Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 19, 2025, 09:09:43 AMI have decided not to make any changes to men-at-arms with the 2026 amendments.

I would actually like to change 2-H Cut-Crush claims with the aim of making dismounted men-at-arms resistant to mounted charges (as they appear to have been historically - a tactic for outnumbered knights was actually to dismount).  This will clearly need more testing and convincing than is possible currently.

Richard

This would be good to consider for Chinese armies as well, since the 2-handed chopping weapons seemed to be frequently referred to being employed for anti-cavalry duties.

Overall I like this change, but suspect Pike may need a price decrease to balance the massive increase in deadliness not downgrading support is. I think the wider pike is good for changing pike gameplay which was way to mobile as well as incentivising getting quality troops 'into the sides' as they can throw straight dice without threat of losing bases.

similarly priced TUGs with other weapons will almost always be wider than a pike army. Meaning to not get outflanked, pike essentially have to fight against a wider opponent so at first blush the 'extra factors' will outweigh the pike factors. Adding in that getting an extra rank to a pike block to absorb casualties is even more inefficient from a width point of view.

I think the challenge with long range TUGs is the variety of historical role.

Broadly speaking archers/slingers/Xbow seemed to fill 3 broad roles;

1. Skirmishing in front of the main line - reasonably represented by skirmishing units as they are.

2. harrassment fire either from behind, or initially infront and then retreating behind the main line.

3. Effective fire - from close range. Ether fulfilled by mixed formations, multi-purpose soldiers (carrying a sidearm) or horse archers who would use mobility to fire and retreat repeatedly.

I find the current rules around bows tries to achieve a blend of these approaches with the results being very swingy from 'absolutely nothing' to 'killed a TUG of knights in one round" which is quite hard from a player point of view to design and play around.

Unprotected levy archers shouldn't be trying to sit in the mainline in the same way as protected, sidearm equipped or volley firing archers. They fulfilled different roles.

The slowing effect can be tactically really useful, except that the ranges that bowfire can occur currently really limits the application - with foot archers mostly aiming to get 2 rounds of shooting rather than just one and some modest affect of forcing an engagement - although most opponents of bow armed foot will be keen to get stuck in anyway. While, the likes of Longbowmen with armour and swords were very much expecting to engage in melee following only 1 or 2 rounds of shooting.

So trying to hit the right affect might get stuck making the aforementioned longbowmen just right, while making their unprotected experience bow compatriots utterly useless. or if the unproteced fellas feel somewhat useful could make longbowmen either too powerful or relatively not much better.

Although what I'm advocating for is more complexity in an already reasonably crunchy game, so sacrifices must be made somewhere, and tactically slowing ranged TuGs might also slow the game down further.

To throw my two cents in. I think many armies in MeG get too much melee expert and superior thrown in to balance the lack of depth in the roster. This can really skew what would otherwise be a solid infantry unit as being 2nd rate because it there is no way to stack bonus factors.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 17, 2025, 06:35:05 PMOn poorer armies I'm comfortable that the optional downgrades available in the general rules for lists are good enough along with the poor troops in the list - although upping the numbers of the latter would not be an issue or cause harm.

Not keen on upping the effect of the crossbows, the consistent Song answer to the heavily armed/more effective cavalry they faced was to up the number of anti-cavalry close combat weapons. I'd also note as it's related (sort of) that we are somewhat inclined to rein in the Powerbow mechanics so I don't see us making Xbox more PBw like - but mechanics changes are not imminent.

I was more thinking there would be an option for TuGs of power bow to represent that. Although skilled might be a sufficient proxy as well.

I meant to add as well.

Perhaps the quality of troops was tied to the generals somehow. Like unless the CinC was talented or better, at least 1/3 - 1/2 of infantry Tugs just be poor or something to that effect.

Post reform Song;

Somewhere around late 900, early 1000s (Wang Anshi reforms possibly) Song changed from large shield and spear troops to heavily armoured troops with "pike" and "2-handed choppers" along with reforms to formalise the militia system and centralise the army further.

Song also continued to innovate and field large amounts of crossbowmen, supported by bowmen. Also heavily armoured and trained to hold their position as if they were line infantry.

There was notable emphasis in song records of crossbows on effective range and armour penetration. Their traditional enemies of the Liao, Jin and tanguts all fielded very heavily armoured shock cavalry/cataphracts.

For line infantry, Polearm + protected seems to fit - fitting a description of a mixed formation of pikemen + 2-handed choppers.
I would consider Guard units (or a Yue Fei style option) could get 2HCC + drilled/superior or the drilled/superior option could be used to represent better generals.
As to numbers of available troops I don't think having super limited imperial troops really represents a song army particularly well. A player should be able to build a song army which represents the outer region militia (with less well equipped and unprotected troops, potentially poor quality as well) or a fully decked rescuing imperial army, or a mix of the two. I do think that Song fielded an unusually high number of crossbowmen troops and 2HCC compared to other dynasties though.

So crossbowmen I think is where the Song could be given unique options to differentiate a little from other chinese dynasties.
Options for the standing volley formations could be spear protection or mixed formations with spear + polearm (although the latter would perform better against infantry which might not be accurate).
Alternatively, Song Xbowmen could be treaded like MeG treats Powerbow - longer range, better armour punch and bonus vs cavalry. I would limit this to only some of the line crossbow though for balance purposes.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 09, 2025, 06:50:00 AM

Quote from: Hayung_is on April 09, 2025, 05:53:29 AMWhat is normally the basis for this conclusion? my own (albeit limited) reading seems to chalk up Song's military failings much more to leadership and an appeasement approach to handling their northern neighbours. Under competent generals the Song achieved victory against Jin and Mongol armies, it was not just Yue Fei, although he is most famous and therefore has a lot written about. Not only that but the Jin leadership at the time was in ascendency under Wanyan Zonghan.

It is ultimately a judgement call and the evidence is somewhat thin (fairly typical of Chinese military stuff alas). However, I see the Southern Song being defeated a bit more easily than the Northern and (in gaming terms) makes the Yue Fei changes more necessary. Wargame lists tend to exaggerate differences for game benefit and this may well be one of those cases if changes were to be made 

It depends on what type of Song army you're trying to depict. Song seemed to have a more centralised system which relied on militia on the periphery supported by larger Imperial and 'family' armies to respond to threats.

Militia would be haphazardly equipped and less effective and would suit a short spear designation. But it seems the imperial and family armies were often very well equipped with heavily armoured infantry, cavalry and crossbowmen (Song economy spent large amounts on military, and was a strong economy). There were periods when the armies suffered large defeats, which might be due to poor leadership and/or morale which I think would be better represented by use of 'poor' than disregarding the actual weapons and tactics used. Game lists also tend towards the high point of a particular army.,

Song also utilised early gunpowder, pavises, volley fire and a huge range of different types of polearm type weapons and mixed formations in a period of intense warfare. To simplify that to short spear + bows seems to miss an opportunity to add flavour to a period that has in my opinion suffered from a lack of information and probably just a little bit of stereotyping (large armies of low quality troops anyone?).

Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 05, 2025, 08:46:39 PMAs for the Southern Song themselves (which started all this) I can see no obvious reason why we should think that the system that pertained in the Northern Song should not, initially at least, carry on in the Southern Song. So an option of the mixed units or the separated units. However, as the armies do seem to have struggled more against the Jin cavalry I would not allow them the Pole Arm option in either the mixed or separate formations.

What is normally the basis for this conclusion? my own (albeit limited) reading seems to chalk up Song's military failings much more to leadership and an appeasement approach to handling their northern neighbours. Under competent generals the Song achieved victory against Jin and Mongol armies, it was not just Yue Fei, although he is most famous and therefore has a lot written about. Not only that but the Jin leadership at the time was in ascendency under Wanyan Zonghan.

I definitely agree, based on accounts of Yue Fei's family army that options for drilled and superior would be welcome.

Song definitely seemed to continue emphasis on Crossbow formations, and there appears to be an emphasis on heavily armoured infantry, both crossbow and polearm troops.

Quote from: SteveO on March 14, 2025, 11:33:56 PM

Quote from: Doomsmile on March 14, 2025, 01:37:00 AMI would argue (guess I am arguing ) that charges from these sorts of cavalry are unlikely to be repelled by either the unprotected or protected crossbowmen available to contemporary Song armies under the current classifications and rules.

But should they from the available historical evidence?

Basically, yes. https://dragonsarmory.blogspot.com/2024/07/unit-heavy-song-crossbowmen.html

Song frequently fought Jin and Mongol forces which utilised large amounts of cavalry and particularly shock cavalry and cataphracts. The Song solution was massed blocks of crossbowmen using volley fire who were trained to stand and fire against charging cavalry. Yue Fei added to this strategy by having dedicated 'horse choppers' with large swords.

Chinese armies fielded large proportions of ranged units (ie. more than one or two TuGs) and the Song seemed to lean into this even more heavily.
The Song resisted the Jin and later the mongols for several decades of ongoing conflict.

Fielding the kind of proportion of ranged TUGs a historical song army appear to have is a recipe for getting steamrolled by shock cavalry (of any flavour).

Quote from: SteveO on March 14, 2025, 11:33:56 PM

Quote from: Doomsmile on March 14, 2025, 01:37:00 AM

I would argue (guess I am arguing ) that charges from these sorts of cavalry are unlikely to be repelled by either the unprotected or protected crossbowmen available to contemporary Song armies under the current classifications and rules.

But should they from the available historical evidence?

There is scant historical evidence for most things, and that's before you apply reasonable skepticism towards the evidence that is available. So much so I'd say asking for "historical evidence" in a discussion largely focussed on the relative balance of things is a touch, unproductive..

There is evidence that chinese armies continually fielded significant number of bow armed troops despite the liklihood of facing shock cavalry, and even more so into an era where their own cavalry was lacking.

Quote from: daveparish on March 07, 2025, 07:55:27 PM

Quote from: Manzikert on March 07, 2025, 06:11:34 PM

That said I'm worried this doesn't quite do enough to keep players from fully downgrading unprotected/combat shy shooters.

The thing that has puzzled me about this whole thread has been why you shouldn't downgrade them? There has been all sorts of abstract talk about them acting as force multipliers and an assumption that if a troop type is in an army list then it must be made effective (please don't think I'm getting at anyone - the whole thread has these assumptions).

But where is the history in this? I haven't seen a single battle named in this thread as one where troops like these had a big effect and where that effect can't be replicated on the tabletop. Seems to me that they are exactly the sort of troops a general would put at the back to guard the camp and dig some more latrines. The historically effective archers for example Longbowmen or Cretans are already effective on the table (as Powerbow, Skilled skirmishers etc).

Just to drop in here, more recent sources on Song Dynasty suggests they fielded large groups of Xbow and Bow who were drilled to repel cavalry charges and Song armies had many engagements with mongols where they weren't just steamrolled and may have even won several battles  - chinese history on battles is unfortunately light on the details so you won't get much of a recount of how much effect the bows had. But its not a stretch to imagine a region which had significant amount of conflict would continually field large quantities (and they were large numbers, there is evidence of that) of bowmen/xbows if they weren't at least somewhat instrumental in winning a battle.

I don't have enough experience to say MeG represents this "well" historically, but as an experienced gamer can do the math and an army which comprises of a large enough proportion of ranged TuGs that would be historically reflective of Song armies can tell you're paying more than what you're getting and if you want to be "competitive" (or just have a game that is more likely to be resolved due to player decisions than match ups, which is the key driver here) and the sensible play is to take minimal ranged TuGs for some support and max out foot troops.
A big reason why you probably see almost zero Southern Song played due to the punishing minimums on crossbow (which is historically accurate).

Since its now a new topic I'll flesh out my thoughts a bit more.

Firstly, don't get me wrong - I really like maximus and in no way would I want to see it change significantly purely for the purposes of achieving a shorter game time.

But I'm sure if we put our experience together we could identify areas that are somewhat cumbersome for minimal benefit.

I.e a line of full strength TUGs rolling file by file for shoves. Both the jumping around and skipping files as well as the double checking factors introduces a 'mental overhead' that I don't think adds a lot to the game.
Maybe keep the option to roll file by file when generals or niche circumstances are involved, but I think using the pacto shove/shatter removes a lot of the incentive to do this - which would be great.

I don't have a solution, but I find deployment another stage which includes too much granularity (too many choices, and the importance of which are very high). This is a double whammy in if you consider to the full extent you need to, the game won't finish, but if you don't, there's a decent chance you've potentially lost the game or made it a very uphill battle. For new players this can be incredibly daunting.

A couple others I think have been raised previously around finangling angles to reduce contact etc.

But I'm sure we could come up with some suggestions for the designers to consider.

If the designer hopes for larger uptake and broader appeal, the game has to be more streamlined. This is a reality. Even if its just making it realistic for most gamers to finish a game in a evening can do a lot.
But it's definitely a conversation for another topic I think.

Quote from: SteveO on February 14, 2025, 11:37:11 PM

Quote from: Hayung_is on February 10, 2025, 02:24:21 AM

Overall I think archers should be a force multiplier. On their own they won't win a contest, but bringing archers should allow you to influence your opponents movement more - either by forcing them to close the distance faster, or disrupting their battle line by slowing some TuGs significantly if allowed to be shot with impunity. They should also have a reigning affect on mounted troops - who would take care to enter range without committing to a charge and this would allow support troops to better set up a trap.

Sorry, but if we set aside the poor, unprotected archers, I believe average ranged troops are already a force multiplier. You should play my friend Robert with his 100 Years War French. If you hang back you get shot to death and if you try to get to the crossbowmen you get ridden down by the knights!

As for the separate issue of stepping back, I would agree that we probably use it far more often than it was used historically. However, making it harder will have a significant effect on game balance because some armies will quickly be bowled over by non-historical opponents if they are forced to stand and fight. I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider it; only that we are back to choosing the balance between game and simulation. After all, we already have the possibility of Italian Wars Gendarmes facing off against Hittite javelinmen.😊

I don't think bringing up an example of some of the best shooting TuGs in MeG, combined with fast powerful cavalry in the form of knights is a compelling argument that ranged TuGs function very well. Noting that longbow already benefit from the 5BW range, combined with backstepping changes the dynamic of engagement with infantry versus bow and crossbow.

I don't think you can just delete stepping back with how bow is right now. Combined with longer range and more potential for slows though makes it less necessary and you might miss it less - right now its downright essential for ranged TuGs to get their value.

Quote from: badhabum on February 14, 2025, 03:17:32 PM

QuoteBut I think against mounted, ranged TuGs should get bonus damage. Crossbows and powerbows could negate armour for mounted at close range in addition.

The mongols did not badly when invading Austria, the Balkans, Italy ..

Aldo thr ARMHRS is a protection vs PB and Xbow . It's partly for gaming reasons so as to keep a potential serious opponent tp those pesky shooters and also because historicaly it was a protection . Please remember that PB already do have a colour upgrade vs mounted .  In my opinion it's mostly myth but I accept it . Now if ARMHRS is not to be a protection vs short range PB and XBOW then you will unbalance the game in favour of the many mixed crossbowmen armies in the game and the english PB armies

It does change the balance and points could reconsidered for either side of the coin. ARMHRS is quite expensive right now in my opinion.