Meshwesh minor errors and typos

A place to talk about MESHWESH army lists
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by David Kuijt » Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:47 am

Vic wrote:I think the compositions of the Hawaii and Polynesian or Melanesian lists in Meshwesh are erroneously exchanged.

The Polynesian and Melanesian list includes regular pikemen (which as far as I know were exclusive of Hawaii) which are further referred to as Papakaua (a Hawaiian term if I'm not mistaken), as well as commoners in Hordes and Rabble.

I think the Invasion/Maneuver ratings are correct, however.

Could you confirm if this is the case?
You're quite correct; the interlinks between two pages of the source data were set up wrong. In the Sublist Metadata page three of the five sublists of the Polynesian/Melanesian group (Fiji/Samoa/Tonga, Hawaii, Polynesian) are in one order; in the main element listing page they are in another order. I'll fix (and check to make sure that the enemies lists are correct as well).

Thanks for the assistance.
DK
User avatar
Vic
Levy
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:06 am
Location: Barcelona

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Vic » Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:52 pm

Thanks for the quick response! Great to be able to help.
- Vic
User avatar
Vic
Levy
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:06 am
Location: Barcelona

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Vic » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:41 am

I may have found a minor mistake, but I'm not entirely sure as I'm new to the ruleset so I might be making a mistake, so I figured I'd just ask.

In the list for Mound Builder Americans, army composition is listed as follows:

Archers 0-1
Heavy Foot 1-3
Bow Levy 7-20
Skirmishers 0-4
Rabble 3-6

However, unless I'm mistaken, the mandatory Heavy Foot (3 points) + 3 Rabble (3 x 2 points) makes it impossible for 20 stands of Bow Levy to be selected, as that would push the cost to 49, is that right? Am I missing something?
- Vic
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Andreas Johansson » Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:28 am

Should the "Jiang and Qi" list mayhap be "Qiang and Di", corresponding to the DBX "Ch'iang and Ti" list and explaining the relation to the Former Qin (a Di dynasty)?
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Andreas Johansson » Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:23 pm

In the Umayyad list, there are two allied contingent labelled as "Sogdian, Khwarizmian, or Other Khurasani Allies", one drawn from the Sogdian list, the other from the Tarim City States one. Is there any reason the former shouldn't simply be called "Sogdian Allies", and what's up with the latter - the Tarim basin is AFAIK not normally considered part of Khurasan?
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Andreas Johansson » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:35 pm

Are all lists supposed to have troop type descriptions now? I note that the Sabirs and the Chionites and Western Hephthalites lack them.
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Andreas Johansson » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:27 am

The Southern Xiongnu list has the general listed as "Cataphracts or Knights", but the list doesn't contain any Knights as far as I can see.

(I'm incidentally a bit skeptical about the classification of any Chinese or near-Chinese cavalry of the ca 300-600 period being Cataphracts in Triumph! terms: bows appear to have been widespread and acc'd Graff's Medieval Chinese Warfare shock action was very much on the menu. Of course, bows are found among other types classed as Cataphracts too, such as Tibetans and Parthians, so arguably the better fix to the bow issue is to drop the "exclusively hand-to-hand" bit from the troop definition.)
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Andreas Johansson » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:00 am

The Later Philistine list have troop-types (spearmen and Gibborim) that are restricted to 1099-600 BC. That's the same time span as the list itself, so the restriction is pointless.
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by David Kuijt » Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:07 pm

Andreas Johansson wrote:The Later Philistine list have troop-types (spearmen and Gibborim) that are restricted to 1099-600 BC. That's the same time span as the list itself, so the restriction is pointless.
Fixed, thanks.

At a guess, that's a survival from an earlier version where the two Philistine lists were a single one. Over the last five years of development many lists have merged, and split, and merged again, like psychedelic amoebae.
DK
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by David Kuijt » Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:14 pm

Andreas Johansson wrote:The Southern Xiongnu list has the general listed as "Cataphracts or Knights", but the list doesn't contain any Knights as far as I can see.
Fixed.
Andreas Johansson wrote: (I'm incidentally a bit skeptical about the classification of any Chinese or near-Chinese cavalry of the ca 300-600 period being Cataphracts in Triumph! terms: bows appear to have been widespread and acc'd Graff's Medieval Chinese Warfare shock action was very much on the menu. Of course, bows are found among other types classed as Cataphracts too, such as Tibetans and Parthians, so arguably the better fix to the bow issue is to drop the "exclusively hand-to-hand" bit from the troop definition.)
There are a whole raft of Chinese/near-Chinese armored cavalry rated as (possibly) Cataphracts in that period (Southern Dynasties, Xianbei, Tibetans a bit later, zillions of others), so altering the troop definition slightly is by far the easier fix.
DK
Post Reply