Ottoman Turks and Early 17th Century Russian, Worth it?

Moderators: Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Post Reply
lonehorseman
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Ottoman Turks and Early 17th Century Russian, Worth it?

Post by lonehorseman » Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:43 pm

Hi there,

New to the ruleset and wondering which of the 2 armies are better open competition armies (if they are at all) A couple queries of mine are:

a) I have a FoG A&M Later Ottoman Turkish army, how easy is it to morph this to a competitive FoG:R army and is it worth the costs of getting gun armed Jannisaries and whatever else I would need.
b) The Russians have 8 bases of Streltsi, 8 bases of Soldatski and 5 Bases of Pikemen. 8 Bases of Deti Boyarski and 8 Bases of Dvor as well as 2 bases light artillery, 2 bases of dragoons, 4 bases of Reiters and 4 bases of skirmishing matchlockmen. What would I be lacking to complete this for 800pts of Fog
c) is it worth me spending the money on figures as well of clash of empires or should I rather look at a different Ren army (have 40 bases of generic Shot as well as some generic horse) and book?

and then probably the most important question: d) does anyone have example army lists for either Army. I want to try testing them out with a friend of mine who is already playing.

Thanks in advance
15mm: Painted: Late Republican Roman
Medieval Welsh
WIP: Ivan the Terrible's Russians
Later Ottoman Turkish

nickdives
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:56 am

Post by nickdives » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:44 pm

Ottoman cavalry are completely outclassed by Western cavalry, your only chance is to have as many poor/average troops as possible and try to swamp the enemy, keep out of impact/melee. Likewise Ottoman Infantry are not to clever against Western Inf, and the opponent will do everything to avoid massed Ottoman guns!

Bear in mind most Ottoman victories were won with the help of sheer numbers something difficult to achieve with points!

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:12 am

I have both and I think people underestimate the Ottomans. They are not however a mounted army.

The later russians in duty and glory are quite viable.

I would look first at Ottomans. Both suffer from not being able to go toe-to-toe vs TYW horse. The firepower of the European Pike and Shot is serious. But Consider 4 shot/2 pike vs 8 Bow.

Bow shoot at 4 MU full volume.
At long range 2 musket dice probalby do nothing.
At long range 4 bow dice probably cause a test.
At short range.
4 Mustket dice. Probably cause test and have a decent chance to kill.
8 bow dice. Likely to cause test and also a respectable chance to kill.

Add in terrain, some field fortifcations and artillery and the Ottomans can have fun. Early Russians somewhat so. Probably is if enemy pistol horse come up the center.

nickdives
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:56 am

Post by nickdives » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:29 am

Haze,

indeed they are not a mounted army, in the ruleset. They were, however, a mounted army in reality! I also find it frustrating that most Ottoman Cav figures are cast with lances, who is right - FOG who do not allow it or figure manufacturers, WRG, and other rulesets who give them light lance/lance?

The problem with the above caslculatuion is the -2 on the death role vs fired at by bow. I did try to combine carbine with bow shooting, but got a good kicking!!

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:51 am

nickdives wrote:Haze,

indeed they are not a mounted army, in the ruleset. They were, however, a mounted army in reality!
The Janissary infantry (and later the other firearm infantry) and the artillery were a vital part of the Ottoman battlefield tactics in this period - they were definitely not just a mounted army.


I also find it frustrating that most Ottoman Cav figures are cast with lances, who is right - FOG who do not allow it or figure manufacturers, WRG, and other rulesets who give them light lance/lance?

Just because FoG does not give them the Lancer capability does not mean that they were not equipped with them (at least partially) - capabilities are not a description of equipment, they are an effect (although, of course, there is a lot of overlap).
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

davids
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:18 am

Re: Ottoman Turks and Early 17th Century Russian, Worth it?

Post by davids » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:49 am

lonehorseman wrote:Hi there,

New to the ruleset and wondering which of the 2 armies are better open competition armies (if they are at all) A couple queries of mine are:

a) I have a FoG A&M Later Ottoman Turkish army, how easy is it to morph this to a competitive FoG:R army and is it worth the costs of getting gun armed Jannisaries and whatever else I would need.
b) The Russians have 8 bases of Streltsi, 8 bases of Soldatski and 5 Bases of Pikemen. 8 Bases of Deti Boyarski and 8 Bases of Dvor as well as 2 bases light artillery, 2 bases of dragoons, 4 bases of Reiters and 4 bases of skirmishing matchlockmen. What would I be lacking to complete this for 800pts of Fog
c) is it worth me spending the money on figures as well of clash of empires or should I rather look at a different Ren army (have 40 bases of generic Shot as well as some generic horse) and book?

and then probably the most important question: d) does anyone have example army lists for either Army. I want to try testing them out with a friend of mine who is already playing.

Thanks in advance
With the figures you have you would be closer to a Later Russian in Duty and Glory than the early version in Clash of Empires (which is all bow armed cavalry and streltsy - no Reitary or soldaty)

The weakness with the army is against Western/Polish determined horse & horse. The pre 1662 option can have superior armoured cavalry (12 bases) but otherwise it is average all the way. I tried an Early Russian (in Clash of Empires) but found it better as a Later Russian with some pistol armed horse. Otherwise the only mounted with an impact weapon are the (unarmoured) cossacks or some post 1662 lancers.

The streltsy can go well against horse if their shooting is successful and they hold out in the impact phase (when they are --). I have had mine ridden down by Swedish determined horse but also blow some away with their shooting. They do have the advantage against pike/shot units of more dice per frontage. You can try using the gulay gorod and maximising the artillery. The streltsy behind FF are pretty tough to beat and not many will come frontally to attack you - of course your weak cavalry arm will be targeted. Quality doesn't always trump quantity though and the cossacks or tatars are handy for delaying a flank. I'm not sure if using FF in a competition is viable though but against an opponent with better foot and fewer cavalry it can be effective in a one off game.

Later Russian has a lot of options eg Tatars or dragoons or Cossacks; a pre 1662 with cavalry and horse and more streltsy or a post 16662 with more soldaty and determined horse. If you want to field every option it could get expensive to buy and take forever to paint.

I don't think it is a killer army but it's probably not the worst out there. Then again I have only played a few games with it, and my opponents have been a bit green in FOG:R (although all FOG:AM players).

nickdives
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:56 am

Post by nickdives » Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:31 pm

Some rough figures from Vienna 1683 give the Cavalry approx 62,000 and the foot approx 19000, of whom about 15,000 were Janissaries which to me indicates a mounted army.

I still intend to field them, lovely flags and very colourful, and intend to run a bit of an 1683 campaign, without the points to give the campaign a historical rather than tournament/competition feel.

Samei00
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:32 pm

Ottoman success

Post by Samei00 » Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:58 pm

Hi the Ottomans were successful in that they had the strategic offensive but often fought in the tactical defensive. The cavalry were used to scout and screen the army with masses of pioneers etc to help at sieges. I guess at FOG you leave the cavalry behind, just assuming they are encircling your opponent off table. The main thing that stopped the Ottomans was that they reached the extreme of their operational range and eventually the Western powers made enough military advances to reverse the Ottoman advance,remember after losing an army atVienna it took an alliance of 4 powers to drive them back.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:35 am

nickdives wrote:Haze,

indeed they are not a mounted army, in the ruleset. They were, however, a mounted army in reality! I also find it frustrating that most Ottoman Cav figures are cast with lances, who is right - FOG who do not allow it or figure manufacturers, WRG, and other rulesets who give them light lance/lance?

The problem with the above caslculatuion is the -2 on the death role vs fired at by bow. I did try to combine carbine with bow shooting, but got a good kicking!!
Most manufacturers are lazy.

Venexia make firearm wielding Timariots.

PS if you fire with enough bows you still will cause death.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:43 am

nickdives wrote:Some rough figures from Vienna 1683 give the Cavalry approx 62,000 and the foot approx 19000, of whom about 15,000 were Janissaries which to me indicates a mounted army.

I still intend to field them, lovely flags and very colourful, and intend to run a bit of an 1683 campaign, without the points to give the campaign a historical rather than tournament/competition feel.
Having read a LOT on the Ottomans from 1300s-1700s. You have to be very careful with numbers.
They had a lot of mounted forces that were not much good for more than pillaging and scouting. I think its around 1533 that 16,000 of them get wiped out mostly by German foot! This is not long after 1st siege of Vienna.

2nd the Ottoman foot sometimes counted a lot of ditch diggers. The Ottomans lost impressive numbers of people at all sorts of sieges. It usually turned out that the if the Ottomans only lost an 8-1 ratio they took the place. They also tended to win sieges when they brought their heavy artillery.

I really enjoy this Ottoman history a LOT. But they also lost a heck of lot of battles historically.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Ottoman success

Post by hazelbark » Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:45 am

Samei00 wrote:Hi the Ottomans were successful in that they had the strategic offensive but often fought in the tactical defensive. The cavalry were used to scout and screen the army with masses of pioneers etc to help at sieges. I guess at FOG you leave the cavalry behind, just assuming they are encircling your opponent off table. The main thing that stopped the Ottomans was that they reached the extreme of their operational range and eventually the Western powers made enough military advances to reverse the Ottoman advance,remember after losing an army atVienna it took an alliance of 4 powers to drive them back.
The Ottoman Cavarly has a FOG role as well. It is just not one that rides down the modern European foot frontally. Of course you really don't find them doing that i history either.

stecal
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:21 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Contact:

Post by stecal » Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:55 am

hazelbark wrote: [Venexia make firearm wielding Timariots.

PS if you fire with enough bows you still will cause death.
They Do? You can't tell from the description or lack of pics. Which codes? Do the ones with pistols also have carbines?


OT 01 Mounted Command (1400-1700)
(General , Standard bearer and Tamburine )
OT 02 Heavy cavalry with barded horses (1400-1550)
see pic A ; pic B ; pic C
OT 03 Heavy cavalry with unbarded horses (1400-1700)
OT 04 Heavy cavalry with pistols and unbarded horses (1550-1700)
OT 05 Mounted heavy archers with barded horses (1400-1550)
see pic A ; pic B ;
OT 06 Mounted heavy archers with unbarded horses (1400-1700)
OT 07 Light cavalry with unbarded horses (1400-1700)
OT 08 Light cavalry with pistols and unbarded horses (1550-1700)
OT 09 Mounted light archers with unbarded horses (1400-1700)
OT 10 Balcanic Cavalry
OT 21 A HREF="comjan.jpg" TARGET="_NEW">Janissary Command (high uniform)
OT 22 Janissaries with bow (campaign dress)
OT 23 Janissaries with muskets (campaign dress)
OT 24 Assorted Janissaries advancing with assorted thrusting weapons (campaign dress)
OT 31 Infantry command
OT 32 Azab bowmen
OT 33 Advancing infantry with assorted thrusting weapons
OT 34 Serbian, Croat or Bosnian musketeers
OT 41 Heavy Artillery and crew (5.50 euros)
OT 42 Light Artillery and crew (3.50 euros)
SI 03 Ottoman artillerymen (6 figures)
Clear the battlefield and let me see
All the profit from our victory.

nickdives
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:56 am

Post by nickdives » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:56 am

Also worth having a look at the new Napoleonic Ottomans that Vexilla (UK) now carry, some useful figures in 15/18 mm, still cant find a soup bowl though!

SuleimanMagnifico
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:18 pm

Re:

Post by SuleimanMagnifico » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:51 pm

nickdives wrote: I also find it frustrating that most Ottoman Cav figures are cast with lances
While I haven't actually *seen* them, Essex has 2 Ottoman codes -- RNO29 & RNO29a, I believe -- which are described as "sipahi with bow." One of the two codes, I'm not sure which, is on armored horses, so could be used for Qapu Kulu. I'm inferring that they don't have lances, but can't say for sure. Also, bags of Old Glory timariots have a mix of lance-armed & bow-armed, & I don't think there's anything wrong with having 1 lance-armed mini per element, anyway :)

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re:

Post by ravenflight » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:21 am

nickdives wrote:The problem with the above caslculatuion is the -2 on the death role vs fired at by bow. I did try to combine carbine with bow shooting, but got a good kicking!!
The +2 to death tests for bow shooting is not really an issue. You're throwing out so many dice, you can shoot people dead.

Put it like this, a 6 base P&S move to 6" and have a shot against a 6 base bow BG. The bow shoot 3 dice, the shot shoot 2. Pretty much nothing will happen. The Bow then move to 4" anf have another shot with 6 dice vs 2. There is a really good chance of a test against the P&S now, with a good chance of disrupting. The Shot then move to 3" and for 1 round trade 4 shot for 6 bow. The Bow still have a better chance of causing a test. If the P&S disrupt in either circumstances, then the warrior bow charge.

Added to this the fact that bow will generally be in 8's, and so harder to get a 1 per for test AND give them a better chance of getting 8 dice instead of 6, and you really start dishing out the pain.

Schnockel
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:56 am

Re: Ottoman Turks and Early 17th Century Russian, Worth it?

Post by Schnockel » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:02 pm

Either army would be pretty awesome, especially with as many superior bow armed horse as you can afford. Both armies are very similar in that they have artillery, some medium musket armed foot, and bow or carbine horse. Personally, I think carbines for cavalry are worthless unless in the early period where there were few shot. Concentrated bow fire, especially if some of it is superior, WILL cause tests and probably will cause casualties. Just make sure you are the one initiating the combat at just under 4MU range.

Between the two of the...I would probably go with the Russians.

I actually would love to try the Turks against a western army...we may just use 'fake' Turks for that experiment. Same with the Early Russians.

Three
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:30 pm

Re: Ottoman Turks and Early 17th Century Russian, Worth it?

Post by Three » Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:37 pm

Khurasan have just announced a range of Late Ottomans - cavalry with bow and firearms included.

vexillia

Re: Ottoman Turks and Early 17th Century Russian, Worth it?

Post by vexillia » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:33 pm

nickdives wrote:Also worth having a look at the new Napoleonic Ottomans that Vexilla (UK) now carry, some useful figures in 15/18 mm ...
This link may help - http://bit.ly/1e5gknD

SuleimanMagnifico
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: Ottoman Turks and Early 17th Century Russian, Worth it?

Post by SuleimanMagnifico » Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:28 pm

FWIW, the one time I got a chance to play my Early Ottomans against Early Austrian Imperials, it was a close-run fight, but what hampered me more than any other factor was my own poor deployment, a couple of critical tactical errors forced by the poor deployment, & lack of rules knowledge. For example -- & the veterans will be shaking their heads at THIS newbie error -- I had a "built-up area" on my right flank, & entirely FAILED to take it with the Jannissaries who were *right there* & perfectly positioned to charge in. Instead, I allowed it to constrain my cavalry's movement on that flank, which caused my entire right flank to sit paralyzed for most of the game.

In the future, I will drastically alter my army's composition -- minimal Akinci, no lance-armed light horse, more artillery, & fortifications for both artillery & Jannissaries. I'll probably use one Jannissary BG defensively, deployed with the artillery & intended to stay there until I need them as a reserve, & the other in a more offensive role, particularly if my opponent again gives me terrain to exploit. My goal is to use the entrenched foot & guns as an "anvil" on which to hold the enemy, while I try to get around his flanks with my (hopefully) larger numbers of mounted.

I think this might work well against the 16th century Austrians; whether or not it will against Poles, I don't know.

Also, FWIW -- & others may well have good reasons to disagree -- I think the Azaps are worthless if you downgrade them to Poor. In the Early period you have to have at least 6 bases, & I know it's tempting to downgrade them to save points, but I just don't think the "savings" is worth it, unless you simply don't intend to use them in the battle at all. I guess they could be more valuable as flank guards for the artillery, behind fortifications, but that's about it.

Finally, I was *highly* displeased by the performance of the Akinci I had, & the lance-armed light horse wasn't much better. I'd rather get rid of both, as much as possible, & put the points into more useful battlegroups.

Post Reply

Return to “Army Design”