That is the crux - as an American I would have read it as an exclusive, thus allowing only one outcome.

What is 400 AC? Is that BC or AD?

I think the key here is "lots of them" - historically the Romans would have LOVED getting an even break in the vast majority of their battles - it always seems that it is a small, disciplined army versus hordes of barbarians. In a even points wargame, I would EXPECT the Romans to be very tough - if ...

My opinion is that the perception of pike formations being less maneuverable on the battlefield has a lot less to do with an inability to "Column Left March" than it has to do with the effects of anything other than flat. level ground. The legendary maneuverability of the manipular legio was in the ...

Technically, pre-JRR Tolkien it was elfs and dwarfs - he hated that, and the "elfs" bit was associated more with fairies, and other miniature types. He created "Elves" for his statueque, lordly types - similar vein for "dwarfs" vs "Dwarves". Look in a really old dictionary.

Good write-up here:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Lanciarii.html

The general idea is that once a unit sees an enemy turn their backs and run, the normal reaction is to pursue to destruction. If for some reason you do not want to pursue, you will have to convince your troops to stop - and the more disciplined they are the easier this will be. Thus the CMT.

So if ...

It's kinda like the old question of the chicken and the egg ....

The East is not covered in most Western school history classes to any great extant, and the lack of English sources is a reflection of that. Thus when it comes time for wargamers to purchase, paint and develope tactical doctrine for ...

Basically you have the Chinese and those they impacted directly - from the Hsiung-nu and other northern steppe types from the Tarim River Basin to Manchuria, then the Korean and Vietnam areas, to Tibet and Nepal. Then you have those that were impacted indirectly, like the Japanese and the Burma area ...

Hsiung-nu, Wusun, Mongol and all the other steppe nomad enemies of the Chinese all thru the ages.

Every flavor of Chinese army from Shang to Ming

Korean and Vietnamese armies

Do you consider the Indian sub-continent a part of this Book's area, or is that a whole separate Book?

Basically, during most of the Hundred Years War between the English and the French, the French side was composed of mainly mercenaries. Long story, but the future French Royals didn't have a lot of true power - especially in raising funds and troops. At the end of the conflict, when Charles VII ...

Define traditional Chinese human wall as opposed to traditional Roman, Greek, or any other infantry-based army's human wall?

The repeating crossbow referred to (Chu-ko-nu) was around since fairly eary in Chinese history. It was a 10-12 round magazine fed item that shot a bolt each trigger pull. It is very difficult to find any reference to field use, as it seems to have been used mainly in field works and fortified/built ...

This is of course from the medieval Europeon framework - in the Orient and especially in China it WAS the common weapon of nearly all troops, not just "highly trained specialists". And as for fire - over 30 sec it is true - but over 30 minutes or more I believe the longbowman will tire out a lot ...

In Asiatic practice the "feigned rout" tactic was extremely familiar - it was mentioned in all Chinese known military manuals for instance, and commomly used by all horse archer Steppe armies - yet as has been mentioned is not truly portrayed in rule sets in wargaming. Any planned rearward movement ...

There was even ancient gaming before WRG .... <Gasp>

I suspect that as in most armies old and new, what was issued is standard - what the troops managed to purchase/steal/scrounge during field maneuvers ain't - and that parade troops don't normally show off their booty as it just may get confiscated by REMF idjits ....

The other side of the coin as to lists is the amount of actual historical record available. In this case, the extensive amount of records on all things Roman allows justification for many periods and a sense of transition from Servius to Theodosius I and beyond. In the case of the early Germans ...

The base depth is a function of the original formations - close order foot were tighter in their depth than loose order foot, who in turn were more dense than open order foot. So the base depth is supposed to show that they are spread out a bit more. As for the depth of the bases, the rulebook ...

So wadda ya want fer free? And at the scale of 15mm figures, who kin tell at a range of 3' or so?