Slitherine

I am not the sharpest knife in the FoG drawer and have the stats to prove it. So - I am asking the opinions of others on why there is such a disparate track record between these two armies, Mongol and Later Ottoman.

Ottomans often appear at the top of tournament results, Mongols appear only infrequently and then usually at the bottom. Why? They seem broadly comparable, with Mongols having an edge in quality and drilled, Ottomans having an ability to field more variety with some quality infantry, handgunners, and cost effective LH.

Are Mongols run more often by newcomers as a more (in)famous army? Or is the variety and cheap LH the winner for the Ottomans?

Janissaries AND Serbs...

Skullzgrinda wrote:I am not the sharpest knife in the FoG drawer and have the stats to prove it. So - I am asking the opinions of others on why there is such a disparate track record between these two armies, Mongol and Later Ottoman.

Ottomans often appear at the top of tournament results, Mongols appear only infrequently and then usually at the bottom. Why? They seem broadly comparable, with Mongols having an edge in quality and drilled, Ottomans having an ability to field more variety with some quality infantry, handgunners, and cost effective LH.

Are Mongols run more often by newcomers as a more (in)famous army? Or is the variety and cheap LH the winner for the Ottomans?

16 Drilled superior protected MF Bow, Sword. 4 proper serb knight with an ally general. Handgunners who are cheap.

Skullzgrinda wrote:Ottomans having an ability to field more variety with some quality infantry, handgunners, and cost effective LH.

Are Mongols run more often by newcomers as a more (in)famous army? Or is the variety and cheap LH the winner for the Ottomans?

In any head to head janissaries will make mincemeat of mongols.
Also, Mongol LH is so expensive - 4 Superior bow sword cost 50% more than 4 average bow, and most of the time the sword isn''t in use.

Thank you all for your answers. Significant difference in statistical outcome for so few variations.

azrael86 wrote:In any head to head janissaries will make mincemeat of mongols.
Also, Mongol LH is so expensive - 4 Superior bow sword cost 50% more than 4 average bow, and most of the time the sword isn''t in use.

I disagree. The mongols can dismount, which would give armd superior shooters against protected. Or stay mounted and split the fire between 2 BG at even odds. Mongol LH does not have to be superior and once the sword does come into use it has a devastating effect upon non-sword LH. The Ottomans do get a number of very cheap BG, I have never seen a Mongol bigger than 12 BG. Also one of the major differences is looking at who has used the army. Namely Mr Dalby. I wonder if the lack of oxygen up there is affecting him?

Shhhhhhhhh!!!

philqw78 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:In any head to head janissaries will make mincemeat of mongols.
Also, Mongol LH is so expensive - 4 Superior bow sword cost 50% more than 4 average bow, and most of the time the sword isn''t in use.

I disagree. The mongols can dismount, which would give armd superior shooters against protected.

You can't dismount if there are lancers around, especially not if they're Serbs.

azrael86 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:In any head to head janissaries will make mincemeat of mongols.
Also, Mongol LH is so expensive - 4 Superior bow sword cost 50% more than 4 average bow, and most of the time the sword isn''t in use.

I disagree. The mongols can dismount, which would give armd superior shooters against protected.

You can't dismount if there are lancers around, especially not if they're Serbs.

Yes you can. In fact, you should.

Cavalry v proper Knights are - at impact and - at melee.

Dismounted Cavalry v proper Knights are -- at impact and - in melee. BUT they get three dice to the Knights 2 at impact, which evens it up a bit and is actually better than being at - with the same dice.

Also, if the Infantry don't go disrupted the Knights are forced to break off allowing you to get away or do something nasty, whilst the Cavalry are stuck until they die.

dave_r wrote:

azrael86 wrote:
You can't dismount if there are lancers around, especially not if they're Serbs.

Yes you can. In fact, you should.

Cavalry v proper Knights are - at impact and - at melee.

Dismounted Cavalry v proper Knights are -- at impact and - in melee. BUT they get three dice to the Knights 2 at impact, which evens it up a bit and is actually better than being at - with the same dice.

Also, if the Infantry don't go disrupted the Knights are forced to break off allowing you to get away or do something nasty, whilst the Cavalry are stuck until they die.

Your kidding.
Even though you should lose both combats and have to pass two tests at minuses to make the Kn break off? The cav can just evade and from 3 MU can't even be caught!

azrael86 wrote:You can't dismount if there are lancers around, especially not if they're Serbs.

All depends on the terrain available. Go for things you can win. You will be hard pushed to beat the Knights with Cav support. But your LH will beat the Ottoman LH. Your cav could beat the Ottoman Cav if it can be seperated from the Knights. But its most likely the knights charge then their cav move to support. Come up with a battle plan and use the army's strengths. It can dismount (very useful against longbows). Its LH have swords. Its cavalry is drilled. Or its cavalry is armoured drilled medium foot (expnsive and unfortunately not expansive though). The mongol major weakness is no cheap filler so it can risk an extra BG. Bring back the hostage screen.

azrael86 wrote:Your kidding.
Even though you should lose both combats and have to pass two tests at minuses to make the Kn break off? The cav can just evade and from 3 MU can't even be caught!

Do the Maths. you are not all that likely to lose the impact. If you can survive the melee, then you can often prevent the knights breaking off, giving them a really bad day.

The only problem with this Dave is the knights will expand getting 6 dice to your 4.

philqw78 wrote:The only problem with this Dave is the knights will expand getting 6 dice to your 4.

Not if you don't let them! You are drilled MF to his Undrilled Knights. You can run bloody rings around him!!!

But in a Mongol army you do not have left over, filler, troops to do this. But lets face it he should never hit you

dave_r wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Your kidding.
Even though you should lose both combats and have to pass two tests at minuses to make the Kn break off? The cav can just evade and from 3 MU can't even be caught!

Do the Maths. you are not all that likely to lose the impact. If you can survive the melee, then you can often prevent the knights breaking off, giving them a really bad day.

I did - 1.44 v 1.16 at impact (1 el frontage). If the foot pass then 2.33 v 1.6...if they don't then its gruesome...

Honestly why would you fight at these odds?

azrael86 wrote:

dave_r wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Your kidding.
Even though you should lose both combats and have to pass two tests at minuses to make the Kn break off? The cav can just evade and from 3 MU can't even be caught!

Do the Maths. you are not all that likely to lose the impact. If you can survive the melee, then you can often prevent the knights breaking off, giving them a really bad day.

I did - 1.44 v 1.16 at impact (1 el frontage). If the foot pass then 2.33 v 1.6...if they don't then its gruesome...

Honestly why would you fight at these odds?

First of I would dispute the odds - if we assume both have a general (and that is reasonable considering how much Cavalry a Mongol army has), then the bowmen get 1.33 hits to the Bowmen and 1.78 to the Knights. So this is drawish or close.

In the melee it is favourable to the Knights, so as I have mentioned before you need to use your manoever (that the knights don't have) to put things in your favour - if you deny a break off, then if the knights don't win they lose cohesion, if you cause flank charges they will lose. etcetera, etcetera....

If you get drawn into a straight up fight then you have already lost. With the Mongols ability to manoever, that would only be your own fault as well.

dave_r wrote:If you get drawn into a straight up fight then you have already lost. With the Mongols ability to manoever, that would only be your own fault as well.

Quite so. Knights are drawn on through their own impetuosity and stung with shooting, then if they are away from their supports they can be ultimately charged in the flank or rear. Ottomans, of course, have good Cavalry to cover those flanks and intercept flank attack attempts, so it is a challenge.

Skullzgrinda wrote:I am not the sharpest knife in the FoG drawer and have the stats to prove it. So - I am asking the opinions of others on why there is such a disparate track record between these two armies, Mongol and Later Ottoman.

Ottomans often appear at the top of tournament results, Mongols appear only infrequently and then usually at the bottom. Why? They seem broadly comparable, with Mongols having an edge in quality and drilled, Ottomans having an ability to field more variety with some quality infantry, handgunners, and cost effective LH.

Are Mongols run more often by newcomers as a more (in)famous army? Or is the variety and cheap LH the winner for the Ottomans?

As others have saide:

1) A couple of small BGs of handgunners provides a cheap boost to the effectiveness of a shooty cav outfits primary strength (skirmishing cohesion loss followed up by a solid counter punch)

2) 1 BG of knights makes any army better particularly if that army favours fights in open terrain.

3) superior Bow in decen sized units

other benefits:
4) point optimisation by flexibility in undrilled and drilled Cav on offer (and a subsequently higher BG count)

5) Lancer LH to harrangue enemy skirmishers without needing expensive superior bow/sword troops to do the deed.

dave_r wrote:If you can survive the melee, then you can often prevent the knights breaking off, giving them a really bad day.

How can you prevent the knights breaking off in the turn that they charge you ?