The 2020 MeG Compendium ... your input welcome

[craig.w]

My 2c/2p worth of comments raised elsewhere in the forum

- Small quality armies can get outscouted by large rubbish armies even though they are supposedly the 'outscouters'.

Eg an army of 11 UGs of mostly cavalry, professional generals, outscouts a 17 UG army (13 TUGs and 4 SUGs) of tribals and mostly foot by 60%. The rubbish army puts down 4 SUGs and half of its TUGs, the cavalry army then puts down his entire army, then the other player deploys 6 TUGs last even though he was outscouted by 60% - he deploys a third of his army after the other player. Why not matching percentages so that the smaller army isn't disadvantaged and gets to put at least a couple of TUGs last?

-SUGs screening TUGs from cannons.

It seems a bit wrong that a thin line of open formation skirmishers can stop cannon balls from hitting the pike kiel behind it. To rub it in the SUG is shot at on black dice, so the guns in effect do nothing. Another formerly popular rule set allowed artillery to target the unit behind skirmishers, I think it's a reasonable idea.

- Horse armour cost and effectiveness.

A fully armoured horse with a fully armoured man on top is shot at by powerbows on green dice if within 1BW (if the archer is skilled the cavalry cops yellow at short range and green dice at long range!). I get the idea that an unprotected horse is vulnerable to arrows but surely if the horse is covered in armour (and cataphract armour was thick, and Italian armour of the later 15th century was top quality) the powerbow shouldn't get the 'vs cavalry' upgrade as well as ignoring the armour? If a man in plate armour is shot at on white dice then a horse in the same armour should get the same benefit, not suffer twice as many casualties. A normal bow shooting at a plate armoured knight on an armoured horse is rolling black. Rolling white with crossbows & powerbows (ie doing double the casualties of bows) is good enough IMHO. Rolling green, white+ (or yellow!) against the best armour of the day is too much. That stuff was virtually arrow/boltproof, longbow/yumi mythology notwithstanding. And moving 4BW is a huge disadvantage. If the horse is slowed down, almost by definition it must be carrying a substantial load of armour, not just wearing a chamfron. The knights in the Italian Wars book are overcosted for minimum benefit.

Cheers,

Craig

[Jilu]

give TuGs a chance to react when the TuG they are in with contact breaks off.  It seems ridiculous that a TuG just stands there as their opponent breaks off.  By playing a white card, the TuG broken off from should have the choice to make a full move straight ahead in 5.4

This was mentioned by one of the newer players in our group. Cataphracts can be charged by lancers and then the lancers break off and sit at 5BW (at the cost of a KAB admittedly) and it takes the cataphracts out of the game for a couple of turns. Would it be so easy for, say Norman cavalry to break off from Nikephorian cataphracts and sit outside charge range? In effect the breaking off unit get two moves while the 'pursuing' cataphracts are standing there.

maybe simply :
As an outcome move leave a choice :
Break off - 2 MU and stay facing the ennemy
Run off full move and facing away from the ennemy

In break off both units will stay at charge distance " we charged, we breakoff to regroup and charge again "
In the run off chance is the one that runs away will be out of charge distance but it will leave both units more room to move one way or another in the next mouvement phase "we charged, we have had enough, lets go see elsewhere "

[Jilu]

My 2c/2p worth of comments raised elsewhere in the forum

- Small quality armies can get outscouted by large rubbish armies even though they are supposedly the 'outscouters'.

Eg an army of 11 UGs of mostly cavalry, professional generals, outscouts a 17 UG army (13 TUGs and 4 SUGs) of tribals and mostly foot by 60%. The rubbish army puts down 4 SUGs and half of its TUGs, the cavalry army then puts down his entire army, then the other player deploys 6 TUGs last even though he was outscouted by 60% - he deploys a third of his army after the other player. Why not matching percentages so that the smaller army isn't disadvantaged and gets to put at least a couple of TUGs last?

-

why not :
outscouted army deploys 60%
the outscouter deploys 4 UG
outscouted 4 UG
and so on untill nothing is left

[Jilu]

M

-SUGs screening TUGs from cannons.

It seems a bit wrong that a thin line of open formation skirmishers can stop cannon balls from hitting the pike kiel behind it. To rub it in the SUG is shot at on black dice, so the guns in effect do nothing. Another formerly popular rule set allowed artillery to target the unit behind skirmishers, I think it's a reasonable idea.

were LF screens common in that time? are there not to many LF units available ?

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Thanks.  Keep comments coming here.
All helpful stuff.

S

[badhabum]

give TuGs a chance to react when the TuG they are in with contact breaks off.  It seems ridiculous that a TuG just stands there as their opponent breaks off.  By playing a white card, the TuG broken off from should have the choice to make a full move straight ahead in 5.4

This was mentioned by one of the newer players in our group. Cataphracts can be charged by lancers and then the lancers break off and sit at 5BW (at the cost of a KAB admittedly) and it takes the cataphracts out of the game for a couple of turns. Would it be so easy for, say Norman cavalry to break off from Nikephorian cataphracts and sit outside charge range? In effect the breaking off unit get two moves while the 'pursuing' cataphracts are standing there.

You need the good cards to make your breakoff so is it really that simple ? + the Nikes do have some CL too . So not that easy .

[badhabum]

Flank charge : keep it simple . As for letting units answer to charges, we already have more mobility than should be and that because it is a game . Now too much mobility, action, reaction, rereaction ...where will that lead ...Charges by 1/4 move and so on ...beware what you want to change.

[jasonbroomer]

I think break off's at full move is odd.

In movement a 180 degree turn and a move suffers a - 1MU

Fall Backs are limited to 2 or 3 MU

How can you justify a break off at full move?

Limiting a break off to to a full move  less 1 or 2 MUs (or to the same distance as a fall back) appears more logical to me.  It would also overcome some of the criticism made in earlier posts eg Cv breaking off from Cats

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Many thanks.
Listening to find those modest tweaks that are sure fire and safe improvements.

S

[rayfredjohn]

I think break off's at full move is odd.

In movement a 180 degree turn and a move suffers a - 1MU

Fall Backs are limited to 2 or 3 MU

How can you justify a break off at full move?

Limiting a break off to to a full move  less 1 or 2 MUs (or to the same distance as a fall back) appears more logical to me.  It would also overcome some of the criticism made in earlier posts eg Cv breaking off from Cats

I think this is already high on the agenda and gathering support.

[badhabum]

Indeed. So propsing to KISS as easiest to see if a back corner is round a flank but has a compromise on angles.
That said whe  you combine speed and base depth I suspect it makes little difference in practice.

The only alternative is to fix it a a set distance which is fiddly to measure.
So far front corner at least 1/2 BW beyond the line.  Then al angles are the same.

Or leave it as is and better explain it in the context of dynamics.

Thoughts welcome as the purpose of the stream and early days ...

S

I think the 1/2 BW behind the lines would be a good compromise .

[marshalney2000]

Indeed. So propsing to KISS as easiest to see if a back corner is round a flank but has a compromise on angles.
That said whe  you combine speed and base depth I suspect it makes little difference in practice.

The only alternative is to fix it a a set distance which is fiddly to measure.
So far front corner at least 1/2 BW beyond the line.  Then al angles are the same.

Or leave it as is and better explain it in the context of dynamics.


Thoughts welcome as the purpose of the stream and early days ...

S

I think the 1/2 BW behind the lines would be a good compromise .

Fiddly though. I am concerned about anything that gives rise to arguments around micro measuring.
I am not a fan of just the front edge being used but it at least has the merits of being simple and easy to judge.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Yes avoiding fiddly is vital to me.
I think I have a better couple of answers to the issues raised.
Pondering.

S

[rayfredjohn]

Indeed. So propsing to KISS as easiest to see if a back corner is round a flank but has a compromise on angles.
That said whe  you combine speed and base depth I suspect it makes little difference in practice.

The only alternative is to fix it a a set distance which is fiddly to measure.
So far front corner at least 1/2 BW beyond the line.  Then al angles are the same.

Or leave it as is and better explain it in the context of dynamics.


Thoughts welcome as the purpose of the stream and early days ...

S

I think the 1/2 BW behind the lines would be a good compromise .

Fiddly though. I am concerned about anything that gives rise to arguments around micro measuring.
I am not a fan of just the front edge being used but it at least has the merits of being simple and easy to judge.

We could all have purple Maths sets.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Worry not there will be nothing require more brain strain.
Am finding simpler answers to some of the issues raised and will report back after some testing.
KISS and change only clear winners is the philosophy.

S