I an not entirely happy with the way some internal allies work.
Rather than the current system what I am suggesting is to allow the selection of an army without the restrictions for internal allies.
An internal ally general would then be allocated a command as if they were a sub-general, but with the current risk that they could be hesitant. In a tournament the command composition could change between games so there is no requirement to specify the command in advance. There would be no restrictions on the size of the command.
This would not apply to a specific allied contingent (and some lists would need specific allied contingents being added).
The ally general couldn't gift or be gifted cards and couldn't fight with other commands.
Could make some armies with multiple internal allied generals more viable.
Welcome any views.
Richard
Repeating myself from "the other place":
I think a bit of a re-evaluation of internal allies is in order to be honest. Where armies are a bringing together of separate contingents then each should be a separate "mini-army", however, where it is "political unreliability (Andronikos Doukas at Manzikert for example) then treat as subbie but can be hesitant works IMO.
So basically, I agree 8)
Manzikert might be a scenario event not an army list feature
Internal allies can be one of the most challenging thing to get your head around in list construction in MeG and they are a bane on the effectiveness of some lists.
Having said that, the current requirements are often going to give a more realistic/historical result than a more permissive approach.
On balance I'd favour the change
Martin
What about the Swiss mercenaries
in some armies who were sometimes unreliable?
Can you give some more details on the issues you're looking to solve? Do you mean internal allies in general or specifically the armies with a distinctly called out internal allied lists (like Ottoman Turkish (5310) or Albanian Principalities (5307))
Personally the reason I rarely take the general internal allies option is that it requires you to take more of your mandatory troops; which are often not the best troops in the army. The extreme example being Later Communal Italian (5607).
Internal allied generals - the ones in the generals allowed at the start of the main body of each army list, with the exception of any of those that have a specified contingent in the list such as the Alan contingent in the Foederate Roman list.
Quote from: Manzikert on January 24, 2025, 07:39:51 PM
Can you give some more details on the issues you're looking to solve? Do you mean internal allies in general or specifically the armies with a distinctly called out internal allied lists (like Ottoman Turkish (5310) or Albanian Principalities (5307))
Personally the reason I rarely take the general internal allies option is that it requires you to take more of your mandatory troops; which are often not the best troops in the army. The extreme example being Later Communal Italian (5607).
I think the Later Communal Italian is a good example. The ally structure forces it to have more mandatory troops and dictates the command structure. The proposed change doesn't impose extra mandatory troops and would provide flexibility to choose the command structure at the risk of hesitancy.
Richard
I think that's a really simple way to resolve the issue. It does unfortunately come at the cost of some of the character of internal allies but it also makes it something I'd consider in list construction.
Might need some way to balance the difference between professional and instinctive generals. Under the current rules there's very little reason not to make all (or at least talented) instinctive sub-generals internal allies. You shave off a few points and there's very little risk. Or maybe that's a feature not a bug to represent some of the tribal confederations of the kinds of armies with instinctive leadership structures.
Quote from: Manzikert on January 25, 2025, 01:01:39 AM
I think that's a really simple way to resolve the issue. It does unfortunately come at the cost of some of the character of internal allies but it also makes it something I'd consider in list construction.
Might need some way to balance the difference between professional and instinctive generals. Under the current rules there's very little reason not to make all (or at least talented) instinctive sub-generals internal allies. You shave off a few points and there's very little risk. Or maybe that's a feature not a bug to represent some of the tribal confederations of the kinds of armies with instinctive leadership structures.
Not a lot of point in having character in internal allies if they don't get selected!
At some point I did suggest that a command should be hesitant if the first card it draws is BLACK rather than the current system. That would make an ally equally likely to become hesitant regardless of the ability of the commander (points for ally commanders would need to be adjusted) - but that suggestion didn't win any favour.
Another idea was that to stop an ally command being hesitant, the army commander would have to spend a RED card, rather than the hesitant commander. Again, that didn't win any favour. The idea behind this was that the AC needs to persuade (or maybe threaten) the hesitant ally into remaining loyal.
Ultimately, if we have any rule changes will come down to Simon. Hopefully he will continue to get better and will be back with us soon.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 25, 2025, 07:32:13 AM
Not a lot of point in having character in internal allies if they don't get selected!
At some point I did suggest that a command should be hesitant if the first card it draws is BLACK rather than the current system. That would make an ally equally likely to become hesitant regardless of the ability of the commander (points for ally commanders would need to be adjusted) - but that suggestion didn't win any favour.
Another idea was that to stop an ally command being hesitant, the army commander would have to spend a RED card, rather than the hesitant commander. Again, that didn't win any favour. The idea behind this was that the AC needs to persuade (or maybe threaten) the hesitant ally into remaining loyal.
Ultimately, if we have any rule changes will come down to Simon. Hopefully he will continue to get better and will be back with us soon.
Richard
I'm surprised they weren't favourably received. *
I can't see any historical or "inherent military probability" reason why more skilled generals would be more politically reliable. If anything, they should be less reliable as they are the ones more likely to see themselves as the rightful leader and be able to carry out a successful coup. If we take the legendary Achilles as an example, the chances of him remaining historically in a sulk for years is effectively zero with the current rule.
Also we currently give players a perverse incentive to make their best generals the allies, rather than the CinC.
First card is black gives about the same probability of hesitancy as DBM had, and that was a hugely popular game, so it seems pretty reasonable.
The AC red card also makes sense as there is no reason to suppose less competent commanders would be any less likely to change their minds than the more competent, whereas there is good reason to suppose commanders expert in influencing their subordinates would be good at influencing their allies (or for internals, "theoretical" subordinates).
*Maybe not so surprising given that players like to be able to eliminate risk (in this case by picking talented allies).
It could be tried . hesitancy, command allowance within the chosen army and not a specific contigent based on the minima . Interesting proposal .
Of course this needs play testing, but I can't think of any real disadvantages, and it would provide a reason to actually use internal allies. Back when I often used Burmese, I felt limited to 4 generals because the requirement to use required troops in an internal ally made the army difficult to put together and made performance demonstrably worse because some of the required troops are not very useful, and you had to run 50% more of troops you needed to hide in the back if you ran an internal ally. The proposed change would help a lot of armies stay more balanced.
What if you made it a quarter of the minimum compulsory troops, instead of half? Would that make fixed internal ally contingents viable enough?
Quote from: LawrenceG on January 30, 2025, 08:09:38 AM
What if you made it a quarter of the minimum compulsory troops, instead of half? Would that make fixed internal ally contingents viable enough?
It is actually the combination of troops within the ally command that is more often the problem rather than the minimum itself.
Richard