Cavalry vs Knights

A forum for any questions relating to army design, the army companion books and upcoming lists.

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

richafricanus
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Cavalry vs Knights

Post by richafricanus » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:36 pm

Can someone help me understand why I would ever choose Lance Armed Cav instead of Knights. The Knights seem far better value for money (fewer points per fighting frontage). The cavalry can't even shoot or evade.

As an aside, is there a record for the most generals lost in a game? Or lost in 2 consecutive games? Today I lost 4 out of 4! And three days ago I lost 3 out of 4! All killed fighting bravely in the front rank too. The guys won't even talk to me anymore...

Richard

ethan
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm

Post by ethan » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:20 pm

Well, you can't always get knights...

But more importantly there are two big advantages to cavalry:

- More maneuverable. Undrilled knights basically can't maneuver. Undrilled cavalry are pretty maneuverable. The key move difference is that undrilled cavalry can turn 90 degrees and move (not to mention a number of moves that are complex for knights are simple for cavalry) but that is the big one. Cavalry that breaks through can get back into the fight and onto someone's flank at least a turn faster than knights. Cavalry are also much more able to dodge away from things they don't want to fight...

- Faster. Sure it is only 1MU but it matters.

richafricanus
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by richafricanus » Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:31 pm

Aah! So you want me to use tactics! Now I'll have to rethink my whole approach :wink:

Thanks

Richard

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Post by deadtorius » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:39 am

The other undrilled column heading should have a sub title, troops who can't move any way other than straight. That is usually what happens if you have troops who have to use this column.

marioslaz
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: San Lazzaro (BO) Italy

Post by marioslaz » Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:35 am

deadtorius wrote:The other undrilled column heading should have a sub title, troops who can't move any way other than straight.
Can we add also a P.S. to the column: "... unless they have a Commander with them, but a good one otherwise is near useless."?
Mario Vitale

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Post by deadtorius » Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:10 am

Alas many a time my own commanders have been unable to get the attention of the massed dolts and they stand there wondering what the boss is carrying on about while they try to decide what the meaning of wheel is and which way is right.... :roll:

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs » Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:59 am

Also there's the fact that base losses hurt the knights more - each time you lose a base you lose two combat dice.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:10 am

grahambriggs wrote:Also there's the fact that base losses hurt the knights more - each time you lose a base you lose two combat dice.
So that when your BG of 4 Kn loses a bases it only outnumbers the cav 6 dice to 4. Bummer

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:24 am

philqw78 wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:Also there's the fact that base losses hurt the knights more - each time you lose a base you lose two combat dice.
So that when your BG of 4 Kn loses a bases it only outnumbers the cav 6 dice to 4. Bummer
Well, if , say, 4 wide of armourd knigh5ts are facing 4 wide 2 deep of armoured cav and each lose a base it would be 6 dice vs 7. Granted, the cavalry would have more points tied up in the melee.

I suppose there's also the point that if the knights break they're likely to be killed in the pursuit, whereas if the cavalry break they are more likely to escape. Unlikely to survive the melee I suppose.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22218
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:18 am

As has been commented elsewhere, this game is not all about tournaments and certainly not all about open tournaments. (Ptui).

If you are playing in a period with knights (or you feel compelled to play anachronistic matchups), then lancers are not good as main battle cavalry. (Though they may be useful in conjunction with knights).

If you are playing in a period without knights, then any comparison is moot.
Last edited by rbodleyscott on Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Post by expendablecinc » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:19 am

Knights have one real function (massed charge) and they are very good at it.
Lance armed cavalry are also equipped for that function and definately not as good so not worth the points if only used in this role.

The value of cavalry is in their versatility.

As already mentioned
- they are faster, albeit only by one inch in open ground but this adds up over a few turns.
- they are much more manouverable so easier to get them out of trouble and easier to get to flanks/rear where being knights or Cav is relevant on impact.
- They are much better at keeping LH honest with a chance to catch them unlike KN who LH dont really fear at all.
- They are better in terrain than Knights so are more flexible there
- If used in a non critical role (ie keeping a flank clear of interceptors) there is not as much point tied up in the role
- They dont have to be 1 base deep to get thier full benefit so attract less bowfire
- If they do go one base deep they are less succeptible to bowfire (assuming the same armour level
- They are better in a flank marching role

- If all you are going to do is ride straight ahead and smash in at impact use lance armed cav against massed foot (same chance of winning but less chance of losing - due to reduced impact base losses)

ethan
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm

Post by ethan » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:09 pm

expendablecinc wrote:If all you are going to do is ride straight ahead and smash in at impact use lance armed cav against massed foot (same chance of winning but less chance of losing - due to reduced impact base losses)
This I disagree with. If you use the same number of AP for the job the knights come out ahead, you can always just run the knights 3 wide with 1 in reserve and come out way ahead.

richafricanus
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by richafricanus » Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:57 pm

Thanks for all the advice.

Can I take it that since no-one commented on my point about losing 7 generals in 2 games that I am the winner of the prize for "the most careless with generals" award?

Richard

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Post by deadtorius » Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:00 pm

Can I take it that since no-one commented on my point about losing 7 generals in 2 games that I am the winner of the prize for "the most careless with generals" award?
Alas Rich it appears that you may hold a distinct honour that most of us would not be man enough to admit to, even if it did happen to us. Your trophy and lead lass in a sexy bikini are in the mail. :)

DaiSho
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:02 am
Location: Australia

Post by DaiSho » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:54 am

richafricanus wrote:Aah! So you want me to use tactics! Now I'll have to rethink my whole approach :wink:
Why start now Richard?

Glad to see you got home safe. Hope you enjoyed your visit.

In answer to your question, another (less believed) thing is that they are less brittle than Knights. I keep having the same discussion with my Knight weilding opponent wrt my Cataphracts. Sure, I'd prefer to have knights on impact, but if I don't disrupt on impact I'm now at an advantage. Sure, I cost more than his knights, but every base I lose makes me drop a dice. Every base he loses drops him two dice AND gets him closer to autobreaking.

Surviving that impact is really scary though.

Ian
Viking (15mm)
Syracusan (15mm)
Palmyran (10mm - 15mm basing)
Horse Nomad (15mm)

DaiSho
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:02 am
Location: Australia

Post by DaiSho » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:57 am

philqw78 wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:Also there's the fact that base losses hurt the knights more - each time you lose a base you lose two combat dice.
So that when your BG of 4 Kn loses a bases it only outnumbers the cav 6 dice to 4. Bummer
Yeah, that's if you're a total f***ing moron and constantly go base to base against knights.

The fighting frontage of 4 knights should be taken on by 8 cavalry... then what graham said is very true.
Viking (15mm)
Syracusan (15mm)
Palmyran (10mm - 15mm basing)
Horse Nomad (15mm)

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:16 am

DaiSho wrote:Yeah, that's if you're a total f***ing moron and constantly go base to base against knights

The fighting frontage of 4 knights should be taken on by 8 cavalry... then what graham said is very true..
I'm obviously a f***g moron then. The knights are hurt proportionatley exactly the same as the cavalry, so saying it hurts more is rubbish. And the knights get more dice per base. And taking on Kn frontally with 8 bases of cavalry is not for a moron like me.

***oops
Last edited by philqw78 on Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by david53 » Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:25 am

philqw78 wrote:
DaiSho wrote:Yeah, that's if you want to go base to base against knights

The fighting frontage of 4 knights should be taken on by 8 cavalry... then what graham said is very true..
The knights are hurt proportionatley exactly the same as the cavalry, so saying it hurts more is rubbish. And the knights get more dice per base. And taking on Kn frontally with 8 bases of cavalry is not for a moron like me.

Damm are you supposed to fight them then, I try running away :wink:
Last edited by david53 on Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

timurilenk
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 1:34 pm
Location: MK, UK

Post by timurilenk » Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:37 am

philqw78 wrote:And taking on Kn frontally with 8 bases of cavalry is not for a moron like me.
Yes, but that way you could lose two BGs of Cv instead of only one - gets the game over with quicker! 8)
Ian Stewart - Loving FOG, but still learning

ethan
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm

Post by ethan » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:37 pm

DaiSho wrote:The fighting frontage of 4 knights should be taken on by 8 cavalry... then what graham said is very true.
It is still important to consider the AP committed.

If the knights are heavily armored and drilled it is 104AP vs. 128AP for undrilled amored cavalry lancers and the knights are likely to win with a PoA in impact and melee.

consider drilled armored knights vs the same then is is 80AP vs 128AP, you could take a 6 base BG of knights for the same AP and still come otu ahead. I don't really think 8 cavalry can take on 6 knights and expect to win...

Now, AP don't always matter on the table - that is why you maneuver but that does mean the cavalry army has to negate those AP in some other way and they still don't have that great a fight, they would pretty easily still lose it in impact when they are down a PoA to lancers...(assuming all involved are superior the knights will score 2 and 1/3 hits on average in impact, the cavalry will score 1 and 5/9 hits on average, so the cavalry are likely to lose and be testing at -2 at least on the cohestion test).

Post Reply

Return to “Army Design”