Ottoman Turks in "Eternal Empire"

[stockwellpete]

This is the Tabletop forum.

I am well aware of what forum this is, thank you, but when I started posting my comments in the PC forum I received this message from one of the moderators there . . .

batesmotel wrote:
"If you have general questions about the army lists, you're better off asking them in the TT army list forum than here. In general Keith just translated the TT lists for the PC versions with a few simplifications to reduce some complicated list restrictions or options for the PC version."

So that is what I am doing.

[stockwellpete]

Yes too bad it blurs historical lines and makes up names and is based on a game. What is that the images form the warcraft series?

I don't know where it is all from - I don't know Warcraft at all and I just came across it the other day. All I said was that it was "interesting", not that it was the definitive last word on the subject. It seems like someone has made a decent attempt to portray the range of troops available to the Ottomans. Which names are made up then, hazelbark? Do you mean that some of the troop types are fictitious also? Which ones?

I am reading across a range of sources at the moment (including Osprey) and I am getting the sense that the Janissaries did widely wear armour in the 14th and 15thC's and that it was only discarded when improved firearms rendered it increasingly obsolete. And I am also getting the sense that a lot of the Ottoman cavalry, particularly the Balkan timariots and retainers (as well as the elite Qapu Khalqi), did have lances. One of the troop types suggested by that list was mounted voynuks (i.e. Balkan Christians for the most part) - we don't have them in FOG, but it seems feasible to me that the Ottomans might have used them. Do you know if they did?

I appreciate you are trying to get the PC game to work. I just have no idea how that interacts and terrain and all that.

Yes, I write a lot of scenarios for the PC game, some of which they have included in the last expansion pack - but I have been having trouble getting the Ottoman scenarios to work properly. I am still learning about the various armies and I am currently spending most of my spare time trying to get to grips with them. I am not trying to be bombastic by saying that I know everything - the opposite is true, in fact. But I do feel if I can engage in discussions with fellow wargamers then I can make better scenarios for the PC players to enjoy and ponder about in the future.

From a purely historical perspective.
The Ottomans struggled mightly versus Knights. Often when they won it included numbers and manuver.
The Ottoman foot of all kinds historicall had horrible problems dealing with European foot. Even in victory the Ottomans would take horrific casualities.
Now in the table top game this seems reflected in POAs and such. Also the table top has a lot of room to manuver. Ottomans have space to trade for time on shooting with their mounted and they can manuver to engage part of european army. This does reflect some of the ottoman historical battles, but as you say the let the enemy storm the prepared position was a favorite Ottoman tactic.

Also while the fortified position was used early like at nicopolis it was not universal in the 14th and 15th centuries. Part of the challenges of an Ottoman army in a historical research is there are several periods from 14th through early 17th century where they evolve in different ways and like this website take one and extrapolate it to another.

Yes, I agree with all of that, hazelbark. I think the "space" issue might be pertinent to the PC game as well - I will experiment with larger maps (or slightly smaller armies) to see if I can create enough space for Ottoman cavalry "feints" and "encirclements" to take place. The one really good thing in the PC game is that the scenario editor does allow you to customise the armies quite considerably so it should be possible to make a reasonable attempt at representing the different periods that you are referring to.

[philqw78]

I will experiment with larger maps (or slightly smaller armies)

If only the table top rule writers would do the opposite so as to curb the power of the Ottoman army

[stockwellpete]

I will experiment with larger maps (or slightly smaller armies)

If only the table top rule writers would do the opposite so as to curb the power of the Ottoman army

So you feel that they have too much space in TT, do you, Phil? In the PC game, players will often deploy right across the map against horse armies to deny them space. The answer to this absurd tactic (absurd in an historical sense, I mean) is to try and punch a hole in the cordon with lancers or some such, in order to get behind the enemy battleline - but the Ottomans don't have this type of lancer unit so they can often be herded towards their own baselinebefore they do much damage.

[dave_r]

This is the Tabletop forum.

I am well aware of what forum this is, thank you, but when I started posting my comments in the PC forum I received this message from one of the moderators there . . .

batesmotel wrote:
"If you have general questions about the army lists, you're better off asking them in the TT army list forum than here. In general Keith just translated the TT lists for the PC versions with a few simplifications to reduce some complicated list restrictions or options for the PC version."

So that is what I am doing.

Which is fine, but you aren't commenting about the troops available, you are complaining that the troops aren't good enough. That isn't a question on the army list.

[TheGrayMouser]

Pete , what are you doing here, besides posting links to Rome Total War mod sites ( not warcraft lol)

Well , my own opinion is based off the PC game and I think the Ottomans do just fine there. I have enough knowledge of the TT game to apreciate how the Ottomans are likly very very good on the TT, maybe too good. Superior bow/sword Infantry are just quite nasty.

Me and Pete fought at least a dozen battles with Ottos vs their historical foes and sure, in our games the Ottos came up short , however I think this is a blame the player not the list thing.
I think likly the Ottoman army needs a special play style. I dont have it , as I cant find it in myseft to sit back and defend and tend to use my Janissaries in massive panzer style flank attacks, lol, with cavalry in the center. Way too agrressive. Pete , I would say you try to use them TOO historically, patiently waiting for enemy knights to charge up the center to impale themslevs on the entrenched Jan's. , which of course a human player isnt going to due in most situations.

My own opinion on the Ottomans is that they seem to suffer from the perception that they had a crushingly effective army, yet they lost a LOT of battles. What they appear to have had is the resources to come back swinging with new armies after defeats that would have crippled a western or Balkan nation. Basically, they had a lot of staying power, which is not going to be reflected in any tactical only game.

[stockwellpete]

Pete , what are you doing here, besides posting links to Rome Total War mod sites ( not warcraft lol)

Batesmotel sent me over here!

Me and Pete fought at least a dozen battles with Ottos vs their historical foes and sure, in our games the Ottos came up short , however I think this is a blame the player not the list thing. I think likly the Ottoman army needs a special play style. I dont have it , as I cant find it in myseft to sit back and defend and tend to use my Janissaries in massive panzer style flank attacks, lol, with cavalry in the center. Way too agrressive. Pete , I would say you try to use them TOO historically, patiently waiting for enemy knights to charge up the center to impale themslevs on the entrenched Jan's. , which of course a human player isnt going to due in most situations.

Well, that is the thing, isn't it? I feel that you can best judge an army against its historical opponents in games between players of a similar skill level - and that is what we did, wasn't it, TGM. Yes, I agree the Ottoman cavalry have to skirmish and delay melee-ing as long as possible against European horse - and maybe there is not quite enough room on a 500pt DAG battlefield to do this effectively. And yes, I am very interested in trying to fight with the armies as historically as possible - it fascinates me although I'm sure it is not everyone's cup of tea.

The army that gives the Ottomans the most trouble in my experience is the Serbian army - and I am beginning to be convinced that the DAG allows them too many mounted knights. I will post about this separately here tomorrow - I have been gathering some evidence to tentatively support my ideas.

My own opinion on the Ottomans is that they seem to suffer from the perception that they had a crushingly effective army, yet they lost a LOT of battles. What they appear to have had is the resources to come back swinging with new armies after defeats that would have crippled a western or Balkan nation. Basically, they had a lot of staying power, which is not going to be reflected in any tactical only game.

Yes, I think you are on to something important here, TGM. A good example is the battle at Kosovo 1389 - some accounts by historians describe the actual fighting as a draw, but proportionately the Serbians lost many more of their knights and best troops than the Ottomans and they were unable to face the Ottomans in battle for some considerable time afterwards. So I appreciate that, but I do still think that the Ottomans should be one of the armies to beat in EE - at the moment I don't think they are, in the PC game anyway.

[philqw78]

So you feel that they have too much space in TT, do you, Phil?

I think they have too much table depth to play with. Width is a different matter, but still, on table top, they have more than enough normally.

IMO the Ottomans won through numbers and logistics, hard to do in a fair fight on PC or table.

Now, if the authors write a campaign and scenario book, as promised, then KMS transfer that to PC the world would be a much nicer place.

[batesmotel]

A couple comments on differences between the TT and PC versions of the game that tend to affect the Ottomans:

1) PC games tend to use armies that are proportional to 1000-1200 TT points (500-600 for PC game) the limited numbers of Janissaries and Serbian knights make them less effective than in a 800 point TT game. The Ottomans do some what better in smaller games at 400 points or less on the PC.

2) In the PC game, missile units only shoot in the owning player turn, not in the opponents, so shooting is somewhat less effective in causing cohesion drops. Due to accumalation of casualties and much easier ability to mass fire, shooting does tend to cause more actual casualties but this doesn't necessarily save the Ottomans from being run over in close combat.

3) Due to the fact that each PC BG is roughly the equivalent of a 4 stand BG for the TT, the PC armies tend to have far more maneuver units than a normal TT army, e.g. for a normal PC army, the number of BG is in the 28-45 range compared to 12-18 for a typical TT army. This makes it much easier to spread troops out to cover the map wall to wall.

Chris

[hazelbark]

My own opinion on the Ottomans is that they seem to suffer from the perception that they had a crushingly effective army, yet they lost a LOT of battles. What they appear to have had is the resources to come back swinging with new armies after defeats that would have crippled a western or Balkan nation. Basically, they had a lot of staying power, which is not going to be reflected in any tactical only game.

A good summary of the historical record. Of note several Sultan's feared they would be overthrown and murdered for their battlefield failures in the 14th and 15th centuries. Later Viziers were.

[shadowdragon]

Pete, on the table top the Ottoman army is awesome. Definately one of the top 5 of all the lists. Therefore the problem is with the PC game.

Yes, that is probably right, Phil. I was asked to put my query in here as well by one of the PC forum moderators as a version 2 update of FOG is in progress so that my comments can be considered by the people doing this work.

I also have some queries about the Serbian lists, which seem to have far too many mounted knights - I will post these here in a couple of days time.

By the way, you can check the TT competition rankings here:

http://www.slithdata.net/files/fog/rankings.html

Sort by ELO-value - then you'll see that the Later Ottoman Turks are #2 and the Later Serbian are #52. I expect you won't get a ground swell of support from TT players that Later Ottoman's need to be improved.

...and, yes, table size does make a big difference. Larger tables favour mounted, skirmish armies while smaller tables favour the more sedate heavy foot armies.

[grahambriggs]

Part of the problem for the PC game will be that the TT lists were balanced to make the TT game work. e.g. sometimes list writers will have a range of possible ways to depict a troop type. Some of those options are then discounted as being game breaking. if there was good evidence for the Janissaries being heavily armoured, elite bowmen with pikes and heavy weapons you still are unlikely to see that in army lists. Similarly, there is no armoured or heavily armoured pike, despite the Swiss front ranks wearing very good armour later on.

Interesting that the Ottomans perform so differently between PC and TT. Sounds like troop density and a change to the shooting rules have done that.

[stockwellpete]

Part of the problem for the PC game will be that the TT lists were balanced to make the TT game work.

Yes, I think that is it in a nutshell, Graham.