EARLY ACHAEMENID PERSIANS (550-420 BC) Questions

So will try out

New Sparabara

Front
T  M5 VBU4 I1 DB VD2 Pavese Short Bow A =24pts

Back
T  M5 VBU4 I0 DB VD2=13pts

Total of new T LU=37pts

No discount for back unit and VD 2 for front and VD 1 for the back.

Shall also experiment with the move and shoot option only ( so no shooting and moving into combat in the same turn )

Also the inclusion of  some Subject Foot in the army list ?  ( as discussed previously )

0-12 Subject Foot
FP M5 VBU4 I1 DC VD1=9pts
Or
FL M6 VBU4 I1 DC VD1=9pts

Missed anything ?

ok for subject foot.

I don't want to create confusion, what Tarty showsin the previous post is what need to be tested, but last night (brainstorming mode on) I was thinking about the effect of a LU of T to fire twice per turn. If you have 2 T you can make a kind of caracoll. In this case could be automatic. This would be limited to the loss and reduction of firepower from the rear unit (brainstorming mode off)

Hi Guys - I've tried to stay away but you just keep pulling me back :-)

Lorenzo first - the idea of a large unit of T shooting twice was discounted a long time ago by Lorenzo Sartori, who said they would be too powerful - and he was right! Trying to restrict that by limiting to the rear unit VBU (if I understand that correctly) is also not really viable - we are simply recreating the problem we currently have but complicating it.

Tarty
The VBU 2 thing is another dead end IMHO IF the idea is to prevent anyone hunting Hoplites. Even at VBU1 it is too dangerous to have any real chance of working. Personally my play style is to try and pin an opponent with the Spara shooting and work the flanks with cavalry, so making spara more in VD makes the cavalry arm more economic - I can risk that. Lorenzo was specific in a post on the old forum that he wanted the VD to remain at 1 partly for this reason, and while I would benefit from the change I think he is right. It also makes Immortals more attractive as they form LUs at VD6 if a Spara LU is VD4.

I think we really need to discuss why the 25% discount to rear ranks should or should not be applied so that at least it is applied on a rational basis.

On the whole there are two benefits from a large unit - it allows impetus to be maintained for impact troops, or it allows a bonus to the number of dice used in combat, ie combat power. This held true at least until the bonus for deep impetuous FL was removed this year. Where the discount was not applied this was due in general to the player having the option to deploy in single rank - for instance the Bills and nobles options in the WoR lists.

A typical large unit gains a combat bonus while it retains its rear rank and maintains its impetus longer. I cannot see how those criteria are different to that we are discussing for Spara - ie they maintain their optimum combat power (missile fire) for longer.

At the moment the discount is applied to large units except those that can optionally form single ranked units when they pay full cost. Consistency is the key. If we deny the bonus to the Spara we really need to do the same to all those Hoplites and Pikes.

Lastly, wearing my wrangler hat, I have to say as a competition gamer I would not seriously look at the Spara in an army, even with the front rank bow and a discount. I checked back on results on the old site and as far as I can see there is only 1 player used AEP in competition. It won twice, once at Sheffield before the Spara were classed as deep units, and once last year in a four handed friendly competition restricted to Hoplite period armies. In this second it won all three games by flank marching the Guard Cavalry with CinC - the Spara didnt take part other than as fodder.

I'm all in favour of subject foot - could we have an upgrade to javelin for up to 4 so I can add my red & white guys?

Lorenzo - have you thought about turning thsi debate into a magazine article about how Impetus rates units??

I start answering from the end

Lorenzo - have you thought about turning thsi debate into a magazine article about how Impetus rates units??

No. I think that most of the gamers used Impetus as it was in the origins and started to loose interest while the game evolved.
The game evolved as Impetus has a tournament circuit and any tournament circuit tends to be the noisy minority (don't know if the expression works also in English) that wants a game to be more balanced than possible.

I'm not contrary to this as this keeps a game alive, but it is important to be aware that for every game there are 2 kinds of players: those that are somewhat active in the development (with pros and cons) and those who want a ready to play set without many discussions.
So better to keep the discussion in a place where people like to discuss: the forum.
Over the years the social network attracted most of the gamers that were previously in the forums just to lurk, share and chat.

I cannot remember where and when I said that the double shooting was not ok. Probably I did, cannot remember, as said I was in the brainstorming approach as I like to think loud in this place where I know there are people who want to improve the game.
Shooting and Melee are not exactly the same for many reasons.

The discount cost is sometimes arbitrary I know. It is a game option not  a human right. It is to give a better cost to some troop type.
Probably with the full cost of all Large Units, LU would have been less the thing that everybody wants. But some armies could have been too penalized.
For this reason I want to think and test before giving to new creatures as the T LU is. too power.
All other LUs loose dice with the losses taken by the rear Unit. This is different, hence could have a different approach.

"A typical large unit gains a combat bonus while it retains its rear rank and maintains its impetus longer. I cannot see how those criteria are different to that we are discussing for Spara - ie they maintain their optimum combat power (missile fire) for longer. " - Cyrus

This is the problem by maintaining their optimum missile fire longer (as you say) you also make them more resilient in combat …. It can’t be helped. The proposed large units of Ts benefit on BOTH accounts because they get to do both shoot and fight unlike large units of only contact troops.

The challenge here is to make the shooting more resilient while not making them overly tough in melee as well.

as for VDs, 2+1 for Sparabara and 3+2 for Immortals could be good compromise.

Anyway just let them some test, nothing is written in the stone.

I cant help thinking you have not tried them in melee that much

Were doing it again - instead of making a small change that would fix the problem, were getting all sorts of suggestions that are major changes or even rewrites. Can we PLEASE just try moving the bow to the first rank? I have tried this twice and it works, if someone else were to give it a go before we move too far away from this ?

make the test by moving the bow in the front (we all agree on that) and keep the other values/costs the same. For testing no problems, but before an official amendments I want to make some test.

If you are planning to use in the next tournament you have my "benediction" as experimental version.

I've played them a few times now ( 3 games ) but at VD 1 for both instead of 2 ( ...now 2+1 )

They're no push over in a fight and perform the same as a large unit FL war band in a continuing melee....not bad for guys armed with 90% bow and no real melee weapons to speak of.

Hoplites should go through them like a knife through butter if they manage to contact in any reasonable order however they've held back hoplite contact a few times now.
Yes we still need to do some more play testing not going to jump to any early conclusions yet.

Your getting a rear unit with no missile weapon cost that feeds into the front unit for shooting casualties.... AND a unit with 0 Impetus that also feeds into the front unit for melee casualties as well. Not a bad deal ... even without 25% discount. ( we're not applying this for the next one )

Yes still my main concern is they're too resilient in melee few more games needed.

I've played them regularly for 2 years.

Historically Hoplites should NOT go through them like a "knife through butter" they should win, most of the time, which they do.

"First there was a struggle at the barricade of shields; then the barricade down, there was a bitter and protracted fight, hand to hand... for the Persians would grab hold of the Spartan spears and break them; in courage and strength they were as good as their adversaries, but they were deficient in armor, untrained and greatly inferior in skill. Sometimes singly, sometimes in groups of ten—perhaps fewer, perhaps more, they fell upon the Spartan line and were cut down."

Not a knife through butter - a protracted hard fight -  against Spartans

Even at Marathon the Persian centre held and may even have been getting the upper hand until the flanks collapsed

Your concern about melee resilience clearly demonstrates why I wish I had not got involved - that bit of the rules is clear and has worked well since Extra 4 was published, it is the missile problem that is the issue. Nothing you are suggesting is resolving that, again we are reinventing the wheel, this one broken in a different way.

Yep you've had more experience with them than most and the fact you think as a competition gamer you would not seriously look at the Spara in an army, even with the front rank bow and a discount...is of concern.

Need more games with them pretty much. So far first was agains't Hittites ( which they steamed rolled ) and two Athenian games....which were mixed. Not enough to  draw any conclusions from yet.
As I see it historically Spara need to do some serious firing damage on hoplites before getting into contact to have a chance of pulling it off melee wise. It's the opinion of a few others in our group by the way not just me....anyway as Lorenzo says nothing set in stone we'll just play it like this for awhile and see how it goes

Sorry Tarty - that last post was late at night and my limited tolerance may have been slipping further than usual. I was working on the basic assumption that the only issue with the Spara was the firing - I thought that was given.

Yes as a competition player I would not really take Spara in an army given the option of dropping them and replacing them with a skirmish archer and javelin combo. In my competition experience there are generally only 2 decisive troop types - bludgeoning impact troops who kill by sheer dice rolls - Pike, Heavy infantry and heavy cavalry, or those that wear you down with mobile missile fire and flank \ rear charges - bloody light horse and now the new broken Javelin hordes.

Non Longbow archers, even with Impetus, are a long way down the list of effective units. Defensive bowfire rarely does anything other than inconvenience heavy infantry impact types and players will avoid hitting the Spara from the front with impact cavalry. Light cavalry are more vulnerable but you are unlikely to get more than one shot before they flank you and it is game over after that as move 5 means you will never keep them in your firing arc.

The new changes to allow supported flanks in melee will be a real problem too - being expensive you cant have a long line AND being a deep shooter you need gaps between units to allow you some room to pivot to optimise shooting otherwise a good opponent will simply screen your targets with skirmishers or just advance opposite you forcing each shooter to shoot only at the target to his front. That pretty much means your fire will disorder but will never amount to much more - certainly not enough to strip a Hoplite LU of his impetus when he hits you.

Sparabara fair poorly against impact troops of almost any type. My reasoning for not taking the Sparabara is cost effectiveness - the Crescent Shield \ Takabara combo is 31 points (S Cres Shield) but you only have to take 1 of each in 300-350pt games. Compare that to the cost of the minimum 4 (2 at 300-350pts) deep Spara units even with discount, which is 60 pts for 2 deep units . Taking the Cres Shield \ Taka combo frees up 29 points for you to spend on the things that actually work - the cavalry, or if you are so inclined, a cheap Javelin armed command that you can do the two rank Jav thing and laugh at the Hoplites.

This cost implication is another reason why I think the discount should be applied to the rear rank - making these units even more expensive will make them less attractive than they already are, and lets face it, they're already as popular as the plain girl sat on her own at the dance while her pretty friends have all the fun.

I dont want to build a super unit, I want a reasonable representation of this troop type in Impetus that has it's place.

The factors I see when I read about the Persian \ Median infantry are

1. Mobile - we don't do this very well at Move 5 but at least the T classification keeps them ok in rough terrain -  see 2
2. Able to handle terrain - here the T classification works well, and is one of the reasons I am totally against the FL\T or FP\T combinations which would lose this
3. Organised - Opinions differ as to exactly how organised, but certainly much more so than the Greeks who are the usual comparator. I know the "Procession" list has been picked over at some length but I think it clearly indicates that some part of the army is a standing one rather than a militia - as Leonidas is supposed to have said to his allies before Thermopylae "I brought more Warriors than you my friend", this should also be applied to the Persians. I would argue that we read the procession wrong and that the Royal Guards are not the Immortals, but that's for another place. I suspect the Persians are using those interesting diablo standards to signal rather than just as a place marker but the Greeks who are writing about it have no concept of that sort of organisation so dont record it - remember the Greeks idea of battlefield signals and communication is - a) a stand up argument between leaders who then do what they want, and b) someone starting the war song which is the signal to advance. There is no record of them having ANY other signals at the time (but interestingly after service with the Persians as Mercs and allies they develope it)  
4. Deep - we know they are a very deep formation. The historical evidence points strongly to a theoretical 10 deep formation (and 100 men wide). This compares to a standard Hoplite formation of 4-6 deep. At Marathon one of the theories is that the Greeks on the ends of the lines were in deeper formations - deliberately or otherwise, than the centre. The centre was held by the Persians but the wings collapsed eventually. If you play a single rank Hoplite against a deep Spara this is in effect what happens - the Spara have a good chance of holding. Against deep Hoplite formations they fold up, exactly like Marathon.
5. Not well armed for melee - we dont know enough, but the sources make the point that the Greek Hoplites are better armoured and equipped for melee. Some Persians ARE armoured, and from the description it is accepted as likely these are the Immortals, but the lack of a shield and the light spear puts them in trouble against heavy infantry. Again the T classification gets this about right.

Just a question Cyrus

Would you give them a combat bonus for large units?
I'd have thought +2 against mounted but nothing against infantry

Jim

I think they are not bad againts ancient cavalry.
They nullify impetus and have rear rank to absorb losses. Also they can benefit from the supported flank that means that single frenzy CPs now are more cautious before charging "at angle".

I think that we have to focus if we want them better in shooting or in melee. If 90% were bowmen, then the first option is the way to go.

I certainly would NOT go any further than moving the bow forward - no reason to give them further benefit in melee from depth - As Lorenzo says they do well enough against cavalry

Interestingly we played a game with the "new" bow forward Spara against some Magna Greacian Hoplites - 350pts a side.

The Persians had 4 large units of Spara in a line, with some FL on one flank and some Cav covering the other, the Greeks had 4 LUs of Hoplites facing them roughy across the table, slightly staggered but from 2 commands. To cut a long story short the Greeks arrived at the Persian line piecemeal due to them being from different commands and some indifferent dice rolling. One Hoplite LU struck the far end of the Persian line, another the centre, the third and fourth got engaged with cavalry. The Hoplite on the end if the Persian line steamrollered through the opposing Spara without breaking much sweat. The Hoplite in the Centre had a different situation because the Spara had 2 secure flanks AND a support, so dice were much more even. The Spara held the initial push due to some lucky cohesion tests and then some FL got in behind the hoplites which were killed by recoiling into the FL but it was VERY close.

After the game we discussed the result. My opponent and I both agreed moving the bow forward had zero impact in this game - in fact he said he always assumed the bow was in the front to begin and would never have thought it should be at the back!. The critical point was not the Spara depth but the fact the Hoplites arrived individually and unsupported.

Interesting Cyrus....28mm I presume ? Probably didn't get much of a chance to get many shots off either ?
Brings up the other point I wonder how they perform in 15mm ? Must say I would have no idea .... pretty much strictly 28s these days. One would think the bow fire would come into play a lot more in 15s ?

Oh and yep agree they're effective as is agains't cavalry don't think anything further needs doing there.

Cant really say - I used them once in 15mm but the game went so badly wrong it was all over before they got involved :-(

in general a LU T+T should not be better in melee than a Unit of FP/FL+T and of course a unit of FP+FP or FL+FL. Simply should shoot better. Firing from the frontal base is the way to go to improve shooting.
Now lets' make some test and then I will see to fix the other details as cost.

dadiepiombo wrote:in general a LU T+T should not be better in melee than a Unit of FP/FL+T and of course a unit of FP+FP or FL+FL. Simply should shoot better. Firing from the frontal base is the way to go to improve shooting.
Now lets' make some test and then I will see to fix the other details as cost.

Yes I think you've summed it up Lorenzo.

err yes - which is where we are. No-one has suggested otherwise

One point to remember is the Assyrians in the list have impetus 0 already so any argument about discounts should bear that in mind.