dismounted knights question

[badhabum]

I wonder why Burgundian protected coustillier  ( list 7103 ) or French protected coustillier ( 7104 ) dismount as FARM cut and crush while the second and third rank of the Swabian league also protected and with the exact same characteristics, do dismount but as protected cut and crush ?

It seems to be so for some german lists such as Maximillian as well !

[lionheartrjc]

I'll take a look at these.

[nikgaukroger]

I have a vague recollection that the idea of the deep German formations was to be able to keep rather poorly equipped (by the standards of the times) troops at the back - which could explain this difference.

[badhabum]

I have a vague recollection that the idea of the deep German formations was to be able to keep rather poorly equipped (by the standards of the times) troops at the back - which could explain this difference.

I can understand that but same points or nearly and the fact that the second rank and + is described in all armies as less well equipped  seems a bit strange to make a difference between less well equipped Germans and French, Burgundians, Italians   

[Rino]

Well the ratio is 1 knight for 1 sergeant for the westerners against 1 knight for 2 sergeants for the late Germans.
Besides the Germans are tribal...

[nikgaukroger]

I have a vague recollection that the idea of the deep German formations was to be able to keep rather poorly equipped (by the standards of the times) troops at the back - which could explain this difference.

I can understand that but same points or nearly and the fact that the second rank and + is described in all armies as less well equipped  seems a bit strange to make a difference between less well equipped Germans and French, Burgundians, Italians   

I think you have failed to understand the "by the standards of the time" bit i.e. that they had worse kit than those in the 2nd rank of French, etc. formations.

Plus Rino's point is pertinent.

[tarnowski1]

I have a vague recollection that the idea of the deep German formations was to be able to keep rather poorly equipped (by the standards of the times) troops at the back - which could explain this difference.

I can understand that but same points or nearly and the fact that the second rank and + is described in all armies as less well equipped  seems a bit strange to make a difference between less well equipped Germans and French, Burgundians, Italians   

The 'German' Levied cavalry were notable in the poor quality and quantity of their armour and horse flesh. They, if ever raised were deployed deep and generally regarded as unfit for purpose. Where as Burgundian and French armies rectified their levied soldier issues by 'Ordinances' etc The German states/Holy Roman Empire mostly converted levy obligations to money obligations to allow for the hiring of good quality and reliable mercenaries. This further worsened the state of the levied troops as those too poor to buy their way out of service were also unable to muster in suitable equipment. Ian Heath covers it in one of his books. Feudal Europe comes to mind

[LawrenceG]

Burgundian and French armies rectified their levied soldier issues by 'Ordinances' etc

The question then becomes why Burgundian and French Coustilliers with all the right kit to be fully armoured when they dismount are only protected when they get on their horses?

[badhabum]

Burgundian and French armies rectified their levied soldier issues by 'Ordinances' etc

The question then becomes why Burgundian and French Coustilliers with all the right kit to be fully armoured when they dismount are only protected when they get on their horses?

I do agree the point is : same points, same characteristics if the second rank is protected in both cases either in both cases they dismount FARM or protected ! Or you change points of the nases and either upgrade the point of guys who dismount FARM or downgrade the points of those who dismount protected . Fair is fair 

[badhabum]

Well the ratio is 1 knight for 1 sergeant for the westerners against 1 knight for 2 sergeants for the late Germans.
Besides the Germans are tribal...

Tribal has nothing to do with equipment but with training . You are mixing things 

[badhabum]

I have a vague recollection that the idea of the deep German formations was to be able to keep rather poorly equipped (by the standards of the times) troops at the back - which could explain this difference.

I can understand that but same points or nearly and the fact that the second rank and + is described in all armies as less well equipped  seems a bit strange to make a difference between less well equipped Germans and French, Burgundians, Italians   

I think you have failed to understand the "by the standards of the time" bit i.e. that they had worse kit than those in the 2nd rank of French, etc. formations.

Plus Rino's point is pertinent.

Sorry Rino's point is NOT pertinent as tribal is training not equipment

Depth is not pertinent as well as depth gives other advantages : protected is protected in BOTH cases . So can you explain in rule terms why french protected is French FARM once dismounted and german is protected but do cost the same points ? I am willing to hear it but is the system not : same capacity same points or did I miss something ?

[nikgaukroger]

I think what you are missing is that not all Protected are equal which is what I think both Matt and I are getting at. Dino's 2:1 comment is also relevant (but agree the Tribal isn't).

There could be a points difference, but personally I'm not bothered really - faced armies that had the Burgundian ones in 3 of 4 games last weekend and I can't say it felt to be an issue.

[tarnowski1]

I have a vague recollection that the idea of the deep German formations was to be able to keep rather poorly equipped (by the standards of the times) troops at the back - which could explain this difference.

I can understand that but same points or nearly and the fact that the second rank and + is described in all armies as less well equipped  seems a bit strange to make a difference between less well equipped Germans and French, Burgundians, Italians   

I think you have failed to understand the "by the standards of the time" bit i.e. that they had worse kit than those in the 2nd rank of French, etc. formations.

Plus Rino's point is pertinent.

Sorry Rino's point is NOT pertinent as tribal is training not equipment

Depth is not pertinent as well as depth gives other advantages : protected is protected in BOTH cases . So can you explain in rule terms why french protected is French FARM once dismounted and german is protected but do cost the same points ? I am willing to hear it but is the system not : same capacity same points or did I miss something ?

to put it another way its outrageous that German tribal cavalry dismount as formed, they are so much cheaper than the Drilled French Ordinance troops and they downgrade to formed when they dismount, its a travesty as they are the same soldiers, apparantly, I shall be writing to my MP.

Of course we could just consider that each army's fighting style, success, effectiveness and use of such troops have all contributed to them having their own subtly different classifications for broadly (and I  mean broadly) similar troops.

[tarnowski1]

Burgundian and French armies rectified their levied soldier issues by 'Ordinances' etc

The question then becomes why Burgundian and French Coustilliers with all the right kit to be fully armoured when they dismount are only protected when they get on their horses?

As the primary description in the rules is that Fully armoured was sufficient to counter most Missile types, I'd suggest that getting on a horse limited the effect of that full armour. That fully armoured while mounted includes a proportion of horse armour to retain the FA rating but insufficient to be classed as an armoured horse. That would be my take on it.