2026 Proposed Amendments#4.3&4.5 New weapon "Spear" for Hoplites & Thureophoroi

[LawrenceG]

On reflection I would prefer to keep things simple, so Spear fighting non-ME can move a second rank, as it is not contributing.  Carries its own risk as if the remaining single base is killed then the supporting file rule can kick in in the following turn.

Richard

Not really a risk as the enemy base would throw the same dice whether or not it killed its opponent.
Currently you really want the singe rank LSp to die so the enemy file's dice is degraded in future turns.

[martymagnificent]

The new 'spear' category seems to cost the same as 'longspear' in the new army builder. Surely they should be cheaper? They sometimes have an advantage in melee if reduced to one rank (very situational) but are always much worse against shock mounted in impact.

Martin

[Raxonika]

I'm sort of seeing what people would like to happen rather than quoting events and making rules that fit actual situations.

The Historic situations where Hoplites lost to Cavalry (or Cavalry and Light Troops) generally involve loss of other troops on the side of the Hoplites and then envelopment/ flanking.

I don't understand the historic basis of downgrading of Long Spear Vs Cavalry really.....I don't have a closed mind on this, but I don't see the evidence to support it. 

[nikgaukroger]

I would suggest that against their historical opponents hoplites classified as Spear will be fine. At present it is possible to use hoplites aggressively as anti-cavalry troops which does not, IMO, match their historical prototypes (which is a troop type designed to fight infantry) - at times they actively seem nervous of cavalry such as before Plataia although part of that may well be the better manoeuvrability of cavalry.

[SteveO]

I'm sort of seeing what people would like to happen rather than quoting events and making rules that fit actual situations.

The Historic situations where Hoplites lost to Cavalry (or Cavalry and Light Troops) generally involve loss of other troops on the side of the Hoplites and then envelopment/ flanking.

I don't understand the historic basis of downgrading of Long Spear Vs Cavalry really.....I don't have a closed mind on this, but I don't see the evidence to support it. 

You and me both.

[badhabum]

I recently read  Sparta the rise of a Warrior Nation by Matyszak . His judgement is that persian cavalry, albeit excellent, would not charge heavy hoplite infantry frontally as it would be a loosing battle but rather go for the flanks .

The question is what about with the amendments ?

In terms of GAME and FUN most of the players in Belgium would prefer status quo , no changes . But open to discussion about the changes as a globality . But this modifiction is not very popular 

[lionheartrjc]

I recently read  Sparta the rise of a Warrior Nation by Matyszak . His judgement is that persian cavalry, albeit excellent, would not charge heavy hoplite infantry frontally as it would be a loosing battle but rather go for the flanks .

The Spartans will (assuming Exceptional) have 2 claims for spear and 1 for quality.
The Persians will (assuming Superior, Short Spear) have a claim for short spear.

The Spartans will be YELLOW to WHITE up.  Therefore I think it will still be a losing battle for the Persians and I would look to go for the flanks!

All this is assuming Matyszak is correct.  I am not sure what his source is to make such a statement.

Richard

[SteveO]

All this is assuming Matyszak is correct.  I am not sure what his source is to make such a statement.

Richard

Well looked at another way, what makes us think he is incorrect? Are there any examples of hoplites being ridden down by cavalry? As mentioned already, the Spartans were nervous of the Persian cavalry at Platea but as we are talking about hoplites with 10ft long spears behind a wall of bronze shields facing men on the equivalent of modern-day ponies, this does seem more likely to be the result of the cavalry's manoeuvrability and shooting ability. In any case, the Spartans still won.

Similarly, the Athenians were nervous about facing the Persian foot archers at Marathon but they still won.

Steve

[Munster]

Similarly, the Athenians were nervous about facing the Persian foot archers at Marathon but they still won.

Given most surviving accounts are effectively hagiographies, they are hardly going to say we treated the enemy with contempt and strolled over them!

Realistically cavalry's primary advantage over infantry is choosing the time and place of the battle, so by default infantry will be wary of cavalry, especially in rolling countryside with no communications systems for forward scouts.

I have a feeling that this is moving too far from the original intent of the rules, to enable 5000 years of history to be gamed with a single ruleset, and not confining armies to their period. There is an impression that this is becoming more a simulation "we believe/the evidence suggests" than an inclusive game.

In practice a 12 foot spear in the hands of a competent warrior will stop cavalry if used appropriately. Now hoplite doctrine in 800 BC will not be the same as medieval foot doctrine in 1300, however the man behind the spear still has a brain. Thus there is no reason that a time-travelling Spartan would not essentially copy the doctrine of the 1300s or are we assuming nil agency of the warrior?

A much simpler solution is to simply theme the tournaments to time periods (as is already done) rather than create an artificial weapon system.

ie if we don't want hoplites beating CL/DC/ME then simply do not have the situation. To me, this proposal is a solution looking for a problem (apologies to the playtesters who have put hours into considering the approach, but I still do not see this as a real problem)

The worst aspect of it, is it will discourage players who like their Greek History and build their first army and have a really really hard time against many other foes. The only reason I played MeG after utter disgust at WRG, Dbx, etc, is that it was the first set I actually encountered (in far too many years of looking) that enabled a Roman Army to have a reasonable chance as the balance between the different weapons and troop types was reasonably balanced.

So I ask again, is there a simpler way of addressing the percieved problem that the writers have of ahistorical use of hoplites?

[SteveO]

Given most surviving accounts are effectively hagiographies, they are hardly going to say we treated the enemy with contempt and strolled over them!

Exactly. Of course, the surrender of the Spartans on Sphaecteria because they had no answer to the Athenian light troops shows hoplites could suffer against fire and manoeuvre.

In practice a 12 foot spear in the hands of a competent warrior will stop cavalry if used appropriately. Now hoplite doctrine in 800 BC will not be the same as medieval foot doctrine in 1300, however the man behind the spear still has a brain. Thus there is no reason that a time-travelling Spartan would not essentially copy the doctrine of the 1300s or are we assuming nil agency of the warrior?

A much simpler solution is to simply theme the tournaments to time periods (as is already done) rather than create an artificial weapon system.

Agreed. If we want to improve the game, simplifying and clarifying the rules might be a better start point. This process has already started with the proposals for new shatter/shove rules and the removal of moving skirmishers before charges. As much as I enjoy MeG it is not a user-friendly set of rules.

[badhabum]

I have a feeling that this is moving too far from the original intent of the rules, to enable 5000 years of history to be gamed with a single ruleset, and not confining armies to their period. There is an impression that this is becoming more a simulation "we believe/the evidence suggests" than an inclusive game.

I agree. The intend might be positive, the effects are not so positive

Agreed. If we want to improve the game, simplifying and clarifying the rules might be a better start point. This process has already started with the proposals for new shatter/shove rules and the removal of moving skirmishers before charges. As much as I enjoy MeG it is not a user-friendly set of rules.

I agree

[Manzikert]

Am I interpreting correctly that people's main objection to the change is that 'spear' isn't sufficiently anti-cavalry? Because it seems to me that as proposed 'spear' is a perfectly good anti-cavalry weapon. A hoplite is going to be more than a match for any contemporary cavalry short of the Xystophoroi, and even then the advantage is fairly small; the cav is up 1 claim (with shatter) in the charge and then down 1 claim in the melee until the hoplite loses a stand. Considering the Xystophoroi is double the cost of a hoplite that's a pretty close match.

If anything I've always though 'longspear' was too good at countering cavalry. A poor quality loose longspear will have equal claims to a knight for less than a 3rd the cost. Anything better and the knight is simply outmatched. If handing a peasant a long pointy stick was enough to counter heavy cavalry they wouldn't have been the dominate fighting force in Europe (and elsewhere) for 800+ years.

[badhabum]

The feeling is that it adds a new weapon that's not needed. It's also the rule about overlaps that would not loose colours why spears, pikes and no shieldwall, PA, SP ...all formations had an unprotected flank . It just adds a special rule why is it needed ? MEG is supposed to be a generic rule covering biblical times till renaissance

What's next armour quality ?

Bronze vs Iron vs hardened wood  ?

Open a pandora's box and it never ends

I go for KISS but am willing to discuss it but some questions remain unanswered

[Doomsmile]

A bit too late now (train's pretty much already left the station on this one), but if the main objective was to make Hoplites and Thureophori more effective against other foot that weren't Romans, probably just making the Shove characteristic stronger and making Dory-equipped troops the exception to the "LSp can be bought in 9's" rule of thumb might have done the trick instead.

Wish it hadn't taken me a month and a half to think of that one. 🙄


As for hoplites being nervous about pressing into cav: even LSp has good cause not to launch a charge against lancers (especially without a third rank!), and most hoplites no longer being able to fall back would add to that reticence to advance since it could easily increase the risk of envelopment.


Again, train's already left the station... but hindsight, yeah? XP

[Manzikert]

The feeling is that it adds a new weapon that's not needed. It's also the rule about overlaps that would not loose colours why spears, pikes and no shieldwall, PA, SP ...all formations had an unprotected flank . It just adds a special rule why is it needed ? MEG is supposed to be a generic rule covering biblical times till renaissance

...

I go for KISS but am willing to discuss it but some questions remain unanswered

Fair enough, pretty good game design goals. But I think in this case they are at odds with each other. I tend to try and interpret troops "within their own context". A New Kingdom Egyptian soldier's armor would not qualify as 'protected' on a late medieval battlefield, but 'within their own context' a shield and probably some light linen armor was the standard of protection, so that classification is warranted. In there own context hoplites were heavily equipped melee infantry that performed well against most of the things they were up against, but they weren't crack anti-cavalry troops. I appreciate the devs trying to separate those two roles.

Though from a KISS perspective I still prefer my proposal to make have long spear into this new 'spear' and then any unit meant as an anti cavalry specialist could be given Pike w/ Combat Shy.

I agree that the un-downgraded-overlaps are an additional complication. But I'm not sure the Devs had a lot of options to accomplish the same goal without them being more complex. The way people use pikes on the table just wasn't very historical and this is an attempt to rectify that. And in the same vein they wanted to represent the 'hoplite drift' which get's reported in multiple sources.