V2 Hoplites vs Spara Bara

[grahambriggs]

The problem with offensive spear, especially armoured, is that most troops do not want to fight it, and they can avoid it. Those that do want to fight them they are not fast enough to get out of the way of.

The key is to force them to fight it or have something worse happen. e.g. in EAP if you don't fight my spear that makes space for the bowmen to shoot you down. If you turn to face down the bowmen, the spear get in. I've seen people do it with knight/spear armies as well.

[grahambriggs]

The problem with offensive spear, especially armoured, is that most troops do not want to fight it, and they can avoid it. Those that do want to fight them they are not fast enough to get out of the way of.

The key part is armored and often Superior is hard to come by.

Protected Average is not something people especially tournament tigers would seek out. Its not a game winner against Phalanx and Legion and problably not versus some superior barbarian types. It is quite handy to face off enemy mounted while you win somewhere else with something better. The problem also lies in its points. It ends up being a lot for a troop type that isn't a game winner. Yes a force of Knights could disintegrate on them, but as Phil says, the Knights could almost as easily move off elsewhere.

I've had success with a line of 10s of protected DS. With general and rear support they are solid enough to keep steady (mostly) and hold the enemy up. However you have to have a plan that wins elsewhere in that time - usually that means fast, good troops doing a lot of damage.

[hazelbark]

Yes a force of Knights could disintegrate on them, but as Phil says, the Knights could almost as easily move off elsewhere.

Yes a force of Knights could disintegrate on them (emphasis mine), but probably wont.

lets say 3 base contacta at impact.
KNights 6 dice hit on 5s reroll 1s. Avg 2.3 hits
Spear 6 dice hit on 4s no reroll. Avg 3 hits
Probably the Knight drops either a level or a base. (but you are right not certain)

So melee
Knights (if something went wrong at impact) 6 dice hit of 4s reroll 1s. Avg 3.5 hits
Spear 8 dice hit on 4s no reroll. Ave 4 hits.

Knights likley break off with some damage, potential is easy that two things hav gone bad for them.

Now the switch is should the spear lose at impact, they likely will utterly collapse within 2 melees.
Wereas the knights are most likley just banged up and will try to turn and move off.

So you are right unlikely to distintergrate.

[gozerius]

The spear are just going to stand there and let the knights off the hook? No they will press forward and pin the knights.

[ravenflight]

The spear are just going to stand there and let the knights off the hook? No they will press forward and pin the knights.

It's not as simple as that. There are other game mechanics that come into play (what's going on with the rest of the battlefield for example, but yes the spear COULD press forward and the knights (after licking their wounds) have another go.

[grahambriggs]

The spear vs mounted lancer interaction is one that is nicely balanced in my view. In that it can go either way. Player skill can be a significant factor as it's balanced on a knife edge so an overlap or a +1 on the spear cohesion test makes a big difference.

[chenxiang]

haha That's heresy flatfoot.

[KiwiWarlord]

I think we may be seeing less offensive spear in general. How they match up against bow with a free LS is only one reason.

Martin

Good question as Offensive Spear cost 2 points, Light Spear cost nothing and both are equal in the Impact.
I think that there is a good case for Foot Lt Spear to be costed at 1 point and the Mounted Lt Spear to be Free.

[grahambriggs]

I think we may be seeing less offensive spear in general. How they match up against bow with a free LS is only one reason.

Martin

Good question as Offensive Spear cost 2 points, Light Spear cost nothing and both are equal in the Impact.
I think that there is a good case for Foot Lt Spear to be costed at 1 point and the Mounted Lt Spear to be Free.

Not sure I understand this. Foot light spear have not changed at all from v1, but perhaps you mean under both rule versions? When I see, say, protected MF, average LS, Sw in an army list my eye just passes over them. They're just not good value. And there are far more troops of that type in the lists than bow, LS types.

I agree with the argument that immortals didn't need improvement but got it anyway but the undrilled, protected sparabara in V1 were poor value and have just about got up to reasonable.

If you think mounted light spear is so worthless as to be free you aren't using it right.

[marty]

I have found protected MF Bow/LS much better than reasonable.

Possibly the best 6 points in the game.

I agree with you entirely that just about everything else on foot with a LS is a bad buy and that cavalry with light spear are fine (the ability to evade, back up when in a line and the odd occasion your POA is better than a lance make up for the advantages of lance.)

Martin

[grahambriggs]

I have found protected MF Bow/LS much better than reasonable.

Possibly the best 6 points in the game.

Martin

I find the problem with them is that they're fine in terrain but in the open a properly set up attack will take them out quite quickly as they'll be a POA down and a -1 for losing in the open against proper troops, and then whatever is next to them is in trouble. When a troop type views warbands as predators they're not in a good place.

[marty]

Ahh yes warbands are a problem but they're pretty thin on the ground in most comps (with good reason) and not usually a historical opponent either. A "properly set up attack" made up of the troops most players bring to comps is going to be a lot more expensive than the BW/LS.

I find their ability to move at a reasonable speed, reach out and touch people and be strong in the impact phase means that an army with a significant number of them backed up by effective support (which you can easily afford after spending so little on your foot) is a powerful thing ie you are unlikely to beat the archers quickly enough (if at all) for the rest of your army to survive.

Like most troop types what is supporting them matters quite a lot. I favour elephants in this context as they scare the knights that can otherwise be a problem. It also doesn't hurt to have some crossbowmen instead of archers (for similiar reasons) and anything that adds to the shooting (mounted archers, lf handgunners, etc) is also useful. That is why one of my favourite armies built around this troop type is Ming.

Martin

[hazelbark]

Ahh yes warbands are a problem but they're pretty thin on the ground in most comps (with good reason) and not usually a historical opponent either. A "properly set up attack" made up of the troops most players bring to comps is going to be a lot more expensive than the BW/LS.

Exception is Dailami which will destroy just about anything with a light spear.

[grahambriggs]

Interesting. I'm always wary of getting my sparabara involved with infantry that have an impact and a melee capability, such as hoplites or Romans out of period. Typically, I'll have two 8s in a line shooting away. The enemy will mass against them with generals and rear support so my arrows bounce off or get intercepted by light foot.

My chance is normally to win the impact - not a given - and he'll have a test at a net zero or +1 (general and rear support again) which he'll usually pass. If he fails and disrupts I have a chance in melee. But more likely he'll be steady at the end of that at which point it tends to go downhill quickly for the Persians.

Of course, my opponent has had to put a lot more points in than me, so I should be winning elsewhere. The problem against Greek and Romans is that the match ups elsewhere aren't great even if you have extra points.

It's historical that Sparabara should struggle against hoplites. Indeed, it seems to me that they're a little too good at impact agiants hoplites (though perhaps a little too fragile thereafter).

[lawrenceg]

I fought a hoplite vs sparabara battle at the weekend.

2 BG of sparabara did not venture outside difficult terrain and the third hid behind two BG of armoured medizing hoplites (my hoplites were protected).

If it hadn't been for my opponent's "I'll just extricate my cavalry by charging those hoplites and breaking off. What could possibly go wrong?" moments, I would have killed nothing.

Mind you, the hoplites did rout 2 BGs of HF protected undrilled impact foot sword in another game. Which possibly tells us more about the value of HF protected undrilled impact foot sword than hoplites.

[Selaurant]

Why do wargame designers seem to think that spear armies (Greeks and others) should meet bow armies like Persians on equal terms? Historically they did not. Spear armies consistently beat bow armies (and lancer cavalry). The problem for the spear was when they met more mobile armies like thracians (peltasts) or light cavalry. Then the spear lost. In a wargames competition context that is OK - it is a rock/paper/scissors world, and some armies will be on even terms, some adbpvantaged, and some disadvantaged.

The problem for FOG Ancients (and DBM before it) is that this is not recognised. Bow armies must be "given a chance" against spear, even though they did not have one historically, and even though the bow will beat the cavalry armies the spear will struggle against. This makes no sense, either histoically or in game balance terms.

So I think there are two problems here - game balance and history. Historically, rating bow Sparabara well against even remotely similar numbers of spear is just plain wrong.

Game balance wise, it is wrong too. If the authors really believe spear are that bad, OK, rate them bad. But at least adjust the points to compensate. This should have been sorted out in play testing before V2 was released.

At this point I have pretty much given up on FOG ancients. I still play FOG Rennaisance because it is much better balanced and more clearly written. But I am trying another rule set now, and so far it seems much better balanced. It is less elegant than FOG, but it is a better game. I find this a pity, having bought FOG A V1, V2 many lists, and having many ancient armies. There is simply no point playing some of them in FOG A.

[grahambriggs]

Not sure I understand your point that well. Heavy foot offensive spear are really good against sparabara types. The spear gives a POA in melee and the sparabara will have an extra minus on the cohesion test for being medium foot losing to heavy foot in the open.

I think these rules are OK on this interaction in that the hoplites should win a straight up fight. For a re-enactment game I'd make the persian foot HF to stop their manouverability and have some special rules to reflect the Persian mantlet wall.

The Persians tended to beat the Greeks when they could use their cavalry properly, and lose when they couldn't. Which is kind of what you get in FOG.

[paullongmore]

Why do wargame designers seem to think that spear armies (Greeks and others) should meet bow armies like Persians on equal terms? Historically they did not. Spear armies consistently beat bow armies (and lancer cavalry).

Historically the Early Achaemenid Persians conquered the Lydians and Late Dynastic Egyptian, which both in FOG can have 32 bases of (Greek) Armoured Drilled spears as well as the Ionian Greeks.
They failed to conquer mainland Greece during which they lost the Battle of Marathon and Plateau, but more importantly the Naval Battle of Salamis. Unable to supply the army they just had to content themselves with burning Athens. The Greeks themselves seemed to think they weren't up to facing the Persians unless terrain neutralised the Persian cavalry. What is the historical evidence that Spear armies consistently beat bow armies.

[dave_r]

Why do wargame designers seem to think that spear armies (Greeks and others) should meet bow armies like Persians on equal terms? Historically they did not. Spear armies consistently beat bow armies (and lancer cavalry).

Historically the Early Achaemenid Persians conquered the Lydians and Late Dynastic Egyptian, which both in FOG can have 32 bases of (Greek) Armoured Drilled spears as well as the Ionian Greeks.
They failed to conquer mainland Greece during which they lost the Battle of Marathon and Plateau, but more importantly the Naval Battle of Salamis. Unable to supply the army they just had to content themselves with burning Athens. The Greeks themselves seemed to think they weren't up to facing the Persians unless terrain neutralised the Persian cavalry. What is the historical evidence that Spear armies consistently beat bow armies.

The Lydians lost because of filthy underhand Persian tactics (I.e. campaigning during the winter break).

The Greeks abandoned Athens without _much_ of a fight. A bunch of hoplites at Thermopylae held up a massive Persian army for days.

Marathon and platae were solid hoplite victories.

[ravenflight]

Not sure I understand your point that well. Heavy foot offensive spear are really good against sparabara types. The spear gives a POA in melee and the sparabara will have an extra minus on the cohesion test for being medium foot losing to heavy foot in the open.

Not really.

As I understand it the spear who finally do get into combat without being disrupted by at least 3 rounds of solid fire. So let's assume they do get into combat without losing anything... doubtful, but possible. They then are at evens at impact with less dice!

They then have the fun of passing the cohesion test. IF, by some miracle they pass that (so that's 3 rounds of shooting, 1 impact phase that they'll likely lose) THEN they are as you say at an advantage.

My books are all packed away now, but I think that they get all of this for the bonus of costing 1 point more than the similarly graded Saparabara.

Bargain if you ask me.

I had a reasonably good game of FoG:R the other day though.