Later Ottomans compared to Mongols - what am I missing?
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
Robert241167
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D

- Posts: 1368
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
- Location: Leeds
-
Robert241167
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D

- Posts: 1368
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
- Location: Leeds
-
Robert241167
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D

- Posts: 1368
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
- Location: Leeds
-
Robert241167
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D

- Posts: 1368
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
- Location: Leeds
-
grahambriggs
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E

- Posts: 3081
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
I managed it when my EAP played Phil Latin Greeks or whatever. Get the hoplites nice and close, sneak round the back of the proper knights with 4 poor LFRobert241167 wrote:Now the question is would I be able to pull that off against you over the weekend.![]()
Rob
He did ride straight through the rest of my army though
-
philqw78
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus

- Posts: 8842
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
It was your single BG of LH that did it. The BG of knights eventually broke. They recovered when lancers charged the LH in the flank and the other 2 BG of knights rode over your hoplites, and supports, taking 3 generals with them. I was lucky to rally them before the end of the game your army fell apart so fastgrahambriggs wrote:I managed it when my EAP played Phil Latin Greeks or whatever. Get the hoplites nice and close, sneak round the back of the proper knights with 4 poor LFRobert241167 wrote:Now the question is would I be able to pull that off against you over the weekend.![]()
Rob![]()
He did ride straight through the rest of my army though
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
-
ottomanmjm
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G

- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:25 am
Re: Later Ottomans compared to Mongols - what am I missing?
I don't know what you consider close, but if a BG of knights 2 wide hits a BG of medium foot archers, both superior and both having a general then the foot will win 15.2% of the time, the knights will win 62.3% of the time and there ia a 22.5% chance of the combat being a draw. Of course if the bowmen lose they can still pass their cohesion test but that still leaves them with more than a 30% chance of becoming at least disrupted.First of I would dispute the odds - if we assume both have a general (and that is reasonable considering how much Cavalry a Mongol army has), then the bowmen get 1.33 hits to the Bowmen and 1.78 to the Knights. So this is drawish or close.
If you are dismounting Mongols then you want to avoid enemy knights and stick to the non-open terrain. Chances are you can beat any Ottoman foot in non-open terrain. Let the LH lead the knights a merry dance around the table.
Regards
Martin
-
lonehorseman
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1

- Posts: 142
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:01 pm
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
In the end it is really a personal thing for me. Have played with both and have won with both. That said, I love Mongol history much more so it is always enjoyable to pack them up even after a right drubbing. But I have to say the Kn and Handdgunners make Ottoman a more viable tournament choice.
15mm: Painted: Late Republican Roman
Medieval Welsh
WIP: Ivan the Terrible's Russians
Later Ottoman Turkish
Medieval Welsh
WIP: Ivan the Terrible's Russians
Later Ottoman Turkish
-
Fluffy
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1

- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Later Ottomans compared to Mongols - what am I missing?
The Mongols need more skill to play as they have less margin for error.Skullzgrinda wrote:I am not the sharpest knife in the FoG drawer and have the stats to prove it. So - I am asking the opinions of others on why there is such a disparate track record between these two armies, Mongol and Later Ottoman.
Ottomans often appear at the top of tournament results, Mongols appear only infrequently and then usually at the bottom. Why? They seem broadly comparable, with Mongols having an edge in quality and drilled, Ottomans having an ability to field more variety with some quality infantry, handgunners, and cost effective LH.
Are Mongols run more often by newcomers as a more (in)famous army? Or is the variety and cheap LH the winner for the Ottomans?
If you know what you're doing you can take down most armies with Mongols, then again the same goes for most armies you play.
Re: Later Ottomans compared to Mongols - what am I missing?
True but I find them a fun army for me to use, hard at times to get right it also helps as i like the whole history of them.(not the mass murder bit by the way)Fluffy wrote: The Mongols need more skill to play as they have less margin for error.

