Armies > Book 1

Some Book 1 errata

(1/10) > >>

Barritus:
If they haven't been raised already, someone might like to mention these on the DBMM list...

1. List 35 - Cypriot and Phoenician: This list covers Cyprus until 380BC. It says that Cypriots from 700BC can have Ionian Greek allies, with an additional note that this means Dark Age and Geometric Greek until 665BC, then Early Hoplite Greek. But the EHG list ends in 449BC. What does this mean for the period 448BC to 380BC? (a) You use EHG allies out of period, (b) you use LHG allies even though they're not mentioned, or (c) you can't use Ionian Greek allies after 448BC?

2. List 41 - Medes, Zikurtu, Andia or Parsua: The basic list allows a Commander-in-Chief and 0-1 sub-generals. All lists before 620BC also get 0-2 ally generals. Medes from 620BC also get 1-2 sub-generals and 0-1 allies. This suggests Zikurtu, Andia and Parsua from 620BC get only the option of a single sub-general in addition to their C-in-C. It also suggests the Medes from 620BC are allowed 1-3 sub-generals and 0-1 ally generals. Neither of these proposals sounds correct.

3. List 55 - Latin, Early Roman, Early Etruscan and Umbrian Italian: The main list allows generals before 400BC to be mounted in chariots, and provides costings for Commanders-in-Chief and ally generals. The Etruscans are allowed a sub-general, who is specified as being on a horse. There is no provision for him to be mounted on a chariot. Is this intended?

Orcoteuthis:

--- Quote ---2. List 41 - Medes, Zikurtu, Andia or Parsua: The basic list allows a Commander-in-Chief and 0-1 sub-generals. All lists before 620BC also get 0-2 ally generals. Medes from 620BC also get 1-2 sub-generals and 0-1 allies. This suggests Zikurtu, Andia and Parsua from 620BC get only the option of a single sub-general in addition to their C-in-C. It also suggests the Medes from 620BC are allowed 1-3 sub-generals and 0-1 ally generals. Neither of these proposals sounds correct.
--- End quote ---

IIUC, Zikirtu, Andia, and Parsua had ceased to exist as independent states by 620, so how many generals they get in the later period is academic. (Yes, Phil apparently expects wargames to know how long obscure Old Iranian principatilities lasted.)

While the list could be more clearly presented, I am not sure why the Median Empire should not have 1-3 subs and 0-1 allies? The last draft had the 1-3 subs only - the optional ally was added to the published list, presumably in response to my plea that allygens should be allowed to the end of the list (the last Median king, Astyages, being betrayed to Cyrus by Harpagus (according to Herodotus) or "his [Astyages'] army" (according to a contemporary Babylonian tablet)). Three irregular subs is not unusual for reasonably integrated kingdoms, and is even allowed to a few mass migrations like the Sea Peoples!

Barritus:
Orcoteuthis said:
--- Quote ---IIUC, Zikirtu, Andia, and Parsua had ceased to exist as independent states by 620, so how many generals they get in the later period is academic. (Yes, Phil apparently expects wargames to know how long obscure Old Iranian principatilities lasted.)
--- End quote ---

Well, this is the thing. If you look at the Latin, Early Roman, Early Etruscan and Umbrian Italian list (55), you'll see the notes specify until when the various states are covered by the list - the Etruscans until 600BC, the Romans until 578BC, and so on. Due to my complete lack of knowledge of Zikirtuan, Andian and Parsuan history, I assumed the lack of such information in list 41 indicated these states existed until the end date of the list. At the very least, I assume Parsua had to survive to 550BC in order to be the ancestor list of the Early Achaemenid Persian list.

To be honest, I doubt it'll be a major problem - it isn't likely to be a popular list. But it suggests a sloppiness that has me worried that other lists which look fine might not be.


--- Quote ---While the list could be more clearly presented, I am not sure why the Median Empire should not have 1-3 subs and 0-1 allies? The last draft had the 1-3 subs only - the optional ally was added to the published list, presumably in response to my plea that allygens should be allowed to the end of the list (the last Median king, Astyages, being betrayed to Cyrus by Harpagus (according to Herodotus) or "his [Astyages'] army" (according to a contemporary Babylonian tablet)). Three irregular subs is not unusual for reasonably integrated kingdoms, and is even allowed to a few mass migrations like the Sea Peoples!

--- End quote ---

Fair enough - I hadn't realised three irregular subs were that common.

Orcoteuthis:

--- Quote ---At the very least, I assume Parsua had to survive to 550BC in order to be the ancestor list of the Early Achaemenid Persian list.
--- End quote ---
It survived, but as a vassal of the Medes: "Parsuan vassal troops in a Median army are assumed to be the same as Medes". The Medes' fall to the Persians was less a case of one empire being conquered by another than of one group replacing another as the dominant one within a single empire.

I'm not sure if we ever hear of Persians fighting outside Median armies before Cyrus' revolt: if they occured they can probably be treated as just another imperial Median army on the logic that the troops are assumed to be identical anyway.

MarcP:
Small piece of errata. List 62 Lykian has an option to upgrade warriors to Lykian hoplites - Irr Sp(O) @ 3AP.

Irr Sp(O) are 4AP. I assume the costs are wrong and should be 4. Irr Sp(I) is a bit weak compared to the neighbours

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page