assyrians??

hi everyone

was wondering what everyone's opinions is about assyrian foot.

the beta lists have them all as T with SB-B.

my opinion is that there was two distinct types....close and loose. so how to represent this in the lists?

FP with a rear rank of T for the close...seems easy

FL with T doesnt work as the T don't like rough terrain...so?

FL with S...or the FL are not large units and the S can fire with no penalty, should this be the same for the FP?

thoughts welcome, as i am trying to make up a list.

cheers

FL with T - I'm far from convinced that the rough terrain bonus is suitable for all troops currently classed as FL.

For Hillman types acting as dense skirmishers with javelins (Thracians, etc) sure, but battle array troops that don't warrant the CT and shooting benefits of true FP? Nope.

So happy to constrain FL/T large units' rough terrain advantage. You gain something - you lose something. Seems fair.

Also seems historically accurate (with what limited knowledge we have).

here is a draft proposal for Sargonid.

unsure of the Kallapani..CGL..or Mtd FL...of just M10 FL

SARGONID ASSYRIANS 7th Cent. BC (VOLUME 1)
CS=Average (12 pts) or Good (20 pts)
Nr Type M VBU I D VD Pts Notes
CHARIOTS
1-4 CGP- Chariots (*) 8 6 5 B 3 29 Short bow B
0-2 CGL - Kallapani 10 4 0 B 1 18 Various weapons
CAVALRY
2-8 CM- Cavalry (*) 10 6 2 B 2/3 32 Short bow B
or CM- Cavalry (*) 10 5 1 B 2/3 25 Short bow B
or CL - Scouts 12 3 0 B 1 18 Short bow B
GUARD
0-1 FP - Guard 5 6 2 A 3 30
0-1 S – Guard Archers 8 3 0 B 2 14 Short bow B
ELITE
0-1 FP – Elite Close Order 5 5 2 B 2 22 Pavise
0-1 FL – Elite Loose Order 8 5 2 B 2 21
0-2 T - Elite Archers 6 4 0 B 2 18 Short bow A
or S – Elite Archers 8 3 0 B 2 14 Short bow B
LINE
1-2 FP – Line Close Order 5 5 2 B 2 22 Pavise
1-2 FL – Line Loose Order 8 4 2 B 2 17
0-4 T - Line Archers 6 3 0 B 1 16 Short bow A
or S – Line Archers 8 2 0 B 1 12 Short bow B
RESERVE
0-2 FP – Auxiliary Close Order 5 4 1 C 1 9
0-2 FL – Auxiliary Loose Order 8 4 1 C 1 11
0-4 T - Auxiliary Archers 6 3 0 C 1 11 Short bow A
or S – Auxiliary Archers 8 2 0 C 1 7 Short bow B

*4-12 FP – Dikut Mati 5 3 1 C 1 7
2-8 S - Tribal archers 8 2 0 B 1 12 Short bow B
or S – Tribal javelinmen 8 2 0 B 1 12 Javelin
0-6 S - Slingers 8 2 0 B 1 12 Sling
0-2 T - Elamites 6 3 0 C 1 11 Short bow A
0-2 T – Egyptians 6 4 0 B 1 18 Short bow A
0-1 CM – Bedouin Camels 10 4 2 B 1 25 Short bow B
0-1 CL - Skythians 12 4 1 B 1 27 Comp. bow B

NOTES AND OPTIONS.
Units with Generals can be “A” class +5pts.
Only one type of CM can be used. CL scouts cannot outnumber CM
Archers can form large units with order troops of same class (Guard/Elite/Line/Reserve), S archers can shoot overhead without -2 penalty.
Minimum for Dikut Mati applies only if any are used.
You can upgrade up to 1 Unit of S Slingers to Guards with VBU=3. The new cost per Unit is 14pts.
Kallapani were carried on carts whose role was to support the chariots with bow and javelin shooting.

I don't know anything about Assyrians, so can't help with the initial question.

But you may want to look at some of the points values, frazer. At the moment your two types of CMs have the same points. I think the 6/2 ones should be 32 points. Also, shouldn't the CL scouts be 18 rather than 13, if they are B class?

I haven't checked them all, but some of the archers look over-expensive as well.

You may also want to correct the typo for the points for good CS.

I am sure others can help with the troop types.

RogerC

cheers Roger

the dreaded "cut and paste" typo

All cavalry in Impetus uses Composite Bow for ratings for what I've seen although the current Sargonid Beta list does say Short Bow B. But I suspect that is a typo and should be replaced with Composite Bow C.

I think you've overrated some of the troop types. Bow armed VBU 6 for cavalry in 700 BC seems high to me. That is essentially the cavalry of Nikephorian Byzantines, Mongols and Seljuks. I don't think there is anything like this in 700 BC. I wouldn't rate any infantry before the Greeks as VBU 6.

The use of "pavise" is suspect since I think Assyrians only used this kind of large shield at sieges.

I am skeptical of A class troops in the Assyrian lists.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
I think you've overrated some of the troop types. Bow armed VBU 6 for cavalry in 700 BC seems high to me. That is essentially the cavalry of Nikephorian Byzantines, Mongols and Seljuks. I don't think there is anything like this in 700 BC. I wouldn't rate any infantry before the Greeks as VBU 6.

I think that reasoning is deeply flawed. Troops should be rated against contemporaries not against whatever future technology or opinion might be later.

Mamelukes don't fight Assyrians: both represent the apex of heavy horse archer for their time. Mongols don't fight Skythians - both are the apex of steppe light horse archer for their era. Rating Skythians as rubbish because Mongols should be better is specious - that way all armies of the early periods are relegated to irregular horde with pointy sticks and poor command.

You'll be arguing that melee troops should have worse factors because their weapons aren't steel. . . that way lies madness!

Zippee, I find your comments above perplexing. Impetus is a game that allows armies of various periods the ability to engage each other. The lists are designed to do this. Mongols are superior to Skythians in the lists. Greek infantry is superior to Middle East infantry of a slightly earlier period. The fire power of armies grows during the medieval period as we see more and more VBU 4 (and VBU5 in the early Renaissance lists) T troops. The compensation in the quality is made up by the point system. My Middle Assyrian army has slower VBU troop types but lots of them. It is pretty obvious that the troop ratings are not determined only by the relative abilities against contemporary opponents.

hi gents

firstly thanks for the opinions. i always find when making up your own favorite army you are less objective.

both of you are correct i think.

it is a hard balancing act to perform, armies within certain period were very good against their historical opponents but lets say how would you compare  NK Egyptians with Imperial Rome...no contest...Rome wins in the real world any day of the week.

there is a feeling that the dreaded "scale creep" happened in IE5 whether by accident or not who is to say. VBU5 units with javelin are common, but probably should be much rarer.

so my Assyrians

"A" class guard..hmm the Egyptians get them so i am happy with that one,VBU6...perhaps not.

VBU6 cavalry with bow..ouch. but i wanted to have two types, the early without horse armour and the later with, VBU4 cavalry are traditionally the scum of the earth...so i didnt think that was very Assyrian.

shortbow or comp bow. i dont know enough about this period to say either way. the feeling was that shortbow is perceived as the weaker of the two.

i definitely think it should be shortbow for the chariot rather than various, i think the whole chariot was built aroubnd the idea of having an archer move and shot and all the other guys in the chariot were there to facilitate him.

more food for thought

one more thought..are (or should??) lists be driven by figure manufacturers... foundry make lovely Mantlet holders...so yes or no to including them in lists for example

Gaius Cassius wrote:Zippee, I find your comments above perplexing. Impetus is a game that allows armies of various periods the ability to engage each other. The lists are designed to do this. Mongols are superior to Skythians in the lists. Greek infantry is superior to Middle East infantry of a slightly earlier period. The fire power of armies grows during the medieval period as we see more and more VBU 4 (and VBU5 in the early Renaissance lists) T troops. The compensation in the quality is made up by the point system. My Middle Assyrian army has slower VBU troop types but lots of them. It is pretty obvious that the troop ratings are not determined only by the relative abilities against contemporary opponents.

The lists are divided into volumes and periods - tournaments (which is the only thing that requires non-contemporaneous engagement) are divided up by those periods.

Hence you only need to consider roughly contemporaneous combatants.

If you wish to include 'open' formats, that's fine but it shouldn't impact the lists or points values.

15th century troops shouldn't automatically be superior to biblical troops just because they are separated by a few millennia.

frazer wrote:
VBU6 cavalry with bow..ouch. but i wanted to have two types, the early without horse armour and the later with, VBU4 cavalry are traditionally the scum of the earth...so i didnt think that was very Assyrian.

shortbow or comp bow. i dont know enough about this period to say either way. the feeling was that shortbow is perceived as the weaker of the two.

I definitely think it should be shortbow for the chariot rather than various, i think the whole chariot was built aroubnd the idea of having an archer move and shot and all the other guys in the chariot were there to facilitate him.

Cavalry bows should probably always be composite bow - chariots were the elite archers of the period. The chariot an archer platform - so certainly 'various' doesn't fit. I'd suggest comp bow B for the majority, declining to C for the heavier multi-role chariots.

Similarly cavalry as it emerges uses the same weapons - I do wonder if early paired archer/horse-holder cavalry wouldn't perhaps be best represented as a form of mounted archer but I suspect it's overcomplicating things. They should probably just have a low VBU.

Shortbow is for self bows and hunting weapons - A if massed, B if skirmishing.

Horse armour is difficult to model with the VBU being a solid state device. Should they shoot better? Doubt it, should the melee better? Possibly. Maybe they could change up to CP and gain some Impetus - that would make it a tactical choice, improved hitting power for the loss of evade (probably should be all or none by grade/type though). With an option to downgrade to Comp C for an Impetus boost.

You need to model at least three cavalry developments - the early 'paired teams', unarmoured and then armoured horse archer lancer. It's possible that the armoured version just represents elite professional troops and shouldn't be differently modelled.

frazer wrote:one more thought..are (or should??) lists be driven by figure manufacturers... foundry make lovely Mantlet holders...so yes or no to including them in lists for example

I really do not think figure manufacturers should drive lists - rather the opposite!

Mantlet holders I believe are a dismounted chariot driver at siege type thing. Include the option of dismounting chariots as quality T with pavise for siege work if you wish but do so because it's the right thing to do not because there are some nice models.

I will give an eye to the list to be included in the bunch of new beta (and some revised) list I want to publish in the early days of 2015 (new year, new lists )

As an aside all chariots have various weapons as a standard.

Zippee wrote:

Gaius Cassius wrote:
I think you've overrated some of the troop types. Bow armed VBU 6 for cavalry in 700 BC seems high to me. That is essentially the cavalry of Nikephorian Byzantines, Mongols and Seljuks. I don't think there is anything like this in 700 BC. I wouldn't rate any infantry before the Greeks as VBU 6.

I think that reasoning is deeply flawed. Troops should be rated against contemporaries not against whatever future technology or opinion might be later.

Unfortunately it is necessary to some degree, we need army lists that can fight against each other out of time period, how do we treat Ancient Egyptians fighting Crusader Knights for example?

There is no "Golden" solution, but each unit needs representing on a historical and capability basis without reference to time period.

Remember there is also the points system. This means that less exotically powerful troops will also be less expensive.
That's what generalship is about, making your army work for you. Assyrians with late Byzantine cavalry is losing a lot of the fun

Granicus Gaugamela wrote: Unfortunately it is necessary to some degree, we need army lists that can fight against each other out of time period, how do we treat Ancient Egyptians fighting Crusader Knights for example?  

Actually no we don't - only in tournaments is this an issue and for tournaments Impetus is divided into set Periods. And tournaments represent only a fraction of actual gameplay. Regardless this should not inform logical classification of troops.

NKE never fought Crusaders so we don't have to "deal" with managing it. The lists are what they are in-period. When engaged out of period we're already suspending disbelief to such an extent that I cannot comprehend why it is felt that there should be some historical justification for NKE to be classified as worse because they lack steel, stirrups, big horses, etc.

If the game ends up pitting the two against each other then all that is required is that the game architecture facilitate it - it does that because both sides are classified in the same terms (CP, T, FP, etc). But any attempt to classify NKE appropriately that the 'correct' result occurs when facing Crusaders is frankly absurd!

Jim Webster wrote:Remember there is also the points system. This means that less exotically powerful troops will also be less expensive.
That's what generalship is about, making your army work for you. Assyrians with late Byzantine cavalry is losing a lot of the fun

But the points system is a blunt tool and there is not much wiggle room, insisting that earlier epoch troops conform to being less good than later troops ultimately condemns them to being horde with pointy sticks. And it is a false dichotomy - classification (and thus cost) should reflect contemporary effectiveness and structure.

But the Assyrians were every bit the military superpower of their age with a sophisticated military machine that is very comparable to the Byzantine - their principle tool, mounted shock archers are even similar. Other than the time-travel element there is no good reason why Assyrian horse archers shouldn't be as effective as Byzantine.

If you wish the imbalanced army type of fun there is plenty of that in taking Assyrians against Mardu or Cimmerians - no different than Byzantines against Pechenegs or Bulgars.

Yes but remember they were shock cavalry riding what we would regard as ponies. The chariot horses of Tutankhamun were about 12 hands, Roman horses were between 11 and 13 hands, with 15 hands being a damned big one. As a comparison, modern Life Guards ride horses at least 16 hands tall

Zippee wrote:

Granicus Gaugamela wrote: Unfortunately it is necessary to some degree, we need army lists that can fight against each other out of time period, how do we treat Ancient Egyptians fighting Crusader Knights for example?  

Actually no we don't - only in tournaments is this an issue and for tournaments Impetus is divided into set Periods. And tournaments represent only a fraction of actual gameplay. Regardless this should not inform logical classification of troops.

Plenty of club games play inter period as well. If you don't have a problem with say, Ancient Egyptians fighting as well as Crusader Knights then that's your choice but a bit (well more than a bit) absurd.

The Knights with their armour and weaponry should be vastly superior to the poor Ancient Egyptian, equally the balance is restored by having a significant numerical advantage given to the Egyptians.

Zippee wrote:
NKE never fought Crusaders so we don't have to "deal" with managing it.

So your club members have a plethora of armies to match against each other?

Zippee wrote:
The lists are what they are in-period. When engaged out of period we're already suspending disbelief to such an extent that I cannot comprehend why it is felt that there should be some historical justification for NKE to be classified as worse because they lack steel, stirrups, big horses, etc.

Um, because, by your very words, they were not as evolved?

Zippee wrote:
If the game ends up pitting the two against each other then all that is required is that the game architecture facilitate it - it does that because both sides are classified in the same terms (CP, T, FP, etc). But any attempt to classify NKE appropriately that the 'correct' result occurs when facing Crusaders is frankly absurd!

Not at all dear chap. The Crusaders would be a smaller force of harder hitting units, the NKE a larger force of individually weaker units. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

hi Guys

whilst this has started a good debate on how/why army lists are made up. for me it has missed the point.... my poor/favourite Assyrians

here is a second attempt at the list

CHARIOTS
1-4 CGP- Chariots (*) 8 6 5 B 3 29 Various weapons
0-2 CGL - Kallapani 10 4 0 B 1 19 Various weapons
FL - Dismounted 8 4 1 B 1 Various weapons
CAVALRY
2-8 CM- Cavalry (*) 10 5 2 B 2/3 26 Comp. bow C
or CM- Cavalry (*) 10 5 1 B 2/3 25 Comp. bow C
or CL - Scouts 12 3 0 B 1 13 Comp. bow C
GUARD
0-1 FP - Guard 5 5 2 A 3 24
0-1 S – Guard Archers 8 3 0 B 2 14 Short bow B
ELITE
0-1 FP – Elite Close Order 5 5 2 B 2 22 Pavise
0-1 FL – Elite Loose Order 8 5 2 B 2 21
0-2 T - Elite Archers 6 4 0 B 2 18 Short bow A
or S – Elite Archers 8 3 0 B 2 14 Short bow B
LINE
1-2 FP – Line Close Order 5 5 2 B 2 19
1-2 FL – Line Loose Order 8 4 2 B 2 17
0-4 T - Line Archers 6 3 0 B 1 16 Short bow A
or S – Line Archers 8 2 0 B 1 14 Short bow B
RESERVE
0-2 FP – Auxiliary Close Order 5 4 1 C 1 9
0-2 FL – Auxiliary Loose Order 8 4 1 C 1 11
0-4 T - Auxiliary Archers 6 3 0 C 1 11 Short bow A
or S – Auxiliary Archers 8 2 0 C 1 7 Short bow B

*4-12 FP – Dikut Mati 5 3 1 C 1 7
2-8 S - Tribal archers 8 2 0 B 1 12 Short bow B
or S – Tribal javelinmen 8 2 0 B 1 12 Javelin
0-6 S - Slingers 8 2 0 B 1 12 Sling
0-2 T - Elamites 6 3 0 C 1 11 Short bow A
0-2 T – Egyptians 6 4 0 B 1 18 Short bow A
0-1 CM – Bedouin Camels 10 4 2 B 1 25 Short bow B
0-1 CL - Skythians 12 4 1 B 1 27 Comp. bow B


dumbed down the CM..making them armoured EHC gives more Impetus

removed the Pavise form the line infantry. tho Elite still have it...whether its mantlets for seige work or tall tower shields, their main job was protecting the archer behind.

the Kallapani are now CGL that can dismount to enter terrain that their chariot friends can't.

took onboard the general consensus that cavalry have composite bow and the Big L's view that all chariots are various armed

all the best

Jim Webster wrote:Yes but remember they were shock cavalry riding what we would regard as ponies. The chariot horses of Tutankhamun were about 12 hands, Roman horses were between 11 and 13 hands, with 15 hands being a damned big one. As a comparison, modern Life Guards ride horses at least 16 hands tall

Indeed but as this is only a factor of chronology it is hardly relevant to list design.

If you're fighting ahistorical match ups then you should disregard historical discrepancies in equipment technology.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:
Plenty of club games play inter period as well. If you don't have a problem with say, Ancient Egyptians fighting as well as Crusader Knights then that's your choice but a bit (well more than a bit) absurd.

The Knights with their armour and weaponry should be vastly superior to the poor Ancient Egyptian, equally the balance is restored by having a significant numerical advantage given to the Egyptians.

Of course they do – but it doesn’t become an “issue” outside of tournament balance.
If somehow you time travelled NKE to 11th Century Syria then yes copper weapons would be a joke against steel. But the list structure shouldn’t reflect that technological discrepancy because it is a false dichotomy. Why should Assyrians fighting Babylonians be restricted in the classifications of their troops just because some time meddler might insist they fight crusaders?

Troops should be classified against historical contemporaries not on ahistorical what ifs.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:
So your club members have a plethora of armies to match against each other?

That’s not what I meant – there is no need to “deal” with the situation because the Assyrians fight the Crusaders on your tabletop just as they are. And if that doesn’t take into account the difference between their technologies then that’s because it’s anachronistic. Deal with it!

Don’t create the lists to somehow reflect such anachronisms just accept that the situation is already anachronistic and play the game as it is.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:
Um, because, by your very words, they were not as evolved?

Quite so, but they were just as evolved as their contemporaries – we shouldn’t be creating lists to reflect anachronistic changes in technology. It is utterly irrelevant whether crusaders are more or less “evolved” than NKE. You, the player, chooses to pit anachronistic forces against each other, why does it bother you that the technological difference is not represented? There is no historical justification for representing it. . .

Seriously I fail to understand why the historical technological difference is so important to people in this circumstance – it’s not a real world event.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

Not at all dear chap. The Crusaders would be a smaller force of harder hitting units, the NKE a larger force of individually weaker units. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

It may seem reasonable – and if the Assyrians were in fact less “evolved” contemporary tribesmen that would be the situation. However there is utterly no plausible historical justification for categorising Assyrians as tribal levy. They were in fact a martial superpower – if they are classed as rubbish troops because of the technology gap between them and crusaders then the classification of their contemporary less “evolved” enemies falls off the scale.

As I said at the beginning the end result of this is to relegate all early period troops to naked scum with pointy sticks: which can’t be a good thing. So stop worrying about the interaction between armies separated by millennia and worry about the interaction of armies between contemporaries. If people wish to then play anachronistic games they can, the fact that the technological gap won’t be reflected in the classifications is the least anachronistic event happening!

Zippee wrote:

Jim Webster wrote:Yes but remember they were shock cavalry riding what we would regard as ponies. The chariot horses of Tutankhamun were about 12 hands, Roman horses were between 11 and 13 hands, with 15 hands being a damned big one. As a comparison, modern Life Guards ride horses at least 16 hands tall

Indeed but as this is only a factor of chronology it is hardly relevant to list design.

If you're fighting ahistorical match ups then you should disregard historical discrepancies in equipment technology.

But actually we don't do that. We don't upgrade Assyrian archers to Longbowmen when facing English.

It seems that some things creep through and other things are somehow a step to far. It's just that the lines are drawn in different places for different people

Zippee wrote: The lists are divided into volumes and periods - tournaments (which is the only thing that requires non-contemporaneous engagement) are divided up by those periods.

Hence you only need to consider roughly contemporaneous combatants.

If you wish to include 'open' formats, that's fine but it shouldn't impact the lists or points values.

15th century troops shouldn't automatically be superior to biblical troops just because they are separated by a few millennia.

The Impetus lists do rate troops across the ages so that they can fight each other so again I am not sure why claim that one only need to consider roughly contemporaneous combatants. The lists clearly speak otherwise. So for instance my Middle Assyrian army has no unit above VBU 5 but does have considerable missile fire. It plays very differently from say a later Greek or Roman army with higher VBU infantry. Except for some Macedonian/Norman cavalry with leader we don't get to VBU 7 cavalry until the first Crusades and VBU 8 cavalry with the rise of Military Order Cavalry.

As Jim states the points system balances out the obviously increasing quality of troop types over the period of Impetus. My Middle Assyrians win half the time against other armies from across the periods.

As an aside, I haven't seen too many reports of tournaments geared to specific periods.

Frazer's list looks good for me at this stage. I will make a final check and then upload among betas.