Slitherine

nikgaukroger wrote:I would note that in discussions about the DBMM lists on various Yahoo groups Duncan Head and others have posted information that suggests that a lot of Chinese infantry with spears, etc. would be better represented in FoG as MF rather than HF

I recall that this was part of a more general auxilia discussion, where the idea of a new DBM 'medium foot' troop type was being kicked around. This was supposed to have no rough terrain abilities, but also not be able to stand up to 'heavy foot' in DBM terms i.e. spear, blade and pike etc.

Classifying Chinese foot as MF in FoG essentially makes them rough going troops, which I don't think was the intention of this discussion.

Personnally I'm happy with either MF or HF classification - both have their strengths and weaknesses, but whether they're an accurate reflection of what we perceive to be the capabilities of ancient Chinese infantry is another matter...

Well let's look at the differences between HF and MF in FoG

MF is faster in the open, and twice as fast in rough
MF takes a -1 to cohesion if it looses to HF in combat
MF are a + POA for Cav on impact while HF isn't
HF can't carry missile weapons

So all bow/xbow units have to be MF which makes sense. You just can't stand as close together as a swordsmen when using a bow/xbow.

Now ji troops are a difficult question. The weapon can be used in different ways. A spear, a halberd, it could pull back shields and punch back, you can swing with it and the likes.

The consideration that they faced a lot of missile fire and would be in a more spread out formation also makes sense.

It might just come down to play testing it. So far I've been running all the non skirmishers as MF

Looking to RBS's mention that mixed units (were they to exist) would be HF Def Sp and MF Bow, it might make sense to keep the majority of Ji-armed units as HF. Whether they were classed with D Sp, Off Sp, or Heavy Weapon would depend on ability and deployment. The puzzle is how to define the list without giving too much flexibility and without requiring two different sets of basings (shades of discussions of hypastpists vs pikemen.) It might be worth considering the following groupings--

Militia, Poor to Average, HF Def Sp 6-8 bases
Militia, Poor to Average, MF Bow, 6-8 bases
Regulars, Poor to Average, HF Off Sp 6-8 bases
Regulars, Poor to Average, HF Bow, 6-8 bases

Maximums TBD.

Either of the above could be fielded as mixed units, 1/2 HF sp +1/2 MF Bow -- 6 bases per BG, maximum 12 (?) since this appears to be rare.
(Can Off Sp be mixed with Bow? if not, limit mixing to militia?)

Specialist units/units deployed to special missions, Ji: Regular to Superior, MF or HF (all or none) Heavy Weapon 4-6 bases, maximum 8

This prevents a 'super' bad-terrain army but allows for some option to use the Ji in a different role.

Any thoughts?

Pardon me! Sub Crossbow for Bow:

Militia, Poor to Average, HF Def Sp 6-8 bases
Militia, Poor to Average, MF CB, 6-8 bases
Regulars, Poor to Average, HF Off Sp 6-8 bases
Regulars, Poor to Average, HF CB, 6-8 bases

Maximums TBD.

Either of the above could be fielded as mixed units, 1/2 HF sp +1/2 MF CB -- 6 bases per BG, maximum 12 (?) since this appears to be rare.
(Can Off Sp be mixed with Bow? if not, limit mixing to militia?)

MarkSieber wrote: (Can Off Sp be mixed with Bow? if not, limit mixing to militia?)

I wouldn't. OffSpear want to charge, while missile troops want to accept the charge since they get impact firing dice.

At this point I think I will repost the refined list that I've been working on:

Not many changes to it but some stuff that still doesn't look right:

Territory Type: Agricultural, Developed, Woodlands, Hilly, Mountain, Steppes


Commanders:
C-in-C: IC/FC/TC [80/50/35] 1
Sub-Commanders: FC [50] 0-2; TC [35] 0-3


Core Troops:
Line Infantry [12-36 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Defensive Spearmen [7pts] or
MF, Armoured, Avg, Drilled, Swordsmen [9pts] 1/2, 6 base/BG
MF, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [7pts] 1/2, 6 base/BG
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base
Option: Upgrade one BG to Superior @ +2pts per base
Line Infantry [12-36 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Defensive Spearmen [8pts] or
MF, Armoured, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [10pts] 1/2, 6 base/BG
MF, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [7pts] 1/2, 6 base/BG
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base
Option: Upgrade one BG to Superior @ +2pts per base

Halberd Units [0-12 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Offensive Spear [8pts] 6 bases/BG
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base

Sword Units [0-12 Bases]:
MF, Armoured, Avg, Drilled, Swordsmen [9pts] 6 bases/BG
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base

Levies [0-24 Bases]:
MF, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen [4pts] 6-8 base/BG

Cavalry [4-24 Bases]:
Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen [10pts] 4-6 base/BG
Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Swordsmen, Bow [11pts] 4-6 base/BG
Option: exchange bow for crossbow @ -1pt per base
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base
Option: Upgrade one BG to Superior @ +3pts per base

Skirmishing Horse [8-24 Bases]:
LH, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Bow [9pts] 4-6 Bases/BG
Option: exchange bow for crossbow @ -1pt per base
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base
Option: Upgrade one BG to Superior @ +3pts per base


Optional Troops:
Dare to Die Swordsmen [0-4 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Skilled Swordsmen [10pts] 4 bases/BG

Skirmishing Archers [0-12 Bases]:
LF, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Bow [5pts] 4-6 bases/BG

Tribal Troops [0-12 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Avg, Undrilled, Light Spear [5pts] 4-6-8 base/BG
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base

Convicts [0-12 Bases]:
Mob, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled, Javelins [2pts] 8-12 bases/BG

Military Strong Carts (Wu Gang Che) [0-6]:
LArt, Drilled [17pts] 2 bases/BG


The Northern Army (bei jun):
Footsoldiers (bubing) [0-4 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Offensive Spear [10pts] 4 base/BG

Archers Who Shoot at a Sound (shesheng) [0-4 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Bow [9pts] 4 base/BG

Elite Cavalry (yueji) [0-4 Bases]:
Cav, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Lance, Bow [14pts] 4 base/BG
Option: exchange bow for crossbow @ -1pt per base

The Garrison Cavalry (tunji) [0-6 Bases]:
Cav, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Swordsmen, Bow [15pts] 6 base/BG
Option: exchange bow for crossbow @ -1pt per base

The Chang River Regiment (Changshui) [0-4 Bases]:
MF, Armoured, Superior, Drilled, Impact Foot, Skilled swordsmen [14pts] 4 base/BG

Now before someone complains about the line troops let me explain.

While testing them out I was finding that they just didn't throw enough damage from the xbow. At 3 dice per mixed unit, with a net - on shots, you only get 2 hits on average. So really the best they can do is cause a cohesion check. This just doesn't feel right for the army. On the other hand if you make them all xbow, and you face LH (which is mostly what the Han faced) you end up generally not being able to shoot the LH until impact when you still only get those 3 dice on a - POA. So far having DefSpear in the front rank seems to feel better but just doesn't have the missile throw weight without also giving it xbow.

Fugu wrote:This list is designed for Late Western Han period in the north.

But isn't the five-regiment structure of the Northern Army that you reflect an Eastern Han development?

Fugu wrote:The Chang River Regiment (Changshui) [0-4 Bases]:
MF, Armoured, Superior, Drilled, Impact Foot, Skilled swordsmen [14pts] 4 base/BG

And the Chang River troops were nomad cavalry, not infantry:

"...the Chang River regiment, whose troopers were recruited from Wuhuan and other non-Chinese auxiliaries, had an additional Major of Barbarian Cavalry (huji sima)."
- http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/decr ... l_org.html

DuncanHead wrote:

Fugu wrote:This list is designed for Late Western Han period in the north.

But isn't the five-regiment structure of the Northern Army that you reflect an Eastern Han development?

Fugu wrote:The Chang River Regiment (Changshui) [0-4 Bases]:
MF, Armoured, Superior, Drilled, Impact Foot, Skilled swordsmen [14pts] 4 base/BG

And the Chang River troops were nomad cavalry, not infantry:

"...the Chang River regiment, whose troopers were recruited from Wuhuan and other non-Chinese auxiliaries, had an additional Major of Barbarian Cavalry (huji sima)."
- http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/decr ... l_org.html

hmm... oddly enough that is one of my references. And yet odder enough someone I complete mis read those two parts. Well blah. Guess I'm deleting that section and adding it to the Eastern Han list.

Guess it's time to go back and check all my references again and make sure I didn't bugger more up.

Cheers.

Looking at the line troops I can see what you have tried to do but I doubt that half armoured and half unprotected would be within the FoG ethos. Where troops within a BG have different levels of armour it is normally averaged out so all protected rather than half armoured and half unprotected.

Rather than defensive spear you could consider light spear for the front or both ranks. That would be in keeping with the way Persian mixed formations are depicted in FoG.

Also I thought that the main purpose of the Chinese mixed infantry was to face off mounted in which case the crossbow would not be at a - POA.

hammy wrote:Looking at the line troops I can see what you have tried to do but I doubt that half armoured and half unprotected would be within the FoG ethos. Where troops within a BG have different levels of armour it is normally averaged out so all protected rather than half armoured and half unprotected.

How would you average Protected and Unprotected? I didn't want to "up" armour less protected troops.. though in some circumstances you could argue for armoured for some of the spearmen.

hammy wrote: Rather than defensive spear you could consider light spear for the front or both ranks. That would be in keeping with the way Persian mixed formations are depicted in FoG.

hmm... you get the + in Impact but nothing in Melee... which does work better against horse. I think I'll try that next game.

hammy wrote: Also I thought that the main purpose of the Chinese mixed infantry was to face off mounted in which case the crossbow would not be at a - POA.

Unless shooting in the Impact phase which seems to be the only time I've gotten to fire. More trials will tell on that one though.

Fugu wrote:

hammy wrote:Looking at the line troops I can see what you have tried to do but I doubt that half armoured and half unprotected would be within the FoG ethos. Where troops within a BG have different levels of armour it is normally averaged out so all protected rather than half armoured and half unprotected.

How would you average Protected and Unprotected? I didn't want to "up" armour less protected troops.. though in some circumstances you could argue for armoured for some of the spearmen.

Probably protected but it would depend on the effect you are trying to acheive.

hammy wrote: Also I thought that the main purpose of the Chinese mixed infantry was to face off mounted in which case the crossbow would not be at a - POA.

Unless shooting in the Impact phase which seems to be the only time I've gotten to fire. More trials will tell on that one though.

Crossbow do have a long range effect too but as a rear rank that is often unlikely to have any effect at all

You could always advance the crossbow fomations into range against enemy cavalry.

hammy wrote: Probably protected but it would depend on the effect you are trying to acheive.

Realistic? More research is required.

hammy wrote: Crossbow do have a long range effect too but as a rear rank that is often unlikely to have any effect at all

You could always advance the crossbow fomations into range against enemy cavalry.

Well if we look at units of 6 against a 6 unit LH, a pure Xbow unit throws 5 dice and a mixed unit throws 3. So that's 2.5 hits with a full unit or 1.5 with a mixed at effective range. Difference between a possible cohesion check and a cohesion check and death roll on a 1.

At max range it's 3 dice to 1, or 1.5 hits to 0.5. Which has a 50% chance of a cohesion check and no chance of one.

Best case scenario has you bringing the LH into range for a single round of shooting with LF.

With those numbers, without another impact bonus, I don't think the unit will have the more historical result when charged by non Lance LH. The DefSpear is only good with >=2 ranks in Impact so I think Light Spear is the way to go.

That would bring the Line Troops to:
Line Infantry [12-36 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Light Spear [7pts] 1/2 or none
MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [8pts] 1/2 or all, 6 base/BG
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base
Option: Upgrade one BG to Superior @ +2pts per base

6 crossbows at effective range only get 4 dice so are only 33% better than a single rank.

Also if you are worried about fighting light horse just let them charge you from outside your effective range then slaughter them because you will have three times as many dice at impact (2 per base in the front rank plus 1 from support shooting vs 2 per base halved because they are LH).

Against a single rank of defensive spear even if the D spear are MF the light horse would have 3 dice needing 4s vs the crossbows 9 dice needing 5's at impact and in the melee the crossbow would have (assuming unportected light horse) 6 dice on 4 vs 3 dice on 5.

Cavalry are a bit more of a problem but they can't charge from as far away.

hammy wrote: Also if you are worried about fighting light horse just let them charge you from outside your effective range then slaughter them because you will have three times as many dice at impact (2 per base in the front rank plus 1 from support shooting vs 2 per base halved because they are LH).

Right cause that info is in Any and not in Impact and Melee sections of the table.... which I skipped...

I'm going to try it as Light Spear but I keep sliding back to thinking DefSpear is a better representation.

Globally I think you are over-designing this list and putting in too many favorites vis-a-vis standard FoG doctrine. That is my theory I have no inside knowledge. But this sems to have toomany nifty biases. But some specifics.

Fugu wrote: Territory Type: Agricultural, Developed, Woodlands, Hilly, Mountain, Steppes

This seems too varied compared to other lists. remove Steppe as that was more punitive expeditions. Probably need to remove one other as well I'd nominate mountain.

MF, Armoured, Avg, Drilled, Swordsmen [9pts] 1/2, 6 base/BG
MF, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [7pts] 1/2, 6 base/BG

I really don't think this represents the mixed fomations correctly. But I'd love to see ths on the table. Armoured is in interesting call do they need to be that versus their foes who are unprotected often?

Levies [0-24 Bases]:
MF, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen [4pts] 6-8 base/BG

try defensive spear. I don't think the levies are more aggressive than some of the other troops.

Cavalry [4-24 Bases]:
Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen [10pts] 4-6 base/BG
Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Swordsmen, Bow [11pts] 4-6 base/BG
Option: exchange bow for crossbow @ -1pt per base

I thought most of the cavalry types would be cross bow.

Skirmishing Horse [8-24 Bases]:
LH, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Bow [9pts] 4-6 Bases/BG
Option: exchange bow for crossbow @ -1pt per base

depending on what you mean by these the steppe type recruits woudl be bow and the chinese would be crossbow or light spear.

Optional Troops:
Dare to Die Swordsmen [0-4 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Skilled Swordsmen [10pts] 4 bases/BG

Interesting theory. But from what I've seen undrilled swordsmen maybe even impact foot are more likely. Skilled is clearly an exceptional category that these don't qualify for.

hazelbark wrote:Globally I think you are over-designing this list and putting in too many favorites vis-a-vis standard FoG doctrine. That is my theory I have no inside knowledge. But this sems to have toomany nifty biases. But some specifics.

I agree it has a lot of relative options and variations. Part of my thought on the list design has been trying to show the wide breadth of Chinese tactics and units they could draw upon. The Empire did have 57 million people in its boarders and fought nomadic cav forces, and more conventional foot forces.

They fought on the Steppes in Tibet, along the Yangzi and in the agricultural plains. China is BIG and its topography covers everything under the sun.

The extent of the list is a reflection of not wanting to be TOO specific, say only the forces used against the Xiangnu or only the forces used against the Qing or the likes.

hazelbark wrote:

Fugu wrote: Territory Type: Agricultural, Developed, Woodlands, Hilly, Mountain, Steppes

This seems too varied compared to other lists. remove Steppe as that was more punitive expeditions. Probably need to remove one other as well I'd nominate mountain.

Punitive expeditions that were constant for over a 100 years. If I were to drop down the list I'd remove Woodlands and maybe Mountain... Though you can argue Mountain for the expansion into Qing territory.

hazelbark wrote:

MF, Armoured, Avg, Drilled, Swordsmen [9pts] 1/2, 6 base/BG
MF, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [7pts] 1/2, 6 base/BG

I really don't think this represents the mixed fomations correctly. But I'd love to see ths on the table. Armoured is in interesting call do they need to be that versus their foes who are unprotected often?

I've been at odds trying to find good ways to represent mixed formations. I expect trial and error in play testing will eventually get there

It's not so much the armour of their opponents but the missile fire they receive. From some primary image sources some infantry had steel lamilar armour and shields, some with helmets. To me reading the explanations in FoG should class as armoured...

hazelbark wrote:

Levies [0-24 Bases]:
MF, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen [4pts] 6-8 base/BG

try defensive spear. I don't think the levies are more aggressive than some of the other troops.

Other side of the equation is that it's easier to motivate people to charge then it is to receive one. It takes a bit of nerve to accept one. I'm not committed either way.

hazelbark wrote:

Cavalry [4-24 Bases]:
Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen [10pts] 4-6 base/BG
Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Swordsmen, Bow [11pts] 4-6 base/BG
Option: exchange bow for crossbow @ -1pt per base

I thought most of the cavalry types would be cross bow.

I was looking at bow as a secondary option.. but probably should just be xbow no bow option.

hazelbark wrote:

Skirmishing Horse [8-24 Bases]:
LH, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Bow [9pts] 4-6 Bases/BG
Option: exchange bow for crossbow @ -1pt per base

depending on what you mean by these the steppe type recruits woudl be bow and the chinese would be crossbow or light spear.

hmm.. so Making a second option to include light spear..

hazelbark wrote:

Optional Troops:
Dare to Die Swordsmen [0-4 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Skilled Swordsmen [10pts] 4 bases/BG

Interesting theory. But from what I've seen undrilled swordsmen maybe even impact foot are more likely. Skilled is clearly an exceptional category that these don't qualify for.

I think it depends on your interpretation on how they would respond on the field.. I think dropping the Skilled and just making them Swordsmen with an Impact Foot and Heavy Weapon option might be better. Since these units aren't "standard" a lot would depend on the makeup on the time of any specific battle.

Thanks for a bunch of good ideas and comments.

Fugu wrote:

hazelbark wrote:Globally I think you are over-designing this list and putting in too many favorites vis-a-vis standard FoG doctrine. That is my theory I have no inside knowledge. But this sems to have toomany nifty biases. But some specifics.

I agree it has a lot of relative options and variations. Part of my thought on the list design has been trying to show the wide breadth of Chinese tactics and units they could draw upon. The Empire did have 57 million people in its boarders and fought nomadic cav forces, and more conventional foot forces..

The problem is this creates a super list. One of the legacy of other rules is the dangers of allowing too much flexiblity creates super lists, i expect the FoG folks to eschew this for that reason.

I've been at odds trying to find good ways to represent mixed formations. I expect trial and error in play testing will eventually get there

Well there are a few options from other lists.
front rank HF or MF, w/defensive spear or heavy weapon.
rear rank MF missile weapons rarely but possible w/sword too.
Look at the Med Swedes and Med Danes in Storm of arrows. There were beta lists, see discussions elsewhere about byzantines and presumably the upcoming achemenid persian sparabara.

It's not so much the armour of their opponents but the missile fire they receive. From some primary image sources some infantry had steel lamilar armour and shields, some with helmets. To me reading the explanations in FoG should class as armoured...

I think a big chunk of the classifications of armor are relative to their historical foes.
i.e. I am roman and had better armor than you, a barbarian, but you were not butt naked. Therefore you get protected and I get armoured. Note there is no roman versus medieval billman comparison.

I think it depends on your interpretation on how they would respond on the field.. I think dropping the Skilled and just making them Swordsmen with an Impact Foot and Heavy Weapon option might be better. Since these units aren't "standard" a lot would depend on the makeup on the time of any specific battle.

You don't get impact and heavy weapon ever. You can have impact and sword. Or you can heavy plain heavy weapon. See various thracian and amulgavar types in other lists.

hazelbark wrote: The problem is this creates a super list. One of the legacy of other rules is the dangers of allowing too much flexiblity creates super lists, i expect the FoG folks to eschew this for that reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by "super list". It's not like a Sci Fi or Fantasy game where you're trying to create varied, finitely "balanced" lists with character, but trying to fairly accurately represent the theoretical historical aspects of the army. Making it do that should be the goal.

hazelbark wrote: Well there are a few options from other lists.
front rank HF or MF, w/defensive spear or heavy weapon.
rear rank MF missile weapons rarely but possible w/sword too.
Look at the Med Swedes and Med Danes in Storm of arrows. There were beta lists, see discussions elsewhere about byzantines and presumably the upcoming achemenid persian sparabara.

I'll take a look at the archives. See if I can borrow Storms of Arrows from someone.

hazelbark wrote: I think a big chunk of the classifications of armor are relative to their historical foes.
i.e. I am roman and had better armor than you, a barbarian, but you were not butt naked. Therefore you get protected and I get armoured. Note there is no roman versus medieval billman comparison.

This would seem odd then trying to balance armies from completely different time periods. I went with the armour descriptions from the main rules for reference.

hazelbark wrote: You don't get impact and heavy weapon ever. You can have impact and sword. Or you can heavy plain heavy weapon. See various thracian and amulgavar types in other lists.

Sorry I wasn't clear on that. I ment Impact and Heavy Weapon would be possible upgrades but not at the same time.

Fugu wrote:

hazelbark wrote: The problem is this creates a super list. One of the legacy of other rules is the dangers of allowing too much flexiblity creates super lists, i expect the FoG folks to eschew this for that reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by "super list". It's not like a Sci Fi or Fantasy game where you're trying to create varied, finitely "balanced" lists with character, but trying to fairly accurately represent the theoretical historical aspects of the army. Making it do that should be the goal.

Actually we are trying to accurately represent the practical historical aspects of the army, not the theoretical historical aspects of the army. There is a big difference. These are top down rules not bottom up rules. If a bottom up approach leads to a classification that makes troops unrealistically effective relative to their historical foes (which usually results from an over-optimistic view of their equipment and capabilities) we will attempt to find an alternative classification which fits their fighting style and does not result in unhistorical results. There is plenty of scope for such judgement because, for example, an infantryman depicted with a spear could be classified as Defensive Spear, Offensive Spear, Light Spear, Impact Foot or even no capability at all, according to historical tactics and perfomance.

The Far Eastern lists are next on our list program, so hopefully we will be able to give some hints as to likely "official" classifications of Han troops before very long.

One general principle is that battle groups with metal armoured front ranks and unarmoured/textile/leather armoured rear ranks are graded as Protected under the rules because this gives (in our view) the most historical effect under the rules.

Although we give most weight to correctly representing the differences between historical opponents, we also give some weight to an absolute set of criteria - but we allow ourselves fuzzy edges to these where necessary to get the right effect within period. On the other hand we will not allow relative abilities within a period to result in some classifcations that are so far from the norm that they render the army over-powered in non-historical games. Much as the majority of players prefer historical matchups, some people like open tournaments and we want the rules to work for these as well as for historical matchups.

Therefore, there is a lot going on in our decisions as to how to classify troops, much more than a simple application of the descriptions in the rule book. Of course inevitably some people will disagree with the end results. However, we are being as consistent as possible in our overall approach, so that no army should be treated "unfairly".