Placeholder to remind Simon of the conversation we had on the Facebook MeG Forum. Regarding the treatment of Persian, Mede, Cissian, etc. infantry in the rules. Heredotus describes these troops at Plataea "had made a barricade of their wicker shields and from the protection of it were shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress". Later, "there was a struggle at the barricade of shields, ; then the barricade down, there was a bitter and protracted fight". And later at the battle of Mycale "the Persians, so long as their line of shields remained intact, successfully repelled all attacks" - this latter against the Athenians.
This suggests that theses troops should have the option of barricades capability rather than pavise. However, there is no evidence at Plataea for them using light spears - unknown why but perhaps they were used to brace the barricade somehow?. So it could be that an "either/or" option is needed? When it came to hand to hand "they would lay hold of the Persian spears and break them; in courage and strength they were the equal of their enemies but they were deficient in armour, untrained and greatly inferior in skill" Also, the troops should perhaps be close order rather than loose. There's no evidence that they are any less tightly packed than hoplites in any of the battles between the two types. So as a suggestion, perhaps these troops should be close order, and be allowed either pavise and light spear to go with their bows, or barricade and no light spear.
Graham, could you also post the info you mentioned from Duncan Head about how the "barricade of shields" was formed as it sounded pertinent.
Also it would be useful to know if there is any information of how useful the "barricade of shields" was against cavalry as there are substantial benefits against them for the Barricades characteristic.
I would also note that as it stands the Pavise characteristic makes the Persian infantry very tough - as the battle report from Ray and myself showed, and hoplites will generally do worse than legionarii - and probably gets an effect in line with the bits you quoted, the issue maybe that once placed the "barricade of shields" should be immobile. It could be a case for a Special Rule in the Achaemenid lists is needed to tweak it for these armies?
Not commenting on this historical accuracy here, but I am not a fan of the Barricades characteristic as it has problems from a gaming perspective (making troops too tough to attack and the game too static).
In terms of balance, the Immortals are already very effective against hoplites, possibly too effective - in fact I was already wondering whether they should count Short Spear and Pavise (only wondering before anyone goes ballistic), instead making the front rank Flexible and dropping the Short Spear.
Richard
I've not read Heredotus' account, so I'm sure I'm missing the wider context, but the parts of the description you quoted-- especially the "there was a struggle at the barricade of shields, ; then the barricade down, there was a bitter and protracted fight" part-- sounds pretty consistent with the mechanical effects of Short-Spear/Pavise.
(+2 claims during the charge phase, +0 in the melee)
From a purely mechanical standpoint, a TuG of foot charging SS/Pavise immortals would have a hard fight in the charge phase, followed by a drag-out brawl in the melee if they weathered the initial assault. Sounds a lot like the description from Heredotus you cited.
(Contrast with the Barricades characteristic-- the wall of wicker shields would hold for the entire duration of combat between the Greeks and Persians, and would remain a permanent fixture on the table, even after the immortals were routed.)
As a side note-- an utterly uninformed side-note as I don't speak ancient Greek-- if Heredotus didn't have a Greek word for Pavise, the Persians "making a barricade of their wicker shields" would be a pretty apt description of the sparabara formation. Pure speculation, but thought I'd throw that in.
I suspect a big part of the issue with immortals is the, relatively, cheap access to massed skilled shooter on an effective platform.
I'm aware of no evidence that the immortals were particularly remarkable archers. Perhaps they should be superior instead of having skilled shooter?
Martin
I am not convinced there is an issue with them having faced them. Graham's main issue (from the FB page) is that the barricade can be moved, falling back especially.
As to the classification of their shooting, the bit Graham quoted from Herodotos "shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress" indicates they are good shooters - in MeG terms we're talking shooting at Superior troops with Shield Cover which is tough for shooters, so to distress them you'd need to be pretty good shooters.
Thanks Graham
I think Graham has a good point that is more about falling back.
They are definitely not strong enough to be a barricades in the rules.
The Pavise classification as it stands is actually spot on for it other than the fall back.
POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO STORE
Two refinement for consideration in a few years time might make it more perfect for them:
a) putting into the Pavise classification that you cannot fall back of break off with them. So ...
14. PAVISE
Pavise covers troops who carry a large free-standing personal barricade for missile protection and as a minor obstacle to chargers. These were notably used by Persians, and Japanese and some Medieval Crossbowmen.
1. Pavise gives no benefit of any type if charging, countercharging or intercepting, (indeed it would be left behind) otherwise:
- pavise gives cover to those behind them when shot at by files who have all of their front edge ahead of the line of their front (so a benefit vs. anything except artillery).
- pavise gives a +1 bonus in charge combat against any infantry.
- troops with pave cannot use an M13 fall back more or F3 or F4 break off move.
2. Players are encouraged to represent pavise on the tabletop but this is not compulsory. All
distances are measured from the troop bases.
or
b) create a Pavise + which is as above and Pavise only gives protection from fire. Immortals then Pavise+ and Genoans Bowmen Pavise.
I probably prefer b as adding to character of both troop types.
FALLING BACK
The rules are generous in movement options throughout with a different table on the website if you want a sense of what is probably closer to reality. It is a bias that gives us the best balance of game fun and historical realism and by having both Prompted Action Tables people wanting historical refights can use that. We then get the best of both worlds.
FWIW I haven't seen Fall Back being used excessively because the points system favours doing damage. Plus it is costly with Formed and Tribles as you often are using the Yellow and Red cards you need for so many other moves. So it feels in game terms to set a fine challenge of decision making at present. That said I am ot present at many competitions and that distance can give me a false impression so keen to hear if it does feel excessive as we move forward. Always had a watching brief on it.
I will store for the future under a watching brief. Not changing anything for a few years from here as very well balanced overall.
Si
Pavises were still in use in the Napoleonic wars, Serbian irregular matchlockmen used them in the Balkans. Am not sure why it is considered that falling back with them is considered a problem, as they could be picked up and moved forward, so why not when going away? Obviously they wouldn't count cover if moving with them, in any direction.
In my own rules I just make the units move slower if carrying pavises, as they would be a bit cumbersome, and make keeping formation difficult - which makes them very vulnerable to cavalry even in rough terrain whilst moving.
So rather than change any rules perhaps just make them move slower, if they don't already do so??
Mark
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 28, 2020, 07:21:54 AM
I am not convinced there is an issue with them having faced them. Graham's main issue (from the FB page) is that the barricade can be moved, falling back especially.
As to the classification of their shooting, the bit Graham quoted from Herodotos "shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress" indicates they are good shooters - in MeG terms we're talking shooting at Superior troops with Shield Cover which is tough for shooters, so to distress them you'd need to be pretty good shooters.
It is just ONE quote ...should it be enough to make them all "skilled" shooters ...I remember other discussions we had and the answer was that one quote may be suspect . That and the tendancy for some antique historians to put things in a certain light so that their heroes would seem even better ...exagerating difficulties was a common thing . My point : you may change what you want 8) but be sure of what you want to do before changing it once again when a 5 year truce has been declared
Quote from: badhabum on June 29, 2020, 11:12:37 AM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 28, 2020, 07:21:54 AM
I am not convinced there is an issue with them having faced them. Graham's main issue (from the FB page) is that the barricade can be moved, falling back especially.
As to the classification of their shooting, the bit Graham quoted from Herodotos "shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress" indicates they are good shooters - in MeG terms we're talking shooting at Superior troops with Shield Cover which is tough for shooters, so to distress them you'd need to be pretty good shooters.
It is just ONE quote ...should it be enough to make them all "skilled" shooters ...I remember other discussions we had and the answer was that one quote may be suspect . That and the tendancy for some antique historians to put things in a certain light so that their heroes would seem even better ...exagerating difficulties was a common thing . My point : you may change what you want 8) but be sure of what you want to do before changing it once again when a 5 year truce has been declared
Agree.
Too soon after the Compendium edition being printed to start changing things. This effect was well documented after the IWC in January, that was the time for change. The Compendium is only just getting into the hands of players, don't change it.
Quote from: badhabum on June 29, 2020, 11:12:37 AM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 28, 2020, 07:21:54 AM
I am not convinced there is an issue with them having faced them. Graham's main issue (from the FB page) is that the barricade can be moved, falling back especially.
As to the classification of their shooting, the bit Graham quoted from Herodotos "shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress" indicates they are good shooters - in MeG terms we're talking shooting at Superior troops with Shield Cover which is tough for shooters, so to distress them you'd need to be pretty good shooters.
It is just ONE quote ...should it be enough to make them all "skilled" shooters ...I remember other discussions we had and the answer was that one quote may be suspect . That and the tendancy for some antique historians to put things in a certain light so that their heroes would seem even better ...exagerating difficulties was a common thing . My point : you may change what you want 8) but be sure of what you want to do before changing it once again when a 5 year truce has been declared
You do realise I am suggesting the status quo is fine don't you?
Quote from: rayfredjohn on June 29, 2020, 11:22:03 AM
Too soon after the Compendium edition being printed to start changing things. This effect was well documented after the IWC in January, that was the time for change. The Compendium is only just getting into the hands of players, don't change it.
Simon ruled out changes to the Compendium material "for a few years" above :)
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 29, 2020, 11:41:46 AM
Quote from: badhabum on June 29, 2020, 11:12:37 AM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 28, 2020, 07:21:54 AM
I am not convinced there is an issue with them having faced them. Graham's main issue (from the FB page) is that the barricade can be moved, falling back especially.
As to the classification of their shooting, the bit Graham quoted from Herodotos "shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress" indicates they are good shooters - in MeG terms we're talking shooting at Superior troops with Shield Cover which is tough for shooters, so to distress them you'd need to be pretty good shooters.
It is just ONE quote ...should it be enough to make them all "skilled" shooters ...I remember other discussions we had and the answer was that one quote may be suspect . That and the tendancy for some antique historians to put things in a certain light so that their heroes would seem even better ...exagerating difficulties was a common thing . My point : you may change what you want 8) but be sure of what you want to do before changing it once again when a 5 year truce has been declared
You do realise I am suggesting the status quo is fine don't you?
Yes, I realised you weren't advocating changes.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 29, 2020, 11:47:35 AM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on June 29, 2020, 11:22:03 AM
Too soon after the Compendium edition being printed to start changing things. This effect was well documented after the IWC in January, that was the time for change. The Compendium is only just getting into the hands of players, don't change it.
Simon ruled out changes to the Compendium material "for a few years" above :)
That's good for the growth of the game.
There are any number of armies that some source describes as good shooters or shooting well in a particular instance but they don't get 40 bases of skilled foot shooters!
Martin
Maybe they just had good dice rolls on that occasion :)
Quote from: martymagnificent on June 30, 2020, 09:38:48 AM
There are any number of armies that some source describes as good shooters or shooting well in a particular instance but they don't get 40 bases of skilled foot shooters!
Martin
You are always welcome to make a reasoned case for change that Richard will consider if you think it is wrong.
Not so much 'wrong' as inconsistent with the way skilled shooter is normally assigned to infantry in other lists (ie in a niggardly fashion).
Martin
So make a case for that then.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 28, 2020, 07:21:54 AM
I am not convinced there is an issue with them having faced them. Graham's main issue (from the FB page) is that the barricade can be moved, falling back especially.
As to the classification of their shooting, the bit Graham quoted from Herodotos "shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress" indicates they are good shooters - in MeG terms we're talking shooting at Superior troops with Shield Cover which is tough for shooters, so to distress them you'd need to be pretty good shooters.
I think the difficulty may be in the numbers allowed. The Immortals were 10,000 strong, plus there were a couple of 1,000 strong guard units. But they were never the majority of the infantry. The Xerxes invasion of 480bc, for example, has a lot more Persian, Mede, Kissian and Hyrkanian sparabara type troops. Even by the battle of Plataea in 479, when Xerxes had taken most of the army home, the Immortals would have been been outnumbered by the other sparabara.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on June 28, 2020, 11:30:14 AM
FALLING BACK
The rules are generous in movement options throughout with a different table on the website if you want a sense of what is probably closer to reality. It is a bias that gives us the best balance of game fun and historical realism and by having both Prompted Action Tables people wanting historical refights can use that. We then get the best of both worlds.
FWIW I haven't seen Fall Back being used excessively because the points system favours doing damage. Plus it is costly with Formed and Tribles as you often are using the Yellow and Red cards you need for so many other moves. So it feels in game terms to set a fine challenge of decision making at present. That said I am ot present at many competitions and that distance can give me a false impression so keen to hear if it does feel excessive as we move forward. Always had a watching brief on it.
I will store for the future under a watching brief. Not changing anything for a few years from here as very well balanced overall.
Si
I've seen it used to pull back several TUGs of pike as a group and on another occasion a TUG of elephants as a delaying tactic while the battle was won elsewhere. Both were when the enemy started the move in charge range which is what made it extra odd. In terms of the refight PAT that does seem more historical. I don't think it would be less fun than the current PAT. After all, both players would have the same restrictions.
Quote from: grahambriggs on June 30, 2020, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on June 28, 2020, 07:21:54 AM
I am not convinced there is an issue with them having faced them. Graham's main issue (from the FB page) is that the barricade can be moved, falling back especially.
As to the classification of their shooting, the bit Graham quoted from Herodotos "shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress" indicates they are good shooters - in MeG terms we're talking shooting at Superior troops with Shield Cover which is tough for shooters, so to distress them you'd need to be pretty good shooters.
I think the difficulty may be in the numbers allowed. The Immortals were 10,000 strong, plus there were a couple of 1,000 strong guard units. But they were never the majority of the infantry. The Xerxes invasion of 480bc, for example, has a lot more Persian, Mede, Kissian and Hyrkanian sparabara type troops. Even by the battle of Plataea in 479, when Xerxes had taken most of the army home, the Immortals would have been been outnumbered by the other sparabara.
The list minimums for the Royal Achaemenid army are Guard cavalry, Iranian cavalry, Guard Immortals and Immortals which, therefore, means you can have an army that is all Immortals and some cavalry. If Immortals should be a minority based on the historical record it sounds like there is a case for revision.
I am following this thread with interest and will be keeping track of how the army is used.
It does make sense for the sparabara to be mandatory and a proportion of them upgraded as Immortals.
Richard
Yep a status quo is needed and I did understand Nik ...otherwise I come back with fully armoured seleucid nellies ;D
Quote from: badhabum on July 01, 2020, 12:46:26 PM
Yep a status quo is needed and I did understand Nik ...otherwise I come back with fully armoured seleucid nellies ;D
Fair enough, just seemed the comment was a bit odd when the section quoted wasn';t suggesting change.
FWIW I think there would be no issue with you making a case for Seleukid FArm nellies, some list changes are within remit even now the Compendium is released.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on June 30, 2020, 06:11:43 PM
I am following this thread with interest and will be keeping track of how the army is used.
It does make sense for the sparabara to be mandatory and a proportion of them upgraded as Immortals.
Richard
All EAP armies I have seen are full of immortals all skilled shooters mostly around 6+ tugs of 6-8 bases , guard cav and iranian cav ...nothing else
As a new player to MEG can I give my thoughts,
I have just finished painting my first two armies classical Indian and as it happens archaemid Persian. Now my army is only half immortals and a couple of Iranian cavalry, mainly as I am still finding out what is good and what isn't so went for a balance so I am unlikely to be impacted by some of the suggestions.
However, what concerns me as a new player is that straight after what was billed as a period of stability cause the rules were mature (which was one of the reasons I finally came back to ancients gaming and chose this rule set) we are talking about fundamentally changing an army, now veterans may have a wealth of units and can easily adapt but new players may suddenly find their first army is invalid and are left with not being able to use it. Unless this particular army has suddenly become a problem and is winning everything then why change it. Or if it needs changing give a suitably long transition.
And they are valid thoughts :)
However, I think it is pretty clear that Simon and Richard are fully aware of the potential pitfalls and will not be rushing into any sudden changes that mean loads of figures become surplus to requirement or armies become ineffective (if there is actually such a beast in MeG). If a change is deemed appropriate I am sure it will be the minimum necessary.
Thanks for the confirmation,
I don't personally see a problem with the army, sure the immortals are good shooters. That's the 'fun bit' of the army.
Don't look to nerf it just because it's tough - it's kind of a unique thing they have and I like it.
Bit like the numidians - absolutely crap in most rules. In MeG, they get to have a load of skilled shooters - that's great! crap army becomes something fun.
Even all said, skilled shooters vs superior melee expert - best make sure you shoot well because if you don't choppy choppy.
Except there shouldn't be a Persian army where the only infantry are the Immortals. To the best of our knowledge it never happened.
I would make 16 bases of more 'normal' infantry compulsory.
Shouldn't cause problems for anyones figure collection unless they bought a very odd army indeed.
Martin
My understanding, as informed by Herodotus is that the 'spears' were used with the shield/pavise to construct a 'barricade'; implying that the spear was not a hand-to-hand weapon. Also not convinced that Immortals should be 'skilled'; pg 43 defines 'skilled' as " a high level of skill through training and practice and/or a high quantity of missiles". Herodotus states that Immortals units were kept at the required strength by recruiting men from the other Persian/Iranian sparabara units. This does not imply any increase in ability level.
FWIW, my interpretation is ... Sparabara : bow, experienced shooter and pavise only, (no spear); Immortals : Superior (increased morale due to unit status), short spear, bow, experienced shooter and pavise.
Quote from: martymagnificent on July 03, 2020, 01:46:24 AM
Except there shouldn't be a Persian army where the only infantry are the Immortals. To the best of our knowledge it never happened.
I would make 16 bases of more 'normal' infantry compulsory.
Shouldn't cause problems for anyones figure collection unless they bought a very odd army indeed.
Martin
that is true for a lot of armies ... we tend to pick the best ...
"had made a barricade of their wicker shields and from the protection of it were shooting their arrows in such numbers that the Spartan troops were in serious distress". Later, "there was a struggle at the barricade of shields, ; then the barricade down, there was a bitter and protracted fight". And later at the battle of Mycale "the Persians, so long as their line of shields remained intact, successfully repelled all attacks"
as i read it...it is more shieldwall than pavise ""there was a struggle at the barricade of shields,", and perhaps not shortspear but melee expert "bitter and protracted fight"
Quote from: Jilu on July 03, 2020, 09:45:37 PM
Quote from: martymagnificent on July 03, 2020, 01:46:24 AM
Except there shouldn't be a Persian army where the only infantry are the Immortals. To the best of our knowledge it never happened.
I would make 16 bases of more 'normal' infantry compulsory.
Shouldn't cause problems for anyones figure collection unless they bought a very odd army indeed.
Martin
that is true for a lot of armies ... we tend to pick the best ...
I can't think of any other MeG armies, that are primarily infantry, that have no minimum for the armies 'standard' infantry but allow huge numbers of an elite that made up a fraction of the whole. Players may tend to choose 'the best' from what is available but they are generally forced to take some more normal troops by the list.
Martin
Yes stability is everything right now.
So I will only correct a clear error if someone spots one.
Let's just get out there, grow a big community, and have loads of fun playing the game.
Si
Also, one may always voluntarily downgrade skilled to experienced but not upgrade experienced to skilled 8)
Quote from: badhabum on July 07, 2020, 12:46:50 PM
Also, one may always voluntarily downgrade skilled to experienced but not upgrade experienced to skilled 8)
Hahahaaa oh you jester.
Anyway, as a fun exercise I added up all the tournament Ach. Persian lists downgrading their shooting to experienced. It looks like it adds up to the same number of super modelled I've made out with. So that will be easy to remember...
;)
Dru
In the dim distant past of this list - the immortals were all superior and average shooters, and there were non immortal foot minima.
I think the non immortal foot minima got rolled into the immortals when they were downgraded to average, then didnt get reseperated when they gained skilled shooting
(my opinion is skilled shooter is correct for the top Persian troops as it was their prestige weapon, but I would probably have gone with giving it to the guard cav rather than the immortals)
I think the best solution is minima for non immortal foot, or a reduced maximum for immortals rather than a rules change
The pavise is not the issue, the wall of skilled shooters with pavise is a bit scary.
Though anyone on a horse rides through them in short order
Hello all, I've done some digging into how these troops were used (see link). I've made some suggestions as to how rule changes might better model their behaviour (there's a thread in Rules Queries to cover) However, having just published the new book it's unlikely that that will change anytime soon. However, I believe we could get most of the benefit by addressing the army lists, so I've put a section of suggested changes in for those. In a nutshell, it shouldn't be possible for the entire infantry component to be Immortals and apple bearear because they were a small fraction of the army.
cwatp.blogspot.com (http://cwatp.blogspot.com)
As a a non-ancients player trying to learn the period(s), this is an informative article.
1000 man "regiments" if you will sounds right, as the decimal system or organisation seems to be a common thread throughout the region and well into the 19th century.
If a 1000 man unit is 10 ranks deep, then presumably it's frontage is quite narrow, in this case 120'. Assuming each rank needs 3 foot minimum to wield his bow, it's gonna be 30' or more deep.
Do we know how this compares to contemporary armies? Did they only have 4-6-8 deep units?
Another thought is, if they used spears to tie the shields together to make a barricade, presumably each file would use 3-4 of it's spears to do this, the rearer ranks passing their's forward to use as required. Afterall, they're not needing them whilst they are shooting. And if they are replacing casualties in the ranks in front of them, they'd be able to find a spear underfoot if they didn't have one to hand.
If the unit is firing, I'd guess only the first 2 ranks would get anything like aimed shots at the target. All the 8 files behind would be overhead shooting presumably trying to hit the rearer areas of approaching enemy units. Whilst not particularly accurate - a unit would have 200 aimed-ish shots and 800 random-ish area fire shots - this is still a lot of shots.
If the shield bearer is the officer at the front, presumably he's the better man, and could shout fire directions when he's not using his spear or bow. But once in close combat, could the 7 rear files carry on overhead shooting, or would they be pressing up against the front ranks to hold firm, and to fill casualty spaces?
if the officer is the front ranker, then presumably when the front rank has fallen dead and wounded, the fighting quality of the unit (as apposed to individuals) would then fall by a quotable factor in wargaming terms?
Quote from: sultanbev on September 28, 2020, 09:21:33 PM
As a a non-ancients player trying to learn the period(s), this is an informative article.
1000 man "regiments" if you will sounds right, as the decimal system or organisation seems to be a common thread throughout the region and well into the 19th century.
If a 1000 man unit is 10 ranks deep, then presumably it's frontage is quite narrow, in this case 120'. Assuming each rank needs 3 foot minimum to wield his bow, it's gonna be 30' or more deep.
Do we know how this compares to contemporary armies? Did they only have 4-6-8 deep units?
Another thought is, if they used spears to tie the shields together to make a barricade, presumably each file would use 3-4 of it's spears to do this, the rearer ranks passing their's forward to use as required. Afterall, they're not needing them whilst they are shooting. And if they are replacing casualties in the ranks in front of them, they'd be able to find a spear underfoot if they didn't have one to hand.
If the unit is firing, I'd guess only the first 2 ranks would get anything like aimed shots at the target. All the 8 files behind would be overhead shooting presumably trying to hit the rearer areas of approaching enemy units. Whilst not particularly accurate - a unit would have 200 aimed-ish shots and 800 random-ish area fire shots - this is still a lot of shots.
If the shield bearer is the officer at the front, presumably he's the better man, and could shout fire directions when he's not using his spear or bow. But once in close combat, could the 7 rear files carry on overhead shooting, or would they be pressing up against the front ranks to hold firm, and to fill casualty spaces?
if the officer is the front ranker, then presumably when the front rank has fallen dead and wounded, the fighting quality of the unit (as apposed to individu als) would then fall by a quotable factor in wargaming terms?
Infantry depth varied. A pike phalanx could be 8 or 16 deep depending on the need. Hoplites seem to have been mostly 8 deep but sometimes went deeper to put pressure on (Thebans at Leuctra) or thinned them out to match enemy frontage (Athenians at Marathon). It's unknown whether the shields were tied together or not. If they were, spears would be awkward to use, you'd probably want plain lengths of wood. The man at the front was the leader of ten, or Dathapatis. The sense from Herodotus is that they shot until close combat was imminent, at which time they took up their close combat weapons.