Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Achaemenid Persian Infantry  (Read 469 times)

getback

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2020, 10:39:52 AM »
Maybe they just had good dice rolls on that occasion  :)

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1797
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2020, 10:44:26 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.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

martymagnificent

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2020, 11:24:04 AM »
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 

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1797
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2020, 12:39:09 PM »
So make a case for that then.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

grahambriggs

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2020, 04:36:50 PM »
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.

grahambriggs

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2020, 04:55:15 PM »


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.

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1797
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2020, 05:55:10 PM »
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.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 645
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #22 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

badhabum

  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 669
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #23 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

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1797
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2020, 01:04:52 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.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

badhabum

  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 669
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2020, 12:01:03 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

mark hargrave

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2020, 02:37:35 PM »
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 isnít 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.

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1797
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2020, 02:52:39 PM »
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.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

mark hargrave

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2020, 03:03:05 PM »
Thanks for the confirmation,

stuuk

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Achaemenid Persian Infantry
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2020, 10:55:06 PM »
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.