior protected drilled lancer cavalry are half the cost of superior heavily armoured knights.

I have mad a fair degree of sucess with superior undrilled protected lancer cavalry, their very low cost relatively speaking makes them an interesting option IMO.

rbodleyscott wrote:I hope that theme tournaments will become common on the FOG circuit. The army list books are specifically designed to facilitate themes.

This is a good trend if it takes off.

For what its worth....

Knights are a potent one shot weapon

So make sure they miss

I have fought lots of battles against them an managed to pull them apart by breaking their charge up and working on their brittleness - once they lose a base they are often shot. This is a very deliberate and fairly subtle piece of the rule design to give these birttle troop 2 dice per base but have them lose bases at the same rate as anything else. If you take the kn charge head on with the wrong troops then sure you will likely get mullered .... and what is unrealistic about that.

Try to think about Hattin more where the Crusders were strung out skirmished and wittled down by the saracens before disipating in a last stand - effectively and autobreak and removal in FOG.

Irecently took on a line of 4 BGs of HArm knights in a row and that was very tough but even then by working the flanks I tempted on BG of to the side and held the charge with some tough troops and worked away at them. It as very close but doable.

Si

bahdahbum wrote:OK. I hear many people ( on french speaking forums ) complaining about the unstoppable knights
It is not as much about their strenght, but more about the feeble difference of price of units for efficacity .

Most of the french remarks concerning knights is about medieval knights fighting ancient cavalry.
The conclusion are that mixing periods in tournaments will be much more difficult with FOG and I think that all french FOG players assume that having at least 2 different theme in a tournament will now be compulsory.

Jerome

I thought of manoeuvering , just have to find an opponent with the right army so I can test

Today was my first game with FOG , classical cartaginians vs romans , and some prearanged combats to test the rules

When I play Hattin the military orders will do as they're told WHEN they're told - I hope

hazelbark wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:I hope that theme tournaments will become common on the FOG circuit. The army list books are specifically designed to facilitate themes.

This is a good trend if it takes off.

This is fine for the UK where tournaments are large enough, but I doubt this will fly in the US. We don't have numbers except at maybe a few of the larger cons.

Ian I disagree. (this is Dan)

The theme could well end up being broader than a single FoG book. It probably breaks pre-KN and Post-Kn. Something like 1067 AD.

But themes have proven popular at the Big East cons. The first Orgins I went to, it wasn't until three days later I learned there were two divisons, because we both thought we had won 1st place. That had 24ish people. Gulf South could certainly do themes for their tourneys.

Let's not be too afraid of history.

hazelbark wrote:. . . it wasn't until three days later I learned there were two divisons, because we both thought we had won 1st place. That had 24ish people.

Naw, Dan. They were just being nice to you.

Marc

My concern with themed events, especially with tight themes, is that not everyone has an army for each theme. I certainly don't. Plus, if one keeps the themes ordinary enough in order to make sure that the widest group of players has an army to bring one ends up missing out on a lot of the fun outlier armies that add spice to the tournaments. I enjoy the Rapa Nui, snowball-wielding Early Northern Barbarians, et cetera, that people tend to bring to open events.

Marc

My initial thoughts have been pre-Kn and post-Kn for the broader comps. I guess you can also do themes across several books, like Late Medieval including all armies both Eastern and Western, or Classical with everything from Achamenid Persians to the end of Rome. Certainly seems doable for most people.

The Warhammer Ancient Battles tournaments at Historicon typically have 3 themes that roughly break into armies from the Classical, Dark Age, and Medieval periods. That seems to being working out very nicely, with reasonable attendance in all groups. Personally, if the themes were broken into only two, pre-knight and post-knight, I think that work would work the best for matchups and attendance.

Peter