The Later Ottoman army of Murad II . . .

[stockwellpete]

I don´t have the Ethernal Empire PC version, but from the list for the tabletop I understand that Qapu Khalqi (I imagine that is another spelling for the traditional Kapikulu) are Bow/Swordmen, when they should rather be bow/heavy weapons (mace/warhammer), that may help them against European knights. They sould also be elite.
I thnik Timariot should also be drilled, allowing tyem to more easily hit in the flank enemy units.
Finally Janissaries should be elite, if they are made capable of carrying stakes that could be a way to simulate the entrenchements.

Thanks for those ideas, Aryaman. I'll have a testing session tomorrow and report back my findings asap.

[stockwellpete]

What I have found is this . . .

i) Qapu Khalqi - basically that Chris (batesmotel) was right about these units and I was wrong. In tests against mounted European knights they are one POA down on impact even if they have a lance and they are one POA down on armour in the melee (which is as it should be). But three "elite" Qapu Khalqi units can hold up mounted "superior" European knights for three or four rounds of melee before they are driven off (which again is correct historically). However, I am still going to be giving them a lance in my scenarios, because historically they did fight with them and having lances will help them against other enemy horse and missile units.

I also found that if I classified them as "knights" then I could not give them a bow, which is obviously wrong historically. They must have a bow. I also found that I could not give them "heavy weapons" to represent the mace or hammer. FOG does not allow these two changes.

ii) Timariots - I will be giving all of these units a "light lance" (i.e. light spear) as historically they fought with them as an integral part of their equipment. Veteran Timariot units will also be "drilled", as suggested by Aryaman.

iii) Janissaries - some of these units (up to 50%) will be designated "elite" i.e. veterans. Most of them (if not all) will be designated "armoured" because they wore plate mail (see Osprey books). I cannot allocate stakes to the Janissaries though. The scenario editor does not allow it.

The one question I have is, given that I am going to rate them as armoured archers, should they remain as MF, or should they really be HF? My inclination is to leave them as MF. Are there any thoughts on that issue and more generally on what I am planning for my Ottoman series of scenarios?

Just to say, I have finished a paired game with Fedem where we played the "Muradian Encounter 1" scenario - and despite the Turks having the fortifications in the centre of the map, they still lost both battles. So their melee-ing power does still need increasing, in my view.

[stockwellpete]

First attempt at a "new model army" for the Ottoman Turks (for 2nd, 3rd and 4th lists in the DAG). All cavalry has bow/sword.

3 commanders, "field" x1 and "troop" x2 (85pts)

2x Qapu Khalqi cavalry, elite, lance (46pts)
6x Veteran Timariots, light spear, drilled (96pts)
4x Timariots, light spear (60pts)
6x Akinjis (60pts)
2x Veteran Janissaries, Elite, armoured (32pts)
4x Janissaries, armoured (52pts)
3x Janissary handgunners (15pts)
6x Azab archers LF (30pts)
2x Light artillery (24pts)

35BG's in total.

Any good?

[FedeM]

like it.Worth a try

[stockwellpete]

like it.Worth a try

OK. I have now amended the "Muradian Encounter 2" scenario to incorporate this new model army. I will put a paired challenge on the system shortly, password "fedem".

[stockwellpete]

This is a very interesting survey . . .

http://www.users.on.net/~roehr/RTW/CTW/Guide/Turks.htm

[Old_Warrior]

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

But wait, from what I heard all troop types increase proportionally in amounts you can build as you choose to have more points to use. Right?

[TheGrayMouser]

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

But wait, from what I heard all troop types increase proportionally in amounts you can build as you choose to have more points to use. Right?

They do at 650 AP and above games. Since its proportional for BOTH armis , it wont help( that is if you think its an issue, I personally feel the ottomans do just fine as is)

[deeter]

Actually, the increases are not proportional and don't kick in until 600 pts. and 800 points or something like that.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Actually, the increases are not proportional and don't kick in until 600 pts. and 800 points or something like that.

Deeter

Its > 600 aps and since DAG armies are only built in 50 ap increments , 650 is when it kicks in : here its is from the manual

Variable army sizes are the the automatic changes to the maximun allowed number of battlegroups depending upon the number of point available to either side when building a D.A.G. army. The game limit on the number of generals and allies never changes.
<400> 600 and <801> 800 point army = As a 400-600 point army multiplied by 1 1/2 rounding down all fractions.

I actually just tested and there appears to be NO differnce from a 650 vs an 850 though , ie no additional bg's are allowed

Also when they mean round down they mean it!
a BG line that allows only 0-6 at 500 aps, only goes to 0-7 (and not 0-8 like youd expect at 650 and up )
Come on Hexwar: 6 * 1 and 1/3 is 8 , NOT 7, not a drop of rounding should be there