How powerful the Cataphracts must be in Rome II Total War

[Ariamanesh]

Hello Every one Since i played Rome TW i always asking myself about those cataphracts in Rome 1 and about their attributes. I think the Cataphracts in ancient times was far more stronger than what CA represented in Rome 1 and the cataphracts must be stronger in Attack(both with lances and maces or swords) and defense(defense skill) in Rome II TW. I want to ask you guys : How powerful the Cataphracts must be in Rome II Total War

[BigHairyMelon]

It will depend on what weapon they have and how they use it. I don't know much about cavalry but they weren't that great until they started using the lance and holding it how ever they hold it now (I forget the correct term). Without doing that the impact force isn't maximised. i don't think frontal charges were that effective especially against a shield wall or spear wall, the horse itself wouldn't want to charge into a wall like that. But i imagine flanking and rear charges were quite good.

[Emperor Of Seleucid]

They have to reflect their real life strength. The Cataphracts were weak on the flanks, but a charge will certainly crush the impacted line.

[LordInvictus]

Agreed. In Rome 1, cataphracts (and all other cavalry) would take unrealistically large casualties charging units from the flank or rear. Cataphracts would even take casualties charging infantry (not phalanxes) from the front.

[Wothan]

Anything other than the paper cavalry when locked in a fight that has been going on on the last 3 games
I never thought I could lose 50 cavalry-men in 30 seconds until I played shogun (ok I used the cavalry wrong but still...)

[Lord Dakier]

It's widely known in terms of charge power there's no other horse based unit capable of dealing so much damage. When their charge has been halted though, that's when they can become overwhelmed. Yet Kataphraktoi were superior to all other cavalry and this should be portrayed so. Of course heavy cavalry are your tanks, yet they'll still lose to mostly all spear units.

[andrew2788]

As long as they don't turn them into some ungodly wrecking ball I think they'll be fine, I don't really plan on using them a lot or in large numbers I prefer high damage light and medium cavalry

[xjlxking]

Cataphracts were not as strong as some people might think. They were a heavy cavalry a bit tougher then those that Alexander used. Contrary to what some might say, they were not able to attack head on and actually win. They would take more damage then an infantry line that is prepared. Heck, even the heavy medieval cavalry wasn't able to just charge straight into a formation. What they excelled in is what any other heavy cavalry did; decimate an army whose lines were broken or in disarray. I'd like to see the portrayed at the top heavy cavalry with a bit less stamina as a drawback. They should have a nice morale, and a better shock attack.

[Ichon]

Cataphracts main weakness should be speed and stamina. When fresh they should be able to defeat just about everything frontally outside of elephants or heavy phalanx. However when tired or hit on flanks/rear (easier to due when slower than other heavy/medium cavalry) they will still fall though take some enemy with them which is lucky the cataphracts are also usually smaller unit size. Otherwise tiring them out by too much maneuver or charges makes them vulnerable as well. So it might not be wise to charge them 1st thing at start of battle if they won't get time to rest but maybe halfway through a battle committing them is appropriate as they won't get exhausted before the end most likely.

[frontier-auxilia]

just the way they were in rome total war but expensive to a point you cannot spam them in single or multiplayer.

to elaborate weakness should be
1. getting jumped in an ambush. in a passage from tacitus, a group of Roman legion jumped a group of sarmatian passing through a swamp. their lance being so unwieldy in the press of close quarters made them easy prey.

2. gettin hit in the flank.Even in napoleonic eras cuirassiers are vulnerable to flanking manevours from lighter cavarly.Their larger horse and superior equipment meant nothing to an enemy who hit them from the blindside. a parthian player with cataphracts should use their light troops to engage enemies aiming to use such a manevour.

As for manevourability i don,t think they should be unwieldy to a point where a charge or 2 will left the horse blown and the man too exhausted to continue fighting. According to Plutarch, the parthian cataphracts continously charged Roman lines for the whole duration of the battle. Before that they engaged Crassus,s cavalry and help route a cohort send to aid said cavalry. imo they should still be faster then infantry.

[TheRomanRuler]

Cataphracts were not as strong as some people might think. They were a heavy cavalry a bit tougher then those that Alexander used. Contrary to what some might say, they were not able to attack head on and actually win. They would take more damage then an infantry line that is prepared. Heck, even the heavy medieval cavalry wasn't able to just charge straight into a formation. What they excelled in is what any other heavy cavalry did; decimate an army whose lines were broken or in disarray. I'd like to see the portrayed at the top heavy cavalry with a bit less stamina as a drawback. They should have a nice morale, and a better shock attack.

[RGA]

Cataphracts should have huge fear factor. Seeing a densely packed line of armoured men and beasts approaching was more than enough to break the fighting will of the most disciplined troops, not to mention a levied peasant mob.

[KLAssurbanipal]

Stay in one thread. There is a one about cataphract:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ral-discussion

[Ariamanesh]

Cataphracts were not as strong as some people might think. They were a heavy cavalry a bit tougher then those that Alexander used. .

If that so then tell me why even roman disciplined legions choose to retreat rather than fight against parthian and persian cataphracts in some case according to roman historians. In some case they talking about roman legions who fled from battlefield just after they saw the cataphracts banner. So tell me whyhttp://hide.proxyss.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy50d2NlbnRlci5uZXQvZm9ydW1zL2ltYWdlcy9zbWlsaWVzL2Vtb3RpY29ucy9obW1tOXVoLmdpZg%3D%3D

[SirFork]

My opinion?

They should be balanced.

[Ariamanesh]

My opinion? They should be balanced.

hello my friend Can I ask you what the balance you talking about Are you mean weakening their realistic attributes or you mean the historians may lied to us.

[Oni no Hanzo]

Hmm...as i recall Cataphracts were awesome in RTW 1 and were deff best cavalry unit in the game with mace attack ignoring armor and strong charge.In RTW 2 they should be the dominant cavalry of the game no doubt.

[Maleventum]

The parthian Catafractas were used mainly against enemy cavalry (as in Carrae) , but then they could attack heavy infantry only when the infantry was severely weakened by the horse archers : they were complementary and interdipendent by horse archers, the cataphracts alone never represent an impossible problem for an heavy infantry in close formation: at Tigranocerta, Magnesia, mount Gindarus , Cilician gates , Immae etc. The ancient cataphracts 's tactic is not related with the Medieval Knights.

[Serkelet]

I agree on that the Cataphracts should be the best heavy cavalry on the game, but turning them into unstoppable frontal charging demolition balls would totally break the game, and also wouldn't be as realistic as people believe.

Also, in Rome 1 cavalry was dispropotionately powerful. An army entirely composed of cavalry would just utterly destroy any army. Yes, even phalanx formations, since cavalry's movility allowed the player to flank the dangerous pike formations. That's not realistic, and that's not what we want in a Total War game.

Someone mentioned that the cavalry is weak in Shogun 2. Well, I disagree: probably you were using them wrong. If you were using Yari Cavalry on sustained combat, you were doing it wrong. If you were using katana cavalry against spearmen, you were doing it wrong. If you didn't dismount your cavalry against heavily spear based armies, you were doing it utterly wrong! A unit of katana cavalry can utterly crush a katana samurai unit, any bowmen on sight and, dismounted, pretty much everything on foot. Yari cavalry had a powerful flanking charge that decided battles. If you make cavalry in Rome 2 more powerful than that, well... you are doing it very wrong.

[triptyck]

Hello Every one Since i played Rome TW i always asking myself about those cataphracts in Rome 1 and about their attributes. I think the Cataphracts in ancient times was far more stronger than what CA represented in Rome 1 and the cataphracts must be stronger in Attack(both with lances and maces or swords) and defense(defense skill) in Rome II TW. I want to ask you guys : How powerful the Cataphracts must be in Rome II Total War

um, as someone who's played a heck of a lot of RTW, where cataphracts are the most powerful cav unit in the game, i'm just as confused as Lukeuber and Oni no Hanzo. Granted, I play Parthia only as an MP faction, so maybe they're different in campaign? Because from what I know, cata's will DESTROY on the charge. Period. And their armour piercing ALT attack is gret against heavy inf.

If CA buffs catas, like you're suggesting, in my opinion they'd be overpowered. RTW's catas were, imo, well balanced against other top quality cav... Macedonian/Seleucid Companions, Roman Pretorian Cav, Carthaginian Sacred Cav... and while they were extremely powerful, in the wrong hands they could be pinned down, and surrounded, and they would break.

They're the best, but they have drawbacks, and these can be capitalized on by a smart opponent. And I really liked that.

Cata's were perfect in RTW. Sure, they're armoured cav, but if you're saying that you're losing too many men charging the enemy from the front, it's cuz you're doing it wrong.