Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:06 pm
by rbodleyscott
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.

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:08 pm
by babyshark
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

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:32 pm
by rbodleyscott
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.

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:51 pm
by babyshark
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

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:55 pm
by rbodleyscott
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:

Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:42 am
by larrydunn
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.

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 pm
by stalins_organ
Where do the Byzantine Klibanarii fit?

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:52 pm
by nikgaukroger
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:

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:14 am
by stalins_organ
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.

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:07 am
by larrydunn
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."

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:38 pm
by vsolfronk
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!!

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:55 pm
by rbodleyscott
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.

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:39 am
by whitehorses
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? ^_~

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:24 am
by philqw78
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:

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:32 am
by whitehorses
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..... :)

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:37 am
by hammy
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

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:35 am
by nikgaukroger
Desperate springs to mind and is consistent with the post- Divus Julius Roman names so far :twisted: