Both?

Historical accuracy with these lists is always going to be debatable. We lack the detailed information to argue with any certainty. That allows a large leeway in how units are classified. In that context I feel we should try to avoid making lists with unworkable structures or particularly unattractive in their classification. I don't think we should, however, go out of our way to make supertroops.

I have this army. It is currently pretty painful to write a list for that you would actually want to put on the table. The easiest solution is curently to take the external ally. You are then not saddled with extra infantry in a strangely structured command. Would be nice if the army worked without it though.

Martin

Fair enough - a paucity of detailed information for most armies is common and so requires some educated guesswork most of the time.

If there is some reason to keep the shortspear and archer infantry compulsory, even a list note saying they didn't have to be taken in allied contingents would make some difference. You'd still have to take 2 of them but not 4.

Martin

I think we have to accept that some armies have structures that we don't personally like.

But to use Early Zhou I already have to grit my teeth over what happened to the chariots 

Martin

Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 07, 2022, 06:49:13 AM
I think we have to accept that some armies have structures that we don't personally like.

I'm also not sure balking at a list that has, to all intents and purposes, 9 compulsory TUG's is some odd personal idiosyncrasy.

Martin