Shouldn't there be some allowance for foot archers as well as crossbows in his army? I know the premise for the start date is the massed use of crossbows, but it seems to me that the changeover was unlikely to be very sudden. I believe the terracotta army, some 140 years after the start date for thi...

The keys to success were providing support to skirmishers You are aware that skirmishers can't provide rear support to other skirmishers? If you did have some "proper" troops providing rear support then theses would then immediately get burst through and go disrupted. Hence not being able...

No, this would completely destroy any army that relies on evading. Why? What risk did it carry historically? Troops who were chased across the battle field had a nasty habit of not stopping, even when the chasers did. This was especially true of poor quality troops, or if there were no supporting t...

I don't think they would be utterly destroyed - just more difficult to use. No, this would completely destroy any army that relies on evading. The tactic of masking part of the army with skirmishers while hammering the rest is perfectly valid, but should carry some risk for the skirmishers. Why? Wh...

Good idea ! Delaying is the main job for skirmishers but this must be involved in a larger plan and can suffer some loss of cohesion. A full army dedicated to delay is a non-sense as no combat will occur an no battle will be fought : this new rule would help to discourage such non combat army. Bow ...

Issue: Skirmish armies, evading until they disappear off table. This is a problem, but this variety of army did exist and should be a valid choice. The problem as I see it is that evading does not have enough of a down side. Proposed solution: I would like to suggest a rule change. Whenever a BG eva...