Slitherine

Anyone else out there trying to port over Han Dynasty unit types?

Yes. Here's what I've been thinking:

Line Infantry: half HF Protected defensive spear and half MF Unprotected crossbow, Average; some could be rated as poor. Shield, torso armor=protected.
For the old WRG 6th 'halberd' types: Protected, Superior Offensive Spear (I did have them as heavy weapon, but DBM did away with that.)
MF swordsmen (one unit of four stands) Protected, Superior Impact foot, Skilled Swordsmen.

One could argue that the last two types were armored; I'm not sure how to rate leather armor (are the lists comparative within period or across the entire span of the rules?) & whether the old notion of armor as rings sewn on a fabric or leather base is a possibility for cavalry as it was in some early WRG lists. If not--and newer sources don't mention it-- the heavier cavalry could be Protected (but having no shield it might be unprotected.)

LF archers, Drilled, Unprotected, Average bow
MF Convicts, Undrilled, Unprotected, javelins--could be mob. Poor to Average. 4 to 6 bases.
MF Tribal troops, Undrilled, Protected, Light Spear. Poor to Average.
Cavalry as Drilled, Protected, Average lance and sword--could be spear, room for debate. Others with crossbow.
Undrilled, Unprotected LH bow, and Drilled, Unprotected LH Lance (again, might be spear) all Average.

Other unit sizes-- 6 to 8 for line foot, 4 to 8 for cavalry. Chariots are what they are, with added bow* .

What do you think?

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 suspect that the dare to die swordsmen may well end up rather similar to medieval sword and buckler men i.e. no impact POA but skilled swordsmen, either that or heavy weapon if you assume a big sword.

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.

Thanks, I hadn't been looking at those lists, having taken a break from WRG Ancients for a while. They were my first introductions to miniatures, dear to my heart, and I'm excited about FoG.

I hadn't noticed the possibility of the MF Spear troop type--allows the usual spear benefits but takes the minus on tests vs HF. Mixed blessing; if I rebase, I can stretch the figure count a bit further --but then, I'd have to, er, rebase. It _would_ give them enough room to swing the polearm like a halberd but still not a heavy weapon, I'd guess.

I suspect that the dare to die swordsmen may well end up rather similar to medieval sword and buckler men i.e. no impact POA but skilled swordsmen, either that or heavy weapon if you assume a big sword.

Another troop type distinction I'd missed--thank you!

Any thoughts about cavalry, lance vs. spear, and armor class?

The biggest issue I'm having is trying to reconcile the xbow/spear units. Having only 1 rank of spearmen are essentially the same as having troops with no capability listed. You'd have to make then heavy weapon to get the proper unit interaction.

Fugu wrote:The biggest issue I'm having is trying to reconcile the xbow/spear units. Having only 1 rank of spearmen are essentially the same as having troops with no capability listed.

Not really.

Steady single rank Defensive Spearmen cancel lancers impact POA and swordsmen/skilled swordsmen melee POA.

Ah so it does.

I've massaged MarkSieber's suggestion and added a few things to it. Looking at Late Western Han for time frame.

Line Infantry1: 1/2 MF, Protected, Avg/Poor, Drilled, Heavy Weapon and 1/2 MF, Unprotected, Avg/Poor, Drilled, crossbow

Line Infantry2: 1/2 MF, Avg/Poor, Drilled, Armoured, Sword and 1/2 1/2 MF, Unprotected, Avg/Poor, Drilled, crossbow,

Bases per BG: 6-8
Total Bases1: 0-24
2: 0-24
Total Bases: 18-24


Halberd Unit: MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Offensive Spear

Bases per BG: 6-8
Total Bases: 0-16


Dare to Die Swordsmen: MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Impact foot, Skilled Swordsmen.

Bases per BG: 4
Total Bases: 0-4


Skirmishing Foot: LF, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, bow

Bases per BG: 4-6
Total Bases: 0-12


Convicts: MF, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled, Javelins

Bases per BG: 4-6
Total Bases: 0-6


Tribal troops: MF, Protected, Avg/Poor, Undrilled, Light Spear

Bases per BG: 4-6
Total Bases: 0-6


Cavalry1: Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Lance, Bow

Cavalry2: Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Swordsmen, Bow

Bases per BG: 4-6
Total Bases1: 0-24
2: 0-24
Total Bases: 16-24


Skirmishing Horse Archers: LH, Unprotected, Avg, Undrilled, Bow

Bases per BG: 4-6
Total Bases: 4-12


Skirmishing Horse Lancers: LH, Unprotected, Avg, Undrilled, Lance

Bases per BG: 4-6
Total Bases: 4-12


Field Arcuballistas: LArt, Drilled

Bases per BG: 2-4
Total Bases: 0-6

Aw the han, often the first love of any Chinese fanatic. I know it was mine.

A sub-list to consider would be the Han Commandaries which were used to control conquered area. Most Commandaries allied with local inhabitants to compose a large part of their defense and reaction forces. These tribes would often be the core of later han Successor States or the nucleus of new countries such as in Korea.

Such a sub-list could provide some interesting Han variants rather than the Imperial Conquest version. A lot of potential allied contingents.

Fugu wrote:The biggest issue I'm having is trying to reconcile the xbow/spear units. Having only 1 rank of spearmen are essentially the same as having troops with no capability listed. You'd have to make then heavy weapon to get the proper unit interaction.

I would point out that, IIRC, there is just one instance where such a mixed formation is attested and normally the crossbowmen were not mixed with other troops. My memory could be wrong though.

Fugu wrote:The biggest issue I'm having is trying to reconcile the xbow/spear units. Having only 1 rank of spearmen are essentially the same as having troops with no capability listed. You'd have to make then heavy weapon to get the proper unit interaction.

Not entirely.

Having a front rank of HF defensive spear makes a BG of archers far more survivable against mounted. While the spear don't get a POA they do negate lancer, remove the POA mounted get against MF and if they remain steady in melee they also negate swordsman.

Heavy weapons while getting a POA in melee don't cancel lance or swordsman so there isn't as much in it as you might think.

I didn't notice that with spearmen. I have gone back to the spearmen capability. Also tweaking number requirements a bit.

So after some discussion and feedback here's an updated list. I've included the Northern Army as specific units. I was debating on how big to make those units and at 700-800 men per unit, I figured 4 was about the right number to represent that. If I'm mistaken please let me know.. be nice to bump those up to units of 6

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


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] 0-2


Core Troops:
Line Infantry [12-36 Bases]:
1/2 MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Defensive Spearmen and 1/2 MF, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [14pts per 2] 6-8 base/BG
1/2 MF, Avg, Armoured, Drilled, Swordsmen and 1/2 MF, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [16pts per 2] 6-8 base/BG

Halberd Units [0-12 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Offensive Spear [8pts] 6 bases/BG
MF, Protected, Poor, Drilled, Offensive Spear [6pts] 6 bases/BG

Sword Units [0-12 Bases]:
MF, Armoured, Avg, Drilled, Swordsmen [9pts] 6 bases/BG
MF, Armoured, Poor, Drilled, Swordsmen [7pts] 6 bases/BG

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

Cavalry [4-24 Bases]:
Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Lance, Bow [11pts] 4-6 base/BG
Cav, Protected, Average, Drilled, Swordsmen, Bow [12pts] 4-6 base/BG

Skirmishing Horse [8-24 Bases]:
LH, Unprotected, Avg, Drilled, Bow, Lance [10pts] 4-6 Bases/BG


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, Undrilled, Bow [5pts] 4-6 bases/BG

Tribal Troops [0-12 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Avg, Undrilled, Light Spear [5pts] 4-6 base/BG
MF, Protected, Poor, Undrilled, Light Spear [3pts] 4-6 base/BG

Convicts [0-8 Bases]:
MF, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled, Javelins [2pts] 4-6 bases/BG

Military Strong Carts (Wu Gang Che) [0-6]:
LArt, Drilled [17pts] 2-4 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

The Garrison Cavalry (tunji) [0-6 Bases]:
Cav, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Swordsmen, Bow [15pts] 6 base/BG

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

As Nik has already pointed out, mixed battle groups of close fighters and crossbows were not standard practice in Han armies. (Despite the old 6th edition lists).

Our standard representation of such mixed battle groups is

1/2 HF, DSp
1/2 MF XBow

in battle groups of 6 only to deter players from forming them up 4 bases deep.

---------------------

You should also consider that battle groups in FOG do not usually represent individual units but groups of units.

To be honest I haven't played any other ancients system, though I do have copies of their army lists for Han, which to me seem a bit simplistic since there were massive technological and operational changes during the Han dynasty. That change is also why I tried to be a bit more specific in time line for the list and why there are no Chariots in it.

I do realise that BGs are larger groups of units, but the idea was to simulate that the crossbowmen would have defence against cavalry which in the north was their major opponent.

Ideas I considered were LF xbowmen that could evade back, xbow/defensive spear as a troop type, moving defenseive spear from the back to infront of MF crossbow, but none of these seemed to give the same flavour as the mixed unit since you can't fire over another formation on the same level.

If you have some links or titles for further reading on Han military organisation please send them to me. Most of my personal library deals with Song and the few reference materials I have ammassed for Han are limited in actual deployment vs arms/armour and compaign.

I'm reading this discussion with great interest! Thanks, Fugu, for the thoughtful work on the revised list ideas. Thanks to RBS for the clarification on mixed unit troop types.
Several questions--for any or all: if the spear and crossbow are in separate units, would the MF spear be defensive spear? I'm thinking yes, since the separate units of halberdiers as offensive spear makes the distinction between regular and conscript troops.

Re protected cavalry: what are the sources for lance & bow armed cavalry? Could the sword/bow cavalry be sword/crossbow? I recall reading that swords were not issued to regular/conscript foot troops due to expense--would cavalry have had these? (I haven't done any library research on Chinese armies in at least a dozen years, and have only recently been reviewing the gaming boards and Osprey publications, so I am behind the curve. )

Also, for clarity in other Han versions: what are the minimum and maximum sizes for Chariots in other lists?

MS

MarkSieber wrote: Several questions--for any or all: if the spear and crossbow are in separate units, would the MF spear be defensive spear? I'm thinking yes, since the separate units of halberdiers as offensive spear makes the distinction between regular and conscript troops.

I would say yes. If forced to have separate xbow and spear units I'd make them still defensive since they'd be the primary defence against steppes' cavalry.

Don't think of the Halberdiers and Defensive spear really as two different weapons... they'd most likely be the same weapon a "ji", but they'd perform differently.

MarkSieber wrote: Re protected cavalry: what are the sources for lance & bow armed cavalry? Could the sword/bow cavalry be sword/crossbow? I recall reading that swords were not issued to regular/conscript foot troops due to expense--would cavalry have had these? (I haven't done any library research on Chinese armies in at least a dozen years, and have only recently been reviewing the gaming boards and Osprey publications, so I am behind the curve. )

Also, for clarity in other Han versions: what are the minimum and maximum sizes for Chariots in other lists?

MS

I'm looking back for my references I would definitely believe you could exchange bow for xbow. From my recollections there are depictions of Han Cav with spears, swords and shields. Han cav are a bit different from foot troops as they're more the strike force of the army and were a bigger investment.

Also if you look at the time period this is at the change from bronze weapons to steel. This is both reflected in more steel lamalar armour on troops and more metal weapons available for troops since steel is substantially cheaper then bronze to produce.

Thoughts then on making the Line Infantry:

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

or

Line Infantry [12-36 Bases]:
MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen [8pts] 6 base/BG or
MF, Protected, Avg, Drilled, Crossbow, Defensive Spearmen [8pts] 6 base/BG
Option: Down grade to Poor @ -2pts per base

I'm reading this thread with interest as I have mostly Chinese armies in my 15mm ancients collection. I think most of the things suggested seem sensible, but I'd like to comment on a few things:

1) If the change of Chinese infantry from HF to MF is accepted, it will turn Chinese armies from some of the worst for terrain troops (under DBM) to some of the best - I'll have to start working on some terrain whilst I'm re-basing!!

2) Dare-to-die troops - it was mentioned that these could be classed as medieval sword and buckler men i.e. non-impact skilled swordsmen. While this might be appropriate for some periods, I believe that impact foot might better represent those who were specially selected as 'extraordinary forces' to assualt a specific point to acheive a breakthough in the enemy line/fortifications, or placed in ambush.

3) Chariots - I don't know if any decision has been made on what their shooting POAs could be, but I played them as bow (rather than bow*) last night and they were able to hold their own against cavalry and light horse shooters. I don't have any idea about what the strengths of chariot archery should be relative to cavalry/foot/light horse archery - does anyone else?

Intothevalley wrote:I'm reading this thread with interest as I have mostly Chinese armies in my 15mm ancients collection. I think most of the things suggested seem sensible, but I'd like to comment on a few things:

1) If the change of Chinese infantry from HF to MF is accepted, it will turn Chinese armies from some of the worst for terrain troops (under DBM) to some of the best - I'll have to start working on some terrain whilst I'm re-basing!!

Having never played DBM, sure I can see the argument either way. Looser formations to MF due to aways fighting against foes with a lot of missile fire, and HF For the movement penalties. I think though adding in the Cohesion Test adjustment if they were HF is a little wonky if you say matched them up against a Legion. MF still seems to "feel" better.

Intothevalley wrote: 2) Dare-to-die troops - it was mentioned that these could be classed as medieval sword and buckler men i.e. non-impact skilled swordsmen. While this might be appropriate for some periods, I believe that impact foot might better represent those who were specially selected as 'extraordinary forces' to assualt a specific point to acheive a breakthough in the enemy line/fortifications, or placed in ambush.

Impact Foot might be an option then for the unit. Being forced to take a test not to charge might also be realistic too in certain formations of them.