Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
Yes, I see. I think the FOG Wiki has got a statistic about troop density in the different size maps, so the Ottomans definitely need as much space as possible for their Akinjis and Timariots. I am trying to improve my horse army play (I am dreadful) and I am finding the same issue with Saladin's Ayyubid army too.batesmotel wrote:I suspect it's an army that would do better at 400 points than it does at higher numbers. The problem is that it's good troops run out pretty quickly and that horse archers in general severely suffer from the map sizes in FoG PC where it is too easy for other armies to go safely wall to wall.
Chris
If you fancy a try at my "Muradian encounter" then just let me know. I haven't played it yet and it does look quite interesting. I have been chatting with Chris (batesmotel) about it today and I have experimented with the Qapu Khalqi cavalry in the scenario - I have classified them as "armoured knights" and given them a "lance" so that the Ottomans have some counterweight to the European knights.deeter wrote:In the TT rules, fortifications can be placed further onto the map than the PC allows (say 12 hexes rather than 8 in PC terms) making them more viable, but still pretty avoidable.
Deeter
OK Fedem. I am just "Serbianising" the opposition on this one right now and I will put the challenge on shortly, password "fedem".Fedem wrote:Always glad to play and try your scenarios stockwellpete.
Just let me know.
Tks
Not so sure about Murad 2's "reconquests" of the balkans Bayezid had originally conqured these areas by taking advantages of the fragmentation of political rule in the area and by securing allied troops by marriages, alliances and vassalages. His most loyal troops appear to have been Cristian allies and vassals, especially Serbians who stood firm while his Muslim Anatolian troops defected when fighting Timur. By Murad's time, the history of the region is even more confusing , but again it seems that the Ottomans were able to take advantage of the squabbling beteen the powers in the area: Venice, Byzantium, Wallachia Bulgaria Hungary etc etc. No doudt allies and vassals played a role there as well. So, in fog terms: take the Serbian Allies to fight a more standup battle vs other knightly armiesstockwellpete wrote:The fortification idea ended in complete disaster against the wretched Wallachians so that is a non-starter.
So really I now think that the Later Ottoman army is seriously underpowered in the game seeing as the Ottoman Empire expanded rapidly at the time covered by the Murad II army. The Ottomans cannot cope with mounted knights at all, their Qapu Khalqi elite cavalry are smashed by mounted knights, so the only other option seems to be to buy loads of cheap cavalry units (lesser timariots, Kurds etc) and try to envelop the knights if they charge. Easy to say, not so easy to do.
One player has suggested to me that the Ottomans must skirmish to win. I think that is probably right in FOG terms, but they didn't actually seem to fight that way by the 15thC. Their cavalry may have fought in "the mongol way" in certain situations with feints and false retreats and all the rest of it, but their strategy was based on a fortified centre (skirmishers out the front) with their cavalry massed on the flanks and elite cavalry in reserve.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to reproduce these tactics in FOG at the moment, a bit of a drawback really given that the sub-title of "Eternal Empire" is "The Ottomans at War".
Yes, it is a very confused and fascinating political picture in the Balkans in the 15thC, TGM. I am just starting to compile a list of the major battles involving the Ottomans between about 1350 and 1500 in the region. In some battles, such as Nicopolis 1396, they had Christian allies who supplied mounted knights, but in others, such as Kosovo 1389 and Varna 1444, the Ottomans seemed to be fighting without European knights in their ranks. So it appears to be a very mixed picture.TheGrayMouser wrote: Not so sure about Murad 2's "reconquests" of the balkans Bayezid had originally conqured these areas by taking advantages of the fragmentation of political rule in the area and by securing allied troops by marriages, alliances and vassalages. His most loyal troops appear to have been Cristian allies and vassals, especially Serbians who stood firm while his Muslim Anatolian troops defected when fighting Timur. By Murad's time, the history of the region is even more confusing , but again it seems that the Ottomans were able to take advantage of the squabbling beteen the powers in the area: Venice, Byzantium, Wallachia Bulgaria Hungary etc etc. No doudt allies and vassals played a role there as well. So, in fog terms: take the Serbian Allies to fight a more standup battle vs other knightly armies
Agreed, especially on the armored Janissaries. However, I would still not designate the elite cavalry as "knights". I would allow them lances though.stockwellpete wrote:I am just about at the point of giving up playing the various Ottoman armies with the DAG. They only seem to be able to cope with the Wallachians among their European historical opponents. The provision of fortifications in the DAG list doesn't really help them because these are restricted to the deployment zone.
Instead I am researching their battles in Europe in the 14thC and 15thC's and I will be making a number of scenarios between now and Xmas.
Some of the ways I might "tweak" the Ottoman lists to strengthen them in these scenarios are . . .
i) give some of the cavalry "light lances" (i.e. light spear) e.g. Timariots
ii) give the Qapu Khalqi elite cavalry "knight" status (i.e. cavalry-knights) and give them lances
iii) designate some of the Janissary foot units "elite" (i.e. veterans)
iv) designate some of the Janissary foot units "armoured" (they were historically, they wore plate-mail)
Yes, Chris (Batesmotel) takes the same view as you. In my readings so far on this period of history (not very extensive, I must admit) I have come across the term "cavalry knights" used both for European knights (e.g. Serbians) and for the Qapu Khalqi. So my feeling at the moment is that the melee-ing gap between these two types of mounted troops is almost certainly not as wide as that currently depicted in FOG.Ardaeshir wrote: Agreed, especially on the armored Janissaries. However, I would still not designate the elite cavalry as "knights". I would allow them lances though.
