Thai Kingdoms

[Ambiorix]

Hi Richard,
following  your previous revision of the Thai Kingdoms list I would like to further suggest the following fine-tuning, for the next revision of army lists (end of the year?).
-   Allies : As the list name already suggests, there were several concurrent Thai Kingdoms, for example Kingdom of
        Sukothai having Lanna as mean vassal, while, as stated in the notes, later in 1378 AD becoming a vassal itself of the kingdom of Ayutthaya.  So surely at least an internal Ally is highly recommended.  In addition, external Allies, like Malay, Angkor Empire , and Bamarised Shan Kingdoms should be an option as well.
-   Elephants : contrary to Burmese and Indian EL, Thai EL crew had no bows (or javelins), just pole arms and their escort infantry were only armed with (2) swords. So I see no reason why Thai EL are attributed bows.
-   Cav : not sure why they are graded as 'tribal' (defined as 'less able to carry out battle manoeuvres'?), given that the Tamrab Pichaisonkram (Art of War textbook) described regular exercises as part of the standing army, involving intricate battle arrays, so suggest to define them as formed instead.
-   Porters and musicians were often used at the back to simulate reserves, so suggest TUGs of Loose, tribal, poor unprotected, combat shy.
-   Handguns and artillery: these where introduced by Chinese in Ayutthaya and later by Portugese in 1511 AD and became the dominant weapon over time (not sure what is the 'end date of MEG'). Even significant Portugese mercenaries with fire arms were employed. I suggest to at least as of that date to provide some SUG inf with handguns and a Lt Art. 
As already mentioned in a previous post in 'Historical Enemies', the current list of enemies for the Thai Kingdoms is incomplete.

Thx for your consideration,

[lionheartrjc]

Thanks, I will look at this for the 2023 lists.

[Jilu]

-   Cav : not sure why they are graded as 'tribal' (defined as 'less able to carry out battle manoeuvres'?), given that the Tamrab Pichaisonkram (Art of War textbook) described regular exercises as part of the standing army, involving intricate battle arrays, so suggest to define them as formed instead.
-   Porters and musicians were often used at the back to simulate reserves, so suggest TUGs of Loose, tribal, poor unprotected, combat shy.

or Drilled cavalry and for the porters a compulsory Average camp or mobile camp?

[Ambiorix]

or Drilled cavalry and for the porters a compulsory Average camp or mobile camp?

Drilled would be probable a step too far, but if so, then it should be also for the inf spearmen of the standing army, but I don't believe the cav was any better (or worse) than their contemporary enemies.

Not sure I understand the statement about compulsory av or mobile camp.  The porters were always used ON THE MARCH  (as most armies) and as workers for their camps (sometimes with barges following rivers).  But as a tactic on the battlefield they sometimes used these porters and other noncombattants  OUTSIDE of the camp  by simulating army reserves at the back, so not carrying their luggage with them.  In this logic I guess a compulsory POOR camp (fortified or not), depicting a more depleted camp, would make more sense...