Like the organisation/format changes a lot. Think they make it much easier to refer to lists and less likely people will forget restrictions/special rules.

Have mixed feelings about the changes to Chinese infantry in 'Mandate of Heaven'. Spear Protection/melee expert is a little more expensive than either polearm or longspear. Is better in some circumstances/worse in others so not necessarily a problem. Don't think it really works for the Early Zhou infantry with two ranks of fighters though. These have always been an odd mixed unit (2 ranks of melee expert one of bow) and adding spear protection would seem to contradict the idea of it been a classification designed to force infantry mixed units not to put their melee in a double rank. It is also unfortunate that this is the only early Chinese army still saddled with extra compulsory infantry units you don't want (one of shortspear, one of bow). ie you have to take the mixed units, a unit of shortspear and a unit of bow. I'm aware of no historical reason for this (ie compelling evidence that infantry with dagger axes and spears operated separately or that there were always some archers deployed separately). It seems even more odd now that the dagger axe infantry have spear protection (ie there are presumably some spears mixed in amongst them). I would go back to the drawing board for the classification of the infantry in this list.

Still some chariots with superiority, polearm and melee expert? Very odd 'double dipping' in melee.

Martin

QuoteStill some chariots with superiority, polearm and melee expert? Very odd 'double dipping' in melee.

The effect of Chinese fantasy stories ?

I do agree itis very powerful, but not exceptional as some later pike keil do have pike and melee expert !

They aren't superiors who move 5MU.

Martin

Swiss only move 4 MU sorry I forgot

I don't think Swiss are melee expert?

I think it is clear there are no other mounted with a similar classification and there is no reason to think Chinese chariots were some sort of exceptional melee killing machines

On the Zhou infantry, I would say two full ranks of 'spear protection' is, in fact, an actual spear and a single rank of archers is probably just 'integral shooters'.

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on November 28, 2022, 08:48:33 PM
I don't think Swiss are melee expert?

I think it is clear there are no other mounted with a similar classification and there is no reason to think Chinese chariots were some sort of exceptional melee killing machines

On the Zhou infantry, I would say two full ranks of 'spear protection' is, in fact, an actual spear and a single rank of archers is probably just 'integral shooters'.

Martin

I agree no other mounted do have the same capacity which makes those chariots very powerful and a winner especially as those guys are superior . But what is the reasoning behind that classification would be interesting to know

No thoughts on the odd/unfortunate classification of the Early Zhou infantry?

Martin

I like the feel of the list.  It is different to other lists and I don't have a problem with any of the classifications we have chosen.  I don't see the classifications as unfortunate. 

Richard

I quite like it. Imaginative use of the characteristic for the Early Zhou IMO. Certainly not unfortunate.

Really? What's the advantage in paying for two ranks of spear protection? Wasn't that characteristic introduced to MeG specifically to prevent such troops using two ranks (Nikephorian Byzantine wasn't it)? A single rank of bows, ie black dice shooting only?

I also can't see the reason for the extra compulsory archer and shortspear unit. Is there some hard evidence the Early Zhou deployed separate units of these? Apart from the fact you don't want them, they make the list essentially unusable as an ally. Which is a problem given you have to take an internal ally to get 4 generals. Essentially to get 4 generals you have 7 compulsory (pretty meh) infantry units and 2 chariot units, quite a few of whom are in a pretty unfortunately structured command.

The later list chariots with polearm and melee expert appear to still be a mystery to all.

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on December 03, 2022, 10:57:25 PM
Wasn't that characteristic introduced to MeG specifically to prevent such troops using two ranks (Nikephorian Byzantine wasn't it)?

It was introduced so that the Nikeforians were not able to arrange formations to have 2 ranks of Long Spear and thus get combat claims which would not properly represent their formations. It was not to prevent them forming deeper if they wished - indeed there is evidence for that.

As for the other infantry in the Zhou list, presumably the list writer felt there was evidence to support the compulsories. Although I am wary of using other army lists as "evidence", I do note that the DBMM list has such compulsories. Agree that the 1/3 Bows proportion looks odd, however, not a Chinese period I know that much about (Han onwards for me really) - it may well be one where a revisit would benefit, so somebody please feel free 

My reading on unit organisation in the period, limited as it is, reveals little/nothing about unit armament. It does suggest chariots and infantry tended to be mixed together (which would be a whole other problem). It does suggest there were both dagger axes and spears but says nothing about separate units.

The way the minimums interact with the allied command requirements rather ruins the list (even if you think the infantry classification is OK). I would say the Tsu troops are a unit that's capabilities all operate in a single rank but it is designed to be 3 ranks deep. It is bound to be a little sub-optimal.

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on December 04, 2022, 08:42:41 AM
It does suggest chariots and infantry tended to be mixed together (which would be a whole other problem).

Can be done - see some Japanese lists.

Should arguably be the case with quite a lot of chariot lists. Not sure it could be done in a way anyone would actually want to use though.

Martin

I am a little confused about this discussion - are we searching for better historical 'feel' or greater tabletop effectiveness?