7 Pre-Samurai Japanese
The line "Yatsuko retainers, as above but lower quality and incomplete - Irr
Bw (O) @ 4AP 1-2 per Bw (S)"
might benefit from having the proportion changed to "1-2 per Irr Bw (S)" to
exclude Yatsuko retainers being selected when a Reg Bw (S) Yugei C-in-C is
used.
The line "Uji nobles and retainers with long spear and pavise - Irr Pk (X) @
3 AP 1-2 per 3 Bw"
might be better if the proportion is changed to "1-2 per 3 Irr Bw (S) or
(O)" to exclude Pk (X) being selected when Reg Bw (S) or Be levy Irr Bw (I)
are also used.
14 Early Bulgar
Climate, aggression and terrain has dates of "Before 675 AD" and "After 675
AD" - the second of these should be changed to "From 675 AD".
The old DBM list also had H(S), Wd and M as compulsory terrain from 675 AD.
This list allows 0-24 Avar allies in 812 AD. However, normal ally rules
using the maximum one third of compulsory elements would only allow 1 Avar
general and 12 Cv (S) to be fielded. Therefore, the list probably needs a
note to specify what additional elements can be fielded by the Avar ally.
15 Tibetan
The old DBM list has H(S) as a compulsory terrain type.
Nepalese allies can have 2 generals, so perhaps Nepalese baggage should be
"0-2 per Nepalese general"
17 Maurikian Byzantine
Posted by: "Peter Feinler" peterfein
Date: Tue Feb 2, 2010 4:23 pm ((PST))
Recent discussion about the Maurikian Byzantine list suggests that the list note "The minimum marked * applies only if there is at least 1 regular mounted element for every 2 regular foot elements. " could be clearer as some have taken it to mean that the minimum * does not apply if no foot elements are used whereas others believe the reverse.
I suggest that it is changed to either:
The minimum marked * applies only if any foot are used and there is at least 1 regular mounted element for every 2 regular foot elements.
if the intention is to allow single-based kavallarioi when no foot are used.
or
if the intention is that an army without foot must have double-based cavalry, the list note should be:
The minimum marked * applies only if either no foot are used or there is at least 1 regular mounted element for every 2 regular foot elements.
Peter
19 Welsh
The list notes specify that uchelwyr can dismount as Bd (O) and the list
also allows some uchelwyr to be to Kn (O) from 1150 AD. Is there a case for
then allowing the Kn (O) to dismount as Bd (S)?
21 Italian Lombard
This list has:
"Only from 668 AD to 700 AD:
Bulgar settlers - up to 1/2 Cv (S) @ 9AP, remainder Irr LH (S) @ 6 AP"
There are now no Cv (S) [apart from generals] in the Bulgar list for this
period, so the Bulgar settlers should probably be Cv (O) or LH (S).
Also, Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" Date: Thu Oct 8, 2009 3:51 pm ((PDT))
In the Italian Lombard list, we have "Irr Shp (O) @ 3AP [any]".
Presumably these should be either Inferior or carry [any foot].
22 Maya
The correct AP cost for Spanish war dogs in the Maya list is 2AP.
24 Middle Anglo-Saxon
There is a formatting error for the sub-heading "All Kingdoms from 700 AD" -
this should be rendered in bold.
The climate is "Cold", but all other British Isles lists are "Cool".
25 Arab Conquest
Muslim archers elements are bought as 1 per 4-12 Bd (O). This is okay while
the list has Bd (O). However, for the Khawarij rebellion options, the Bd
(O) are replaced by Wb (F) and thus no Muslim archers can be selected. Is
there a case for specifying Muslim archers as 1 per 4-12 Bd (O) or Wb (F) to
allow Khawarij to use Bw (O)?
The Arab Conquest and Khawarij options overlap for the dates 658 to 660 AD.
As written, this allows Khawarij to use Ex-Apostate foot for this
overlapping period. Khawarij should not be allowed to use Ex-Apostate
troops, and thus there should be a list note forbidding this.
More Khawarij
Posted by: "Peter Feinler" peterfein@iimetro.com.au peterfein
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:45 pm ((PDT))
Peter,
When I posed a similar query a while ago about point 3, Duncan Head's
response was that Khawarij should not be allowed to use Ex-Apostate
swordsmen.
Point 2- the list notes (sixth to last line) state that "Khawarij cannot
have Asawira, Dailami or naval elements". Ex-Apostate swordsmen should be
added to this as part of any book 3 errata.
Point 1 - I think this would be addressed if the list was amended to specify
that Muslim archers can be selected as "1 per 4-12 Bd (O) or Wb (F)".
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Barrett" <peter.barritus@yahoo.com.au>
To: <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:55 PM
Subject: [DBMMlist] Arab Conquest - Khawarij
I was just looking at this list in response to someone's questions, and came
up with a couple of questions of my own about the Khawarij.
1. Muslim archers are listed as 1 per 4-12 Bd (O). If the Bd (O) are
regraded as Wb (F), are the Bw still available?
2. Would the Khawarij be able to use Asawira, Dailami or naval (no end date
for their use)?
3. Does a Khawarij army from 658 to 660 have to use Ex-Apostate swordsmen?
Cheers
Peter B
26 Early Serbian or Croatian
Terrain type WH for Serbian is shown as bold but not underlined. The 1-2
for sub-generals has also slipped below the line for sub-generals.
33 Early Muslim North Africa and Sicily
Terrain type WW was compulsory in the old DBM list.
Formatting error: the sub-heading "Any after 1000 AD except in Sicily:"
should be rendered in bold.
The list notes mention Abbasiya being sent to Tunisia in 795 and that
Abbasiya must be in the C-in-C's command. However, there are no Abbasiya
in the list itself; but there are Khurasanian cavalry from 795 AD to 799
AD and 800 AD to 818 AD.
34 Andalusian
Arab cavalry are allowed only before 765 AD, but also have an upgrade for
the period "Only from 741 AD to 765 AD" - the upgrade should be "Only from
741 AD to 764 AD".
36 Nan-Chao and Ta-Li
The rules for the placement of orchards and compulsory terrain are
contradictory, so the compulsory O in the terrain for this list should be
rendered non-compulsory.
The list lacks baggage. This appears to be because of the list note
"Nan-chao troops did not have a baggage train, but carried their own
provisions and travelled light." Nonetheless the exclusion of baggage seems
a bit harsh.
37 Abbasid Arab
Expert black swordsmen
Expert black swordsmen - Reg Bd (F) - may be selected as "0-1 per 4 Bd".
Surely this should be "0-1 per 4 Bd (I)".
Abbasiya
5a. Re: Abbasid question
Posted by: "headd1uk" headd1uk
Date: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:28 am ((PDT))
PETER HAINES <pmh54321@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Duncan.
> When the option to upgrade all remaining arab Cv(O) lancers to
> reg Cv(S) Ghulams comes in, presumably that means all the ones
> not already replaced with Irr Cv(S) Abbasiya? Thus the Abbasiya
> are effectively compulsory until the list ends?
They shouldn't be, really. But that might be what it says :-(
cheers,
Duncan
See also http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141114 I'm not sure if this type of issue affects any other lists. (LG)
38 Arab Indian
This has an entry for "Only after 900 AD:" Ghulams - Reg Cv (S) a 30AP if
general, 10AP if not ... 0-3. This looks like it should be an upgrade
rather than a separate 3 elements, otherwise it allows the army to field up
to 4 generals.
39 Late T'ang and Five Dynasties Chinese
The list lacks artillery (as Duncan noted in a message a long time ago now).
And in another message from a long time ago Rob Brennan mentioned " I
believe that Duncan also wanted a Reg Bd(F) sub-general option."
Formatting error: under the sub-heading "Other armies", the line for "Other
cavalry - Reg Cv (O) @ 8 AP ... 0-6" is shown in bold - this
shouldn't be bold and is confusing.
The section titled "Other armies" should really be "Northern armies from 907
AD" eg, the Later Liang should be able to combine these options with the Irr
LH(S) Turks. Currently a strict reading would not allow this.
40 Norse Viking and Leidang
Terrain type S is shown as "(S if Viking)" thus implying that it should be
compulsory for Vikings but is neither underlined nor bold for Viking.
Berserks AP cost should be 5AP not 3AP.
Should Dublin Vikings climate be Cool like other irish lists?
Hired English ships Bts (S) cost 2AP (and by implication can't shoot). They should presumably be 3AP (and shoot), like other English Bts (S) of the period, which normally carried bows.
53 East Frankish has:
"Milites - Irr Kn (F) @ 9AP
- before 933 AD 9-24
- after 933 AD 18-44"
One of these dates needs to be changed, otherwise there'll be no Milites in
933 AD. The list notes imply that "from 933 AD" should replace "after 933
AD".
Also all Kn (F) must be upgraded to Kn (O) from 1085 AD but there is no such
upgrade for generals.
54 Dynastic Bedouin and Qaramita
Bedouin foot are specified as "1/4 slingers Ps (O), 0-1/2 archers Ps (O),
0-1/2 Irr Ax (I) ... 0-1 per 4 LH (O)".
The 1/4 slingers makes this a very clunky ratio - perhaps it should be
"0-1/4 slingers Ps (O), 0-1/2 archers Ps (O), 0-1/2 Irr Ax (I) ... 0-1 per
4 LH (O)".
Formatting error: The second line of one of the sub-headings is not in
bold.
55 Early Samurai
1. The old DBM list had H(S) as a compulsory terrain type, and the DBMM
Pre-Samurai list also has DH as compulsory.
2. The list notes are truncated, the last sentence is ""Artillery can only be used in fortified".
Based on the pre-release drafts this should end with "BUA." There were no further notes in the pre-release drafts.
56 Khitan Liao
1. Terrain type GH is shown as bold but not underlined.
2. Generals as Ordo
And I think this is the reason we have all considered the generals
to be part of the restriction. Personally I would like to see the
Sub-general wording change to something like "Sub-general - as C-in-
C, or as other ordo types Reg Cv (O) @ 28AP, or Reg LH (F) @ 25AP"
just to make it really clear.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/86532
3. Cv/Kn on Horse Transoprts?
"Horse-transports - Irr Shp (I) @ 2 AP [Cv, LH, or Bge (O)]"
This implies that ordo soldiers can be carried if graded as Cv (S),
but not if graded as Kn (F), which makes no sense - they're the same
troops. Should say [Kn, Cv, LH, or Bge (O)], or alternatively prohibit
Cv (S) ordo personel.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/109149
Then Duncan Head said:
Safer to be general - [Any mounted or Bge (O)]. Or maybe [Any Reg mounted or Bge (O)].
58 Buyid or other Dailami Dynasties
>
> I had a look at the Buyid list (Daylami) it would appear if you opt for the
Buyids of Baghdad, with added Ghulams, you cannot upgrade your sub-generals to
Cv, is this correct?
>
60 Medieval Vietnamese
Terrain type Wd is shown as bold but not underlined.
The intent of this list seems to be for Regional noble sub-generals to be
irregular until 1428 AD as they are initially classified as Irr El (O) or
Irr Cv (O); only after 1428 AD must the Cv (O) regional sub-generals at
least be upgraded to Reg Cv (O). However, the elephant upgrade to El (S)
allows Regional sub-generals to be upgraded to regular before 1429 AD
because it merely specifies an upgrade of "@ 40AP [20+20] if general"
without discriminating between "regional" and "standing army" generals. It
looks like the elephant upgrade needs to be changed to something like
"Upgrade elephants to Irr El (S) @ 30AP if Regional noble sub-general, 40AP
[20+20] if other generals, otherwise 20AP" and the "Only after 1428 AD:"
upgrade needs to start as something like "Upgrade regional troops if
regular but on elephant to Irr El (O) @ 36 AP [16+20] if El (O) sub-general
or Irr El (S) @ 40 AP [20+20] if Irr El (S) sub-general or Reg Cv (O) @ 28
AP if (O) sub-general.."
62 Sung Chinese
The old DBM list had WW as a compulsory terrain type from 1127 AD.
64 Ghaznavid
Elephants are specified as available "Before 1001 AD" and "After 1001 AD"
and there is also an elephant upgrade under the sub-heading "Only after 1001
AD:" The "after 1001 AD" dates should probably be changed to "from 1001
AD".
69 West Sudanese
The old DBM list had RGo as a compulsory terrain type.
70 Tuareg
The old DBM list had D as a compulsory terrain type.
71 Georgian
Cuman elements and a Cuman sub-general are compulsory after 1089 AD, and the
list notes also state that all Cumans must be under the command of a Cuman
sub-general. So far so good. However, "Only after 1245 AD:" all
sub-generals must be downgraded to ally-generals and there is no exception
for the Cuman sub-general. Therefore, once the Cuman general is downgraded
to an ally-general a strict reading of the list note means that the Cuman
general would no longer control all Cumans as there is no longer a Cuman
sub-general. Furthermore each Georgian ally general would have to command
at least 3 Cuman elements and the Cuman ally-general would have to command a
quarter of the compulsory Georgian elements. Although this is unchanged
from the DBM list, I suspect that it has never been queried before because
no one was crazy enough to field Georgians with all ally-generals. I'm not
sure what the intent of the original ally-general change is, but if all
Cumans should still be commanded by a Cuman general after 1245 AD (and the
Cuman general should not have to include compulsory Georgian elements), then
the list note needs to be changed to something like "All Cumans must be
under the command of a Cuman sub- or ally-general who also need not command
otherwise compulsory Georgian elements, except that..."
72 Anglo-Danish
"Upgrade C-in-C (as Harold Godwinson) to Brilliant @ 25AP" - The cost should say "Add 25AP" in line with other lists.to make clear it is an additional cost.
Although research would give the answer the list notes should make it clear that Harold is not Norman and was king in 1066 AD only.
75 Islamic Berber
From John E: Supporting Ps are currently not compulsory for
the Sp in the later lists - Almohades, Marinids etc. This means an ally
drawn from this list, permitted for Granadines and Feudal Spanish,
cannot have the integral archer support that should be present for these
troops. I'm not sure what the best way to do it would be, to simply make
them compulsory or to put in a list note stating that allied contingents
drawn from this list can include up to one Ps(o) per 2 Sp(i).
Andreas: I would suggest:
Berber or Negro archers - Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP or Irr Bw (I) @ 3AP [Ps can support Berber or Negro Irr Sp]
- Before 1185 AD: 12-24
- After 1185 AD: 0-12
Regrade Berber or Negro archers to Reg Ps (O) @ 2 AP [can support Berber or Negro Reg Sp] 0-1 per Berber or Negro Reg Sp
The Berber cavalry has dates of "before 1145 AD" and "after 1145 AD" - the
second of these should be "from 1145 AD".
Similarly dates for the Berber or Negro archers are "before 1185 AD" and "after
1185 AD", so the second date should be "from 1185 AD".
76 Konstantinian Byzantine
Curiously the line for "Psiloi archers and slingers" specifies that these
can support Ps or Ax. Surely only Ax support needs to be specified.
Konstipated Byzantines
Posted by: "ablackdouglas" g.harrow@wakemans.com ablackdouglas
Date: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:49 am ((PST))
--- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "coughlan_william"
<blarneycarryout@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "ablackdouglas" <g.harrow@> wrote:
> >
> > Book 3 list 76.
> >
> > Under Romanus IV 1068-1071 can I field 8 Norman Kn(f) without a
> Norman
> > Sub General.
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> Looks that way, but if you take them you have to have an internal
> ally. I think the restiction comes in that if you use a Norman sub
> general then he (Rousell ( is that the olde version Russell of bad
> taste in jokes fame { keep him away from Byzantine princesses
> especially round their grandfathers } I think he was called), then
> has to command any Normans present.
>
> If you do take the internal ally at least it opens a few more
> options, but all that Reg Cv(I) ugh! and all those minimums if used
> is gonna give a real hodge-podge of a command.
>
> But we all can't follow the winners and take Nikes!
>
> William
[GH] At first reading of the list it does indeed look like you have
to take the Norman Sub General if you take this option.
However there appears to be to be a possible get out clause and this
is what prompted by original question.
On the second last line of the list notes it states "A Norman general
can be used only if all Normans are in his command". This implies to
me that Normans can be allocated to other commands other than those
of a Norman sub general contradicting the requiremnt under the starred
(*) notes about minima from 2 lines previous in the list notes and
thus negating the neccessity to use a Norman sub general.
Therefore there is at least a lack of clarity if not straight
contradiction in the list notes.
Gordon
78 Scots Isles etc
> Take a look at 4th last line of list notes.
> LES
>
> DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "godsalljohn" <john.godsall@...> wrote:
>>
>> Within the list it allows for 9 Irr Bts(S) or 12 Irr. Bts(O)which can
>> carry either Bd or Wb.
>>
>> For the Bd this is no problem, but the only Wb allowed are Galwegian
>> allies. So my query is, can the Galwegian ally general also command all
>> the Bts?
>>
>> If not, can the Isles generals command Galwegians?
>>
>> Again, if not, how do I put Wb on the bts?
>>
>> Suggestions gratefully received.
79 Early Russian
The list ends at 1246 AD but includes an entry for "Only after 1265 AD:"
Dave Mather:
I found this which may shed light on the Germans in the Russian list typo for 1235 not 1265
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/43226
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.