What I hate about FOG, and hope will be fixed in new FOGs

[madaxeman]

Some armies will always find it harder against some armies, and easier against others.. a lot of fighting a battle is finding the army that suits you and how to cover the weaknesses of that army.

Very prosaic. So, pray, tell me the weaknesses of Later Ottomann Turk, then. Not 'it can't beat Swiss', what is it's bete noire? Because, if you follow this thread back, my point is that it is a heads I win, tails I don't lose army (especially without Serbs).

I have no problem with knowing that there are armies I can't fight: however it isn't a level playing field, because when an Ottomann draws an army it can't beat, it doesn't fight it at all. (I would continue but I would be infringing madaxeman's copyright).

Thats strange I managed to win against an Ottoman Turkish army on Monday night, who had elite Cav Bow/Sword and 3 BGs of Armoured cavalry and hordes of LH. I managed to evade of the table or destroy all his LH 7 in total and rout one Cavalry BG

I must admit I was playing the Khazers with Lancers and LH Bow/sword I did lose 3 BGs Lancers but thats what they are there for.

Against Ottomans you have to get in quick pin them back, and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

So, its bete noir is an army that is, erm, essentially the same ?

[fgilson]

Very prosaic. So, pray, tell me the weaknesses of Later Ottomann Turk, then. Not 'it can't beat Swiss', what is it's bete noire? Because, if you follow this thread back, my point is that it is a heads I win, tails I don't lose army (especially without Serbs).

I have no problem with knowing that there are armies I can't fight: however it isn't a level playing field, because when an Ottomann draws an army it can't beat, it doesn't fight it at all. (I would continue but I would be infringing madaxeman's copyright).

Thats strange I managed to win against an Ottoman Turkish army on Monday night, who had elite Cav Bow/Sword and 3 BGs of Armoured cavalry and hordes of LH. I managed to evade of the table or destroy all his LH 7 in total and rout one Cavalry BG

I must admit I was playing the Khazers with Lancers and LH Bow/sword I did lose 3 BGs Lancers but thats what they are there for.

Against Ottomans you have to get in quick pin them back, and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

So, its bete noir is an army that is, erm, essentially the same ?

No, no...his LH got to be more expensive than the Ottoman because his Lancers are cheaper than the Cv Bow-Sw...also, his lancers must have often been forced to charge evaders!

[david53]

Thats strange I managed to win against an Ottoman Turkish army on Monday night, who had elite Cav Bow/Sword and 3 BGs of Armoured cavalry and hordes of LH. I managed to evade of the table or destroy all his LH 7 in total and rout one Cavalry BG

I must admit I was playing the Khazers with Lancers and LH Bow/sword I did lose 3 BGs Lancers but thats what they are there for.

Against Ottomans you have to get in quick pin them back, and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

So, its bete noir is an army that is, erm, essentially the same ?

No, no...his LH got to be more expensive than the Ottoman because his Lancers are cheaper than the Cv Bow-Sw...also, his lancers must have often been forced to charge evaders!

The question was what army he can't beat they don't fight well they had to fight mine so thats an army they can't dodge.

BTW never forced to charge evaders, since everything infront of me I charged

[azrael86]

Very prosaic. So, pray, tell me the weaknesses of Later Ottomann Turk, then. Not 'it can't beat Swiss', what is it's bete noire? Because, if you follow this thread back, my point is that it is a heads I win, tails I don't lose army (especially without Serbs).

I have no problem with knowing that there are armies I can't fight: however it isn't a level playing field, because when an Ottomann draws an army it can't beat, it doesn't fight it at all. (I would continue but I would be infringing madaxeman's copyright).

Thats strange I managed to win against an Ottoman Turkish army on Monday night, who had elite Cav Bow/Sword and 3 BGs of Armoured cavalry and hordes of LH. I managed to evade of the table or destroy all his LH 7 in total and rout one Cavalry BG

I must admit I was playing the Khazers with Lancers and LH Bow/sword I did lose 3 BGs Lancers but thats what they are there for.

Against Ottomans you have to get in quick pin them back, and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

So, its bete noir is an army that is, erm, essentially the same ?

and rolls better dice.

[azrael86]

The place where superior bows are too good is with Christian Nubians IMO rather than Jannissaries

Have you actually checked how good the Christian Nubians were?

Yep. the Christian Nubian empire extended to Nubia, plus maybe a bit of Sudan. Yet they have more superior bow than Achamenid Persian, who ruled 1/2 the known world.e

[azrael86]

and just go for it not a great plan but seems to work on average.

I don't believe I can be accused of not going for it. But HF have such a small chance of catching Cv it is ridiculous. My suggestion is that if a cav unit evades, it should be unable to move next turn. (except to evade again).

Lastly, although insignificant in battle, how many armes really had no Foot at all? Because butchering 5000 ottomann peasants shudl have an effect.

[philqw78]

I was agreeing about the whinging Dave. I watched you beast the Ottomans

[hazelbark]

Lastly, although insignificant in battle, how many armes really had no Foot at all? Because butchering 5000 ottomann peasants shudl have an effect.

Well historically the Ottomans didn't mind gettin 5,000 peaasant butchered. In fact they did it quite regularly. A lot got butchered.

Historically I am not certain many of the mounted noblity or "elite" cared too much with mass peasant losses. Whetherr those were Maryannu charioteers, Timariots, Knights, Milites and so forth. They seemed quite willing to ignore mass peasant casualties.

As for mostly mounted armies. You're right there may have been more sore foot at a battle than the all mounted may suggest.
I think this is also part of what the loss of a camp represents. The loss of that intangible mob.

[azrael86]

Well historically the Ottomans didn't mind gettin 5,000 peaasant butchered. In fact they did it quite regularly. A lot got butchered.

Historically I am not certain many of the mounted noblity or "elite" cared too much with mass peasant losses. Whetherr those were Maryannu charioteers, Timariots, Knights, Milites and so forth. They seemed quite willing to ignore mass peasant casualties.

Well, compared to themselves, no, but most sane rulers understood that regularly losing a lot of peasants wasn't a good idea as you need peasants to sow crops, shoe horses, etc. Possibly some steppe armies were less bothered, the Mongols in china being a case in point.

[dave_r]

The place where superior bows are too good is with Christian Nubians IMO rather than Jannissaries

Have you actually checked how good the Christian Nubians were?

Yep. the Christian Nubian empire extended to Nubia, plus maybe a bit of Sudan. Yet they have more superior bow than Achamenid Persian, who ruled 1/2 the known world.e

And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

[Skullzgrinda]

Have you actually checked how good the Christian Nubians were?

Yep. the Christian Nubian empire extended to Nubia, plus maybe a bit of Sudan. Yet they have more superior bow than Achamenid Persian, who ruled 1/2 the known world.e

And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

I am waiting on those superior Welsh longbow . . .

[david53]

Possibly some steppe armies were less bothered, the Mongols in china being a case in point.

Maybe because they were'nt Mongols and they did'nt care about anyone that was'nt a Mongol!

[dave_r]

Yep. the Christian Nubian empire extended to Nubia, plus maybe a bit of Sudan. Yet they have more superior bow than Achamenid Persian, who ruled 1/2 the known world.e

And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

I am waiting on those superior Welsh longbow . . .

They never won a battle either

[david53]

And how did the Persians actually fare in battles compared to the Christian Nubians?

It is often the case that the largest empires with the largest armys are full of rubbish.... So maybe if you answered the question you would enlighten yourself

I am waiting on those superior Welsh longbow . . .

They never won a battle either

I'm sure they did win one battle against the english the battle at Pilleth in 1402

[dave_r]

I am waiting on those superior Welsh longbow . . .

They never won a battle either

That doesn't count, that was a battle between two Welsh forces!

I'm sure they did win one battle against the english the battle at Pilleth in 1402

[david53]

They never won a battle either

That doesn't count, that was a battle between two Welsh forces!

I'm sure they did win one battle against the english the battle at Pilleth in 1402

Its was an english army made up of a county levy of Herefordshire under Sir Edmund Mortimer. The majority were English but he did have some Welsh archers who he placed on his left wing who half way through the battle attacked the English. But it was still a Welsh victory over the English, just shows you should'nt attack up hill against Longbows, or depend on your allies.

[philqw78]

Its was an english army made up of a county levy of Herefordshire under Sir Edmund Mortimer. The majority were English but he did have some Welsh archers who he placed on his left wing who half way through the battle attacked the English. But it was still a Welsh victory over the English, just shows you should'nt attack up hill against Longbows, or depend on your allies.

if youcarry on quoting like this you can see if the centre quote reaches critical density, forms a black hole and drags the rest of the forum in.

[peterrjohnston]

Its was an english army made up of a county levy of Herefordshire under Sir Edmund Mortimer. The majority were English but he did have some Welsh archers who he placed on his left wing who half way through the battle attacked the English. But it was still a Welsh victory over the English, just shows you should'nt attack up hill against Longbows, or depend on your allies.

if youcarry on quoting like this you can see if the centre quote reaches critical density, forms a black hole and drags the rest of the forum in.

Meow

Meow.

[hammy]

Very pretty as all those quotes might look can people please consider cutting out some of the less relevant lines when they quote a message.

[peterrjohnston]

Very pretty as all those quotes might look can people please consider cutting out some of the less relevant lines when they quote a message.