The Chatagai fought the Ilkhanids at Herat in 1270 and according to some, the Ilkhanids had more heavier cavalry, or that they had better horses. Mongol Best-Equipped cavalry's armour ratings are the same in the game, if you want to simulate that you have to change the armour ratings of the Ilkhani...

Can you suggest a composition for the list? I think the Chagatai army composition is similar to the Ilkhanids. With the majority of Mongol units and some Muslim units like a proportion of Turcoman cavalry, with Muslim irregular foot, javalinmen and archers(from the Chagatai-ruled Islamic regions li...

I found the current Chagatai army list in the game only covers the Chagatai army from 1338 to 1500 AD, but the Chagatai Khanate already existed in 1226(or independently from 1266). Lacking the Chagatai army list before 1338 AD makes many battles that occurred in this period can't be simulated, like ...

… whenever I'm playing with my friend, I have to notice him through social media that I have finished my turn, and he also has to do the same to me… The social media: Would that be Discord or some other online chat system? I'm using the LINE because I also use it for IRL business, but sometimes I u...

My friend and I would play this game sooo much if it had live multiplayer. We don't like getting booted back to the menu between turns. I think that is a must, whenever I'm playing with my friend, I have to notice him through social media that I have finished my turn, and he also has to do the same...

Many thanks for the share.

Interestingly this noticed me ask Mr.Richard to add some appropriate units to the Yorkist 1486-1497 list. I remember the Margaret of Burgundy provided about two thousand of these men to the Yorkists, Perhaps one Landsknecht keil and some handgunners will be fit. The list already has pikemen and han...

At Stoke Field, there was a substantial German mercenary contingent on the Yorkist side... but I'm not clear if they really confronted the enemy's men at arms on foot, or were simply immobilized by the rout of friendly contingents and then riddled with arrows. According to Jean Molinet, it's more l...

Or perhaps we can have a naval battle mode in the future.

You can see the general practice by browsing through the units. - Unarmored: no shield, no armour. -- Lightly Protected: small shield and/or little armour. -Protected: Shield, little armour (e.g. a helmet), or no shield and decent armour. --Some Armour: Shield, some armour. Typically reserved for m...

You can see the general practice by browsing through the units. - Unarmored: no shield, no armour. -- Lightly Protected: small shield and/or little armour. -Protected: Shield, little armour (e.g. a helmet), or no shield and decent armour. --Some Armour: Shield, some armour. Typically reserved for m...

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:33 am Armour Ratings are relative to other contemporary troops

No offense, but relative to other contemporary troops might be a bit subjective. At least should give some kind of classification standards(based on the former), or theories, which will make the results more convincing.

Armour Ratings are relative to other contemporary troops, so fixed definitions would not be appropriate. Even relative to the other contemporary troops but there's still need the definition standards,or how do you classify their armour ratings(same as the types of unit)? Probably the conditions cou...

To solve the problem of the classifications of the armour levels,I've seen there're armour level descriptions in the table top rule book,like: Armoured: Metal armour at least for the head and thorax – combined, in the case of foot, either with a substantial shield or with additional metallic protect...

Having started playing the tabletop FOG in 2008 I will say some people felt the armor ratings were oversimplified, particularly for the later armies. It seems to me that one of the benefits of the PC version is having more granular armor classifications. If I recall RBS may have mentioned that at s...

Having started playing the tabletop FOG in 2008 I will say some people felt the armor ratings were oversimplified, particularly for the later armies. It seems to me that one of the benefits of the PC version is having more granular armor classifications. If I recall RBS may have mentioned that at s...

What about instead of throwing out the entire armor classification address the individual cases of controversy? I had been suggested about to adjust the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Relative to the other contemporary troops,some of them's armour ratings need to be upgrade,but it wa...

What about instead of throwing out the entire armor classification address the individual cases of controversy? I had been suggested about to adjust the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Relative to the other contemporary troops,some of them's armour ratings need to be upgrade,but it wa...

A new "Pike and Shot" game, ultimately covering 16th to 19th century land warfare from all over the world, would be amazing. Personally I'd much rather see that done on a different, more up-to date engine though. Using something with more flexible handling of mixed formations, models, ani...

In the last month,I had posted a topic about the armour ratings of several Late Medieval units.Overall,the problem is the definition of these two armour ratings.I remember,one of the definition characteristics of the "Protected" is "mixed battle groups of unarmoured and armoured men r...