Later Ottoman Cavalry

[rbodleyscott]

Are these really going to be classified as Bow Swordsmen still?

[nikgaukroger]

Are these really going to be classified as Bow Swordsmen still?

At least some will - the Anatolian timariots retained traditional equipment for ages. Really can't make my mind up about what to do with the others, the position on their adoption of firearms, for example, is not very clear.

[nikgaukroger]

Out of interest, what would you think of Bow*, Pistol, Swordsmen?

[rbodleyscott]

Out of interest, what would you think of Bow*, Pistol, Swordsmen?

If they still mostly carried bows, that could be an interesting classification.

It does make them quite good, but being cavalry, they get -1 when shot at by firearms, so they would be more likely to lose a firefight (than the early ones), but more likely to hold their own in close combat.

Does it make them too good? What is the historical record of their later fights vs Western Horse?

An alternative, less effective classification would be Bow*, Melee Pistol. (Or Bow, Melee Pistol).

It pretty much depends on how they should be positioned historically (effectiveness wise) against historical opponents.

[nikgaukroger]

Out of interest, what would you think of Bow*, Pistol, Swordsmen?

If they still mostly carried bows, that could be an interesting classification.

It does make them quite good, but being cavalry, they get -1 when shot at by firearms, so they would be more likely to lose a firefight (than the early ones), but more likely to hold their own in close combat.

Does it make them too good? What is the historical record of their later fights vs Western Horse?

An alternative, less effective classification would be Bow*, Melee Pistol. (Or Bow, Melee Pistol).

It pretty much depends on how they should be positioned historically (effectiveness wise) against historical opponents.

As far as I can make out the sipahis started to take up the pistol from the early C17th, albeit somewhat reluctantly, and that take up was more in the Rumelian troops than the Anatolian. I think the pistol was a bow replacement. Melee seems to have been a sword fight.

However, I suspect that the less well off timariots, and the followers of the timariots in general, would lag behind, if they adopted firarms at all.

It appears that armour use fell away during the C17th.

I have seen little that suggests a change in tactics by the Ottoman cavalry, which would indicate that any firearms were indeed a missile replacement for the bows. By the end of the C17th Imperial cavalry doctrine was to maintain their formation against the Ottomans (indeed they formed up deeper against the Ottomans than against European opponents, 3 ranks opposed to 2), in which case they expected to win - although they always risked being outflanked by superior numbers.

Alas, there is little hard information

[rbodleyscott]

In which case how about making up to half of the BGs Shooting Pistol, Swordsmen. (Representing those with a majority so-equipped).

[nikgaukroger]

It is the classification I've been moving towards I have to say.

[rbodleyscott]

I took a look at the forum and noted the discussion on Ottomans. I recall from my research on Imperial/Ottoman warfare up through the early 1700s in the 80s ans 90s that the minor tactical interaction was that the Ottomans were effective with the sword and would cut the Imperalist horse to pieces if in loose formation or they lost their order, while if the Imperialists were safe if they kept steady tight formations without openings for the Turks. This is as Nik's post notes regarding the deep formations employed.

This touchstone interaction works well with the Melee Pistol/Swordsmen interaction in FOGR for both Shooting Pistol and Impact Pistol types. The Bows are not destructive (death rolls) so much as disruptive, which works.

I think the Bow*, Pistol, Swordsmen classification if justified in charges preserves the interaction this for the better Sipahis against the later Pistol, Pistol Imperialists.

Shooting Pistol, Swordsmen reduces hits and thus the chance of a failed CT but increases lethality (but with the Sipahis having to come closer and at more risk of being caught in order to use their weapons), but I don't recall anything that points in that direction (on the other hand, my memory is from the last century). Having the Ottomans seek to win by pistol firepower rather than taking advantage of disorder to use their melee advantage seems strange.

[nikgaukroger]

Interesting points by Mike - which has left me all confused again ...

[rbodleyscott]

If (as you say) they were trying to use pistols for shooting, and not as an impact weapon, then why on earth would we not classify then as Shooting Pistol, Swordsmen? This still preserves the win if the enemy Pistols are disordered, lose if they stay steady effect, so what is the issue with it?

If the idea that they used the pistols as a missile (rather than impact weapon) is in doubt, then Bow*, Impact Pistol, Swordsmen is a possibility, provided that it does not make them too effective - on balance it makes them as effective in close combat as Impact Pistol, Pistol (pretty much) but still leaves them a moderately effective shooting option.

The question is whether they were that good.

However, if we are sure that they used the pistols to shoot at a distance, then IMO they really have to be Shooting Pistol, Swordsmen.

[nikgaukroger]

I haven't found anything that gives me certainty, however, I think that the balace of probablity suggests that pistols were a bow replacement to be used at a distance, albeit relatively close.

I would also be concerned that with an impact pistol capability as well as Bow*, they would be a bit over powered. Play testing showed that Ottomans were already a very effective army - although with less Heavily Armoured cavalry available now they have been reined in a bit (in fact I've just amended the list to make sure this has happened so this topic was doubly useful ).

[SirGarnet]

Very interesting.

1. Pistol is actually rather harsh for Cavalry in terms of number of dice. Unless I missed noting a revision in my rules printout, Horse with pistol shoot 1 die per front rank base, but other mounted with pistol are "mounted with other shooting capability" and get 1 dice per 2 bases at short range, just like Bow*, which makes shooting quite ancillary. Shooting Pistol would, however, seem OK to me given its short range and reduced effectiveness if the fierce Ottoman attacks using pistol and sword were represented by an Impact POA. It would not hit much, but the occasional death rolls would encourage Imperialist Impact Pistoliers to charge home (however, if in good order, my sense is that the Imperialist Impact Pistol should trump Ottoman Impact POAs, but we don't have conditional POAs of this kind).

As missile cavalry, Carbine shoots normally, and the slightly longer range makes it much less risky (in terms of evades) for Impact POA-less Sipahis to try to get close enough to use them. Since the cavalry carried a mix of bows, carbines, pistols, and javelins, the choice of weapon will be justified in the notes based on tactical interactions.

2. Thinking out loud: My initial assessment was that the quality of Ottoman horseflesh, experience, organization was good, firearms increased their capabilities, and the Ottoman cavalry remained superior man-on-man and a serious tactical threat through this period, so having Shooting Pistol (or preferably Carbine), Swordsmen (even if they shoot 1 per base in the front rank) at first feels wrong, like like being an inferior type of harquebusier or Reiter with the bonus ability to evade (devalued by short range).

3. Although they did not function as Reiters, the range and effect of Shooting Pistol can be rationalized as representing small, sharp attacks of opportunity by Ottoman parties of sub-BG size using pistol fire to create disorder and local, temporary exploitation with sword and pistol before withdrawing. If the effect is disordering on the BG scale (unlikely given the likely number of hits), the Ottomans may charge in en masse in hopes of getting past the impact phase against Impact Pistol and into Melee where Swordsmen have the advantage. This Ottoman tactic could also rationalize a weak (conditional) Impact Pistol capability, though that's not supported by the rules.

4. I think the weak spot representationally is in the Impact Phase once the Imperialists are disordered, but I'll defer to playtest results as to effectiveness in an overall engagement. I like my FOG Ottomans, but have not fielded them in a FOGR battle.

I'd be interested to hear how the Ottomans managed to do well in the testing. Was it built around eroding the flanks and avoiding a frontal engagement against Imperialist combined arms.

5. I can see how the Sipahis might face 2-Pistol Horse advancing alone, but Imperialist combined arms tactics should be very effective. An example would be formations with interlined shot and horse (e.g., Vienna 1683), with the horse recessed in their intervals far enough back for both foot and horse to form separate divisions ("divisional distance") but able to move up to engage.

If the Sipahis charge then the horse may be able to intercept, or failing that charge or just come up in overlap in their turn if the Sipahis do not break off.

If the Sipahis should come to 2 MU to make use of their pistols, rather than Bows from a greater and safer distance, the horse have the move from divisional distance to either charge them and force an evade (if the sipahis are one deep) in order to allow the foot the chance to advance, or just get close enough to charge at close range the next turn when a favorable VMD result may catch the evaders in the rear. If the Sipahis have Carbines at 3 MU then the Horse won't have charge range at divisional distance, but will be able to move in fairly close.

Alternatively, the Sipahis try to shoot it out (not cost effective), or, better yet, avoid this area of the front?

[nikgaukroger]

Very interesting.

1. Pistol is actually rather harsh for Cavalry in terms of number of dice. Unless I missed noting a revision in my rules printout, Horse with pistol shoot 1 die per front rank base, but other mounted with pistol are "mounted with other shooting capability" and get 1 dice per 2 bases at short range, just like Bow*, which makes shooting quite ancillary. Shooting Pistol would, however, seem OK to me given its short range and reduced effectiveness if the fierce Ottoman attacks using pistol and sword were represented by an Impact POA. It would not hit much, but the occasional death rolls would encourage Imperialist Impact Pistoliers to charge home (however, if in good order, my sense is that the Imperialist Impact Pistol should trump Ottoman Impact POAs, but we don't have conditional POAs of this kind).

As missile cavalry, Carbine shoots normally, and the slightly longer range makes it much less risky (in terms of evades) for Impact POA-less Sipahis to try to get close enough to use them. Since the cavalry carried a mix of bows, carbines, pistols, and javelins, the choice of weapon will be justified in the notes based on tactical interactions.

I'd missed the shooting dice thing - must admit I assumed they'd get the same as Horse and never looked it up, I think we never thought about the possibility of Cavalry with shooting Pistols and so didn't include them with Horse in the shooting dice.

Carbine could well be they way out of this and can certainly be fudged with blurb. Richard?

[rbodleyscott]

Very interesting.

1. Pistol is actually rather harsh for Cavalry in terms of number of dice. Unless I missed noting a revision in my rules printout, Horse with pistol shoot 1 die per front rank base, but other mounted with pistol are "mounted with other shooting capability" and get 1 dice per 2 bases at short range, just like Bow*, which makes shooting quite ancillary. Shooting Pistol would, however, seem OK to me given its short range and reduced effectiveness if the fierce Ottoman attacks using pistol and sword were represented by an Impact POA. It would not hit much, but the occasional death rolls would encourage Imperialist Impact Pistoliers to charge home (however, if in good order, my sense is that the Imperialist Impact Pistol should trump Ottoman Impact POAs, but we don't have conditional POAs of this kind).

As missile cavalry, Carbine shoots normally, and the slightly longer range makes it much less risky (in terms of evades) for Impact POA-less Sipahis to try to get close enough to use them. Since the cavalry carried a mix of bows, carbines, pistols, and javelins, the choice of weapon will be justified in the notes based on tactical interactions.

I'd missed the shooting dice thing.

Me too

Carbine could well be they way out of this and can certainly be fudged with blurb.

Aye Carbine, swordsmen.

Blurb: "We treat the mixure of bows, pistols and carbines as equivalent to Carbine capability for battle groups with a substantial proportion of firearms, Bow for those predominantly armed with bow."


Note that there are very few Superior Carbine equipped cavalry in the lists, so that does still give the Ottomans a semi-unique effectiveness. (Along with the Later Transylvanian army - the painting of mine is nearly completed)

[rbodleyscott]

I'd be interested to hear how the Ottomans managed to do well in the testing. Was it built around eroding the flanks and avoiding a frontal engagement against Imperialist combined arms.

I won the first FOGR beta tournament with Early Ottomans (though as I was the umpire I abdicated, so this was unpublished). Main tactic was, as you say, to use the 12" no-go zone to overwhelm the enemy on one flank.

Alasdair Harley won the 2nd FOGR Beta tournmant with Early Ottoman using similar tactics.

Our analysis was that
1) The bow,sword cavalry was underpriced - since rectified.
2) The beta list allowed too many Heavily Armoured sipahis - since rectified.

[nikgaukroger]

Carbine could well be they way out of this and can certainly be fudged with blurb.

Aye Carbine, swordsmen.

Blurb: "We treat the mixure of bows, pistols and carbines as equivalent to Carbine capability for battle groups with a substantial proportion of firearms, Bow for those predominantly armed with bow."

The Qapu Khalqi as Elite carbine who can evade will be rather tasty ...

As they tended to be committed to deliver the killer blow after softening up by the rest of the cavalry I wonder if there is actually an argument for them being Horse?

[rbodleyscott]

The Qapu Khalqi as Elite carbine who can evade will be rather tasty ...

As they tended to be committed to deliver the killer blow after softening up by the rest of the cavalry I wonder if there is actually an argument for them being Horse?

Hmm, maybe, but then what Capabilities would you give them?

Maybe safer to stick with them being essentially better versions of the same as the rest of the army.

[nikgaukroger]

The Qapu Khalqi as Elite carbine who can evade will be rather tasty ...

As they tended to be committed to deliver the killer blow after softening up by the rest of the cavalry I wonder if there is actually an argument for them being Horse?

Hmm, maybe, but then what Capabilities would you give them?

Maybe safer to stick with them being essentially better versions of the same as the rest of the army.

Probably correct, so I will do so - Cv after all are costed higher than horse and are weaker in CTs when shot at by firearms.