See here (https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=3779.0).
Change "Supporting files foot ighting long spear do not downgrade the colour of the additional dice,"
Points reduction for long spear.
The long spear category remains for troops other than hoplites and thureophoroi.
I'm not sure this change is significant enough to justify a points drop for longspear.
Martin
The feeling is they are probably a tad overpriced compared to Pike currently. Obviously, views welcome and it is not yet set in stone.
In testing we found that not downgrading the supporting files can make a significant difference.
The points reduction is not huge. You would need 48 long spear to gain enough points for a SuG of 6 unprotected skirmishing archers.
Richard
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 01, 2025, 07:04:06 AMThe feeling is they are probably a tad overpriced compared to Pike currently. Obviously, views welcome and it is not yet set in stone.
Perhaps, but I think they are already pretty good in general (they seem to feature in comp winning armies a fair bit) and a tad underpriced compared to polearms.
Martin
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 01, 2025, 07:04:06 AMThe feeling is they are probably a tad overpriced compared to Pike currently. Obviously, views welcome and it is not yet set in stone.
Given that pike are LSp that can gain an extra combat factor if they want, for almost no extra cost, I agree with this.
For the sake of simplicity, how about getting rid of long spear as a class and incorporating those remaining long spear into the polearm category?
Or is there a definite specific interaction which is being sought?
LS and PA are quite different so you propose to simplify and make LS less useful vs mounted ?
Admin Note
Apologies, managed to delete a post from Jacques that I was trying to move to a more appropriate topic - the topic about the Spear category for hoplites: https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=3786.0
Please repost there.
Well, if simplified as I suggested there wouldn't be a LS class.
All existing LS would either be the new spear of existing PA class.
Should medieval spear armed troops (that are currently classed as Long Spear) be so much more effective against CL/DC mounted in impact than other similarly armed troops from an earlier period? Both spear and PA are still pretty decent vs such mounted.
Short answer is yes we believe they should be.
I'd also say that I don't think merging LSp and PA would be justified.
Would you be able to slightly expand on why the medieval chaps should be more effective, please?
And what will be happening to the Chinese/Asian LSp infantry?
Quote from: accard on September 12, 2025, 08:14:37 AMWould you be able to slightly expand on why the medieval chaps should be more effective, please?
We see them as a counter to hard charging cavalry, anti-cavalry specialists if you like, which was not what hoplites were.
QuoteAnd what will be happening to the Chinese/Asian LSp infantry?
Up in the air at present I think. I'd assume no change unless it is mentioned, whilst being aware that some may change.
If I understand well, it is based on the hoplites "open flank" or the shieldless flank . It's basically the same problem encountered by a shieldwall style formation. The right flank had a tendency to shift towards the center as they had no one to protect them .So the problem of the hoplites formation does exist but is not restricted to those guys . PA guys had, I suspect , the same tendency, shieldwall a packed formation the same . That opens another can ...what about shooting at tha flank . If you use the logic of the flank problem of hoplites there are many similar cases .
Quote from: accard on September 12, 2025, 02:39:49 AMShould medieval spear armed troops (that are currently classed as Long Spear) be so much more effective against CL/DC mounted in impact than other similarly armed troops from an earlier period? Both spear and PA are still pretty decent vs such mounted.
I would add that I remain sceptical that a densely packed medieval warband fighting with 'short' spears is better able to cancel mounted charge claims than a densely packed phalanx fighting with 'long' spears.
I see this as beginning to break the rules into different periods that are not compatible with each other, much like the issues with ReG. The rules as they stand play fairly well with armies from 5000 BCE to 1600 CE with no major issues, precisely because we don't fuss whether or not a spear used in 3000 BCE is different from one in 1500 CE, and assume that the soldier would use them appropriately.
If we go down this path, then I fear you will further splinter the player group, and others may move back to rules where they don't have to worry too much what army their friend brings, they can still have a game.
ReG has struggled to take off here in Australia, precisely because the forces between books are not really compatible with playing against each other.
A fair point on periodisation. However, I don't believe this is the start of a process to introduce more such classifications; we've (authors) certainly not discussed any that I can recall.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 15, 2025, 06:47:02 AMA fair point on periodisation. However, I don't believe this is the start of a process to introduce more such classifications; we've (authors) certainly not discussed any that I can recall.
It may not be deliberate, but it is the outcome of the proposals when taken as a whole.
The rules as they stand work well across periods. They effectively assume that the troops have agency, and will use their weapons (spear/bow/horse etc) as effectively as that weapon can be used against any opponent. Thus hoplites can effectively fight against heavy cavalry (which they never historically had the opportunity to do so) as effectively as a professional spearman in the middle ages, this means that I can fight across periods.
What you are proposing breaks this (similarly with some of the other changes). Whilst you may fix a perceived problem (hoplites should not be an anti-cavalry weapon) you will create other problems and risk breaking the game
If you want such a major change (and some of these are quite major not clarifications) I would suggest playtesting a full V2.0 recognising that V1.x works pretty well, and that tinkering will never satisfy everyone and constant tinkering may drive away your player base.
Quote from: SteveO on September 15, 2025, 03:25:34 AMQuote from: accard on September 12, 2025, 02:39:49 AMShould medieval spear armed troops (that are currently classed as Long Spear) be so much more effective against CL/DC mounted in impact than other similarly armed troops from an earlier period? Both spear and PA are still pretty decent vs such mounted.
I would add that I remain sceptical that a densely packed medieval warband fighting with 'short' spears is better able to cancel mounted charge claims than a densely packed phalanx fighting with 'long' spears.
I think most medieval infantry with a spear is classified as "short Spear" possibly with shieldwall. Not many are long spear, at least in the lists I've looked at with a view to using.
Hi,
Does this amendments on long spear applies as well on mounted long spear?
Has the budget for mounted long spear be revised accordingly?
Thx for the confirmation Nik and Richard
Quote from: Rino on November 03, 2025, 06:21:01 AMHi,
Does this amendments on long spear applies as well on mounted long spear?
Has the budget for mounted long spear be revised accordingly?
Thx for the confirmation Nik and Richard
No it doesn't appy to mounted long spear - no changes have been applied to mounted long spear.