See here.

Change "Spear. New weapon category for classical hoplites and thureophoroi.
        At impact If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others.
        In melee If in 2+ ranks, +2 vs Cv, Cm, Ch, +1 vs others; if in 1 rank +1 vs foot cancelled by ME.
        Spear would not cancel mounted impact claims. 2+ deep Spear would cancel mounted melee expert claims."
Change "Supporting files fighting spear do not downgrade the colour of the additional dice".
Army list change hoplite and thureophoroi TuGs may be 6, 8 or 9.  Change impact weapon from long spear to spear.

This change makes hoplites more effective against foot (other than ME) but slightly weaker against cavalry.  This better reflects hoplites.
As with pikes, the change to supporting files fighting spear encourages the player to protect the flanks of their hoplite TuGs.

Note:  The spear category may also be used by South American armies such as the Canarii.

I think the Spear category would also be suitable for some current LSp in easter lists. Those in the Han lists, the Nanzhao and Yamato Japanese spring to mind, and also probably the Wu, Shu and Wei; there may be others.

This has a strange result when 1 rank of spear fight Average ME foot compared to Superior not-ME

How are they costed compared to LSp?

Spears (as in pointy stick other than pike) are getting complicated:

LSp have to be in 2 ranks, cancel mounted claims in charge and melee
Sp  have to be in 2 ranks in charge combat, or melee vs mounted or ME foot, cancel mounted claims in melee only, vulnerable to supporting files.
SSp 1 rank but only in charge and doesn't cancel anything
Sp protection 1 rank and cancels mounted claims in charge, but no claims.

Quote from: LawrenceG on September 01, 2025, 05:16:23 PMThis has a strange result when 1 rank of spear fight Average ME foot compared to Superior not-ME

Indeed.

I don't understand how adjusting the claims to make hoplites better against foot and worse against mounted (in combat) better reflects hoplites. I understood hoplites to have feared cavalry mainly because of being flanked rather than ridden down frontally. Reducing their combat effectiveness and penalising them for not narrowing their frontage seems like a double whammy for hoplites fighting mounted.

Quote from: SteveO on September 02, 2025, 12:51:12 AMI don't understand how adjusting the claims to make hoplites better against foot and worse against mounted (in combat) better reflects hoplites.

Hoplites needed a boost against infantry. They were the dominant infantry vs infantry troops of their era (and geography) and the existing rules do not quite get that right in our view. Likewise the current rules make them something of anti-cavalry specialists which was most certainly not their role - although like any competent heavy infantry of their time they were pretty resistant to their contemporary cavalry opponents frontally by dint of being competent heavy infantry.

The changes aim to improve the former whilst keeping the latter but making it more historical by not having the "anti-cavalry specialist" factor. Hoplites as "Spear" should not fear cavalry they faced frontally charging them under the proposed changes (other than, maybe, Alexander led Agema).

Thanks for the response Nik. You might be right in regard to historical opponents for Greeks but what are the troops that remain as long spear and so more effective against charging cavalry?

Infantry Long Spear will mainly be medieval such as Low Countries and Scots.

Ok. I will be interested to see how it works, especially as I am just about finished my new Ancient Greek army.

Quote from: SteveO on September 02, 2025, 12:51:12 AMI don't understand how adjusting the claims to make hoplites better against foot and worse against mounted (in combat) better reflects hoplites. I understood hoplites to have feared cavalry mainly because of being flanked rather than ridden down frontally. Reducing their combat effectiveness and penalising them for not narrowing their frontage seems like a double whammy for hoplites fighting mounted.

At Plataea IIRC their response to the cavalry threat was to sit on a hill, rather than to take precautions on their flanks.

You speak of hoplites so that would concern all antiquity "hoplites " greeks, romans, etruscans and similar

At Plataea IIRC their response to the cavalry threat was to sit on a hill, rather than to take precautions on their flanks.


Because I would argue that coming down would expose them to flanking and shooting - there is not a lot of detail in Herodotus. The horses were not medieval destriers; they were not much more than ponies by today's standards.

Quote from: SteveO on September 03, 2025, 01:31:04 PMAt Plataea IIRC their response to the cavalry threat was to sit on a hill, rather than to take precautions on their flanks.


Because I would argue that coming down would expose them to flanking and shooting - there is not a lot of detail in Herodotus. The horses were not medieval destriers; they were not much more than ponies by today's standards.

You can still be outflanked or shot at on a hill. It's true that there's not a lot of detail, it might have been a rough hill.

It seems like it would simplify things if we simply replaced existing longspear with this rule and gave any unit intended to take the current anti-cavalry role Pike w/combat shy.

What about the spatans who are now LS + ME ?