A request regarding the Three Kingdoms Korean lists (Silla, Goguryo, and Baekje on pgs. 49, 43, and 24 respectively of book 43: the Three Kingdoms):
Would it be possible to make the required militia troops (specifically Militia Fighters and Militia Archers) optional in allied contingents originating from Baekje, Goguryo and Silla?
One of the cool signatures of the three kingdoms period in Korea was the constantly shifting alliances and team-ups between the three major players of the Korean Peninsula as they navigated what was fundamentally a zero-sum game for power and domination of Korea.
MeG's current list structures for Silla, Goguryo, and (to a slightly lesser extent) Baekje make it very difficult to engage with this aspect of the period in actual gameplay, as allied contingents from these lists are hamstrung by having fully half of their maximum UG allowance consumed by (frankly pretty terrible) militia units which the parent list is already hardly hurting for.
(A somewhat similar exemption appears in the Later Qiang list— 43: the Three Kingdoms, pg.31—, making normally-mandatory Chinese TUGs optional in Professionally-led Qiang allied contingents, so this wouldn't be a change without precedent. Without the exemption in the Qiang list, an allied Qiang contingent would be practical built for you!)
In a bit of topic necromancy I remembered the last post made here and thought I'd comment as it may be relevant. Split it off from the original topic to keep tidy.
Having done a load of Chinese and a couple of Japanese list revisions over the past few years on a bit of a whim I thought it was time to look at some of the Korean lists - specifically the 3 Kingdoms period. Only a bit of a whim as my Yamato Japanese can have a Korean ally ;D
For this I have relied heavily on Karl Heinz Ranitzsch's "Three Kingdoms and an Empire" series in Slingshots 234, 235, and 236. This is supplemented by notes from when the DBMM lists were being created (and the DBMM lists); these are mainly contributions from Duncan Head and Karl Heinz Ranitzsch. Also some information from pieces by Gina Barnes an academic who specialises in east asia. The truth is that there is very little easily available in English which is why KHR's articles are so valuable as he used other language resources.
Some important things came out of this which I have included in suggested revised lists I have sent to RJC.
The bulk of the army was raised by a draft system similar to Chinese armies. The conscripts raised were given some training and drill and fought effectively against the Tang Chinese. The rating of Poor in the current lists does not appear to be justified and I suspect is just a blind following of the "large but poor quality" trope for eastern armies. Therefore, whilst I would keep the conscripts as mandatory I would make them Average.
A smaller number of garrison troops were maintained on a more permanent basis. Most troops appear to have been unarmoured and it is assumed that the garrison troops would be the ones issued with armour. The numbers quoted in the sources I used (above) indicate that these troops were a minority of the army; some of the current Korean lists probably allow too many Protected infantry.
There is no evidence of Chinese style mixed infantry formations.
The main infantry combat weapon appears to have been a long spear, and spear heads are the most common weapon finds. Thus I would suggest the non-missile infantry should be Long Spear with the possible exception of Goguryeo where there appears to be more Chinese influence and some tomb paintings that show men with pole-arms and swordsmen. Additionally, there were some Goguryeo infantry (called Yemaek) who used even longer spears which could be represented by Pike (after Silla unified Korea a unit of these remained in the Silla army taken over from Goguryeo).
Catafracts were first used by Goguryeo and were then adopted by the southern states following a campaign in the early C5th - they key date appears to be 405 CE after which catafracts could be used throughout the peninsular.
Interesting.
Not sure about Pike rating. Other Oriental armies sometimes used very long spears (and made them, relatively, even longer by holding them at the base) but my understanding is that they don't often get spear/pike rating because of the way they used them. For example longspears were, apparently, the main combat weapon of Ming infantry and yet the list has no longspear in it.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on July 02, 2023, 06:03:59 AM
Interesting.
Not sure about Pike rating. Other Oriental armies sometimes used very long spears (and made them, relatively, even longer by holding them at the base) but my understanding is that they don't often get spear/pike rating because of the way they used them.
Giving them pike is a nice way of adding a bit of variety IMO (there are some in the existing Silla list FWIW), however, the usage point is a good one - they could be limited to 6 base units as some other "pikemen" are in the Dian list.