Printable View
I have and love M2TW but I'm not an avid player (I thought the fall of Rome was a bad thing -- hey, sue me), so I wanted to ask if there were any real differences between classical cataphracts and medieval knights? Both riders and mounts were heavily armored in most, if not all, cases.
what do you want to know? The kataphractoi have maces. Um their armor breakdown is a little different from knights. But all of this is modifiable, so...? :book:
I was kind of vague, wasn't I? Sorry about that.
My basc question is whether or not anything in regards to tactics differ between the two? In playing M2, I always used my knights in the same basic manner as I would cataphracts, to batter a hole into enemy formations followed.
With cataphracts, I'm always fairly successful without incurring too many losses, while my knights always seem to get slaughtered. I always charge from the rear and flanks, but this still happens.
Oh spartan oh spartan, oh... spartan, what kind of knights are you using? because here is a rough guide to->
How To Use Knights
Now, first off, we'll begin with the "wannabes" the "peaseant cavalry" (Hobilars, Danish scouts etc) you would only use these for:
Chasing down enemies routing enemies
Driving away horse archers
Attacking unguarded archers
Maybe flank the enemy
In all exceptions except the first expect heavy casulities
"Early" Knights (Feudal knights etc)
The above uses and
Charge into enemy formations with the exception of spears!, however leaving them there for too long will be a bad mistake, as soon as they've been there for a fair amount of time, get them out, then charge them from the back, or when there disorginised
Then the "Heavies" (Cataphracts, Chivalric, Gothic etc)
Devasting Charges into the enemy lines! although NEVER waste these expensive units on good late game spears (with the exception of pikemen, who we all know completly suck, unless you take there swords away...)
Hope that helps
Feudals are my most commonly used. Maybe I'm leaving them in melee too long, from what the above rundown says.
The strenght of all cavalry is the charge. IMO they are not really melee units not even the heaviest ones simply because they dont have the numbers. A usual sword unit have 60 men (on normal) a cav unit 32. So even if you kill 2 sword for each knight practically you will lose all your knights at the end. In sharp contrast with a charge you can wipe out more than half of the sword unit without losing a knight or with losing only one or two knights. Conclusion: do not leave your cavs in the melee but pull them out and charge in again. IMO the only exception is when you want to pin down, counter enemy cavalry with your own.
On the top of that, as said above, feudal knights are the weakest of all knights, so die faster in melee than all the rest. Katapracts have slightly better stats IIRC but the main difference is that Katapracts have armour piercing maces, which means that they will put up a better hand to hand fight.
Surely Mailed Knights are weaker?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
Though the massive availability and extra speed does make them pretty useful.
Yeah, forgot mailed knights. :sweatdrop: my bad.
Charging the knights head on into the pikemen is not a good idea. They might be almost useless against heavy infantry (unless you micromanage them), but they'll withstand the cavalry charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abokasee
Knights Templar vs pikemen militia:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And if you are playing Kingdoms cavalry have been nerfed quite a bit. You should only charge an enemy line head on if your cavalry are facing much weaker opposition, ie Peasants or Town Militia, or if they are units with poor defence eg 2-handers. Never charge spearmen head on. Generally, cavalry are for flanking attacks, as a formed charge from behind will rout any enemy army.
Cataphracts are Byzantiums knights. Use them in the same way, although the Cataphracts do have the advantage of an AP mace which makes them better against heavier troops, although other knights eg English Knights, Qapukulu, and Gothic Knights also have maces or AP weapons.
By Cataphracts do you mean the ones in R:TW or Kataphractoi in MII:TW?
I think the cataphracts can last longer in melee thnx to their maces.If i had to choose between a cataphract unit or knights to endure heavy melee id have to choose the cataphracts.Oh and if your talkin about Rome total war cataphracts,the differance between them and knights would be the fact that they were covered in armour from head to toe.Just read the accounts of carhae,the ultimate calvary force.I wonder when they adopted the mace?Anybody know?
Cataphracts in RTW was one of a kind. Every other cavalry was different (lighter armored really), they were the true forerunner of Knights. With any other cavalry in RTW you'd have to charge many times to rout a unit but with Cataphracts one single charge is enought to shatter even the best of units. AP maces are an excellent attribute as well. :beam:
Both, actually, but I'm better with Parthians and Armenians than I am the Byzantines (I don't play with the Timurids very often, so I can't quite remember if they have them or not). I'm thinking it's probably the inferior melee performance of knights that's bringing me down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.J.Cicero
Maybe it's about time I institute some tactical reforms, if you get what I mean. :smash:
Ironically, the historical Cataphract would be much less effective in melee than medieval knights. Cataphracts did not enjoy the benfit of the stirrup, therefore they could not easily achieve the balance in the saddle required for prolonged melee. Cataphracts were limited only to charging in and out, and in fact required assistance to mount and dismount. Knights on the other hand woudl be able to swing a sword without falling off their horse.
Mmmm... doesn't a lack of stirrups effect charging as well? Without stirrups a heavy charge with laces would definitely unsettle the rider and perhaps result in the horsemen falling off, that's why most cavalry in ancient time had swords instead of laces. But how useful where the stirrups, some argue that it's way overrated and didn't the effect the rider too much really. :juggle2:
If I'm not mistaken the cataphracts had lances that were chained to the horses' necks to get around the stirrup issue.
But I think RTW cataphracts were way overpowered, I remember charging them into a wall of spears and they survived.
Stirrups dont factor into a charge as the back of the lance is secured against the saddle which absorbs the force of the blow. The rider is just there to guide the lance.