MeG

What ho chaps!
Thread for the 'How to beat x' questions...
Mine is...
Massed average foot armies? You know, the 13 TUGs in 3 hours type?
🤣

What weapon do they carry ?

Question is - is that the meta? Looking at skullrollers I'd say not. Pin and punch - just like the old days

Quote from: mad lemmey on June 30, 2019, 07:26:48 AM
Massed average foot armies? You know, the 13 TUGs in 3 hours type?
🤣

The answer rather depends on what your own army actually has available. The question is rather ill-defined really.

That said, one obvious way is to concentrate hard hitting troops as much as possible in one area to quickly knock a hole that you can then exploit, but it does depend on having said hard hitting troops ...

Tried that, 2 0-15 losses.  :'( Decent armies with good troops cannot win.
Your opponent has nothing, but 4 or 5 more tugs than you. You cannot win, even if you are chewing lumps out of him, as his units are always bigger. And then he will flank you, as you cannot break through, and he will always have spare uunits mits.  ::)
I might go back to Picts, at least I know they are usless and will always be broken...
Anyone suggest a protected, unarmed army with two talented, two competent generals, as that appears to be the way forwards.

Well, if you've decided you can't win before you start you won't win  :o

I like a horde as much as the next man but it can be a path to draws rather than wins.

Are the armies at the top of Skullrollers horde's? I would have thought they were knights/cavalry but some of the lists could do either.

Martin

I can't speak for the podium dwellers but I managed a 2,15,15,15,15 at skulls with a bit of a horde - 5 x 8 tribal close, protected, average, shieldwall only foot and 8 x 6 formed loose, protected average, long spear cavalry. 2 competent instinctive commanders and talented instinctive ally commanders (one of whom was unreliable in my last game with Si!).

OTOH Hussites ain't cheap and they came second.

You pays your points and takes your chances!

Big thanks to Si and my other opponents at the basho.

HH

Thats an interesting list and definitely a 'horde'. I would tend to say anything with 11 or more TuG's at 10K is probably a 'horde' (depending on the size of the units, if they are small it is more of a 'swarm'). How many did the top 3 have and how big were they?

Martin

All

A fantastic weekend gaming!! Loved all the games. 
The Huns were great fun to play with - and very hunnic in style if you are going to make them work.

Hunters army very difficult for me - not the foot but the long spear cavalry. 
But even so it was a 15-8 that until Hunter rolled 6 skulls in a row was probably going slightly in favour of the huns - respite rolling 3x1s on evade moves.
Don't think there is a major issue.  Great army choice and nice simple plan.  Set me a great puzzle.

I currently have just 4 simple ideas in total for the final set.  But want to discuss with the inner team first on a Skype before making public.
Will also be studying the army lists for player patterns for final points tweaks.  As it happens one would address Will's issue a little bit and is designed to keep game resolution high.  Aiming to put them out for a bit of private testing to check they are final improvements after Britcon armies are in.



Si

As one of those who beat, Will with a thirteen TUG army (Feudal German) I must admit to having a certain sympathy with his concerns. I know that Stalin said that Quantity has a quality all of its own but!!!.
I do believe that small units of real quality troops can regularly be chewed up by large TUGs of lower quality troops due to the number of white dice being rolled by the lower quality troops will eventually wear down a six base quality unit. Rolling yellow dice are no guarantee of success.
In many of the games that Hunter and I won with our 13 TUG armies the smaller better class armies were pinned in place with our surplus TUGs being used to get around the flanks and roll up the enemy. In Hunter's  army his five units of foot with eight bases with no weapons but shield wall can stand a long time while he has eight mounted Average TUGs with long spear being very mobile  run around seeking targets. Average mounted long spear must be one of the most cost effective troops available - need to look at?
To give another example. In my fight with the Five Hegamons I had all his chariots fighting my loose and Danish foot. My Mounted got on the flank and destroyed 4 units of superior chariots in one round of impact.
In a similar scenario I beat the Five 

In my first game I also flanked and destroyed several elephant units with a flank attack while they were pinned with my foot frontally.

The easy answer might be downgrade the masses of cavalry to tribal instead of formed. 😋
Then you can have more units! 🤣🤣🤣

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 01, 2019, 06:40:54 PM
As one of those who beat, Will with a thirteen TUG army (Feudal German) I must admit to having a certain sympathy with his concerns.

I must admit to having little sympathy to be honest.

My army choices seem to leave me regularly on the smaller army (in TUGs) than my opponent end of the deal and I think I win more of those than I lose (although I'd not claim any Alasdair-like win ratio  ;D ). You go into the game knowing (or having some idea of the possibility) that you'll be out-TUGed and have to work within that constraint. Thinking about it before a comp is no bad thing as well (obviously).

Quote
Average mounted long spear must be one of the most cost effective troops available - need to look at?

IMO after the points upping at the start of this year they're about right now.

Well if you look at long spear cavalry they:
Negate Mounted melee expert if in two ranks
Count their factor in melee even against pike and foot long spear
Count their factor in rough terrain.
Need only one rank to claim a plus factor which they get against everything in melee.
Seems a pretty nice package for me in comparison with other mounted. Not many troops get all of these at a reasonable cost.
Hunter has eight units each of six bases and as Will points out they are pretty damn mobile.

By the way, Nik, have a little sympathy for Will he had two pretty traumatic experiences in consecutive games against large horde type armies.

Just looking at the army list for Hunter's army where he has the option to upgrade his cavalry to lancer and melee expert. My question is with all the advantages of long spear cavalry whybwould he want to. Certainly he has a disadvantage in impact but if he is three ranks deep he will survive and then be up for all the melee rounds. I imagine lancer, melee expert is also a bit more expensive than long spear.
Have to go as I need to paint some Arab cavalry.

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 01, 2019, 09:01:16 PM
I imagine lancer, melee expert is also a bit more expensive than long spear.

10 pts a base more expensive for Average types.

FWIW I'd be OK with mounted Long Spear costing the same as CL + ME.

Nik, I am sure your view on the subject is worth a lot bearing in mind your extensive knowledge.
I would go one step further and suggest we remove the plus for Mounted long spear in terrain. Yes, I know that they used this to nullify advantages of Byzantine cavalry which it does as lance does not count but do they need an advantage on top of this levelling of off factors? One step too far in my view. It also encourages them to put down magic terrain pieces where they get plus one and foot spears do not. Certainly foot spears might be a little out of formation but can surely match mounted long spears in rugged terrain where controlling a horse is a bit more challenging.

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 01, 2019, 09:31:43 PM
I would go one step further and suggest we remove the plus for Mounted long spear in terrain. Yes, I know that they used this to nullify advantages of Byzantine cavalry ...

They didn't. As I have pointed out before, this is being confused with the statement in the Straegikon that the Persians would seek to fight in broken ground to negate the Romans lancers.

Currently given than Short Spear and mounted Polearm do not get charge combat claims if affected it does seem a bit odd that mounted long spear does. In melee combat it is probably in the same boat as mounted polearm and ME (at least where ME is representing some sort of prowess with side arms - it does not necessarily do so of course) in terms of usability in terrain IMO - unlike foot spears it is not a mass use weapon but more individualistic (cf the DBM reference to "fencing lancers").

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 01, 2019, 08:54:47 PM
By the way, Nik, have a little sympathy for Will he had two pretty traumatic experiences in consecutive games against large horde type armies.

What about the poor bloke who played Will first and his fully armoured knights on fully armoured horses get shot up on yellow dice by midgets on horses? :D

I have sympathy for Will because some armies are a bad match up but I'm not sure that horde armies break the rules.

I do think that scouting for horde armies is broken though. Lots of times I have supposedly outscouted my opponent by 70-80% and because he has 15+ UGS I end up putting my whole army down first and then he puts his last and best TUGs down after seeing my whole army.

Quote from: Hunter on June 30, 2019, 07:20:51 PM
I can't speak for the podium dwellers but I managed a 2,15,15,15,15 at skulls with a bit of a horde - 5 x 8 tribal close, protected, average, shieldwall only foot and 8 x 6 formed loose, protected average, long spear cavalry. 2 competent instinctive commanders and talented instinctive ally commanders (one of whom was unreliable in my last game with Si!).

OTOH Hussites ain't cheap and they came second.

You pays your points and takes your chances!

Big thanks to Si and my other opponents at the basho.

HH

Well done Hunter, almost on the podium but it seems you dived the submarine a bit too low in the first round ;)

[/quote]

Well done Hunter, almost on the podium but it seems you dived the submarine a bit too low in the first round ;)
[/quote]#

Aw mate I hit the bottom of that Marajuhana Trench in game one!  No way back after that!  But thanks for the thought.  63 got third place last year but 62 only got me fifth this year.  58 got me fourth last year!  The standard of play is definitely getting higher and that's great as it makes for some great games.

HH

Quote from: craig.w on July 02, 2019, 04:19:22 PM
I do think that scouting for horde armies is broken though. Lots of times I have supposedly outscouted my opponent by 70-80% and because he has 15+ UGS I end up putting my whole army down first and then he puts his last and best TUGs down after seeing my whole army.

You may have a point here.

Yes I think removing the rough terrain benefit of Mounted Long Spear makes sense.

I do have them as slightly under-pointed or perhaps we should take away the cancellation of melee expert.
Just leaving foot long sticks keeping mtd. melee experts at bay?

Hunters army was a cracking points efficient design.

S

Removing the bonus in terrain would not have a perceptible balance effect. I think your suggestions of upping the points or removing their ability to cancel mounted melee expert would be the way to go. I would favour the latter.

Martin

One could even ask why pike does not cancel their factor.

Removing the cancellation of melee expert would devalue cataphracts slightly - are they considered underpointed as well?

I dont think horde armies are a problem. The massed cheap Longspear Cav can be.

Quote from: accard on July 05, 2019, 02:22:24 AM
Removing the cancellation of melee expert would devalue cataphracts slightly - are they considered underpointed as well?

Hardly.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 04, 2019, 07:09:32 PM
I do have them as slightly under-pointed or perhaps we should take away the cancellation of melee expert.
Just leaving foot long sticks keeping mtd. melee experts at bay?

I'd just look at the points.

Could be quite a few points.

After some thought, I would be tempted t0 leave cost of mounted long spear the same but would rather remove the ability to use the weapon in terrain and also the cancellation of mounted melee expert.this would leave them less effective against other mounted but not make the cost of cataphracts etc prohibitively high.
This is simple and restores the balance with other mounted.

The catafract cost point is a good one - however, the comments on the ArmHrs topic impact on that so may need referring to each other depending on what comes of that.

FWIW I did not see a single unit of LS Cav at Skulls. They are hardly a major issue. I do not think any change at all is warranted here. Cancelling out ME balances out the disparity between CL and LS at impact, where the fight is often decided anyway; one skull or Shatter at impact is often decisive.

Long spear could do with a small bump in cost but close order cavalry should drop by a fair bit. They are a lot worse than loose and have no redeeming features. I don't think that long spear should change I think it gives an interesting point of difference and will mean another rule change. Cataphracts certainly aren't dominating the battlefield!!

Quote from: AntiokosIII on July 05, 2019, 02:21:21 PM
FWIW I did not see a single unit of LS Cav at Skulls. They are hardly a major issue. I do not think any change at all is warranted here. Cancelling out ME balances out the disparity between CL and LS at impact, where the fight is often decided anyway; one skull or Shatter at impact is often decisive.

There were eight units of them in one army!!

Quote from: AntiokosIII on July 05, 2019, 02:21:21 PM
FWIW I did not see a single unit of LS Cav at Skulls. They are hardly a major issue. I do not think any change at all is warranted here. Cancelling out ME balances out the disparity between CL and LS at impact, where the fight is often decided anyway; one skull or Shatter at impact is often decisive.

If you have average protected long spear cavalry in three ranks then you can easily ride the impact. Thereafter the advantage switches to the long spear cavalry.

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 05, 2019, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: AntiokosIII on July 05, 2019, 02:21:21 PM
FWIW I did not see a single unit of LS Cav at Skulls. They are hardly a major issue. I do not think any change at all is warranted here. Cancelling out ME balances out the disparity between CL and LS at impact, where the fight is often decided anyway; one skull or Shatter at impact is often decisive.

There were eight units of them in one army!!

Yup, all in just ONE army - not too many elsewhere. Suggests they aren't a too obvious super troop otherwise theyou would be more common.

I think to a degree we're seeing the all too common over reaction to a clever army choice taking people by surprise.

Robin had them too

Is the volume of long spear cavalry at Daventry of any relevance. The attributes of the troop type and it's value are either right or wrong. Earlier you yourself were supporting some changes.

Yes, but how do I actually beat them?  ;D

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 05, 2019, 07:36:40 PM
Is the volume of long spear cavalry at Daventry of any relevance.

None at all. Sort of my point really.

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 05, 2019, 08:01:06 PM
Yes, but how do I actually beat them?  ;D

Play better than you did against Hunter  :o ;D 8)

Will, I do not know how your game against Hunter played out but against me in the previous game your left flank was in the air. My army was slower than Hunters but if you did the same then I imagine his eight units of mounted long spear made hay and rolled you up while his crap but numerous Infantry pinned your better quality Infantry in place.

Will's write up here - https://madlemmey.blogspot.com/2019/06/skullrollers-day-2-senguko-samurai-vs.html

Afraid it does look to me that the left flank was hanging protected only by vast areas of fresh air  :(  Also seemed to let his army get broken up presenting opportunities to Hunter.

On that terrain I think that using the woods on the right to cover a flank and keeping things nice and tight whilst aiming to get the 3 powerbow units into action against cavalry would have been a better approach.

No idea if Will was outscouted but I also think a deployment a bit further back would have helped.

To be fair to Will, the MEG scoring system does not encourage hanging back. With a small army such as he has the advance then makes it difficult to cover flanks. Hence the reason Hunter and I went for large armies of standard type troops. Engage frontally then work the flanks before your large engaged foot units get whittled down.
Even Alasdair had a horde type army where he went a stage further of downgrading shooting skills that he did not think necessary to his game plan. Could shoot unskilled when enemy were heavily degraded but also allowing him not to pay to hold charges when close to the enemy.
I love quality troops but as things stand would never pick them as it makes the army too small when larger average units have greater staying power. Also better to avoid impact advantages as these are a one shot weapon which work occasionally but then have cost you a lot of points that you cannot use again unless you break off. Better to go for melee benefits where large units are likely to be able to use them over several rounds.
God, that sounds really cynical but just my current view. I think Hunter's choice of long spear cavalry who get the benefit of a factor in every round regardless of terrain and also stop melee expert in others reflect this philosophy. Look at the benefits of mounted long spear and they are as cheap as chips.

Terrain fell in the plains both games, so my flank was always going to be tattered.
Oh well, next time.  ;)

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 05, 2019, 10:12:28 PM
To be fair to Will, the MEG scoring system does not encourage hanging back.

Who said anything about hanging back. Plus the incentives apply to both players, you can't hide behind it as a cause of defeat.

Quote
With a small army such as he has the advance then makes it difficult to cover flanks.

You have to work on it, but it is far from impossible. As I've mentioned somewhere my armies are generally the smaller when I play and I'm doing OK with them I think. A bit of forethought and practice helps, plus not going into the game assuming you will be outflanked - that just becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy  8)

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 06, 2019, 12:07:51 AM
Terrain fell in the plains both games, so my flank was always going to be tattered.
Oh well, next time.  ;)

Afraid I rather think you helped it along in your game against Hunter though  :-[

Gents,

gentle and only reminder: let's move this away from publicly discussing/critiquing one person's game and go back to discussing the rule/point query and give Si some ideas for consideration.

Cheers.

Erm, whats wrong with discussing a specific game?

Will has asked for input into how to beat certain army types, referenced this game, and has put it into the public domain by putting it on his blog. As long as nobody is breaking the forum rules by, for e.g., attacking Will personally when discussing it I can't see that there is an issue. It is a useful real life example to illustrate things.

I don't think this part of the forum is only for rule point discussion.

Certainly not criticising Will who is a very experienced and certainly more so than I am. He also scored well in all the other games he played in Daventry and his MEG ranking demonstrates this.
I know he had a real feeling of frustration after the two games against myself and Hunter and indeed it was this I think that led to him raising the viability of a small quality army against the alleged horde army in game balance terms. This is the area for discussion.
For myself, while both armies he faced had 13 TUGS, I do not think they were true hordes n terms of for example Spartacus. Both the armies had no low quality troops but rather lots of lowish cost very effective ones such as the masses of long spear protected cavalry.

No worries. As long as people don't perceive it as a bit of a tune up of one individual. I'm sure we all want the boards to be welcoming.

1) I was an idiot.
Can we take that point as read.
2) I tried one block, I tried two blocks and a pinning force while picking on units I could/should beat. It didn't work. I'm looking for advice how to beat this type of army and improve. If not beat them, at least cause some damage!
3) see 1 (above).
4) I'm sure I can come up with any number of excuses, but I have realised that I basically got too big for my boots and forgot that I go along to these things to have fun.
5) See 3 (above)

Sorry I was a stroppy fool. Hugs.

And I'm sure in future, I will use this thread to moan about other armies!
;)

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 05, 2019, 10:12:28 PM
Even Alasdair had a horde type army where he went a stage further of downgrading shooting skills that he did not think necessary to his game plan. Could shoot unskilled when enemy were heavily degraded but also allowing him not to pay to hold charges when close to the enemy.

How many TUGs did Alasdair and the other place getters' armies have? I wonder if anyone has any stats on army lists of the winners in various comps. I've often thought that a large army (particularly cavalry) is a bit of a "hard to break in 3 hours' kind of deal, so you don't often give away the 15 points. And small units of cavalry with unskilled missile weapon to get evade is a bargain up there with long spear. Maybe up the cost of unskilled for cavalry because of the evade advantage. Unskilled javelin short spear is in my opinion a lot better than just short spear cavalry.

Will, you were certainly not an idiot. Hands up those who have never made a mistake in a game that cost them the fight.
My last game at Skulls was my example. Got over confident about what my boys could do and threw in part of my army against the Immortals when the sensible thing to do was take time and mass my forces so I could over power him from different angles. Probably cost me third place. A game of fine margins for all of us and one where a moment of thoughtlessness can cost us dear.
Onwards and upwards.

Quote from: craig.w on July 06, 2019, 09:28:58 AM

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 05, 2019, 10:12:28 PM
Even Alasdair had a horde type army where he went a stage further of downgrading shooting skills that he did not think necessary to his game plan. Could shoot unskilled when enemy were heavily degraded but also allowing him not to pay to hold charges when close to the enemy.

How many TUGs did Alasdair and the other place getters' armies have? I wonder if anyone has any stats on army lists of the winners in various comps. I've often thought that a large army (particularly cavalry) is a bit of a "hard to break in 3 hours' kind of deal, so you don't often give away the 15 points. And small units of cavalry with unskilled missile weapon to get evade is a bargain up there with long spear. Maybe up the cost of unskilled for cavalry because of the evade advantage. Unskilled javelin short spear is in my opinion a lot better than just short spear cavalry.

From memory, I think Alasdair had 12 TUGs. Mostly cost effective cavalry but around three cheap foot units.

Quote from: craig.w on July 06, 2019, 09:28:58 AM
Unskilled javelin short spear is in my opinion a lot better than just short spear cavalry.

The unskilled jav is worth its weight in gold when added to a basic SSp cav type. If it were optional it'd be hugely unusual not to take it.

Downgrading a bow only cav type to unskilled can get you a similar usefulness - it will come as no surprise that Alasdair has been doing this  8)

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 06, 2019, 08:40:17 AM

THIS THREAD IS NOT ATTACKING ME

1) I was an idiot.
Can we take that point as read.
2) I tried one block, I tried two blocks and a pinning force while picking on units I could/should beat. It didn't work. I'm looking for advice how to beat this type of army and improve. If not beat them, at least cause some damage!
3) see 1 (above).
4) I'm sure I can come up with any number of excuses, but I have realised that I basically got too big for my boots and forgot that I go along to these things to have fun.
5) See 3 (above)

Sorry I was a stroppy fool. Hugs.

And the winner of the humble confession of the year prize goes to ....

There is however some truth inthe point raised but we are really into rather fine details and tweaks. Bet ever the serach for near prefection so lets have the ideas ...

S

I suppose one possibility is to raise the base price of everything. Ie make the cost of bodies a little higher relative to the cost of weapons/capabilities. Might diminish the move towards vast walls of mediocrity.

Unskilled shooting is a tricky one. It is almost worthless if you don't get an evade as a result but possibly under-priced if you do (especially in the case of javelin). Is this a distinction that can be accommodated by the spreadsheet?

Martin

is 13 Tugs (horde) compared to 11 (normal) a vast wall of mediocrity?

I took 13 with the plan that more dice would mean less randomness.

nope


therefore I hesitate to give any advice, but long spear infantry is not a game winner, its a game not looser  (though that can go wrong really quickly).   An army mainly made of long spear with a couple of lethal anti cav powerbow units is going to struggle against larger numbers.  It really cannot cope with flank attacks as it strips the frontal factors on top of the direct damage.  Add in that it is not likely to go through the front of anything (very unlikely to be better than +1 frontally, mainly evens on green, and losing ranks really hurts)

so a small army of drilled long spear is likely to get outflanked and tonked.

Yep, no point in running anything high quality. Numbers are what count. That's why Gauls and Spanish dominate tournaments, with huge numbers of crap-troop tar baby units.

Except they don't. A 9 stand Gaul unit will get chopped into cat foot by 6 stands of superior Romans in fairly short order, and clever use of cavalry, light troops and terrain can keep the barbarians off the Roman flanks long enough for it to happen. Other examples will occur to you. The game is a balance between quality and quantity; you need a bit of both...unless you're Alastair, of course. Us mere mortals need some quality troops to with battles.

I'd tend to agree that long spear infantry look better on paper than they actually are in reality.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 06, 2019, 08:54:36 PM
I'd tend to agree that long spear infantry look better on paper than they actually are in reality.

As a user, I agree. Go to one rank deep and you're dog meat.

So if you have long spear then go tribal so you get lots of them for fewer points and go four ranks deep. Oops we are back on the topic of cheap massed armies again!!

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 06, 2019, 09:50:08 PM
So if you have long spear then go tribal so you get lots of them for fewer points and go four ranks deep. Oops we are back on the topic of cheap massed armies again!!

Oh and while we are at it protect the flanks with mounted long spear cheap average in three ranks deep.

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 06, 2019, 09:51:38 PM

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 06, 2019, 09:50:08 PM
So if you have long spear then go tribal so you get lots of them for fewer points and go four ranks deep. Oops we are back on the topic of cheap massed armies again!!

Oh and while we are at it protect the flanks with mounted long spear cheap average in three ranks deep.

Yes please, it'd be much appreciated.

hmmm maybe i need to ditch the big army/dice mitigation strategy and go for the fucking hard frontal assault strategy

Is it really horde armies and long spear that's the problem? Is there even a problem? The top 5 armies were:

First Bulgarian Empire
Hussite
Royal Achaemenid Persian
Ottoman Turkish
Khawarij

Maybe someone could post the lists used?

Looking at that list (excluding the Hussite) and the overall 38 armies used the almost complete absence of any Romans, Successor, hairy barbarians, dark age foot-dominant armies, pike armies suggests that the problem is cavalry are under-priced relative to foot. Unless it's a tightly themed competition people usually aren't choosing foot (of course there will be exceptions).

So wouldn't the answer be to get fewer mounted on the table to make it more of a challenge?

I really think that tinkering the the rules at this late stage is not a good idea. There needs to be a line in the sand and if there is a problem change the army builder, not the rules. Isn't that the point of an online army builder, if things are a bit out of whack change the points rather than the rules? Mounted long spear has its quirks, keep it as is, rather than have all the cataphract players up in arms after they get neutered because of the success of Arab style armies with massed long spears (Hunter scored 2 in the first game, so someone clearly had the answer to that army). Bump loose formation cavalry up a bit, mounted long spear up a bit, decrease close order cavalry would imho be a better idea than changing the way a weapon works after 3 years in the rules.

I am not sure I can agree that playing with points for mounted long spear is the answer. As you say this would then knock on to cataphracts who are already expensive. I remain convinced that mounted long spear are given certain advantages that their historical performance do not seem to justify. In particular, cancelling mounted melee expert and a plus in all types of terrain. I think, and I am being cautious here, Nik has tended to agree indicating the Arab style as being more of a fencing with long spears skill.

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 07, 2019, 08:25:22 AM
I am not sure I can agree that playing with points for mounted long spear is the answer. As you say this would then knock on to cataphracts who are already expensive.

But link it with the ArmHrs question, as previously mentioned, and it may work out fine for the cats.

Quote from: craig.w on July 07, 2019, 02:11:17 AM
Is it really horde armies and long spear that's the problem? Is there even a problem? The top 5 armies were:

First Bulgarian Empire
Hussite
Royal Achaemenid Persian
Ottoman Turkish
Khawarij

Maybe someone could post the lists used?

Looking at that list (excluding the Hussite) and the overall 38 armies used the almost complete absence of any Romans, Successor, hairy barbarians, dark age foot-dominant armies, pike armies suggests that the problem is cavalry are under-priced relative to foot. Unless it's a tightly themed competition people usually aren't choosing foot (of course there will be exceptions).

So wouldn't the answer be to get fewer mounted on the table to make it more of a challenge?

I believe that there are some factors pushing for cav armies :
1- duration of the game. Game Less than 3h means you need unit running fast to catch the last points missing.
2- the proximity of the skulls with Britcon. Britcon is post 1066 this year. It Focuses the attention of the gamers on later medieval armies.

Quote from: Rino on July 07, 2019, 08:56:26 AM

Quote from: craig.w on July 07, 2019, 02:11:17 AM
Is it really horde armies and long spear that's the problem? Is there even a problem? The top 5 armies were:

First Bulgarian Empire
Hussite
Royal Achaemenid Persian
Ottoman Turkish
Khawarij

Maybe someone could post the lists used?

Looking at that list (excluding the Hussite) and the overall 38 armies used the almost complete absence of any Romans, Successor, hairy barbarians, dark age foot-dominant armies, pike armies suggests that the problem is cavalry are under-priced relative to foot. Unless it's a tightly themed competition people usually aren't choosing foot (of course there will be exceptions).

So wouldn't the answer be to get fewer mounted on the table to make it more of a challenge?

I believe that there are some factors pushing for cav armies :
1- duration of the game. Game Less than 3h means you need unit running fast to catch the last points missing.
2- the proximity of the skulls with Britcon. Britcon is post 1066 this year. It Focuses the attention of the gamers on later medieval armies.

Agree x 2

Another possibility would be to change breakpoints so that, regardless of the number of TUG's you have, BP never goes over points value divided by 2000. In effect at 10K you only ever have to break 5 TUG's. Take 13 TUG's if you want but you break if you lose 5.

A little harder to create armies that are virtually unbreakable in a competition time frame.

Martin

Quote from: Rino on July 07, 2019, 08:56:26 AM

Quote from: craig.w on July 07, 2019, 02:11:17 AM
Is it really horde armies and long spear that's the problem? Is there even a problem? The top 5 armies were:

First Bulgarian Empire
Hussite
Royal Achaemenid Persian
Ottoman Turkish
Khawarij

Maybe someone could post the lists used?

Looking at that list (excluding the Hussite) and the overall 38 armies used the almost complete absence of any Romans, Successor, hairy barbarians, dark age foot-dominant armies, pike armies suggests that the problem is cavalry are under-priced relative to foot. Unless it's a tightly themed competition people usually aren't choosing foot (of course there will be exceptions).

So wouldn't the answer be to get fewer mounted on the table to make it more of a challenge?

I believe that there are some factors pushing for cav armies :
1- duration of the game. Game Less than 3h means you need unit running fast to catch the last points missing.
2- the proximity of the skulls with Britcon. Britcon is post 1066 this year. It Focuses the attention of the gamers on later medieval armies.

Also we've had a couple of comps (Brighton & Derby) which were basically classical so people have had a run out with those armies already this year.

Quote from: martymagnificent on July 07, 2019, 09:05:03 AM
Another possibility would be to change breakpoints so that, regardless of the number of TUG's you have, BP never goes over points value divided by 2000. In effect at 10K you only ever have to break 5 TUG's. Take 13 TUG's if you want but you break if you lose 5.

A little harder to create armies that are virtually unbreakable in a competition time frame.

Martin

Has an undesirable impact on other armies though - e.g. Slave Revolt. So not something I'd want to see.

Quote from: martymagnificent on July 07, 2019, 09:05:03 AM
Another possibility would be to change breakpoints so that, regardless of the number of TUG's you have, BP never goes over points value divided by 2000. In effect at 10K you only ever have to break 5 TUG's. Take 13 TUG's if you want but you break if you lose 5.

A little harder to create armies that are virtually unbreakable in a competition time frame.

Martin

The thing is that players aren't taking these armies to not lose. They are taking them to win. How it works is that flank attacks are so powerful in MeG (which is a good thing - makes the game fun apart from anything else) that it only takes one extra unit on the loose to win the game. So if the opposing units are roughly paired up then the larger army has the extra units to roger the flanks. The traditional answer is to use terrain on the flanks and find a way to neutralise multiple units with a few of yours to restore equilibrium (some sort of Pin and Punch strategy). Remains to be seen if people can make that work ... as I reckon we will probably see more of these larger armies. Doesn't have to be true that there is a counter move that works though, every rules set will have weaknesses - it's inevitable. The important thing is that Simon keeps a watching brief on it - which I'm sure he will (it's one of the great things about MeG)

One thing that does occur to me is that this big army approach depends on flank attacks. Are they a bit too easy at the moment? Particularly the shallow angle ones. Looking at Will's blog pictures all Hunter's flank attacks look like they started well behind the flank, which is fine ... but it is possible to wangle a flank attack from just behind the front edge of a unit. Is that adding to the potency of the big armies? I know Richard had a suggestion for changing to a back edge of the attacker needing to be behind a flank. Seems to me like the last main area of the rules that still needs looking at again (actually independent of whether it affects this big army question)

all the best

Dave

Dave, an excellent summary and spot on in terms of the strategy that Hunter and I adopted. We play each other every second week so you can imagine the fun we have trying to out do each other.
Our strategy is pin and flank. In my three wins at Skulls every game came down to pinning with the large infantry units while getting the cavalry on the flanks.
Game 1 took out elephants
Game 2 Flank attack on superior heavy chariots. Four chariot units in one impact charge that went down the line one after another.
Game 3 Flank attacks on Will's Samurai
To be honest in most of the games there was terrain on the flanks - look at Will's photos of our game. The problem is that it is very rare for the terrain to cover the flanks of a small professional army.
Not sure why I am trying to stop a winning tactic that is working well but to be honest it just does not feel right. Would love to paint and use a small high quality army but to be honest just does not seem viable to me. Not seen Alasdair using too many either.

Should also take the opportunity of praising Hunter and his army choice. I always accuse Hunter of being a tight wad with money and he applies the same philosophy to his army choices. He looks out, not for poor troops but those that he deems very cost effective.
Looking at his Skull's army he only had two troop types namely:
5 units of 8 average tribal close foot with shieldwall and nothing else. Not great fighters but a nightmare to kill when 4 deep.
8 units of 6 average cavalry formed loose long spear. Very mobile and can put up a good fight against all mounted as they cancel melee expert, have a plus in close terrain.
Having two troop types, it is no need to coordinate lots of different troop types.
The good news is that his army falls outwith the dates for Britcon but the bad news is that his new army follows similar thought patterns.
Indeed he did lose one game at Skulls against heavy chariots a troop type he is not familiar with playing with or against.

Royal Achaemenid Persian and Ottoman Turk came 3rd and 4th - were they large armies of average? Not played against either in MeG but in other rule sets they generally have decent troops in the mix. Would be keen to see how they did their army lists...

Another thing about these large armies, which has bugged me from the start to be honest, you can outscout a large army but end up putting your whole army down before his (I know because my brother has Pictish and he always deploys last unless I 100% outscout him). In fact I remember Richard commenting about this with his Lycian army "Only 5 PBS and 2 Scouting Cards, but with 15 UGs, quite often was able to deploy some UGs after my opponent, even when outscouted." Not having a dig here at Richard, but this feels wrong.

eg I outscouted the Pictish horde  (19 UGs, 6 were SUGs I think) by 60%. Pretty comprehensively you would think. He deployed 12 UGs, mostly skirmishers, I then deployed my entire army (11 UGs), and he matched up my weakest parts with his 6 best TUGs. There has to be a better way surely.

I wondered if you two were related..   ;)

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 07, 2019, 03:20:05 PM
I wondered if you two were related..   ;)

Any more comments like that and you will be hearing from my lawyer seeking substantial damages!!

Yeah, good luck with that, I'm barrasic!

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 07, 2019, 06:03:33 PM
Yeah, good luck with that, I'm barrasic!

Is that before or after Jurassic?

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 07, 2019, 07:07:52 PM

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 07, 2019, 06:03:33 PM
Yeah, good luck with that, I'm barrasic!

Is that before or after Jurassic?

Bar sick?

Hi folks

Firstly Will was terribly unlucky to draw crap cards and watch his opponent throw great dice throughout the game.  It happens.

To the question - If it had been me I would have put my Japanese flexibles through the terrain to create a line from one long table edge to the other (with a few BW and 3/4 size spaces between TUGs admittedly) and plodded forward inviting me to fight on a reduced frontage where my mobility is negated and its largely no weapon foot or cavalry versus spears.   It takes time but if I need the win - which I did after bombing out with a 2 in round 1 - then I have to fight.   

Hope that helps.

HH

Oh and Will ........ don't worry about the sulk.   We are friends and I look forwards to you taking my advice and ramming it down my gizzard for a 15-0 revenge win at Britcon.  Its only a wargame!
HH

Except Britcon is my wedding anniversary, so absolute no go! ;)

Time Of Inadequate Lighting?

Hope you have a good one Will.   You will just have to nurse your ire till Skullrollers '20 assuming that we are spared till then.
HH

Here I am, using my own meta army, which got incredibly lucky...
https://madlemmey.blogspot.com/2019/07/medieval-meg-early-scots-vs-city-state.html?m=1

Last night, Paul and I both turned up, at random, with meta breaking lists.
15-8 to Paul, it was BRUTAL, on both sides!!

Sledgehammer vs. Battering Ram. lol ;D

More like road drill vs demolition ball!

Avg FA/2HCC/ME vs Exceptional/superior Prot/Impact/ME

nasty

I didn't know there was a meta. My bad.

If there is one the counter to it is skillful play.

What is a meta? 
Now Ray has had the courage to not know if there was one I can confess to not having an F clue what one is!?

Present British Meta is huge armies, my bête noire (or as they say in France, bête noire), especially as I like small, hard hitting armies...
e.g.  infantry without many skills in 8s, usually 6 to 8 TuGs, then average long spear cavalry to flank.
Army weighs in around a total of c14 TuGs, and has out deployed you, because he has more units, unless you actually fully outscout them. Inf deployed deep and move as one block, so they take forever to die, then once you are engaged, you get rolled up by the cav, because he always has more units than you, often with better generals (2 x T, 2 x C instinctive usually), so more cards.

So, Frisian, Arab Conquest, Feudal German, that sort of thing!

Austrailan Meta is fast moving, hard hitting cavalry...

Quote from: mad lemmey on August 23, 2019, 09:50:33 PM
Present British Meta is huge armies, my bête noire (or as they say in France, bête noire), especially as I like small, hard hitting armies...
e.g.  infantry without many skills in 8s, usually 6 to 8 TuGs, then average long spear cavalry to flank.
Army weighs in around a total of c14 TuGs, and has out deployed you, because he has more units, unless you actually fully outscout them. Inf deployed deep and move as one block, so they take forever to die, then once you are engaged, you get rolled up by the cav, because he always has more units than you, often with better generals (2 x T, 2 x C instinctive usually), so more cards.

So, Frisian, Arab Conquest, Feudal German, that sort of thing!

Austrailan Meta is fast moving, hard hitting cavalry...

Good summary and they are also a nightmare for Mounted shooting armies as they have so many bases and careful shepherding of bards means you can push through slowing effects. Hunter and myself cannot currently see beyond these behemoths for many of the reasons given above.

They won't outscout you in future due to having more TuGs.
Big armies are a challenge.

There is perhaps an argument to limit army break points to 6.
Extra volume beyond 11 TuGs is then to give you more to fight with.

Welcome thoughts.

S

I really don't think these armies are as "Meta" as Will is making out.  I think he has suffered from some bad match ups against them.

Top 10 armies at Britcon 2019


Feudal German   451
Catalan Company in Anatolia   428
BrTimurid   439
Feudal German   451
Aragonese Sicilian   457
Georgian   364
Medieval Burgundian   405
Medieval German City League   458
Eastern Seljuk Turk   367
Sultanate of Rum   370 

https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/CompResults/Index/Brt19

The comp wasnt open so maybe that skewed thimgs to the Germans.

The Germans were so popular they were on your list twice!!

Also worth mentioning the Catalan army I fought was also rather big with good quality units and lots of filler who sat at the back to increase number of units.

Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 24, 2019, 12:41:52 PM
The Germans were so popular they were on your list twice!!

It's the result of the tournament

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 24, 2019, 10:28:10 AM
They won't outscout you in future due to having more TuGs.
Big armies are a challenge.

There is perhaps an argument to limit army break points to 6.
Extra volume beyond 11 TuGs is then to give you more to fight with.

Welcome thoughts.

S

I quite like this suggestion as it makes more costly armies more effective. Will it kill of armies like Slave Revolt though?

So the "Meta" is any 13+ TuG army with filler, regardless of composition of army.  Not really a Meta.

I'm very disappointed in all of you, the correct answer is:
"Nothing is the meta, what's the meta with you!"

I have been thinking more about my games against large armies.
I think the change to outscouting will make a big big difference.
At present they get a clear benefit most of the time.
Which is a challenge as in practice you mainly want to pick on part of it.

Not sure it will need anything else - just correction of that will be enough I suspect.

S

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 24, 2019, 07:55:48 PM
I have been thinking more about my games against large armies.
I think the change to outscouting will make a big big difference.
At present they get a clear benefit most of the time.
Which is a challenge as in practice you mainly want to pick on part of it.

Not sure it will need anything else - just correction of that will be enough I suspect.

S

Willing to bow to your superior knowledge but while scouting is a factor I am not sure it is the issue. I think that at Britcon I was scouted 100 % in one game but set up in such a way that I could still deploy my masses effectively for whatever came their way. To me the issue is that cheap but not ineffective troops can be deployed in eights or nines and grind down through natural attrition much more expensive and allegedly more effective troops. This is especially prevalent if they go deep and shoulder to shoulder several units each 4 ranks deep. On the flanks you then have cheap but effective cavalry especially average long spear cavalry in sixes. When your infantry has pinned the expensive enemy units frontally then the cavalry work the flanks. Think of Hunter's army at Skulls.
I think this is also the point Will is making but leave him to confirm this.

So you have defined what you see as a problem, but what do you see as potential solutions?

To be honest, I am really supporting the arguments made by Will after Skulls. In doing so I am probably shooting myself in the foot as my Feudal German army reflects in its composition many of the concerns he has. Hunter's Arab army at Skulls also has these benefits. Honest soul that I am I am confirming his concerns about the effectiveness of large average ability units compared with small expensive troops. My concerns about the low cost of average long spear cavalry in comparison with the many benefits they receive have been posted on many forum topics. Strangely, I do not have the same concern about more expensive long spear cavalry which already pay a points premium.
Some ways to combat this might be increasing points of cheaper troops or limiting the maximum size of units to a level less than they can have at present. Limiting the maximum number of TUGs that count towards an army breaking as suggested by Simon also has merit but also has consequences.

Playing with points system? Could slightly boost the base cost of everything to make weapons/abilities relatively cheaper. Could up the cost of foot and mounted longspear a little?

Martin

Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 24, 2019, 08:37:05 PM
To me the issue is that cheap but not ineffective troops can be deployed in eights or nines and grind down through natural attrition much more expensive and allegedly more effective troops. This is especially prevalent if they go deep and shoulder to shoulder several units each 4 ranks deep.

If this is an issue there could be list changes to relevant lists (whatever they are) to make the unit sized 6 or 9 instead of allowing 8's - effectively means 3 deep (until losses happen) instead of 4 being possible. Or it could be a rule change about formation depth - only Pike can be over 3 deep.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 25, 2019, 09:23:43 AM

Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 24, 2019, 08:37:05 PM
To me the issue is that cheap but not ineffective troops can be deployed in eights or nines and grind down through natural attrition much more expensive and allegedly more effective troops. This is especially prevalent if they go deep and shoulder to shoulder several units each 4 ranks deep.

If this is an issue there could be list changes to relevant lists (whatever they are) to make the unit sized 6 or 9 instead of allowing 8's - effectively means 3 deep (until losses happen) instead of 4 being possible. Or it could be a rule change about formation depth - only Pike can be over 3 deep.

I would agree that nine base units are less effective than eight base ones. At least you are fighting three base frontages.

My preference would be to limit depth.  The reason they do so well so easily is they can go 4 deep.  As the game is attritional per frontage it is this that makes the most different.

That said I played Hunters army. It and a very close run thing even though my Huns are definitely not good in that match up - a string of 6 skulls out of 7 rolls finally did for me. 

Being 100% outscored is only a downside if the opposition has the sense to make full use of it.  I watched several games where people were outscored but generally found the opponent had not done anything dramatic enough to take advantage.

Points is the other options we could adjust.  If we take all bases up 10 its then in relative terms it shrink the mass crap more than the small super troops.  A good test is to try to this with some armies from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I will have a play next week.  I am not so concerned by the big armies once their scouting benefit vanishes.  People need to learn how to gang up on half their army when they have the chance.  But it may be 4 deep doesn't give enough time to do so.

A fine topic to ponder and play with while we finalise things.

Si

Si

Could four ranks deep be restricted to pike units only?

This was always my backup plan if volume started to dominate.
How would players feel about that?
I am wary of having two camps of players
a) minimum changes please and non if you can
b) lets fix a few things while we can

Same thing on chariots.

Si

Tribal in 2 files are manœuvrable, in 3 they are not.
Restricting the 4 deep to pike will have impact on significant number of aspects
One among others: charge.
You can contract by one as long as you are still in a legal format. One 8bases unit by 3 will not be able to do so anymore.

Quote from: Rino on August 25, 2019, 01:57:59 PM
Tribal in 2 files are manœuvrable, in 3 they are not.
Restricting the 4 deep to pike will have impact on significant number of aspects
One among others: charge.
You can contract by one as long as you are still in a legal format. One 8bases unit by 3 will not be able to do so anymore.

Should they be able to manoeuvre? Nine base units already have that  problem of not being able to contract?

Quote from: Rino on August 25, 2019, 01:57:59 PM
One among others: charge.
You can contract by one as long as you are still in a legal format. One 8bases unit by 3 will not be able to do so anymore.

Not quite correct.

Page 55 states that an UG can deviate from a legal formation when charging to get through a gap between friends, etc. Page 70 further says you can contract 1 BW as long as you remain at least 2 BW wide (but must reform to legal formation immediately if no contact is made).

No they could still contract if charge and stay in that formation.  Wouldn't affect that at all.
S

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 25, 2019, 01:07:04 PM
This was always my backup plan if volume started to dominate.
How would players feel about that?
I am wary of having two camps of players
a) minimum changes please and non if you can
b) lets fix a few things while we can

Same thing on chariots.

Si

I feel the chariot situation is rather different as the changes are not actually driven by 'fixing a few things' in a game sense and the objection to them is not a general objection to changes. I would see it as more of a:

a) leave things as they are (ie chariots are a rather match-up sensitive marginal sort of option)
b) Make changes that would appear to be creating less variety and weakening them and then be stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

Martin

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 25, 2019, 06:43:56 PM
No they could still contract if charge and stay in that formation.  Wouldn't affect that at all.
S

Do you mean they could stay in not legal formation after charge ?
Does it apply ONLY on the modification you are considering for the non pike unit or is that a general rule I missed (with clear impact on unit of 9bases) ?

Thx for confirming

All

• Any UG can be out of normal formation if if combat.
  Any UG can contract by one down to 2 wide to charge
  Usually the latter puts them in combat so no issue.
  If they don't get in they must expand back out at the first possible opportunity that place allows.
  Displacing friends being allowed to do so.

Don't think there is any issue therefore.

Team is leaning towards max depth being 3 except for pikes.
So more comment welcome.

Si

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 26, 2019, 08:09:36 AM
All

• Any UG can be out of normal formation if if combat.
  Any UG can contract by one down to 2 wide to charge
  Usually the latter puts them in combat so no issue.
  If they don't get in they must expand back out at the first possible opportunity that place allows.
  Displacing friends being allowed to do so.

I am a vote for three deep maximum other than pikes. This is like self harming as it totally knackers my Britcon army. Que Sera Sera. It was boring to play any way.

Don't think there is any issue therefore.

Team is leaning towards max depth being 3 except for pikes.
So more comment welcome.

Si

I would suggest Tribal and Formed never allowed in 4 ranks unless EITHER pike OR Superior/Exceptional

Simples

Re: limiting depth to 4 ranks for Pikes only : Disagree - there are plenty of examples of Tribal foot (eg Warband types) attacking in depth from Sentinum to Casilinum and probably beyond. Restricting such troops to three ranks only makes those troop types worse than they already are and I fail to see any historical justification. There may (potentially) be a case for Drilled and Formed non-Pike units although even that is restricting the player's choice of how to use their troops, and feels like a knee-jerk solution to a problem troop type - ie the cheap levy used to shore up TUG count. 

Quote from: IanN on August 26, 2019, 10:53:12 AM
Re: limiting depth to 4 ranks for Pikes only : Disagree - there are plenty of examples of Tribal foot (eg Warband types) attacking in depth from Sentinum to Casilinum and probably beyond. Restricting such troops to three ranks only makes those troop types worse than they already are and I fail to see any historical justification. There may (potentially) be a case for Drilled and Formed non-Pike units although even that is restricting the player's choice of how to use their troops, and feels like a knee-jerk solution to a problem troop type - ie the cheap levy used to shore up TUG count.

Quote from: IanN on August 26, 2019, 10:53:12 AM
Re: limiting depth to 4 ranks for Pikes only : Disagree - there are plenty of examples of Tribal foot (eg Warband types) attacking in depth from Sentinum to Casilinum and probably beyond. Restricting such troops to three ranks only makes those troop types worse than they already are and I fail to see any historical justification. There may (potentially) be a case for Drilled and Formed non-Pike units although even that is restricting the player's choice of how to use their troops, and feels like a knee-jerk solution to a problem troop type - ie the cheap levy used to shore up TUG count.

The problem is not armies using cheap levy as filler. The issue is armies which consist of low cost average foot which because of going four ranks deep can use attrition to defeat high cost better quality troops. Look at the popularity of a Frisians and Feudal German.

2 Wide 4 deep = Narrow. "Quality" troops should exploit this narrowness not whine when they lose, doing exactly what the enemy wants ie taking them on frontally. Terrain, maneuver, flank marches, skirmish screens, ambushes, break offs, fall backs. These are the traits of small quality armies, throughout history, taking on more numerous opponents successfully. I am sure that the true historical scholars among us can list lots of examples.
I think the current decision to take an 8 as 4 wide, 3 wide with one short file vs 2 wide is an interesting choice that requires decision making about width versus resilience (surely the decision making is reason to play MeG). Removing that option leaves fewer decisions and thus weakens the game.
At the moment 2 wide 4 deep is successful as a tactic and will remain so until players work out how to kill it; I am confident that the ability to deal with this is a lesson waiting to be learnt by more of us: my feeling is that the top players already can.
I am strongly against limiting depth to 3 except for Pike. It smacks of "I don't know how to beat this tactic, therefore the rules are wrong". Small, quality armies with a clear, well executed plan can topple most anything {I refer doubters to Jason's Alex Mac Exped}.
In short, don't fix something that isn't broken because some players, and I include myself here, have not got the knack of rendering this tactic a valid choice rather than a go-to winning must.

One thing and one thing only is certain. You cant please everybody. Somebody will be unhappy whatever you decide.

No everybody is happy just with mild disappointments ...
This is happy purple land.

Si

Quote from: steads on August 26, 2019, 04:03:16 PM
2 Wide 4 deep = Narrow. "Quality" troops should exploit this narrowness not whine when they lose, doing exactly what the enemy wants ie taking them on frontally. Terrain, maneuver, flank marches, skirmish screens, ambushes, break offs, fall backs. These are the traits of small quality armies, throughout history, taking on more numerous opponents successfully. I am sure that the true historical scholars among us can list lots of examples.
I think the current decision to take an 8 as 4 wide, 3 wide with one short file vs 2 wide is an interesting choice that requires decision making about width versus resilience (surely the decision making is reason to play MeG). Removing that option leaves fewer decisions and thus weakens the game.
At the moment 2 wide 4 deep is successful as a tactic and will remain so until players work out how to kill it; I am confident that the ability to deal with this is a lesson waiting to be learnt by more of us: my feeling is that the top players already can.
I am strongly against limiting depth to 3 except for Pike. It smacks of "I don't know how to beat this tactic, therefore the rules are wrong". Small, quality armies with a clear, well executed plan can topple most anything {I refer doubters to Jason's Alex Mac Exped}.
In short, don't fix something that isn't broken because some players, and I include myself here, have not got the knack of rendering this tactic a valid choice rather than a go-to winning must.

Wise and honest words Mr Stead!!

I also agree with Stephen.
I am not sure where the problem is.  4 deep is slow to kill, but relatively easy to outflank, and horribly vulnerable to slowing effects of shooting when 2 wide. 

Most of the 4 deep units ive seen are short spear/nothing.  Cheap and effective.  and probably pretty realistic. 

The Danish huscarls might by an outlier - 4 superior and 4 crap, then you have to fight your way through the superior to get to the crap.  Unless of course, you outflank them.  which is relatively easy as narrow and tribal.

The double ally German covers the flank with strangly mad long spear, so a cavalry flank is a bit harder to pull off.  Decent infantry will make a mess of them though.

I would think a decent Roman army would be the German's nemesis.  Or Catalans.  EAP might be interesting as well (Huscarls vs immortals, immortals dont have to charge, get to through white+ on the way in, 1 hit to slow, immortals up 1 on impact, down 1 in melee)

My vote goes, nothing wrong with four deep. Just give some of us more room on the flanks. Why is it being debated ? Who is complaining about it. It's to hot out here on the balcony to Scroll through 10 pages to find the initial complaint. The rules are pretty much ok IMO as Steve says dont fix what's not broke. Otherwise what players you have got might migrate elsewhere. Nothing can ever be perfect. (Dont tell the wife I said that  :-[)

Quote from: DracoStandard on August 26, 2019, 05:16:01 PM
I also agree with Stephen.
I am not sure where the problem is.  4 deep is slow to kill, but relatively easy to outflank, and horribly vulnerable to slowing effects of shooting when 2 wide. 

Most of the 4 deep units ive seen are short spear/nothing.  Cheap and effective.  and probably pretty realistic. 

The Danish huscarls might by an outlier - 4 superior and 4 crap, then you have to fight your way through the superior to get to the crap.  Unless of course, you outflank them.  which is relatively easy as narrow and tribal.

The double ally German covers the flank with strangly mad long spear, so a cavalry flank is a bit harder to pull off.  Decent infantry will make a mess of them though.

I would think a decent Roman army would be the German's nemesis.  Or Catalans.  EAP might be interesting as well (Huscarls vs immortals, immortals dont have to charge, get to through white+ on the way in, 1 hit to slow, immortals up 1 on impact, down 1 in melee)

I must admit my experience of playing a few is that:

• It is a pain of they artificially outshout you - but that is fixed
  Then you just need to be bold and aggressive.
  Far too often players line up when they don't have to.

Si

Well guys, I would have loved to face a meta army at britcon . I did it only once and we had a good game. Back in 2016 with the nikephorians I faced lots of what is now called meta armies. The problem for me was where to strike, go quickly and outmaneuver those guys .

So I do not fear them. 

I played the frisians in 2018 and even think I was the first to do so . The only problems I faced were slow players and time to fininsh a game when meeting a similar meta army . Melees could take ages.

For me, do not change or if the pressure is to high, just put the warbands and similar from 6 or 9 bases, skip the 8 and so be it .

My sense is we have suspicion of an issue but not evidence.
Mr Stead is spot on to me.
I will gladly face any of them with these Romans.

S

[attachment deleted by admin]

Excellent let's leave it then. The Feudal Germans will ride again. Never been outflanked by a drilled army yet.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 26, 2019, 08:18:20 PM
My sense is we have suspicion of an issue but not evidence.
Mr Stead is spot on to me.
I will gladly face any of them with these Romans.

S

Are your Romans any better than than fully Armoured foot THCT  and melee expert as I saw quite a few of them off?

The big units are very tough. The free wheel on charging is very nice for a bunch of tribal - killing or restricting that might make more impact on these untrained types.
8 might be a better maximum TuG size because they are stilll breakable, but once you get to 9+ it becomes difficult in an ~6-7 turn game without flanking them.

Quote from: stuuk on August 26, 2019, 09:32:23 PM
The big units are very tough. The free wheel on charging is very nice for a bunch of tribal - killing or restricting that might make more impact on these untrained types.
8 might be a better maximum TuG size because they are stilll breakable, but once you get to 9+ it becomes difficult in an ~6-7 turn game without flanking them.

The important difference between 8's and 9's is that the former can be deployed 2 wide whilst the latter cannot (well, until they've lost a base). It is actually quite an important difference.

Quote from: Robin on August 26, 2019, 05:22:28 PM
My vote goes, nothing wrong with four deep. Just give some of us more room on the flanks. Why is it being debated ? Who is complaining about it. It's to hot out here on the balcony to Scroll through 10 pages to find the initial complaint. The rules are pretty much ok IMO as Steve says dont fix what's not broke. Otherwise what players you have got might migrate elsewhere. Nothing can ever be perfect. (Dont tell the wife I said that  :-[)

Will raised this initially after facing Hunter and myself. I was then the honest Joe who agreed with him despite benefiting from using such an army.
I will now back down and admit that these meta armies are total rubbish and would actively discourage any player from using them - well other than myself.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 26, 2019, 09:35:35 PM

Quote from: stuuk on August 26, 2019, 09:32:23 PM
The big units are very tough. The free wheel on charging is very nice for a bunch of tribal - killing or restricting that might make more impact on these untrained types.
8 might be a better maximum TuG size because they are stilll breakable, but once you get to 9+ it becomes difficult in an ~6-7 turn game without flanking them.

The important difference between 8's and 9's is that the former can be deployed 2 wide whilst the latter cannot (well, until they've lost a base). It is actually quite an important difference.

In my experience nines are a liability while 8's are ideal.

if we move to 9s rather than 8s for these guys, we may need to consider the double bubble KAB on camp collapse...

Quote from: DracoStandard on August 26, 2019, 09:41:26 PM
if we move to 9s rather than 8s for these guys, we may need to consider the double bubble KAB on camp collapse...

If they are not a problem as seems to be the consensus then no need to remove 8 as an option. Keep it simple and allow 6, 8 and 9.

Ah yes good point I only took into account 2 files fighting in my numbers which is of course sh*t for anything bigger than an 8.

The short answer then is you need red dice versus something 2 wide, 4 deep or else the ability to break off and keep going in on yellow (green not so good - makes it about 4 turns)
Either way you're looking at three turns to kill them as a minimum.
Which probably leaves some time for the enemy to envelop you.

great, no change. Dust off the Arab Conquest.

Go for it.
My Huns will cope...

Si

Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 26, 2019, 09:30:37 PM

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 26, 2019, 08:18:20 PM
My sense is we have suspicion of an issue but not evidence.
Mr Stead is spot on to me.
I will gladly face any of them with these Romans.

S

Are your Romans any better than than fully Armoured foot THCT  and melee expert as I saw quite a few of them off?

Depends if they were Drilled Flexibles or not ... some people know how to get value out of these two things ;)

Quote from: stuuk on August 26, 2019, 10:15:11 PM
Ah yes good point I only took into account 2 files fighting in my numbers which is of course sh*t for anything bigger than an 8.

The short answer then is you need red dice versus something 2 wide, 4 deep or else the ability to break off and keep going in on yellow (green not so good - makes it about 4 turns)
Either way you're looking at three turns to kill them as a minimum.
Which probably leaves some time for the enemy to envelop you.

Which feels right to me.
Concentrated effort in one area frontally or flanks or terrain and clever use of loose order troops or flexibles.
Or now shoot them to a standstill.. The change to prompting has a big effect on 2 deep/4 wide!!
There are downsides to be a 2-wide TuG.  I suspect they will ne the most affected by the prompting change.

S

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 27, 2019, 07:09:38 AM
Go for it.
My Huns will cope...

Si

Are you going to Derby???

Probably not.
Likely to have one more trip to UK this year.
To do some sorting with Mum and Dad in Lancashire so the Ribble Rumble might be the one I get to.

S

So, I've found a Meta beating army,
And the meta is changing!
Now, how do you beat skilled horse archers?  ;)

Superior mounted with ArmHrs don't do them any favours if used wisely. Also longbowmen. Additionally many of the widely available skilled shooting horse archers are Unprotected or if not are pretty expensive. You need a deft touch to use them well.

Also infantry who can shoot who have Shield Cover or (rarer) Pavise can cause them issues.

As RJC commented after Britcon, they're successful partly because players are not used to facing them, there are a number of readily available counters.

See the meta theories keep changing ... sounds like no meta to me ....

S

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 16, 2019, 03:51:41 PM
See the meta theories keep changing ...

And the usual suspects carry on doing well in comps ...

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 27, 2019, 07:14:04 AM

Quote from: stuuk on August 26, 2019, 10:15:11 PM
Ah yes good point I only took into account 2 files fighting in my numbers which is of course sh*t for anything bigger than an 8.

The short answer then is you need red dice versus something 2 wide, 4 deep or else the ability to break off and keep going in on yellow (green not so good - makes it about 4 turns)
Either way you're looking at three turns to kill them as a minimum.
Which probably leaves some time for the enemy to envelop you.

Which feels right to me.
Concentrated effort in one area frontally or flanks or terrain and clever use of loose order troops or flexibles.
Or now shoot them to a standstill.. The change to prompting has a big effect on 2 deep/4 wide!!
There are downsides to be a 2-wide TuG.  I suspect they will ne the most affected by the prompting change.

S

will that not render pike units less good ?...will pikes not be to expensive now ? as against shooting armies they will virtualy be standing and moving very little?
were pikes stopped by being shot at historically ?

It will make it a little harder to get pikes without skirmish screens into shooters.
Although the compactness and drilled tends to make prompting relatively easy for the best of them.
I think then tweak to shooting might make skirmisher screens a bit more desirable which would be nice.

I'm sure while rules are nailed down we will have a little bit of points debate going on next year.
But that we can adjust easily as within the Army Builder.

Si

Hi Simon,
By your last phrase are you intending that after the V2020 (rules, list, budget) we will have a budget v2020.2 Over the year ?

Quote from: Rino on September 18, 2019, 01:06:02 PM
Hi Simon,
By your last phrase are you intending that after the V2020 (rules, list, budget) we will have a budget v2020.2 Over the year ?

I don't think there is a plan for such, but if it were needed due to badly out of whack points it is an easy implementation.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 18, 2019, 12:45:45 PM

I'm sure while rules are nailed down we will have a little bit of points debate going on next year.
But that we can adjust easily as within the Army Builder.

Si

Hi Simon,

please no more points debate after the parution of the rules, you are Mister Purple, you decide , we obey! :)
please no new army Builder after few weeks or months except if there is a major calculating bug Inside, we need stability to have a chance to find new Meggers or we will stay few even if we are right.

all the best.

Gilles " True Faith! ;)"

ps: a tribute to New order song  :)

Quote from: PUNCH on September 18, 2019, 07:21:48 PM

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 18, 2019, 12:45:45 PM

I'm sure while rules are nailed down we will have a little bit of points debate going on next year.
But that we can adjust easily as within the Army Builder.

Si

Hi Simon,

please no more points debate after the parution of the rules, you are Mister Purple, you decide , we obey! :)
please no new army Builder after few weeks or months except if there is a major calculating bug Inside, we need stability to have a chance to find new Meggers or we will stay few even if we are right.

all the best.

Gilles " True Faith! ;)"

ps: a tribute to New order song  :)

I agree !!

There won't be anything unless there is a major error.
Which is unlikely.

S