Any Scottish Yeomen may be upgraded to protected.

Are mixed TuGS allowed of protected and unprotected Yeomen?

Would you be able to slightly expand on why the medieval chaps should be more effective, please?

And what will be happening to the Chinese/Asian LSp infantry?

Well, if simplified as I suggested there wouldn't be a LS class.
All existing LS would either be the new spear of existing PA class. 

Should medieval spear armed troops (that are currently classed as Long Spear)  be so much more effective against CL/DC mounted in impact than other similarly armed troops from an earlier period? Both spear and PA are still pretty decent vs such mounted.

For the sake of simplicity, how about getting rid of long spear as a class and incorporating those remaining long spear into the polearm category?
Or is there a definite specific interaction which is being sought? 

Might want to make an exception if there are ambushes or flank marches.

Tried out the proposed Hellenistic Pike changes last night - so Phalanxes 3x3 and overlaps not downgraded in colour.
Armies were Later Macedonian vs Mid Republican Roman with average legionaires.

Main battle line was 3 average Pike phalanxes with long spear on one flank and Thracian short spear/melee expert on the other.
Facing off against 6 x 6 Legionaries and one long spear unit.
The Macedonian Long Spear unit ended up vs 1.5 Legions, the Thracians vs a long spear and 1 legion, leaving the Pikes facing 3.5 legions. Due to order of charges Romans managed to get overlaps vs phalanx at one end of the line.

Combat lasted 4 rounds and ended up a narrow victory to the Macedonians. One Pike phalanx broke, 2 others down to 5 bases. 4 legions broke and another going shortly. It was damn close though, and basically cascading KaB tests in the last round did it for the Macedonians just before their flank was going to get rolled up due to breaking Thracians.

We both assessed that luck did not greatly favor one side over the other.
The upgraded overlaps had only a minor effect.
We'll try it with 8 man Roman TuGs next.

How about slows count as general claims in combat for any opponents - representing some level of disorder.

So if UG slowed by one, then +1 for any opponents in charge and melee combat.

Or would that be too powerful?

Cheers

Is it 5 BW on the flanks for SugS as in Maximus, or is it reduced?

p121 para2.1 states Terrain sizes are 2/3rds the size in MeG Maximus. The flank zone for deploying terrain
is also reduced to 2/3rds the size in MeG Maximus. The flank zone for deploying and
adjusting terrain is also reduced to 2/3rds the size in MeG Maximus."

First two sentences are clear, but what exactly is the third sentence referring to? Does the reference to deploying refer to the deployment zone for SugS or something else, because deploying terrain is covered in the previous sentence.

I was wondering whether there should be a slight tweak to the mid republican Roman cavalry.

Standard deployment was cavalry on both wings, but at the moment that means the only option is a TuG of 4 cav on each wing, and doesn't allow for those cases where the cavalry wings were not equal in numbers.

So to cover the cases where there was an asymmetric deployment, such as Cannae and Magnesia off the top of my head, one option would be to increase the maxima from 8 to 10.

Another left field possibility would be to reduce the minima in a TuG from 4 to 2. (But allow a maximum of 2 Tugs) Sometimes the cav wings were really quite small, such as at Bagradas where there was only a total of 500 cavalry divided between the two wings, and the left wing at Magnesia.

Have you tried clearing the browser's cache?

Sure, but I though the existing system modeled that ok, with the charge only javelin,  long spear. 

As you say, some missile fire then fighting as a phalanx.

And the withdrawal of the hastati could be taken as built into the previous model- now often the hastati will be doing a lion's share of the hand to hand, unless some special provision can be introduced allowing the spear armed troops to pass through the hastati in the charge or movement phase.

It had the virtue of being simple. The new model looks slightly more complicated and I wonder whether there will be any unintended consequences.
I can see what is intended from your and Nik's explanation, but I can imagine after deployment some formations as Dave mentions above, with pilum in some files and spear in others providing greater protection against mounted.

Has it been tried out on the table?

That's very interesting - is their work available online?

But I predict if these changes are extended to the Mid Republican Romans there may be a murmur or two of discontent....

Hi, this is in reference to the proposed regrading of pilum armed infantry in the above lists to Ssp, Skilled javelin, shoot and charge, melee expert, shield cover.

A couple of issues. It would seem to encourage unhistorical tactics. Such troops can get engaged in a missile duel and prevail against many of their historical opponents, who are often unskilled javelin. They may be encouraged to use their shooting skills for extended periods against other non shooty opponents. I didn't think they carried more than two pila?

If pilum armed troops can be defined this way, why is it not offered to pilum armed troops in other lists?

Overall, it seems to be adding an unnecessary complication. Why not just have them as standard pilum armed troops eg impact weapon  with possibly melee expert?
If is is thought they need to have some shooting capacity I think it should be charge only. I would have though the previous classification was fine, although possibly aligning the Etruscans with the camillans  by only allowing one rank to shoot.

That's a good argument.

But do the Romans, then, need the option of so many superior legionaries to get historical results against their enemies?