Cataphracts Vs knights

[Pyrrhus1717]

Hey there , totally new to the game. I was wondering how the game modeles Cataphracts attributes and how Knights are Modelled ? Some games have them functioning in the same way is that true of MEG ? Thanks .

[lionheartrjc]

Knights are charging lancers (sometimes with DC).  Loose.  Often backed up with a second rank of sergeants who lack Full Armour.  Only late period knights are armoured horse.  Move 5 BW (unless armoured horse).

Cataphracts are long spear (with DC in western armies).  Close.  Armoured horse and full armour.  Move 4 BW.

So they do play differently.

Richard

[Pyrrhus1717]

Great could you give a over view of how they play differently ? Strengths Vs  weaknesses .
Thanks

[lionheartrjc]

Cataphracts have Armoured Horse.  So they are less vulnerable to missile fire.  Set against this they move 4BW rather than 5BW, so are less likely to catch enemy horse archers and similar mounted skirmishers.

Cataphracts have to be 2-deep to maximise their combat factors (due to Devastating Charger and Long Spear).  Knights generally only need 1-deep (Charging Lancer and Melee Expert), so may have an edge at impact.  As they are often half-and-half with sergeants who are protected, they may not do so well in a prolonged combat.  But with a greater maximum movement distance, they may have the option to break off.

Not sure what else you are expecting...

Richard

[Pyrrhus1717]

Thanks Richard , I was looking for a comparison but more like what each one was good for against all troops . How you would advise someone to use these two different troop types in combat . Like Vegetius , Taktika , Praecepta militaria. Thanks might be good info as a installment on the pod cast troop types and there uses player opinions etc .. it's sorry to be a pain just trying to get motivation for finishing two armies and digest the rules solo is a task you can ignore this if you like .

[SteveO]

I think Richard has provided a good answer to your 'how long is a piece of string' question.

I would add to his response by making the generalisation that knights can be a bit more effective in the charge while cataphracts have a bit more staying power in melee.

You should also consider the broader issue of what else is in the armies in terms of supporting arms. While there are many exceptions, knight-based armies commonly have reasonable numbers of foot as support troops (eg. 100 Years War French) while cataphract-based armies tend to have more mounted support troops (eg Parthian and Sassanid Persian). This can create the paradox that while knights are more mobile than cataphracts at an individual TuG level, the army is less mobile overall. However, I reiterate that I am generalising and you can find exceptions.