Knight-y Knight.....

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23921
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:06 pm

babyshark wrote:Back to the subject of knights. How are cataphracts (Kn(x) in DBM terms) modelled in AoW?

Marc

They have their own type - Cataphracts. (The Knights class in AoW is restricted to genuine Medieval Knights and men-at-arms).

They are Cataphracts, heavily armoured, lancers, swordsmen. (The swordsmen category includes maces).

They move slower than other cavalry - the same speed as knights. They fight 2 deep with one dice per base in melee. (As do cavalry. Knights fight only 1 base deep in melee, with 2 dice per base).

Knightly lancers trump other lancers in the impact phase. Thus cataphracts are at a disadvantage vs knights in the impact phase. In the melee they can match medieval knights provided that they are 2 deep! They have the edge against all other cavalry in close combat.

They are costed accordingly - only slightly more than armoured cavalry (because they move slower, and, if undrilled, are less manoevurable), but a lot less than Knights.

babyshark
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
Location: Government; and I'm here to help.

Post by babyshark » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:08 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:They have their own type - Cataphracts. (The Knights class in AoW is restricted to genuine Medieval Knights and men-at-arms).
Why is the Knight classification so restricted? Alexander's Companions had that two-handed lance as their primary weapon, and thus had to aggressively charge to contact, same same medieval knights. I am sure there are other examples of similar troops. At first glance one wonders why the Companions do not get to fight in one line with two dice per base. Is it a question of move distances?

Marc

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23921
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:32 pm

babyshark wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:They have their own type - Cataphracts. (The Knights class in AoW is restricted to genuine Medieval Knights and men-at-arms).
Why is the Knight classification so restricted? Alexander's Companions had that two-handed lance as their primary weapon, and thus had to aggressively charge to contact, same same medieval knights. I am sure there are other examples of similar troops. At first glance one wonders why the Companions do not get to fight in one line with two dice per base. Is it a question of move distances?

Marc
Despite previous wargames rules, Alexander's Companions, cataphracts and Assyrian chariots etc.etc. were not knights.

It does not seem to us desirable that a set of rules should force Medieval knights and Alexander's Companions to be represented the same way as each other. AoW, being somewhat less abstract than certain other rules, allows us to represent the historical differences between all the above types. Hence our Knights classification is restricted to actual medieval knights.

Medieval knights get to fight effectively in 1 rank because they often formed up in a shallow "en haie" formation. Alexander's Companions did not do this, nor did other Ancient cavalry. (We know this from surviving Ancient manuals).

Rest assured that Alexander's Companions are a force to be reckoned with - As Cavalry, Armoured, Elite or Superior, Lancers, Swordsmen, they are hard-charging tough customers.

babyshark
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
Location: Government; and I'm here to help.

Post by babyshark » Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:51 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:Medieval knights get to fight effectively in 1 rank because they often formed up in a shallow "en haie" formation. Alexander's Companions did not do this, nor did other Ancient cavalry. (We know this from surviving Ancient manuals).
Ahh, fair enough. Given that, how will chariots be modelled? Will they be all in one classification, or will there be some difference between the ones classed as Cv and Kn in DBM?

Marc

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23921
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:55 pm

babyshark wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:Medieval knights get to fight effectively in 1 rank because they often formed up in a shallow "en haie" formation. Alexander's Companions did not do this, nor did other Ancient cavalry. (We know this from surviving Ancient manuals).
Ahh, fair enough. Given that, how will chariots be modelled? Will they be all in one classification, or will there be some difference between the ones classed as Cv and Kn in DBM?

Marc
There are Light, Heavy and Scythed chariots, each of which behaves differently. Light Chariots can evade. Heavy and Scythed chariots are Shock troops. There is a lot more to it than that, but we have to leave some mystery. :wink:

larrydunn
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:23 am

Post by larrydunn » Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:42 am

rbodleyscott wrote:There turns out to be no real historical evidence of German knights forming in deep "wedges" prior to 1450 AD.
Except Teutonics in their "great iron pig," of course. They appear to have adopted this formation in the effort to overcome the normally vast numerical superiority that Russian armies had against them. The wedges did blast holes through the Russian lines initially, but once the Russians figured out how to defeat the wedges, by leading them on and then surrounding them, their numbers were able to tell.
The rules do give benefit to forming any knights 2 deep - they are harder to inflict enough hits on to cause a Cohesion Test. Thus we came to the conclusion that no special rules were required for the deep formations used by German men-at-arms after 1450 AD.
Sounds sensible. The German cavalry in Maximilian's army at Guinegate the first one, I mean, not the one with Henry) fought quite hard against the French, apparently in deep formations, and actually held them on one flank.

stalins_organ
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:35 pm

Post by stalins_organ » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 pm

Where do the Byzantine Klibanarii fit?

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:52 pm

Well they're called Kataphraktoi for a start as the Praecepta does :lol:

They come as a 2 base BG of Catafracts, half Lancers and half Bow - so with a 2 rank formation you can assume they are forming their flat-nosed wedge formation but there is no separate wedge formation for them.

Interestingly the beta tester feedback on them is that they are best used between 2 BGs of the normal cavalry which is distressingly historical :shock:

stalins_organ
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:35 pm

Post by stalins_organ » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:14 am

Doesn't kataphractoi refer to all Byzantine cavalry of the era tho?

Shouldn't the fully armoured wedges have a different designation?

They have always worked best between units of "regular" cavalry in every set of rules I've ever seen them in, so I can't see how this is apparently a bonus in AoW.

larrydunn
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:23 am

Post by larrydunn » Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:07 am

stalins_organ wrote:Doesn't kataphractoi refer to all Byzantine cavalry of the era tho?
They were called kavallarioi.
Shouldn't the fully armoured wedges have a different designation?
They do -- kataphractoi klibanophoroi. "Klibanion-wearing cataphracts."
Larry

"Call-Me-Kenneth likes doing bad things."

vsolfronk
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:26 pm
Location: Birmingham Alabama

Post by vsolfronk » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:38 pm

Just out of personal curiousity, and as an incurable romantic, how do you think AoW is going to handle King Arthur and his Round Table Knight? :D

Also, for the love of God, please rename the list Romano British, and not Sub Human, I mean Sub Roman!!

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23921
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:55 pm

vsolfronk wrote:Just out of personal curiousity, and as an incurable romantic, how do you think AoW is going to handle King Arthur and his Round Table Knight?
Sensitively.

Probably as Cavalry, Armoured, Lancers, Swordsmen. Superior but maybe with the option for Elite for the incurably romantic.

whitehorses
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:40 pm

Post by whitehorses » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:39 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
vsolfronk wrote:Just out of personal curiousity, and as an incurable romantic, how do you think AoW is going to handle King Arthur and his Round Table Knight?
Sensitively.

Probably as Cavalry, Armoured, Lancers, Swordsmen. Superior but maybe with the option for Elite for the incurably romantic.

As Dismounted, or Mounted with Coconuts as carried by the European Swallow? ^_~

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8712
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:24 am

It would have to be an African swallow, unless they tied it to a piece of creeper and then 2 European swallows could carry it. :lol:

whitehorses
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:40 pm

Post by whitehorses » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:32 am

philqw78 wrote:It would have to be an African swallow, unless they tied it to a piece of creeper and then 2 European swallows could carry it. :lol:
Except that the African Swallow is non Migratory, & European Swallows are prolly not capable of tying a creeper to their talons..... :)

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:37 am

vsolfronk wrote:Also, for the love of God, please rename the list Romano British, and not Sub Human, I mean Sub Roman!!
I can't comment on this list (I don't think it has been written yet) but I can say that Early Imperial, Middle Imperial, Late Imperial and Patrician Roman have all gone from the lists to be replaced with: Principate, Dominate and Foederate Roman so there is every chance that the sub humans will get a shiny new name.

Hammy

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:35 am

Desperate springs to mind and is consistent with the post- Divus Julius Roman names so far :twisted:

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”