Late Achaemenid Persian Guard Infantry

[davouthojo]

Elite HF offensive spear - what's not to like?

Except they don't get any POAs for Offensive Spear. Tried a test game, with the same result.

[batesmotel]

Elite HF offensive spear - what's not to like?

Except they don't get any POAs for Offensive Spear. Tried a test game, with the same result.

In the TT lists, these troops have a front rank of spearmen and a rear rank of bow. Since it requires two ranks of spearmen to get the spear POA, they do not do so but do get the other effects of steady spears in terms of negating opponents POAs, e.g against lance in impact and against swords in melee. For what it's orth, while I use this army both on the TT and on the PC, I've never bothered using the foot guard since I think they are over priced and also not very effective given how few are allowed.

Chris

[gudin]

Elite HF offensive spear - what's not to like?

Except they don't get any POAs for Offensive Spear. Tried a test game, with the same result.

In the TT lists, these troops have a front rank of spearmen and a rear rank of bow. Since it requires two ranks of spearmen to get the spear POA, they do not do so but do get the other effects of steady spears in terms of negating opponents POAs, e.g against lance in impact and against swords in melee. For what it's orth, while I use this army both on the TT and on the PC, I've never bothered using the foot guard since I think they are over priced and also not very effective given how few are allowed.

Chris

It would be nice to be able to tell this sort of this in the DAG. In the TT game, it's obvious, but in DAG they look like they should rock. So you buy them, and wonder why they get overrun.

[batesmotel]

Elite HF offensive spear - what's not to like?

Except they don't get any POAs for Offensive Spear. Tried a test game, with the same result.

In the TT lists, these troops have a front rank of spearmen and a rear rank of bow. Since it requires two ranks of spearmen to get the spear POA, they do not do so but do get the other effects of steady spears in terms of negating opponents POAs, e.g against lance in impact and against swords in melee. For what it's orth, while I use this army both on the TT and on the PC, I've never bothered using the foot guard since I think they are over priced and also not very effective given how few are allowed.

Chris

It would be nice to be able to tell this sort of this in the DAG. In the TT game, it's obvious, but in DAG they look like they should rock. So you buy them, and wonder why they get overrun.

I'm not sure if the on line help has been clearly updated to describe how the troops with (bow) or (crossbow) as an implicit back rank work. The troops do look different in the DAG since the back rank of missiles is indicated. Most of the armies that have these troops are in SoA but not all. And for some weapons, a second rank of troops with then isn't required, e.g. light spear or heavy weapon vs. offensive or defensive spears.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

This definaltely needs to be documented as there are quite a few SOA armies that have nothing BUT mixed armed heavies, ie the danes and Swedes as well as the Papal states.

I know RBS commented a while back about heavy mixed arms and that they didnt rec the "full" benefit of the spears or whatnot as only the front ranks have them, but this seems odd since medium bow troops are incredibly effective at impact due to the 6 dice they get.... It seems Heavy mixed should not be degraded relative to this (in my way of looking at it medium bows that have light spears or are impact , ie highlanders, should not be better at impact than a spear unit of heavies that has some rear ranker crossbows or bows)

[batesmotel]

This definaltely needs to be documented as there are quite a few SOA armies that have nothing BUT mixed armed heavies, ie the danes and Swedes as well as the Papal states.

I know RBS commented a while back about heavy mixed arms and that they didnt rec the "full" benefit of the spears or whatnot as only the front ranks have them, but this seems odd since medium bow troops are incredibly effective at impact due to the 6 dice they get.... It seems Heavy mixed should not be degraded relative to this (in my way of looking at it medium bows that have light spears or are impact , ie highlanders, should not be better at impact than a spear unit of heavies that has some rear ranker crossbows or bows)

Units with rear rank missile are get the same extra dice as pure missile MF. Depending on what weapon the front rank has, their normal 4 impact attacks may be at a better factor than pure MF archers would be. In the case of Offensive or Defensive Spear front rank, they do not get a +POA for spear but do get to negate opposing weapons like lances ans heavy or scythed chariots so will still often be better at impact than a pure missile MF unit. And often the mixed units with spear in the front rank are HF vs MF for pure missile MF or for highlanders or Immortals, so are much better at resisting mounted charges in the open.

This also looks like an error in the PC troops list. I'm pretty sure that the Guard are Defensive Spearmen in the TT lists which would make farm ore sense. Spearmen that don't get a spear POA certianly shouldn't be making anarchy charges if they have any sense!

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

They do? Hmm, its seams that mixed heavies, be they the levies of the Swedes or the Assyrians the persians get , are pretty subar troops...

I am not so sure of the historical/logical reasoning behind the xtra dice for either mediums or heavies in the ist place @ impact but i guess that is my own bias.... After all , isnt the premise in FOG that impact has nothing to do with #'s of men or amour apparently, and if that is the case then rear ranks in a single unit shouldnt matter (just like rear support from additional bg's doesnt exist in the impact phase) I mean , for a medium unit, what does the xtra 2 dice represent? Point blank fire? Followed by a quick switchover to a spear or sword or mallet? And i dont agree w the argument that the rear ranks are proving the 4 melee dice and the front ranks are proide the 2 dice firepower, especially as most bow units would have been in shallow lines in the ist place there are no "rear ranks"...

anyway , i think it would be more logical if a medium bow units had 4 dice @ impact, 2 melee and 2 missle but the missle at full strength. If anything mixed troops should get(or keep as they apprently get now) the xtra 2 dice at a minus since it really couldnt be that easy to get a lot of fire power over the heads od the front rankers. but at least there are front rankers with pavise, spear etc to give melee to an enemy impacting them....

I clearly have a bias though , i hate how lonbow units can devistate almost any other troop if atatcked frontally , even in open terraign. Those two dice are just too powerful IMHO

What gets me more is they still get the 6 dice if you decide to charge another unit in after a turn where another of your units is still engaged in melee combat with it. If nothing else, they should not get the full 6 against a new "impacter" when already fighting fo their lives gaisnt aanother unit that charged in the previous turn.

Ok ranting over , darn longbows

[batesmotel]

Subar? is that supposed to be super or sub-par? The extra dice at impact are intended to represent overhead shooting from the rear ranks just before impact. In FoG TT, only front rank bases contribute normal impact dice/attacks. The rear ranks do not contribute normally except for the special case of support shooting. So for impact combat on the TT, a BG one rank deep will get as many dice/attacks in impact as one multiple ranks deep. The second rank only contributes dice/attacks for melee. But some impact classes do count on having a deep formation in order to get the full effectiveness of the weapon. So for spears there must be a second supporting rank to count the POA. For pikes there must be a third rank to get the first POA and a fourth rank to get the second.

The best way to get even with longbows is to fight them with troops that don't have much armour so that the longbows are effectively overpriced bows . Bosporans and Irish/Anglo-Irish and Swiss are all good armies for this effect . Scots Highlanders may be the best way to get the longbows since they are cheap and fight at ++. Four dice at 3's to hit is much better than 6 at 5's .

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Curse my subpar spelling skills

Yes , i did mean subpar for the heavy mixed troopies, the only reason the swedes can be effective is they have ALOT of them.

I agree the TT rules are very clear and logical, however i still am confounded by the PC rules for medium bows . Based on your last post, mediums are assumed in their special case to get xtra value at impact for multiple ranks, but i again ask, what "xtra" ranks are there in a thick skirmisher line that i presume longbowmen or crossbows to be fighting in? I mean it really took the fire power and the bayonet in later linear infantry formations to repell cavalry on there own, i cant see longbowmen dropping there bows after a point blank volley and getting full melee value...

I think the issue is that there are no "bases" in the pc game, each PC battle group is really an amalgamation of a base and a full battle goup in TT terms and because of this there is illogical game play mechanics that come about , confounded by the % # of men per unit etc etc.
I think this is illustrated by the illogical flow of support from bg's behind other bg's in melee, yet certain indiidual bg's (ie mixed)get or dont get poa or bonuses because they dont have xtra ranks
Hope that makes sense
Oh well, i like the game enough i can overlook some of the abstractions and oddities, but i do dislike how medium bows are treated. i would rather them get a free 4 dice missle vollee at impact, those results are immedielty enacted upon the charger, THEN a normal melee combat happens....

[hidde]

TGM, you make me confused I always thought rear support was for impact as well. From the rules:

When battle groups test cohesion...
On receiving more hits than it inflicted in a single impact or melee combat.

How battle groups test cohesion...
+1 There are adjacent friends other than light foot or light horse in their rear.

It doesn't mention anything about difference between impact and melee when it comes to rear support.

I like the six dices but I agree with you that they shouldn't get it if they are already in melee with another BG.

Swiss are all good armies for this effect

The Swiss list for sure but as allies the longbowmen can handle them.
I won a game against a condotta army recently by weaken the Swiss (and the knights) by letting the longbows recive the charges. Worked like a charm

[TheGrayMouser]

Well I am confused too, maybe support just doesnt count in impact for dice reduction???? Dont know about cohesion checks though....

Oh well, maybe someday an updated rule book will be wriiten


*** I think Free Company is an excellant anti-Swiss army btw, of course they are very similar to longbow armies , for the most part

[batesmotel]

TGM, you make me confused I always thought rear support was for impact as well. From the rules:

When battle groups test cohesion...
On receiving more hits than it inflicted in a single impact or melee combat.

How battle groups test cohesion...
+1 There are adjacent friends other than light foot or light horse in their rear.

It doesn't mention anything about difference between impact and melee when it comes to rear support.

I like the six dices but I agree with you that they shouldn't get it if they are already in melee with another BG.

Swiss are all good armies for this effect

The Swiss list for sure but as allies the longbowmen can handle them.
I won a game against a condotta army recently by weaken the Swiss (and the knights) by letting the longbows recive the charges. Worked like a charm

There are two kinds of support in FoG PC which are completely unrelated. Rear support is for Cohesion tests, period. It doesn't matter what causes the test, e.g. death of a commander, routing friends, loss of impact or melee.

Supporting Battle Groups only count in melee. For friends, they must be adjacent to the enemy BG you are fighting, not in rear support of your BG.

Chris

[hidde]

Yes, I was thinking purely of cohesion test.

[batesmotel]

Curse my subpar spelling skills

Yes , i did mean subpar for the heavy mixed troopies, the only reason the swedes can be effective is they have ALOT of them.

I agree the TT rules are very clear and logical, however i still am confounded by the PC rules for medium bows . Based on your last post, mediums are assumed in their special case to get xtra value at impact for multiple ranks, but i again ask, what "xtra" ranks are there in a thick skirmisher line that i presume longbowmen or crossbows to be fighting in? I mean it really took the fire power and the bayonet in later linear infantry formations to repell cavalry on there own, i cant see longbowmen dropping there bows after a point blank volley and getting full melee value...

I think the issue is that there are no "bases" in the pc game, each PC battle group is really an amalgamation of a base and a full battle goup in TT terms and because of this there is illogical game play mechanics that come about , confounded by the % # of men per unit etc etc.
I think this is illustrated by the illogical flow of support from bg's behind other bg's in melee, yet certain indiidual bg's (ie mixed)get or dont get poa or bonuses because they dont have xtra ranks
Hope that makes sense
Oh well, i like the game enough i can overlook some of the abstractions and oddities, but i do dislike how medium bows are treated. i would rather them get a free 4 dice missle vollee at impact, those results are immedielty enacted upon the charger, THEN a normal melee combat happens....

I think the game model of MF archers (both PC and TT) is really more as a mass formation, with the rear ranks doing plunging fire rather than just as a thickened skirmish line. Xenophon and Arrian, I believe, do both comment on the use of archers behind formed troops such as hoplites or legionaries in order to provide additional ability to resist mounted charges. (Arrian does in his order of battle against the Sarmatians. I don't remember where it was in Xenpohon or possibly another classical author.) Certainly Herodotus does not seem to imply that Immortals and Persian Sparabara troops were just dense skirmishers. Also hard to picture how they could do it with the large wicker shields/ mantlets that the sparabara are thought to have used for the front rank troops.

In game I think the Swedish militia with heavy weapon and crossbows are more effective than they would be with only heavy weapons. They may not be game winners on their own but they are good solid troops. Highlanders with bow plus impact foot, sword seem to work quite well. Immortals seem pretty effective in the Early Achaemenid list although not troops that want to go toe to toe with armoured hoplites. (they should do pretty well against protected hoplites, however.)

Chris

[gudin]

Well, in TT if the second rank shoots, it gets one extra die in impact with a "-" POA (the front gets 2 dice). If the front rank has a melee weapon, it gets whatever that gives them. With Spearmen (NOT light spear) they get no POA, but the opponent may not get an impact POA against you if you're steady.

The DAG shows these units with a shooting ability, but didn't make it clear to me that they were single rank of non-shooters and a single rank of shooters. That's much more obvious in the TT game, and hugely affects their value in the game.

However, as a general principle, I think the digital game makes medium foot shooters absurdly more effective than they are in the TT game, solely because of their maneuverability. In TT you just can't do anything close to what you can in the digital game, and it completely changes their play.

To the original topic, I am not sure elite offensive spear with only a single rank of spear makes any sense at all because they are expensive, and will go out and charge other people who will easily kill them, and do so for no good reason at all. If they were defensive spear (and thus slightly cheaper), they'd be somewhat better, though still not great.

[davouthojo]

I think they should be changed to defensive spear, and get the plus on impact and melee. As they stand they are way overpriced - they got beaten up by average protected hoplites in my game.

[batesmotel]

For what it's worth, I did double check my TT lists and they are classed as Offensive Spear there as well, not Defensive. Guess that's one more reason I never considered buying them for a TT list as well as for a PC one. Just think of them as Persian suicide bombers who have the unfortunate problem that explosives haven't been invented yet!

Chris