Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 09:56:33 AMMen-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

Actually, I wonder if the mounted ones should still dismount as 2HCC as not leading billmen.

Yorkist Pretender 5418
Should the Mercenary Pikemen with Halbardiers be allow 9 base TuGs

In the Changes notes in the Later 100YW English and Edward IV the change to the best longbowmen (Formed not Drilled) is not noted - think it should be as a quite material change. It is mentioned in the Early 100YW English list though 

Sohei - I've always assumed that the rules re: army commander and the shrine protectors applies to an allied contingent from the list but it would IMO be useful to specify that in the list note ( or otherwise if my assumption is wrong).

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 27, 2025, 09:34:14 AMSohei - I've always assumed that the rules re: army commander and the shrine protectors applies to an allied contingent from the list but it would IMO be useful to specify that in the list note ( or otherwise if my assumption is wrong).

Rules say that [...]Unless specified in the notes, the general must be the same type as the army commander in their own army's list but cannot be legendary[..].

But is it an AC by itself ? That would allow AC-only units (Khan's Guard in Mongols and such) to be taken in an allied contingent ...

Antoine

An allied commander is not an army commander and so unless the list specifically allows it cannot use any army commander only options. Nu

Ikko Ikki have tanegashima in their list but the lists in the Japan PDF only get them as a scenario rule; not sure why there is this difference.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 26, 2025, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 26, 2025, 07:20:23 AM[7201: Sengoku Japanese]
Maximum number of Bushi and Ashigaru with Yari reduced from 12 to 9.
(This is probably intentional, but thought I'd double-check since the reduction wasn't noted in the army's change list.)

[7202: Nobunaga Japanese / 7203: Takeda Japanese]
Unit sizes for long-spear equipped troops are 6,8 (with no 9s allowed). Is this correct?

Suspect errors here - the Nobunga "Bushi and ashigaru with yari" numbers have also changed in an (IMO) odd way.

Just flagging this again as all 3 of the lists in the Japan PDF have had the maximum number of the Bushi and ashigaru with yari reduced - halved for Nobunaga. Doesn't feel right to me.

<Corrected>

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 09:56:33 AMMen-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

I'm curious why the men-at-arms were switched to PA rather than given Spear Protection. Did the supporting billmen reduce the men-at-arms' ability to offend other armored infantry?

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 28, 2025, 03:01:05 PM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 09:56:33 AMMen-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

I'm curious why the men-at-arms were switched to PA rather than given Spear Protection. Did the supporting billmen reduce the men-at-arms' ability to offend other armored infantry?

Same comments as I applied to PA vs Sp, also apply to PA vs 2-HCC.  FArm, PA, ME are pretty good against almost all foot. They are much less vulnerable to CL at impact which is significant.

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 28, 2025, 03:01:05 PM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 26, 2025, 09:56:33 AMMen-at-arms backed up by billmen.  Makes the men-at-arms no more vulnerable to mounted than billmen which seems correct.

I'm curious why the men-at-arms were switched to PA rather than given Spear Protection. Did the supporting billmen reduce the men-at-arms' ability to offend other armored infantry?

I'd note that by the mid-C15th the numbers of men-at-arms in English armies had fallen dramatically compared to a century before. Compare, for example, the numbers in armies from the early 100YW where you could have contingents with roughly 50:50 archers to men-at-arms whilst for the 1475 expedition to France of Edward IV the indentures are showing 1:10 men-at-arms to archers. In game terms the number of people carrying 2HCC type weapons are very low.

French Ordonnance list have powerbow as drilled

Burgundian Ordonnance list have powerbow/crossbow & handgunners as drilled

Think these were much more "standing army troops" than the English armies raised by indenture. However, thinking about it, the English garrison troops in Normandy in the later 100YW could arguably qualify for Drilled as standing troops.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 28, 2025, 09:38:07 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 26, 2025, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Doomsmile on September 26, 2025, 07:20:23 AM[7201: Sengoku Japanese]
Maximum number of Bushi and Ashigaru with Yari reduced from 12 to 9.
(This is probably intentional, but thought I'd double-check since the reduction wasn't noted in the army's change list.)

[7202: Nobunaga Japanese / 7203: Takeda Japanese]
Unit sizes for long-spear equipped troops are 6,8 (with no 9s allowed). Is this correct?

Suspect errors here - the Nobunga "Bushi and ashigaru with yari" numbers have also changed in an (IMO) odd way.

Just flagging this again as all 3 of the lists in the Japan PDF have had the maximum number of the Bushi and ashigaru with yari reduced - halved for Nobunaga. Doesn't feel right to me.

<Corrected>

Thanks 

Looks like a few new books have been put through since my last annoying wall of proofreading! XP
So, uh, here it is again?

(I found myself with several comments while reading through these new/revised books that weren't really proofreading in nature; I'll be separating those in a separate post for clarity.)

[4304] Gaya Confederacy
• Conscript Spearmen (LSp) are only available in UGs of 6 or 8 (not 9). (Gaya Armored Spearmen are in 6,8,9 as normal for LSp) The Conscript Spearmen also have a a maximum of 48 stands (6x 8-stand UGs); should this be 54 (6x 9-stand UGs) instead?


[5401] Jarls of Orkney
• Note for mixed UGs of Huscarls and Hird refers to "Dismountable" instead of "Mounted Infantry"

[5405] Feudal Scottish
• Note regarding LSp and old Dismountable rule still included.

[5405] Medieval Scottish
• Note regarding LSp and old Dismountable rule still included.


[5505] Early Medieval Low Countries
• UG sizes not specified for separately deployed Guildsmen with Placon.
• Guildsmen LSp with added Placon-armed bases cannot be taken in UGs of 9. Is this intentional?
• Guildsmen LSp with added Longbowmen bases cannot be taken in UGs of 9. Is this intentional?

[5507] Hundred Years War French
• Allies section references "Best Longbowmen". Is this referring to "Retinue Longbowmen"?

[5508] Free Company
• Veteran Men-at-Arms have no Melee Expert option, unlike all other superior-quality Men-at-Arms in book 55. Is this intentional?

[5515] Burgundian Ordnance
• Ordnance Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?


[5607] Later Communal Italian
• Army Notes in top section are cut off mid-sentence at line break.


[7101] Late Swiss
• Lorain Alliance contingent(s) has five required UGs, which means a minimum of two generals must be assigned to the Alliance contingent. Is this intentional?

[7102] Later Castillan
• Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?

[7103] Later Burgundian
• Pikemen has a maximum of 64 bases (8x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 72 (8x 9-stand UGs)?
• Swiss Mercenaries has a maximum of 8 bases. Should this be 9?

[7104] Later French Ordnance
• Italian Knights dismount with Shieldwall. Is this correct?

[7105] Swabian League
• Feudal Knights dismount with Shieldwall. Is this correct?
• Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?

[7107] Maximilian German
• Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 32 bases (4x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 36 (4x 9-stand UGs)?

[7109] Italian States
• Florentine Militia Pikemen has a maximum of 24 bases (3x 8-stand UGs). Should this be 27 (3x 9-stand UGs)?



Anyway, that's what I found. I also had some thoughts which stray beyond the realm of proofreading, which I'll put in the next post below.