2026 Proposed Amendments - Army List change - Medieval men-at-arms

[nikgaukroger]

Men at arms where vunerable to charging knights,

I'm not sure the historical record supports that assertion.

[Doomsmile]

So, this proposed change has been itching at me for a while, so I decided to dig into the math on this to silence the gremlins in the back of my brain.

Turns out that, by the numbers, the proposed change actually makes Men-at-Arms worse against their contemporary heavy cavalry.
I ran the following math assuming the proposed changes to Shatter go through, that the men-at-arms are facing off against the standard stat line of 13th-14th century western European knights (Lancer, Devastating Chargers, Full Armor, Melee Expert, either average or superior), and that both units consist of 6 bases, deployed 3 files wide and 2 ranks deep.

I'm including a link to a Google Sheet so you can check my work (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cqlRpKSJLbBNvm5M8xbh8rvjvR2maHzQUH8kEqQEXi4/edit?usp=drivesdk), but the results I found are as follows:

Assuming three files of knights contact three files of Men-at-Arms as described above, the Men-at-arms should expect to receive the following damage (on average) after one charge phase and one melee phase:
(Sorry for the janky not-table tables; I couldn't figure out how to make table function in the forum work  )

______________________|_Legacy Men-at-Arms w/ ME_|_Men-at-Arms w/ Shieldwall (no ME)
vs. Average Knights_|_5 1/2 wounds received_______|_4 1/2 wounds received
vs. Superior Knights_|_6 2/3 wounds received_______|_5 1/2 wounds received

In all cases, then Men-at-arms are more likely than not to survive the first turn of combat, then break from a second charge. In exchange, the men-at-arms should expect to deal the following damage:

______________________|_Legacy Men-at-Arms w/ ME_|_Men-at-Arms w/ Shieldwall (no ME)
vs. Average Knights_|_4 1/2 wounds dealt__________|_4 1/6 wounds dealt
vs. Superior Knights_|_3 wounds dealt______________|_2 5/6 wounds dealt

(Note: the above table factors in the loss of shieldwall on depleted files in melee, but does not factor in the legacy men-at-arms' ability to add supporting files for additional green dice, which undersells the legacy men-at-arms' potential greatly. For each supporting files added to the legacy MAA, add 5/6 of a wound vs average knights, or 2/3 of a wound vs. superiors. Two added supporting files would therefore increase the expected damage output for legacy men-at-arms to 5 1/6 wounds vs average, or 4 1/3 wounds vs superiors. I'd be happy to model what happens when the shieldwall men-at-arms add supporting files if there's sincere interest, but I guarantee you it's not pretty, especially against superior knights!)


TL;DR
Both legacy and proposed revised Men-at-arms are likely to have the same time-to-kill at the hands of contemporary heavy cavalry, breaking on the second charge impact.
The proposed revised men-at-arms, however, will do on average less damage on their way out, making them, on the whole, worse against the knights which this revision seeks to help them resist.


For funsies, I did crunch a simple alternative solution to Men-at-Arms being splattered by knights: change the charge claims of the "2-Handed Cut&Crush" weapon from "+1 vs any foot" to "+1 vs any except El and BWg."
By making the chopper's +1 charge claim apply vs cavalry, the benefits to men-at-arms against knights are a bit clearer:

Average damage received by Men-at-arms:

______________________|_Legacy Men-at-Arms w/ ME_|_Men-at-Arms w/ Shieldwall (no ME)_|_Chopper +1 vs Cv
vs. Average Knights_|_5 1/2 wounds received_______|_4 1/2 wounds received______________|_4 1/6 wounds received
vs. Superior Knights_|_6 2/3 wounds received_______|_5 1/2 wounds received______________|_5 1/2 wounds received

Average damage dealt by Men-at-arms:

_____________________|_Legacy Men-at-Arms w/ ME_|_Men-at-Arms w/ Shieldwall (no ME)_|_Chopper +1 vs Cv
vs. Average Knights_|_4 1/2 wounds dealt_________|_4 1/6 wounds dealt__________________|_4 1/2 wounds dealt
vs. Superior Knights_|_3 wounds dealt_____________|_2 5/6 wounds dealt__________________|_3 1/2 wounds dealt

(Again, supporting files not modeled here; see the note in the above section.)

Knights should still beat the men-at-arms on flat open ground (the average knights get their best licks in first, so should come out on top despite coming out worse for wear in the first combat exchange).

I think this would better achieve the goal of making men-at-arms a little more splatter resistant, without the side effect of making men-at-arms worse at fighting the units they're meant to be receiving a buff against.
(Equally importantly, the above change doesn't make the men-at-arms much worse against the types of enemies they're actually meant to deal with, unlike the the change to shieldwall does, and eliminates the odd interactions like men-at-arms/dismounted gendarmes being immune to Shoves by pike units.)


Sorry for the wall of text, but I had to silence the gremlins in my head somehow!!!

EDIT: corrected error in table: "expected damage received" for chopper weapon receiving a +1 charge claim vs. mounted.

[lionheartrjc]

Thank you for this analysis and suggesting an alternative solution (which I like).  This is the sort of feedback that really helps.
Can I check whether you took into account that 2-deep shieldwall cancels mounted melee expert?

The shove cancellation effect was a minor by-product of the change which I wasn't unhappy with.

An option would be to leave the shieldwall but keep the melee expert.

Richard

[Doomsmile]

First: I noticed an embarrassing data-entry mistake in my table for expected damage received by choppers with a +1 claim vs mounted. The error has been corrected, and a note left in the post noting the revision.
I'll be going over those tables again with a fine tooth comb once I'm back home this evening to make sure no other goofy typos slipped through. X|

Can I check whether you took into account that 2-deep shieldwall cancels mounted melee expert?

Yuppers! ^^
I modeled both the cancellation of mounted melee expert for shieldwall two ranks deep, and the loss of that cancellation on files depleted to one rank deep, based on average charge damage received.

An option would be to leave the shieldwall but keep the melee expert.

I'm a little concerned this might overshoot making men-at-arms merely knight-resistant, as any files which keep their shieldwall depth will be fighting at a brutal +4/+3 net claims against average/superior knights respectively.

Happy to run the numbers if you'd like more than vibes backing this up, though. XP

[lionheartrjc]

Probably simpler to ignore quality when working out the effects...

Charging Lancer, DC will be +3 vs 2-HCC,Shieldwall  at Impact.
2-HCC, ME, 2-deep Shieldwall will be +3 vs Mtd ME in Melee.

Basically - I wouldn't have a problem with this.  The alternative would be for 2-HCC to cancel mounted claims at impact as foot PA currently does.  This however would require a points adjustment for 2-HCC. 

[lionheartrjc]

Abandoning this change for the 2026 amendments - so locking the topic.