Quote from: badhabum on December 23, 2025, 07:45:50 PMI would say in the case stated here : it'snot a pitched battle but a raid . Not a MEG battle

so they turn up for a pitched battle and forget how to retire in good order, throw javelins and generally not wait to get thumped by something heavier and nastier?

ok I'll try again 'To turn to another matter, take the case in which you have two armies facing one another in battle order, or a pair of fortresses (24) belonging to rival powers, and in the space between all kinds of cavalry manouvres are enacted, wheelings and charges and retreats. (25) Under such circumstances the custom usually is for either party after wheeling to set off at a slow pace and to gallop full speed only in the middle of the course. But now suppose that a commander, after making feint (26) in this style, presently on wheeling quickens for the charge and quickens to retire...'

Translation by H Dakyns , Xenophon's Cavalry General

'Xenophon again stresses the advantages in speed and mobility of the cavalry,
even against a much larger force, in his account of the Corinthian war. As Xenophon
describes in the Hellenica, Dionysus, the tyrant of Syracuse, sends a small force of
cavalry to aid the Spartans and their allies against the Thebans. Xenophon says that the
Thebans and their allies were filling up the plain around Corinth and destroying
everything. The Athenians and Corinthians, intimidated by the enemies' numbers, do not
go out to meet them. The small Sicilian cavalry, however, harasses the Thebans by
continuously riding up alongside them, throwing their javelins, and retreating quickly. By
43
scattering their numbers and keeping a safe distance from the enemy, the Sicilians are
able to attack from several positions repeatedly. Xenophon says that they are so confident
in their ability to flee the enemy that they would sometimes dismount and rest. If any of
the enemy dared pursue them too far, the Sicilians would turn and counterattack as soon
as the enemy turned and headed back to the main body of the army. By repeating these
tactics, the Sicilians successfully inflict heavy damage on the enemy and within a few
days they help force the Thebans and their allies to retreat (based on Hellenica. 7.1.21).'

quoted from Cavalry in Xenophon, thesis by Katie M. Luckenbill

Quote from: badhabum on December 23, 2025, 04:50:54 PMNot every nellies armies do have Elephant King .

Now if I play a Late classical indian army , I do have Elephant King . A Rajput potential ally has nellies but no Elephant King characteristic .

Could a Late Clasical indian general join a Rajput nellie TUG in a fight and give a +1 as per Late Classical Idian army specificity or is that specificity only for the amy in itself noy the generals ?

and the actual special rule fully answers your question 'SPECIAL RULE: Elephant Kings. Late Classical Indian (except Kingdom of Balur) generals can fight in a file of Elephants in their command giving a +1 claim (only +1 for legendary
generals).'

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 13, 2025, 09:17:37 AM

Quote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 11:20:21 AMthere is an optional regrade that Janissaries could be Superior exp shooters with significant melee capacity but still loose order. Based on their use in some open battles and sieges, Belgrade for both is a nice example. Or as the list represents them now as Superior skilled shooters.

The allowed shooting skill downgrade would allow that to be done without the need for a list line wouldn't it? Think you'd only need a new list line if you thought they also demonstrated more melee effectiveness than usual and wanted them to have ME but only Experienced shooting skill.

My intended change was to make the optional regrade one of exp shooters with polearms rather than ME. To represent them deliberately equipping for a melee focussed role, so fewer arrows, less concerted archery etc. Pole arm representing a mix of spears, halberds and other weapons. It wasn't uniform ,weapons were often at the discretion of the individual soldier.  They still cant cope with the Western Knights but could toe to toe with the heavy Hungarian foot. 

Late Medieval Scots 5415, Pike upgrade, should be allowed in 9?

Early Tudor 5417, French Pike in 1485, should be allowed in 9, with a bump to 18 max?

cheers
Matt

Quote from: Manzikert on December 12, 2025, 08:01:45 PM

Quote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 11:20:21 AMthe significant issue for an Ottoman representation is that they won by politics and coming back year after year with more and more troops until they won. Something Western adversaries struggled to match. The recurring theme for Western V Ottoman battles is it goes badly for the Ottomans and then the Western troops or commanders do something stupid and lose. Also Field fortifications were a thing but not fun in Meg so that skews the list as well.

I'm not sure where the Ottomans would have recruited armies for these repeated attempts in this time period (above and beyond the abilities of their opponents). By 1362 they only had control of the North Western corner of Anatolia. By 1450 they had most of Greece and Anatolia so possibly by then, but they must have conquered that huge population before having it available to recruit (and were then way more effective at administering it that the prior regime). And in the early years most of it would have been recently conquered Greek Christians.

My fault for brevity. I wasn't suggesting new armies each year, the Ottomans rarely lost a battle decisively as they were able to remove the effective core of their armies intact, due to their speed and reliance on mounted troops. Those that died were usually the azab foot and similar, easily replaced and allowed repeated campaigning with the 'good' stuff. The reverse was not true of their Western opponents who if they lost tended to suffer significant casualties in the retreat and of troops they could not afford or could not replace, never mind the lack of central authority to enforce participation.   Greek Christians much like early non-Muslim participants in the Arab conquest armies were not inherently disloyal as the lower taxes, the strong central authority and the generally less unstable lands made them preferable to older local regimes. My areas of study for central/eastern Europe are post 1400 on the whole though the principle is the same, strong leadership and better Ottoman organisation, militarily and politically saw them through in the early period, not necessarily an inherently better army composition. A fortified or at least obstacle centre was standard Ottoman practise when campaigning against Western armies, often along with field artillery,  essentially they turned it into a siege line. Without that representation in Meg its hard to replicate Ottoman tactics.

Its much like the Timurid list its very hard to create a list that matches the historical accounts and that can do well in meg, its just too small and too expensive to survive the attritional nature of meg black/white dice in any kind of numbers. At the least the Ottoman list has a big skirmisher base, good command and the Janissaries.

Quote from: badhabum on December 12, 2025, 02:50:12 PMJannisaries SUP + ME : sorry sir but I would say no . Or you make them AV + ME as being superior is already an upgrade . List have been reviewed and some AV + ME have been reclassified SUP. So upgrading jannissaries SUP + ME would go the other way round and open pandora's box when the tendancy goes the other way round . SUP are loosing their ME ( few exceptions )

I didnt say ME

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 12, 2025, 09:43:00 AM

Quote from: badhabum on December 12, 2025, 09:31:11 AMThe question for Nik is : what is the problem you want to fix ?

For the reasons already stated - it is unnecessary and would be a bit of a useful simplification.

no strong opinion, how would you handle Spanish Best LH who are skilled and their 'normal' Lh who are cantabrian based?

I've an amended list ready to discuss with RJC when any potential  rules adjustments are sorted and a fresh list update is on the cards.

little changes though except some rationalisation around numbers and some reclassifications (not new skilled shooters though)

there is an optional regrade that Janissaries could be Superior exp shooters with significant melee capacity but still loose order. Based on their use in some open battles and sieges, Belgrade for both is a nice example. Or as the list represents them now as Superior skilled shooters.

Spahis probably should have an optional regrade to make half flex, protected archers and no short spear. There is ample evidence that the Spahis varied massively from the expected 'requirements' of their feudal obligations and some being little different from the Akinji.   Some were full fat melee equipped cavalry, many a bow and a horse. All are consistently said to be good archers and able to manoeuvre away rapidly and then return. Seems fair to allow a mix of flex (lower graded formations) and better equipped veterans or wealthy contingents.

The effect I was hoping for was greater numbers for more firepower and better staying power. 

Generals really should have the option to be instinctive, direct, coordinated action wasnt as much a thing with Ottoman armies as you might think. They were very much professional in their logistics and planning but battlefield wise the respective wing commanders and the centre did not co-ordinate well. Also when the Beylerbey's of Rum or Anatolia were killed in combat it was a significant time before the respective wing reorganised and recovered or just plain didnt and routed

the significant issue for an Ottoman representation is that they won by politics and coming back year after year with more and more troops until they won. Something Western adversaries struggled to match. The recurring theme for Western V Ottoman battles is it goes badly for the Ottomans and then the Western troops or commanders do something stupid and lose. Also Field fortifications were a thing but not fun in Meg so that skews the list as well.

Quote from: badhabum on December 09, 2025, 09:33:31 AMOnce a general fights to the front his units are out of command ( except the one he is with )

To do a block break-off he has to have 3 cards

One for the break off, one for the block move, one for the out of command

Is that correct ?

fits with the rules as written

Quote from: SteveO on November 19, 2025, 11:03:36 PM

Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 19, 2025, 06:39:02 PMI never said they were overpowered, I said they were tedious to use, tedious to play against and generally not a fun game for either player. They also have significant weaknesses which can be exploited by a careful player however to the ill prepared they are brutally direct.

I assume you participated in the podcast(?) so I am sorry if I have misrepresented your personal view. However, the podcast posited that keils were too cheap and a points increase was being considered so clearly someone thinks they are overpowered. I would agree that the Swiss can be a dangerous army in the right circumstances but, like you said, they also have significant weaknesses. I could say the same about any number of other armies but at least there is historical justification for the Swiss being effective.

I accept you find the Swiss tedious to play but how are they any more tedious than playing with or against a horse archer army? I enjoy playing with my Swiss and I have never had an opponent complain about a tedious game.

Anyway, we can agree that the Swiss are not overpowered and agree to disagree over how much fun they are to play with.☺️

I won skullrollers with them last year and a 2nd at britcon. Yes I was one of the podcasters and I like the army but wont use it again in tournaments as its imbalanced in the ruleset when in the form of superior, unprotected, fleet of foot, Kiel. I'm also of the opinion that a price increase doesn't fix the perceived issue, it just makes other kiel based armies worse.

Cheers
Matt

Quote from: SteveO on November 17, 2025, 09:12:15 PMWell, having listened to the latest podcast's chorus of complaints about how overpowered the Swiss are, I was surprised the Swiss army didn't sweep all before them.😉

I never said they were overpowered, I said they were tedious to use, tedious to play against and generally not a fun game for either player. They also have significant weaknesses which can be exploited by a careful player however to the ill prepared they are brutally direct.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 10, 2025, 08:20:32 AM

Quote from: badhabum on November 09, 2025, 12:38:07 PMSecond Coastal question : it must touch the "sea" but may it "overlap" in the center deployment area or limited at placement to the flank deployment area

Yes, because there is no dice roll.

Note:  The player who doesn't place the piece may still roll to move or remove the feature - but the "must touch the deep water flank" restriction still applies.

'Must be placed touching deep water flank (no dice roll for sector).' As previously 'placed' has been used for terrain such as deep water and their limitation to flank sectors has never stopped them being moved into the centre sector by the opponent, might I suggest

'must always be touching a deep water flank (no dice roll for sector), even if subsequently moved.' 

and worth noting that it appears that as worded there is no limitation on a coastal sand dune, 8bwX 8bw, being placed so it juts 4bw into the centre sector, more if placed at an angle so only a corner touches the deep water. Not dicing for sector has the implication that the sector deployment part is also not in force

and for clarity on forts, 'Must be touching defender's rear table edge.'

to

'Must always be touching defender's rear table edge, even if subsequently moved.'

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 28, 2025, 04:23:41 PM

Quote from: tarnowski1 on October 27, 2025, 12:37:50 PMwhen you are paying between 1200 and 1800 per block of 12 bases already, with an army tug count of about 7, i think it will make those lists unplayable as even a 10 point cost per base would make the recent standard UK competition late Swiss lists need to find 300 more points, essentially forcing it into a 4 block Kiel list or a keep it at a five tug kiel but only tug count of 6. Essentially making the army breakable without ever fighting the pikes (three non pike tugs and the camp). Similar applies to any list using Landsknechts, they are already high cost low tug counts and often sub optimal because of it. We dont see many Maximillian Germans winning, despite the option for 5 Kiels of pike.

Keil's will now be pinned in place by the amendment/clarification to breaking off.
The rear remains vulnerable.

I think the balance is right in points already. I'd suggest its more a synergy of fleet of foot with superior and Keil that causes the problem and skews the perception. It also requires some skill and luck to win with such armies as it is.

edit- in fact I'd rather see the previously mooted option of  fleet of foot pike blocks charging only at the standard close order foot speed but moving at skirmisher distances. That removes much of the issue.

Well a Superior, Unprotected, Fleet of Foot, Keil, Shove UG of 12 bases is 1210 points (102 points per base) currently.

An increase of the base cost of Keil to 20 points instead of the current 5 points would allow 3 Superior and 2 Average compared to the current 5 Superior for the same points cost.

Richard

p.s.  Please keep the discussion to Keils.  If you want to discuss something else, start a new topic.

So are you saying you have no problems with average, unprotected, kiels but five superior, unprotected kiels is too much? and so should be made practically impossible?

If average keils aren't a problem then why are they too cheap? I repeat we do not see massed average keils being used with much success, despite them having the same mechanism as superior versions. Nor do we see superior, protected Swiss kielsbhaving much success.

when you are paying between 1200 and 1800 per block of 12 bases already, with an army tug count of about 7, i think it will make those lists unplayable as even a 10 point cost per base would make the recent standard UK competition late Swiss lists need to find 300 more points, essentially forcing it into a 4 block Kiel list or a keep it at a five tug kiel but only tug count of 6. Essentially making the army breakable without ever fighting the pikes (three non pike tugs and the camp). Similar applies to any list using Landsknechts, they are already high cost low tug counts and often sub optimal because of it. We dont see many Maximillian Germans winning, despite the option for 5 Kiels of pike.

Keil's will now be pinned in place by the amendment/clarification to breaking off.
The rear remains vulnerable.

I think the balance is right in points already. I'd suggest its more a synergy of fleet of foot with superior and Keil that causes the problem and skews the perception. It also requires some skill and luck to win with such armies as it is.

edit- in fact I'd rather see the previously mooted option of  fleet of foot pike blocks charging only at the standard close order foot speed but moving at skirmisher distances. That removes much of the issue.