Some Book 1 errata

[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]

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.

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:

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.)

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.

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!

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

[Orcoteuthis]

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.

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

[MarcP]

Concensus on the Yahoo list seems to suggest Irr Sp(O) @4AP as "They where not effete"

[Barritus]

Another Cypriot/Phoenician list erratum: The list doesn't allow for the regrading of the one permitted sub-general.

[Barritus]

Thracians: Why oh why are the Thracians limited to *3* Horde (I)? They cost 1.5AP in total, leaving you with a useless 0.5AP. Given the wobbliness of troop numbers/scale in the DBMM period, what's wrong with letting them have 4 elements?

[Orcoteuthis]

Speaking of Thracians, a lowland subbie converted to Irr Ax (S) should be 14AP.

[Barritus]

Tullian Romans: I note that while Sp (I) can support Sp (O) in this list, no troops are listed as being able to support Sp (S). This is a problem as the only troops which can be Sp (S) in the list are the generals.

[Barritus]

Paionian LH (O) sub-generals are costed at 15AP when they should be 14AP.

[Orcoteuthis]

Possible erratum:

In list 1/6 Early Bedouin, an Amurru CinC can be Pk (I) from 2200 to 2000 BC. No other Pk are available in the list.

Is that as should be? Or am I missing something?

[Orcoteuthis]

Another oddity: 1/49 Early Vietnamese have shieldless spearmen as Ps (I). They might make more sense as Ax (I), or perhaps Pk (F), depending on the length of the weapons.

[Orcoteuthis]

List note oddity: the notes for 1/43 Kimmerian, Skythian, and Early Hu make mention of the Tung-hu and Dung-hu tribes. The later seems to be an orthographical conflation of the former and it's pinyin equivalent Donghu, not a separate tribe.

(Dung-hu is not a posssible word in Phil's favoured Wade-Giles transliteration. Conceivably it reflects some third transliteration scheme.)

[Barritus]

3rd Dynasty of Ur: Which direction does the Amorite Wall face?
 
Later Amorite: Is Iasmah-Adad (Inert general) Assyrian? I'm guessing he is given the similarity of the name to the named Assyrian king in the list notes. It's only a minor thing, but there are slight aggression factor and terrain differences between the lists.
 
Kimmerian etc list: Tung-hu can have Cv (S) nobles, but there's no need to upgrade the generals, which seems odd.
 
Later Sargonid Assyrians: They have Saitic Egyptian allies available after 627BC, and again in 609BC. Is the second entry necessary? Or can you have two allied contingents (doubtful)?