EARLY ACHAEMENID PERSIANS (550-420 BC) Questions

I can't remember seeing any large T units in the lists Cyrus. Can you point out an example to me?

The main fix that needed to happen was the shooting and I think the new proposal is a good solution.

Most importanly for me is that you can now use them the way they should be used... where as before you could be left with the remains of a unit that couldn't fire at all.

We're leaving their movement at 5U ? ( maybe this is enough of a restriction on their movement ? ) .... will do a little more play testing on this with our next game.

@GC
err Sparabara!!

I dont know about the rest of you but I've been playing the damned things regularly since Extra 4 was published. I've played them against Hoplites, Huns, Hungarians and Hussites and thats just the letter H !

Sorry if my frustration is showing but after a couple of years playing with a unit that is a) essential to my favourite army, and b) so clearly missrepresented I am at the bottom of the well of patience, and it wasn't that full in the first place. It also doesn't help that the rules as written already handle all the issues this fix requires, we don't need new ones, particularly ones that contradict the main rules. That sort of amendment and special rule habit kills games dead or turns them unplayable.

@ Tarty - yes they only move 5U because they have the Spara (Pavaise) - as above why change something that works?

Yep I think we have enough here now to fix these chaps up and make them more historically playable. Leaving the M at 5U is a good idea.

Cyrus that Sparabara don't really function as large T units. The front unit is really a FL unit with a back unit of T.  What you are asking for is a large T where the back unit feeds the front unit.  I totally agree with you. There are lots of examples in Impetus where specific units have restrictions placed upon them. For instance large units of cavalry cannot oblique move. Neither can   chariots. Impetuous FL function like FP for interpenetration.  I don't see a huge problem if large T units can only move and fire and not the reverse (although I am not convinced that the rule is needed.)

Gaius Cassius wrote: (although I am not convinced that the rule is needed.)

So why have it or support it? Life is complicated enough

Cyrus The Adequate wrote: So why have it or support it? Life is complicated enough

Because there is a question of play balance and I take comments from others seriously. I am not convinced that the Sparabara functioned like FL with javelin who shoot and then charge. On the other hand, I don't want to overly constrict their tactical options by denying them the ability to initiate melee. Seems to me that what Lorenzo offered was a reasonable compromise.

1. They don't function like FL with Javelin do they, they don't get a free move \ shoot? In fact they function like EVERY other missile armed unit with impetus. That's pretty much the way they should be, UNLESS you wish to restrict ALL missile armed units with Impetus? It is not a matter of offering a compromise, it does not need compromise, it needs faith in the system that has been proven to work.

2. Deleted - not worth continuing

Need to play some more games with these new proposed large T units but I think we may have done enough ?....little more time will tell.
I'll also run Lorenzo's move and shoot option by the others in our group as well could be another way of doing things but I do hear what Cyrus is saying.

Personally I think the tactical choice for Sparabara of shooting or charging is an interesting one. I think this goes get at the idea they weren't first and foremost melee troops in the manner of hoplites. Still, with having impetus they do have choices and it would require the player to weigh his options. If this were the only limitation in new rules around this troop type I hope you would agree that it would still represent a great advance forward in representing them.

Gaius Cassius wrote:Personally I think the tactical choice for Sparabara of shooting or charging is an interesting one. I think this goes get at the idea they weren't first and foremost melee troops in the manner of hoplites. Still, with having impetus they do have choices and it would require the player to weigh his options. If this were the only limitation in new rules around this troop type I hope you would agree that it would still represent a great advance forward in representing them.

No - it is absolutely no advance as they can already do that.

Please forgive me but you seem to be making these comments and suggestions from a position of, well shall we say "less than well informed". Sparabara have been in the game for a long time. In beta they were actually more powerful melee troops, having a reasonable VBU (VBU 5 I1 IIRC - could be wrong, but only armed with Shortbow B, and single ranked) The problem is of course they were being shot to ribbons in missile combat because they couldnt shoot effectively, and the restricted range meant they also couldnt disrupt enemy movement or cause missile casualties to foot troops. They became a strange and very aggressive troop type who would activly try and engage in melee delivering a bow shot before charging in - somewhat like javelin armed troops. This is a poor historical representation of a troop type that was at the time the most successful infantry in the Classical world. One solution was to upgrade the bow to Shortbow A - which would have worked but would not really give the true impression of depth these units fought with, and would still leave them running around after opponents.

In Extra 4 these were replaced with the VBU4 I1 deep troops, with the back rank carrying the bow (Short A). Initially I was quite pleased as this gave what looked like a very interesting representation of AEP infantry - they had reasonable melee capability due to their impetus and depth, they could shoot well enough, and they could move through poor terrain - this last is important as in the historical record it is clear Persians managed quite well in rough terrain (they do come from a mountainous country after all). They still could try and chase opponents down, but the restrictions on being a Large Unit as far as manoeuvring and the lack of pace due to the Pavaise means they in reality are used as defensive shooters with the option of a counter charge if threatened by foot.  If you measure them against Hoplites this is not a bad representation - actually it is a good one in my understanding. It was only with experience of playing them regularly that the problem with the degradation of the missile factor became an issue. Spara met their match against Hoplites, but they were dominant against other bow armed infantry and more than a match for the cavalry they met at the time - ie cavalry that would not be heavily armoured. What we get with the rear rank bow is a strange situation where the proportional loss of casualties impacts most the feature that these troops are famous for - missile fire.

I have read quite a lot about the historical army. I like the AEPs and think we in the modern West have a very false view of them as some faceless effete and poorly armed horde army that was steamrollered by the Greeks then Alexander and his Macedonians. That fails to recognise they were probably the most technically advanced army in the Classical world and also one of the best organised and advanced - there is evidence they used standards as battlefield signals for instance at an era when this is totally alien to the Greeks. Sparabara are the pinnacle of the development of the protected archer concept that went back centuries. They should be properly represented.

The current representation is ok as Hoplite fodder, but fails on any other measure. Fixing this is easy. What causes me frustration is this apparent desire to over complicate matters, plus the aforementioned barracking from the gallery once we seemed to have got to what I think is a very sensible and workable solution.

So what do I do now if I take an AEP army? Simple, I drop the Spara totally. As it stands they are too vulnerable, and once they take a casualty they are pretty useless as missile troops and too slow, unwieldy and vulnerable as melee troops - and damned expensive at that. I replace them with the minimum crescent shield archer and FL combinations and spend the points saved elsewhere. Thats a damned shame and should be fixed.

If of course we have any allusion to trying to represent what we understand as history

I do think that losing their missile fire just because the back rank has gone doesn't model them properly

Jim

so, Sparabara should be
Large Unit of T, M=5, VBU 4+4, I=1, D=B, VD=2+2 (or 2+1?), Short Bow A, Pavese (cost to calculate)

while Immortals
Large Unit of T, M=5, VBU 5+4, I=1, D=B or A(?), VD=3+2, Short Bow A, Pavese (cost to calculate)

Could work?

Or you could JUST PUT THE BOW IN THE FRONT RANK AND LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE THE SAME!!!! (repoint)

Not sure if Lorenzo is trying to wind me up now

we have 2 options with pros and cons

1) leave the bow just in the rear.
In this case the Sparabara/Immortals have a better rear rank now.
Add this to the pavese they are a better archer then their opponent. Is this enough?

2) Move the shooting at the rear rank. This is an advantage as they can shoot till they have many losses.
In this case I would not give them a discount for rear rank to balance this.
Cons is that it is a new way to shoot for LU, but at the same time it is anyway a new troop type

dadiepiombo wrote:we have 2 options with pros and cons

1) leave the bow just in the rear.
In this case the Sparabara/Immortals have a better rear rank now.
Add this to the pavese they are a better archer then their opponent. Is this enough?

Sorry - I dont understand? leave the bow at the rear is no change so how do they have a better rear rank?

dadiepiombo wrote:
2) Move the shooting at the rear rank. This is an advantage as they can shoot till they have many losses.
In this case I would not give them a discount for rear rank to balance this.
Cons is that it is a new way to shoot for LU, but at the same time it is anyway a new troop type

Not sure I follow this either. Why not just move the bow to the front rank - surely this is the easiest solution?

I think we should go with 2 Lorenzo and assume that we building a new troop type (ie. large T units.) Otherwise, we really have a troop type that is equivalent to Skutatoi (FP+T) With Skutatoi one has a unit of 4 ranks for heavy infantry and 3 ranks of archers. In the case of Sparabara there is 1 rank of spearmen and 9 ranks or archers so shooting should be the primary offensive option for them. Feeding missile fire from the back rank to the front rank represents this well in my opinion. I do think in most cases Sparabara will prefer firing to melee since VBU 4 units are vulnerable to major loses in melee. Giving both T units VD2 might be the way to go to discourage melee with hoplites without forbidding it.  
I am agnostic as far as restricting large T units to only moving and firing not the reverse as you opined earlier.

forget option 1, I was considering rear rank to have VBU 3. Sorry but busy days with head on other stuff.

I think that option 2, with front rank as the firing unit is ok. It is just a question of giving the right balance as this means that they fire more than a MG now.
They can suffer 7 losses and still fire.
I would leave I=1 but to pay full cost for the rear rank.
You can choose between the troop type in the list or the second option (in the lists errata and addenda file) with troop firing from the front (more fire power) but more expensive.
Nothing written in the stone, just what I want to test.

Immortals are really powerful now.

Hi Lorenzo

I understand you are busy.

I dont understand what you mean by "fire like an MG now" - they fire the same as they always have, they just keep the factor longer. Yes they can take 7 losses and- still fire, but the real unit was 10 ranks deep and 80-100% of them could and did fire, when in our game model you we are only allowing half of them to fire. That's one of the reasons I don't think there is any justification in not granting them the rear rank discount because the rear rank functions the same as other rear ranks - it adds longevity but crucially does not add combat power as most other deep formations do. I accept the restriction on firing with only one rank - the other option would be a second rank that could fire, even at -2 for overhead, but I think that would be too much - it could blot out the sky........

Two Indian archers cost 42 pts.
A LU of Sparabara without discount cost 34.

Sparabara has also pavese that nullifies impetus bonus of mounted troops and give a -1 on shooting at.
Also, Sparabara can contact as I=1.

Now, which one would you prefer in your army? 2 Indian archers or a Sparabara?
With 8 points less you can take also 1 destiny roll and 3 Explorers.

Not to talk about Immortals.

Not contrary to improve this troop, but it should cost the right price.

2 indians every time - shooting twice even at 1 less dice ALWAYS wins

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:2 indians every time - shooting twice even at 1 less dice ALWAYS wins

Not necessarily. The permutations are really hard to nail down. But more importantly, Sparabara will prove very tough against mounted opponents. Personally I would give the discount but we are only talking about 2 points per large unit.

Gaius Cassius wrote:

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:2 indians every time - shooting twice even at 1 less dice ALWAYS wins

Not necessarily. The permutations are really hard to nail down. But more importantly, Sparabara will prove very tough against mounted opponents. Personally I would give the discount but we are only talking about 2 points per large unit.

I would disagree as far as being hard to nail down - the second shooter only needs to hit to cause casualties once the target is disordered by the first shot. If you do hit with both the second shot is capable of causing multiple casualties as the target is VBU 4, disordered 3 back to 4 for shooting. Spara will do better against cavalry in contact I agree, but not because they are a large unit, but because they have a pavaise, which they pay for. Those 2 indians could easily shoot a cavalry unit to red ruin before it gets to contact.

Having 2 shooters gives you more flexibility too.

It is true it is only a couple of points difference, but I get very annoyed at exceptions for exceptions sake, which seems to be the point here.

I realise I've spammed every response so I'll leave this for a while to let the gallery have their musings

what I say is just to give a try with full cost.
All other LU with shooting capabilities have a progressive reduction of shooting while this new t LU no.
Also Immortals have VBU 5 and they shoot untill they have 9 losses.

We can decide to make some tests or if Cyrus need to use his EAP at short term make the addenda in a short time. Nothing better than a competition to produce good test.

Also, in the addenda I want to introduce the Scorpio rules for legionaries.

Shall do some testing also and running at full cost as well. I've been away the last two days.
Competition is the best testing ground though for sure.
Upping them to 2 VD each is an interesting idea that could work out better give them more of a reason not to get into combat quiet so quick....especially with troops like hoplites.