Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: The next MeG Podcast needs you  (Read 811 times)

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3944
    • View Profile
The next MeG Podcast needs you
« on: May 23, 2024, 08:18:34 PM »
Upcoming MeG Podcast klaxon ... the subject of the next episode will be TERRAIN.

So once again we're asking our listeners, and possible listeners, for any questions and thoughts they may have for us to tackle, or attempt to tackle 😜 We will leave any specifics up to you, all that we ask is that they are related to terrain.

Feel free to post something here, or to drop me an email at nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Recording is planned for next Thursday, so before then please.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

steads

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: The next MeG Podcast needs you
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2024, 08:01:03 AM »
Just a quick tongue-in-cheek question. Why can't SUGs charge whole ,severely disordered TUGs ?
It would really change the dynamic when hunting Matt's cavalry!

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3944
    • View Profile
Re: The next MeG Podcast needs you
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2024, 08:21:50 AM »
Not an unreasonable question actually.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

Tommy

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: The next MeG Podcast needs you
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2024, 11:31:46 PM »
I think Sugs should be able to charge the flank or rear of Tugs that are affected or badly affected and in rough or difficult terrain, not the front.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2024, 11:33:17 PM by Tommy »

SteveO

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: The next MeG Podcast needs you
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2024, 01:10:59 AM »
I know this idea started as a bit of a joke to counter Matt’s predilection for putting his cavalry in the woods (although Russell Crowe did it so it must be true) but we should tread carefully if it is being considered seriously. I am not sure of how much historical evidence there is for ‘normal’ skirmishing troops engaging in melee combat with formed units. Undoubtedly it happened over the thousands of years covered by the rules but do rare occasions justify making potentially significant changes?

tarnowski1

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 189
    • View Profile
Re: The next MeG Podcast needs you
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2024, 09:12:45 AM »
I know this idea started as a bit of a joke to counter Matt’s predilection for putting his cavalry in the woods (although Russell Crowe did it so it must be true) but we should tread carefully if it is being considered seriously. I am not sure of how much historical evidence there is for ‘normal’ skirmishing troops engaging in melee combat with formed units. Undoubtedly it happened over the thousands of years covered by the rules but do rare occasions justify making potentially significant changes?

As the Man on his horse, behind the tree, equally the rules on skirmishers might be a little too rigid. After all Skirmishers are used to represent Alexander's expeditionary forces but those very same 'skirmishers' are extremely capable front line troops most days of the week. Roman Velites, Greek Euzenoi are other examples of troops that might be more than their sum in MeG currently. Then there is just tactical balance, it enriches in the game, makes it less of a passive threat more one to be properly considered and factored against. After all the above honourable mentions are really not close to cheap troops for their limited use.

We are potentially only talking about 'badly affected'   so everything, bar loose order foot,  in Difficult going and rather less in rough going . In MeG skirmishers can attack tugs near to breaking in the open , which if I were a skirmisher, is a situation that seems far more worrying than rushing a intact cavalry Tug in a forest.

and for the majority of skirmishers its still not the greatest of ideas. Short spear cavalry in a Forest is going to be 1+ ssp, +1 foot moving +2 fighting skirmishers, probably another +1 for combat shy and/or poor as well. so a range of +4 to +6

The skirmishers, +3 for fighting badly affected troops.

Cav are still up against your universal basic skirmisher, who break on 1/3 losses.

However throw in some of the better skirmishers , with Ssp, ME or are superior/protected and it gets significantly better.

the cost of good skirmishers, the likelihood of catching enemy tugs in such badly affecting terrain and the reliance on terrain actually sticking to the table rather makes it feel it'd be an occasional nuance to a game, much like skirmishers charging badly damaged Tugs is now.

regards
Matt

SteveO

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: The next MeG Podcast needs you
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2024, 09:52:46 AM »
That’s the point Matt. You have just mentioned the obvious and best known exceptional ‘skirmishers’. The vast majority of skirmishers were blokes with a stick or stone who didn’t mix it with formed troops.

 If we want to allow for the (I think) few exceptions, we should think carefully about the changes required and if they are worth further complexity. For example, would such ‘exceptional’ skirmishers classify as a new skirmisher/loose flexible troop type and be costed as such? After all, this is what is done with flexible horse archer UGs. Alternatively, do we say that skirmishers with the traits of ME, SSp and/or protected be permitted more leeway to engage in melee?

 I am personally not against the idea, especially in regard to the Agrianians and Velites, but would want to get it right.

Cheers,

Steve