Thanks Richard.
For the second formation, it says in the rules for pavise that separate bases should be used in front. Hence, instead of the spearmen with large shield as in the first formation, would you use small bases with pavises on them in front of the archers instead of using the spearmen figures from the first formation? 

Yes, I get that but what really is the difference between the two options:

1. close formation spearmen with shield cover and shieldwall with integral shooters. (bowmen marker or base/s at the rear to indicate integral shooters)
2. flexible formation sparabara with just bow unprotected and Pavise. (this implies no spear and just a pavise in front - also specified in the rules as a separate base of pavises)

How should these different options be represented because as far as I know the real formations were the same?

Should the regraded Babylonian front rank 'sparabara' not have the spear as a melee weapon from the original listing?
or as they now have pavise is the spear lost and both ranks now have a bow as listed and instead a row of pavises in front on separate bases/strips as recommended in the rule book? 

I have noticed that the Qurubuti cavalry upgrade is to close order which means 4 to a base? Is this correct?
Also the chariots are classified as close order. Is this correct as all other chariots are loose order? Obviously there is no way of representing this as there is only one chariot to a base.

Yes, Jilu, that is how I represent other flexibles but the problem with the sparabara types is that the back rank is a different troop type, being archers. I am actually confused as to why this unit should be flexible in any case, given that it is a fairly fixed formation.

looking at the new list the regrade for the infantry has them as 'Sparabara' with front rank as spearmen and pavise but no short spear and instead unprotected with bow. I also not that they are formed flexible. I am a little confused as the spearmen in the list above this are formed close and hence should have 4 figures to a base. Now it says flexible then does that mean 4 or 3 to a base? or just that the rear rank loose archers come into the front rank if acting as loose.  This seems odd as it defeats the object of the sparabara type infantry with the archers behind the spearmen.
How should this all be represented with figures in the battle group?

Should they not take account of the 3rd man with javelin as 'melee expert' in a similar way as the Hittite Empire 3 man chariots?

I have noticed that these chariots are not present in any lists? i.e 3-man 2 horse chariots with bow and short spear. They usually appear as a contingent/ally in the Syro-Canaanite army. Have I missed them somewhere?

Hi Richard

This is the text I used to have on my 'Cutting Edge Miniatures' website: it briefly outlines the period in the area of Babylonia.

"The Kassites were originally Highlanders from the Zagros Mountains who overran Babylonia after the Hittite destruction of Babylon at the end of the Middle Bronze Age in 1595 BCE. They set up a Dynasty which lasted for more than five hundred years: the longest rule by any dynasty in Babylonian history. They went onto conquer the southern part of Mesopotamia known as the Dynasty of Sealand in c.1460 BCE.
The Elamites destroyed Kassite power and themselves conquered Babylon in the 12th century BCE and the Kassites retreated back to the Zagros mountains.
In turn it was the Second Dynasty of Isin, under Nebuchadnezzar I, who re-established native Babylonian power, founded the Middle Kingdom and drove out the Elamites, sacking their capital, Susa, in the late 2nd millennium BCE.
It is likely that the military organisation of the Babylonians during this period followed the Maryannu chariot warrior system along the lines of Mitanni.
Towards the end of the period, the Kassites briefly regained power in Babylonia but subsequent Aramaean invasions led to an Aramaean dynasty ruling Babylonia until successive Assyrian dynasties took control for the following 300 hundred years. Eventually there was a Babylonian revival with the Chaldean and Neo-Babylonian Dynasties of the late Iron Age."

Yes, I had also noticed this omission in the lists. They should have a separate list named as 'Later Babylonian' which comes after the Kassite Babylonian and before Chaldean Babylonian.

very nice and extremely quick work.
How fast are Legio Heroica in getting their figures to UK and how do they compare in size to Essex Miniatures?

I don't think the chariots do fit the 40mm depth. I put my chariots on 50mm depth due to this issue. It also distinguishs between what are actually battle group bases and that which are commander bases on 40mm square. The base sizes for 25/28mm figures are are greater depth for chariots so I don't see why they shouldn't be for 15mm figures.

Perhaps the royal cavalry should have bow as well then? The other cavalry can then have mixed battlegroups of either bow or spear, similar to the Assyrians. I supoose the Kimmerians provide the bow armed cavalry which I have noticed are 'flexible' so maybe the army would work?

There is an error on the Urartian list as none of the cavalry have the bow. Don't tell me this is deliberate as all the pictorial and textual evidence is that the Urartians possessed excellent bow and spear cavalry as the Assyrians

If you read the text of the WRG Stillman and Tallis carefully in the Mitanni or Kassite Babylonian sections it is somewhere in there