Slitherine

I have a number of queries about these lists . . .

i) shouldn't mounted cavalry such as ghazis, timariots and Qapu Khalqi have "light lances" (i.e. light spears) as well as sword/bow?

ii) shouldn't the Janissaries be classed as "armoured" as they wore plate-mail in 14th and 15th C's?

iii) shouldn't there be an option to choose some "elite" Janissaries to represent the veterans among them?

iv) will it be possible in future for the Ottomans to deploy fortifications further forward than their own deployment zone? if they could deploy them in their own half of the battlefield then that would be very helpful, I feel.

Thanks.

stockwellpete wrote:I have a number of queries about these lists . . .

i) shouldn't mounted cavalry such as ghzais, timariots and Qapu Khalqi have "light lances" (i.e. light spears) as well as sword/bow?

ii) shouldn't the Janissaries be classed as "armoured" as they wore plate-mail in 14th and 15th C's?

iii) shouldn't there be an option to choose some "elite" Janissaries to represent the veterans among them?

iv) will it be possible in future for the Ottomans to deploy fortifications further forward than their own deployment zone? if they could deploy them in their own half of the battlefield then that would be very helpful, I feel.

Thanks.

Hi Pete, off the top of my head:

i) the list author obviously feels they should be mostly shooting rather than getting stuck in types. Lot's of cavalry types had lance and bow, but the authors are wary of supertroops.

ii) I seem to remember that armoured bow/sword foot were again seen to be a bit too good. Of course, you could give them the option to regrade to armoured bow, no sword

iii) Bit of a judgement call really. Were the veterans in separate units?

iv) It would certainly make for more historic tactics, and it would be sensible for them to be required to be manned by Janissaries. Perhaps more suited to a re-enactment though? List specific deployment rules sound ugly!

stockwellpete wrote:I have a number of queries about these lists . . .

i) shouldn't mounted cavalry such as ghzais, timariots and Qapu Khalqi have "light lances" (i.e. light spears) as well as sword/bow?

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.

ii) shouldn't the Janissaries be classed as "armoured" as they wore plate-mail in 14th and 15th C's?

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.

iii) shouldn't there be an option to choose some "elite" Janissaries to represent the veterans among them?

There well maybe an argument for this, however, we decided that Superior was powerful enough.

iv) will it be possible in future for the Ottomans to deploy fortifications further forward than their own deployment zone? if they could deploy them in their own half of the battlefield then that would be very helpful, I feel.

See Graham's answer

nikgaukroger wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:ii) shouldn't the Janissaries be classed as "armoured" as they wore plate-mail in 14th and 15th C's?

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.

In fact the Jannisaries routinely took horrific casualites versus standard armoured christian troops throughout the period. They also struggled in combat versus these troops.

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.

hazelbark wrote:In fact the Jannisaries routinely took horrific casualites versus standard armoured christian troops throughout the period. They also struggled in combat versus these troops.

The problem I have is that I feel missile units in general, and particularly horse archers, are underpowered in the PC game, so if their melee power is weakened too then you haven't really made a good representation of their army - I don't play TT so I cannot comment.

grahambriggs wrote: i) the list author obviously feels they should be mostly shooting rather than getting stuck in types. Lot's of cavalry types had lance and bow, but the authors are wary of supertroops.

But giving Ghazis, Timariots and Qapu Khalqi "light lances" and "lances" means that they are still outclassed by heavily armoured knights, both on "impact" and in "melee".

ii) I seem to remember that armoured bow/sword foot were again seen to be a bit too good. Of course, you could give them the option to regrade to armoured bow, no sword

iii) Bit of a judgement call really. Were the veterans in separate units?

They would still get smashed by western knights whether they were armoured or not. Behind fortifications or in rough ground would be a different matter, I agree. I expect the veterans would be dispersed among the various units, but their overall regime and training was quite exceptional for the time - so they are definitely "superior" before they have been in a major battle, in my view. Once they became battle-hardened I think they were undoubtedly "elite" troops.

iv) It would certainly make for more historic tactics, and it would be sensible for them to be required to be manned by Janissaries. Perhaps more suited to a re-enactment though? List specific deployment rules sound ugly!

see my reply above. I would allow forward deployment for any army choosing fortifications, not just the Ottomans. Cheers!

Reading you posts I take it that your views are based wholly on the PC game. In the table top game I can assure you that Ottomans are one of the most effective armies you can take (as long as you are a reasonably competant player).

The lists were written for the table top game so I can only comment on that, especially as I have neither had any input into the computer game nor played it.

nikgaukroger wrote:Reading you posts I take it that your views are based wholly on the PC game. In the table top game I can assure you that Ottomans are one of the most effective armies you can take (as long as you are a reasonably competant player).

The lists were written for the table top game so I can only comment on that, especially as I have neither had any input into the computer game nor played it.

Yes, that's right, Nik. I am a reasonable PC player, I suppose - of course, there are some players out there who can work marvels with any army you care to mention - but in games with opponents of a similar skill level I have found the Ottomans losing to the Serbs (heavily), Albanians and Hungarians and winning only against the Wallachians. Hence, I started to rummage around to see what I could find out about these different armies.

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.

philqw78 wrote: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.

stockwellpete wrote:

philqw78 wrote: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.

Don't worry, FoG2 is hard at work making Ottomans even more awesome than they currently are

I agree that Later Ottoman Turk is one of the top armies on the tabletop. Infact I have ordered the figures for the army today.
As non-knightly lance is trumped by knightly lance and armoured janissaries are still less well armoured than heavily armoured Serb Kn neither of these changes would help at all vs serb kn.
It is standard to have Serb allies giving you a unit of Kn yourself and then the janissaries are more manoeuverable than serb Kn and try not to fight them in open terrain. It should be born in mind that Serb is designed to fight Ottoman turk.

Paul

Don't worry, FoG2 is hard at work making Ottomans even more awesome than they currently are

Any hint how the Ottomans could be better in 2.0?
(I am not a Beta 2.0 tester)

stockwellpete wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: iiii) Bit of a judgement call really. Were the veterans in separate units?

They would still get smashed by western knights whether they were armoured or not. Behind fortifications or in rough ground would be a different matter, I agree. I expect the veterans would be dispersed among the various units, but their overall regime and training was quite exceptional for the time - so they are definitely "superior" before they have been in a major battle, in my view. Once they became battle-hardened I think they were undoubtedly "elite" troops.

But Ottoman foot should be smashed by Western knights. As should Ottoman cavalry if they take the first impact. In most of the battles in the balkans the knights crushed the first line and were only beaten by the reserves. For example, at Nikopolis the knights went through the Ottoman conscript foot, then through the professional foot even though these were behind stakes, then pursued until beaten by the reserve cavalry.

It happens time and again in these battles that the knights break through one or more Ottoman lines.

As others have said, the Ottomans don't need any hand-out is the TT game.

grahambriggs wrote: But Ottoman foot should be smashed by Western knights.

I am not saying that they shouldn't be. I am suggesting that giving them "armoured" status will not turn them into "super troops".

As should Ottoman cavalry if they take the first impact.

Ditto.

In most of the battles in the balkans the knights crushed the first line and were only beaten by the reserves. For example, at Nikopolis the knights went through the Ottoman conscript foot, then through the professional foot even though these were behind stakes, then pursued until beaten by the reserve cavalry.

It happens time and again in these battles that the knights break through one or more Ottoman lines.

Yes, I agree. But knights will not plough through proper fortified positions, will they? And when the Ottomans fought defensively they had fortifications in the centre of their position manned by Janissaries and artillery, while the mounted troops were massed on the flanks (Balkan troops on one flank, Anatolian troops on the other). The biggest problem I have had has been against the Serbian armies who seem to have far too many knights in their lists. I will post about this on Thursday.

As others have said, the Ottomans don't need any hand-out is the TT game.

I am talking solely about the PC game, but I have been asked to post my questions in this forum by a FOG moderator because the army lists for the PC game are very much based on the TT lists - and the discussion about any changes has to take place here. It may be that something has been lost in the translation of the lists from the TT to PC. In the PC game, the Ottoman lists have very little melee-ing power at all and the fortifications are virtually useless because you can only put them in your own deployment zone. So against European armies in open terrain the Ottomans get completely annihilated. I know that they were not invincible in the 15thC but I feel they were much tougher than the current depiction of them in the PC version of FOG.

This is very interesting . . .

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

stockwellpete wrote:

hazelbark wrote:In fact the Jannisaries routinely took horrific casualites versus standard armoured christian troops throughout the period. They also struggled in combat versus these troops.

The problem I have is that I feel missile units in general, and particularly horse archers, are underpowered in the PC game, so if their melee power is weakened too then you haven't really made a good representation of their army - I don't play TT so I cannot comment.

I can't comment on the PC game. I don't have it. This is the Tabletop forum. And my comments are based on tabletop rules.

Delbruck wrote:

Don't worry, FoG2 is hard at work making Ottomans even more awesome than they currently are

Any hint how the Ottomans could be better in 2.0?
(I am not a Beta 2.0 tester)

There are a lot of flux in the decisions and have been big reversals of thinking among authors, so don't go to the bank yet on any changes.
An idea that appeals to many is to improve CV w/Bw while reducing LH w/Bw.
Ottomans who are more of a CV and jannisary army than a LH/CV would presumeably improve.

stockwellpete wrote:This is very interesting . . .

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

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