Quote from: lionheartrjc on May 15, 2026, 07:02:28 PMI am not sure what you think the issue is.  To me it is that cavalry who cannot skirmish/run away but don't have CL, LSp or SSp+DC are too expensive in points compared to cavalry who can.  I see this as a points issue, not a rules issue.

I think where we disagree is I think CL, SSP+DC, and to a lesser extent LSp cav are also too expensive. Adding melee expert might possibly push them over the edge but IMO it doesn't quite do it. Better cavalry however, knights for example, is IMO worth the cost. So I'm looking for a simple easy to implement fix that makes the 'medium cavalry' better without also improving the higher tier cavalry which doesn't need the boost.

Just to back up my claim on medium cavalry briefly. If we consider CL, ME cavalry as an example; compared to an infantry with comparable charge and melee claims (close, DC, ME) the medium lancer is 41% more expensive (128 pts versus 91 pts, 37 pts difference). Against close infantry their claims are essentially identical, assuming that infantry doesn't have some kind of anti-cavalry ability.

Cavalry clearly have other advantages over infantry; faster, more maneuverable, the ability to break off from melee, +1 charge claim against loose foot to name a few. But, and this is probably going to be very controversial, I think those advantages are a wash when you consider the drawbacks for cavalry. Mostly the disadvantages they have against pike, long spear, spear, polearm, shield wall, 2-handed C&C, etc.

Fair enough Badhabum, my mistake, I misinterpreted your position.

But since we seem to have a consensus that there is an issue, what do you guys think of this as a fix:

Give all cavalry, camelry and chariots a native +1 charge claim against infantry in the open. But devastating charge on cavalry no longer gives a bonus when charging infantry, though it still grants shatter. This would give a bit of a boost to most 'medium cavalry' without also boosting cavalry that already have 3+ charge claims.

I do see a couple of issues. It doesn't give any net benefit to SSp, DC cavalry but it does improve ranged cavalry who don't need it.

For the ranged cavalry we could say this claim is lost if the cavalry takes a skirmish/run away action (ranged cavalry get's the bonus but doesn't get to benefit from it and from shooting) or alternatively cavalry with a ranged weapon (not including charge-only) doesn't get the bonus; though that's a bit complicated to add to the rules.

I agree with badhabum that there's a balance issue, but I think it's in the other direction. The Javelin armed cavalry is worth the cost, it's the melee cavalry that are a bit underpowered.

While the 'Jav-Cav' are pretty expensive relative to their combat claims; they make up for it with a whole bunch of battlefield utility which make them worth it. I wouldn't take a whole army of them, but in small numbers they're absolutely worth the price. The melee cavalry don't have any of that utility, it's just a somewhat overpriced unit with lackluster combat claims.

In fact I'd go so far as to say thats the case for all of what I'd loosely call 'medium cavalry' (basically any cavalry with no ranged weapon, 0-2 charge claims, and 0-1 melee claims). Too expensive for their combat potential and without some other utility to make up for it. Not that I want to oversell it, they aren't totally worthless, just low enough down on the power curve to be worth improving in some way.

I noticed a couple of minor list errors. In the Sengoku Japanese list (7201) the title is dated 1500-1585 but the list is 1500-1563. In the Anglo-Danish list (3212) the note explaining how Huscarls and Fyrd can be combined cuts off before explaining that they can't take shove.

I think there is some misunderstanding of the design intention behind the mounted 'unskilled javelin' category. Now, this is just my interpretation of the design intention, and is also based on an at best "interested layman's" understanding of the roman army. But I don't think the various 'unskilled javelin' cavalry throughout MeG are meant to be skirmishers in any meaningful sense. The classification isn't meant to represent their literal equipment. It represents their battlefield role. Which is to 'delay the other guy's cavalry while we win somewhere else'.

My (again not great) understanding of republic roman cav is that it was not good, but what it did do in a tactical sense was tie up the opposing cavalry long enough to keep it from impacting the center; where the romans expected the actually win. The roman cav would break and run in such a way as to keep the other cav occupied chasing them instead of enveloping the center. IF that is what roman cav did then the MeG category works perfectly. If they have to stand and fight then they'll die and count as a break point, they also wouldn't do their job because the opponent would engage them ASAP and delay on the center. Giving them the ability to 'skirmish' allows them to functionally perform their battlefield role.

And it seems reasonable that other cavalry in other armies would fill a similar role, cause no meaningful harm but delay a flank.

Quote from: badhabum on December 16, 2025, 09:41:00 AMSo cantabrian is used "only" by skirmishing cavalry . A combat shy AV tug with cantabrian would cost 69 points if you take it skilled 86 points.

Cantabrian enhance the possibility to fail skirmishing far enough, even when running away but is 17 points cheaper than skilled .

Badhabum makes an excellent point about the cost. To add a bit of context a Flexible, unprotected, skilled cavalry TuG is 129 points per head. But they only need to be 2 ranks deep to shoot at full effect, so per file of full effect shooting the TuG is 258 points and the skilled SuG is ... 258 points.

Obviously SuGs have some advantages over TuGs; faster, more maneuverable, a degree of ranged protection, a bit more scouting, etc. But IMO the additional breakpoint alone is enough to make the TuG a better pick for the cost (not even accounting for the other advantages of a TuG).

Given that, I think the existence of the 'in between' category of Cantabrian, which gives up some of the SuG advantages but is significantly cheaper (207 points per shooting file), is a good option to have.

Quote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 08:52:54 PM

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.

Ah, fair enough. My statement about the Greek locals wasn't about them being disloyal per say, more that they wouldn't be a good source for mass recruited knight-fodder. I also agree with your points about central authority. But (and I'll freely admit my ignorance here) would the Ottomans have had significantly higher levels of centralization at this point than their neighbors? Certainly it would have increased over the period (and beyond) as they consolidated power and built legitimacy. My understanding is usually centralized authority was downstream of military power (used to enforce the centralization of power). I suppose some quick of the formation of the Ottoman polity could have had an effect.

But maybe that's off topic. My position really isn't that the Ottomans had an inherently better military than their neighbors, just that it wasn't markedly worse. The 'good' stuff should be actually good, and not simply low-mid tier cavalry archers and some good-but-not-great infantry.

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 )

Do you have any examples? I haven't noticed any SUP lose their ME in the lists I play. I checked a few other random ones I happen to know and they hadn't lost it either.

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.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 12, 2025, 06:24:58 PMI get the distinct impression that the Ottomans did rather struggle against European knights which is why they started to face them with hordes of essentially expendable troops to soften them up a bit and extensive use of fortifications. Of course as Matt pointed out in our "normal" MeG games fortifications can be no fun so don't get used much.

I'm not saying the Ottomans didn't struggle against knights, but 'swarm of expendables' doesn't seem to have worked for anyone else. They almost invariably run away having accomplished less than nothing. If the Ottomans did get that to work it might be something to represent on the table somehow (again, trying not to wish list)

Quote from: badhabum on December 12, 2025, 09:35:28 AMOne might consider logistics, planification, strategy and tactics as well . At Nicopolis the Ottomans used their well known tactic of entrenching their infantry and keeping their reserves behind . The noble french knights just went straight forward a move no sane player will do in MEG . So it might be more complicated than just "skilled" shooters . Why do you discard the jannisaries as punch units ?

While I'm sure the Ottomans had really good logistics, planning, etc, it doesn't seem likely they'd be massively better at it than their neighbors. Afterall they start the period as just another petty Anatolian kingdom. I don't think they would have been so much better at it to make up for an otherwise sub-par army over 2 centuries of conquest.

I have lot of thoughts on Janissaries but I'll keep it brief. Janissaries are a perfectly good unit. The problem is they aren't good enough on their own to win a battle, they have a good chance of beating average troops but struggle against other superiors w/ melee expert and melee cavalry. And since they're by far the best troops the Ottomans have they end up not having much support, and the army overall doesn't really have an answer to those troops. As a specific example, they don't beat knights, nothing in the army can beat knights, so the whole army is at a major type disadvantage against all of the European armies they regularly faced and ultimately defeated.

We're probably a bit late in the cycle for me to bring this up but better late than never. I was wondering if the devs could be persuaded to give the Ottoman Turkish list another look. Considering the conquests they were making and battles they were winning from 1362 to 1520 it's a pretty lack luster list. They end up playing with a pretty steep handicap against a lot of armies they historically defeated; with worse cavalry archers than their enemies to the east (lacking any skilled shooter cavalry TuGs) and more importantly significantly worse melee troops than their enemies to the west (with nothing that can stand up to mounted or dismounted knights).

It's also a bit strange that the 'best' Ottoman build relies heavily on the Serbian internal ally. Certainly the Serbs played a pivotal role in several major Ottoman victories; but the structure of the list gives the impression they made up a substantial portion of the total army and arguably it's most effective arm.

I want to avoid the temptation to 'wish list', but the army seems due for another look.

A couple of proof reading items.

In book 33 in both Nikophorian lists (3323 & 3324) melee expert on the Kataphraktoi end up costing 44 points rather than 43 (minor issue but since I noticed it figured I'd bring it up).

In book 46 the Ikko Ikki (4610) changes mention a change to the Sohie ally date but have no allies listed.

In book 52 the Komnenan Byzantine (5201) tagmata cavalry don't show the points reduction for charge only bow.

Quote from: LawrenceG on October 22, 2025, 12:30:13 PM

Quote from: Manzikert on October 22, 2025, 05:16:22 AM

Quote from: LawrenceG on October 21, 2025, 10:58:01 AMDepending on how you manage the distances, getting skirmishers pushed back through your TUG might delay your TUG being charged by one turn. Alternatively, it allows your TUG to charge from point blank range, giving a higher chance of catching enemy evaders.

I'm not sure skirmishers would effect either instance. The don't stop an opponent from moving up to you so they wouldn't delay a charge (unless they got a slow effect). And they'd get in the way of advancing to point blank (unless your opponent advances to push them back, but turn control is probably going to matter more there than the presence of the skirmishers).

You have a TUG with a SUG in front, not in shooting range of the enemy. The enemy is within charge distance of your TUG. HE can:

1. Charge now, suffer a shot, hit your TUG if he's not slowed or can push through fire.

2. Move in close to push the skirmishers back through your TUG. His charge has been delayed by one turn.

You have a TUG with a SUG (skirmish foot, 2 ranks) in front. The enemy is weaker shooty cavalry falling back from your TUG. He can:

1. Exchange shots with your skirmishers and potentially lose bases.

2. Move in close to push the skirmishers back through your TUG. Now you can charge from 1 BW away. he'll probably have to run away instead of skirmish.

/

I don't think your first scenario is possible given ranges and the depth of SuGs. But even if it is, that isn't delaying the charge. It might delay contact if you get the slow and they can't push through. But the odds of actually preventing a charge with a slow aren't great, and

In your second scenario I'm not sure what you mean by "shooty cavalry falling back from your TUG". If the SuG is still in front they can't have fallen back from a charge. So presumably you moved up to them? At which point it's entirely up to the turn timing on if they can still fall back, and the SuG isn't meaningfully contributing.

Quote from: LawrenceG on October 21, 2025, 10:58:01 AMDepending on how you manage the distances, getting skirmishers pushed back through your TUG might delay your TUG being charged by one turn. Alternatively, it allows your TUG to charge from point blank range, giving a higher chance of catching enemy evaders.

I'm not sure skirmishers would effect either instance. The don't stop an opponent from moving up to you so they wouldn't delay a charge (unless they got a slow effect). And they'd get in the way of advancing to point blank (unless your opponent advances to push them back, but turn control is probably going to matter more there than the presence of the skirmishers).

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. Therefore, I'd see any shooting as taking place somewhat away from the main lines with no last minute shoot and scoot. So I don't personally see a need to allow a shot if they are pushed back and end up behind something.

I'm not sure I follow. Under the current rules resisting an advance is basically the thing foot skirmishers do. A few are able to hold rough or difficult ground, but by and large loosing a few shots while your opponent advances is the role the current rules give them. Doing this well out in front of the main line is risky but still fundamentally the same.

I don't want to oversell their effectiveness. Resisting an advance is not the same as stopping one. It's fair to say skirmishers had a number of roles on the battlefield, but opposing an advance must certainly have been one of them. I'm not sure how else to interpret how velites were deployed, or the fact that what MeG classes as skirmishers were frequently part of the main line of battle in Macedonian armies. The Ottomans also tended to have a screen of skirmishers ahead of the main line to oppose and disrupt cavalry.