In a different thread I suggested
QuoteA review of Chinese/Korean armies used in comps reveals a simple truth: only the infantry that is in mixed units is seeing the tabletop (the exception being the unusual Qin). No one seems to want to use separate units of polearm and infantry shooters. Polearm is overpriced (there is a thread on this forum on this topic). Experienced foot shooters, without a front rank that helps keep them alive, are something you, at best, want very few of.
I am currently painting my third 15mm Chinese army, so I have tried plenty of different lists. The last round of changes (removing mixed units from many lists) has essentially removed a great many armies from consideration.
Simon responded
QuoteWhat would you suggest for points?
Could you start a different stream with your thoughts please.
As per a previous discussion it seems odd that it is more expensive than longspear (it should probably be a couple of points less). Having said that I take Nik's point that a comparison with shortspear/melee expert appears more favourable for the polearm. It is also not actually going to be all that many points anyway (saving 3 or 4 points a base isn't going to change much) Perhaps the bigger issue is the units of 'pure' shooters you have to take because you don't have mixed units.
All I know is that after playing a lot of possibilities, when I decide which Chinese list to give a go probably the first thing I look at is if the infantry are in mixed units or not. Looking at what other people play it would seem I am not alone in this.
Martin
I'm kind of going through that thought process at the moment. I'm finally building the Chinese army I never quite got around to, finally decided which period to go for (Northern Dynasties), and whilst my natural inclination is Northern Wei, Western Wei would allow mixed formations...choices choices!
Non-skirmishing foot bowmen have been problematic in a number of rules, IMO.
They were pretty much pants in FoG, although I often used them as a cheap way of providing rear support for my "proper" infantry, which I suppose is rationalisable as overhead shooters with a more abstract effect.
They were pretty decent in DBMM, even the (I) variety, largely because they were cheap and the low ME rating meant you could afford to treat them as semi-expendable. (Although I would still say the mixed-formation (X) variety were preferable!)
They have featured in 3 of my 4 games of MeG so far and I haven't quite made up my mind about them yet. They are plenty cheap, so it's not too painful to field some of them. They are no more expendable than any other TuG, so you don't want to risk losing them...but their cheapness also means that you have more TuGs and can afford to lose a few.
I suspect it may come down to: they are okay as an adjunct to a reasonable amount of solid infantry; but perhaps too fragile if they are the mainstay of your army (although it might take a fair bit of time for the opponent to wear you down).
Which does seem to be agreeing with what you say below!
A more general comment though - let's not forget that rules are also used by people who don't choose armies solely for competition reasons :) and that balance in competitions may be slightly different than in general gaming (the scoring system may reward quick-kill rather than grind-them-down approach; and the metagame has a way of evolving even without actual rule changes).
Sounds about right to me.
In general we have made your average foot bow less potent, but the good ones dangerous with points to match.
When we dug through the evidence most battles are decided by combat. Not many examples of foot archery winning the day if you leave the HYW out and they are pretty tasty in Mortem et Gloriam.
It really wasn't at all historical to have bowmen in the open good against cavalry for instance.
So part of what you are finding is us correcting a wargaming mythology that probably started with DBM1..
The idea of Classical Indian infantry bowmen standing up to a knight charge in the open is .... lets be generous ... debatable ;)
For an (I) version to stand up to anything on a horse would be .... impressive indeed.
in FoG I used to use the Christian NuBian army with lots of superior unprotected bow. Was really rather good. In Mortem et Gloriam Romans will eat it alive head to head, and rightly so. Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Christian Nubian non-empire never real sold many copies. ;D
FWIW I find that foot bows, given their points, work well in quantity and if you work the terrain if threatened by cavalry or bears foot that can bounce the shooting ... which feels right to me. But it is a volume play in Mortem et Gloriam as I am sure it should be. So yes welcome aboard ShrubMiK I think you are spot on in your assessment. The slowing effect of fire also gives them an interesting real world twist.
And given the point system is so refined it is hard to pick a really good or bad army list. Its all about how you design it and play it. SO my recommendation is always just play something you like.
Have fun!
Si
I'm with Simon on this one. I would rather the army lists and troop types reflect historical accuracy (as best we know it) and have the points system provide play balance. Otherwise we might as well play fantasy.
That said, as someone who prefers quality over quantity, I do not seem to be a good enough player to overcome the cheaper, larger armies - quantity has a quality all of its own I guess.😊
Fundamentally, the problem I tend to run into when using pure/non-mixed foot-archer units in my main MeG army is the lackluster melee options to pair with them.
I really like the way MeG models standard bowshot. The slowing and disruption that archery causes is pretty useful for creating situations for your melee troops to exploit.
And that "melee troops" bit is where the Polearm part of this thread title comes into play.
I don't want to retread old ground. Suffice to say that, unlike every other troop in my main army, I've never had a situation where I've thought to myself "aha! It's a good thing I have Polearms! Otherwise..."
It's a very bad place for a unit to be in, when you're never glad that that's the specific unit you happen to have.
But this feeds into that foot-archer issue in Chinese (and some Korean) lists, which opened this thread.
Because foot archers are at their most useful when setting up melee units for success, foot-archers stand to suffer greatly if the units they're trying to set up don't have any particular strengths to play to.
That's been my experience in play, at any rate.
Foot PA are pretty immune to cavalry . It is basicaly an anti-cav weapon .Even mounted short spear has no bonuses vs foot PA and PA are usefull in melee .So to me, they are not overpriced.
Are missile capable foot unit useless if just "experienced" ..no you must use them in coordination with other foot units . I did so with the first crusade army, battle infantry protecting the crossbowmen . Also many armies have short spear foot ...once in melee they got nothing and it is often the same with bow or crossbow foot unless of course unprotected or poor or combat shy also unless you took the unprotected+poor+combat shy so as to be sure they would die quickly ;D
Quote from: SteveO on July 15, 2020, 11:47:22 PM
I'm with Simon on this one. I would rather the army lists and troop types reflect historical accuracy (as best we know it) and have the points system provide play balance. Otherwise we might as well play fantasy.
That said, as someone who prefers quality over quantity, I do not seem to be a good enough player to overcome the cheaper, larger armies - quantity has a quality all of its own I guess.😊
Just a bit more practice needed. Our next 2 Simons Show is Watling Street. 14 bases of tough Romans vs 54 of Britons!
S
QuoteFoot PA are pretty immune to cavalry . It is basicaly an anti-cav weapon .Even mounted short spear has no bonuses vs foot PA and PA are usefull in melee .So to me, they are not overpriced.
PA can be a solid all round weapon. It gets factors against pretty much everything and cancels a significant number of other factors. It really shines in mixed units where its ability to sometimes work in a single rank matters.
Points systems are, however, in part a relative exercise. The fact remains that in a complete unit (ie 2 ranks or more) a PA is still, essentially, just a less effective, more expensive longspear.
Martin
Well Simon, I will watch in great anticipation. I don't play with large armies but they seem to dominate the scene here, generally with more success than not.
Quote from: SteveO on July 18, 2020, 12:00:56 AM
Well Simon, I will watch in great anticipation. I don't play with large armies but they seem to dominate the scene here, generally with more success than not.
As Mortem et Gloriam is attritional the big armies tend to do well early until people figure out how to counter them. Maybe put some lists and piccies as a AAR up to your next school game as easier to comment then.
Certainly the big mob armies have chances in Mortem et Gloriam. Which is a good think IMHO.
S