Author Topic: Book 3 errata  (Read 11158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

toby

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2013, 10:11:17 AM »
Indeed.  Not sure whether this is another of the horrible typos that affect the whole of Book 3, or a real mistake and the line belongs in the Book 4 Post Mongol Russian list.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2013, 06:55:54 PM »
III/79 Early Russian

the list dates are: 1054 - 1246,  but the list includes..

Only after 1265
German Mercenary Knights


yours..  puzzled of Canberra
I find an old email of mine saying I believe it's a typo for 1235, but I wasn't considerate enough to say why I thought so!

Duncan Head

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2013, 07:06:02 PM »
Judging from my dbmmlist msg 52455, the date 1235 was at one time in the draft list.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2013, 07:06:46 PM »
I find an old email of mine saying I believe it's a typo for 1235, but I wasn't considerate enough to say why I thought so!
The source of my belief may have been this message by Lawrence Dunn:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DBMMlist/conversations/topics/43226

Duncan Head

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #34 on: November 26, 2013, 08:04:48 PM »
In the first Book 3 draft I have on file - 13 June 2007 - it was:
"Only after 1150 AD:
Upgrade German Kn as double-based Reg Kn (I) @ 10AP if front element, 8AP if rear element  All"

In the July 21 draft it had become:
"Only after 1235 AD:
Upgrade German Kn as double-based wedge of ½ Reg Kn (O) @ 12AP, ½ Reg Kn (I) @ 8AP   All"

And it was still 1235 in 22 September, which is the latest draft I have on file.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2013, 08:27:23 PM »
In the Oct 9th draft, it had mysteriously become 1265. It's not marked as a change.

Duncan Head

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2013, 09:03:17 PM »
Oh b*ll*x. It was my fault entirely. Msg 53194, 25 September:

Quote
German knightly inconsistency

This one's been mentioned several times before, but not fixed: in list 73
 Communal Italian and list 77 Papal Italian, German knights have the_option_
 to be in a wedge after 1265; but in list 79 Early Russian they _must_ be in
 a wedge after 12_35_. Since there seems to be no evidence for 13th-century
 wedges, and they've been left in mainly for backwards compatibility, I
 suggest:

 Delete -
 Only after 1235 AD:
 Upgrade German Kn as double-based wedge of ½ Reg Kn (O) @ 12AP, ½ Reg Kn (I)
 @ 8AP All

 Replace with -
 Only after 1265 AD:
 German mercenary knights forming rear element of double-based wedge - Reg Kn
 (I) @ 8AP 0 or 1 per German Kn (O)

Just for once, Phil did exactly what I asked. And it was wrong.

 

Doug M.

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2013, 02:38:50 AM »
Ah well Duncan, at least we now have confirmation you aren't the Pope.

You will allow me to bookmark this page for whenever I can't find an alternative argument about Sasanians?  ;)

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2013, 10:41:48 AM »
Welsh again 1: The knights in the North Welsh's French allies can be fielded as either Kn or Bd. But unlike the contemporaneous Medieval French list, there's no provision for the Kn version of the knights to dismount. Should the Kn be allowed to dismount as Bd like their Med French colleagues?

Welsh again 2: How late can a North Welsh C-in-C have a South Welsh ally contingent? All the way to 1420? There's a line which reads:
Quote
Only if South Welsh C-in-C from 1100AD to 1197AD or South Welsh ally contingent from 1100AD...
The fact that an end date is provided for a C-in-C but not an ally suggests to me that there's no specific end date for the availability of an ally contingent. Is that right? Is it intended?

Duncan Head

  • Guest
Re: Book 3 errata
« Reply #39 on: December 30, 2013, 10:09:07 PM »
1.: Don't know, don't see why not.

2.: I suspect that was what was intended, yes.