later ottoman turks

[nikgaukroger]

madaxeman's site has one listed with 2x4 groups...

Just saying...

Madcam

Well if you take that list as absolutely correct it has no commanders

Having seen a few of Pete's lists I'll stick my neck out and say the Serbs are allied

[madcam2us]

Similiar to what I'm running without the serbs...

IC
2xTC
6xFF
4xElites
2*4 super undrilled armor
1x4super undrilled pro
2*4 undrilled avg lh bow
1x4 undrilled avg lh lance/swd
1x4 drilled super firearm
2x6 janissaries
2x8 azab mf
1x4 jani mf xbow

Similiar idea is to move to flanks.

The problems are not movement..

Madcam.

[petedalby]

Having seen a few of Pete's lists I'll stick my neck out and say the Serbs are allied

Spot on Nik! That was an early experiment - I had 3 Serb BGS and the Allied Serb Commander. The new list is arguably better because you don't have to take Serb LH.

You'll see the new version at Warfare if you're coming? But it looks nothing like the 2 lists published on this thread - well - other than the compulsories of course!

Pete

[flameberge]

With due respect, we're (im) not playing history. I'm playing a game based on history. As such some latitudes have to be taken.
Madcam.

Then don't bother using the army lists. Write your own. Meanwhile I'll get on with repainting my LF with repeating hand-guns and holy hand grenades not mention the elite knights who say nee or the killer rabbits.

Julian (definitely trolling)

Sorry I'm not up on all the internet lingo. What is trolling?

[carlos]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling


Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning. When done to uptight people such as fundies, this can result in hilarity.

[Hepius]

Are Janissaries very good?

While waiting for Eternal Empire to come out I had imagined that they would have something that would make them a bit more "special". Like any one of the following: option for armored, skilled sword, or massed foot composite bows counting as longbow.

I am not posting this to complain about my favorite troop type getting nerfed. I don't own, nor have I every used an Ottoman army. I just had an impression (that could be wrong) that Janissaries in the FoG era were one of the great units in history.

As is, they seem a bit vanilla. Has anyone used them yet? How do they do in battle?

[Ghaznavid]

Jannisaries are superior Bow, Swordsmen I think that makes them plenty special. There aren't very many superior archers in the lists, much less superior and close combat capable archers. (Are there any besides Immortals and Janissaries?) Effectively vs. most targets superior + bow is going to be better then average + longbow. In the remaining cases they are probably of rougly equal effectivity, as being superior makes somewhat up for the worse PoAs.

[ethan]

One thing you can count on is that English longbows want nothing to do with Jannissaries...

[nikgaukroger]

Looking at the results from a comp in Oz it appears the Ottomans are not wholly useless.

They won in a field that was; Ottoman, Ilkhanid, Condotta, Medieval Portuguese, Ordonnance French, Latin Greek, Nikeforian, Medieval Castilian.

[PaulByzan]

hi, just got the army lists for ottoman turks and must say that I feel a bit let down by the lists.
The number of bases for the janissaries is low, and even thoe it states in the write up on page 12 that azabs had been recruited in large numbers all you get from the lists are 8 bases in total. something very wrong here. I DO FEEL THAT some of these army lists have taken the true strong points out of each army and also the feel of each nation.
what do you chaps think.
michael

Hard to believe, but a confirmed Byzantinophile like me has to concur. First thing I thought of when I looked at the Ottoman list was, "Wow, that's not so tough." Almost felt sorry for them.

Paul Georgian

[PaulByzan]

Tricksy army to use the Ottoman - guy down the club has taken a year to get his head round it and come up with a list he likes and how to use it, but he is winning with it now.

One of those armies where history pulls a bit of a smoke and mirrors job on us - they were successful and had a huge empire, however, they tended to get a good kicking when they faced anyone competant and/or well equipped.

Nik,

Don't disagree with this to a certain point, but then doesn't that lead to the corollary that since they crushed the Mamluks with ease, and defeated the Hungarians (and those with French allies on two occasions) at least as often as they lost, that their opponents should have equal 'smoke and mirror' limitations on their lists. Nothing I've read indicates from any historians writing at the time of the Ottomans, felt that they were other than a fearsome tactical opponent.

Paul Georgian

[nikgaukroger]

Fearsome as much due to numbers as anything IMO. Look at what I said about their opponents doing well when well led, etc. For example the Ottomans won at Nicopolis as much due to incompetance on their oppnents sid as anything else and even then the western knights caused frightful casulaties and at Varna it was a blood bath where, IIRC, they just scraped it due to the Hungarian king dying.

[rbodleyscott]

I have to say I find this whole thread rather ironic as Pete Dalby will probably win Warfare again this year with Later Ottomans like he did last year.

[nikgaukroger]

That's him doomed then

[petedalby]

Kiss of death or what!!

Pete

[Delbruck]

Fearsome as much due to numbers as anything IMO.

Yes, just like the millions of Persians and hundreds of thousands of Burgundians.

Isn't it possible the Ottomans won because they were tactically and stategically superior to European armies of the period.

In any event, I don't think the Ottomans are that bad in FoG. One can not depend on the Janissaries to win the battle like the English can depend upon the longbowmen. They don't have the numbers and the mobile field fortifications. If Janissaries are used , they probably need to used in more of a support role.

Having said all that, I do think the Ottomans should be allowed to have many more Azabs than allowed in the lists.

[hazelbark]

defeated the Hungarians (and those with French allies on two occasions) at least as often as they lost, that their opponents should have equal 'smoke and mirror' limitations on their lists. Nothing I've read indicates from any historians writing at the time of the Ottomans, felt that they were other than a fearsome tactical opponent.
Paul Georgian

The Ottomans won and lost versus the europeans many times. The Sublime Porte was not always victorious. They just came back again and again.

The Ottomans were fearsome, but also because not only were they capable of winning toe-to-toe fights but also they raided vast areas and had a proven determiniation and capablity to reduce fortified towns. Not a particularly common skill in the 15th century. If you lived within 150 km of the Ottoman frontierr you were not safe even in a fortified position.

[hazelbark]

Having said all that, I do think the Ottomans should be allowed to have many more Azabs than allowed in the lists.

In one sense yes in absolute terms. But I haven't found any reports where the number of Azab type troops exceeded the number of timiriot and akincis.

You can get 24 Azabs. I think plus Mob. that is a lot of people relative to the rest.

So I think the list is a pretty balanced representation of history.

[petedalby]

Just a quick update.

Richard Bodley Scott did indeed jinx me and I came 5th out of 20, but Jason Broomer came 3rd also using Later Ottomans.

This is good army with loads of options. Find the balance that works for you.

Pete

[nikgaukroger]

They have, I think, also placed 1st and 2nd at an Aussie comp recently and also 3rd in another.

Definitely a worthwhile army IMO.