forum.wgcwar.com

Medieval Hindu Kingdoms requires an elephant general, but also allows the elephant screen battle card...

(It's amazing what you stumble across when looking at potential enemies for armies you're rebasing )

JonathanJ wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:18 pm

Medieval Hindu Kingdoms requires an elephant general, but also allows the elephant screen battle card...

Yes, we've spotted that one -- I think virtually every Elephant army with the elephant screen battle card required modification.

In Camillan Roman and Polybian Roman there are some restrictions "invalid value". EDIT: Also for Etruscan League, so i guess there are more Armies with this problem.

Thunaer wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:35 pm

In Camillan Roman and Polybian Roman there are some restrictions "invalid value". EDIT: Also for Etruscan League, so i guess there are more Armies with this problem.

"invalid value" is a recent issue based upon the code, not the data -- it first cropped up when we made some mods about 10 days ago. We're working on it. Try refreshing your browser.

In the Viking and Dublin or Manx Viking lists, the hird and freelancers can be mounted infantry, but the huscarles cannot. This seems odd - the huscarles would surely be the most likely to have horses.

Not an error, but it seems inconsistent to have "Amurru" in the Nomadic Amurru and Amurru and Early Aramean lists' names, but Later Amorite. The form "Amorite(s)" is commoner acc'd Google.

The Ancient British list has it's manoeuvre rating increased to two "Under Caswallon 55-54 BC or Caradoc 43-51 AD", but the Cassivellaunus All Mounted list has a manoeuvre rating of one. I guess he might have lost his tactical acumen when sending the infantry home, but it looks like a slip.

Also, the name-form Cassivellaunus is preferable to Caswallon on at least three grounds: it's closer to what the man will have called himself, centuries before the Migration Age loss of unstressed vowels; it's got more Google hits; and it's what Wikipedia calls him.

(On similar grounds, Caradoc may be better as Caratacus.)

The Vijayanagar list allows Elite Cavalry and Artillery until AD 1565, but the list itself ends in AD 1510.

Not an error per se, just strange.

In the Norman Irish list, knights are restricted to the years 1172 to 1292 AD which is the entire range for the list itself.

JonathanJ wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 27, 2023 7:51 pm

Not an error per se, just strange.

In the Norman Irish list, knights are restricted to the years 1172 to 1292 AD which is the entire range for the list itself.

Hah! I'll fix, that one slipped through the cracks. Over the period where we were organizing the lists a large number of decisions were made, then rescinded, then made differently, about the geographic and chronological extents of any particular list. It looks like there was originally a larger (chronologically speaking) list that was eventually split into two lists. Seems like the 1172 AD split on Norman Irish happened and I didn't notice that the smaller list didn't need a line-item chronological distinction.

Weird. I've gone a couple years without seeing anything strange in Meshwesh and now twice in a row...

The Kyrenian Greek and Ptolemaic Kyrene list dates don't align with the troop restriction dates.

I'm actually amazed that there are so few problems with the army lists. Thanks for all your work on this.