See here (https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=3779.0).
Change "Spear. New weapon category for classical hoplites and thureophoroi.
At impact If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others.
In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME.
Spear would not cancel mounted impact claims. 2+ deep Spear would cancel mounted melee expert claims."
Change "Supporting files fighting spear do not downgrade the colour of the additional dice".
Army list change hoplite and thureophoroi TuGs may be 6, 8 or 9. Change impact weapon from long spear to spear.
This change makes hoplites more effective against foot (other than ME) but slightly weaker against cavalry. This better reflects hoplites.
As with pikes, the change to supporting files fighting spear encourages the player to protect the flanks of their hoplite TuGs.
Note: The spear category may also be used by South American armies such as the Canarii.
I think the Spear category would also be suitable for some current LSp in easter lists. Those in the Han lists, the Nanzhao and Yamato Japanese spring to mind, and also probably the Wu, Shu and Wei; there may be others.
This has a strange result when 1 rank of spear fight Average ME foot compared to Superior not-ME
How are they costed compared to LSp?
Spears (as in pointy stick other than pike) are getting complicated:
LSp have to be in 2 ranks, cancel mounted claims in charge and melee
Sp have to be in 2 ranks in charge combat, or melee vs mounted or ME foot, cancel mounted claims in melee only, vulnerable to supporting files.
SSp 1 rank but only in charge and doesn't cancel anything
Sp protection 1 rank and cancels mounted claims in charge, but no claims.
Quote from: LawrenceG on September 01, 2025, 05:16:23 PMThis has a strange result when 1 rank of spear fight Average ME foot compared to Superior not-ME
Indeed.
I don't understand how adjusting the claims to make hoplites better against foot and worse against mounted (in combat) better reflects hoplites. I understood hoplites to have feared cavalry mainly because of being flanked rather than ridden down frontally. Reducing their combat effectiveness and penalising them for not narrowing their frontage seems like a double whammy for hoplites fighting mounted.
Quote from: SteveO on September 02, 2025, 12:51:12 AMI don't understand how adjusting the claims to make hoplites better against foot and worse against mounted (in combat) better reflects hoplites.
Hoplites needed a boost against infantry. They were the dominant infantry vs infantry troops of their era (and geography) and the existing rules do not quite get that right in our view. Likewise the current rules make them something of anti-cavalry specialists which was most certainly not their role - although like any competent heavy infantry of their time they were pretty resistant to their contemporary cavalry opponents frontally by dint of being competent heavy infantry.
The changes aim to improve the former whilst keeping the latter but making it more historical by not having the "anti-cavalry specialist" factor. Hoplites as "Spear" should not fear cavalry they faced frontally charging them under the proposed changes (other than, maybe, Alexander led Agema).
Thanks for the response Nik. You might be right in regard to historical opponents for Greeks but what are the troops that remain as long spear and so more effective against charging cavalry?
Infantry Long Spear will mainly be medieval such as Low Countries and Scots.
Ok. I will be interested to see how it works, especially as I am just about finished my new Ancient Greek army.
Quote from: SteveO on September 02, 2025, 12:51:12 AMI don't understand how adjusting the claims to make hoplites better against foot and worse against mounted (in combat) better reflects hoplites. I understood hoplites to have feared cavalry mainly because of being flanked rather than ridden down frontally. Reducing their combat effectiveness and penalising them for not narrowing their frontage seems like a double whammy for hoplites fighting mounted.
At Plataea IIRC their response to the cavalry threat was to sit on a hill, rather than to take precautions on their flanks.
You speak of hoplites so that would concern all antiquity "hoplites " greeks, romans, etruscans and similar
At Plataea IIRC their response to the cavalry threat was to sit on a hill, rather than to take precautions on their flanks.
Because I would argue that coming down would expose them to flanking and shooting - there is not a lot of detail in Herodotus. The horses were not medieval destriers; they were not much more than ponies by today's standards.
Quote from: SteveO on September 03, 2025, 01:31:04 PMAt Plataea IIRC their response to the cavalry threat was to sit on a hill, rather than to take precautions on their flanks.
Because I would argue that coming down would expose them to flanking and shooting - there is not a lot of detail in Herodotus. The horses were not medieval destriers; they were not much more than ponies by today's standards.
You can still be outflanked or shot at on a hill. It's true that there's not a lot of detail, it might have been a rough hill.
It seems like it would simplify things if we simply replaced existing longspear with this rule and gave any unit intended to take the current anti-cavalry role Pike w/combat shy.
What about the spatans who are now LS + ME ?
Dismountned LS : will they still be LS or spear ? The Tibetan exemple comes quickly to my mind
What about Asian LS ( warring states and the like just from memory )
Just making the game even more complicated. Don't like this change either
I was thinking about Hannibal famed veterans, they will become much less powerful vs romans ..not sure it is a positive change
Currently Superior LSp are +2 in the charge phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank; +2 in the melee phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank.
Superior Spear classification would be +2 in the charge phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank; +2 in the melee phase if in 2 ranks or if in 1 rank fighting non-ME, +1 in 1 rank if fighting ME.
How is this "much less powerful vs Romans"?
I note in the army builder that LSp cost has been reduced (by 5 points) but the Spear classification is the old LSp cost so 5pts more base cost. Gut feeling that this isn't quite right – about the same would have been my expectation.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 14, 2025, 04:20:46 PMHow is this "much less powerful vs Romans"?
Well 'much' less powerful might be an exaggeration but given Romans are almost always ME, the +1 for one rank is unlikely to be applicable and any overlaps (which are likely to occur eventually) are effectively a +1 for the Romans.
Quote from: badhabum on September 07, 2025, 03:08:40 PMWhat about the spatans who are now LS + ME ?
Looking at the draft 2026 Spartan list, apparently not - the Spartiates have lost ME.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 14, 2025, 04:20:46 PMCurrently Superior LSp are +2 in the charge phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank; +2 in the melee phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank.
Superior Spear classification would be +2 in the charge phase if in 2 ranks, +1 if in 1 rank; +2 in the melee phase if in 2 ranks or if in 1 rank fighting non-ME, +1 in 1 rank if fighting ME.
How is this "much less powerful vs Romans"?
Facing lots of superior romans as the roman armies are slightly much overpowered with veterans
I understand the intend but still remain sceptical
At impact If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others.
In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME.
So the hoplites were THE heavy infantry but in MEG numerous lists do have ME
1105 Early Libyans do have up to 48 ME that would challenge hoiplites and cost far less ok They are tribal
1110 Nubian 18 ME
1202 Hyksos 48 ME
1203 Luwian Kingdoms
And to make it short : sea people, galatians, lusitanians full of ME . So the epitome of the heavy infantry is now more easily overpowered by many infantry armies and that's where it disturbs me.
The case of Hannibal's veterans is also a problem. Their main opponents are romans, all played ME so now Hannibal has not one unit that can overpower roman veterans .
Is the change a bad thing . I could live with it but there is the problem of the cancelation of the +1 vs ME infantry as it unbalances the game .
So is ME the problem or the new definition of the new weapon ?
If it's resolved then it's OK otherwise I would stick to the LS version.
Now staying in the spirit of the game why not add : In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME unless in 2+ranks
Quote from: badhabum on September 15, 2025, 03:27:46 PMNow staying in the spirit of the game why not add : In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME unless in 2+ranks
If they are in 2 ranks their +1 is not cancelled by ME so your bit in bold is surely pointless.
To throw my two cents in. I think many armies in MeG get too much melee expert and superior thrown in to balance the lack of depth in the roster. This can really skew what would otherwise be a solid infantry unit as being 2nd rate because it there is no way to stack bonus factors.
Quote from: Hayung_is on September 16, 2025, 12:23:36 AMTo throw my two cents in. I think many armies in MeG get too much melee expert and superior thrown in to balance the lack of depth in the roster. This can really skew what would otherwise be a solid infantry unit as being 2nd rate because it there is no way to stack bonus factors.
Not sure what point the second sentence is trying to make.
In my experience it does seem to be a case of: if I buy a unit that doesn't have a +1 in melee, I ask myself not "How can this unit contribute to my victory?" but "How can I avoid this unit contributing to my defeat?"
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 15, 2025, 03:45:17 PMQuote from: badhabum on September 15, 2025, 03:27:46 PMNow staying in the spirit of the game why not add : In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME unless in 2+ranks
If they are in 2 ranks their +1 is not cancelled by ME so your bit in bold is surely pointless.
Did I tell you about concentration problems
Still not sur the change is positive ..same price, but weakened .
Quote from: badhabum on September 16, 2025, 03:09:31 PMStill not sur the change is positive ..same price, but weakened
Spear
Difference from current long spear:
Does not cancel mounted preferred claims in charge combat
+1 when in a single rank vs foot (except ME)
Enemy support files get no downgrade.
New long spear difference from current long spear:
Enemy support files get no downgrade. (They get a cost reduction for this)
To me it's not that obvious whether the "better against some foot" outweighs the "worse against mounted" but I would have thought the starting point ought to be same cost as new long spear.
Can I urge people to try the change before they comment.
Quote from: LawrenceG on September 17, 2025, 10:08:11 AMTo me it's not that obvious whether the "better against some foot" outweighs the "worse against mounted" but I would have thought the starting point ought to be same cost as new long spear.
This is a very astute comment. The points change is the most difficult bit to test and I will admit to being uncertain about it.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 02, 2025, 06:48:29 AMQuote from: SteveO on September 02, 2025, 12:51:12 AMI don't understand how adjusting the claims to make hoplites better against foot and worse against mounted (in combat) better reflects hoplites.
Hoplites needed a boost against infantry. They were the dominant infantry vs infantry troops of their era (and geography) and the existing rules do not quite get that right in our view. Likewise the current rules make them something of anti-cavalry specialists which was most certainly not their role - although like any competent heavy infantry of their time they were pretty resistant to their contemporary cavalry opponents frontally by dint of being competent heavy infantry.
The changes aim to improve the former whilst keeping the latter but making it more historical by not having the "anti-cavalry specialist" factor. Hoplites as "Spear" should not fear cavalry they faced frontally charging them under the proposed changes (other than, maybe, Alexander led Agema).
But looking at history, hoplites also had no issue fighting in rough going and certainly with accounts like plataea, could integrate helots/light troops to provide missile support. Does this mean we're going to see flexible spear hoplites with attached sugs being a thing?
Quote from: MrSki on September 17, 2025, 11:08:33 AMBut looking at history, hoplites also had no issue fighting in rough going and certainly with accounts like plataea, could integrate helots/light troops to provide missile support. Does this mean we're going to see flexible spear hoplites with attached sugs being a thing?
The early-ish hoplite question is quite a vexed one in academia, although I think at present the balance is with the "orthodox" view as opposed to the "heretical" view. MeG has certainly plumped for orthodoxy in classification - but I guess if you wanted to you could dig out your Hans van Wees, etc. and start a discussion on it, but I don't think it'd change classification in the short term.
Quote from: MrSki on September 17, 2025, 11:08:33 AMBut looking at history, hoplites also had no issue fighting in rough going and certainly with accounts like plataea, could integrate helots/light troops to provide missile support. Does this mean we're going to see flexible spear hoplites with attached sugs being a thing?
No.
"Rough going" is a tricky concept. Almost no battlefield was entirely without obstacles. An exception would be when Xerxes flattened the ground before Arbela/Gaugamela. All troops could cope with most "open ground", even phalangites. (The syntagma structure of a phalanx was important in this regard - a factor often overlooked). Clearly the ground could become more difficult to the point at which peltasts could defeat hoplites (think Spartans at Sphacteria in 425 BCE).
QuoteIn melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME.
On the QRS the last part has been omitted : if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME
Has it on the one I downloaded.
(https://i.imgur.com/Gm215QL.png)
Are you perhaps looking at Charge Combat where ME does not apply so cannot be cancelled?
I followed this link : https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/meg/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/MeG-2026-Combat-Table.pdf
and something is missing as I could not put a picture here I sent it on whatsapp
The link goes to the correct document.
From the picture you sent me you are looking at the Charge Combat table and not the Melee Combat table.
So, I must have missed this elsewhere: which of the hoplites' common historical opponents (sans melee expert) is their existing classification not cutting it against?
Longspear+Shield Cover has excellent matchups against various generic hillfolk and Achaemenid sparabara, and the proposed special Dory weapon doesn't help against Romans, proper Thracians, or elephants.
(Besides, longspears now actually model the vulnerable right side of a hoplite formation, encouraging the historically typical deployment of these troops in unified block)
Should the Bahrain Qarmatian Long Spear armed Infantry be considered for the new Spear category ?
Quote from: Kokor Hekkus on September 19, 2025, 09:21:48 PMShould the Bahrain Qarmatian Long Spear armed Infantry be considered for the new Spear category ?
I don't think so.
A Spear armed Tug fighting in Melee against a non-ME foot Tug gets +1 if in two ranks and +1 if in one rank. Does this mean you can take the second rank base and move it to another file (eg overlap) because it is not contributing to the fight?
Quote from: daveparish on September 20, 2025, 09:36:22 AMA Spear armed Tug fighting in Melee against a non-ME foot Tug gets +1 if in two ranks and +1 if in one rank. Does this mean you can take the second rank base and move it to another file (eg overlap) because it is not contributing to the fight?
No. You can move a third rank but not a second rank. With Pikes you can move a fourth rank but not a third rank.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 20, 2025, 10:17:43 AMNo. You can move a third rank but not a second rank. With Pikes you can move a fourth rank but not a third rank.
That has to be an explicit rule, though. The reason 3rd rank pike can't move is they are contributing a +1. That's not the case for 2nd rank spear against foot ( non ME).
Quote from: LawrenceG on September 23, 2025, 10:18:30 AMQuote from: lionheartrjc on September 20, 2025, 10:17:43 AMNo. You can move a third rank but not a second rank. With Pikes you can move a fourth rank but not a third rank.
That has to be an explicit rule, though. The reason 3rd rank pike can't move is they are contributing a +1. That's not the case for 2nd rank spear against foot ( non ME).
So PA fighting mounted may deploy the second rank as it does not contribute to the factors, but in the case of spears fighting infantry it may not be so because of it's another case . KISS please KISS special cases here and there will not help . I would councel to allow moving the second rank as a simplification ans standardisation
On reflection I would prefer to keep things simple, so Spear fighting non-ME can move a second rank, as it is not contributing. Carries its own risk as if the remaining single base is killed then the supporting file rule can kick in in the following turn.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 23, 2025, 07:23:12 PMOn reflection I would prefer to keep things simple, so Spear fighting non-ME can move a second rank, as it is not contributing. Carries its own risk as if the remaining single base is killed then the supporting file rule can kick in in the following turn.
Richard
Not really a risk as the enemy base would throw the same dice whether or not it killed its opponent.
Currently you really want the singe rank LSp to die so the enemy file's dice is degraded in future turns.
The new 'spear' category seems to cost the same as 'longspear' in the new army builder. Surely they should be cheaper? They sometimes have an advantage in melee if reduced to one rank (very situational) but are always much worse against shock mounted in impact.
Martin
I'm sort of seeing what people would like to happen rather than quoting events and making rules that fit actual situations.
The Historic situations where Hoplites lost to Cavalry (or Cavalry and Light Troops) generally involve loss of other troops on the side of the Hoplites and then envelopment/ flanking.
I don't understand the historic basis of downgrading of Long Spear Vs Cavalry really.....I don't have a closed mind on this, but I don't see the evidence to support it.
I would suggest that against their historical opponents hoplites classified as Spear will be fine. At present it is possible to use hoplites aggressively as anti-cavalry troops which does not, IMO, match their historical prototypes (which is a troop type designed to fight infantry) - at times they actively seem nervous of cavalry such as before Plataia although part of that may well be the better manoeuvrability of cavalry.
Quote from: Raxonika on October 06, 2025, 06:43:21 PMI'm sort of seeing what people would like to happen rather than quoting events and making rules that fit actual situations.
The Historic situations where Hoplites lost to Cavalry (or Cavalry and Light Troops) generally involve loss of other troops on the side of the Hoplites and then envelopment/ flanking.
I don't understand the historic basis of downgrading of Long Spear Vs Cavalry really.....I don't have a closed mind on this, but I don't see the evidence to support it.
You and me both.
I recently read Sparta the rise of a Warrior Nation by Matyszak . His judgement is that persian cavalry, albeit excellent, would not charge heavy hoplite infantry frontally as it would be a loosing battle but rather go for the flanks .
The question is what about with the amendments ?
In terms of GAME and FUN most of the players in Belgium would prefer status quo , no changes . But open to discussion about the changes as a globality . But this modifiction is not very popular
Quote from: badhabum on October 07, 2025, 08:15:07 PMI recently read Sparta the rise of a Warrior Nation by Matyszak . His judgement is that persian cavalry, albeit excellent, would not charge heavy hoplite infantry frontally as it would be a loosing battle but rather go for the flanks .
The Spartans will (assuming Exceptional) have 2 claims for spear and 1 for quality.
The Persians will (assuming Superior, Short Spear) have a claim for short spear.
The Spartans will be YELLOW to WHITE up. Therefore I think it will still be a losing battle for the Persians and I would look to go for the flanks!
All this is assuming Matyszak is correct. I am not sure what his source is to make such a statement.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 08, 2025, 08:05:41 AMAll this is assuming Matyszak is correct. I am not sure what his source is to make such a statement.
Richard
Well looked at another way, what makes us think he is incorrect? Are there any examples of hoplites being ridden down by cavalry? As mentioned already, the Spartans were nervous of the Persian cavalry at Platea but as we are talking about hoplites with 10ft long spears behind a wall of bronze shields facing men on the equivalent of modern-day ponies, this does seem more likely to be the result of the cavalry's manoeuvrability and shooting ability. In any case, the Spartans still won.
Similarly, the Athenians were nervous about facing the Persian foot archers at Marathon but they still won.
Steve
Quote from: SteveO on October 08, 2025, 11:37:34 PMSimilarly, the Athenians were nervous about facing the Persian foot archers at Marathon but they still won.
Given most surviving accounts are effectively hagiographies, they are hardly going to say we treated the enemy with contempt and strolled over them!
Realistically cavalry's primary advantage over infantry is choosing the time and place of the battle, so by default infantry will be wary of cavalry, especially in rolling countryside with no communications systems for forward scouts.
I have a feeling that this is moving too far from the original intent of the rules, to enable 5000 years of history to be gamed with a single ruleset, and not confining armies to their period. There is an impression that this is becoming more a simulation "we believe/the evidence suggests" than an inclusive game.
In practice a 12 foot spear in the hands of a competent warrior will stop cavalry if used appropriately. Now hoplite doctrine in 800 BC will not be the same as medieval foot doctrine in 1300, however the man behind the spear still has a brain. Thus there is no reason that a time-travelling Spartan would not essentially copy the doctrine of the 1300s or are we assuming nil agency of the warrior?
A much simpler solution is to simply theme the tournaments to time periods (as is already done) rather than create an artificial weapon system.
ie if we don't want hoplites beating CL/DC/ME then simply do not have the situation. To me, this proposal is a solution looking for a problem (apologies to the playtesters who have put hours into considering the approach, but I still do not see this as a real problem)
The worst aspect of it, is it will discourage players who like their Greek History and build their first army and have a really really hard time against many other foes. The only reason I played MeG after utter disgust at WRG, Dbx, etc, is that it was the first set I actually encountered (in far too many years of looking) that enabled a Roman Army to have a reasonable chance as the balance between the different weapons and troop types was reasonably balanced.
So I ask again, is there a simpler way of addressing the percieved problem that the writers have of ahistorical use of hoplites?
Quote from: Munster on October 09, 2025, 12:18:59 AMGiven most surviving accounts are effectively hagiographies, they are hardly going to say we treated the enemy with contempt and strolled over them!
Exactly. Of course, the surrender of the Spartans on Sphaecteria because they had no answer to the Athenian light troops shows hoplites could suffer against fire and manoeuvre.
Quote from: Munster on October 09, 2025, 12:18:59 AMIn practice a 12 foot spear in the hands of a competent warrior will stop cavalry if used appropriately. Now hoplite doctrine in 800 BC will not be the same as medieval foot doctrine in 1300, however the man behind the spear still has a brain. Thus there is no reason that a time-travelling Spartan would not essentially copy the doctrine of the 1300s or are we assuming nil agency of the warrior?
A much simpler solution is to simply theme the tournaments to time periods (as is already done) rather than create an artificial weapon system.
Agreed. If we want to improve the game, simplifying and clarifying the rules might be a better start point. This process has already started with the proposals for new shatter/shove rules and the removal of moving skirmishers before charges. As much as I enjoy MeG it is not a user-friendly set of rules.
QuoteI have a feeling that this is moving too far from the original intent of the rules, to enable 5000 years of history to be gamed with a single ruleset, and not confining armies to their period. There is an impression that this is becoming more a simulation "we believe/the evidence suggests" than an inclusive game.
I agree. The intend might be positive, the effects are not so positive
QuoteAgreed. If we want to improve the game, simplifying and clarifying the rules might be a better start point. This process has already started with the proposals for new shatter/shove rules and the removal of moving skirmishers before charges. As much as I enjoy MeG it is not a user-friendly set of rules.
I agree
Am I interpreting correctly that people's main objection to the change is that 'spear' isn't sufficiently anti-cavalry? Because it seems to me that as proposed 'spear' is a perfectly good anti-cavalry weapon. A hoplite is going to be more than a match for any contemporary cavalry short of the Xystophoroi, and even then the advantage is fairly small; the cav is up 1 claim (with shatter) in the charge and then down 1 claim in the melee until the hoplite loses a stand. Considering the Xystophoroi is double the cost of a hoplite that's a pretty close match.
If anything I've always though 'longspear' was too good at countering cavalry. A poor quality loose longspear will have equal claims to a knight for less than a 3rd the cost. Anything better and the knight is simply outmatched. If handing a peasant a long pointy stick was enough to counter heavy cavalry they wouldn't have been the dominate fighting force in Europe (and elsewhere) for 800+ years.
The feeling is that it adds a new weapon that's not needed. It's also the rule about overlaps that would not loose colours why spears, pikes and no shieldwall, PA, SP ...all formations had an unprotected flank . It just adds a special rule why is it needed ? MEG is supposed to be a generic rule covering biblical times till renaissance
What's next armour quality ?
Bronze vs Iron vs hardened wood ?
Open a pandora's box and it never ends
I go for KISS but am willing to discuss it but some questions remain unanswered
A bit too late now (train's pretty much already left the station on this one), but if the main objective was to make Hoplites and Thureophori more effective against other foot that weren't Romans, probably just making the Shove characteristic stronger and making Dory-equipped troops the exception to the "LSp can be bought in 9's" rule of thumb might have done the trick instead.
Wish it hadn't taken me a month and a half to think of that one. 🙄
As for hoplites being nervous about pressing into cav: even LSp has good cause not to launch a charge against lancers (especially without a third rank!), and most hoplites no longer being able to fall back would add to that reticence to advance since it could easily increase the risk of envelopment.
Again, train's already left the station... but hindsight, yeah? XP
Quote from: badhabum on October 10, 2025, 08:57:30 AMThe feeling is that it adds a new weapon that's not needed. It's also the rule about overlaps that would not loose colours why spears, pikes and no shieldwall, PA, SP ...all formations had an unprotected flank . It just adds a special rule why is it needed ? MEG is supposed to be a generic rule covering biblical times till renaissance
...
I go for KISS but am willing to discuss it but some questions remain unanswered
Fair enough, pretty good game design goals. But I think in this case they are at odds with each other. I tend to try and interpret troops "within their own context". A New Kingdom Egyptian soldier's armor would not qualify as 'protected' on a late medieval battlefield, but 'within their own context' a shield and probably some light linen armor was the standard of protection, so that classification is warranted. In there own context hoplites were heavily equipped melee infantry that performed well against most of the things they were up against, but they weren't crack anti-cavalry troops. I appreciate the devs trying to separate those two roles.
Though from a KISS perspective I still prefer my proposal to make have long spear into this new 'spear' and then any unit meant as an anti cavalry specialist could be given Pike w/ Combat Shy.
I agree that the un-downgraded-overlaps are an additional complication. But I'm not sure the Devs had a lot of options to accomplish the same goal without them being more complex. The way people use pikes on the table just wasn't very historical and this is an attempt to rectify that. And in the same vein they wanted to represent the 'hoplite drift' which get's reported in multiple sources.
Quote from: Manzikert on October 10, 2025, 04:44:05 AMIf handing a peasant a long pointy stick was enough to counter heavy cavalry they wouldn't have been the dominate fighting force in Europe (and elsewhere) for 800+ years.
True but resolve and/or training would have a lot to do with that outcome. The average peasant would not have been too keen about being on the battlefield under any conditions. More committed and organised commoners armed with 'pointy sticks', such as the Flemish and Swiss, ended the knights' unchallenged dominance. As Munster said, we could assume experienced ancient warriors armed with long pointy sticks would also be effective in the ahistorical settings arising in the thousands of years covered by MeG.
Quote from: SteveO on October 11, 2025, 01:06:35 AMQuote from: Manzikert on October 10, 2025, 04:44:05 AMIf handing a peasant a long pointy stick was enough to counter heavy cavalry they wouldn't have been the dominate fighting force in Europe (and elsewhere) for 800+ years.
True but resolve and/or training would have a lot to do with that outcome. The average peasant would not have been too keen about being on the battlefield under any conditions. More committed and organised commoners armed with 'pointy sticks', such as the Flemish and Swiss, ended the knights' unchallenged dominance. As Munster said, we could assume experienced ancient warriors armed with long pointy sticks would also be effective in the ahistorical settings arising in the thousands of years covered by MeG.
Agreed, my point was simply that 'they had long spears' is not sufficient to deserve the 'longspear' classification. Hoplites were just an especially well equipped citizen levy, not professional soldiers with any special training. Within there own context they were good troops. But while they have a good record against cavalry, it wasn't against what we would call 'shock cavalry'. So I'm in favor of a general (moderate) reduction in their anti-cavalry capabilities.
Quote from: Doomsmile on October 10, 2025, 09:33:19 PMAgain, train's already left the station... but hindsight, yeah? XP
If the train has left the station, then why are we even posting these 'suggestions' for discussion?
Because people are unconvinced so the train is in the station
I understand the idea to make MEG a better rule but I wonder hos this proposal simplifies things . Not convinced at all
Quote from: Manzikert on October 11, 2025, 02:21:34 AMHoplites were just an especially well equipped citizen levy, not professional soldiers with any special training. Within their own context they were good troops. But while they have a good record against cavalry, it wasn't against what we would call 'shock cavalry'. So I'm in favor of a general (moderate) reduction in their anti-cavalry capabilities.
But hoplites weren't peasants press-ganged into fighting for their feudal lord. As you say, hoplites had a pretty good record against contemporary cavalry so why do we assume that in the fictional case they fought medieval knights they would not do at least as well? If Flemish burghers could stand their ground, why not Athenian hoplites? By comparison, we do not seem to have an issue with the yari-armed Ashigaru retaining their anti-cavalry capability against medieval knights even though they fought only one or two ranks deep, had only to face men on the equivalent of ponies and never saw a medieval knight in their lives.
If we can stretch our imagination to allowing hoplites to face medieval knights, why can we not stretch our imagination to assume similarly equipped, trained and motivated troops from different historical periods would perform roughly the same. Otherwise, we should make Swiss pikemen worse at fighting elephants than the Argyraspides because the Swiss had no experience of fighting elephants.
Quote from: SteveO on October 11, 2025, 11:21:56 PMQuote from: Manzikert on October 11, 2025, 02:21:34 AMHoplites were just an especially well equipped citizen levy, not professional soldiers with any special training. Within their own context they were good troops. But while they have a good record against cavalry, it wasn't against what we would call 'shock cavalry'. So I'm in favor of a general (moderate) reduction in their anti-cavalry capabilities.
But hoplites weren't peasants press-ganged into fighting for their feudal lord. As you say, hoplites had a pretty good record against contemporary cavalry so why do we assume that in the fictional case they fought medieval knights they would not do at least as well? If Flemish burghers could stand their ground, why not Athenian hoplites? By comparison, we do not seem to have an issue with the yari-armed Ashigaru retaining their anti-cavalry capability against medieval knights even though they fought only one or two ranks deep, had only to face men on the equivalent of ponies and never saw a medieval knight in their lives.
If we can stretch our imagination to allowing hoplites to face medieval knights, why can we not stretch our imagination to assume similarly equipped, trained and motivated troops from different historical periods would perform roughly the same. Otherwise, we should make Swiss pikemen worse at fighting elephants than the Argyraspides because the Swiss had no experience of fighting elephants.
To be fair I didn't call them press-ganged peasants ;D . But the only contemporary shock cavalry the hoplites would have faced were Macedonian cav which is a military doctrine they ultimately lost to. Historically there were tones of troops armed like a hoplite, large shield and a long spear. Most Gauls were probably armed that way. But in most cases we wouldn't call them crack anti-cavalry troops. And again, hoplites with spear aren't bad against knight equivalent cavalry, they are at a mild disadvantage against a unit twice their price.