If anyone has any suggestions or corrections to lists then please get them to me as early as possible. As ever, it helps if you can quote some source or sources. I do go through the topics on this forum so please avoid just repeating what has already been covered in this topic.
Richard
Scots Irish
'Feirce' warriors should be 'Fierce'
Seems odd the only terrain available is 'Coastal'. Ireland has mountains/forests, etc and this is reflected in other lists. There must have been some battles fought that weren't coastal raids (even if they were against other Scots-Irish)
Still tend to think the 'fierce' warriors should be allowed larger unit sizes. They don't match the origin or types of the units that are restricted to small units in other lists. The same two infantry types exist, in the same numbers, in later Scots Irish and they are allowed larger units.
Would love to see some representation of Cuchulain. We have other semi-mythical hero types (Achilles, Arthur, etc) get a look in. Perhaps one unit of exceptional chariots named 'Chariots including Cuchulain'. I had initially thought something more like Achilles but he didn't really seem to function as a commander, just a killing machine.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on December 05, 2021, 01:30:03 AM
Scots Irish
Would love to see some representation of Cuchulain. We have other semi-mythical hero types (Achilles, Arthur, etc) get a look in. Perhaps one unit of exceptional chariots named 'Chariots including Cuchulain'. I had initially thought something more like Achilles but he didn't really seem to function as a commander, just a killing machine.
Martin
Given the number of people he killed by throwing stones, perhaps 1 base of skilled shooter artillery like the Roman artillery integrated into legionary units.
So many great stories about Cuchulain and some interesting models out there that could be used for him
Martin
Richard, almost embarrassed to mention this due to me having the army. In James IV Scots the pike unit size is eight bases. In practice the units were trained as Keils and I would suggest that twelve bases should be the defined size. I should emphasise that I am not suggesting they be given the Keil characteristic. As one writer correctly points out they were not equipped with any two handed to support such a definition. The image of the army at Flodden is one of very large units rather than smaller more manouverable tactical ones.
In practice, I think this weakens the army rather than strengthens it as it takes away much of the flexibility of manoeuvre that the smaller eight base units provide. In my own version, the number of pike units would drop from ten to around 6 or possibly seven.
Turning to the structure of highland units, which appear in many armies, these were changed last year, from being one rank of higher class warriors with two ranks of lesser class guys with bows. Throughout the period the front rank was the chief, his kin and his more senior tacksmen with the more numerous tenants and clan members in a number of ranks behind. The current definition suggests loads of better guys and a handful of the humblies. I recall you had a good reason for making the change ( cannot recall what it was) but the balance just does not look historical.
On a non Scots note, why are later Danish not allowed to form mixed units when being used as allies? I admit no historical knowledge but seems strange that if the tactic worked for them then why would they not use when acting as an ally.
Quote from: martymagnificent on December 05, 2021, 08:48:48 PM
So many great stories about Cuchulain and some interesting models out there that could be used for him
Martin
These sound appropriate for scenario games, but not competition lists. I would equate Cuchulain more to Hercules.
Richard
Quote from: marshalney2000 on December 06, 2021, 09:16:38 AM
Richard, almost embarrassed to mention this due to me having the army. In James IV Scots the pike unit size is eight bases. In practice the units were trained as Keils and I would suggest that twelve bases should be the defined size. I should emphasise that I am not suggesting they be given the Keil characteristic. As one writer correctly points out they were not equipped with any two handed to support such a definition. The image of the army at Flodden is one of very large units rather than smaller more manouverable tactical ones.
In practice, I think this weakens the army rather than strengthens it as it takes away much of the flexibility of manoeuvre that the smaller eight base units provide. In my own version, the number of pike units would drop from ten to around 6 or possibly seven.
Turning to the structure of highland units, which appear in many armies, these were changed last year, from being one rank of higher class warriors with two ranks of lesser class guys with bows. Throughout the period the front rank was the chief, his kin and his more senior tacksmen with the more numerous tenants and clan members in a number of ranks behind. The current definition suggests loads of better guys and a handful of the humblies. I recall you had a good reason for making the change ( cannot recall what it was) but the balance just does not look historical.
On a non Scots note, why are later Danish not allowed to form mixed units when being used as allies? I admit no historical knowledge but seems strange that if the tactic worked for them then why would they not use when acting as an ally.
12s do make sense. I am not sure I agree with you re highland units. Treat balance as an overall thing, not individual bases. The mixed units represents the Leidang, used for home defence but not abroad.
Richard
On the topic of Highlanders a really minor point. In the Kingdom of the Isles list it is not quite clear who the Highlanders are. I suggest you use the same sub-heading as you do in the Jarls of Orkney list (ie with the word Highlanders in it as well as Gentry and Ceithern).
Quote from: daveparish on December 06, 2021, 01:28:04 PM
On the topic of Highlanders a really minor point. In the Kingdom of the Isles list it is not quite clear who the Highlanders are. I suggest you use the same sub-heading as you do in the Jarls of Orkney list (ie with the word Highlanders in it as well as Gentry and Ceithern).
Thanks.
Richard not too unhappy about the highlanders as they probably perform in the way they should. Happy to let that one lie.
I will leave you to consider whether to increase the size of the James the IVth pikes. The big units just give me a more historical feel than the small 8 figure units.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on December 06, 2021, 12:28:18 PM
Quote from: martymagnificent on December 05, 2021, 08:48:48 PM
So many great stories about Cuchulain and some interesting models out there that could be used for him
Martin
These sound appropriate for scenario games, but not competition lists. I would equate Cuchulain more to Hercules.
Richard
And yet we have a 'Trojan War' list featuring Achilles and Myrmidons!? In a much stronger list than the Irish as well. I'm not sure we need to be concerned about a couple of minor changes to Scots Irish having a discernable effect on the competition circuit. We might, at best, actually see the army used
What of the other issues with the list?
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on December 06, 2021, 09:10:42 PM
What of the other issues with the list?
Martin
The list is getting a revision. The fierce warriors will be 6,8,9 and warriors will get an option for melee expert.
Richard
Thanks
Sound like good changes
Martin
I'm hesitant to bring it up but listening to the Warfare podcast brings a couple of chariot list issues to mind
The classification of the Five Hegemons chariots is something of an anomaly. I'm not aware of any other mounted in the game that gets 2 melee weapons and superior. Nothing inherently wrong with that but you would assume it reflected some sort of evidence of unusual combat efficiency (after all at the moment they operate as a sort of, more numerous, horse drawn equivalent of Caesar's Xth legion). Nothing in our limited material on these chariots supports this. They should lose melee expert when they get polearm.
The standard former battlechariot (experienced bow, shoot and charge, melee expert, possibly a shortspear) doesn't seem to be in a happy place. Not even popular in a Biblical comp. This is probably not just a list issue but some list tweaking may help. eg making the melee expert optional (and there is nothing in the 'new' evidence on chariots that particularly supports melee expert classification) would at least give another option for players to consider. It also seems odd that chariots pretty uniformly stop being skilled shooter when they become 4 horse. They are the same sort of guys firing the same sort of bows. It also seems odd that no Chinese chariot gets skilled shooter. Were their bows worse? Chinese aristocratic culture certainly placed a lot of emphasis on archery skill and chariot mounted archery duels.
Martin
2022 Lists have now been uploaded to the website. Changes lists in the Official List Clarifications forum.
Richard
It's a shame for the chariots.
Big changes to the Inca list. Largely lost the option to be unprotected fleet of foot. This option was not as strong since the changes to how FofF interacted with break off's anyway, but still an option lost. Don't have to take subject peoples any more though. Not sure but the new earlier list may actually be the stronger option as I'm not sure how much they gain from being drilled anyway.
Martin