2021 List Changes

[badhabum]

Timurid : why are the samarkand guard downgraded from skilled to experienced which is not the case in mongol armies ?

I am checking the consistency on these guard unit classifications.

Richard

That is why I asked will wait and see  : Mongol guard cavalry are graded as Drilled Close, ArmHrs/Protected, Superior, Short Spear, Skilled Bow, Melee Expert. Lists affected include Mongol Conquest; Golden Horde; Ilkhanate; Chagatai Khanate and Yuan Dynasty.

[SteveO]

Nick,

First, thanks for all your good work - it is really appreciated. I also appreciate your patient responses to we 'grognards'. I do share some of Antiochus's concern however.

While I understand that the change to close for all Armoured Horse is intended to get the points correct, I wonder about appearing to equate Mongul (et al) formations with that of cataphracts. It's not quite the same as classifying Sassanid long spear carrying cavalry as short spear in order to replicate the correct battlefield effect for example.

In any case, I will demur to your wisdom.

Steve

[martymagnificent]

The classification of arm/hrs cavalry as close has no game effect at all, except to lower their points.

Martin

[nikgaukroger]

The classification of arm/hrs cavalry as close has no game effect at all, except to lower their points.

Martin

Exactly. I am genuinely puzzled as to why something that is making zero effect to how the troops work in the game, but makes the troops cheaper to tackle an identified cost issue, is causing concern.

[SteveO]

Only from the perspective that as MeG prides itself on being historical, I believe it is misleading to appear to equate the formation of Parthian cataphracts with that of Mongul Guard cavalry, particularly if you read the MeG definition of loose and close.

I do understand it makes no difference to the game but am asking if there is another way of reducing the points cost that better reflects historical practice - I don't know and like I said, I will abide by the umpire's decision.


Cheers

[nikgaukroger]

The definitions are, and can only be, guidelines for classification to get what we think the right table-top behaviour should be. I'd prefer to get the latter right to be historical than get hung up on other things, not doing so would be a greater offence against historicality IMO. For instance we have crusader knights as Loose as that seem to get the right effect, but there is historical information that would suggest that Close would be appropriate; Republican Roman legionarii would be another good example (but the other way round).

I'd also suggest that the definitions are themselves not absolutes - "Close" can cover a range of closeness that can deal with a Parthian formation (whatever the evidence tells us that was) and a Mongol guard formation (whatever the evidence tells us that was) for example.

I'm sure the army builder could be made to adjust the points in a different way, however, as this was was an easy approach it is the one adopted; and what with all the other list work being done and volunteer time finite, plus when suggested when the issue was first raised and there being no objections at the time, I think it is sensible. (it also has some advantages where there are mixed formations some non ArmHrs troops)

However, ultimately I'm relaxed about how it is dealt with as I am happy with the definitions being guidelines - but I do see where you are coming from.

[SteveO]

No worries.

[badhabum]

I have a question concerning constitency :

Foederate Roman.  Upgraded equites can be regraded to bucellarii as Cavalry, Superior, Protected, Experienced Bow, Short Spear with optional Shoot & Charge.

Why do those units dissapear in late foederate roman and Easterna later roman armies ? or rephrased what units do they represent ?

The reappear in the early byzantine armies ...so what is the logic ?

Regards

[nikgaukroger]

I think the Later Foederate Roman also has the upgrade; remember that Richard's list is not exhaustive (and I suspect he was using "Foederate" to cover both the lists).

Not in the eastern army as the east, I would suggest, was not "warlordy" in quite the same way as the west was at least in the 2nd half of the C5th - although obviously being the C5th the info is sparse to say the least. You can have a unit that is the same bar the Shoot & Charge FWIW.

The troops in thee Early Byzantine list are not quite the same thing as the earlier times although the MeG classification is similar, they appear to have been more integrated in the army. There is an interesting book on the bucellarii, "Riding for the Powerful: Buccellarii and the Ideal of Retainer Loyalty" that suggests that they are more the elite of the army albeit with close ties to individuals, but that ultimately they were under the emperors control. It cites cases from Procopios where Belisarios has to ask Justinian for some of "his" bucellarii back that have been deployed elsewhere for example.

[badhabum]

Interesting fact if they dissapear in eastern late armies and come back later ..what happened    strange things happens in history

[badhabum]

Achaemenid Persian – Royal Army. The army is allowed 12-48 Sparabara (Average with Experienced Bow). Up to half can be upgraded as Immortals (Average with Skilled Bow).  One TuG of 6 can be further upgraded as Apple Bearers (Superior with Skilled Bow). This better represents armies where the Emperor was present.

I am wondering should we not do something similar withe the romans !    up to know Republican armies car upgrade a lot of TUGs to superior and so have a huge amount of SUP even exceptionnal ! my feeling is that it is pretty too strongh ! perhaps allow tu upgrad ea % of the average so there will always be some average somewhere ! up to half or 2/3 if we want to represent big veterans armies !

[nikgaukroger]

IMO a fully veteran LRR is perfectly reasonable - for example the army Lucullus had in the east appears to have been wholly veteran, if somewhat bolshy.

[badhabum]

Lusitanoan spanish may not have short spear or DC or Impact weapon as it would make it too strongh .... Persian Sparabara are now deemed too strongh at impact vs infantry and loose short spear ...but ROMA CAPUT MUNDI remains  hurray for them even if "too" strongh

[nikgaukroger]

Those cases are "too strong" when compared to their opponents, something which is not the case with the LRR. You're not comparing like with like evaluations.

[AntiokosIII]

Just (finally!) noticed the proposed changes to Early Arab Conquest. I am disappointed , but not really surprised, that the Martyrs are being removed. Disappointed, because they add flavor and color to a list that's a bit monotone. Not surprised, because there is a LOOOONG history of debate about just how fanatic anyone was in the Arab Conquest armies. The changes take the position that the debate is over. I think it's a shame that players who disagree should not get the one unit, but the trend seems to be to make lists more vanilla and allow fewer debatable options. These views change over time.
I do wonder why the units have to be smaller to reflect 'resilience'. IMHO it is very questionable to say that a larger number of small units has more staying power than a smaller number of larger units. My own limited experience is that larger units are more resilient and less maneuverable. It seems to me that this should be left to the player, but that may just one more reason nobody has been foolish enough to trust me with writing lists.