ANTI-CAV units

[grahambriggs]

We did have a few guidelines when writing list books. Point maxima and minima for example. Don't change the rules. There were some broader consideration such as "how do we treat American battle line foot, which led us to MF, protected or unprotected.

There were also certain weapon combinations that were not allowed, mainly because of the risk of supertroops that exceeded their historical performance. For example Impact foot heavy weapon would be a really good combo against many troops but would make them unhistorically good against some. Offensive spearmen with bow likewise.

Partly, this is to counterbalance human nature; list writers tend to like the armies they're writing about so might make them too good (though there's peer review that should sort that out). But there's also fragmentary evidence. E.g. "we know these guys were thought of as fierce and they had biggish spears, clubby things, some big, some small, A hand axe and some slings". So is that impact foot, offensive spears, light spears, heavy weapon, swordsman and sling? Obviously not, so what fits the evidence best?

we also have the issue of regional weapon variations and how to deal with them For example some of the central American armies that used obsidian broadswords were obviously very skilled in their use - suggesting skilled swordsmen. However, the weapon itself was poor against metal armour, and the blades were fragile, so they don't get SS. The atlatl, on the other hand gives significant extra power and perhaps accuracy to the dart/javelin, and the Spanish accounts of missile bombardment and wounds suggest they took it seriously. Hence we gave the MF of some states javelins. Fortunately, the rules allow it and it gives them some compensation for their lack of mounted and HF.