Thank you for that. Interesting. He alludes to a way to play it, though doesn't explain. It looks as if each 4-base TUG is a maniple. In game terms it looks fragile.

I guess "feel" is what I look for in a game, though it's individually subjective. That's sort of where I was going, was the feel of a manipular Roman army as best as we know it. I guess the fact that we know more about it than most contemporaries is a blessing and a curse. I've seen some players' forces layed out in the formation (for display, I assume), so I was wondering if I missed something and there was a way to play that way.

Thanks,
Jay

I've put this in List Queries, but maybe it could be in Rules Questions or Discussion so if it needs to be moved, moderators please do.

I think I understand that MeG is unencumbered by scales, but is there an "intended scale? " It strikes me that the mid-Republican Roman list could easily represent the maniples, with a TUG of 5 bases representing the hastati (2 bases), principes (2 bases) and triarii (one base), but the rules don't seem to allow the triplex acies quincunx formation, which is fine if a TUG represents a full legion (though the shooting ranges get a bit funky when that's the case). Also, is it possible to replicate the "passage of lines" between the three lines when in combat?

Jay

Quote from: Jilu on September 27, 2020, 01:47:51 PM
You might find answers here :

http://www.eltereader.hu/media/2014/02/Assyrian_Army_I_1.pdf

That's Tezso's 2012 work, which I mentioned above. It isn't conclusive, which I suppose shouldn't be a surprise since the available evidence is pretty thin.

Thanks, though that leads me to the rabbit-hole of "why did it change in DBMM?" Without being a specialist in the era, it's hard to draw a conclusion from what I've been able to find, and the actual specialists who's work I've managed to read a little, don't draw any conclusions either. Unfortunately the only evidence for how they deployed for battle is contemporary artwork. If taken without context one could say there's little evidence of Assyrian troops doing anything other than sieges and carrying the severed heads of enemies to lay at the feet of one king or another (plus a lot of lion hunting). There is one frieze that depicts what appear to be auxiliary troops in pairs, bowman and spearman, though what they are doing is unclear. It may be the battlfield "clean up" after the main fight.

Dezso (2012) gives an estimate of army composition in his volume on infantry. He states that if the depictions in Assyrian art represent actual proportions of troops (which is a big if), the heavy infantry represents just over 50% of the infantry of the army, and the armoured bow represent nearly 50% of the heavy infantry. Of course, artistic depictions usually favour certain demographics, kind of like those wargamers who's armies consist entirely of the Imperial Guard, so it's risky drawing a conclusion about the proportion of heavy infantry to medium and auxiliary, but the proportion of armoured bow to armoured spear is more likely to be within reason.

I'd agree that some units might not have Integral Shooters, especially if they are a mix of bow and spear (say, a six-base TuG would be four spear and two bow).

In any case, the beauty is that I can try it both ways, since I'm not advocating for a tournament exception. There's even a third way - give the armoured spearmen bows and a shooting skill, as was done for the cavalry, though that might just be too powerful. I favour the idea of mixed units, perhaps because I'm used to them, and a bit reactionary. I like bows to be able to shoot, and the centuries have shown that ranged weapons are best en-masse, which I suspect the Assyrians knew, as they certainly gave bows to a lot of their soldiers.

Now I have to figure out why I have a pack of Foundry armoured slingers.

I have yet to play the rules, having just borrowed them, (I've placed an order with my local shop), so please bear with me.

I'm porting my late neo-Assyrians over, and I see that the list has integral shooters, not mixed units. I was wondering what the justification is for that? My own limited reading seems to indicate at least the "kings men" (sab sharri) would fight in mixed units, approximately equal spear and bow. Both DMB and ADLG (the latter is what my army was original built for) allow for this, not that wargame rules should be an arbiter of what was accurate or not.

Given that mixed units appear in other lists, I was wondering if anyone had insight to offer as to why the Assyrians don't have the option here, considering bow-armed troops seem to have factored significantly in their forces.

Jay