I think that knights advantage in melee should be removed or lessened

[Horde]

I´ve been messing around with Time Warp, and it´s great fun riding over egyptian archers from the New Kingdom with French knights or pitching Spartans against Vikings. But, fighting with knigths against lancer armies from the Dark Ages, I saw that the former demolish the latter not just in the charge, but in melee also. They have a +50 POA advantage fighting in close combat against other cavalrymen. It gives a great edge.

Now, this worries me because I suppose that heavy cavalrymen of Muslim armies will be depicted as lancers, including Mamelukes, Andalusian heavy horse, etc. So, I get that in the first charge the European knights gain the upper hand because of the combination of their tactics and some technological advances. But in the "melee" of the cavalry, which in reality will represent some bodies forming and charging again and hand to hand combat, why should knights be better than other horsemen? It can´t be because of their weapons, because their opponents will have quite similar arms. The effect of the armour and quality is already simulated.

If not, I think that Peninsular muslim armies have knights (perhaps of above average quality instead of superior) instead of lancers. As you can see in the Cantigas de Santa María, they had troops that weren´t so different from northern knights (but perhaps what is depicted is Christian knights as allies or mercenaries).

[SimonLancaster]

Going just on how they play in the game I think Knights are okay. Quite a few players even seem to think that Knights are overpriced at 74. They are slow, easily flanked, and in my experience often do minimal damage to spearmen apart from their lucky roll on the impact charge from time to time.

[Horde]

Going just on how they play in the game I think Knights are okay. Quite a few players even seem to think that Knights are overpriced at 74. They are slow, easily flanked, and in my experience often do minimal damage to spearmen apart from their lucky roll on the impact charge from time to time.

Thanks for your answer. What you say its true, but please note that I wasn´t saying that Knights are overpowered at their current price, not that they don´t have disadvantages, or that they couldn´t be defeated. I´m not even saying that lancer-heavy armies from Dark Ages can´t defeat knight-heavy armies from the Middle Ages; I have won a match with bizantines against later English, for instance. What I dislike is the particular interaction of knights and lancers in melee, assuming that heavy cavalrymen of the Middle Ages will be represented as lancers, as are, now, the heavy cavalrymen from the steppes and others. With the current ruleset, this guy:



These guys:



And these guys:



If depicted as lancers, will have a 50 POA disadvantage against knights in melee combat, assuming identical quality and armor, if they themselves are not represented as knights too. I don´t think that is supported by evidence.

[Ludendorf]

I think you very much have to use the mobility of non-knightly lancers to your advantage. Non-knightly lancers are both cheaper and can move faster than knights. If the old-fashioned lancers get a couple of units behind the knights, there's nothing all that shock impact can do. The knights are going to get slammed into from the rear and they are going to get wrapped up, unless they break through very quickly.

This is why encirclement is so important in FOG II. Encircling an enemy effectively immobilises them and prevents them from advancing any further forwards until they address the encirclement. You can bring an entire column of legionaries to a screeching halt with a few units of peasants round the rear, and the same principle applies to the cavalry when you bring a few meagre noble lancers around the back of a line of knights. If no cheap lancers are available for this duty then units of medium cavalry/medium horse archers can substitute, though they'll lack the shock of a lancer charge to the flanks.

If the line of knights is very long, then this might not be enough to totally hobble the knights... but in that case, you should also endeavour to engineer your encirclement in such a way as to leave space between the knights and your front line/encircling elements. This will force the knights to leave gaps in their line to compensate for the encirclement.

This is of course an artificial scenario with no infantry or other units on either side. I'm merely stating that the knights' high cost and low manoeuvrability gives them problems. If the lancers can use their speed and force an engagement on their terms, they will be able to beat their knightly counterparts.

[SimonLancaster]

Going just on how they play in the game I think Knights are okay. Quite a few players even seem to think that Knights are overpriced at 74. They are slow, easily flanked, and in my experience often do minimal damage to spearmen apart from their lucky roll on the impact charge from time to time.

Thanks for your answer. What you say its true, but please note that I wasn´t saying that Knights are overpowered at their current price, not that they don´t have disadvantages, or that they couldn´t be defeated. I´m not even saying that lancer-heavy armies from Dark Ages can´t defeat knight-heavy armies from the Middle Ages; I have won a match with bizantines against later English, for instance. What I dislike is the particular interaction of knights and lancers in melee, assuming that heavy cavalrymen of the Middle Ages will be represented as lancers, as are, now, the heavy cavalrymen from the steppes and others. With the current ruleset, this guy:

If depicted as lancers, will have a 50 POA disadvantage against knights in melee combat, assuming identical quality and armor, if they themselves are not represented as knights too. I don´t think that is supported by evidence.

You make some good points. But, basically you are saying that the 50 POA advantage v a particular kind of cavalry is unfair and not supported by the evidence according to you. But, many players seem to think that Knights are underpowered for their cost. It is the exact opposite from what you are saying.

From my experience on the battlefield I don't think Knights are so amazing as things stand. Crossbowmen chew them up. Extra cav outflanks them. I think from a purely gaming point of view that Knights need all the help they can get for their current cost. I wouldn't support a decrease in POA in melee right now.

If costs change in later updates and as I gain more experience I may change my mind, of course.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Some of the cavalry depicted are heavily armored cataphract types, which would be even against knights in melee due to their armor

[Dux Limitis]

Time warp is a fun option not supposed to be a serious simulation.And I think it's reasonable,knights are well trained by themselves and many times can fight with very high morale and with fanaticism.Like in Crecy,1346ad,they charged 14 times to the English positions,the last time was nearly dark,Also in Hastins,the Norman and Brittany knights launched many attacks to weakened the shieldwall,and in Nicopolis,they fought bravely with the Turkish infantry and cavalry even without their horses,untill the Count of Nevers been captured and the Turkish threatened to kill him then others surrendered.Very few of other cavalry could do that.

[Horde]

I think you very much have to use the mobility of non-knightly lancers to your advantage. Non-knightly lancers are both cheaper and can move faster than knights. If the old-fashioned lancers get a couple of units behind the knights, there's nothing all that shock impact can do. The knights are going to get slammed into from the rear and they are going to get wrapped up, unless they break through very quickly.

This is why encirclement is so important in FOG II. Encircling an enemy effectively immobilises them and prevents them from advancing any further forwards until they address the encirclement. You can bring an entire column of legionaries to a screeching halt with a few units of peasants round the rear, and the same principle applies to the cavalry when you bring a few meagre noble lancers around the back of a line of knights. If no cheap lancers are available for this duty then units of medium cavalry/medium horse archers can substitute, though they'll lack the shock of a lancer charge to the flanks.

If the line of knights is very long, then this might not be enough to totally hobble the knights... but in that case, you should also endeavour to engineer your encirclement in such a way as to leave space between the knights and your front line/encircling elements. This will force the knights to leave gaps in their line to compensate for the encirclement.

This is of course an artificial scenario with no infantry or other units on either side. I'm merely stating that the knights' high cost and low manoeuvrability gives them problems. If the lancers can use their speed and force an engagement on their terms, they will be able to beat their knightly counterparts.

You have fair points, but as I have said before, I´m not saying that lancers are useless, I´m saying that certain interacion is not supported by historical evidence as far as I know (if it is, I´ll be glad to be corrected).

For what I´ve seen, cheap lancers work quite well in knightly armies to make flanking maneuvers. In an ongoing MP game I managed to sneak with sergeants and charge in the rear an engaged knight, dropping the unit in one turn. They have to charge an engaged enemy though. I think it´s worthy having a couple of sergeant threatening flanks. That said, perhaps light spear cavalry is more useful in this role, as they can evade charging knights.

You make some good points. But, basically you are saying that the 50 POA advantage v a particular kind of cavalry is unfair and not supported by the evidence according to you. But, many players seem to think that Knights are underpowered for their cost. It is the exact opposite from what you are saying.

From my experience on the battlefield I don't think Knights are so amazing as things stand. Crossbowmen chew them up. Extra cav outflanks them. I think from a purely gaming point of view that Knights need all the help they can get for their current cost. I wouldn't support a decrease in POA in melee right now.

If costs change in later updates and as I gain more experience I may change my mind, of course.

Well, it´s not the opposite. I´m saying that a certain interaction that favours knights is not realistic, as far as I understand it. I was not taking of game balance. For the sake of argument, imagine that a new patch removes their advantage in melee against cavalry but decreases to a half. They would be more realistic (in my opinion, of course), but they will be overpowered from the gaming balance perspective. If they are underpowered right now, they can do, for instance, with a slight decrease in cost.

That said, I understand your position against decreasing their capabilities. Thanks for your answer!

That said, perhaps from a gaming point of view knights should have a slight decrease in cost.

Some of the cavalry depicted are heavily armored cataphract types, which would be even against knights in melee due to their armor

It´s true that fully armoured cataphract will be even with early knights of the Norman type; that said, cataphacts would be at 100 POA disadvantage on impact, are slower and cost more; they would be of less use against infantry, too. Against later knights, they would be at 25 POA disadvantage. That said, I´m not worried about that match, because it´s anachronistic; it´s like Caesar legions vs samurai, can be fun to imagine it but "realism" is not an issue. As I have said, where I can see issues is on the matches between knights and some types of muslim lancers where I think the former have an advantage not justified.

Time warp is a fun option not supposed to be a serious simulation.And I think it's reasonable,knights are well trained by themselves and many times can fight with very high morale and with fanaticism,like in Crecy,1346ad,they charged 14 times to the English positions,the last time is nearly dark,Also in Hastins,the Norman and Brittany knights launched many time attacks to weak the shieldwall,and in Nicopolis,they fight bravely with the Turkish infantry and cavalry even without the horses,untill the Count of Nevers been captured and the Turkish threatened to kill him then others surrendered.Very few of other cavalry could do that.

I agree that Time Warp is not a serious simulation, that´s why I was talking about verificable matches, knights against muslim or steppe cavalry. I also agree that in some battles knight fought well, but I think that it can be simulated with quality and other parameters.

[SimonLancaster]

Double post.

[SimonLancaster]

You make some good points. But, basically you are saying that the 50 POA advantage v a particular kind of cavalry is unfair and not supported by the evidence according to you. But, many players seem to think that Knights are underpowered for their cost. It is the exact opposite from what you are saying.

From my experience on the battlefield I don't think Knights are so amazing as things stand. Crossbowmen chew them up. Extra cav outflanks them. I think from a purely gaming point of view that Knights need all the help they can get for their current cost. I wouldn't support a decrease in POA in melee right now.

If costs change in later updates and as I gain more experience I may change my mind, of course.

Well, it´s not the opposite. I´m saying that a certain interaction that favours knights is not realistic, as far as I understand it. I was not taking of game balance. For the sake of argument, imagine that a new patch removes their advantage in melee against cavalry but decreases to a half. They would be more realistic (in my opinion, of course), but they will be overpowered from the gaming balance perspective. If they are underpowered right now, they can do, for instance, with a slight decrease in cost.

That said, I understand your position against decreasing their capabilities. Thanks for your answer!

That said, perhaps from a gaming point of view knights should have a slight decrease in cost.

There is always that tension between historical accuracy and gameplay. Whenever you start to talk about adjusting POAs of any unit you are automatically talking about game balance because it has a knock on effect on all the units on the battlefield.

Knights just aren't superpowered right now, overall, I think.

But there are patches to come, DLCs to arrive, so we will see what the new units in the future bring to the table. It is healthy to put your points forward.

[melm]

One thing that I don't understand is that why giving knights 150 POA in melee vs cavalry. We know that knights only have normal 100 POA in melee vs foot. If they have advantage in melee against lancers, it may come from their quality and armor. Why not just spread this 50 POA advantage to their quality and armor, like "highly superior" and "well armoured" which has 25 POA respectively? Is there anything wrong doing like this? I need some enlightment.

[SimonLancaster]

One thing that I don't understand is that why giving knights 150 POA in melee vs cavalry. We know that knights only have normal 100 POA in melee vs foot. If they have advantage in melee against lancers, it may come from their quality and armor. Why not just spread this 50 POA advantage to their quality and armor, like "highly superior" and "well armoured" which has 25 POA respectively? Is there anything wrong doing like this? I need some enlightment.

Teutonic Knights are Highly Superior so you would put them up again as well?

[melm]

One thing that I don't understand is that why giving knights 150 POA in melee vs cavalry. We know that knights only have normal 100 POA in melee vs foot. If they have advantage in melee against lancers, it may come from their quality and armor. Why not just spread this 50 POA advantage to their quality and armor, like "highly superior" and "well armoured" which has 25 POA respectively? Is there anything wrong doing like this? I need some enlightment.

Teutonic Knights are Highly Superior so you would put them up again as well?

Lol. We can call Teutonic Knights "below elite".

[Buttons]

Going just on how they play in the game I think Knights are okay. Quite a few players even seem to think that Knights are overpriced at 74. They are slow, easily flanked, and in my experience often do minimal damage to spearmen apart from their lucky roll on the impact charge from time to time.

Thanks for your answer. What you say its true, but please note that I wasn´t saying that Knights are overpowered at their current price, not that they don´t have disadvantages, or that they couldn´t be defeated. I´m not even saying that lancer-heavy armies from Dark Ages can´t defeat knight-heavy armies from the Middle Ages; I have won a match with bizantines against later English, for instance. What I dislike is the particular interaction of knights and lancers in melee, assuming that heavy cavalrymen of the Middle Ages will be represented as lancers, as are, now, the heavy cavalrymen from the steppes and others. With the current ruleset, this guy:

If depicted as lancers, will have a 50 POA disadvantage against knights in melee combat, assuming identical quality and armor, if they themselves are not represented as knights too. I don´t think that is supported by evidence.

I know that the Byzantines have cataphracts that can use bows no less, so it certainly should be possible to represent Eastern lancers with fully armoured mounts as cataphracts. Not sure of how they perform in general in medieval much less against knights due to a lack of experience with them, but they exist.