Impact foot better than knights?

[marioslaz]

But if you are hoping for a historical simulation you should probably grade many/most of the Communal militia spears as Poor.

This is a possible solutions, indeed, but I don't like it. If you classify militia as poor, what do you deserve for "contadini"? If you wanna catch the flavour of Italian Communal Age I think you must get another direction. This is just my opinion and have nothing to do with your army list; if you wanna be historical, Communal Italian after 1250 should fight only against itself and this is not compatible with a tournament army list. In the period 1250-1400 Italian cities fought between them a countless number of times and in such period infantry was not a factor. What I mean is in the army of period the number of knights were near the same, otherwise they didn't fight, and the number of foot men was not important, because your army can have 3-4 times infantry than opponent and still lose the battle. This cannot simulated with defensive spear poor, because they are still too strong for the knights. I think you should rating them as light spear, or light spear swordsmen the better one. This because town militia were not inferior troops, for enthusiasm or training, but because they hadn't the equipment to compete with knights. The only foot troops who could compete with knight were Pavesari, who represent foot troops who combined different weapon. Pavesari in FOG are well represented because they can threaten a knight BG because they are even at Impact, but they can add support shooting. After impact they are at POA - at melee, but they have a great chance to resist to knights' charge. A BG of defensive spear only are stronger than Pavesari, because with the double line of spear get a POA+ which shift the balance. So the better troop against knights are defensive spear, while Pavesari was the historical best opponent for knights. In these wars, infantry was good for many jobs, like patrol, camp or city guard, against other foot, but not against knights. Of course there were some exceptions. For example, you certainly know during this age the Italian Cities recruited men on a "Lancia" (Lance) basis. "Lancia" was a base for recruit, but not for fight, because it was formed by 3 men: 1 knight, 1 sergeant and 1 servant. Servant doesn't mean a slave or a majordomo, but he was a foot soldier. The captain of a city recruited band of warriors who got their pay in basis to the number of "Lance" their band counted. In some cases, they recruited also single knights, that is a knight without sergeant and servant, who were named "Lanze spezzate" ("Shattered Lance", Lanza is an archaic Italian word for Lancia"). Of course the foot soldier in a "Lancia" was a man well trained and well equipped.
I can go on with this, but I don't want to be boring.

[Strategos69]

It is not boring at all. It is a period of time I have never read about and I find it very interesting.

[rbodleyscott]

But Mario, do you have historical accounts of good quality militia spearmen being habitually ridden down by knights, or did the army with more knights win because knights are more mobile, can defeat the enemy knights then roll up the foot from the flanks?

Alternatively, if the Italian foot were so much more vulnerable to knights than Low countries foot, then they should be graded differently.

e.g.

- Grade the militia as HF Defensive Spear Poor, the Contadini as Mob (i.e. MF) Defensive spear.

- Grade them both as MF Defensive Spear - Militia Average, contadini Poor. (Note that MF in FOG does not imply loose order, but does imply vulnerability to mounted charges).

- Grade them as HF Light Spear, Sword - Militia Average, contadini Poor.


You have various options if you want to represent this historically closed system correctly.

The army list is designed to give the army a chance in a tournament situation against other armies from the Oath of Fealty theme - if you are doing historical refights you can rejig the list as you see fit.

[marioslaz]

But Mario, do you have historical accounts of good quality militia spearmen being habitually ridden down by knights, or did the army with more knights win because knights are more mobile, can defeat the enemy knights then roll up the foot from the flanks?

It's not so easy. This vary a lot with period and weapons. Infantry was under a transformation process, where they became more and more specialized, so you can have spearmen, but also halberdiers, crossbowmen, and swordsmen. The problem is that spearmen could be, in FOG terms, rated as defensive spearmen or just light spear, according to the presence of other troop types. For example, if you have spearmen supported by crossbowmen, who cooperate in the same unit, you have Pavesari, that are very well depicted in your army list as one rank of defensive spear supported by one rank of crossbowmen. If the same spearmen fight without crossbowmen support should be rated as light spear, because without the support shooting of crossbowmen to soft charge impetus they hadn't enough resistance against knights' charge. But this shouldn't make you think such infantrymen were poor, because they were in both case professional warriors with good equipment. If you wanna get the idea of what could be a "Lancia", look at the "F" and "G" Tables in Osprey Men-at-arms n. 376 (Italian Medieval Armies 1000-1300). Infantryman armed with spear could be useful to protect retreat of their knights if they lost the fight against enemy knights. In such case, even if they normally couldn't resist to the frontal charge of knights, if enemy knights were weakened enough by the melee with the friend knights (in FOG term they lost a base, for example) infantrymen can match enemy knights, as this happened in real battle of this period. Sometime even this kind of infantry gave to friend knights enough time to rally and to change the result of the battle.

Alternatively, if the Italian foot were so much more vulnerable to knights than Low countries foot, then they should be graded differently.

e.g.

- Grade the militia as HF Defensive Spear Poor, the Contadini as Mob (i.e. MF) Defensive spear.

- Grade them both as MF Defensive Spear - Militia Average, contadini Poor. (Note that MF in FOG does not imply loose order, but does imply vulnerability to mounted charges).

- Grade them as HF Light Spear, Sword - Militia Average, contadini Poor.


You have various options if you want to represent this historically closed system correctly.

The army list is designed to give the army a chance in a tournament situation against other armies from the Oath of Fealty theme - if you are doing historical refights you can rejig the list as you see fit.

MF is a great idea. As defensive spear they are still good, but I could grade them as light spear, or light spear swordsmen, or defensive spear, according to their specialization and their armament. Again, all these arguments have nothing against your army list, because my goal is to represent situations so specific which cannot find space in an army for tournament purpose.

[batesmotel]

But Mario, do you have historical accounts of good quality militia spearmen being habitually ridden down by knights, or did the army with more knights win because knights are more mobile, can defeat the enemy knights then roll up the foot from the flanks?

Alternatively, if the Italian foot were so much more vulnerable to knights than Low countries foot, then they should be graded differently.

e.g.

- Grade the militia as HF Defensive Spear Poor, the Contadini as Mob (i.e. MF) Defensive spear.

- Grade them both as MF Defensive Spear - Militia Average, contadini Poor. (Note that MF in FOG does not imply loose order, but does imply vulnerability to mounted charges).

- Grade them as HF Light Spear, Sword - Militia Average, contadini Poor.


You have various options if you want to represent this historically closed system correctly.

The army list is designed to give the army a chance in a tournament situation against other armies from the Oath of Fealty theme - if you are doing historical refights you can rejig the list as you see fit.

If MF in FoG does not imply a looser order than HF, why are they treated differently for adverse terrain effects and for movement rate? I guess you could explain it as troops less dependent on formation cohesion than HF are, but that still sounds a lot like the traditional wargames, e.g. WRG, loose order description. While a choice to depict particular troops in an army list as MF may be primarily based on whether they are more vulnerable to mounted charges, the current definition in the rules does seem to bring along the expectation that this is due to a looser formation with the additional attendant benefits and penalties of that.

Chris

[philqw78]

- Grade them both as MF Defensive Spear - Militia Average, contadini Poor. (Note that MF in FOG does not imply loose order, but does imply vulnerability to mounted charges).

Yes it does. They lose no dice in uneven or rough going. HF do. So when in rough or uneven they are better than heavy foot against mounted. And with spearmen this is not just due to dice loss, but also POA loss.

IMO the distinction is wrong.

[rbodleyscott]

I guess you could explain it as troops less dependent on formation cohesion than HF are

That is exactly what we do do. See the definition of MF on P.128 of the rules.

- Grade them both as MF Defensive Spear - Militia Average, contadini Poor. (Note that MF in FOG does not imply loose order

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. See above.

[philqw78]

(Note that MF in FOG does not imply loose order

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. See above.

Yes it does. See below.

Take Prinicpate Roman Legions and auxilia. They often have exactly the same equipment, generally the auxilia worse, the auxilia are of lower standard. Yet the Auixilia are better in bad terrain. And better yet against mounted in bad terrain.

It does not imply loose order, but they can move 33% faster than those that rely on close order.

I'll think of more.

[marioslaz]

If MF in FoG does not imply a looser order than HF, why are they treated differently for adverse terrain effects and for movement rate? I guess you could explain it as troops less dependent on formation cohesion than HF are, but that still sounds a lot like the traditional wargames, e.g. WRG, loose order description. While a choice to depict particular troops in an army list as MF may be primarily based on whether they are more vulnerable to mounted charges, the current definition in the rules does seem to bring along the expectation that this is due to a looser formation with the additional attendant benefits and penalties of that.

Chris

I think MF is an artificial way to represent some troops, but it is an artificial system that works, in my opinion. In particular, in the era of Italian Communal, troops were not so deep as in ancient periods, because they would have been swept away by shooting. So formations were very thin and you can think that for this reason you can grade as MF even infantry who fought in dense formation.

[philqw78]

I think MF is an artificial way to represent some troops, but it is an artificial system that works, in my opinion. In particular, in the era of Italian Communal, troops were not so deep as in ancient periods, because they would have been swept away by shooting. So formations were very thin and you can think that for this reason you can grade as MF even infantry who fought in dense formation.

It may be an artificial means that works, but it is not used equally across the lists. The way troops are graded needs to change. (Whenever the next edition may be)
Medium foot should be all non-shock foot. HF should be all shock foot. Then you can give them their weapon types. Why troop types like Huscarls with heavy weapon are not shock troops is beyond me. It cannot be because they are worse aginst mounted at impact, because shock foot do not have to charge mounted anyway.

[nikgaukroger]

Take Prinicpate Roman Legions and auxilia. They often have exactly the same equipment, generally the auxilia worse, the auxilia are of lower standard. Yet the Auixilia are better in bad terrain. And better yet against mounted in bad terrain.

Auxilia should be HF (hence that all/none option), however, it was decided that in order to not piss people off with basing issues that MF should be retained for backwards compatability. The terrain advantages are an artefact of that.

Now, 2 years down the line, with people (in general) rather more relaxed (and adult) about "non-standard" bases I think if we were writing the lists we'd only allow HF - and possibly include a note to say deeper bases are acceptable (sort of like the Mob bases for bushi in the Japanese lists).

As for MF being in "loose order" (whatever that actually means) - yes it does include troop like that but also those in closer order who are, or rely less on being, less cohesive than those graded HF.

[nikgaukroger]

Medium foot should be all non-shock foot. HF should be all shock foot. Then you can give them their weapon types.

Simple, elegant, and wrong

At least if MF were to retain the terrain capabilities they currently have - e.g. the troops classified as Defensive Spear would be MF by your suggestion but there is no way they should (mostly) be good in terrain.

[lawrenceg]

Take Prinicpate Roman Legions and auxilia. They often have exactly the same equipment, generally the auxilia worse, the auxilia are of lower standard. Yet the Auixilia are better in bad terrain. And better yet against mounted in bad terrain.

Auxilia should be HF (hence that all/none option), however, it was decided that in order to not piss people off with basing issues that MF should be retained for backwards compatability. The terrain advantages are an artefact of that.

Now, 2 years down the line, with people (in general) rather more relaxed (and adult) about "non-standard" bases I think if we were writing the lists we'd only allow HF - and possibly include a note to say deeper bases are acceptable (sort of like the Mob bases for bushi in the Japanese lists).

Or simply allow all HF to be the same depth bases as MF?

[madaxeman]

Auxilia should be HF (hence that all/none option), however, it was decided that in order to not piss people off with basing issues that MF should be retained for backwards compatability. The terrain advantages are an artefact of that.

Now, 2 years down the line, with people (in general) rather more relaxed (and adult) about "non-standard" bases I think if we were writing the lists we'd only allow HF - and possibly include a note to say deeper bases are acceptable (sort of like the Mob bases for bushi in the Japanese lists).

And I'm not supposed to feel paranoid about this because....?

[pbrandon]

Whatever made you think you weren't meant to feel paranoid?

Paul

[philqw78]

Simple, elegant, and wrong

At least if MF were to retain the terrain capabilities they currently have - e.g. the troops classified as Defensive Spear would be MF by your suggestion but there is no way they should (mostly) be good in terrain.

No HF and MF should both equally suffer in bad terrain, though not greatly and dependant on weapon type. Then HF spear would still be better than MF spear in uneven. HF being the armies battle winning hand to hand troops and MF being support types, don't like to mix it but are able to.

So later in the Roman empire the guard units of Auxilia would become HF and the now crappy legions MF.

[philqw78]

And I'm not supposed to feel paranoid about this because....?

You'd have time to buy and paint another army if you didn't have to re-base the ones you had. Its a recession busting plan.

[nikgaukroger]

Or simply allow all HF to be the same depth bases as MF?

To all intents they already do with the bit on non-standard basing.

I very nearly based my WotR billmen on MF sized bases but refrained because I was just lloking to exploit the geometrical advantages

[nikgaukroger]

No HF and MF should both equally suffer in bad terrain, though not greatly and dependant on weapon type.

Basing terrain effect on weapon type rather than any perceived "order" is a good approach IMO - in fact just before FoG was finalised Simon came up with some rather good ideas along those lines, however, it was way too late for such a radical change in the rules

You would then not have HF and MF but would still need some sort of "cohesiveness" classification as it allows some distinction such as the Chinese HW types who appear to have been more vulnerable to mounted than, say, English HW types.

So you could have, for example, English billmen as Cohesive Foot, Armoured, Average, Heavy Weapon and the Chinese as Less Cohesive Foot, Armoured, Average, Heavy Weapon. Both would be affected by terrain in the same way (being HW) but the Chinese would have, say, the -1 on CT for losing to mounted in the open.

[philqw78]

But the English would be HF and the Chinese MF. But it does raise a lot of other problems with interactions.