Some small things

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:46 pm

In the DAG page for Later Lithuanians it says 1382-150AD - should be 1500.

In the DAG page for Later Polish (later) it says 1455-1450AD - should be 1500 again, I would think.

I have also noticed that all the Teutonic and Serbian armies (there may be others) do not have the option to "fortify" their camps. Is this a TT thing or is it an oversight?

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:06 pm

stockwellpete wrote:In the DAG page for Later Lithuanians it says 1382-150AD - should be 1500.

In the DAG page for Later Polish (later) it says 1455-1450AD - should be 1500 again, I would think.

I have also noticed that all the Teutonic and Serbian armies (there may be others) do not have the option to "fortify" their camps. Is this a TT thing or is it an oversight?

Its likly a TT thing where some armies have the option and some dont. i have no idea how the rules authors made those decisions as they do seam arbitrary, any nation , no matter how barbaric can throw up some barricades to protect their booze and lady friends

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:51 pm

In the DAG when you choose Middle Serbian (later) army and then press "new army", the DAG screen with all the units available to make your choices is headed "Later Serbian (later)".

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:40 am

It is usually based on whether they were actually used in a major open battle. Only where there is real evidence do they get the troop types and equipment so many things held as common beliefs are actually not based on any historical evidence and therefore not permitted.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:18 am

iainmcneil wrote:It is usually based on whether they were actually used in a major open battle. Only where there is real evidence do they get the troop types and equipment so many things held as common beliefs are actually not based on any historical evidence and therefore not permitted.

OK thanks.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:10 pm

iainmcneil wrote:It is usually based on whether they were actually used in a major open battle. Only where there is real evidence do they get the troop types and equipment so many things held as common beliefs are actually not based on any historical evidence and therefore not permitted.

I have found this now, Iain . . .

The decisive battle took place at the Prussian village of Grunwald on July 15, 1410, starting at about noon and lasting until dusk. The lightly armed Lithuanian force attacked first and was driven back after heavy fighting. Several hours of fierce combat ensued as both commanders sent in reserve units. Grand Master Ulrich von Junginen resolved to break the deadlock by leading his elite troops in a flanking maneuver that unintentionally uncovered Jagiello’s command post . . . Polish and Lithuanian troops exploited the division of the Order’s forces and overwhelmed the Knights’ elite troops, sparing no one for ransom. Grand Master von Junginen and Grand Marshal Friedrich von Wallenrode died, among other key personnel.

The victorious Polish-Lithuanian army then stormed the Knights’ fortified camp and slaughtered its defenders. Most of the surviving Teutonic Knights of high rank were captured and eventually ransomed. Contemporary figures of dubious reliability reported that several thousand soldiers died on either side.

http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/searc ... STOPOL.pdf

The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795, Daniel Stone, University of Washington Press, 2001.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:38 am

I'm no expert but that could be why they are allowed them in the lists. I know it is linked to what was actually used rather than what could have happened.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:43 am

iainmcneil wrote:I'm no expert but that could be why they are allowed them in the lists. I know it is linked to what was actually used rather than what could have happened.

But they are not allowed them in the lists, Iain.

Perhaps they should be was the point I was making, particularly the Later Teutonic list.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:23 am

stockwellpete wrote:
iainmcneil wrote:I'm no expert but that could be why they are allowed them in the lists. I know it is linked to what was actually used rather than what could have happened.
But they are not allowed them in the lists, Iain. Perhaps they should be was the point I was making, particularly the Later Teutonic list.

You should raise the question in the TT Army list forum if you want to get this changed since there will be some list corrections/revisions done as part of the V2 changes.

Chris

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:13 pm

batesmotel wrote: You should raise the question in the TT Army list forum if you want to get this changed since there will be some list corrections/revisions done as part of the V2 changes.

Chris

Yes, OK Chris. I have put the "francs archers" query on there - no reply as yet but I assume it has been read by the appropriate people.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:50 pm

There are three Russian armies in "Eternal Empire". All of them have identical "average" MF archers entered in their DAG list twice. Should one of the archer groups in each army be "poor" or "average, protected" perhaps?

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:22 pm

Working through these ready for the next update.
Thanks
Keith

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:45 pm

In the scenario editor - Eternal Empire - Ottomans - the image for janissary archer b is incorrect - it is some sort of non-Ottoman spearman, not an archer at all.

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:38 pm

The image is that of a Jannisary heavy archer. They do not appear in FOG but we included the image for the scenario editor. Keith

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:48 pm

keithmartinsmith wrote:The image is that of a Jannisary heavy archer. They do not appear in FOG but we included the image for the scenario editor. Keith

It is a very nice graphic though !

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:52 pm

keithmartinsmith wrote:The image is that of a Jannisary heavy archer. They do not appear in FOG but we included the image for the scenario editor. Keith

Are you sure? Where is his bow then? He looks like some sort of early medieval armoured spearmen to me - he is holding a long spear.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:26 pm

Pete, have you seen the artwork from siege of Rhode or Mohacs ( i think) Some of the jannies have bucklers and some type of polearm instead of bows.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:39 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:Pete, have you seen the artwork from siege of Rhode or Mohacs ( i think) Some of the jannies have bucklers and some type of polearm instead of bows.

Oh.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:41 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
TheGrayMouser wrote:Pete, have you seen the artwork from siege of Rhode or Mohacs ( i think) Some of the jannies have bucklers and some type of polearm instead of bows.
Oh.

No need to be embarrased, also those painting depict the jann's in the early 1500's , they likly would have/could have looked much differnt at their inception in the , what? mid 1300??

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:41 pm

Another one. In the scenario editor - Eternal Empire - Medieval Mounted other - Medieval knight with crossbow and Medieval knight general with crossbow both seem to have the wrong image - just run-of-the-mill mounted crossbowmen and not a knight.

Some small things

Some small things

Re: Some small things