Limit deployment of close order infantry to the center area and protected flanks only ? Add KAB test for TUGs close order moving and fighting in the "forbidden area"
Aim is to have a more historical feeling when deploying , the flanks being secured by cavalry and the cavalry armies having space to manoeuver .
Are cavalry armies struggling? Why would this be necessary?
It is a very artificial restriction I have always disliked in games. I can kind of accept it in ReG but see little to no reason for it in MeG (which already has a limited version of it)
Martin
In effect you are saying expand the flank restricted zone from 5 BW to 10 BW for close infantry.
I would question the need for this change.
Quote from: martymagnificent on October 06, 2025, 12:24:40 AMAre cavalry armies struggling?
Not really IMO.
Personally I see no reason for a change here.
HISTORY is a reason leave space of the flank for cavalry to manoeuver around the flank . :)
It would help to to stop people from diging in and turning a battle into a siege.
Quote from: Glactophagos on October 08, 2025, 09:36:23 AMIt would help to to stop people from diging in and turning a battle into a siege.
I had overlooked that aspect. A protected flank will remain a protected flank but without it creating a fortress will be much more difficult indeed .
Quote from: Glactophagos on October 08, 2025, 09:36:23 AMIt would help to to stop people from diging in and turning a battle into a siege.
"If you're such a good general, come out and fight!"
"If you're such a good general, make me!"
Quote from: LawrenceG on October 10, 2025, 11:25:40 AMQuote from: Glactophagos on October 08, 2025, 09:36:23 AMIt would help to to stop people from diging in and turning a battle into a siege.
"If you're such a good general, come out and fight!"
"If you're such a good general, make me!"
Played Ilkhanate last tournament and faced a Medieval Portuguese with 24 bases of XBows with Barricades. He used 3x6 to form an 18-wide line, and 1x6 to get another line that closed the flank, and anchored the other flank on a marsh he placed. Please tell me how your quip would have helped the situation ;)
On another note, I quite like this, and it would give the Foot generals something to use the good cards of PBS other than keep them for OS, as this would not apply on a proteted flank (if I read correctly).
Best,
Antoine
Quote from: Princeps on October 10, 2025, 01:48:29 PMPlayed Ilkhanate last tournament and faced a Medieval Portuguese with 24 bases of XBows with Barricades. He used 3x6 to form an 18-wide line, and 1x6 to get another line that closed the flank, and anchored the other flank on a marsh he placed.
Which restricting where Close formation troops can deploy would not have affected at all.
QuoteOn another note, I quite like this, and it would give the Foot generals something to use the good cards of PBS other than keep them for OS,
Worth remembering that the proposals include no longer allow PBS cards to be held over for use in scouting.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 10, 2025, 02:21:53 PMWhich restricting where Close formation troops can deploy would not have affected at all.
No it would not, but that was meant as an answer to Lawrence's comment, not the proposal
QuoteQuoteOn another note, I quite like this, and it would give the Foot generals something to use the good cards of PBS other than keep them for OS,
Worth remembering that the proposals include no longer allow PBS cards to be held over for use in scouting.
I remember that very well, hence my comment that those extra PBS would not, as some say, go to waste ... :)
OK some people do oppose the idea but it seems no one can really say why he disagrees.
My opinion is that it forces a more historically minded deployment, heavies in the center , cavalry and auxilliaries on the flank
What's wrong with that ?
This topic discussion is no longer constructive and has been locked. The idea has been noted - but is not being adopted for the amendments this year.