Page 1 of 1
Later Polish
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:40 pm
by marshalney2000
I am I reading it correctly,that the kniught battlegroups can be half knights and half armoured crossbows behind?
Thanks in advance
John
Re: Later Polish
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:54 pm
by hammy
marshalney2000 wrote:I am I reading it correctly,that the kniught battlegroups can be half knights and half armoured crossbows behind?
Thanks in advance
John
Correct, half knights and half cavalry if you want.
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:56 pm
by marshalney2000
If they are in the second rank I presume they contribute nothing to melee though as the knights get the two dice for the front rank.
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:03 pm
by hammy
marshalney2000 wrote:If they are in the second rank I presume they contribute nothing to melee though as the knights get the two dice for the front rank.
Correct. If a base of knights die then you can put a cavalry base with another behind it in its place.
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:11 pm
by Scrumpy
Having used these a few times I would suggest going for the all Kn bg. The crossbow option really does little for the Poles, and ou have more than enough other shooty mounted to soften up the enemy.
Cheers
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:13 pm
by marshalney2000
Hammy thanks for that. 2 knights and one cavalry in the front rank with one cavalry behind could be interesting.
John
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:34 pm
by ethan
marshalney2000 wrote:Hammy thanks for that. 2 knights and one cavalry in the front rank with one cavalry behind could be interesting.
John
Why? That would only get one dice of shooting....Of course you could run two BGs like that side by side to get three dice, but why not just have a 2 BGs of knights and a seperate on of Cav which gives you a lot more flexibility.
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:57 pm
by philqw78
The advantage to not putting any Cav in the front is a concentration of firepower. Any other formation dilutes this, especially one in front and half a dice rounded down for the rear rank
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:39 pm
by Andy1972
I thought they counted being in the front rank when shooting... Same with the Hvy foot, hvy weapon with the Crossbow rear rank..
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:10 pm
by hazelbark
Andy1972 wrote:I thought they counted being in the front rank when shooting... Same with the Hvy foot, hvy weapon with the Crossbow rear rank..
You are sayng
KKC
C
People assumed you were saying
CKK
C
Still daft dangerous. As someone could potential get to the cross bow bit and the KN only come in on an overlap.
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:01 am
by philqw78
Doesn't matter how you arrange them, they are still the second rank of shooters
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:20 am
by Scrumpy
The other problem you run into is what happens when you lose a Kn ?
You are left with K C
C
So unless you lead with both Cv, you are going to have a 2nd rank of shooting Cv. Same rule applies to Byzantine mixed bgs too.
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:20 am
by rbodleyscott
hazelbark wrote:Andy1972 wrote:I thought they counted being in the front rank when shooting... Same with the Hvy foot, hvy weapon with the Crossbow rear rank..
You are sayng
KKC
C
People assumed you were saying
CKK
C
Why would you want t5o do either of these?
If you deploy them
KK
CC
both cavalry can shoot (they are the 1st shooting rank).
Then, assuming the enemy only have enough frontage to match the knights, the cavalry can expand in close combat to act as an overlap.
That said, I tried the mixed BGs, admittedly with Protected cavalry, and found they diluted the melee effect of the knights too much, especially once a base was lost.
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:16 pm
by Andy1972
Cool! Thats what i thought!
