We're probably a bit late in the cycle for me to bring this up but better late than never. I was wondering if the devs could be persuaded to give the Ottoman Turkish list another look. Considering the conquests they were making and battles they were winning from 1362 to 1520 it's a pretty lack luster list. They end up playing with a pretty steep handicap against a lot of armies they historically defeated; with worse cavalry archers than their enemies to the east (lacking any skilled shooter cavalry TuGs) and more importantly significantly worse melee troops than their enemies to the west (with nothing that can stand up to mounted or dismounted knights).
It's also a bit strange that the 'best' Ottoman build relies heavily on the Serbian internal ally. Certainly the Serbs played a pivotal role in several major Ottoman victories; but the structure of the list gives the impression they made up a substantial portion of the total army and arguably it's most effective arm.
I want to avoid the temptation to 'wish list', but the army seems due for another look.
One might consider logistics, planification, strategy and tactics as well . At Nicopolis the Ottomans used their well known tactic of entrenching their infantry and keeping their reserves behind . The noble french knights just went straight forward a move no sane player will do in MEG . So it might be more complicated than just "skilled" shooters . Why do you discard the jannisaries as punch units ?
I've an amended list ready to discuss with RJC when any potential rules adjustments are sorted and a fresh list update is on the cards.
little changes though except some rationalisation around numbers and some reclassifications (not new skilled shooters though)
there is an optional regrade that Janissaries could be Superior exp shooters with significant melee capacity but still loose order. Based on their use in some open battles and sieges, Belgrade for both is a nice example. Or as the list represents them now as Superior skilled shooters.
Spahis probably should have an optional regrade to make half flex, protected archers and no short spear. There is ample evidence that the Spahis varied massively from the expected 'requirements' of their feudal obligations and some being little different from the Akinji. Some were full fat melee equipped cavalry, many a bow and a horse. All are consistently said to be good archers and able to manoeuvre away rapidly and then return. Seems fair to allow a mix of flex (lower graded formations) and better equipped veterans or wealthy contingents.
The effect I was hoping for was greater numbers for more firepower and better staying power.
Generals really should have the option to be instinctive, direct, coordinated action wasnt as much a thing with Ottoman armies as you might think. They were very much professional in their logistics and planning but battlefield wise the respective wing commanders and the centre did not co-ordinate well. Also when the Beylerbey's of Rum or Anatolia were killed in combat it was a significant time before the respective wing reorganised and recovered or just plain didnt and routed
the significant issue for an Ottoman representation is that they won by politics and coming back year after year with more and more troops until they won. Something Western adversaries struggled to match. The recurring theme for Western V Ottoman battles is it goes badly for the Ottomans and then the Western troops or commanders do something stupid and lose. Also Field fortifications were a thing but not fun in Meg so that skews the list as well.
Jannisaries SUP + ME : sorry sir but I would say no . Or you make them AV + ME as being superior is already an upgrade . List have been reviewed and some AV + ME have been reclassified SUP. So upgrading jannissaries SUP + ME would go the other way round and open pandora's box when the tendancy goes the other way round . SUP are loosing their ME ( few exceptions )
Quote from: badhabum on December 12, 2025, 09:35:28 AMOne might consider logistics, planification, strategy and tactics as well . At Nicopolis the Ottomans used their well known tactic of entrenching their infantry and keeping their reserves behind . The noble french knights just went straight forward a move no sane player will do in MEG . So it might be more complicated than just "skilled" shooters . Why do you discard the jannisaries as punch units ?
While I'm sure the Ottomans had really good logistics, planning, etc, it doesn't seem likely they'd be massively better at it than their neighbors. Afterall they start the period as just another petty Anatolian kingdom. I don't think they would have been so much better at it to make up for an otherwise sub-par army over 2 centuries of conquest.
I have lot of thoughts on Janissaries but I'll keep it brief. Janissaries are a perfectly good unit. The problem is they aren't good enough on their own to win a battle, they have a good chance of beating average troops but struggle against other superiors w/ melee expert and melee cavalry. And since they're by far the best troops the Ottomans have they end up not having much support, and the army overall doesn't really have an answer to those troops. As a specific example, they don't beat knights, nothing in the army can beat knights, so the whole army is at a major type disadvantage against all of the European armies they regularly faced and ultimately defeated.
I get the distinct impression that the Ottomans did rather struggle against European knights which is why they started to face them with hordes of essentially expendable troops to soften them up a bit and extensive use of fortifications. Of course as Matt pointed out in our "normal" MeG games fortifications can be no fun so don't get used much.
Quote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 11:20:21 AMthe significant issue for an Ottoman representation is that they won by politics and coming back year after year with more and more troops until they won. Something Western adversaries struggled to match. The recurring theme for Western V Ottoman battles is it goes badly for the Ottomans and then the Western troops or commanders do something stupid and lose. Also Field fortifications were a thing but not fun in Meg so that skews the list as well.
I'm not sure where the Ottomans would have recruited armies for these repeated attempts in this time period (above and beyond the abilities of their opponents). By 1362 they only had control of the North Western corner of Anatolia. By 1450 they had most of Greece and Anatolia so possibly by then, but they must have conquered that huge population before having it available to recruit (and were then way more effective at administering it that the prior regime). And in the early years most of it would have been recently conquered Greek Christians.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 12, 2025, 06:24:58 PMI get the distinct impression that the Ottomans did rather struggle against European knights which is why they started to face them with hordes of essentially expendable troops to soften them up a bit and extensive use of fortifications. Of course as Matt pointed out in our "normal" MeG games fortifications can be no fun so don't get used much.
I'm not saying the Ottomans didn't struggle against knights, but 'swarm of expendables' doesn't seem to have worked for anyone else. They almost invariably run away having accomplished less than nothing. If the Ottomans did get that to work it might be something to represent on the table somehow (again, trying not to wish list)
Quote from: badhabum on December 12, 2025, 02:50:12 PMJannisaries SUP + ME : sorry sir but I would say no . Or you make them AV + ME as being superior is already an upgrade . List have been reviewed and some AV + ME have been reclassified SUP. So upgrading jannissaries SUP + ME would go the other way round and open pandora's box when the tendancy goes the other way round . SUP are loosing their ME ( few exceptions )
I didnt say ME
Quote from: Manzikert on December 12, 2025, 08:01:45 PMQuote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 11:20:21 AMthe significant issue for an Ottoman representation is that they won by politics and coming back year after year with more and more troops until they won. Something Western adversaries struggled to match. The recurring theme for Western V Ottoman battles is it goes badly for the Ottomans and then the Western troops or commanders do something stupid and lose. Also Field fortifications were a thing but not fun in Meg so that skews the list as well.
I'm not sure where the Ottomans would have recruited armies for these repeated attempts in this time period (above and beyond the abilities of their opponents). By 1362 they only had control of the North Western corner of Anatolia. By 1450 they had most of Greece and Anatolia so possibly by then, but they must have conquered that huge population before having it available to recruit (and were then way more effective at administering it that the prior regime). And in the early years most of it would have been recently conquered Greek Christians.
My fault for brevity. I wasn't suggesting new armies each year, the Ottomans rarely lost a battle decisively as they were able to remove the effective core of their armies intact, due to their speed and reliance on mounted troops. Those that died were usually the azab foot and similar, easily replaced and allowed repeated campaigning with the 'good' stuff. The reverse was not true of their Western opponents who if they lost tended to suffer significant casualties in the retreat and of troops they could not afford or could not replace, never mind the lack of central authority to enforce participation. Greek Christians much like early non-Muslim participants in the Arab conquest armies were not inherently disloyal as the lower taxes, the strong central authority and the generally less unstable lands made them preferable to older local regimes. My areas of study for central/eastern Europe are post 1400 on the whole though the principle is the same, strong leadership and better Ottoman organisation, militarily and politically saw them through in the early period, not necessarily an inherently better army composition. A fortified or at least obstacle centre was standard Ottoman practise when campaigning against Western armies, often along with field artillery, essentially they turned it into a siege line. Without that representation in Meg its hard to replicate Ottoman tactics.
Its much like the Timurid list its very hard to create a list that matches the historical accounts and that can do well in meg, its just too small and too expensive to survive the attritional nature of meg black/white dice in any kind of numbers. At the least the Ottoman list has a big skirmisher base, good command and the Janissaries.
Quote from: badhabum on December 12, 2025, 02:50:12 PMJannisaries SUP + ME : sorry sir but I would say no . Or you make them AV + ME as being superior is already an upgrade . List have been reviewed and some AV + ME have been reclassified SUP. So upgrading jannissaries SUP + ME would go the other way round and open pandora's box when the tendancy goes the other way round . SUP are loosing their ME ( few exceptions )
Do you have any examples? I haven't noticed any SUP lose their ME in the lists I play. I checked a few other random ones I happen to know and they hadn't lost it either.
Quote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 08:52:54 PMQuote from: Manzikert on December 12, 2025, 08:01:45 PMQuote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 11:20:21 AMthe significant issue for an Ottoman representation is that they won by politics and coming back year after year with more and more troops until they won. Something Western adversaries struggled to match. The recurring theme for Western V Ottoman battles is it goes badly for the Ottomans and then the Western troops or commanders do something stupid and lose. Also Field fortifications were a thing but not fun in Meg so that skews the list as well.
I'm not sure where the Ottomans would have recruited armies for these repeated attempts in this time period (above and beyond the abilities of their opponents). By 1362 they only had control of the North Western corner of Anatolia. By 1450 they had most of Greece and Anatolia so possibly by then, but they must have conquered that huge population before having it available to recruit (and were then way more effective at administering it that the prior regime). And in the early years most of it would have been recently conquered Greek Christians.
My fault for brevity. I wasn't suggesting new armies each year, the Ottomans rarely lost a battle decisively as they were able to remove the effective core of their armies intact, due to their speed and reliance on mounted troops. Those that died were usually the azab foot and similar, easily replaced and allowed repeated campaigning with the 'good' stuff. The reverse was not true of their Western opponents who if they lost tended to suffer significant casualties in the retreat and of troops they could not afford or could not replace, never mind the lack of central authority to enforce participation. Greek Christians much like early non-Muslim participants in the Arab conquest armies were not inherently disloyal as the lower taxes, the strong central authority and the generally less unstable lands made them preferable to older local regimes. My areas of study for central/eastern Europe are post 1400 on the whole though the principle is the same, strong leadership and better Ottoman organisation, militarily and politically saw them through in the early period, not necessarily an inherently better army composition. A fortified or at least obstacle centre was standard Ottoman practise when campaigning against Western armies, often along with field artillery, essentially they turned it into a siege line. Without that representation in Meg its hard to replicate Ottoman tactics.
Its much like the Timurid list its very hard to create a list that matches the historical accounts and that can do well in meg, its just too small and too expensive to survive the attritional nature of meg black/white dice in any kind of numbers. At the least the Ottoman list has a big skirmisher base, good command and the Janissaries.
Ah, fair enough. My statement about the Greek locals wasn't about them being disloyal per say, more that they wouldn't be a good source for mass recruited knight-fodder. I also agree with your points about central authority. But (and I'll freely admit my ignorance here) would the Ottomans have had significantly higher levels of centralization at this point than their neighbors? Certainly it would have increased over the period (and beyond) as they consolidated power and built legitimacy. My understanding is usually centralized authority was downstream of military power (used to enforce the centralization of power). I suppose some quick of the formation of the Ottoman polity could have had an effect.
But maybe that's off topic. My position really isn't that the Ottomans had an inherently better military than their neighbors, just that it wasn't markedly worse. The 'good' stuff should be actually good, and not simply low-mid tier cavalry archers and some good-but-not-great infantry.
Quote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 11:20:21 AMthere is an optional regrade that Janissaries could be Superior exp shooters with significant melee capacity but still loose order. Based on their use in some open battles and sieges, Belgrade for both is a nice example. Or as the list represents them now as Superior skilled shooters.
The allowed shooting skill downgrade would allow that to be done without the need for a list line wouldn't it? Think you'd only need a new list line if you thought they also demonstrated more melee effectiveness than usual and wanted them to have ME but only Experienced shooting skill.
QuoteGenerals really should have the option to be instinctive, direct, coordinated action wasnt as much a thing with Ottoman armies as you might think. They were very much professional in their logistics and planning but battlefield wise the respective wing commanders and the centre did not co-ordinate well. Also when the Beylerbey's of Rum or Anatolia were killed in combat it was a significant time before the respective wing reorganised and recovered or just plain didnt and routed
Sounds like a case for Professional AC and instinctive subbies ;D
Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 13, 2025, 09:17:37 AMQuote from: tarnowski1 on December 12, 2025, 11:20:21 AMthere is an optional regrade that Janissaries could be Superior exp shooters with significant melee capacity but still loose order. Based on their use in some open battles and sieges, Belgrade for both is a nice example. Or as the list represents them now as Superior skilled shooters.
The allowed shooting skill downgrade would allow that to be done without the need for a list line wouldn't it? Think you'd only need a new list line if you thought they also demonstrated more melee effectiveness than usual and wanted them to have ME but only Experienced shooting skill.
My intended change was to make the optional regrade one of exp shooters with polearms rather than ME. To represent them deliberately equipping for a melee focussed role, so fewer arrows, less concerted archery etc. Pole arm representing a mix of spears, halberds and other weapons. It wasn't uniform ,weapons were often at the discretion of the individual soldier. They still cant cope with the Western Knights but could toe to toe with the heavy Hungarian foot.
Quote from: Manzikert on December 12, 2025, 09:10:50 PMQuote from: badhabum on December 12, 2025, 02:50:12 PMJannisaries SUP + ME : sorry sir but I would say no . Or you make them AV + ME as being superior is already an upgrade . List have been reviewed and some AV + ME have been reclassified SUP. So upgrading jannissaries SUP + ME would go the other way round and open pandora's box when the tendancy goes the other way round . SUP are loosing their ME ( few exceptions )
Do you have any examples? I haven't noticed any SUP lose their ME in the lists I play. I checked a few other random ones I happen to know and they hadn't lost it either.
Some cavalry and exceptionnal cavalry as well but no time to go trough it for now sorry ( spartans did loose the ME but it's special as they have the SP )
QuoteIts much like the Timurid list its very hard to create a list that matches the historical accounts and that can do well in meg, its just too small and too expensive to survive the attritional nature of meg black/white dice in any kind of numbers. At the least the Ottoman list has a big skirmisher base, good command and the Janissaries.
I got a perfectly workable Timurid list and faced some others . Small but they can win
Quote from: Manzikert on December 12, 2025, 09:10:50 PMDo you have any examples? I haven't noticed any SUP lose their ME in the lists I play. I checked a few other random ones I happen to know and they hadn't lost it either.
Charlemagne Carolingian (3415) Cabalarii Scara did lose it (and perhaps some Charles Martel or Carolingian-like lists as well)