nikgaukroger wrote: It is FoG policy to classify troops by their primary function - in the case of Ottoman cavalry that was as horse archers, the same applies to the earlier ghilman, etc. Possession of a weapon does not automatically confer a combat capability.
Yes, I see. I can understand why you do this - but my feeling is that the
overall effect of doing this with the Ottomans means that they have virtually no melee power in their army at all. And seeing as the fortifications cannot be deployed somewhere in the middle of the map means that they have little chance agains European opponents on an open battlefield. This is particularly true against the Serbs who seem to be allowed an incredible number of mounted knights in their list.
In the scenarios that I write for the PC game I am going to give Ghazis and Timariots light spears, and the Qapu Khalqi lances, so that they can melee more effectively. I have found this interesting distinction too between Balkan and Anatolian timariots that might be incorporated into the army lists . . .
“Classical Ottoman period standard equipment of Rumeli (Balkan) Sipahis was round shield, lance, sword, javelins and plated chainmail. Their horses were barded. Standard equipment of Anatolian Sipahis at same era was round shield, composite Turkish bow, arrows, kilij (turkish sword) and leather or felt armor. Beside of those, Sipahis of both provinces equipped with bozdogan and şeşper maces, and aydogan, teber and sagir axes. Anatolian Sipahis sometimes also carried lances.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipahi
Whilst some did, most did not, thus they have a maximum armour classification of Protected. In fact, IIRC, those with such good armour were very much the minority and it may be that Protected is being generous.
Ok, but then at least allow players to pick some armoured janissaries, particularly to give the centre of the line some solidity.
There well maybe an argument for this, however, we decided that Superior was powerful enough.
But in the open against mounted enemies they are usually toast. From their representation in the PC game I do have to wonder how the Ottomans managed to get out of Anatolia, let alone overrun the Balkans and briefly threaten western Europe.
See Graham's answer
Personally, I would allow any army selecting fortifications to deploy them in their own half of the battlefield - and I would also allow an equivalent number of troops as fortified sections to be deployed further forward too. I can recreate all this with the scenario editor it is true, but it would make fortifications a more interesting selection in PC and TT games I feel.
