DBMM Forum
Armies => Book 4 => Topic started by: Barritus on January 29, 2011, 03:01:18 AM
-
List 48 - Yuan Chinese: - The Kan-t'ao-lu ally general is costed at 1AP when he should be 6AP;
- The Kan-t'ao-lu ally general is compulsory from 1265 to 1274, yet although he can only command Kan-t'ao-lu troops, the KTL troops themselves don't have a compulsory minimum (commands must contain at least 4ME of troops in addition to the general).
(Already mentioned on the DBMM list):
List 3 - Anglo-Norman: - The mercenary sub-general William of Ypres can only command mercenaries, and two mercenary troop types are listed below him. But the general list's Irr Kn(F/O) and Irr Sp (I) (and Irr Bw (O) after 1150) include troops described as mercenaries. Can William of Ypres command them too?
List 66 - Later Polish: - After 1454 you replace the Rycerz (7-16 Irr Kn (O)) with 4-12 Hussars (Reg Kn (F)). Does this mean you choose 7-16 Irr Kn (O), then replace 4-12 of them with Reg Kn (F)? Or does it mean that after 1454 you can no longer select Irr Kn (O), and instead choose only Hussars? I suspect the former, on the grounds that the notes speak of the army transitioning, with the process not complete until around 1560. But if that's the case, why was the word "replace" used instead of "upgrade" or "regrade" as is used in so many other similar cases?
-
List 64 - Medieval French: King John II is available as an Inert C-in-C in 1356, and the Jacuerie allies are available from 1356 to 1360. The notes say the Jacquerie revolt started after the defeat at Poitiers. So does this mean you can't use them with Inert King John II?
-
List 49 Anatolian Turkoman
Turkoman Ally-general Irr Lh(S) @ 12AP, should be @11AP
LES
-
Ottoman Turks: should the Serbian sub-general really be allowed Regular Baggage?
-
Not errata so much as checking whether this is what the list writers intended...
- Burgundian Ordonnance militia/mercenary handgunners from 1478 to 1506 are listed as "1-2 per crossbowmen" [sic]. Is that per militia/mercenary crossbowman, or every crossbowman in the army, including Ordonnance crossbowmen?
- Why can't the Lancastrian Wars of the Roses English army field any Scots? They were available in the DBM list, and Scots were widely noted as being part of the Lancastrian army which won the Second Battle of Saint Albans.
Okay, this is an erratum...
- Hundred Years War English: Flemish communal allies, listed as Book 4/37, it's actually 4/57.
-
- Free Company list: "There is no restriction on mixing nationalities except that an allied contingent supplied to a Communal Italian army must be only English and/or German or only Gascon and Breton." Should that be "Italian Condotta" instead of "Communal Italian"?
-
Free Company list: must English gentlemen be taken in multiples of 4, or is it good enough that the longbowmen must number between 50% and 75% of the number of English gentlemen?
-
Again, not so much an errata as a question...
Why is it that Burgundian Kn (O) in a Morean Byzantine army can dismount, but not the Acciajuoli Athenian Italians, the Frankish feudal vassals or the Papal mercenaries in the same list? The Athenian and Papal knights are both of condotta origin, aren't they?
-
Again, not so much an errata as a question...
Why is it that Burgundian Kn (O) in a Morean Byzantine army can dismount, but not the Acciajuoli Athenian Italians, the Frankish feudal vassals or the Papal mercenaries in the same list? The Athenian and Papal knights are both of condotta origin, aren't they?
Probably because no-one found a battle account of non-Burgy Kn actually dismounting in Morean service.
Phil isn't terribly consistent about this sort of things, mind.
-
List 21 - Anglo-Irish: From 1404 colonist billmen are available, but they're listed as Irr Bd (I) @ 5AP. Are they regular or are they 4AP? (I suspect the former.)
-
List 16 - Scots Common Army: Here's a beauty - the list allows you to buy "Small Folk" and camp followers (Irr Hd (O)), and says they can be used in a False Reinforcement Strategem. The rules say that False Reinforcements can only be used by armies with Bg (O), which is only available to the Scots from 1488. The problem is that this sort of stratagem was used at Bannockburn, more than 170 years earlier. So one of the more iconic moments of Scottish warfare can't be recreated because, supposedly, at this time, Scottish baggage was always stolen cattle. Who had the Scots stolen cattle from at the time of the Battle of Bannockburn? Themselves?
-
Who had the Scots stolen cattle from at the time of the Battle of Bannockburn? Themselves?
Bearing in mind the nature of the war - perhaps so :)
A good deal of land was either in the hands of Scots supporting Edward or English barons.
Archaeologists are apparently scouring the area around Borestone for signs of a Scottish camp and may have found a few bits and pieces. Whether the camp was enough to count as Bge may be the issue - i.e. would it have contained enough to embolden its owners by its presence and to disheartenen them through its loss.
-
Another question rather than an erratum...
In the Hundred Years War English list, there's a period of a few years where it's possible to have Brilliant Talbot as the English C-in-C, and also have Early Burgundians as allies, with Brilliant Phillip the Good as ally general.
This is the only case I'm aware of in which an army can field two Brilliant generals. For that reason alone I'm wondering whether it's intended or whether it should be allowed.
(Please note I'm not suggesting it's a bad thing from a play balance point of view - I recognise they can be hard to use, and two of them won't necessarily make things any better.)
-
Early Burgundians 1: The notes say
Bd (S) or (O) can support Bw (S) or (O) and vice versa.
There aren't any Bd (O) in the list.
EB2: The list saysOnly after 1464 AD:
Swiss...
Only from 1465 AD:
Regrade C-in-C...
In other words, the two options are available from the same year, and can therefore be listed together.
-
Lots of good work here, Barritus.
Thanks for the effort.
-
You're welcome. :)
-
Burgundian Ordonnance: According to the list, Burgundian and English longbowmen can be equipped with stakes as PO. So which troops can use them? For people armed with a bow of some sort, the list mentions: Household archers (mtd Bw (S)), Ordonnance mounted archers (mtd Bw (S)), Ordonnance foot archers (Bw (S)), English longbowmen (Bw (S)), and Ordonnance foot archers (Bw (O)).
So there's only one troop type where the troops are specifically called "longbowmen", which raises the question of which Burgundian troops can use PO. But if the implication is that PO is available to all missile armed blokes who aren't crossbowmen, then the later Ordonnance foot archers classified as Bw (O) would be the only such types I can think of who get PO.
-
The medieval German list needs:
(i) a note that only Territorial or Imperial CinC's can have subgenerals. [This was the stated intent of the change to subbies, but the list as printed fails to enforce it.]
(ii) a clarification of which origins those can be. [The line in the list suggests subs can be Territorial or Imperial, the list notes imply that only CinC's can ever be Imperial].
(iii) a line added to the internal allies section to allow a [FC] CinC to have [FC] ally-generals.
-
Komnenan Byzantine: This list allows you to take Venetian allies as a naval option. The land troops are a mix of Ax (S) and Bw (O), and the naval option will generally be Gal (F), although you can have some Shp (O) too. The list says the galleys can only take the Venetian Bw or Ax, while the ships can carry [any]. The problem is that the Venetian Ally General is marked as commanding all and only Venetians. The fact that the two different naval element types have different troop carrying options suggest the ships can carry non-Venetian troops, but the restriction specified by the AG would seem to rule this out.
The only thought which comes to mind is the possibility that the rules might allow naval elements from one command to carry troops from another. I've just had a quick look, and I can't see anything which prevents this.
Any thoughts?
-
More Medieval German:
From 1440, Kn (S) "rich knights" forming the Spitz of DBE wedges are available to all types of commands. They should probably be allowed to Imperial and Territorial commands only.
Also, Kn (I) "poor knights" are allowed to be DBE'd behind "rich knights" or generals. Should probably say Kn (S) generals, as the current wording allows them, if regraded mercenary men-at-arms, to be DBE'd behind City Kn (O) or Cantonal Kn (I) generals.
-
Wars of the Roses English: What are the year limits for the various options? I figure [Y] would be 1455-1482, [L] would be 1455-1471, [R3] would be 1483-1485, [T] would be 1485, and [YP] would be 1487. [H] is specified as 1489-1515.
But this still leaves gaps. What army would the Duke of Buckingham use for his 1484 revolt against Richard III, and what army does Henry VII use at Stoke in 1487?
The reason I ask is that I just checked a list for a comp which was labelled Lancastrian 1500. Technically there are no list benefits available, but it might affect a competition draw.
-
WOTR English again: Why the distinction for the two R3 entries in 1485? One is labelled "Only if C-in-C is Richard III in 1485AD" (optional upgrade of Richard III to Brilliant), while the other is labelled "Only in 1485AD" (compulsory downgrade of ally Lord Stanley as Inert). The lack of reference to Richard III in the second entry implies it's possible to have an R3 army in 1485 which is not commanded by Richard III (and thus can't have Kn (S) C-in-C or Kn (S) bodyguard men-at-arms), but which includes Lord Stanley. Was there ever such an army? If not, why not simply place both entries under the label "Only if C-in-C is Richard III in 1485AD"?
-
Wars of the Roses English: What are the year limits for the various options? I figure [Y] would be 1455-1482, [L] would be 1455-1471, [R3] would be 1483-1485, [T] would be 1485, and [YP] would be 1487. [H] is specified as 1489-1515.
But this still leaves gaps. What army would the Duke of Buckingham use for his 1484 revolt against Richard III, and what army does Henry VII use at Stoke in 1487?
The reason I ask is that I just checked a list for a comp which was labelled Lancastrian 1500. Technically there are no list benefits available, but it might affect a competition draw.
I think [T]udor covers Stoke as well, so is 1485-1488 effectively. Buckingham would I guess be [L], which I think should go all the way up to 1484. Its a list where Phil assumes a lot of knowledge (you have to know that you can't have a crowned Lancastrian king in 1483 for example). It should also cater for options that might have been, like a Lancastrian army in 1483, even if no battle took place that year. It also seems to completely ignore English armies in France.
-
In the Golden Horde and Successors list, the Crimean Khanate should perhaps be Cool rather than Cold, cf the Bosporan list.
-
A couple more WOTR English questions:
1. Is Lord Stanley compulsory if you take the army of Richard III at Bosworth? It's a case where a troop type is optional, but the alteration relating to it is compulsory.
2. Can stiffened billmen be mounted on horses?
-
And another WOTR issue: Do the compulsory minimums for allies apply to optional troops with compulsory minimums?
To use a specific example, imagine I want to put together a WOTR R3 army from the Battle of Bosworth, with two ally generals - Lord Stanley and the Duke of Northumberland. An R3 list can use the Northern border foot. These were troops raised by the Duke, and would logically be in his command. But according to the ally requirements, Lord Stanley would also need to have a least 2 elements of the border foot.
I wonder if this exeption should apply to the Shire levy troops too? Surely not all noblemen with independent retinues in these times would have been able to call up a levy, would they?
-
1. Is Lord Stanley compulsory if you take the army of Richard III at Bosworth? It's a case where a troop type is optional, but the alteration relating to it is compulsory.
I'd guess the intention is you have to take him, but it's not really clear.
2. Can stiffened billmen be mounted on horses?
By the letter of the list, I think not, as the retinue billmen are "replaced" by stiffened bills, and the horses are available only to retinue. But historically speaking it seems more than a little strange that if you mix two sorts of men, both of which can have horses, the mix can't have horses.
-
And now a question about list 39, Navarrese. Why free company troops can be commanded by Navarrese generals? Shouldn't they be commanded by a Free Company allied general only? Italians are so specified. ???
-
And now a question about list 39, Navarrese. Why free company troops can be commanded by Navarrese generals? Shouldn't they be commanded by a Free Company allied general only? Italians are so specified. ???
The Navarrese list includes the Navarrese Company. Plus Navarese armies operating in France included large numbers of mercenaries at times. These were often integrated into the Navarrese forces rather than an 'allied' command.
-
Ok. Thank you.
-
Morean Byzantine (that well known killer list ::)): If I take Ottoman allies, can I have the Serbian knights available in the Ottoman list? After all, the Serbs are listed as "if the Cin-C is the Sultan or the Grand Vizier", and there are options in the list which "need not be used in an ally contingent drawn from this list or if the C-in-C is not the Sultan or Grand Vizier". This leads me to assume that if you take an Ottoman ally contingent, it can be commanded by the Sultan or Grand Vizier if you so wish. And having so wished, that puts the Serbs on the table from 1390.
Order of St John: What can you include in your Navarrese Company ally command? The list says it "can include the Italian ally-general". If so, then obviously he's the command's general, seeing as a command can only have the one general. But what else? If I've got it right, the Navarrese command can include: 0-2 Navarrese Irr Kn (O), 2-14 Irr Ax (S), *0-4 Irr Bw (O), *0-4 Irr Ps (S), *1-3 Gascon Irr Kn (O), *1-3 Irr Sp (O), **1-2 Reg Kn (O), and **1-2 Reg Bw (O).
-
Morean Byzantine (that well known killer list ::)): If I take Ottoman allies, can I have the Serbian knights available in the Ottoman list? After all, the Serbs are listed as "if the Cin-C is the Sultan or the Grand Vizier", and there are options in the list which "need not be used in an ally contingent drawn from this list or if the C-in-C is not the Sultan or Grand Vizier". This leads me to assume that if you take an Ottoman ally contingent, it can be commanded by the Sultan or Grand Vizier if you so wish. And having so wished, that puts the Serbs on the table from 1390.
Just 1 problem all Serbian Vlastela must be commanded by a Serbian SG . :)
Order of St John: What can you include in your Navarrese Company ally command? The list says it "can include the Italian ally-general". If so, then obviously he's the command's general, seeing as a command can only have the one general. But what else? If I've got it right, the Navarrese command can include: 0-2 Navarrese Irr Kn (O), 2-14 Irr Ax (S), *0-4 Irr Bw (O), *0-4 Irr Ps (S), *1-3 Gascon Irr Kn (O), *1-3 Irr Sp (O), **1-2 Reg Kn (O), and **1-2 Reg Bw (O).
As the Italian AG can only command Italians ,so would the allied command be ,so its legal rule wise? :-\
1 Reg Kn (S)
2 Reg Kn(O)
2 Reg Bw (O)
LES
-
Medieval French: The Jacquerie allies are listed as 5-8 Hd (S) which must be commanded by a Jacquerie ally general who can command no other troops. As a command must contain at least 4ME of troops, a Jacquerie command can legally never contain less than 8 Hd (S)...
-
Medieval French: The Jacquerie allies are listed as 5-8 Hd (S) which must be commanded by a Jacquerie ally general who can command no other troops. As a command must contain at least 4ME of troops, a Jacquerie command can legally never contain less than 8 Hd (S)...
That's just an endearing quirk.
The actual problem is in DBMM 200, where the Jacquerie are reduced to 3-4, but you still need eight to fulfill the ME requirement.
-
The actual problem is in DBMM 200, where the Jacquerie are reduced to 3-4, but you still need eight to fulfill the ME requirement.
There are a few lists like that ,that end up illegal commands because of the reduced number of elements . :o
LES
-
Early Crusader: Why is it that the Kn (O) can't dismount in 1097, as some of them did at the Battle of Dorylaeum? I'm pretty sure that was in the old DBM list book.
-
Later Crusaders: This list can be used to provide an ally contingent to other lists, especially the Syrian list, and this offers some oddities.
1. Before 1188, the True Cross Bge (S) is listed as "0 or 1", rather than "0-1". By my understanding that allows it to be selected in an allied contingent. However it seems odd that such a talisman would be handed out to troops fighting with a Syrian army.
2. The downgrade for Guy de Lusignan's Inertness is compulsory from 1187 to 1190, meaning an allied contingent provided in those years could be similarly commanded. The idea of 8 Irr Kn (O) led by an Inert Irr Kn (O) ally general appeals to my sense of whimsy, as it's probably not what an opponent would expect to face in a Syrian army, and if loyal the knights would almost certainly go impetuous.
3. The upgrade for Richard I's Brilliance is another of those "available optional" troop types like the True Cross above. Once again it seems odd that a Syrian army dated 1191 to 1192 could have a Brilliant Crusader Ally general.
-
In 4/14, one of the things Jurchen cavalry can be is Reg Cv (I) @5AP. That should be @6AP.
-
As discussed on the Yahoo list, French Brigans in the Armagnac version of 4/74 ought be Bd (I) [rather than Sp (O)] as in French armies of that date.
-
In IV/76 Early Burgundian, Charles the Bold probably oughtn't be compulsory from 1467. He didn't command all Burgundian forces personally, and he's optional in the following Burgundian Ordonnance list.
-
Nikaian Byzantine: The list itself provides that after 1242 you can have 0 or 13-36 Cuman allies. But the list notes say that Cuman allies are compulsory after 1242.
Which is correct? The list or the notes?
-
Do you think after 1242 AD in the list could be wrong ? As then 0 or 13-36 would make sense,as you would have the choice wheather or not to take them before 1242 AD ? :-\
LES
-
Do you think after 1242 AD in the list could be wrong ? As then 0 or 13-36 would make sense,as you would have the choice wheather or not to take them before 1242 AD ? :-\
LES
Good thought.
I'm hoping the people who update the official list errata check this site regularly.
-
Checking an ancient DBM version of the list, I suspect the list note is a fossil - in the Chalcolithic, the list entry simply specified 13-26 Cuman elements, with no zero option.
-
List 18, Lithuanian and Samogitian: Lithuanian armies after 1360 can field Russian allies, including an ally general (commanding all and only Russians, 0 or 6-12 cavalry, 0-4 Irr Bw (I) and 0-2 Irr Sp (I). How can the cavalry be optional? If you don't take them the command will be illegally small (less than 4ME in addition to the general).
List 17, Later Crusader: How do you calculate Syrian allies for this list? In particular, how are Turkomans managed? The Syrian list provides Turkoman ally-generals which must command all and only Turkomans. But as the Turkoman ally-generals are optional, I assume that means the Turkomans can be fielded in a Syrian army under Syrian generals, which means in turn that they're automatically included in a Syrian allied contingent. (Just thinking out loud about a Later Crusader army of 1187 under Guy de Lusignan...)
-
List 18, Lithuanian and Samogitian: Lithuanian armies after 1360 can field Russian allies, including an ally general (commanding all and only Russians, 0 or 6-12 cavalry, 0-4 Irr Bw (I) and 0-2 Irr Sp (I). How can the cavalry be optional? If you don't take them the command will be illegally small (less than 4ME in addition to the general).
That's just one of oodles of examples of a list not being updated to reflect the introduction of that rule.
List 17, Later Crusader: How do you calculate Syrian allies for this list? In particular, how are Turkomans managed? The Syrian list provides Turkoman ally-generals which must command all and only Turkomans. But as the Turkoman ally-generals are optional, I assume that means the Turkomans can be fielded in a Syrian army under Syrian generals, which means in turn that they're automatically included in a Syrian allied contingent. (Just thinking out loud about a Later Crusader army of 1187 under Guy de Lusignan...)
You have to have them in Syrian ally unless it represents an early Arab dynasty [who can't have Turcomans at all] or the Abbasids [who can replace them with ghazis on foot].
-
List 23, Feudal English: the notes say that Welsh allies and standard wagons can't be used if the King is present in the army. What standard wagon? Is this a DBM fossil?
Also, as previously noted on the DBMM email list, the list provides for upgrading spearmen to North Welsh Irr Pk (F), but the only troops labelled "spearmen" already have that option. Presumably the reference is to the Levy.
List 43, Later Hungarian: from 1358 to 1390 this army can have Paduan Italian Condotta allies. How are these allies determined? That is, if you look at the Italian Condotta list, you can have Free Company allies in which the ally-general becomes the Italian army's C-in-C, commanding both Free Company and Italian troops. Would it be acceptable to calculate the Paduan allies as including Free Company troops, potentially including a Brilliant general in John Hawkwood? After all, the commander of an allied contingent can be selected from the C-in-C or sub-general options of the allied list.
(I just like the idea of Hungarians with Italian allies who happen to include English Free Company soldiers led by Sir John Hawkwood!)
List 3, Anglo-Norman: which troops count as mercenaries? With King Stephen you can optionally have a mercenary sub-general who commands all and only mercenaries, with Brabancon/Flemish mercenaries listed below. But the listings for Irr Kn (F) and Irr Sp (I) in the main list both allow for some to be mercenary.
-
List 3, Anglo-Norman: which troops count as mercenaries? With King Stephen you can optionally have a mercenary sub-general who commands all and only mercenaries, with Brabancon/Flemish mercenaries listed below. But the listings for Irr Kn (F) and Irr Sp (I) in the main list both allow for some to be mercenary.
List 3 – Anglo-Norman
William of Ypres may command Irr Kn(F) and Irr Sp(I) from the main part of the list if nominated as mercenary.
Genoese are mercenaries.
From ,
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0Kt-UDKfEY17fA60SBQVNLwkAoeJYszUfjT8VbgmqATEaA-cHZ1oBt0hvWZ1n5pl09bN5qvceLe3Y38We1_xbxHify2zeQ/DBMM%20List%20clarifications%20v2.0.1.pdf
LES :)
-
List 3, Anglo-Norman: which troops count as mercenaries? With King Stephen you can optionally have a mercenary sub-general who commands all and only mercenaries, with Brabancon/Flemish mercenaries listed below. But the listings for Irr Kn (F) and Irr Sp (I) in the main list both allow for some to be mercenary.
List 3 – Anglo-Norman
William of Ypres may command Irr Kn(F) and Irr Sp(I) from the main part of the list if nominated as mercenary.
Genoese are mercenaries.
From ,
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0Kt-UDKfEY17fA60SBQVNLwkAoeJYszUfjT8VbgmqATEaA-cHZ1oBt0hvWZ1n5pl09bN5qvceLe3Y38We1_xbxHify2zeQ/DBMM%20List%20clarifications%20v2.0.1.pdf
LES :)
Ah, cool. Thanks.
-
List 44, Post-Mongol Russian: From 1486 you upgrade militia Bw to shooters. Only the list specifies them to be Irr Sh (I) @ 5AP. The rules say all Sh (I) are Regular, and cost 5AP. So presumably these chaps should be Regular too.
-
Book 4- Mongol Conquest
Do 'we' think it's intentional that Mongol LH(S) dismount as Bw(I)?
Nothing specified and no normal reason to think otherwise, but within the list itself for some naval elements crew they are listed as LH(S) dismounted as Bw(O).....
Cheers,
Quilts
-
Book 4- Mongol Conquest
Do 'we' think it's intentional that Mongol LH(S) dismount as Bw(I)?
Nothing specified and no normal reason to think otherwise, but within the list itself for some naval elements crew they are listed as LH(S) dismounted as Bw(O).....
Oh dear. I wonder if that was a list fossil from DBM?
Otherwise, dismounting as Bw (I) makes me wonder if it'd be possible for Mongols to defeat Burmese elephants by dismounting and shooting?
-
Morean Byzantines again: An Albanian ally general is compulsory if you have more than 12 elements on Albanians. Does that include the Albanians in the Acciajuoli Athenian allied command? I'd say no, as those Albanians are nothing to do with the self-directed Albanian contingent. But a strict reading of the list suggests the AA Albanians count towards that total of 12; which means that if you take the AA allies, you must also field an Albanian ally general.
-
Book 4- Mongol Conquest
Do 'we' think it's intentional that Mongol LH(S) dismount as Bw(I)?
Nothing specified and no normal reason to think otherwise, but within the list itself for some naval elements crew they are listed as LH(S) dismounted as Bw(O).....
Oh dear. I wonder if that was a list fossil from DBM?
Otherwise, dismounting as Bw (I) makes me wonder if it'd be possible for Mongols to defeat Burmese elephants by dismounting and shooting?
Yes it's a fossil, but they could be Mongol Cv dismounted as Bw(o) :-)
ps the shooting the elephants was a Yuan army in 1277 (and that was mostly local tribal allies)
-
Book 4- Mongol Conquest
Do 'we' think it's intentional that Mongol LH(S) dismount as Bw(I)?
Nothing specified and no normal reason to think otherwise, but within the list itself for some naval elements crew they are listed as LH(S) dismounted as Bw(O).....
Oh dear. I wonder if that was a list fossil from DBM?
Otherwise, dismounting as Bw (I) makes me wonder if it'd be possible for Mongols to defeat Burmese elephants by dismounting and shooting?
Yes it's a fossil, but they could be Mongol Cv dismounted as Bw(o) :-)
ps the shooting the elephants was a Yuan army in 1277 (and that was mostly local tribal allies)
Local tribal allies? Not Mongols getting off their horses?
If Mongols, however, the same issue arises as Quilts mentioned - Yuan LH (S) dismount as Bw (I).
-
The Bt(s) [Europe option] represents Mongke who as C-in-C in Russia in 1237 AD dismounted 20,000 men and placed them on boats. They then rowed up the Volga fighting a series of land battles, naval skirmishes and amphibious assaults.
It should have been :
Only in Europe after 1213 AD:
Irr Bts (S) @ 3AP [LH (S) dismounted as Bw (I), or Cv (O) dismounted as Bw (O)]
but we all missed it...
Sorry...
As for the Burma incident Polo describe the whole Mongol force as dismounting, however Il Millione (his contemporary nickname) was writing a book of 'amazing tales' rather than something strictly accurate. Chinese records show a local commander with 700 "Mongols" and thousands of troops from allied "tribes". Other records suggest the the "Mongols" were an ex Jin unit (two generations later!).
Tom..
-
Anyway, in distant shooting, Bw (I) perform the same as Bw (O) against elements that don't shoot back.
-
Just got around to applying for membership recently so sorry for the delay in responding. Way back in 2011, Barritus queried late Anglo-Irish Billmen - they should be Irr Bd(I) at 4AP. Essentially, they were the same as contemporary WotR Shire levy and undrilled.
Cheers
Mick
-
Book 4, List 1: Komnenan Byzantine: The list allows you to take Seljuk Turk allies from 1081 to 1116 (IIRC), but doesn't specify which versions of the list. On that basis, it seems I could take Inert Kerbogah's Hamadan Seljuk Turks as allies, which doesn't seem right.
Should there be a tighter definition of which Seljuks the Byzantines can take as allies?
-
List 15, Qara-Khitan: Stuff about Khwarizmian allies doesn't make much sense.
Firstly, Khwarizmian allies are available from 1172, when the list itself doesn't start until 1186. Now there are many cases where a generic ally is available before the list itself (Numidians in a Syracusan list, for example), but in this case the Khwarizmian list notes clearly say the list starts with the foundation of the Khwarizmian state. How then can they be available as allies up to 14 years prior to the founding of their state?
Secondly, the allies are available until 1206. Yet the Qara-Khitan list notes say that "a Khwarizmian army helped the Qara-Khitai subdue a rebellion in Bukhara in 1207." So why aren't Khwarizmians available at least until then?
The next question would be, what troops can a Khwarizmian allied command include?
-
The next question would be, what troops can a Khwarizmian allied command include?
It must include Khwarizmian lancers and Qangli LH (F) (up to ½ of which can be upgraded to Cv (O)), and may optionally include militia archers and Qangli foot (iff any Qangli LH are upgraded).
Weirdly, it seems you can't have any Turkomans, as their minimum applies only if more than eight are used, and their maximum of 24 becomes 8 in an allied contingent.
-
List 15, Qara-Khitan: Stuff about Khwarizmian allies doesn't make much sense.
Firstly, Khwarizmian allies are available from 1172, when the list itself doesn't start until 1186. Now there are many cases where a generic ally is available before the list itself (Numidians in a Syracusan list, for example), but in this case the Khwarizmian list notes clearly say the list starts with the foundation of the Khwarizmian state. How then can they be available as allies up to 14 years prior to the founding of their state?
Secondly, the allies are available until 1206. Yet the Qara-Khitan list notes say that "a Khwarizmian army helped the Qara-Khitai subdue a rebellion in Bukhara in 1207." So why aren't Khwarizmians available at least until then?
The next question would be, what troops can a Khwarizmian allied command include?
1. The Khwarazam list need a bit more work. In 1097 Qutb ad-Dunya wa ad-Din Abul-Fath Muhammad Arslantegin ibn Anushtegin set himself as the first Shah of Khwarazam. He paid tribute to the Seljuk Sultan. When the Khitan set up the Western Liao empire, the Khwarazami's became subjects. His grandson Ala ad-Dunya wa ad-Din Abul Muzaffar Tekish ibn Il-Arslan used Khitan troops to overthrow his older brother and become shah. Tekish then progressively expanded his power (at the expense of other Seljuk and Khitan subject states). In 1198 the Calif appointed him (well with Baghdad under threat he had little choice) Sultan of Iraq, Khorasan, and Turkestan. By his death in 1200 Khwarizan was the most powerful stated in the Islamic world, only the neighbouring Ghurids could challenge him. It suited both sides to maintain the political stance that Khwarizam was still a tributary state in the Quara Khitai empire. The wars of 1206-8 caused the Ghurid empre to collapse and the Khwarizamis adsorbed the Western half. Khwarizam was now a huge powerful state but in 1218 the ruling elite deliberately chose to oppose the Mongols.
2. Khwarizami armies were supplied to the Empire at various stages between 1176 and 1204. At various times the Empire provided Khitan troops to it's subjects (though the subjects were obliged to pay and supply them) and a large contingent fought with the Khwarizamis in the conquest of Ghur in 1207.
3. With the current lists, an allied contingent of Khwarazami for the Empire would be:
Ally Gen - Reg Cv (S) @ 25AP 1
Khwarizmian lancers - Reg Cv (S) @ 10AP 2-6
Qangli and similar horse archers - Irr LH (F) @ 4AP 2-10
This is not unreasonable.
-
More Medieval German:
From 1440, Kn (S) "rich knights" forming the Spitz of DBE wedges are available to all types of commands. They should probably be allowed to Imperial and Territorial commands only.
Also, Kn (I) "poor knights" are allowed to be DBE'd behind "rich knights" or generals. Should probably say Kn (S) generals, as the current wording allows them, if regraded mercenary men-at-arms, to be DBE'd behind City Kn (O) or Cantonal Kn (I) generals.
Semi related to this is the Mercenary men-at-arms available from 1234. By the wording they become 'poor knights' from 1440, but was that the intent?
Seems odd that the worldly mercenaries would suffer the fate of the feudal chaps regarding declines in equipment/training/etc.
Cheers,
Dave
-
Later Crusaders: This list can be used to provide an ally contingent to other lists, especially the Syrian list, and this offers some oddities.
1. Before 1188, the True Cross Bge (S) is listed as "0 or 1", rather than "0-1". By my understanding that allows it to be selected in an allied contingent. However it seems odd that such a talisman would be handed out to troops fighting with a Syrian army.
2. The downgrade for Guy de Lusignan's Inertness is compulsory from 1187 to 1190, meaning an allied contingent provided in those years could be similarly commanded. The idea of 8 Irr Kn (O) led by an Inert Irr Kn (O) ally general appeals to my sense of whimsy, as it's probably not what an opponent would expect to face in a Syrian army, and if loyal the knights would almost certainly go impetuous.
3. The upgrade for Richard I's Brilliance is another of those "available optional" troop types like the True Cross above. Once again it seems odd that a Syrian army dated 1191 to 1192 could have a Brilliant Crusader Ally general.
And why does Richard have to be Reg Kn(S) AND Brilliant? It's all or none which I suspect was an oversight.
Cheers,
Dave
-
List 82: French Ordonnance.
The Voulgiers of the arriere ban seem unusually expensive. This list has them as Irr BD(I) @ 5AP or Irr Mtd BD(I) @ 6AP
Is this correct?
-
List 82: French Ordonnance.
The Voulgiers of the arriere ban seem unusually expensive. This list has them as Irr BD(I) @ 5AP or Irr Mtd BD(I) @ 6AP
Is this correct?
No, they should be 4 and 5 AP respectively.
-
4/44 Po-Mo Russian has:
Upgrade militia Bw to handgunners - Irr Sh (I) @ 5AP, and Cossack Ps to handgunners - Irr Ps (S) @ 3AP All
Since for whatever reason the rules only provide for Reg Shot, those Russian militiamen would have to become Reg Sh (I) @ 5AP
-
4/44 Po-Mo Russian has:
Upgrade militia Bw to handgunners - Irr Sh (I) @ 5AP, and Cossack Ps to handgunners - Irr Ps (S) @ 3AP All
Since for whatever reason the rules only provide for Reg Shot, those Russian militiamen would have to become Reg Sh (I) @ 5AP
The definition of Ps(s) includes handgunners. Shot are handgunners who fight in ranks.
Tom..
-
4/44 Po-Mo Russian has:
Upgrade militia Bw to handgunners - Irr Sh (I) @ 5AP, and Cossack Ps to handgunners - Irr Ps (S) @ 3AP All
Since for whatever reason the rules only provide for Reg Shot, those Russian militiamen would have to become Reg Sh (I) @ 5AP
The definition of Ps(s) includes handgunners. Shot are handgunners who fight in ranks.
Tom..
True, but I don't see the relevance. The problem is with the Sh, not the Ps.
-
4/44 Po-Mo Russian has:
Upgrade militia Bw to handgunners - Irr Sh (I) @ 5AP, and Cossack Ps to handgunners - Irr Ps (S) @ 3AP All
Since for whatever reason the rules only provide for Reg Shot, those Russian militiamen would have to become Reg Sh (I) @ 5AP
The definition of Ps(s) includes handgunners. Shot are handgunners who fight in ranks.
Tom..
True, but I don't see the relevance. The problem is with the Sh, not the Ps.
He thought the OP "Since for whatever reason the rules only provide for Reg Shot, those Russian militiamen would have to become Reg Sh (I) @ 5AP"
meant "All militia handgunners would have to be Reg Sh(I), not Ps(S)".
WHat he actually meant was "All militia shot would have to be Reg, not Irreg (because there are no Irregular Shot in in the rules)"
-
The enemies list for French Ordonnance is:
E: 4/13, 4/61, 4/62, 4/68, 4/58, 4/76, 4/83, 4/85.
Note that 4/58 is out of order. It's also a list - Medieval Irish -
that I'm unsure should be in the list in the first place, so maybe
it's a typo for something else, tho no list in the gap between 4/68
and 4/76 seems a likely candidate.
Also, despite explicitly covering rebel as well as royal armies, the
list fails to list itself as an enemy.
-
Later Hungarians: Not sure if this has been mentioned earlier, but there's a bit of unclarity regarding sub-generals in this list...
After 1492 you can upgrade sub-generals to regular as Reg Kn (O). However it doesn't say which sub-generals, and the LH list has both Hungarian and Szekeler sub-generals. As the list makes no distinction of which sub-generals can be upgraded, this suggests they all can be.
So...is it permitted to upgrade the Szekeler sub-general to regular? Should it be?
-
It is possible, though I don't know if it should be.
Cheers
Mick
-
The GERMAN MEDIEVAL Army list (413) includes the following option:
Only from 1440 AD: Bohemian mercenary crossbowmen – double based with ½ Reg Bw (X) @ 7AP in front, ½ Reg Bw (I) @ 2 AP behind.
From what I read in the rules only Bw(S) and (O) can be double based with Bw(X).
Is this Option to be ignored then ?
Thanks
Axel
-
The GERMAN MEDIEVAL Army list (413) includes the following option:
Only from 1440 AD: Bohemian mercenary crossbowmen – double based with ½ Reg Bw (X) @ 7AP in front, ½ Reg Bw (I) @ 2 AP behind.
From what I read in the rules only Bw(S) and (O) can be double based with Bw(X).
Is this Option to be ignored then ?
That seems to be what's happening in practice - I'm not aware of anyone having used it. (Which is a shame as the troops are historically significant.)
The easiest fix would be to treat the rear rank as (O), but there appears to be insufficient interest in using them for a consensus to materialize. It doesn't help that the Medieval German list is also buggy and ambiguous in other respects, so people tend to avoid it.
You also get the Bw (X/I) types in the Hussite list, but that one isn't terribly popular either.
-
List 62 HYW English
There seems to be a paucity of English longbow in the main body of the list.
Then Only before 1370 none
In 1371 0 to8 bases of Bw.(S)
in 1333 there are indentured BW(S)
Only before 1402 South Welsh Bk. 3/13
But it seems a bit of a jumble
-
List 62 HYW English
There seems to be a paucity of English longbow in the main body of the list.
Then Only before 1370 none
In 1371 0 to8 bases of Bw.(S)
in 1333 there are indentured BW(S)
Only before 1402 South Welsh Bk. 3/13
But it seems a bit of a jumble
G'day Offa
It's not quite as bad as you think. The bulk of the longbowmen are specific to certain date ranges, and tied to the number of English Kn (I) you field:
1322 - 1332:
0-8 Irr Bw (S)
1333 - 1370:
0-8 Irr Bw (S)
1-2 Reg Bw (S) per Kn (I)
1371 - 1414:
1-2 Reg Bw (S) per Kn (I)
1415 - 1422:
3-6 Reg Mtd Bw (S) per Kn (I) (optionally with PO if in France)
1423 - 1455:
3-8 Reg Mtd Bw (S) per Kn (I) (optionally with PO if in France)
So for the earlier famous battles (Crecy and Poitiers) you have the second option, and for Agincourt you have the fourth option. You just have to check up for each period how many Kn (I) you can have:
1322 - 1349:
8-16 Reg Kn (I)
1350 - 1414:
4-12 Reg Kn (I)
1415 - 1455:
3-6 Reg Kn (I)
What this means is that the proportion of longbowmen gradually increases in the army over the course of the list, and they get steadily more powerful, adding horses to become mounted infantry, and then adding PO to improve their factors against mounted.