Quote from: AntiokosIII on March 22, 2021, 10:34:32 PM
Just (finally!) noticed the proposed changes to Early Arab Conquest. I am disappointed , but not really surprised, that the Martyrs are being removed. Disappointed, because they add flavor and color to a list that's a bit monotone. Not surprised, because there is a LOOOONG history of debate about just how fanatic anyone was in the Arab Conquest armies. The changes take the position that the debate is over. I think it's a shame that players who disagree should not get the one unit, but the trend seems to be to make lists more vanilla and allow fewer debatable options. These views change over time.

IMO there is a difference between allowing something that is debatable or a different interpretation of the available evidence and allowing something that just isn't supported at all. I don't see any trend to vanilla-ising the MeG lists either - OK I'm more inside the process that outside so that will colour my view probably, but we do keep a weather eye out for it. Of course you can always raise any such cases you think are happening here as you are with this - RJC keeps an eye open 

Quote
I do wonder why the units have to be smaller to reflect 'resilience'. IMHO it is very questionable to say that a larger number of small units has more staying power than a smaller number of larger units. My own limited experience is that larger units are more resilient and less maneuverable. It seems to me that this should be left to the player, but that may just one more reason nobody has been foolish enough to trust me with writing lists.

FWIW I'm with you on this.

QuoteQuote
I do wonder why the units have to be smaller to reflect 'resilience'. IMHO it is very questionable to say that a larger number of small units has more staying power than a smaller number of larger units. My own limited experience is that larger units are more resilient and less maneuverable. It seems to me that this should be left to the player, but that may just one more reason nobody has been foolish enough to trust me with writing lists.

FWIW I'm with you on this.

On the face of it, many small units will generate more KaB tests than few small units, and the impact of a failed test is a bigger fraction of the breakpoint, so it would be surprising if small units are more resilient.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 22, 2021, 09:17:15 PM
Those cases are "too strong" when compared to their opponents, something which is not the case with the LRR. You're not comparing like with like evaluations.

Yes I do . I fear you are much to positive towards the romans ! You know they did loose battles 

A veteran roman army might have it all superior due to allowed numbers
A veteran AlexMac army may not have all his pikes SUP
A veteran Carthaginian army is limited in the numbers of SUP

Completely illogical and very biaised towards Rome ! With all the army having melee expert and all impact weapon they can handle near anything and you give the opportunity to near all the army to be sup ..no I will always contest it

Quote from: badhabum on March 23, 2021, 09:39:15 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 22, 2021, 09:17:15 PM
Those cases are "too strong" when compared to their opponents, something which is not the case with the LRR. You're not comparing like with like evaluations.

Yes I do .

Well we're not going to agree here are we 

Quote
I fear you are much to positive towards the romans ! You know they did loose battles 

That really does show a lack of understanding of how the lists are drawn up. Yes the Romans lost battles, seriously nobody thinks otherwise; and the fact that they did is not a valid argument against their grading as the lists have them. The list allows those losing Roman armies to be played as well as the better ones that tended to win a lot - that is how MeG lists work (and pretty much all army lists). Players may then choose to run armies of a specific style, such as lot of Superior legionarii, but that is a choice and lists allow that - it would be wrong for them not to if such armies are historically justified. Then you trust that the game mechanisms and points values are robust enough that all such versions are viable - IMO in MeG they are, and LRR is far from being an unbeatable monster for example.

Quote
A veteran roman army might have it all superior due to allowed numbers
A veteran AlexMac army may not have all his pikes SUP
A veteran Carthaginian army is limited in the numbers of SUP

Completely illogical and very biaised towards Rome ! With all the army having melee expert and all impact weapon they can handle near anything and you give the opportunity to near all the army to be sup ..no I will always contest it

Well the list complier certainly thinks it is logical, and I agree. It is far more nuanced than just veteran=Superior.

Shall we put in a diary event for you to bring this up again at each annual list review 

QuoteThat really does show a lack of understanding of how the lists are drawn up

I think I do but I aklso am more and more convinced that there is a flaw in the logic with roman armies, competitions and competitive players !

The problem is that the list can be so strongh as to become too strongh vs historical opponents .

Romans were better than "barbarians" ! Ok later republican, early imperial and imperial  by being melee expert they are better than a huge majority of any army they might face on basis of simpel historical data . By being superior it is a bonus and by enable 100 % of the army to be sup ..it causes a kind of unbalance . But I understand completely the point system and the rules are the rules . That's it ..Pardon me if I feel it is wrong  and I do have 2 roman armies, nearly 3 

In a themed tournament, if you want to maximise a roman army it is easy . In an open tournament things are different as the opposition is different .

But I DO understand how creating an army list works perhaps much better than you think 

In general I like the approach the lists take to quality

I have to admit, however, I have always felt that an Alexandrian list should have the potential to have a lot of 'supermen' in it.

I would allow the Pike to be superior and (some?) of the hypaspists exceptional.

Martin

The new lists are abt to be officialized, it s matter of days if I recall a post 2 weeks ago.
Do you have a firm date for the publications of 2021 lists / 2021 budget sheet?
(So there is no point for me to check the forum 4 times a day)

Thanks in advance for sharing

No, but it should be at the same time as the lists.

I might perhaps be more specific when I write that I think LRR and early imperial armies are a bit too strongh :

They have impact weapon which is pretty strongh and puts them as some of the very best shok units in the game even is not DC or shatter
Being flexible they adapt to all type of  terrain
being melee expert they always have a factor even if one rank deep
The have shield cover vs shooty armies
They are drilled
They have ORB ( an underestimated capacity ) and being impact weapon and melee expert it is quite a good defensive formation

And if that is still not enough ..

They mays have up to 24 SUP + 8 exceptionnal ..

So I agree romans were good at what they did, they had veteran armies but they already have very good charateristics  which should enable them, in period to defeat most opponents . They should be able to have some SUP and in the case of the Xth legion exceptionnal ones ! But my message is : does all that not make them a bit unbalanced ? When I have responses such as :if we give short spear to lusitanian or if we give melee expert to other spaniard .. it would make spaniards too strongh ..I cannot help but wonder how the spaniards who resisted the romans for hundreds of years could be made too strongh an interesting debate 

And I do not say all spanish ( and other armies ) should have melee expert or be SUP ... just a bit more of them and the Lusitanian might have short spear    Well yes I did paint those damn Lusitanian 

LRR can be beaten, the secret is to have more bodies at the start of the game, BUT more important to have more alive at the end than them just grind them down till they get sick of killing you and die of terminal boredom ! My cunning plan anyway

QuoteLRR can be beaten, the secret is to have more bodies at the start of the game, BUT more important to have more alive at the end than them just grind them down till they get sick of killing you and die of terminal boredom ! My cunning plan anyway

Will your cunning plan survive contact with the enemy, though?

In a straight fight you'll need 2.5:1 numerical superiority if you are not also superior melee expert.

Quote from: shaun on March 24, 2021, 02:12:32 PM
LRR can be beaten, the secret is to have more bodies at the start of the game, BUT more important to have more alive at the end than them just grind them down till they get sick of killing you and die of terminal boredom ! My cunning plan anyway

Quote from: PUNCH on March 24, 2021, 07:25:33 PM

Quote from: shaun on March 24, 2021, 02:12:32 PM
LRR can be beaten, the secret is to have more bodies at the start of the game, BUT more important to have more alive at the end than them just grind them down till they get sick of killing you and die of terminal boredom ! My cunning plan anyway

This strategy got a name: tendonitis

I never said they cannot be beaten . I just wrote that some lists culd be better but the answer is it would make them too strongh ..but what about the romans ? LRR and Imperial

Quote from: badhabum on March 24, 2021, 10:38:04 AM
I might perhaps be more specific when I write that I think LRR and early imperial armies are a bit too strongh :

They have impact weapon which is pretty strongh and puts them as some of the very best shok units in the game even is not DC or shatter
Being flexible they adapt to all type of  terrain
being melee expert they always have a factor even if one rank deep
The have shield cover vs shooty armies
They are drilled
They have ORB ( an underestimated capacity ) and being impact weapon and melee expert it is quite a good defensive formation

And if that is still not enough ..

They mays have up to 24 SUP + 8 exceptionnal ..

So I agree romans were good at what they did, they had veteran armies but they already have very good charateristics  which should enable them, in period to defeat most opponents . They should be able to have some SUP and in the case of the Xth legion exceptionnal ones ! But my message is : does all that not make them a bit unbalanced ? When I have responses such as :if we give short spear to lusitanian or if we give melee expert to other spaniard .. it would make spaniards too strongh ..I cannot help but wonder how the spaniards who resisted the romans for hundreds of years could be made too strongh an interesting debate 

And I do not say all spanish ( and other armies ) should have melee expert or be SUP ... just a bit more of them and the Lusitanian might have short spear    Well yes I did paint those damn Lusitanian 

Must say ia agree, most barbarians have few Sups and are usualy DEV chargers.
Versus the Romans only numbers and bad dice give them a slight chance. The Rumans will seek contact, protect flanks and punch through with the exceptionals and superiors.
There are not enough Average compulsory troops ine the roman Army.