Thanks for the episode, I am a big fan of the Hundred Years War !!



Could you please share some updated (2023) reccomended/balanced army lists for Pacto as well ?
I would like to introduce MeG to my family and closest friends as well.

Hereby the army lists I have found so far:

English Starter Set (2020, The Plastic Soldier Company)


French Starter Set (2020, The Plastic Soldier Company)


Thanks in advance

Personally, I am not a fan of hex grids for ancient battles, preferring a square grid - but don't let that stop you. 

I decided to opt for a square grid since I realized that is way easier to create than an hex grid (https://russellphillips.uk/joy-of-hex-wargaming-hex-mat/). It also demands less space and allow to fill more efficiently the space with squared group of units.

I initially thought of using an offset square grid but I went back to a traditional square grid (like chess) to more easily identify line of sight (for shooting) and units orientation for charge and melee.

Your grid is also quite small (i.e. not that many hexes across - not the size of the hexes!).

I decided to represent the 45 HBW length x 30 HBW width by using a square grid with each square representing 3 HBW x 3 HBW.

For the deployment length which of the following conversion would you recommend?
a)   Round up: 4 tiles (12 HBW) + 9 tiles (27 HBW) + 3 tiles (12 HBW)
b)   Longer flanks: 4 tiles (12 HBW) + 8 tiles (24 HBW) + 3 tiles (12 HBW)
c)   Longer centre: 3 tiles (9 HBW) + 9 tiles (27 HBW) + 3 tiles (9 HBW)
d)   Round down: 3 tiles (9 HBW) + 8 tiles (24 HBW) + 3 tiles (9 HBW)

I personally opt for (a). I suppose it is better more than less in this case !!

A unit occupies a hex.  I have units facing the edge of a hex, not a point.

I came up to the same conclusion after adapting to an offset square grid. I would allow generals (floating or not) to be with UG in the same square although.

Move 1 hex for infantry, 2 hexes for cavalry.

I initially thought the same, but I decided to maintain the original distances to stay as close as possible to the original balance of the game, as you suggested elsewhere.

I would recommend playing the rules as we have extensively designed and tested them.  You are welcome to change the rules but don't look here for any approval in doing so.

For the sake of simplicity, I am rounding some distances to 3HBW multiples:
a)   Terrains and deployment.
b)   Command ranges: 9 (instead of 8 ) HBW, 12 (instead of 10) HBW and 15 HBW.

For all the other cases I created a system to allow +/- 1/2 HBW variation by modifying the position of the UG inside the square.


Thanks for your suggestions, I found them really useful.

Francesco

Thanks Richard for your reply, do you mean keeping the same quantity of miniatures and scale (HBW) of Pacto but using Magna rules and assuming double the miniatures for each file ?

My understanding of MeG Pacto is that each UG reaches its Break Point after losing its first base since in all the lists I have seen TUG size and Skirmish size do not exceed 2 and 3 bases respectively.

That takes away the interesting MeG choice of having a single less breakable GU or two more flexible GU at the same price.

I agree with you that a longer combat would favour the best quality troops comparing to the original MeG Pacto but I would still give a try to a variant which preserve such concept.

I agree with some players that UG are probably too easy to break in MeG Pacto.

I am wondering if giving a 1/2 (instead of 1/3) Break Point to skirmisher & no Break Point (instead of 1/2) to TuG would make a Pacto game more similar to Maximus and Magna while keeping it "compact".

What are your thoughts about that ?