Catafract classification

[nikgaukroger]

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 

I rather like them and have got good use out of them - the lower points means they are game balanced IMO, but you do need to treat them as being a bit different beast than the ones with DC.

[Doomsmile]

IIRC, weren't western cataphracts originally classed without the DC, but had it added due to the +2 charge claim of Roman impact weapons vs cavalry causing the cataphracts to frequently be crippled on impact?
(And leading to veteran Legionaries doing goofy things like launching charges against cataphracts at a claims advantage?)

I could be misremembering, so please correct me if I'm wrong!!!

[Manzikert]

I think it would severely weaken cataphracts if they were to lose Devastating charge. It seems odd that the mass of an armored man on an armored horse would cause as much impact as standard infantry with a short spear, even without considering the psychological effect. Do we have any reason to think they suffered badly when charging into infantry formations? Because I think that would be the primary effect of the change.

[lionheartrjc]

IIRC, weren't western cataphracts originally classed without the DC, but had it added due to the +2 charge claim of Roman impact weapons vs cavalry causing the cataphracts to frequently be crippled on impact?
(And leading to veteran Legionaries doing goofy things like launching charges against cataphracts at a claims advantage?)

I could be misremembering, so please correct me if I'm wrong!!!

Good memory!  The change was introduced in 2018.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

I think it would severely weaken cataphracts if they were to lose Devastating charge. It seems odd that the mass of an armored man on an armored horse would cause as much impact as standard infantry with a short spear, even without considering the psychological effect. Do we have any reason to think they suffered badly when charging into infantry formations? Because I think that would be the primary effect of the change.

As noted in posts above we are struggling to find examples of where they did well against infantry formations in a straight up charge. Any ideas as to when they generally did well?

I would note that we need to look at the combat overall and not just the Charge Phase - DC only counts there after all.

[nikgaukroger]

IIRC, weren't western cataphracts originally classed without the DC, but had it added due to the +2 charge claim of Roman impact weapons vs cavalry causing the cataphracts to frequently be crippled on impact?
(And leading to veteran Legionaries doing goofy things like launching charges against cataphracts at a claims advantage?)

I could be misremembering, so please correct me if I'm wrong!!!

I would note that Roman* infantry frontally charging catafracts successfully wasn't unknown - seems to have been a thing in the C4th; maybe not so much earlier though.


* its always the Romans that create representation difficulties     

[nikgaukroger]

Good memory!  The change was introduced in 2018.

I had forgotten that there was a change - mind you I only got properly involved with MeG part way through 2018    However, I do have a vague recollection of a discussion about whether catafracts charged at anything other than a trot.

[badhabum]

I would note that we need to look at the combat overall and not just the Charge Phase - DC only counts there after all.

But gives a +1 to the cavalry, works in terrain and allows shatter "only"

[badhabum]

Iwould be very reluctant to change anything concerning the cataphracts. Yes there might be some writings about romans who did resist cats charges ...but remember the winner, the surviving empire writes the history, not the other way round. So the written vision is very partial.

In the end, Crassus was defeated by a combo Cat/horse archer

Roman cats were shock troops

BYZ cats were shock troops and we lack info about Asian cats

Yes hoses and riders were initially armoured to counter steppe bow cavalry but they faced also foot and lacking info is not a reason to forget bthat MEG is a game and if you want a game, you must sometimes allow for the dream and the " who knows let us keep a bamlance in what is a GAME"

Think really hard before changing anything

[nikgaukroger]

Think really hard before changing anything

We always do.

[Princeps]

A thesis was written and accepted in 2014 at the University of Leiden, titled "Who were the cataphracts? An archaeological and historical investigation into ancient heavy cavalry in the Near East".

The file is publicly available but too big to be posted on the forum, but can be accessed here.

Best,
Antoine

[nikgaukroger]

Have seen it before. Not sure it advances us sadly - does show the thinness of the evidence nicely though.

[AntiokosIII]

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.

Interesting that you’re just hand waving Carrhae away.Yes, the first few charges were repelled, but in the end the catafracts prevailed. It’s true that this occurred only after the horse archers weakened the Romans with shooting, but the game mechanics simply outlaw the practical chances that this could be repeated on the tabletop. With Roman shield cover white dice won’t succeed fast enough to allow such a result. I mean, the battle was a long one, I understand. Still, removing DC would severely distort this matchup.

[nikgaukroger]

At the end of the day Crassus' army was unbroken - somewhat battered and bruised, but not actually defeated in battle. The catafracts beat the Gallic cavalry led by Crassus' son, but did not break the Roman infantry. I guess in MeG result terms you would have a game without an unbroken army, and in a competition setting maybe each side scoring a few points (Parthians more than the Romans).

[badhabum]

At the end of the day Crassus' army was unbroken - somewhat battered and bruised, but not actually defeated in battle. The catafracts beat the Gallic cavalry led by Crassus' son, but did not break the Roman infantry. I guess in MeG result terms you would have a game without an unbroken army, and in a competition setting maybe each side scoring a few points (Parthians more than the Romans).

Yes but that does not mean there would not be unbroken TUGS and more than a few points even with both armies unbroken could be 12-12  ( Game speaking )

The roman lost ..