A bit of idle pondering but I suspect that how we classify some of the steppe horse archer armies might benefit from a bit of a review.
The lists for these armies are done in 2 broad ways - warning generalisations ahead ;D
The first is to have a small(ish) number of "nobles" who are (usually) Superior Loose cavalry (or catafracts in a short-ish time period) and a much larger number number of (usually) Average Flexible cavalry. Lists such as the Skythians, Huns, etc. typify this approach.
The other is a small number of "nobles" as above, a larger number of "armoured cavalry" who are basically the same but Average, and then a number of the Flexible types as above, but sometimes in lower numbers. Lists such as the Xiongnu typify these - they appear mostly in the eastern PDFs, but there are some elsewhere such as in The Steppes & Eastern Europe PDF.
To generalise it seems to me that the former model is probably more suitable for the majority of steppe based armies and that the latter model gives rather too many armoured types for a number of the armies that have it. Xiongnu may be an example of this - although for the Xiongnu Kingdoms it is probably more justified, but these are no longer just steppe based and it is the steppe based ones I'm pondering more.
Related is whether separate bodies of "nobles" or "armoured cavalry" types are actually the correct way to represent steppe armies. Would some instead be better represented by some sort of mixed or otherwise classified formations representing the batter equipped men leading a larger mass of lesser equipped men?
Be interested in how others see the representation.
I suspect it probably makes better/more interesting lists to have separated out units of nobles, etc but it is probably often a little dubious historically. This is not only a phenomenon in the steppe lists you discuss.
Perhaps some units with 1/2 protected/superior? Similar to Dark age foot armies that are often allowed to put elite bases on the front to mixed units.
I'm painting a Saka/Skythian army at the moment so will follow this with interest.
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on July 29, 2025, 02:59:08 AMI suspect it probably makes better/more interesting lists to have separated out units of nobles, etc but it is probably often a little dubious historically. This is not only a phenomenon in the steppe lists you discuss.
Not sure it does make better/more interesting lists. It is an easy approach but with the characteristics, etc. available in MeG there are tools for different, and possibly more interesting representations that are effective.
Then the +1 on the vmd would be lost?
Not sure this is the change ppl expect (unless you are playing against the horse archers)
Quote from: Rino on July 30, 2025, 11:02:07 AMThen the +1 on the vmd would be lost?
Only if no UGs were rated as Superior which, given the various options available for classification, would be highly unlikely IMO.