There is no complain but curiosity :
In the reformed lists, many lost their melee expert . But concerning the mounted units, most of the mounted in the Frankia book are "melee expert" ( carolingian, normans, early navarese...) also in other books most of the bulgars are melee expert, even the avars are melee expert . The tuareg are all melee expert .
But that caracteristic dissapear in the seljuk turk army or sassanid armies. It is not that common in Byzantine's armies .
I was wondering what is the rationale behind such differences ?
We generally compare lists against historical opponents so between armies that are separated by geography or history there probably isn't any rationale possible.
In the Frankia lists, the cavalry generally became more powerful, which tends to be reflected in more mounted getting melee expert.
With the Bulgars/Avars it is the balance agaisnt the likes of the Byzantines who can often shoot & charge.
Sassanids were primarily horse archers, the lack of melee expert promotes that behaviour.
What we are going for is does the army feel right when you use it. There is no scientific method involved, classification of troop types is very much a judgemental thing. The points system has to take care of the rest.
I suspect that most wargamers like to think their troops were better than they really were!
Thank you
By the way Bulgars are shoot and charge + melee expert, Byzantine are CL + charge only and some may have melee expert ;D
Bulgars are quite good
Well, of COURSE Sassanids should get melee expert. They're one of my all -time favorite armies. If that's not good enough, dunno what is!