Meshwesh minor errors and typos

A place to talk about MESHWESH army lists
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Andreas Johansson » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:42 am

The "Hallstat and La Tene" list should be "Hallstatt and ..." with a double 't'.
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 » Tue May 07, 2019 8:17 am

David Kuijt wrote:
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.
Hi,

I had a look at the lists as they are now and I'm afraid the confusion has spread rather than be reduced.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are now three sublists for which the composition is misattributed:

- The composition listed for Polynesian and Melanesian (Pikes, Raiders, Rabble, Skirmishers and Horde) should belong to Hawaii
- The composition listed for Fiji, Samoa, or Tonga (Raiders and Skirmishers) should belong to Polynesian and Melanesian
- The composition listed for Hawaii (Warband and Skirmishers) should belong to Fiji, Samoa, or Tonga

Thanks!
- Vic
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Andreas Johansson » Sun May 12, 2019 9:32 am

Both Khitan-Liao lists have the general's troop type listed as Knights, but the lists don't contain any. It should say Elite Cav instead.
User avatar
Andreas Johansson
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by Andreas Johansson » Sun May 12, 2019 9:36 am

Speaking of Khitan Knights, the Jurchen Jin Rebellion list have Khitan heavy horse as Knights or Elite Cav. Seeing they don't get a Knights option in their own list, I've got a hard time seeing why they should here.

In the Later Jurchen Jin list, you've got "Superior Jurchen Horsemen" as Elite Cav or Bad Horse, while the "Jurchen horsemen with poor training and support" are all Bad Horse. I'm guessing the superior guys should be all Elite Cav - else there isn't much superior about them!
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by David Kuijt » Mon May 13, 2019 2:31 am

Vic wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 8:17 am

I had a look at the lists as they are now and I'm afraid the confusion has spread rather than be reduced.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are now three sublists for which the composition is misattributed:
This was fixed late in 2018; we haven't uploaded those changes yet. We've been focused on a variety of other stuff (hardcopy rules, primarily, although that has myriad aspects) and lost track of uploading the changed version.
DK
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Post by David Kuijt » Mon May 13, 2019 2:37 am

Andreas Johansson wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 9:36 am
Speaking of Khitan Knights, the Jurchen Jin Rebellion list have Khitan heavy horse as Knights or Elite Cav. Seeing they don't get a Knights option in their own list, I've got a hard time seeing why they should here.
Thanks, I'll fix.
Andreas Johansson wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 9:36 am
In the Later Jurchen Jin list, you've got "Superior Jurchen Horsemen" as Elite Cav or Bad Horse, while the "Jurchen horsemen with poor training and support" are all Bad Horse. I'm guessing the superior guys should be all Elite Cav - else there isn't much superior about them!
The issue is more complicated than that -- the numbers need to work so the total number of mounted dudes maxes out at no greater than in the regular list. Some of them might be (still) superior; or potentially as crappy as the rest of them. So it is not possible to set up the list as 0-2 Elite Cavalry and 2-6 Bad Horse, as that could potentially be 8 stands of mounted -- more than in the period before their mounted went to crap.

We'll look at changing the color text to make clear that the top guys might be "superior" or might just be superior to the really crappy guys (but still bad horse).
DK
Post Reply