Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 09, 2026, 05:00:24 PMI thought them also perfectly good an effective, and when used in larger unit sizes better than they were before.

Well Nik, that's not really saying much. One could say any troop type in larger units is more effective in combat.😉

As you are play testing the proposed changes, I applaud you updating them when you find they have clearly missed the mark. If people are confused about the changes, they could do what we have chosen to do and play the current rules in tournaments until the draft changes are finalised.

On a separate but related point, I would be interested to know how you are finding the proposed changes to Spear, Long Spear and Pike. These changes appeared to be the only ones that were questioned by players at CANCON as the general feeling about the others was positive.

I didn't play this year so was able to watch all the games. There were around 15 or so players and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves - even Robert H. Whose dice were only bad this year rather than catastrophically bad.

Andy Card came first with his Crown of Aragon army, Marty Williams came second with his Phyric army and Chris Burgh (the Loose Cannon) came third with his Minoan army. There were very few 'cavalry' armies and a preponderance of pikes and spears, perhaps the latter's last hurrah before the proposed rule changes potentially reduce their effectiveness. The Tupi army won the novelty award and was tougher than it looked, especially for smaller armies. Rob Mun did his usual professional job of organising and umpiring the tournament.

With regard to the proposed changes now being tested in UK tournaments, the feeling among the players was generally positive for all but the changes to pikes and long spear. The changes to shove and shatter were especially well received.

I think it works pretty well. I've seen camps sacked reasonably often and their sack usually, although not always, contributes to the game not ending well for the owning player. I would certainly not wish to see the ramifications of losing the camp made any more severe.

I know there a few players in regional Victoria. Canberra is probably the place in Australia with the largest concentration of MeG players, although numbers aren't what they were. As far as I know I am the only one in Adelaide having moved from Canberra a year ago.

Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 20, 2025, 12:04:21 AMI 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

G'day Matt, I didn't know I was talking to you.

I accept that you find the Swiss tedious as that is a personal opinion. However, if you find them imbalanced in game terms and you have had great success with them, I can only assume you think they have an unfair advantage. I too have won a tournament with the Swiss, although our tournaments are not as big as yours in the UK. While I think of myself as a reasonable player, I was lucky to avoid playing the armies that would have given me trouble. I certainly have lost my share of games with the Swiss.

On a more philosophical note, I find it refreshing that the Swiss are competitive. I find so many other historically successful armies are not competitive and are accordingly seldom if ever used in tournaments. I am looking at you armies of Alexander, Hannibal, Trajan, Belisarius, Heraclius, Ghinggis, Timur, etc.

Cheers,
Steve

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.☺️

Well, 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.😉

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 02, 2025, 04:18:24 PMI don't see how adding an additional statement would do anything but confuse new players.

Richard

That is a fair comment given the confusion among us current players.😉

Quote from: tarnowski1 on October 28, 2025, 07:04:09 PMSo 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.

I agree. I have seen only one Late Swiss army (mine) ever win a tournament in Australia and I will be the first to admit that I was extremely lucky both in my match-ups and in my dice rolling. Of course the Swiss are a tough proposition for melee cavalry (as they should be) but I notice no one is complaining that keils are too effective against Mamluks or the like!

Quote from: Manzikert on October 11, 2025, 02:21:34 AMHoplites were just an especially well equipped citizen levy, not professional soldiers with any special training. Within their own context they were good troops. But while they have a good record against cavalry, it wasn't against what we would call 'shock cavalry'. So I'm in favor of a general (moderate) reduction in their anti-cavalry capabilities.

But hoplites weren't peasants press-ganged into fighting for their feudal lord. As you say, hoplites had a pretty good record against contemporary cavalry so why do we assume that in the fictional case they fought medieval knights they would not do at least as well? If Flemish burghers could stand their ground, why not Athenian hoplites? By comparison, we do not seem to have an issue with the yari-armed Ashigaru retaining their anti-cavalry capability against medieval knights even though they fought only one or two ranks deep, had only to face men on the equivalent of ponies and never saw a medieval knight in their lives.

If we can stretch our imagination to allowing hoplites to face medieval knights, why can we not stretch our imagination to assume similarly equipped, trained and motivated troops from different historical periods would perform roughly the same. Otherwise, we should make Swiss pikemen worse at fighting elephants than the Argyraspides because the Swiss had no experience of fighting elephants.

Quote from: Manzikert on October 10, 2025, 04:44:05 AMIf handing a peasant a long pointy stick was enough to counter heavy cavalry they wouldn't have been the dominate fighting force in Europe (and elsewhere) for 800+ years.

True but resolve and/or training would have a lot to do with that outcome. The average peasant would not have been too keen about being on the battlefield under any conditions. More committed and organised commoners armed with 'pointy sticks', such as the Flemish and Swiss, ended the knights' unchallenged dominance. As Munster said, we could assume experienced ancient warriors armed with long pointy sticks would also be effective in the ahistorical settings arising in the thousands of years covered by MeG.

Quote from: Munster on October 09, 2025, 12:18:59 AMGiven most surviving accounts are effectively hagiographies, they are hardly going to say we treated the enemy with contempt and strolled over them!

Exactly. Of course, the surrender of the Spartans on Sphaecteria because they had no answer to the Athenian light troops shows hoplites could suffer against fire and manoeuvre.

Quote from: Munster on October 09, 2025, 12:18:59 AMIn practice a 12 foot spear in the hands of a competent warrior will stop cavalry if used appropriately. Now hoplite doctrine in 800 BC will not be the same as medieval foot doctrine in 1300, however the man behind the spear still has a brain. Thus there is no reason that a time-travelling Spartan would not essentially copy the doctrine of the 1300s or are we assuming nil agency of the warrior?

A much simpler solution is to simply theme the tournaments to time periods (as is already done) rather than create an artificial weapon system.

Agreed. If we want to improve the game, simplifying and clarifying the rules might be a better start point. This process has already started with the proposals for new shatter/shove rules and the removal of moving skirmishers before charges. As much as I enjoy MeG it is not a user-friendly set of rules.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 07, 2025, 06:56:48 AMClearly if you take all the good stuff it will be a small army, very tough but protecting those flanks will be quite challenging...
Hippeis = 1086 points
2 x Spartiates = 1086 points each
3 x Spartiate led hopites = 1197 points each.  6,763 points in just 6 TuGs and only 45 bases. Take them three deep and that is a frontage covering only one-third of the table.  All you need is a sea on one flank and an impassable mountain on the other... 

This raises some points.

First, the points saving from the decreased effectiveness of Spear (compared with Long Spear) and the increased vulnerability to supporting flanks and charging cavalry only gives you about one and half additional Spartan hoplite stands. This is not much helped by being able to get a +1 against non-ME foot, which they could usually beat frontally anyway

Second, as the Spartan player is very unlikely to have a Thermopaylae-like battlefield in a normal game, fighting in three rank deep TuGs of nine will exacerbate the overlap and flanking problems for the Greeks.

Third, there now appears to be an expectation that Hoplites and Pikes will/should be organised in three rank deep TuGs? Given Hoplites most commonly fought eight to twelve ranks deep and pikes 16 to 32 ranks deep, how do we account for them looking the same on the tabletop? Yes I know there were exceptions but they were unusual.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 08, 2025, 08:05:41 AMAll this is assuming Matyszak is correct.  I am not sure what his source is to make such a statement.

Richard

Well looked at another way, what makes us think he is incorrect? Are there any examples of hoplites being ridden down by cavalry? As mentioned already, the Spartans were nervous of the Persian cavalry at Platea but as we are talking about hoplites with 10ft long spears behind a wall of bronze shields facing men on the equivalent of modern-day ponies, this does seem more likely to be the result of the cavalry's manoeuvrability and shooting ability. In any case, the Spartans still won.

Similarly, the Athenians were nervous about facing the Persian foot archers at Marathon but they still won.

Steve