Quote from: Roger on September 15, 2025, 11:29:03 AMSimplification is not a useful target in isolation, simplifying technically complexity may be ie mixed flank and frontal attacks, but simplification for its own sake just brings mediocracy, eventually you can reduce the game to 1x 6 sided dice per tug, the winner is who rolls the biggest total!!!

Currently these changes lose 8 distinct terrain and tactical choices with two catchalls, that arn't even remotely linked? why would a orchard have the same characteristics as a village, and we gain coastal dunes, an oversight I have been pointing out for years, hardly qualifying "to provide some interesting choices with terrain selection"

Overall its seems you are undervaluing the terrain battle, for example, as an attacker, you give the opponent a Town or Village, it could be guaranteed to attract troops to defend it or maybe your plan is to split a battle field to your advantage, or even provide a salient for breaking though enemy lines. endless uses for using terrain to win your battle, there are myriad examples of battles won because of clever or unusual use of terrain.

I don't really see the point of merging all these different pieces, seems more boring and less interesting. Just lots of rough going. Change for the sake of change...

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 02, 2025, 06:53:37 AM

Quote from: craig.w on September 01, 2025, 08:37:52 PMI do remember some comments to me along the lines of "you've chosen an army that either wins or doesn't lose" and that turned me off a bit from using them.

I don't think that is a very accurate description of horse archer armies in MeG to be honest. One of the nice things about MeG for me when I came to it was that unlike some other games it is entirely possible to beat a horse archer army with almost any other army - they aren't (almost) guaranteed no-loss armies.

I think if you added "played by experienced players against other experienced players" after "horse archer armies" you might well be right, but the rest of the world does not play any near the number of games that get played in the UK, and when you have rusty or occasional players then that becomes a turn or two less that gets played than would be possible in the UK, so in those cases the horse archers don't get pushed off the board or chased down.

Maybe I'll use one again in a comp soon to see how I go, I think the last time I used one was pre-Covid. I always found them fun to use tbh.

I'll still stand by my point that barbarian foot armies need a bump more than horse archer armies...

I do remember some comments to me along the lines of "you've chosen an army that either wins or doesn't lose" and that turned me off a bit from using them. That's obviously opponent (or more specifically what army an opponent uses) dependent but if you do come across an opponent with a lot of foot and not so great cavalry it can feel that way - that their chances of a decent game are not as good as yours. I always found them fun to use but against decent mounted they tended to struggle as they could get ridden down by better and cheaper fighters, as pointed out above. I definitely think it is a slower game with horse archers so better chance with other types of armies to get a decisive result. But the way to improve speed of game would be to improve mounted archery kill rates which is not a great idea in my opinion.

I don't think the interaction or how MeG models horse archers need changing because I wouldn't want it to go closer to a FoG kind of situation. I think there are other types of armies that are even less used (eg barbarian foot armies or Roman armies that aren't stacked with cavalry) that would need a bump before horse archer armies do.

I think we both agree that Tatars were better skirmisher horse archer types than the Russians, and that the Russians were on average better at close quarters.

Taking the current lists:
- Golden Horde are skilled shooters, therefore better than Russians
- Golden Horde are predominantly flexible therefore better at skirmishing
- Golden Horde have more unprotected making them worse in hand to hand than Russians
- Russians are generally worse than Poles in melee
- The skirmishing element in Russian armies is brought by the Tatars and Cossacks 

Therefore the current list already does what you say.

You also admit, as I do, that there is very little evidence for the way they fought, and I quoted some of what little there is.

Where is the primary source for making them charge and shoot only cavalry? If the list is changing in a significant way, then there should be some absolutely indisputable evidence that the current list is wrong. I don't believe that that evidence exists and in fact what I put forward supports the current list.

The painting was mainly mentioned as it backs up the description of the Russians equipment but I don't think it necessarily represents the course of the battle or proportions involved.

Full disclosure, I have used and won a tournament with this Post Mongol Russian list, so I don't want it changed to something so definitive as "they only ever shot when they charged" where there is no historical evidence for it.

Or, if such a fundamental change is envisioned, why not make it all/none for those who disagree, as plenty of other lists have this option. Does not hurt or annoy anyone being flexible on opinions. I can't imagine many people use this list, just my luck to have it completely changed while I was away from the game for a bit!!

Full nomad shoot and run were their tactics. The new list making them aggressive charging cavalry is not supported by the evidence, at least in the latter part of the time period. Herberstein was there in 1517 although the book was written later (the list goes until 1533) and he records them as:

"Their horses are small, usually geldings, close-haired, unshod and with a simple bit. They
ride with short stirrups, as though they wanted to lift their knees above the saddle...They
cannot stand the shock of a lance...Bows and arrows are their common weapons. Those who
are somewhat wealthier have armour rather like our cuirasses; the few helms to be seen are
all pot-bellied or pointed."  (Description of Moscow and Muscovy, 1557, Sigmund von Herberstein, Dent & Sons, London, 1969, p. 76)

"When they go forth against the enemy their comfort lies in their number and they go no
nearer to him than a bowshot. They strive at all costs to outflank him and fall upon him from the rear." (p. 80)

Where is this evidence that they only shot on the charge and otherwise just hung around? That seems a strange tactic against Tatars ... did they learn and absorb nothing in 200 years of Tatar dominance?

In a painting of the battle of Orsha in 1514 (the painter was actually at the battle) ithe Russian cavalry are all archers none of these charging spears the new list has.

According to the new list the Russians were aggressive chargers against either a) better equipped western cavalry or b) Tatar nomads. That tactic seems a very poor choice!

Is there any evidence for this, or that this should be compulsory for those who have a different interpretation of some pretty thin evidence?

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 13, 2019, 03:12:14 PM
Indeed. Change in part is seeking to encourage a bit more without them being too good.

S

And the American armies with every man a shooter? They'll be getting slows all along the line. Shoot and charge troops will also be supreme skirmisher killers - even better than they already are. Will be interesting to see the result of this change. Once it's in it will be there for years...

I quoted this in another post, from the Arthasastra, a 2500 year old Indian text:

"...reuniting broken ranks, breaking up unbroken ranks, causing terror, showing magnificence and making a frightful din, these are the functions of chariots."

I can't see even tooled up light chariots causing much terror or breaking up unbroken ranks too easily. For a start to get the devastating charger you have to be two ranks deep, so the frontage of 'terrifying' chariots will be much smaller.

Well, for what it's worth I think the idea of ancient bowmen stopping a charge dead from shooting is a bit hard to believe. When did this happen? Foot bowmen weren't that great historically. Sure, put them behind a wall of spears and they could hold off cavalry but it seems that most of the time they were spectators or a minor annoyance, unless you go back to chariot times or some other niche parts of history/geography. Even the samurai, with their mythical armour piercing arrows fired from the most powerful bow ever invented, ditched it and used spears for the most part. Bows were mostly nuisance value against most foot, in my opinion. If you make this change then foot armies, who are already struggling in most tournaments, will be worse.

Are large foot armies a winner, or only those that have some kind of gimmick/tweak? I haven't noticed too many large foot armies at the top of the table. How much of the playtesting was using large barbarian foot armies or was it mainly to see how the balance between knights and horse archers?

Dark age foot armies already seem a tough slog, I can't see this helping them

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 30, 2019, 01:14:03 PM
Interesting.  And a real shame if true.
We haven't had the same feeling in the UK so much.
Perhaps it is the language.

Or perhaps there is less change language used in the UK.
It's not been beta-testing.  That is very very much more variable than this.
I wouldn't feel at all comfortable hearing the Mortem et Gloriam optimisation process described that way.
It is something we all need to stop if it happens.

Even the grand total changes from launch is a pretty short list. Most of the rest is clarries.
Its actually a shorter list than the amendment sheet for many rules.
No set of rule has EVER been OPTIMISED in such a short time.
FoG never has been. ADLG not. DBM not.

The other question is that it was deliberately written in an easier style to avoid heavy language with then detailed calories on the website.
Perhaps this is not such a good idea.

Anyway once it is published in book form it is static.
This will be early part of next year as a book.
Final tweaks will be out in December.

Would like to understand all this better please.

S

I'm with the francophonie on this. The changes need to stop or you might end up with a committed core of UK players who play every week (it seems) and no-one else. We always seems to read that there are only a few 'minor changes' but take knights for example. Almost all move 5 now, therefore (in my opinion) making horse archer armies worse, as they get pushed off the table more easily. The few knights that are fully armoured horse are actually worse than the ones without armour. Similarly, a lot of horse archer armies were depowered by removing cantabrian from half of them. Now it seems that to counteract these changes and bump horse archers the rules for prompting through fire are going to be changed. Maybe it would have been better to keep knights moving 4 and not to chop all the cantabrian out? It's like a dog chasing its tail with the rules changes. One change causes another, which causes another. Now chariots are changing after 3 years. What happens if that change turns out to be a bad one and battle chariots are made worse? Will the rules change again, will point costs need to be changed? This all just in time for the supposedly 'final edition'. Uneven terrain has gone, how will that change cavalry armies? Worse off, surely, but how much worse off won't be known for a while - so then should we expect more changes?

To be honest, I don't really believe this will be the 'final edition', mainly because there are some changes going ahead that I think will have as yet unknown effects on how armies play. There is a lot bigger figure commitment in MeG than ADLG, if rule or list changes nerf lists (what will keil changes do for example?) then that is a lot of time and money wasted. Take Hephtalite or Gokturks, they are a couple of the unlucky nomad lists with unarmoured nobles. Just seems like a list change for no real reason apart from making them different (and rubbish). Unfortunately I was going to use Hephtalite and one of the players in our group was building a Gokturk list. RJC may say that they are ok, but sorry, when your best troops are only half protected, and your historical opponents are all protected shooters, it's not much fun. I have a whole truckload of 15th century Swiss and Italian troops in the painting queue, I'm wondering what changes to expect in the future.

'Perception is reality', as they say. If players perceive that the rules are 'beta testing' then they are, regardless of the intent of the author. I love MeG, it got me buying figures when I haven't had any desire to buy any for years. But I'm not sure I want to buy too many more in the next year or two, because sure as eggs RJC will change the lists I'm interested in, or a 'minor tweak' will come along that changes the way an army plays.

Just my 2c...

Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 18, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
Quite a few tribal armies at a Britcon. I got mine through massed bow fire quite easily.

But what kind of tribal foot? The fact that two feudal Germans and one Frisian army were used seems to indicate that there was some 'gimmick' in those armies.

Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 18, 2019, 05:15:27 PM

Quote from: craig.w on August 18, 2019, 04:49:17 PM
The changes to prompting through fire - this seems to be aimed at knight Vs horse archers (which I think is a bit of a problem now) but won't this also make foot even worse against horse archers ( hello FoG).

This was my feedback

Ah, yes, I see now. Great minds think alike!

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 04:10:33 PM

Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 01:33:06 PM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 14, 2019, 01:14:27 PM

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 14, 2019, 12:35:34 PM

Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 14, 2019, 10:15:42 AM
I think the new prompting through fire is too harsh.  Had anyone actually play tested this?

Give it a go Ray. Felt good to me in may two test games.
Need to make sure you don't charge from max range which is good.
Gave HA a little bit more time and space to work with.

Currently it is pretty simple to prompt through fire, I'd suggest almost trivial to anyone who applies a little thought - the change will bring it a bit more into play and should, IMO, provide the little extra balance needed in Crusader:Muslim battles which is missing at present (due to speed increase of knights in 2019).

Is using a change to a universal rule the way to solve the problem that knights move as quickly as horse archers?  Hmmmm, probably not.

That is a side effect.  The reason is that all missile fire hasn't quite yet reached its required effect in slowing.  So what it will do is give mass bow armies a chance and nudge HA armies a bit more into the mainstream.

And nudge barbarian foot armies even further out of the mainstream? No one uses them now, making them worse is unlikely to change it. Maybe knights should move 4, as they used to? Problem solved!!

The changes to prompting through fire - this seems to be aimed at knight Vs horse archers (which I think is a bit of a problem now) but won't this also make foot even worse against horse archers ( hello FoG).

Maybe Duncan Head's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic wars is out of date now, but his quote of the functions of Indian chariots does not at all sound like fast skirmishers "...reuniting broken ranks, breaking up unbroken ranks, causing terror, showing magnificence and making a frightful din, these are the functions of chariots." P.54

For that matter, the description of Indian foot doesn't sound like loose foot either.

"Without thorns, not very uneven, with room for retreat, this is excellent ground for infantrymen."