Quote from: lionheartrjc on March 06, 2026, 07:00:40 AMRather than get rid of them entirely, the following changes might improve them:

1.  Any infantry in 1 rank defending the edge of a fort should count in good going.
2.  Any troops in 1 rank defending the edge of a fort should not downgrade for shooting through cover.
3.  An unfortified camp should be allowed to be deployed in a fort.

{1} If heavy infantry should be encouraged to occupy a fort, is there a reason it's classified as Difficult? Doing so requires special-rule workarounds to patch that problem.
(Also, weird rules implications as written. Does close order infantry defending a fort in 1 rank have a +5 bonus when charged by enemy close infantry in 2+ ranks?-- +2 for barricades, +3 for enemy badly affected. If a TUG moves into a fort while 2+ deep, does it need to expand repeatedly until it's 1 rank deep to avoid being affected? etc.)

{2} This isn't an improvement; it just trades experienced bow shooting black dice due to cover, for experienced bow shooting black dice because they're under depth.
(But adds extra rules to make it happen?)


{3} This ties into bullet point 1, but if camps are intended to deploy inside a fort, the fort being classed as Difficult actively causes issues here as well.
(Also, is there going to be a special rule allowing the camp to deploy there, or would the defender just be praying that their fort ended up on a secured flank?)


As a side note, I'm a bit confused why forts are being made blatantly inferior fighting positions compared to field fortications.
I don't think it's controversial to state that it was usually the other way around historically.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 25, 2026, 07:08:00 AMThe intention was to avoid making Forts too good for competition games.  This is a rule that could easily be changed for scenario games.

I think you may have overshot. Since the new terrain table, I have seen-- in and out of tournament play-- precisely zero attempts to deploy a fort.
Their current implementation kinda' manages to hit a trifecta of uselessness:

[1] They're unlikely to hit the table when selected.
(Because they must be placed in a flank zone against the back table edge, they're always lost on a 3-4, and on tables with a secured flank, they are very unlikely to fit in a legal position on a non-water secured flank.)

[2] If they do hit the table, they are guaranteed to be out of position.
(Flank zone against the back edge is where my group shoves flank zone terrain we'd rather not deal with on a 4-5 for terrain movement. In my experience, in the overwhelming majority of games with back-corner terrain, the feature plays no role in the battle. In those rare games where it does play a role, it's usually just to stop a camp from being hidden behind a secure-flank mountain.)

[3] Even if it was to be in position, it's a bad pick for any job.
(Did you want a claims bonus? Mountains will do that while letting you shoot. Did you want protection from shooting? Forests completely neutralize shooting if you hide your UG at least 2BW back from the edge. Etc.; you get the picture.)


Oddly enough, I nearly picked a fort in a recent tournament round, but only to exploit a glitch: I had a mandatory difficult terrain piece to place, but wanted an emptier table.
Because we had a secured flank with the terrain pieces placed partially in both deployment zones, I knew there was a 2/3 chance the piece could not be legally placed, and even if it did hit the table, I knew it could not be moved from my back table edge.
In other words: The fort had a 0% chance of ever being relevant, so I could exploit it to effectively eliminate a mandatory terrain pick.
(I didn't do it, though; it would have been [1] clearly contra to the spirit of the rules, and [2] what we in the business call a "jerk move.")




If I might be so bold as to make a suggestion: perhaps change forts to a Good-Going-type which counts as having barricades placed along its perimeter as if UGs with the characteristic had been deployed there), and blocks line of sight beyond 2BW to/from UGs within the piece and not claiming barricades.

This would make the fort useful for hiding infantry inside of, but its requirement to stay at the back table edge will all but ensure that UGs inside the fort would be completely out of position to participate in the battle (unless the opponent actively hunts them down), so would probably still be a pretty niche choice.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 27, 2026, 11:03:15 AMThe first is that the S=wound effect for loose bow, crossbow, powerbow and slings at <=1BW should now only apply in the charge phase, so it will become <=1BW of the charge path. This will also apply to artillery KaB tests.  This is because we have seen some unhistorical moves with missile troops moving to 1BW.

Wait, why? Shouldn't standing that close to archers without closing to contact be freaking dangerous?

(Surely shooting at a point blank flat trajectory isn't that greatly effected by whether the target is standing or charging?)

To bring up non-UK tournaments, Kiel-based armies have generally done quite poorly in my region's tournaments on the occasions they've been used.

(Maximilian German won one of three games, but lost badly to Sohei and Classical Indian. I didn't get the results recorded from the mostly-average late Swiss army which was run, but it also lost at least half of its games.
By comparison, Macadonian-style armies tend to perform generally pretty alright in our tournaments, so take that as you will.)

Yeah, even at 5pts/base, Keil costs 60pts/tug and requires deploying the TUG narrower than necessary (under the revised pike rules) to function.
It's probably fine.

I've tried using skirmishing archers in these roles before and have never had any luck with either.

Trying to use these sugs as added firepower for another shooting unit has usually just fizzled when I've used them shooting foot. (The sug usually causes zero hits before contact)
I'll give it a go next time I run this army, though; maybe they synergize better with light horse than they do with foot shooters.
(I kinda' doubt the IRL Albanian infantry was expected keep up with the light cavalry's advance, though!)

When I've tried using archer SUGs to delay on a secured flank, I've similarly been met with total disappointment. Even when perched on a mountain, the sug has never survived to the end of a second melee phase, which slows down the opposing tug by zero BW.


That's why I was asking what the historical uses of these troops are; the obvious answers from a tabletop perspective don't seem to work in the context of this army.

[[Edit: the skirmishing archers also aren't particularly cost-effective in the Albanian context. A file of skirmishing archers gives me a white die for 120 pts, vs the Albanian cavalry tugs getting a skilled die for 208 pts per file. The Albanian cav being almost 80 pts/base cheaper than Hittite chariots makes quite the difference! XP ]]

I've been text-driving the Albanian Principalities army and generally enjoying them quite a bit, but there's one part of the army that's been absolutely stumping me.

Despite being the Albanians being an aggressive light cavalry army, they requires the inclusion of 12+ bases of generic skirmishing foot archers, and I can't for the life of me find any useful synergies or battlefield roles for these troops, given the context of how the rest of the army behaves.

I'm hoping that knowing more about these guys will tell me what their job was and how I should use them!

So: who are these average/experienced foot skirmishers representing and what was their historical role in the medieval Albanian order of battle? When the Albanians successful defeated Ottoman or Venetian forces (which they did often), what were these lightweight infantry screens doing to help make that happen?
(And how can I replicate that on the table; someone in my club runs Ottomans occasionally, and I'd love to pull off a historical win! > )  )


Thank y'all for your insight!!!

Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 20, 2025, 07:24:41 AMI'm not sure skirmishers were really used to resist an advance. I would suggest that in the main that they were usually withdrawn before the advance got anywhere close to the enemy.

I'm confused, then. Taking the rules at face value, it seemed to me that the design-intended way to use skirmishing foot is to place them in forward contact with the infantry line and use "tug a sug" to bring them forward.

Is the design-intended way to use foot SUGs actually to double-move them 4+ BW ahead of the main infantry line?
The rules seem like they wish to discourage this behavior, as opposing foot will then double-move to point blank range and force a run-away move from the sug, robbing them of their one turn to shoot effectively before being rendered vulnerable to being pushed through friends in the following movement phase.

NGL, this proposed change feels like it's being made for the wrong reasons.

The arguments being made in its favor aren't about game balance or historical accuracy, but because some players don't like how other people play.

Franky, I find this a very poor reason to take choices away from players.

So, uh, I know I'm a little late to the party here, but...

... eh, I don't think I like the new terrain table very much.
The current/old terrain table is just so wonderfully evocative!
The specificity of the terrain table is still able to spark my imagination after years of playing. (I'm even one of those annoying players who sometimes picks specific terrain pieces for narrative or scenic purposes!) And the specific quirks of certain pieces has helped make for some pretty memorable games (e.g. an unexpected TUG of camels storming a large patch of rocky ground that my loose troops had occupied; archers lurking in a luckily-placed hilltop vineyard checking an infantry advance; etc.).

I don't think the proposed simplified terrain table is capable of capturing what makes MeG's current terrain table so fun!
(And the fact that the proposed simplified table adds even more pieces that unexist themselves if you roll a 3-4 adds to the only thing about the current terrain table that actually does annoy me a little-- but I think that might just be a me problem. XP )

Quote from: martymagnificent on October 04, 2025, 09:22:28 PMThere are quite a few tribal, loose, fleet of Foot, missile equipped infantry (Irish and the like) whose tactics involved a lot of agile toing and froing that probably should be able to back up (in fact they should probably be better at it than drilled archers)

Martin

An idea floated in another thread was to make some Flexible infantry switch between Loose and Skirmish order. (Could be noted by adding a modifier to the formation classification-- e.g. "Tribal/Flexible(s)" vs "Tribal/Flexible(c)" or "Tribal/Light" vs "Tribal/Flexible" -- or by a unit characteristic-- e.g. "Harrier" or "Lights" that changes what the flexible TUG flexes into.)

Another way to achieve the effect I think you're looking for which would be easier to roll out in an annual army update would be to add "Evade" as a unit characteristic, which would allow the UG to access the skirmish/run away charge responses even if they normally wouldn't qualify.


{{ EDIT: On second thought, expressing the alternate flexible mode would almost certainly be better handled by a characteristic than complicating formation types. Struck out that part of the suggestion. Would also make it possible to roll out with an annual army update-- as Shower Shooting and Spear Protection were-- which is an extra plus. }}

A bit too late now (train's pretty much already left the station on this one), but if the main objective was to make Hoplites and Thureophori more effective against other foot that weren't Romans, probably just making the Shove characteristic stronger and making Dory-equipped troops the exception to the "LSp can be bought in 9's" rule of thumb might have done the trick instead.

Wish it hadn't taken me a month and a half to think of that one. 🙄


As for hoplites being nervous about pressing into cav: even LSp has good cause not to launch a charge against lancers (especially without a third rank!), and most hoplites no longer being able to fall back would add to that reticence to advance since it could easily increase the risk of envelopment.


Again, train's already left the station... but hindsight, yeah? XP

So, funnily enough: for the last couple years, I've been tracking army W/D/L rates for tournaments and mini-tournaments that my local club participates in! (For my own curiosity, mind you)

Of the 60 games I have recorded, 75.8% ended in Triumph/Rout.
I have a hunch some armies will generally be less prone to finishing games, but RN I can't be bothered digging into it.    Sorry!

Okay, opinion time. Apologies in advance for anything dumb I put below. XP


[4607] Kamakura Samurai + [4608] Muramachi Samurai
• Mixed Cav/Foot TUGs:
With the changes to foot TUGs shooting, these guys' mechanics are super out of step with how everything else works. Instead of getting a bonus when standing to shoot at chargers, these guys give up a +1 claim penalty for trying it.
° Perhaps these mounted Bushi supported by foot should just be classed as Fleet of Foot infantry with Mounted Infantry (for the scouting contribution), probably close-order to discourage bushwhacking through bad terrain, and perhaps with an added Short Spear to make up for losing their charge bonus vs loose infantry?
(If you want to be really spicy: perhaps make the "mounted" Bushi have devastating chargers, functioning in one rank, to capture their bonus vs foot but not against proper cavalry)
° If these guys really must remain classed as cavalry, could we at least give them shower shooting so they don't surrender a claim for shooting at chargers and reclass them as close order so they aren't paying for a fifth BW of speed they can't use?

• Mixed TUGs of Bushi+Followers Shooting:
These UGs are in an environment where they are shooting at superior-quality troops a lot. When standing to receive chargers, mixed Bushi are effectively shooting at Unskilled against the front ranks of most targets, despite paying for skilled shooting.
° Could Bushi in these mixed UGs perhaps be regraded to Experienced shooters, but with either <A> the rear-rank followers classed with Unskilled shooting (adding ranks for the front to shoot at full effect, and excused as a few surviving bushi taking pot shots when files which have lost their front rank take unskilled shots) or <B> with a note that these Bushi shoot at full effect when one rank deep?
(If either of these change are implemented, the same should probably apply to the Murakami units in the Sengoku-era lists, since they fight in the same fashion)


[5401] Jarls of Orkney
• With the changes to Mounted Infantry vs old Dismountable, is the restriction on Huscarls in mixed UGs taking Mounted Infantry still necessary? They wouldn't benefit from the flank march bonus, but it would make a lot of sense that Huscarls might depart mounted for scouting and "foraging" before joining up with the Bondi for battle.


[54xx] General note on Book 54
• It seems strange to me that Hobilars lose their optional Melee Expert when dismounting. While not common, there are examples of cavalry in MeG with optional melee expert keeping it once dismounted. (IIRC some iterations of Roman equites work this way)
Is it clear from sources that Hobilars were only marginally effective troops when dismounting?
(If nothing else, 128 points is a lot to pay for a 67-point infantry base which is ineffective against most targets which would prompt Hobilars to dismount)


[5509] Medieval Burgundian
• From 1420 CE, at least half of the Burgundian knights must be downgraded to average-quality. Burgundian knights can be fielded in mixed UGs with average-quality coustiliers/valets. Would it be possible to add a note allowing knights in mixed UGs with valets to be downgraded to average without downgrading their valets to poor?
Current implementation severely discourages mixing average knights with valets.


[5515] Burgundian Ordnance
• Mixed Pikemen and Longbowmen:
I know these guys are supposed to suck and all, but perhaps the front-rank pikemen should be regraded to LSp? This would simultaneously <A> head off any silly rank-staggering to gain Pike's 3rd-rank benefits, and <B> not force the pikemen to pay points for a 3rd-rank bonus that they can't use.
° (It might also be worth considering allowing these Pk/Longbow UGs to be bought in 12-stand units, so they can deploy three elements wide like the army's other pike UGs? If not, probably NBD; these guys really are quite terrible X| .)


[5516] Edward IV English + [7106] Tudor English
• Do sources suggest that English men-at-arms were regularly outclassed by their continental counterparts? This classification of English men-at-arms is down 1 claim in combat with French men-at-arms on foot, increasing to 2 claims down where the English men-at-arms are reduced to a single rank. (at that point, we're looking at the same difference as between a Veteran Legionary and a standard Gallic warrior!)
If English men-at-arms weren't regularly stomped by their French counterparts perhaps this difference could be <A> mitigated by making English men-at-arms Superior as is the case in the late Hundred Years War list, or <B> keep the English men-at-arms equipped with 2HCC, but add the Spear Protection characteristic (might make them too knight-resistant that way, though!)
° (or maybe <C>, have the 2HCC weapon's +1 charge claim also apply vs mounted, which would make all men-at-arms a bit less less trampleable. XP )


[55xx] General note on Book 55
• Should archers with Mounted Infantry be allowed to take optional stakes?
It's not a game balance thing; I mostly just wanted to share the mental image of outriders showing up by surprise with field fortifications. Gave me a good chuckle anyway. XP



Okay, that's all my bad takes for today. Figured there was no harm in sharing. : )

Looks like a few new books have been put through since my last annoying wall of proofreading! XP
So, uh, here it is again?

(I found myself with several comments while reading through these new/revised books that weren't really proofreading in nature; I'll be separating those in a separate post for clarity.)

[4304] Gaya Confederacy
• Conscript Spearmen (LSp) are only available in UGs of 6 or 8 (not 9). (Gaya Armored Spearmen are in 6,8,9 as normal for LSp) The Conscript Spearmen also have a a maximum of 48 stands (6x 8-stand UGs); should this be 54 (6x 9-stand UGs) instead?


[5401] Jarls of Orkney
• Note for mixed UGs of Huscarls and Hird refers to "Dismountable" instead of "Mounted Infantry"

[5405] Feudal Scottish
• Note regarding LSp and old Dismountable rule still included.

[5405] Medieval Scottish
• Note regarding LSp and old Dismountable rule still included.


[5505] Early Medieval Low Countries
• UG sizes not specified for separately deployed Guildsmen with Placon.
• Guildsmen LSp with added Placon-armed bases cannot be taken in UGs of 9. Is this intentional?
• Guildsmen LSp with added Longbowmen bases cannot be taken in UGs of 9. Is this intentional?

[5507] Hundred Years War French
• Allies section references "Best Longbowmen". Is this referring to "Retinue Longbowmen"?

[5508] Free Company
• Veteran Men-at-Arms have no Melee Expert option, unlike all other superior-quality Men-at-Arms in book 55. Is this intentional?

[5515] Burgundian Ordnance
• Ordnance Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?


[5607] Later Communal Italian
• Army Notes in top section are cut off mid-sentence at line break.


[7101] Late Swiss
• Lorain Alliance contingent(s) has five required UGs, which means a minimum of two generals must be assigned to the Alliance contingent. Is this intentional?

[7102] Later Castillan
• Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?

[7103] Later Burgundian
• Pikemen has a maximum of 64 bases (8x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 72 (8x 9-stand UGs)?
• Swiss Mercenaries has a maximum of 8 bases. Should this be 9?

[7104] Later French Ordnance
• Italian Knights dismount with Shieldwall. Is this correct?

[7105] Swabian League
• Feudal Knights dismount with Shieldwall. Is this correct?
• Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?

[7107] Maximilian German
• Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 32 bases (4x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 36 (4x 9-stand UGs)?

[7109] Italian States
• Florentine Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?



Anyway, that's what I found. I also had some thoughts which stray beyond the realm of proofreading, which I'll put in the next post below.