Cataphract worth it?

[TheLastOne36]

Unique Unit: Cataphract (Knight), comes with +2 strength but is not immune to first strike.

Is it worth it? Not immune to first strikes takes quite a bit away from Knight's.

 

[turquoiseninja]

Yes, that is quite a penalty. However, also remember you may be able to quickly get flanking II which gives immunity to first strikes anyway. Especially with imperialistic getting you warlords and military instructor.

I very much look forward to playing Byzantine, both the UU and UB look great.
Traits for Justinian kinda meh, though they do describe him historacaly well

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yes i believe that Byzantines are the most powerful in thisexpansion.

 

[AThousandYoung]

+2 Strength is HUGE. I'd take that over immunity to 1st strikes any day. It's like the difference between a Swordsman and a Maceman (or Praetorian).

 

[ZB2]

Cataphract has equal strength when fighting Pikemenk
Cataphract has equal strength when fighting Elephants

Equal 50% odd at winning. better than the 30$ normal knights have.

 

[Thedrin]

I've been trying to think of a unit that can pose a risk to the cataphract using first strikes. So far I'm coming up blank. I'm not sure why it's such a huge penalty. If they were a strength 10 unit then crossbows might be able to do something to them. The extra 2 units also means that longbows won't be that much more powerful against them either.

 

[Solver]

First strikes are interesting in how they work. They're good to have when your unit already has good chances vs. the enemy, and near-useless when your chances are poor. So, say, a Crossbowman won't benefit much from first strikes vs. Cataphracts because the Cataphract has great odds anyway due to strength advantage. That will also make first strikes of defending Longbowmen less useful.

The one unit that can cause real trouble via First Strikes is also a new BtS unit - the Oromo Warrior. If these guys are defending cities, their first strikes will seriously hurt the Cataphracts.

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

I don't see the lack of immunity being a that much of a loss for the Cataphract. It's much more powerful then a regular Knight, so I honestly can't see it being much of a problem. Oromo Warriors could do some damage though.

 

[bonafide11]

I think the units and the traits fit perfect for the Byzantium Empire. 12 strength is definitely worth the loss of first strikes.

Now this is what everyone is overlooking: Remember that in BTS, we're getting a new unit between Knights and Cavalry: the Cuirassier. The way it is, knights are a strength 10 and cavalry are a strength 15. If BTS does not change the strengths of these units, the Cuirassier would most likely be a 12 strength. As a result, the Byzantines' UU would be the strength of its mounted successor. If this is how it works, the Cataphract will be an earlier and cheaper version of the Cuirassier. It willl be very explosive if you have 12 strength unit long before anyone else.

 

[scy12]

It seems as the Conquistador of BTS , it certainly is one of the best new UU but i am wondering. If you had a choice between this and Conquistador what would you choose ? I can't yet decide.

 

[Virulent]

If the Cataphract is strength 12 and assuming Calvary is still str 15, I wonder how strong the Cuirassier is going to be?

 

[Will9]

+2 is worth giving up immunity to first strikes. I'd love to Byzantium vs. HRE since their UUs can kill every other unit except the civ's UU.

 

[kniteowl]

12 Str is great, their evenly matched against Grenadiers, you no longer have to worry about an advanced enemy invading you with Grenadiers now that you can counter them with this UU. That and they have no real counter, unless you include cost.

 

[scy12]

Anyone cares to answer the Conquistador vs Kataphractoi question ?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Conquistador probably wins.

 

[Thedrin]

Not quite. The conquistador is better against pikemen but the cataphract holds its own against pikemen also. But the cataphract is far better against war elephants than the conquistador. Ignoring defensive bonuses (for now) the cataphract is better).

 

[Spartan117]

Not quite. The conquistador is better against pikemen but the cataphract holds its own against pikemen also. But the cataphract is far better against war elephants than the conquistador. Ignoring defensive bonuses (for now) the cataphract is better).

i havent played vanilla warlords in a long time( like 8 months) , but doesnt conquistador get the ability to fortify. Correct me if i am wrong. Cataphract withs its bonus is also better against macemen then the cataphract i believe.

If the conquistador gets the fortify option then the conquistador is probably better without knowledge of production costs of cataphract in comparison to Spanish UU.

 

[Hold The Onion]

However, also remember you may be able to quickly get flanking II which gives immunity to first strikes anyway.

And be no better off than a combat2 knight or camel archer. what a fantastic and creative use of a unique unit.

 

[Dnomal]

The Cataphract will be really powerful, it doesn't really have a counter, an unpromoted pikeman and Cataphract have equal strength, and with a barracks and stable you can easily get Combat I and Shock, giving a Cata a strength of 16 (againt melee), enough to beat a pikeman or a maceman easily. Not to mention that it can fight off Grens easily. The Byzantine UU is indeed strong, as it should be... Role on Cata...

 

[GoodGame]

It makes the cataphract vulnerable to Protective civs though. All-in-all it just makes the cataphract more of a 'field' unit that you have to nurse before you use it conquer cities with well promoted longbowman or better.

I don't see the lack of immunity being a that much of a loss for the Cataphract. It's much more powerful then a regular Knight, so I honestly can't see it being much of a problem. Oromo Warriors could do some damage though.