Early Achaemenid Persians

Just finished a battle Early Ach.Persians v Classical Indian.The lists allow for Immortals/Sparabara to be either large unit of 2 T short bow A or large unit of FP pavise in front and rear unit of T short bow A.
We are given to believe that historically the front rank carried a large wicker shield & spear followed by 9 or 10 ranks of archers then a rear rank of spear. SO predominantly archers.
The player  who prepared the Persian list went for the FP so when the rear rank of T is destroyed the remaining front unit couldn't fire, should it also have short bow A? i know unusual for FP. I know could of gone for the 2 T option but that doesn't recognise the wicker shield (pavise).
As a side issue large units of T seemed to be outgunned by 2 individual units of T which can both fire one direct the other one either indirect fire the rear unit for a -2 or rotate forward for a -1. In our game the archer fire was causing the Persian often taking 2 CT tests from firing compared to the Indians taking one.

if the Large Unit is T+T then you fire with the frontal Unit (2.6.2).
So with this option more fire but you become at the same time a weaker target.

There was quite a lot of discussion about this before the lists came out. You're right they're essentially large units of archers.

Having a choice is good, I always go for the 2 T option personally and give them a pavise. Not an 'official' option in the list but it feels right.

Thanks Lorenzo and Tarty
When fighting EAP against hopolite armies we normally went with 2T units lack of Paise didn't seem to make any difference.
Problems arose when fighting classical indian. The EAP went for the FP pavise for the front unit main 2 topics of conversation:-
1/ Heavy Indian chariots charged the Sparabara lost all impetus because of the Pavise. Discussed should wicker shields be able to deny impetus.
2/2 ranks of Indian 2 shot away rear rank of sparabara meaning the remaining front rank could not fire
Further discussed whether to leave lists unchanged or change to:-
1/ if you think Sparabara justify FP status add short bow A to front unit and possibly delete pavise
2For the 2T option do as Tarty does by adding pavise to front unit

FP front rank Sparabara are 16pts. If you give them bow too that'd make them 22pts ... that's getting up there for a 'run of the mill' Sparabara unit ?? I've never tried that combination, but give it a run ?

Pavise nullifying Impetus is definitely a good question but changing anything there would effect a whole raft army lists. Wicker or timber ? Think they've all been grouped together for convenience ? A bit like 'palisades' or 'fortifications' ...just fall under the one banner ?

If memory serves the pavises were built into a kind of defensive palisade with the spears so denying impetus seems reasonable.

If that's the case Zippee I would go with Tarty's method of adding the pavise to the to the 2 ranks of T option as not keen on the option front rank FP with pavise with no shooting capability after rear rank lost which would also mean if immortals could never fire with there VBU of 5.
My figures just have hand held large wicker shields which probably not strong enough to deny impetus against mounted so wouldn't give them Pavise but thick they deserve to be a bit stonger than 2 ranks of T so like the idea of front rank FP with shortbow A (strange I know) but no pavise.
I've seen figures with designed as per Zippees description as well so I suppose it all depends on your judgement how they fought.

There's also the issue that what we think we know from sources is almost certainly snap shots of a continual development. All versions are likely correct at one time or another.

There was a good deal of discussion on how to represent the eastern tradition of bow, shield, spear from Babylonia, Assyria, through Persia back before 2ed was released. The old 1ed beta were horrible interpretations.

I'm not exactly enamoured with the 2ed interpretations either, but they are a step in the right direction. It's one of the main things that keeps me from rebuilding my armies for the period.

My gut feeling is it needs a unit specific  'special rule' that allows for these archery heavy, screened units. The existing options alone don't seem to be able to achieve the correct feel (although "feel" is no doubt highly subjective for all of us) but at this time I haven't given the issue the necessary thought to offer substantial suggestions I'm afraid. No doubt I'll come back to it eventually