Meshwesh minor errors and typos

[David Kuijt]

The Late Imperial Roman East list has:

Maneuver Rating
2 Normally
4 Under Constantine 324-337
2 Under Constantius 338-361 AD

The Constantius line seems a little superfluous, so I expect either it or the Normally line should have a different number.

I'm guessing it should be a 3 normally. I'll look. Thx for bringing this to our attention.

[David Kuijt]

In the Classical Indian list, there appears to be a stray colon in the definition of the last troop type: ": Wild tribe bowmen".

In the Western Hunnic list, there appears to be something wrong with the Sciri allies: "No troop options entered"

Thx, Andreas, I'll check these out and fix.

[David Kuijt]

The Late Imperial Roman East list has:

Maneuver Rating
2 Normally
4 Under Constantine 324-337
2 Under Constantius 338-361 AD

The Constantius line seems a little superfluous, so I expect either it or the Normally line should have a different number.

I'm guessing it should be a 3 normally. I'll look. Thx for bringing this to our attention.

Should be a 3, and the master file has a 3, so no idea why it is showing incorrectly as a 2. We're working on it.

[David Kuijt]

In the Classical Indian list, there appears to be a stray colon in the definition of the last troop type: ": Wild tribe bowmen".

The master text says "(Maurya Empire only): Wild tribe bowmen"

It looks like the program separates out the conditions "(Maurya Empire only)" from the troop description, and the colon stays with the troop description. Fixed now (although it won't show up until the next time the master data is uploaded).

In the Western Hunnic list, there appears to be something wrong with the Sciri allies: "No troop options entered"

Fixed. Each of the 660+ armies has numbers for when it appears as a full-sized army, and numbers for when it appears as an ally. The data hadn't been entered for army 127b appearing as an ally (about 2/3 of the armies never appear as anyone's ally, so have no "as ally" numbers).

Thanks,

[Andreas Johansson]

Less an error than an oddity, perhaps, but the technical terms in the Medieval Danish and Union of Kalmar list mixes Swedish and Danish. Assuming you want it all in Danish, the following substitutions should be made:

Fraelse -> Frelse
Smaasvenner -> Smaasvende (or Småsvende in post-1948 orthography)
Skyttar -> Skytter

(If you want to standardize in the other direction, Obudhaer and Landevaernet would become Uppbådshär and Lantvärn(et) respectively.)

Also, depending on how you feel about diacritics, you might want to change Fraelse and Smaasvenner in the Medieval Swedish list to Frälse and Småsvenner respectively.

Oh, and unless you feel that "leidang" is naturalized as an English word, the Early Medieval Scandinavian list similarly mixes Swedish and Norwegian: the Swedish and Danish words are ledung and leding respectively.

[colbystgm]

The general is correctly listed as Bad horse or Heavy foot, it is the army list that is wrong. The Elite foot listed should be listed as Heavy foot (read the description of the troops, not elite).

[David Kuijt]

The general is correctly listed as Bad horse or Heavy foot, it is the army list that is wrong. The Elite foot listed should be listed as Heavy foot (read the description of the troops, not elite).

"Elite" in Triumph is focused upon effectiveness, not social status. There are high-social-status troops that are rated not-elite, and there are low social status troops that are rated elite, in various army lists.

If you have evidence from battle descriptions that the Allmoge peasant infantry were not as effective as most halberd and polearm wielding foot, we would be happy to consider it.

(But thank you for pointing out that the General's type does not match those available in the army -- we'll fix that)

[Andreas Johansson]

In the Sassanid lists, there are Skirmishers defined as "Skirmishing bowmen or javelinmen", which seems a bit odd since the definition of Skirmishers includes "long-range missile weapons", which javelins presumably aren't. Should the troop type be be Skirmishers or Rabble/Light Foot?

[David Kuijt]

In the Sassanid lists, there are Skirmishers defined as "Skirmishing bowmen or javelinmen", which seems a bit odd since the definition of Skirmishers includes "long-range missile weapons", which javelins presumably aren't. Should the troop type be be Skirmishers or Rabble/Light Foot?

Thanks, Andreas, I'll take a look at this.

As you say, Javelinmen are usually rated as Rabble (if not very good, and always if without shield) or as Light Foot (for Peltasts and effective troops with javelins and shield). I'm not sure there are any exceptions to that rule unless the javelinmen are really fierce and rated as Warband.

[Andreas Johansson]

There are Indian javelinmen rated as Heavy Foot. They're supposed to have fought in a rather static style, so it's likely appropriate.

(What's perhaps less appropriate is the moniker "javelinmen" - we don't apply it to legionaries or vikings, for all that those too would chuck pointy sticks before contact.)