Mixed Quality BG's and quality overall
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:40 am
Two questions,
a) Is there a tendency to assume the quality of troops without sufficient justification for a particular army ? - for instance the fact that German mounted knights are Superior, when it was generally agreed that the Germans, when mounted were far less effective than the French, say? I would extend this further to the arbitrary classification of mounted cavalry as superior, even when it is a pretty obscure army that didn't fight many major enemies.
b) As a sort of solution to the above, and also to issues seen with warband armies, does the idea of mixed quality BG's offer a solution? This is the case for having mixed BG's (say Superior/Average) - testing as average would make them more brittle than groups of superiors, but at the same time they would fight nearly as well (assuming that front rank troops will be the Superiors...
a) Is there a tendency to assume the quality of troops without sufficient justification for a particular army ? - for instance the fact that German mounted knights are Superior, when it was generally agreed that the Germans, when mounted were far less effective than the French, say? I would extend this further to the arbitrary classification of mounted cavalry as superior, even when it is a pretty obscure army that didn't fight many major enemies.
b) As a sort of solution to the above, and also to issues seen with warband armies, does the idea of mixed quality BG's offer a solution? This is the case for having mixed BG's (say Superior/Average) - testing as average would make them more brittle than groups of superiors, but at the same time they would fight nearly as well (assuming that front rank troops will be the Superiors...