Introduce loose flexible infantry that can deploy either loose or skirmish.

This sounds interesting.Are there historical examples?

Thank you for the suggestion.

I cannot think of a single example of this in any historical battle. 
My counter-suggestion would be that Unprotected missile focused loose foot should only count as unprotected to skirmishers at <= 1BW.  This would represent loose troops sending out skirmishers to counter the enemy skirmishers.  It is simpler than your suggestion.

AT times I've been irritated by foot skirmishers essentially being better than their Loose (Unprotected) counterparts. Think I'd just say that foot skirmishers cannot get the colour upgrade for shooting at Unprotected - lower shooting density meaning they are less impactful. (Well actually I suspect that your basic foot skirmisher should be Unskilled shooting with only the best being Experienced, but doubt that would be a good thing for the game)

The thing is a lot of us feel that bowmen are pretty useless.
Ineffective when experienced, as white dice are not good enough and giving them green dice would make them to strong.
The slowing effect is marginal.
Them being loose make them fodder for horse and close foot.

making them flexible loose/close at reduced costs might help.
giving them a + on impact as if they had intgral shooters might help.
having the second/third, fourth rank shoot, even in black during melee might help.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 06, 2025, 08:29:23 AMThank you for the suggestion.

I cannot think of a single example of this in any historical battle. 
My counter-suggestion would be that Unprotected missile focused loose foot should only count as unprotected to skirmishers at <= 1BW.  This would represent loose troops sending out skirmishers to counter the enemy skirmishers.  It is simpler than your suggestion.

Would help with being outshot by skirmishers but this is hardly their main problem.

Martin

This really is starting to sound like "I spoke to Phil last night" Seriously if the UK want their own home-brew tournament rules, go right ahead, but why totally annoy the entire player base?

Precisely what are we trying to do?

Dear Mubster, is Belgium in UK now ?

The idea is : if we want to make MEG a swift enjoyable rule , we may propose amendments, discuss them, modify them or discard them . Here unprotected TUGS, often bow/crossbow/PB are quite vulnerable to skirmishing opponents who gain a colour upgrade which seems quite harsh and strange as massed shooters get butchered by dispersed shooters .

My idea was also to try to find a solution for massed bow armies whose TUGS might not fall back anymore .

By allowing to go skirmish they might still fall back but will be less efficient .

RJC made another proposal which he finds simpler . The discussion is open .

Can we proceed in a positive way

Hi Bahabum, it is an interesting challenge - clarifying rules is good - simplifying, maybe but there can be unintended consequences, completely new ideas eg 'spears' or exceptions is adding complexity and may also have unintended consequences.

When the simplifying and new item lists have well over 10 items and threads, perhaps it is time to draft a completely new rule set from the ground up as the interactions become hugely complex to consider.

Quote from: Munster on October 08, 2025, 03:15:28 AMHi Bahabum, it is an interesting challenge - clarifying rules is good - simplifying, maybe but there can be unintended consequences, completely new ideas eg 'spears' or exceptions is adding complexity and may also have unintended consequences.

When the simplifying and new item lists have well over 10 items and threads, perhaps it is time to draft a completely new rule set from the ground up as the interactions become hugely complex to consider.

Both options are open : rewriting MEG or starting with a new rule

MEG and CCC are good but some parts are "difficult" too many details ..or not .

Quote from: badhabum on October 07, 2025, 08:07:16 PMHere unprotected TUGS, often bow/crossbow/PB are quite vulnerable to skirmishing opponents who gain a colour upgrade which seems quite harsh and strange as massed shooters get butchered by dispersed shooters .

My idea was also to try to find a solution for massed bow armies whose TUGS might not fall back anymore .

I have to be honest, I don't see either unprotected or skirmishing shooters often enough to be worried about the interaction between the two. Wouldn't this make skirmishers redundant, who would take them if you can take a TuG for the same price and get more break point?

Letting foot shooters act as skirmishers feels like an odd solution to the problem of them not being able to back up anymore. Wasn't the intention to stop shooters from backing to get more shots? And if a player wants archers that can back-up can't they just take skirmishing archers?

Feels like a cleaner solution is to just make Skirmishers count for breakpoint. Not that I'm advocating for that, but it feels like the net effect of this change.

Quote from: Manzikert on October 09, 2025, 02:42:15 AMFeels like a cleaner solution is to just make Skirmishers count for breakpoint. Not that I'm advocating for that, but it feels like the net effect of this change.

that would change things to much as SUGS are fragile they would be avoided to play with. Losing a breakpoint simply by a sug being contacted by enemy tug would hurt a lot if it was a breakpoint

Perhaps the real problem is that infantry was neither close or loose or skirmish but rather deployed in a certain formation depending on terrain, circumstances . But that is too much to ask .

To me a phalanxman when bought should be able to deploy as pikemen or euzemoï as he would be equiped depending on terrain and mission but in MEG the choice must be made before which is very unrealistic .


But so it is

Unprotected bowmen are a juicy choice for downgrading morale, shooting ability as they often are also combat shy or can be caraterised as combat shy so yes to me that's a problem . Not only biblical armies do have them, but lots of balkanic armies as well, or byzantines. They still count for morale and still no solution . My opinion is that in a real battle, when charged they would just flee and the real battle would happen between men-at-arms and warriors . Biblical times might be different .

An option could be : "Shooting loose infantry [without melee weaponry?] can skirmish or run away".

IF they could skirmish, they should be classified as skirmishers.

They can already run away. They just have to fight a round or two of combat first.