Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

Looking at the example on page 87 - am I correct in that in following situation:

Medium Swordsmen @ 6pts 2-4
Bowmen @ 7pts 2-4

Replace some Medium Foot Swordsmen and Bowman with mixed formation:
1/2 Medium Foot swordsmen
1/2 Bowmen @8pts 0-4

That I am only required to buy 2 x Mixed Formations to comply with the minimum Compulsory unit requirements (or must I buy 4)?

I am probably being dim about this and somewhere it states the answer very clearly
Thanks
Mark

[SteveR]

I am not seeing the example on page 87 you are referring to.

If the list is as you state it, I think you are required to buy 4 units in the base case.

You may not reduce this required number to 2 by replacing them. - each mixed unit does not count as 2.


I would have to see the exact list you are looking at to be sure. Because some lists have cases where mixed units are not replaced 1 for 1 and this is covered in the notes

[Mark G Fry]

[SteveR]

Hi Mark,

Okay, I understand. Let's use list 21 as an example.

You need 2-6 MSW and 2-6 Bow.

Up to 6 of them may be replaced by mixed shooters.

You can still buy the other 6 if you wish.

So the Mitanni smust have a minimum of 4 foot. 2 of each type. Each of those may be replaced by a mixes shooter but a replaced unit just counts as 1.

There are other lists where the replacement ratio is explicit - take a look at the note for 246 Burgundian Oronnance for example.

[Mark G Fry]

[kevinj]

I've always worked on the principle that replacement would be on a one for one basis i these cases. Looking at the Texcalan list (290, p263):

There are 4-12 Telcpocalli Warriors (M Sw) and 4-12 Bowmen.
You may "Replace some archers and/or warriors by mixed units 0-6"

I don't interpret that as meaning that I can have 4 mixed units and that would satisfy both minima, so I would need a minimum of 8 units of which up to 6 could be mixed. The other 2 could be any combiation of archers/warriors.

[Mark G Fry]

[SteveR]

Hi Mark,

Can you explain exactly what wording on page 87 you are referring to?

Because page 87 does not give an example of the case we are discussing, and the note about the Florence option looks to explain the example rather than promulgate a general rule about replacements.

The "one stand of spearmen and one stand of crossbowmen" seems to me to show how one can represent the mixed unit using legacy DBM bases. Each of which is 1/2 of an ADLG unit.

Kevin is right.

[Mark G Fry]

[Dickstick]

Do reread p87 Florence example.and see that 2 spear and 2 crossbow become 4 mixed units.
There are only two of each available to start with.
So no 4 plus 4 equals 4.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Mark G Fry]

[Dickstick]

Not quite.
The Hurri-Mitanni list still requires 4 minimum of Shukituhli / Aweluti / Alike ilki up to a maximum of 12.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[kevinj]

[Mark G Fry]

Hence my questions as there doesn't appear to be any actual consistency.

You are right about the p.87 example not being a 'real' list and unfortunately it is actually not that helpful.

In the actual Condottieri - Florentine list #235 it just states: "replace all crossbow militia by mixed units" 0-2 - so no reference to needing any of the militia Spearmen to make-up these mixed units.
In the Communal Italian #189 from 1200AD section it states: "replace some Crossbowmen with mixed units" 0-4 - so again, no reference to needing any spearmen to achieve this change.
The Texcalan list #290 states: " Replace some archers an/or Warriors by mixed units" 0-6, when the Warriors are 4-12 and the Bowmen 4-12.
But that would seem to imply that you could just change the 4 compulsory Bowmen to mixed units and leave all the Warriors as MF swordmen.
So you are correct in the observation that the Texcalan list bears the closest resemblance to the Hurri-Mittani challenge.

NB: just why the Burgundian Ordonnance works a completely different way is another 'mystery' - especially as the troop type never appears to have existed - and even the contemporary illustration we have of the (hypothetical) unit actually shows a mix of polearm armed infantry and longbowmen (with stakes) which is a lot more plausible than pikes (IMHO).

So for now (unless stated specifically - as in the odd Burgundian Ordonnance example) I'll be trying to run with 1 unit changed creates a mixed unit - but I suspect it is something that might need to be looked at, at some point, as the 'logic' seems to be inconsistent and swapping out 1 for 1 does create a bit of an issue (on occassions).
Thanks
Mark

[Hazelbark]