EARLY ACHAEMENID PERSIANS (550-420 BC) Questions

Just looking at the current unit, the rear rank has a 25% discount applied as it should be 18 points not the 13 listed.

If you apply that to the proposal to shift the bow to the front rank the cost is 24 for the front rank and 8 for the back rank for a total of 32 points compared to the original 30. Which doesnt seem unfair

Now convince Lorenzo

Combat should be secondary for these guys their primary weapon was the bow...don't think you'll get any argument from anyone there. This would be a reasonable adjustment. Do the same for Immortals...what about the Assyrians ?

IIRC the Assyrians are different - dont have the list to hand but dont they have FP with bows?

No they're the same as the Sparabara all Ts ....but no pavise and C grade instead of B.

Ah sorry - the Assyrians etc in the Persian list - yes do the same

How do the suggested changes impact on combat between Hoplites and Sparabara?

Has anybody done any playtesting?

Jim

No playtesting but based on experience I don't see the proposed change making a lot of difference in this area. Even at PB range the Sparabara would have a maximum of 6 dice against infantry. In the vast majority of cases the maximum damage would be 1 hit per turn through missile fire (usually through disorder.) In fact, having 2 T units, one behind the other, would be more effective against Hoplites than one large unit. The fact is that the Hoplites will want to close to melee as fast as possible.

Where I see the big change is Sparabara fighting cavalry and other missile fire Infantry. The ability to sustain themselves over a longer period will make them quite effective in this area.

I'd agree with GC on this - against Hoplites there is no change as the missile, melee and VBU would stay the same. As GC says, you are actually better throwing fewer dice more often so 2 C class T units are better than one large one that fires twice, at least up to contact. On contact the stats stay the same so the Spara are usually screwed

Yeah can't see there being a huge change but probably wouldn't hurt to do a few play tests.

"Where I see the big change is Sparabara fighting cavalry and other missile fire Infantry. The ability to sustain themselves over a longer period will make them quite effective in this area."- Gaius

Maybe ... but remember the very nature of large units reduces the frontage of an army to a certain degree and so decreases it's target options. We start getting into tactics here though....sorry and a little off topic
What I'm trying to say is as it stands my NKE ( for want of a better example ) will out shoot a Persian army any day of the week and way more flexible when it comes to deployment.
The change would probably go some way towards balancing things up for the Persians when it comes to missile fire...worth some serious consideration I think.

Did some playtesting - ok not a lot but some -  the "new" Spara seem better balanced than the old simply because they can maintain their fire longer - they're now a bow unit with some melee potential rather than a poor melee unit with a limited shooting ability

That seems reasonable. Any body else had a play with it?
Jim

Please let me a couple of days to read with attention the whole post. I'm pretty busy today with the release of the new issue of Dadi&Piombo magazine. Once sent to printers I will be back on this post and see what I can do.

Jim Webster wrote:That seems reasonable. Any body else had a play with it?
Jim

No not yet but I'll have a play around soon as well.

ok, before starting to consider the Large Unit with T in the front and FP in the rear (that can make some confusion in the mechanics) I wonder if the solution to leave the T alone, as an option, could work.
T now can pass each other so they can make a turn over and be similar, as effect, to a Large Unit that is a concept more designed for melee.

As an option they could be provided with "pavese".

Sorry Lorenzo - there is no suggestion they should be T in front and FP in the rear. Both are currently T and the suggestion is they remain T with the rear rank unarmed.

ok, but with a large Unit T+T with the front rank shooting and the rear not. Right?
Pavese?

I'm not contrary but I have to think about as it introduces a new concept of Large Unit with front rank shooting and a rear ranks that has nothing to do apart from die. Also other armies (or players) could ask for the same. Need to reflect.

In theory Lorenzo the only units that this would apply to is large T units. Large units of Byzantine Kataphracts in the Nikephorian list may also qualify. In essence, the front and back unit must be the same type. Beyond the above examples I can't think of any other units where this approach would apply.

Chasing around on this again sadly. Are there ANY other historical units that are not already represented that fought this deep and with this mix of weaponry - ie at least 80%-90% bows and fighting 10 ranks deep??

The problem with the rear rank doing nothing is that it helps simulate the depth without allowing a double shooting unit. As a Persian player ideally I would want my Spara as VBU 4 I 1 Shortbow A with pavaise and no rear rank, with a second unit allowed to shoot over the first  - and I can hear my opponents screams of objection. Making them a large unit does work in many ways, and prevents them from being overpowered, but unless you put the bow in the front rank they dont work. You could of course reinvent the wheel and allow the rear rank to add to the front rank shooting in the same way a unit can be supported in melee by depth, but again that would be a whole new rule mechanic.

Putting the now in the front rank of a LU works, is consistent with the mechanics and produces a historical result

Considering that even the front rank of the Spara are mostly archers I don't think having them fire at full effect until the front stand takes losses is unreasonable.

Sparabara are quite different from say Byzantine Skutatoi with a unit of FP and a rear rank of T. In that case, the FP are probably 6 ranks deep and the archers perhaps another 4-6 ranks. Losses on the back stand reflect archers that begin to fritter away from the unit as it endures missile fire and melee. In the Sparabara case the rear stand losses are the same type of troop as the front stand troops.

how would you wording the amendment?

My idea is not to amend, but simply to give an alternative and this could be done in the file that includes amendments and upgrades of the official lists.

List 9 Extra Impetus Book 4 "In Large units of Sparabara, Immortals and Assyrian \ Chaldaean T troops the rear unit is no longer bow armed and the front rank gains Shortbow A. All other characteristics remain the same. The new cost for each Large Unit is 32 (24+8 ) for Sparabara, 41 (28+11) for Immortals or if A Class 48 (33+15) and 20 (16+4) for Assyrian or Chaldaean"

and can we have a line for some Persian Subject Foot
?
0-12 Subject foot
FP Mv 5 VBU 4 I 1 VD1 Disc C 9pts or
FL Mv 6 VBU 4 I 1 VD1 Disc C 9pts

I disagree with Cyrus on his wording. The points cost and related information should remain the same. The change should be something like.

"In large units made up exclusively of T troops the VBU of the front unit determines the number of dice used in missile fire."

Maybe - that's certainly an elegant way around the problem but then you are getting a bonus as the current points totals assume the rear rank has the bow and therefore gets a 25% points discount because it is the rear of a large unit. Moving the bow to the front rank makes the unit more expensive as the front rank should pay full cost. I can't see how we could justify that?

Yes I agree with Cyrus the points should be adjusted front unit is charged with having bow and pavese and the rear ' feeder ' unit is exactly that and armed with nothing.

Slowly going through the lists to see if this new type of T LU would effect anyone else can't find anything yet.

Going to test this in tomorrow nights game....see how it plays.