On the last podcast (https://themegpodcast.podbean.com/e/the-meg-podcast-series-5-episode-3-catafracts-and-knights/) we briefly pondered the classification difference between "eastern" and "western" catafracts with, in general, the former being Long Spear, Shove whilst the latter are Long Spear, Devastating Charger, Shove.

This seems to be something from the dawn of the MeG lists and we were not sure why it was.

Begs the question as to whether there is any justification for the difference. What do people think?

Or should they all be Charging Lancer?

Is any classification where they get Shatter correct?

If not broken do not change it

Why change ?

Cats LS do have their charm, specificity ..so again why change ?

Quote from: badhabum on March 25, 2025, 08:02:23 AM
If not broken do not change it

Why change ?

Cats LS do have their charm, specificity ..so again why change ?

+1

Personally I feel LSp is the right classification, I think very few "ancient" cavalry types should have CL.

In respect of catafracts the question in my mind is as mentioned above - the difference between "eastern" and "western" ones; is DC justified for the latter. That is where the classifications may be broken.

I thought the idea behind the difference was that Western style cataphracts usually had solid targets so were hard chargers while Eastern ones faced horse archer opponents so were likely not to be impetuous because it would just get them into trouble. Or is that just a wargaming post-hoc rationalisation?

Apart from the Seleucid vs Roman battle of Magnesia in 189 BCE, there is very little evidence for cataphracts having much success against Roman legionaries until the Sassanid Persian era.  Magnesia may be the exception because it was the first time the legions had faced cataphracts.

Not sure if there are many accounts of cataphracts against other infantry at all.  So I suspect there is wargamer post-hoc rationalisation going on here.

Richard

Quote from: tarnowski1 on March 25, 2025, 08:09:47 AM

Quote from: badhabum on March 25, 2025, 08:02:23 AM
If not broken do not change it

Why change ?

Cats LS do have their charm, specificity ..so again why change ?

+1

+2

Best,
Antoine

Quote from: lionheartrjc on March 25, 2025, 08:45:43 AM
Apart from the Seleucid vs Roman battle of Magnesia in 189 BCE, there is very little evidence for cataphracts having much success against Roman legionaries until the Sassanid Persian era.  Magnesia may be the exception because it was the first time the legions had faced cataphracts.

IIRC at Magnesia, according to Livy, Antiochos' successful attack involved getting onto the flank of the small number of cavalry next to them which helped expose the infantry who then were driven back to the camp in rout.

However, leaving that aside as you say success against Roman infantry after that is pretty much nil until the Sasanid era. Even Crassus' distinctly average army repelled the Parthian catafracts - it was the Gallic cavalry that were defeated by them.

Of course, we then run into a source issue as we have basically zero detail of how the Sasanids defeated the Romans in the C3rd, although (again IIRC) shooting is mentioned at least once but may just be a trope. A bit more detail about the battles against the Palmyrans but still rather sketchy.

Ammianus and Julian (and Libanius?) give us more detail and here we have the Roman infantry taking the fight to the Sasanid cavalry which includes contos armed catafracts - charging the cavalry in fact a number of times.

Quote
Not sure if there are many accounts of cataphracts against other infantry at all.  So I suspect there is wargamer post-hoc rationalisation going on here.

Richard

Surely not 

For the eastern types the sources are sadly not very helpful. We know that following the fall of the Han and their immediate successors that cavalry, often from steppe invaders or tribes settled under the Han, who were turning to catafracts dominated warfare; however, detail is lacking to say exactly why and it does appear that the native Han troops mostly declined in quality and so would be less resistant anyway.

I'm currently tending to the view that for both eastern and western types that in general Devastating Charger is not really justified. Exceptions do exist of course such as the Jin Iron Pagodas, but in general, no.  However, I can't claim to have done an exhaustive investigation so there could be examples out there that would indicate otherwise.

Ahh, I thought you were advocating adding DC to the Eastern types. But you were thinking removing it from the Western types. That is a very different kettle of fish in terms of game play balance. The only time I've used the non-DC cataphracts (with the Di at Ice and Fire) they weren't very impressive ... though of course that could well be due to Operator Error 

Quote from: Princeps on March 25, 2025, 08:52:06 AM

Quote from: tarnowski1 on March 25, 2025, 08:09:47 AM

Quote from: badhabum on March 25, 2025, 08:02:23 AM
If not broken do not change it

Why change ?

Cats LS do have their charm, specificity ..so again why change ?

+1

+2

Best,
Antoine

To be clear, any changes would only accompany revisions to the rules.

Richard

Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 26, 2025, 09:09:37 AM
I'm currently tending to the view that for both eastern and western types that in general Devastating Charger is not really justified. Exceptions do exist of course such as the Jin Iron Pagodas, but in general, no.  However, I can't claim to have done an exhaustive investigation so there could be examples out there that would indicate otherwise.

This is also the view that I am taking.

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on March 26, 2025, 09:29:51 AM

To be clear, any changes would only accompany revisions to the rules.

Richard

Reasonable call.