Slitherine

I'd like to suggest Legionaries being given the option of as Offensive spearmen in some of the later Roman lists (eg Dominate, Foederate and early Byzantine lists).

see these for the details;

viewtopic.php?t=9917&start=43

viewtopic.php?t=9917&start=21

Z.

Struck me at a tournament at the weekend that the Scots Isles and Highland army is the only one of it's ilk ( Irish, Anglo Irish etc ) that does not have the option to upgrade the gallowglas axe men to superior. In hindsight looks wrong.
John

To me as well. I have been looking at this as well and find it hard to believe that troops fighting in their own homeland are average but the minute they step foot in Ireland they become (or can become ) superior. If they had that much of an influence in Irish warfare shouldn't most of the irish be rated as poor troops if the Islemen are only average? And if you say that the galloglaich were mercenaries so would be the cream of their clans, one of the army list books (not sure if it is wolves from the seas or oath of fealty) which states whole clans moved to Ireland to fight as mercenaries, which indicates that they should be rated the same as if they were in their own list.

awat wrote:To me as well. I have been looking at this as well and find it hard to believe that troops fighting in their own homeland are average but the minute they step foot in Ireland they become (or can become ) superior. If they had that much of an influence in Irish warfare shouldn't most of the irish be rated as poor troops if the Islemen are only average? And if you say that the galloglaich were mercenaries so would be the cream of their clans, one of the army list books (not sure if it is wolves from the seas or oath of fealty) which states whole clans moved to Ireland to fight as mercenaries, which indicates that they should be rated the same as if they were in their own list.

So those that stay at home with their mum should be as good as those that get off their arse and make themselves a name?

philqw78 wrote:

awat wrote:To me as well. I have been looking at this as well and find it hard to believe that troops fighting in their own homeland are average but the minute they step foot in Ireland they become (or can become ) superior. If they had that much of an influence in Irish warfare shouldn't most of the irish be rated as poor troops if the Islemen are only average? And if you say that the galloglaich were mercenaries so would be the cream of their clans, one of the army list books (not sure if it is wolves from the seas or oath of fealty) which states whole clans moved to Ireland to fight as mercenaries, which indicates that they should be rated the same as if they were in their own list.

So those that stay at home with their mum should be as good as those that get off their arse and make themselves a name?

Following that logic the Vikings in Ireland (maybe all Vikings?) should be superior as they have 'got off their arses' to make themselves a name. Instead the Irish, who made a name for themselves by losing to almost everyone who invaded, have more superior combat troops (16 'Nobles and retainers 'and 8 'Meic Mallachtain etc') than the Vikings (18 Huscarls), Anglo-Danish (18 Huscarls) Early Scots (12 Thegns), Middle Anglo-Saxon (18 Hirdsmen) and the place they went to for troops who would actually stay and fight, i.e. the Western Isles of Scotland, have no superior. The historical justification for that is....? Didn't the Western Isles have some kind of 'Nobles and retainers' equivalent?

Walter

Sorry the logic of troops who leave their homeland having more chance of being superior amazes me. Does how they get there have a bearing. Maybe all Australians should be the most highly rated troops in the world even if they came over on convict ships.
Turning to the broader question, yes the Scots isles and highlands had their own nobility. I suspect this current difference between them and the Irish is just an oversight which can be easily corrected.
John

Well until any of you offer any proof my explanation is better than yours, as it is one the list author concurs with, though possibly for different reasons. :-p

Well actually as they originally came from Ireland to go to Scotland and then went back to Ireland before coming back to Scotland again then they should be double elite not average. Back into the tent for you my lad.
John

The question was raised in terms of game balance and design philosophy, not to get a smart alec comment. When comments such as -we rated troops based on their historical opponents to get historical results- are made by the game designers I found it curious that troops who are average in one list can become superior in another which to me would indicate that their opponents were poor as that would be the only way that they could have been viewed as being so good against them. Also, like waldo I found the large amount of superiors in the Irish list strange based on their opponents, particularly the Vikings. Then when the Americas lists came out and people questioned why they had so many superior some one said that it was to compensate for the lack of cavalry in the army. Well, I don't see to many horses in an isles army.

Awat, I am on your side. After all I raised the subject in the first place.
Joh

I am reading W.B Bartlett's book the Mongols. I have got the section about the Battle of Mohi,
The battlefield is described as having many thickets, hills and vineyards -what does the army list allow the Mongols Steppes. The most of the terrain of the Mohi battlefield cannot be found in the steppe classification. The allowable terrain options should be changed to include agricultural or developed. Importantly Mohi was a battlefield of Subotai's choice the terrain suited their style of faint retreats and ambushes.
Next the list allows only heavy artillery, yes the Mongols used catapults at Mohi but their actual use would better suit light artillery as they were manoeuvred during the battle. After the Hungarians were forced back from the bridge the Mongols moved up their catapults to shoot at the Hungarians. As you cannot move heavy artillery you could not fight a Mohi type of action. Also has the Mongols were covering 40 miles per day leading up to the battle how could they have moved heavy artillery that fast, classifying Mongol artillery as light makes sense at both the strategic and tactical levels.

my only real quibble is with the blood and gold lists where there seems to be a departure from the philosophy that troop capabilities are based on the weapon which their style of fighting favoured. e.g. sarmatian bow and lance are only classified as lance. But in Blood and gold, atlatl users get an additional class of weapon, giving them impact as well as missile capability. A quality that no earlier book armies appear to have.

gaesati wrote:my only real quibble is with the blood and gold lists where there seems to be a departure from the philosophy that troop capabilities are based on the weapon which their style of fighting favoured. e.g. sarmatian bow and lance are only classified as lance. But in Blood and gold, atlatl users get an additional class of weapon, giving them impact as well as missile capability. A quality that no earlier book armies appear to have.

My Persian immortals have bows for missile shooting and light spears for impact so it's not unheard of. Also there are plenty of troops that have close combat weaponry and bow* missiles.

We found that the atlatl is a bit of a halfway house. It's better than a hand hurled javelin (greater force so longer range/more penetration) so MF with it have a better case for "javelin" missile capability.

One goal of the list philosophy is to avoid supertroops. i.e. A troop type that allowed lance, sword, good armour and bow shooting is avoided because it would be unbalancing. For B+G, we wanted to avoid the absurdities of WRG 7th where American armies could be killers because of weapon combinations. We felt that adding a (short range, 1 die per 2 bases) missile capability to troops who were at best protected MF would not be too unbalancing. I'll believe the opposite if American armies start dominating!

BlackPrince wrote:I am reading W.B Bartlett's book the Mongols. I have got the section about the Battle of Mohi,
The battlefield is described as having many thickets, hills and vineyards -what does the army list allow the Mongols Steppes. The most of the terrain of the Mohi battlefield cannot be found in the steppe classification. The allowable terrain options should be changed to include agricultural or developed. Importantly Mohi was a battlefield of Subotai's choice the terrain suited their style of faint retreats and ambushes.
Next the list allows only heavy artillery, yes the Mongols used catapults at Mohi but their actual use would better suit light artillery as they were manoeuvred during the battle. After the Hungarians were forced back from the bridge the Mongols moved up their catapults to shoot at the Hungarians. As you cannot move heavy artillery you could not fight a Mohi type of action. Also has the Mongols were covering 40 miles per day leading up to the battle how could they have moved heavy artillery that fast, classifying Mongol artillery as light makes sense at both the strategic and tactical levels.

Last time I checked, Mohi was in Hungary. And it seems that in the real battle the Mongols won the initiative roll and decided to invade. So where's the problem?

ShrubMiK wrote:Last time I checked, Mohi was in Hungary. And it seems that in the real battle the Mongols won the initiative roll and decided to invade. So where's the problem?

Or the Hungarians won initiative and chose agricultural, and then kept most of it on table due to lucky dice. Moving second let them down though, as they could not react to the speed of the Mongol advance and had already used up their luck in the PBI and terrain.

That would work too - but BP already stated that Subotai chose the terrain type

philqw78 wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:Last time I checked, Mohi was in Hungary. And it seems that in the real battle the Mongols won the initiative roll and decided to invade. So where's the problem?

Or the Hungarians won initiative and chose agricultural, and then kept most of it on table due to lucky dice. Moving second let them down though, as they could not react to the speed of the Mongol advance and had already used up their luck in the PBI and terrain.

Crap pip dice - gets you every time.

marshalney2000 wrote:Struck me at a tournament at the weekend that the Scots Isles and Highland army is the only one of it's ilk ( Irish, Anglo Irish etc ) that does not have the option to upgrade the gallowglas axe men to superior. In hindsight looks wrong.
John

This is one of those lists which has been shortened conisderably, using the justification that 'the superiors are distributed amongst the averages' - which has no effect.

ShrubMiK wrote:That would work too - but BP already stated that Subotai chose the terrain type

Sounds as though Subotai had considerably more imagination and ability than the commanders of most shooty cavalry armies.

Either that, or he didn't see the point in fighting over the steppe, given he already had plenty of steppe by then?

azrael86 wrote:Sounds as though Subotai had considerably more imagination and ability than the commanders of most shooty cavalry armies.

Er, yes.