Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Internal allies changing the nature of the army  (Read 100 times)

DracoStandard

  • T/O
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Internal allies changing the nature of the army
« on: November 09, 2019, 08:58:03 AM »
As a side effect of trying to build an army for warfare I have discovered some issues…they may be features, but they feel like bugs.

I think this is an issue with how allies (and internal allies in particular work).  Is there something we can do to make more of these lists work?

some examples

Early Iranian
In ones (well my) imagination a cavalry army with some sparabara-ish infantry
In reality a blob of boring infantry with a few cavalry
Max of 1 sub general, so at least one internal ally, probably two if you want to actually play the game.
That 12 bow and 12 spear for the main army
Then 6 more bow and 6 more spear
Then another 6 bow and 6 spear
48 bases of foot
With the cav minima for each contingent that come to about 4000 points before generals.
If you want to have the USP of mixed spear and bow in 2:1 ratio
That’s 24 bow and 12 spear in the main army
Then 12 more bow and 6 more spear
Then another 12 bow and 6 spear
72 bases of foot
With the cav minima for each contingent that come to about 5000 points before generals.
Though you now allowed 2 more tugs of cav and that’s your lot.
Median is not quite as bad, but 2 subs means that if you want competition standard 4 generals, you are on 24 bases of close order foot and 18 bases of bowmen.
That’s quite a lot of foot for another horse archer army.
External allies do not help much as pretty much every ally in the book requires 3 tugs of foot before you can get anything else.
So …bug or feature? 
I realise that this is part of the competition/simulation/casual game trade offs, but can we make it easier to make some of these armies viable on the table.

daveparish

  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Internal allies changing the nature of the army
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2019, 10:35:51 AM »
I guess part of this is the question of what does an ally general represent? It could be either a contingent coming from part of the country (or whatever) that didn't normally supply troops (and so didn't fit into the command structure) ...or it could represent command structure problems in the main army (eg fiercely independent nobles who aren't trustworthy). I suspect it is more often the latter - and it seems to me that that shouldn't change the minima required - the army hasn't changed, just the leadership. So for example the minima could stay the same and should be split as half to the main army and half between the internal allies (or as near as possible)

peter simpson

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Internal allies changing the nature of the army
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2019, 12:34:42 PM »
I am confirming I won't  be playing at Warfare.
I submitted 2 illegal lists and couldn't  be bothered to spend my limited time rehashing  the lists further.
There was a minimum of 18 militia listed  in the army.
Only 1 sub and 2 internal ally generals.
This means the minimum militia is now 27 to meet the requirement.
Luckily the maximum is 32 bases so I couldn't  legal end up with 36 bases which would have been the case if the maximum was larger.
I would prefer to play with an army with a variety of troop types rather than a horde of one type.
I like the rule set but won't  be playing further due to the state of the army lists.
More thought should have gone into them.
I especially  don't  like when the army list writers don't like a perfectly legal army I have used in competitions so they rewrite the list to make it worse.
This is not the way to encourage players into a new set of rules.

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1132
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Internal allies changing the nature of the army
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2019, 07:17:20 PM »
Hi all,

The internal allies need a bit of a look. It is a great shame to get too frustrated by such a niche part of the rules Peter, especially if you are enjoying the rules themselves a lot.  :(  The latter is at least good to hear.

Internal allies has come to the fore as a topic due to Warfare being the first biblical comp - that era having quite a lot of 2 x internal allies.  Which is where we have the confusions I feel.   FWIW during the 2020 review RJC has been through such lists with an eye on allies generally.

The intent of what an internal ally represents is important.  To me it is a nation where sub-armies tend to come together as separate factions under a leader, but with a fair degree of independence and potential unreliability.  So it's not sharing out the same troops.  As each tends to have a core of the common troops in their force, the overall army will have less flexibility on its choices and more compulsories that one without.  So Maxima stay the same but it makes you field more of a Minima of core troops. 

I can more easily speak to a period I know well - feudal Japan.  You could have a single large clan army at times with a relatively modest number of samurai and a lot of followers, or you might have one with the full amount - either are possible.  But if it was more a feudal army gathering 4 independent war lords, then they would all bring their key retainers as part of their force - so the minimum number of samurai in that army would be higher than in the single clan list.  Hope that helps it make sense.

FWIW The easy way to think of creating internal allies to me is this (and I have suggested a rewrite so it is easier):
a) start with the core army as it must take the minimums.  So just do that first = 18 militia in this case (and 8 chariots).  Do this but no more before you even think about the internal allies at all.  If there is spare at the end come back to boost the UG sizes in the core army.
b) internal allies each must take half a minimum of core troops if there is room left in the maxima to do so.  So the first internal ally must take 9.  So yes 27 effective minimum if you want 3 generals. 
c) for a 4th general there is not enough left in the 18-32 to create another UG so that one is excused having any.  So taking one of those doesn't mean adding any more.  Were the maximum 36 - and perhaps chosen for that reason - you would have to take another 9 with the second internal ally.
d) now you've got the 27 go back to the core army and use what is left if you want to.  There are 5 left so you could make it a 9 and 2x6s rather than 2x9.

In general Mortem et Gloriam lists have received high praise for being the most historical and characterful ever created.  It is no small task to have around 650 of them so well developed, but we know and accept they will never be perfect, and the team is always open to input.  I can assure you that nobody changes any list to make it worse because they don't like it - only to make it more historically representative, characterful and balanced in the game.  Lots of thought does go into them, but that doesn't ensure a particular answer comes out.

Anyway I do hope you will reconsider once the frustration has died down a bit, and that we will see you back rolling skulls soon. As the list has caused you a headache I thought I would take a look. It seems to me the army you planning makes a nice army with two allies.  Below is my version (assuming I've got it right as not in best of health alas).

Best wishes

S

PS Everyone.  Matt Haywood has snapped up the space fresh from victory up North so all still in balance and even.  I recall some other famous general marching south after victory up North in 1066.  Didn't end so well...  ;)
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1132
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Internal allies changing the nature of the army
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2019, 07:17:49 PM »
As a side effect of trying to build an army for warfare I have discovered some issues…they may be features, but they feel like bugs.

I think this is an issue with how allies (and internal allies in particular work).  Is there something we can do to make more of these lists work?

some examples

Early Iranian
In ones (well my) imagination a cavalry army with some sparabara-ish infantry
In reality a blob of boring infantry with a few cavalry
Max of 1 sub general, so at least one internal ally, probably two if you want to actually play the game.
That 12 bow and 12 spear for the main army
Then 6 more bow and 6 more spear
Then another 6 bow and 6 spear
48 bases of foot
With the cav minima for each contingent that come to about 4000 points before generals.
If you want to have the USP of mixed spear and bow in 2:1 ratio
That’s 24 bow and 12 spear in the main army
Then 12 more bow and 6 more spear
Then another 12 bow and 6 spear
72 bases of foot
With the cav minima for each contingent that come to about 5000 points before generals.
Though you now allowed 2 more tugs of cav and that’s your lot.
Median is not quite as bad, but 2 subs means that if you want competition standard 4 generals, you are on 24 bases of close order foot and 18 bases of bowmen.
That’s quite a lot of foot for another horse archer army.
External allies do not help much as pretty much every ally in the book requires 3 tugs of foot before you can get anything else.
So …bug or feature? 
I realise that this is part of the competition/simulation/casual game trade offs, but can we make it easier to make some of these armies viable on the table.

Im sure RJC has already looked at a few of these.  And will be happy to do so.  Si
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1132
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Internal allies changing the nature of the army
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2019, 07:24:57 PM »
My version ....

Later Syro-Hittite by Simon Hall, on Flickr
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 457
    • View Profile
Re: Internal allies changing the nature of the army
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2019, 09:03:47 PM »
some examples

Early Iranian
In ones (well my) imagination a cavalry army with some sparabara-ish infantry


Actually this list has been changed for 2020 to allow 2 sub-generals.
However, the idea that it is a cavalry army with some sparabara-ish infantry isn't quite how I see this army.  I think you are confusing it with the later Median/Persian armies.

Richard