All this proof-reading is really appreciated; it helps loads 

Okay, opinion time. Apologies in advance for anything dumb I put below. XP


[4607] Kamakura Samurai + [4608] Muramachi Samurai
• Mixed Cav/Foot TUGs:
With the changes to foot TUGs shooting, these guys' mechanics are super out of step with how everything else works. Instead of getting a bonus when standing to shoot at chargers, these guys give up a +1 claim penalty for trying it.
° Perhaps these mounted Bushi supported by foot should just be classed as Fleet of Foot infantry with Mounted Infantry (for the scouting contribution), probably close-order to discourage bushwhacking through bad terrain, and perhaps with an added Short Spear to make up for losing their charge bonus vs loose infantry?
(If you want to be really spicy: perhaps make the "mounted" Bushi have devastating chargers, functioning in one rank, to capture their bonus vs foot but not against proper cavalry)
° If these guys really must remain classed as cavalry, could we at least give them shower shooting so they don't surrender a claim for shooting at chargers and reclass them as close order so they aren't paying for a fifth BW of speed they can't use?

• Mixed TUGs of Bushi+Followers Shooting:
These UGs are in an environment where they are shooting at superior-quality troops a lot. When standing to receive chargers, mixed Bushi are effectively shooting at Unskilled against the front ranks of most targets, despite paying for skilled shooting.
° Could Bushi in these mixed UGs perhaps be regraded to Experienced shooters, but with either <A> the rear-rank followers classed with Unskilled shooting (adding ranks for the front to shoot at full effect, and excused as a few surviving bushi taking pot shots when files which have lost their front rank take unskilled shots) or <B> with a note that these Bushi shoot at full effect when one rank deep?
(If either of these change are implemented, the same should probably apply to the Murakami units in the Sengoku-era lists, since they fight in the same fashion)


[5401] Jarls of Orkney
• With the changes to Mounted Infantry vs old Dismountable, is the restriction on Huscarls in mixed UGs taking Mounted Infantry still necessary? They wouldn't benefit from the flank march bonus, but it would make a lot of sense that Huscarls might depart mounted for scouting and "foraging" before joining up with the Bondi for battle.


[54xx] General note on Book 54
• It seems strange to me that Hobilars lose their optional Melee Expert when dismounting. While not common, there are examples of cavalry in MeG with optional melee expert keeping it once dismounted. (IIRC some iterations of Roman equites work this way)
Is it clear from sources that Hobilars were only marginally effective troops when dismounting?
(If nothing else, 128 points is a lot to pay for a 67-point infantry base which is ineffective against most targets which would prompt Hobilars to dismount)


[5509] Medieval Burgundian
• From 1420 CE, at least half of the Burgundian knights must be downgraded to average-quality. Burgundian knights can be fielded in mixed UGs with average-quality coustiliers/valets. Would it be possible to add a note allowing knights in mixed UGs with valets to be downgraded to average without downgrading their valets to poor?
Current implementation severely discourages mixing average knights with valets.


[5515] Burgundian Ordnance
• Mixed Pikemen and Longbowmen:
I know these guys are supposed to suck and all, but perhaps the front-rank pikemen should be regraded to LSp? This would simultaneously <A> head off any silly rank-staggering to gain Pike's 3rd-rank benefits, and <B> not force the pikemen to pay points for a 3rd-rank bonus that they can't use.
° (It might also be worth considering allowing these Pk/Longbow UGs to be bought in 12-stand units, so they can deploy three elements wide like the army's other pike UGs? If not, probably NBD; these guys really are quite terrible X| .)


[5516] Edward IV English + [7106] Tudor English
• Do sources suggest that English men-at-arms were regularly outclassed by their continental counterparts? This classification of English men-at-arms is down 1 claim in combat with French men-at-arms on foot, increasing to 2 claims down where the English men-at-arms are reduced to a single rank. (at that point, we're looking at the same difference as between a Veteran Legionary and a standard Gallic warrior!)
If English men-at-arms weren't regularly stomped by their French counterparts perhaps this difference could be <A> mitigated by making English men-at-arms Superior as is the case in the late Hundred Years War list, or <B> keep the English men-at-arms equipped with 2HCC, but add the Spear Protection characteristic (might make them too knight-resistant that way, though!)
° (or maybe <C>, have the 2HCC weapon's +1 charge claim also apply vs mounted, which would make all men-at-arms a bit less less trampleable. XP )


[55xx] General note on Book 55
• Should archers with Mounted Infantry be allowed to take optional stakes?
It's not a game balance thing; I mostly just wanted to share the mental image of outriders showing up by surprise with field fortifications. Gave me a good chuckle anyway. XP



Okay, that's all my bad takes for today. Figured there was no harm in sharing. : )

Quote from: Doomsmile on October 09, 2025, 06:28:08 PM[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?

The contingent is not an allied contingent so is not limited to a maximum of 4 UGs.

5607 late communal Italian : that list can be allied to a Papal Italian list which needs them .

But the is something I find disturbing

If  you use the "main list", you need Communal kniths,militia spearme and Contadini spearmen.

The internal allies use a different set with only Militia spearmen as mandatory units

If used as an ally to another list that needs at least 2 allies to have 4 generals and mays have up to 3 contingents of Later Communal Italian allies , must it be from the main list or in a certain logic from the "internal ally" which is more flexible

On second thoughts, same logic for the early communal ally

Quote from: badhabum on October 10, 2025, 09:12:12 AM5607 late communal Italian : that list can be allied to a Papal Italian list which needs them .

But the is something I find disturbing

If  you use the "main list", you need Communal kniths,militia spearme and Contadini spearmen.

The internal allies use a different set with only Militia spearmen as mandatory units

If used as an ally to another list that needs at least 2 allies to have 4 generals and mays have up to 3 contingents of Later Communal Italian allies , must it be from the main list or in a certain logic from the "internal ally" which is more flexible

On second thoughts, same logic for the early communal ally

An ally must be from the main list.  I have added the same ally structure to the Papal Italian list.

The internal ally structure is flexible because the main contingent isn't.  This doesn't apply to external allies (i.e. the German emperors).

Richard

OK so the Papal Italian is a pretty difficult list to balance  lots of small poor units

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.

At one point I wrote somewhere here, "I am fed up with all those changes" . I haven't checked if the latest version keeps the downsizing of sengoku Bushi/Ashigaru from 12 to 9/6 but yes I am fed up with all those changes but let me explain,

 
We have now on the continent  max 4 tournaments , all themed ( not counting Geneva ) . Most of us can attend 2 or 3 tournaments. So we love the units we paint and we have to make choices about the armies we will play . Now I painted 2 units of 6 bushi/Ashigaru . Different style . Being on the continent it was difficult to get the miniatures ( I do not like 3D printing and had some essex from earlier times ) . So now by changing the max and going to 9/6 that means I painted some for ...nothing, did all I could to get the miniatures on time for nothing . It is very frustrating and I am not the only one to be frustrated .

It's not the first time a continental player paints an army only to learn he may not use it as the list has changed .

We lost half our players that way

So do not change max numbers. Keep them as they were just out of respect for the players

We do not have 15+ tournaments to play many armies, just 2-3 a year let us play our armies or risk loosing more players

Quote from: badhabum on October 13, 2025, 10:49:33 AMSo do not change max numbers. Keep them as they were just out of respect for the players

They were an error and changed back 2 weeks ago.

A couple of proof reading items.

In book 33 in both Nikophorian lists (3323 & 3324) melee expert on the Kataphraktoi end up costing 44 points rather than 43 (minor issue but since I noticed it figured I'd bring it up).

In book 46 the Ikko Ikki (4610) changes mention a change to the Sohie ally date but have no allies listed.

In book 52 the Komnenan Byzantine (5201) tagmata cavalry don't show the points reduction for charge only bow.

Hello,

Classical Greek 2401 : Sacred Band hoplites have size 6,8,9 but are only allowed 0-8 bases.

Hellenistic Spartan 2417 : helot phalangites are only 0-16 in 8-sized TUGs

Best,
Antoine

Quote from: Manzikert on November 26, 2025, 03:38:15 AMA couple of proof reading items.

In book 33 in both Nikophorian lists (3323 & 3324) melee expert on the Kataphraktoi end up costing 44 points rather than 43 (minor issue but since I noticed it figured I'd bring it up).

In book 46 the Ikko Ikki (4610) changes mention a change to the Sohie ally date but have no allies listed.

In book 52 the Komnenan Byzantine (5201) tagmata cavalry don't show the points reduction for charge only bow.

The single point inaccuracy is due to rounding errors. This has been true for many years - no easy way of fixing it
Ikko Ikki. The allies have been removed - so are not valid at any date! :-)
Tagamata points cost looks correct to me.  They are Drilled - (perhaps you entered them as formed?).

Richard

Quote from: Princeps on November 26, 2025, 05:00:38 PMHello,

Classical Greek 2401 : Sacred Band hoplites have size 6,8,9 but are only allowed 0-8 bases.

Hellenistic Spartan 2417 : helot phalangites are only 0-16 in 8-sized TUGs

Best,
Antoine

Many thanks.  Corrected.
Please re-download the file from the OneDrive.

Richard

Late Medieval Scots 5415, Pike upgrade, should be allowed in 9?

Early Tudor 5417, French Pike in 1485, should be allowed in 9, with a bump to 18 max?

cheers
Matt

What has happened to the Odoacre Roman list ?

Accidentally missed out would be my guess.