1.3.3 list errors

[batesmotel]

Late Achaemenid Persian (all 3 variants): Saka horse archers are missing option to be LH. They should be available as LH or as Cavalry, unprotected, average, bow, swordsmen.

Chris

[batesmotel]

1, All Thracian peltasts should be undrilled. Currently all except ones with light spears are listed as drilled. (both lists)
2. Only one type of Hypaspist should be allowed, not a mix. Whatever type is chosen should have a required minimum. (Alexandrian)
3. There should be an overall max of 6 for Agema/Companions/Thessalian/Greek Cavalry. (both)
4. Should be a minimum of 2 Hypaspist as pikes. (Later and earlier if Hypaspists taken with pikes.)
5, Bactrian and Sogdian cavalry use same images. Should probably be different since Bactians have light spears as well as bows.
6. Macedonian archer image has sling and Rhodian slinger image has bow. Presumably interchanged. (both)

Chris

[Epicouros]

Grumblefish wrote (albeit in the wrong place ) :

"Seems like Pyrrhus is in a bit of a situation: his heavy cavalry are superior, and his veteran heavy cavalry are merely average. Must be quite disheartening to be outdone by new-comers.

The mix up is in the Pyrrhic (in Greece) army list; the other two Pyrrhic armies are the proper way round."

I noticed this too. I decided to copy his message here, to avoid any oversight.

[Epicouros]

I also noticed an inversion between Heavy Roman Cavalry (classed as Superior, Protected) and Veteran Roman Cavalry (classed as Average, Armoured) in the later Jewish (Roman allies) list in RoR.
It should be the other way round.

I saw this in the later Jewish (Antigonos) list, but maybe other Roman allies lists are also affected.

[batesmotel]

In both of the RoR Parthian lists, the Hatran cataphract camels are currently classed as unprotected! Is this the ancient equivalent of quaker cannon from the ACW?

[keithmartinsmith]

Late AchaemenidLate Achaemenid Persian (all 3 variants): Saka horse archers are missing option to be LH. They should be available as LH or as Cavalry, unprotected, average, bow, swordsmen Persian (all 3 variants): Saka horse archers are missing option to be LH. They should be available as LH or as Cavalry, unprotected, average, bow, swordsmen

This is not an option in the PC/Mac edition. There are no plans to change this. Keith

[keithmartinsmith]

1. All Thracian peltasts should be undrilled. Currently all except ones with light spears are listed as drilled. (both lists)
>>> Addressed as part of the next update 1.3.4
2. Only one type of Hypaspist should be allowed, not a mix. Whatever type is chosen should have a required minimum. (Alexandrian)
>>> Address as part of the next update.
3. There should be an overall max of 6 for Agema/Companions/Thessalian/Greek Cavalry. (both)
>>> What we have is deliberate and there are no plans to change.
4. Should be a minimum of 2 Hypaspist as pikes. (Later and earlier if Hypaspists taken with pikes.)
>>> Ditto 3.
5, Bactrian and Sogdian cavalry use same images. Should probably be different since Bactians have light spears as well as bows.
>>>We have updated one image to show a spear ready for the next update.
6. Macedonian archer image has sling and Rhodian slinger image has bow. Presumably interchanged. (both)
>> The Macedonian archer image has been updated ready for he 1.3.4 update. The Slinger image is correct, its a staff slinger.
Keith

[keithmartinsmith]

I also noticed an inversion between Heavy Roman Cavalry (classed as Superior, Protected) and Veteran Roman Cavalry (classed as Average, Armoured) in the later Jewish (Roman allies) list in RoR.
It should be the other way round.

I saw this in the later Jewish (Antigonos) list, but maybe other Roman allies lists are also affected.

I have updated the names on the Jewish list but cannot see a problem anywhere else. Can you be more specific on any lists in question and the version FOG you are using.
Thanks
Keith

[keithmartinsmith]

In both of the RoR Parthian lists, the Hatran cataphract camels are currently classed as unprotected! Is this the ancient equivalent of quaker cannon from the ACW?

Looking at this one. As Camels and Cataphracts and Cataphracts Camels cut across classes it can cause a few issues, as you have seen. Will be addressed as part of the next update. Keith

[batesmotel]

In both of the RoR Parthian lists, the Hatran cataphract camels are currently classed as unprotected! Is this the ancient equivalent of quaker cannon from the ACW?

Looking at this one. As Camels and Cataphracts and Cataphracts Camels cut across classes it can cause a few issues, as you have seen. Will be addressed as part of the next update. Keith

Sounds like you're enjoying the fun of mangling files with scripts and regular expression replacement. I guess that would help explain how the Bosporan lists got so badly mangled without any human noticing

Chris

[Scutarii]

Well, i return a little to SoA and find that many units have a wrong image, isnt strange see a MF unit armed with spears and in the image they have swords for example kerns other image problem is in Burgundian later list lesser met at arms have lance in the image when they are armed only with sword and could be interesting in all armies list use a different image in units that only have different quality and armor levels

[batesmotel]

In both lists the Francs Archers should be poor rather than average.

Chris

[keithmartinsmith]

Fixed the Francs Archers for the next update 1.3.4.

ON THIS POINT
Well, i return a little to SoA and find that many units have a wrong image, isnt strange see a MF unit armed with spears and in the image they have swords for example kerns other image problem is in Burgundian later list lesser met at arms have lance in the image when they are armed only with sword and could be interesting in all armies list use a different image in units that only have different quality and armor levels

If you could provide a specifc list of images you think are wrong then we will look at it and address it. As to weapons types being representitive this is not always possible. Some knights models with lance are used where they only get swords on the list. For what ever reason lost of knights do not get lance but the models are representitive of the type. There will be lots of spear and lance armed models of cavalry in later books that will only count as bow sword as while they carried these weapons they do not represent their primary combat behaviour. We are keen to fix any image errors and specific details would be a great help.

Thanks Keith

[keithmartinsmith]

More ...

Well, i return a little to SoA and find that many units have a wrong image, isnt strange see a MF unit armed with spears and in the image they have swords for example kerns other image problem is in Burgundian later list lesser met at arms have lance in the image when they are armed only with sword and could be interesting in all armies list use a different image in units that only have different quality and armor levels

Updated the Burgundian Less Men-At-Arms to an image with no lance. The Kern figures remain the same as its the best kern image we can source. Keith

[Scutarii]

Ok, i see, the problem is more in non shoot units because in this units you can see the bow symbol and you know that they are shoot units but in other units you cant know if the unit is armed with spears or with swords or if the unit is poor or average, in RoR with this are less problems.

Well, isnt a critical feature but step by step this could be change.

PD: now i dont have time to view army by army but when i can do it i list this image problems.

[Examinondas]

A few more 1.3.3 SOA bugs (present since 1.2.6 as reported in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=16611)

* Both German army lists: the unprotected handgunners have a 0-0 limit.

* Medieval Castilian army lists errors:

-- There are two drilled protected average Hermandad Spearmen. I think one should be poor.

-- The MF unprotected Navarrese Javelinmen unit image has only 2 figures.

-- Navarrese allies: the MAA are average when mounted, and remain average when dismounted. Shouldn't they be superior when dismounted, as in the main Navarrese list?

-- Navarrese is misspelled as Navaresse

* Later Burgundian: "Low coutnries crossbowmen": note the typo in "countries"

[rbodleyscott]

Updated the Burgundian Less Men-At-Arms to an image with no lance.

Actually there is no reason to suppose that they did not carry lances, it is just that a contemporary observer noted that they did not know how to use them properly.

[keithmartinsmith]

A few more 1.3.3 SOA bugs (present since 1.2.6 as reported in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=16611)
* Both German army lists: the unprotected handgunners have a 0-0 limit.
* Medieval Castilian army lists errors:
-- There are two drilled protected average Hermandad Spearmen. I think one should be poor.
-- The MF unprotected Navarrese Javelinmen unit image has only 2 figures.
-- Navarrese allies: the MAA are average when mounted, and remain average when dismounted. Shouldn't they be superior when dismounted, as in the main Navarrese list?
-- Navarrese is misspelled as Navaresse
* Later Burgundian: "Low coutnries crossbowmen": note the typo in "countries"

All fixed ready for the 1.3.4 update. Thanks Keith