Slitherine

Hi There

Just wanted to know would you take a Cataphract/Cavalry Lancer army to a open comp were there might be a lot of knights around?
Dave

david53 wrote:Hi There

Just wanted to know would you take a Cataphract/Cavalry Lancer army to a open comp were there might be a lot of knights around?
Dave

I would not take a cataphract army. Depending on teh army I might consider an army with a fair number of lancer cav.

ethan wrote:

david53 wrote:Hi There

Just wanted to know would you take a Cataphract/Cavalry Lancer army to a open comp were there might be a lot of knights around?
Dave

I would not take a cataphract army. Depending on teh army I might consider an army with a fair number of lancer cav.

My mistake I was thinking of drilled Cataphracts should have said so.
Dave

david53 wrote:Hi There

Just wanted to know would you take a Cataphract/Cavalry Lancer army to a open comp were there might be a lot of knights around?
Dave

I think it depends a LOT on your support troops. Cataphracts are going to have a good time against most 'knightly' armies 'other troops', but that depends strongly on your support troops being able to deal with knights.

For example if you took a Palmyran army, do you think your Roman infantry will be able to deal with knights? It could be ugly.

Having said that, an equal fighting formation of Knights vs Cataphracts is an even fight after impact, so it's not a totally lost cause. Now a lot of people have a problem with my maths here, but this is what I think:

Disregarding points, if you go into contact with Cataphracts, you go in two deep, so in melee you get two dice. With knights you go in one deep so you get two dice (naturally, you'll need twice as many Cataphracts to deal with the same frontage of Knights, so you're going to be 'out pointed'). On impact you're going to be disadvantaged, but it's not a totally lost cause. Additionally, you lose your combat dice at half the rate he loses his.

I think you're fighting an uphill battle, but it's not a totally lost cause. I'd only do it with Drilled Cataphracts with good quality support troops that can hopefully take on knights frontally (Pike or Spearmen), and you'd have to have a good deployment strategy.

Just my viewpoints.

Ian

DaiSho wrote: Disregarding points, if you go into contact with Cataphracts, you go in two deep, so in melee you get two dice. With knights you go in one deep so you get two dice (naturally, you'll need twice as many Cataphracts to deal with the same frontage of Knights, so you're going to be 'out pointed'). On impact you're going to be disadvantaged, but it's not a totally lost cause. Additionally, you lose your combat dice at half the rate he loses his.Ian

Think about it from an AP perspective and it is pretty awful.

For 2 melee dice of superior catpharacts you pay 36-40 AP
For 2 melee dice of heavily armored knights you pay 23-26 AP

So what is the knight army getting for their extra 13-17AP a file?

For the price of 8 drilled superior cataphracts (320AP) you could get 12 Knights plus 8AP. So the knights could face off those 2 BGs with 3 of their own, each of their BGs with an element in reserve and still have an overlap!

So for me at least, the "you lose dice more slowly" things is pretty illusory.

ethan wrote:
For the price of 8 drilled superior cataphracts (320AP) you could get 12 Knights plus 8AP. So the knights could face off those 2 BGs with 3 of their own, each of their BGs with an element in reserve and still have an overlap!

So for me at least, the "you lose dice more slowly" things is pretty illusory.

Sure, IF you take the view that the entire army is Knights and Cataphracts.

If the army list was "Knights 40" and "Cataphracts 30" you'd lose, but the army lists aren't like that, they are complext interractions.

MOST Knight armies have fairly poor quality foot. They aren't walk-overs by any means, but they aren't good either. There are SOME Cataphract armies that have good quality foot, which is why I said words to the effect that it would be better to fight your cataphracts vs his foot and your (good quality) foot vs his knights, but it depends on the army.

My calculations for dice was to indicate that IF you got into a situation where the Cataphracts HAD to face the knights, then depending on how you go about it you're not necessarily in a lost situation. I even said it was an uphill battle, you're at the disadvantage, but it's not all down hill.

Ian

My 2 cents for what its worth.

In a friendly game or period competition, sure I'd play Cataphracts.

In an open competition, no, I'd rather have me some elephants to deal with the pesky knights

If you're so concerned about knights, buy a BG of pike, and a couple of elephants...............success OR?

Lycanthropic wrote:If you're so concerned about knights, buy a BG of pike, and a couple of elephants...............success OR?

Not concerned just asking for peoples experience's

DaiSho wrote:

david53 wrote:Hi There

Just wanted to know would you take a Cataphract/Cavalry Lancer army to a open comp were there might be a lot of knights around?
Dave

I think it depends a LOT on your support troops. Cataphracts are going to have a good time against most 'knightly' armies 'other troops', but that depends strongly on your support troops being able to deal with knights.

For example if you took a Palmyran army, do you think your Roman infantry will be able to deal with knights? It could be ugly.

Having said that, an equal fighting formation of Knights vs Cataphracts is an even fight after impact, so it's not a totally lost cause. Now a lot of people have a problem with my maths here, but this is what I think:

Disregarding points, if you go into contact with Cataphracts, you go in two deep, so in melee you get two dice. With knights you go in one deep so you get two dice (naturally, you'll need twice as many Cataphracts to deal with the same frontage of Knights, so you're going to be 'out pointed'). On impact you're going to be disadvantaged, but it's not a totally lost cause. Additionally, you lose your combat dice at half the rate he loses his.

I think you're fighting an uphill battle, but it's not a totally lost cause. I'd only do it with Drilled Cataphracts with good quality support troops that can hopefully take on knights frontally (Pike or Spearmen), and you'd have to have a good deployment strategy.

Just my viewpoints.

Ian

Knights vs Cataphracts at impact is not an evens fight. The "Other lance" POA does not count against the "Knight lance" POA so the knights will be one POA up at impact and evens in melee. Not good.

Julian

Knights are overrated . The reason they get 2 dice is that they are trained from the strat to be warriors . Well what about the mongols, what about veterans of so many campaigns and so on . But it is the way it is in the rules .

I cannot understand why they get those 2 dice . They usually are superior , armored if not heavily armored and a better POA at the charge against almost anyone, even other lancers . But it seems it is not enough

The reason they get 2 dice is that they are trained from the strat to be warriors

No its not. Read the explanation in the rules, and at the start of WFtS

WFTS sorry I do not understand that language

for the dice I will reread the book Ok sir, but knights are still overrated and training and so on is the explanation given to me by one of the moderators but I will not give his name

WftS = Wolves from the Sea, the latest army list, I believe.

Paul

I'll make a fuller expalantion. Knights are not trained from birth. They are given their POA's etc due to battlefield performance. Wolves from the sea gives one reason and the rules also, but I'm at work so can't quote.

They are very fragile and suffer badly from base loss when shot at and when losing melee.

However when they are winning they are very very good.

Perhaps too good, but they do cost a lot, and BG of drilled MF swordsmen do very well against them. In fact anything that can flank intercept them does very well.

in 25mm, Later Seleucid. Only way to go.

...although I only take 1 Cat and 1 Cav (companions) with 2 BGs of nellies. Nellies are placed last to match knight BGS.

15mm may be different as more points means more knights.

Steve P

Well, mind that casualties roll with the same averages, and a knight casualty hurts twice than a cataphract casualty.

Ethan does not like cats. Well, cataphracts.

Anyway, I think the issue to address is not the interaction of Kn and Cats in a head-to-head fight; we all can agree that the Cats will likely lose. Consider the totality of the army. A lot of the Cat armies get loads of Lh that can be used to amuse enemy Kn while the Cats set up a flank attack or slaughter the peasants. Others get to bring along El or Pk that can be used to slaughter the Kn (or at least keep them out of the way) while the Cats slaughter the peasants.

I do not think that Cats are hopeless in an Open event, but they are certainly not world-beaters. To win an Open with a Cat list would be a real display of skill.

Marc

bahdahbum wrote:Knights are overrated . The reason they get 2 dice is that they are trained from the strat to be warriors . Well what about the mongols, what about veterans of so many campaigns and so on . But it is the way it is in the rules .

I cannot understand why they get those 2 dice . They usually are superior , armored if not heavily armored and a better POA at the charge against almost anyone, even other lancers . But it seems it is not enough

Everyone gets two dice at impact. Knights get 2 dice after but only one rank, so enemy can get equal numbers of dice if they are two deep.

In my experience knights are often a weak spot in an army unless you deploy them more than 1 rank deep. A BG of 4 knights can afford to fight 3 wide with a spare base or if it ends up in an isolated combat then the full 4 wide. If you charge with a solid line of knights 1 deep into any reasonable opponent then as soon as you lose a base you will be giving up an overlap which hurts.

At present I far prefer lancer cavalry to knights, especially undrilled knights.