Warring States Ch'in List 300-206BC

[plc]

Hi,

Looking at playing some games with a Ch'in Warring States list and I am aware that an official list is a long way off. Interested in getting some feedback on whether the following list is appropriate in the interim.

*************************************

POST DELETED BY ADMINISTRATOR

IT IS ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO POST ANY SECTION OF THE RULES OR ARMY LISTS TO THE INTERNET ON THIS WEBSITE OR ANY OTHER, OR TO PASS THEM ON IN ANY OTHER FORMAT

THIS IS A BREACH OF COPYRIGHT AND YOUR NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AND WILL BE TREATED VERY SERIOUSLY

*************************************

Appreciate any feedback/suggestions

Pete

[hazelbark]

LIST DETAILS DELETED BY ADMINISTRATOR

[jdm]

The army list posting has been removed

JDM

[nikgaukroger]

OK, not having seen the post that has been deleted so not knowing what the restricted information posted was can I ask why it would not be permissable to post up an idea for an army list, which is what I think was done here?

[IainMcNeil]

If that's the case then apologies all around. I was made aware that a list had been posted to the forums and removed.

If it was indeed a suggestion for a completely new list, and not a modified version of an existing list then there is nothing wrong with the post and it can be reposted. Posting a modified version of an existing list however is not allowed, but it is ok to make suggestions descriptively on which bits you'd like adjusted without posting the list. E.g. increase the number of archers to 16 bases, or reduce the spermen to 10 bases etc.

[plc]

Iain,

It was not an official list, just one I had drawn up in Word (using the info above), in a familiar format.

I was keen to get some comment on it as I know the Warring States are a long way down the track.

Given your approval above, here is a repost. Any comment appreciated



Again if it does contravene any forum rules please remove.

Thanks

Pete

[terrys]

There are some general rules that players should be aware of when devising their own lists.

for example:
Most mounted are in BG's of 4-6
Most foot are in BG's of 6-8
exceptions to this are that superior foot and elite cavalry are often 2 bases less than the norm, and that average/poor foot are often 2-4 bases larger - especially if undrilled.

In the proposed list:
Close fighting foot: The range 4-12 is far too great. the range should be more like 6-9 (9 is only for BG's with 1/3 LF)
All the MF & LF should be 6-8
All the poor quality foot should be at least 8-12

One of the things we've tried to avoid is allowing armies to take a large number of cheap BGs to bolster their army size.
With the list below for you can have 7BGs of filler for a mere 84pts.
You should ask yourself the question: When this army contained Mob (hastily armed labourers) were they deployed in several small groups or as 1 large group - I suspect the latter.

I'm not going to make any comments on troop types.

[nikgaukroger]

I would suggest that you need to consider whether the spearmen can be justified as Armoured rather than Protected, what the justification of the Bow, Light Spear, Swordsmen cavary is and also shouldn't the crossbowmen have crossbow?

[carlos]

Here are some comments judging by the army lists that have come out so far:
Forget cavalry with 3 combat capabilities, unless the Bow is Bow* and even so they're rare.
Levies are not likely to have combat capabilities (and will probably be mob?).
No Light Horse in the game so far has any armour; they are all unprotected.
Drilled for LH does not cost any points, so your light cavalry should cost the same as the barbarians.

[hammy]

Here are some comments judging by the army lists that have come out so far:
Forget cavalry with 3 combat capabilities, unless the Bow is Bow* and even so they're rare.
Levies are not likely to have combat capabilities (and will probably be mob?).
No Light Horse in the game so far has any armour; they are all unprotected.
Drilled for LH does not cost any points, so your light cavalry should cost the same as the barbarians.

I have to admit I didn't study the list in too much detail as I know little about the period.

As far as I am aware there will be no cavalry that get bow, light spear and swordsman. The only ones that have three capabilities are always bow* instead.

There are some protected light horse but only in the medieval lists. Things like northern border horse in the WOTR list are protected but some of them actually had mail. In general LH are unprotected unless there is a good reason.

Overall it looks to be a very armoured list, not knowing much about the period I can't comment on if this is right or not but armoured spear are tough and not found in many lists. That is not to say that they shouldn't be armoured, it is just I don't know what proportion of them wore how much armour.

[hazelbark]

Well this deletion poses the question after publication on Feb 15th. What will be the publishers reaction to proposed lists that aren't covered in the army books.

Specificially this was a chinese list. A (granted incomplete) perursal of forthcoming publications suggestions: china, medieval india and asia generally are under-represented.

My suggestion is to get a few broad or popular lists up as official on the web site pending publication of their book.

For instance perhaps one each of Samurai, Chinese circa 300 BC-55 Ad, Late Medeval India. I suppose I overlooked the Americas so add in Aztec.

This would in my view be a good move.

[plc]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I have made changes as suggested. I have also removed the post-209BC "Hastily Armed Labourers". The "Impressed POWs/Massed Levy" have now been amended to reduce the number of BG to a max of 3 (though I'd suggest that I should restrict this to 2 max with a list note). The alternative is to reclassify as Mob.

All troops have been reduced to Protected rather than Armoured, with Cavalry having Xbow/Light Spear.

Hopefully points values now correct.

Certainly appreciate further comment. I am aware of at least one possible Ch'in list at upcoming tournament I am running.

Thanks

Pete

[hazelbark]

My suggested changes to the proposed list were roughly:

Heavy foot
Probably protected as the scale of armor is relative to their foes, Ch’in being protected will give them better amour versus most of the neighbors historically. Although you could argue for armored, they weren’t even as heavily armored as say a roman legionnaire so Protected seems right.

Heavy Cavalry.
These should NEVER be Bow.
They should be either Crossbow/swordsmen OR light spear/Swordsmen.
Note they may have a dismounting ability as MF.

Light Cavalry
I think these are likely to be light spear not bow. And not bow but crossbow.

Note it was clear that the Chinese felt the crossbow was the missile weapon of choice for better troops. Personally I think they may have felt it easier to mass produce and mass train peasants.

Also the halberd type instrument that Ch’in cavalry rode with doesn’t sandwich into FoG easily and is probably best represented by light spear. It is not a “heavy Weapon” in FoG terms. These guys were not the shock lancer types. It may be worth considering making the heavy cavalry with light spear upgradeable to superior on the argument that they were good troops and their weapon classification does not support the “good troops” definition much. I do like average protected, crossbow, swordsmen cavalry however.

Archers/Crossbow.

The Crossbow should be the weapon of at least 2/3rd of the foot.

Artillery should include an option for light or heavy artillery maybe even a BG of each.

I think you need 0-3 TC not 0-2

[hazelbark]

PS could probably make an argument to allow the Heavy chariots to be either average or superior.

[stevoid]

Pete,

I think your list is looking good.

I do wonder whether the cavalry should be Bow and Light Spear, either Bow, -- or Bow*, Light Spear would seem to be in keeping with how FOG has classified similar troops in other lists. They could also possibly justify having swordsmen for melee.

Steve

[bahdahbum]

First of all I do agree with the statement that publishing ( via ninternet ) some"popular army list " would be a bonus . Not everybody has an army for the list that willbe available .

Now concerning the Ch'in army here are a few comments

The armour seems to have been made of bronze, covers mostly the torso and sometimes the upper arms, but it is unlikely that every soldier was so equipped so protected seems a good guess and offensive spear a good definition for such an agressive minded army . The use of shields is still a mystery . The question remains open .

While the Ch'ins did use crossbows, it seems that light cavalry did use bows , heavy crossbows .

Infantry seems to deploy as heavy infantry or medium infantry not light .

HCH are someting else . As halberd is a quite common weapon, should teh HCH have a two handed weapon / heavy weapon melee capacity ? the question also remains open .

It is very difficult to make the choice but the list has the merit of existing

[hazelbark]

Now concerning the Ch'in army here are a few comments

While the Ch'ins did use crossbows, it seems that light cavalry did use bows , heavy crossbows .

Infantry seems to deploy as heavy infantry or medium infantry not light .

HCH are someting else . As halberd is a quite common weapon, should teh HCH have a two handed weapon / heavy weapon melee capacity ?

Light cavalry could be bows, but the cavarly would be cross bows i think.

Yes the Spear ought to be HF and bow MF.

I don't think you need to give the Heavy chariots the Heavy weapon as it is either makes them the best chariots in the world or is redundant.

Armour does not matter versus HCH so the heavy weapon negating it doesn't matter.
HCH get a POA already so the heavy Weapons would make it very tough which is not how other lists seem to do it.

[bahdahbum]

I answered a bit quickly yesterday ( I was tired ) . What I meant with HCH with pole weapon, was if they dismount . But yes it might be redundant .

I was wondering, as FOG uses more units than DBM, we might consider to have a max of 12 HCH, and also augment max INF .

As for LH and CV crossbow and bow, I agree , light bow, heavy crossbow .

For INF bow and crossbow, as it seems chinese prefered crossbow, but info seems spare and many of us might own essex miniatures with bow, I would suggest the possibility of 1/3 bow 2/3 crossbow or all crossbow .

Ch'in was a agressive state . In comparaison with the romans and with the idea of the possibility of WB S in the DBM army list , I would also suggets the possibility of some of the INF spear to be superior ( veterans , why not or the possibility of advancement by killing ennemies as stated in the DBM army list ) . There is also the the halberd unit in DBM which might be represented by a group of 4-6 MI, with heavy weapon ,average or superior . Just an idea . beware I do not use the army personnaly but I know it as my son uses it . Documentation seems spare .

The army is based on the findings in a famous tomb in china . The question is was all the army so well equiped ( armoured ) or not ( protected ) . Difficult to say and the second seems a good guess .

Should we allow for veterans , but which army has no veterans ?

so many parameters

But the list exists that's positive

[thefrenchjester]

to stay within the philosophy of the other lists
here's my Terracota army

chariotry as HCH , average or superior, drilled , bow
cavalry as cv , average ,drilled , crossbow swordmen or lancer swordmen protected
foot as HF , average or superior , drilled or undrilled , offensive spearmen or defensive spearmen protected
crossbowmen as MF , drilled , average crossbow protected or unprotected
select troops as MF undrilled , superior , impact foot , unprotected
some light foot with bow
many mobs
light horses with bow
my army is ready

thefrenchjester " Advice is cheap "

[stevoid]

All the poor quality foot should be at least 8-12

One of the things we've tried to avoid is allowing armies to take a large number of cheap BGs to bolster their army size.
With the list below for you can have 7BGs of filler for a mere 84pts.
You should ask yourself the question: When this army contained Mob (hastily armed labourers) were they deployed in several small groups or as 1 large group - I suspect the latter.

Terry, your comment was at the back of my mind when I read the Serbian list on Tim's website: http://www.madaxeman.com/FoG_Lists/Fiel ... tm#Serbian

6 BGs for 96 points, Mob in 6's etc!

I liked what you said re the Qin list and in general it seems in evidence when reading published/beta lists. However, I note that some of the medieval armies, like the Serbs, seem to allow a few Mobs as 6's and other filler, leading to largish (16+ BGs) armies with a sizable strike force of quality knights, some good troops and a lot of filler.

Steve