heavy chariots Vs light chariots

[rbodleyscott]

That really is exceptionally bad, unfortunately this is what the figures I have are (ie shou and zhang). The figures (essex) are, however, all armed with spears (long and short). Its starting to sound depressingly like my figures arent going to match any of the available armies (especially as 1/2 my chariots are the early 2 horse variety which had probably disappeared by 700BC)

Depends what you call a spear. Are you sure they aren't armed with long dagger-axes?

[marty]

No they are definitely spears. I had hoped the really early Chinese might at least rate a light spear (or even def sp) classification. As you said swordsman on its own is pretty useless, and not even particularly cheap.

Still I dont know the history enough to dispute it. Im only working from your favourite types of evidence Figure ranges, Osprey books and lists for other rules systems

I just couldnt resist a whinge because of my 15mm armies my Shang were the most expensive to buy (all those chariots) and are probably the best painted.

I'll just have to wait for the book and see if there is anything I can field them as

Martin

[Intothevalley]

Couldn't you use the guys with spears for the later period armies, where I think Richard alluded there would be separate classification for those armed with spears?

Doesn't help for the 2 horse chariots though....

And could we have any information on proportions of drilled/undrilled troops in the various periods?

[rbodleyscott]

No they are definitely spears. I had hoped the really early Chinese might at least rate a light spear (or even def sp) classification. As you said swordsman on its own is pretty useless, and not even particularly cheap.

Still I dont know the history enough to dispute it. Im only working from your favourite types of evidence Figure ranges, Osprey books and lists for other rules systems

Research moves on. There are bound to be casualties I fear.

Personally, if I was you, I would just use the figures you have got as post-700 BC long dagger-axe men. As long as you define them clearly to your opponent there should not be any problem. Likewise, nobody is going to mind you using 2-horse chariots.

I must admit that I have been using old Han Chinese figures as all-purpose Chinese for years (and years and years).

I appreciate this may go against the grain if you are a purist. However, as a purist, you wouldn't want to go against the latest evidence, would you?

And could we have any information on proportions of drilled/undrilled troops in the various periods?

It will all be in the book.

[marty]

I must admit I had hoped to be able to use them as the shang/zhou they are.

I'm intrigued to hear there is new evidence suggesting they didn't use spears. What little (and I'm no authority on early China) I can find talks about spears as much as it does dagger axes (except that they take more time to explain what a dagger axe is). So all that stuff about "mo" spears of varying length (apparently up to 7') has been superceded?

It seems a shame to publish a list no one in their right mind would use. Especially when all the figure ranges available for it have at least as many foot spear figures as anything else. I would suggest that if there is any possibilty they were light spear, swordsmen (still not exactly an exciting prospect) it would be good if it were allowed for. This is after all a period where our knowledge is even less certain than usual. It would allow people to use existing figures and will mean the option in the list may be more than a theoretical possibilty that will never see the light of day.

I'm sorry to keep carrying on about this and if worse comes to worse I could take your suggestions about using them as later period boys, it would just be a pity as they are so distinctive looking.

Hoping this doesn't put you off giving tantalising hints of lists to come

Martin

[Intothevalley]

While I think that the protected swordsmen classification is not the best (from a gaming pov, I think it appropriate historically), the potential poor performance in the impact phase might be ameliorated a little if they have a rear rank of bows. The support shooting could help a little (though not a lot, admittedly).

They have found spears at ancient Chinese sites (Shang and Zhou), but not as frequently as dagger axes, and perhaps not enough to justify light spear in the classification considered by the authors.

It will all be in the book.

You are an awful tease...

[rogerg]

I wouldn't knock the rear rank shooting of MF. 50% more dice is the equivalent of turning hits on 5 or 6 into hits on 4,5 or 6. Add to that the chance of disrupting the enemy before they arrive. The loss of one dice in three is similar in probability to changing hits on 4,5 or 6 to hits on 5 or 6. Some relatively cheap medium foot are looking quite reasonable against heavy chariots.

[WhiteKnight]

I have to agree with RogerG...we have tried some pre-list Egyptian v Assyrian gmaes and honours are even thus far. HCh are vulnerable to bowfire and the heavier it is the more likely they disrupt or fragment. I have found the LCh more flexible.

Martin

[Intothevalley]

Sounds good - so pre-700BC Chinese might be viable afterall, assuming they're allowed mixed formations that is.

[rbodleyscott]

Sounds good - so pre-700BC Chinese might be viable afterall, assuming they're allowed mixed formations that is.

From 1122 BC they are.

[nikgaukroger]

I must admit I had hoped to be able to use them as the shang/zhou they are.

I'm intrigued to hear there is new evidence suggesting they didn't use spears. What little (and I'm no authority on early China) I can find talks about spears as much as it does dagger axes (except that they take more time to explain what a dagger axe is). So all that stuff about "mo" spears of varying length (apparently up to 7') has been superceded?

Can't speak for other rules but the previous lists I am most familiar with (DBM) had the close combat infantry of this period as mostly dagger-axe men IIRC. Some spear types (but not close formation) but less of them than the dagger-axe-men.

[marty]

Now come on guys who are you kidding? MF with just swordsman is so bad nothing can fix it. Mixing it with archers takes it from been totally useless to merely very bad. I can sort of live with been told these guys really were total garbage (reluctantly) buts let not pretend thats not what it is.

For the same points cost these foot could have a light spear or be defensive spearmen. For 1 point a base more the entire arsenal of foot weapons is open to them. From an effectivenesss point of view they are the absolute worst thing that exists in the game, so far.

Even if my figures represented them, I would never use them (and I'm generally willing to use some less than ideal lists).

Adding an option for mixed bow merely means i'm buying a sub standard unit of archers where half the elements are contributing pretty much nothing.

Martin

[rbodleyscott]

Now come on guys who are you kidding? MF with just swordsman is so bad nothing can fix it. Mixing it with archers takes it from been totally useless to merely very bad. I can sort of live with been told these guys really were total garbage (reluctantly) buts let not pretend thats not what it is.

For the same points cost these foot could have a light spear or be defensive spearmen. For 1 point a base more the entire arsenal of foot weapons is open to them. From an effectivenesss point of view they are the absolute worst thing that exists in the game, so far.

Even if my figures represented them, I would never use them (and I'm generally willing to use some less than ideal lists).

Adding an option for mixed bow merely means i'm buying a sub standard unit of archers where half the elements are contributing pretty much nothing.

Martin

Well we apologise for the history, but the truth is that the very earliest historical armies would be pretty much total garbage against later armies. Old Kingdom Egyptians have the same problem. Fortunately, historically, these armies only had to fight their contemporaries, who were similarly poorly equipped, so they were not disadvantaged.

Now we could choose to leave these armies out of the books entirely, because they don't match up as competitive tournament armies, but we choose not to do so because someone might actually be interested in using them for historical refights. It is not within our remit to "sex them up" just to make them competitive. Believe me, we are as lenient as the historical evidence permits.

[daleivan]

Speaking as a historical miniatures gamer, thank you! I am one of those people who finds historical match-ups interesting, including Old Kingdom Egyptians versus their actual historical opponents

Dale

[MarkSieber]

Richard, thank you. We who love history and are about to die in tournaments salute you!

[marty]

I wasnt rejecting the history (although there hasn't really been any suggestion of what any of it is yet). The limited, easily available history says spears and dagger axes. My last post was responding to the replies that were suggesting that MF SW might not really be that bad.

If light spear swordsmen is too "sexed up" for them (ie even bad is too good) I supose I'll just have to return to the good old days of wargaming (ie pretending all chinese armies look the same.)

Martin

[LambertSimnel]

I wouldn't knock the rear rank shooting of MF. 50% more dice is the equivalent of turning hits on 5 or 6 into hits on 4,5 or 6. Add to that the chance of disrupting the enemy before they arrive. The loss of one dice in three is similar in probability to changing hits on 4,5 or 6 to hits on 5 or 6. Some relatively cheap medium foot are looking quite reasonable against heavy chariots.

The exact effect depends on what is attacking you as the supporting archers fire at one worse than their normal missile POA.

Against Protected Cav, Unprotected Cav, Unprotected MF and Unprotected HF a rank of supporting bow is better than going from 5-6 to 4-6

Against anything with Heavy Armour it is worse than going from 5-6 to 4-6

[Intothevalley]

As far as history goes, Yang Hong's 'Weapons in Ancient China' describes weapon finds from six Western Zhou tombs. There were a total of 87 dagger axes but only 5 spears recovered. Assuming grave goods represent equipment in the world of the living, it looks like the majority of Zhou and Shang foot were armed with short dagger axes (as Yang Hong indeed concludes).

Yang Hong also describes models discovered in a Han period tomb (maybe of an early wargamer?) where there were three groups each of over 100 men, one group with long ji (halberds), one with long spears and another with crossbows. There were also smaller groups of men with short ji and short spears. Thus there would probably be greater justification for allowing spearmen and perhaps light spear for later period armies, but doesn't look like early armies should have these.

Actually I'm quite tempted to try an MF swordsmen backed by a bow combo - would I be correct in assuming this classification would be available to the Southern Dynasties period (317-589 AD)?

[rbodleyscott]

As far as history goes, Yang Hong's 'Weapons in Ancient China' describes weapon finds from six Western Zhou tombs. There were a total of 87 dagger axes but only 5 spears recovered. Assuming grave goods represent equipment in the world of the living, it looks like the majority of Zhou and Shang foot were armed with short dagger axes (as Yang Hong indeed concludes).

Yang Hong also describes models discovered in a Han period tomb (maybe of an early wargamer?) where there were three groups each of over 100 men, one group with long ji (halberds), one with long spears and another with crossbows. There were also smaller groups of men with short ji and short spears. Thus there would probably be greater justification for allowing spearmen and perhaps light spear for later period armies, but doesn't look like early armies should have these.

The lists will conform to all of the above information.

Actually I'm quite tempted to try an MF swordsmen backed by a bow combo - would I be correct in assuming this classification would be available to the Southern Dynasties period (317-589 AD)?

Yes, though not for all of their infantry.

[marty]

Fair enough then. Sounds pretty persuasive really (goddam it).

I'll just have to console myself that the 1/2 heavy weapon, 1/2 bow option for the slightly later boys is a genuinely strong, all round option.

Maybe I could convert the 2 horse chariots in to Ming battle wagons

Martin