Anybody figured out how to use 'Abid al-shira?

[pompeytheflatulent]

These 42 point light spear/swordsmen heavy foot starts to appear in arab lists from the late 9th century onward, and in general comprise of up to half of the infantry force. I just can't figure out what they are good for. Put them in the center of your line and they get crushed by shieldwalls in melee. Put them on the flanks where their free 45 degree turn is more useful, and they struggle against lancers. They only situation where they seem to be worth their cost is where there is a large patch of mixed rough and open ground. In that situation the 'Abid al-shira mixed with Dalami foot can use their maneuverability to weave between the rough ground and occupy the open squares between the Dalami without slowing the whole line down. But other than niche situations like that I find them very underwhelming for their cost.

[zakblood]

Code: Select all

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y3FtXpB_tqMC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=Abid+al-shira+fighters&source=bl&ots=x9Rn36Skn7&sig=ACfU3U1_eVYGAHCparDpLabEkeeahT2ZvA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFjPfTxpDoAhURVRUIHRouBn0Q6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Abid%20al-shira%20fighters&f=false

my only sources tell me this,

Slave-recruited sub-Saharan Africans comprised the backbone of the armies of the Fatimid Caliphate. Known as abid al-shira (owned men), their ranks had swelled to 50,000 during the reign of Al-Mustansir whose own mother had been an African slave. The belief that abid al-shira were archers is a commonly held misconception stemming from the fact the Fatimids also commonly employed free Christian Nubian archers. In actuality, most abid al-shira were armed with swords and javelins. “A countless host of infantry trained to throw the javelin...” according to William of Tyre, an account that matches their description in contemporary Arabic sources.

very good at hand to hand, harder to break than some other units and ok all rounders, eg anti infantry and horse etc on most but open ground

[Nosy_Rat]

Not a bad unit on their own, but yeah, pretty useless in the age when the most common units are various spearmen and lancers.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well many armies in that region are fielding Defensive Spears, which would be at -100POA when charging Light Spears. But yeah overall they're a subpar unit that you bring when you don't have anything better but you desperately need some infantry.

[pompeytheflatulent]

But historically speaking there's no evidence of them being sub-par. In fact over time they get used more and more to the point of causing political troubles. Maybe they need another look to see if they should be re-classed as light spear/darts or impact foot.

[MVP7]

Shieldwalls were generally pretty high tier infantry in 9th century Middle-East (i.e. Byzantines liked them so much they made Varangian guard) so I don't think Abid al-shira and shieldwalls even should be expected to be even match.

Granted, drilled Light Spear heavy infantry isn't that great combination even even in times where the more practical and cost effective offensive Shieldwalls aren't prominent.

Maybe the Abid al-shira could become Undrilled Heavy Foot unless there's some strong historical reason for them being drilled in a time period where most of the infantry is undrilled? That would reduce their price a bit and at least in my experience the free-turn is wasted on them since any open terrain flanking duties are likely to be performed by cavalry after the early conquest period.

[Gaznak]

I find them handy as reserve troops. If your spears or dailami get in trouble they can maneuver in and start knocking heads.

[Geffalrus]

As someone already said, defensive shieldwalls have a hard time attacking them, but once melee gets going, the shield wall will have the advantage. Compared to Italian Foot, they have that +1 bonus to cohesion checks, but can't enter rough terrain very well.

In a way, they're equivalent to the relationship that exists between Thureophoroi, Citizen Hoplites, and Mercenary Hoplites. For 6 points more in cost, they lose the undrilled tag that makes it harder for them to turn and maneuver. That's a tricky advantage to pull off, however, and not something that seems decisive. Most battles end up being slugfests where that 6 point cost doesn't do much.

In a way, they'd be better off as cheaper 36 point undrilled heavy infantry. Or maybe bump them up to above average to give them a slight advantage. Like with Merc Hoplites, I'm not sure the "maneuver" bonus is worth the cost increase.

Added Edit:

I'd even go so far to say that this could be part of a larger discussion of the tactical merits of dedicated specialist units vs. generalists. In other words, is it better to have units that do one thing really well, or can do multiple roles? The Byzantines have a lot of that - lancers with bows, infantry with bows, etc - an army that revolves around units with multiple rolls. And then compare that to the utility and effectiveness of massed archers (dedicated ranged damage) and cheap lancers. Personally, I struggled a lot with their lancers - not enough ranged damage for shooting duels, and not cost effective enough for melee fights.

Impact foot are also a category where there could be a big discussion about the merits of premium units (Roman cohorts) vs. cost effective ones (scutari, zealots, samnites). Similarly, pikes are some of the costliest units in the game, and do so by paying a lot for straight POA bonuses and the square formation........while lagging behind in morale compared to similar cost units. Said morale issues can cause problems when facing impact foot specialists, and result in cases where pikes can get wiped away by frontal charges.

[MVP7]

In a way, they'd be better off as cheaper 36 point undrilled heavy infantry. Or maybe bump them up to above average to give them a slight advantage. Like with Merc Hoplites, I'm not sure the "maneuver" bonus is worth the cost increase.

Unless there are some consistent historical cases of Abid al-shira being better than the Shieldwalls and other units considered average in the time period, I really don't see how lightly armed slave infantry would qualify as above average.

Mercenary Hoplites on the other hand definitely warrant the drilled status. Other than Spartans the Mercenaries were generally the best drilled hoplites of early Classical Greece. Most city states only started systematically drilling their hoplites in 4th century BC and the instructors were usually ex-mercenaries.

In addition to the drilled status, I think the Mercenary Hoplites should really be rated as Above Average as they were some of the best heavy infantry of the Mediterranean world and Middle-East until the rise of Macedonian phalanx. There are plenty of historical cases where Mercenary elements of Greek armies were considered and proven to be the most experienced and reliable part of the army. In many battles the mercenaries held after citizens had fled.

[Nosy_Rat]

In a way, they'd be better off as cheaper 36 point undrilled heavy infantry.

To be fair, it would just turn them from bad unit that you only use when you run out of decent infantry to a slightly less expensive bad unit you only use when you're out of decent infantry. It doesn't solve the underlaying issue of them being the only light spears/swordsmen heavy foot in the world of spearwall.

[pompeytheflatulent]

In a way, they'd be better off as cheaper 36 point undrilled heavy infantry. Or maybe bump them up to above average to give them a slight advantage. Like with Merc Hoplites, I'm not sure the "maneuver" bonus is worth the cost increase.

Unless there are some consistent historical cases of Abid al-shira being better than the Shieldwalls and other units considered average in the time period, I really don't see how lightly armed slave infantry would qualify as above average.

Only circumstantial evidence in the increase usage by Fatimid Egypt over time. But that could also be due to political considerations due to need to maintain balance between the various ethic groups within the military between Turkish Ghilmans, Dalami foot, and Sub-Sahara African infantry.

Keep in mind that 'Abid al-shira are 'slave' soldiers in the same way Turkish Ghilmans are slave soldiers: bought as slaves, then trained and freed to form a body of professional soldiers that are loyal to the ruler with no links to the society at large. While the defensive spearmen found in the Fatimid list are most likely militia troops, mostly found in border areas away from Egypt itself. The professional core of the Fatimid military would be formed from Ghilmans, Dalami, and Abid al-shira with an effort made to maintain a balance of power between the three groups so no one group is able to gain too much influence politically.

[MVP7]

I'd even go so far to say that this could be part of a larger discussion of the tactical merits of dedicated specialist units vs. generalists. In other words, is it better to have units that do one thing really well, or can do multiple roles? The Byzantines have a lot of that - lancers with bows, infantry with bows, etc - an army that revolves around units with multiple rolls. And then compare that to the utility and effectiveness of massed archers (dedicated ranged damage) and cheap lancers. Personally, I struggled a lot with their lancers - not enough ranged damage for shooting duels, and not cost effective enough for melee fights.

Personally I like the late Byzantine hybrid units quite a bit. If you deploy in a historical formation of cavalry line followed by infantry line(s) the 10th century Byzantines can lay down a significant amount of fire which can soften up the enemy front significantly. Few armies have so many massed archer units that they could out-shoot the Byzantines on the whole front, and if they do, they can't match the Byzantines in melee.

You should never think of hybrid units as lancers or archers but as hybrids. If the enemy shoots you, charge them, if the enemy can't shoot you, shoot them. Getting a hybrid unit into duel with dedicated unit misses the entire point of the unit being a hybrid.

Impact foot are also a category where there could be a big discussion about the merits of premium units (Roman cohorts) vs. cost effective ones (scutari, zealots, samnites). Similarly, pikes are some of the costliest units in the game, and do so by paying a lot for straight POA bonuses and the square formation........while lagging behind in morale compared to similar cost units. Said morale issues can cause problems when facing impact foot specialists, and result in cases where pikes can get wiped away by frontal charges.

With the Heavy weapons having been rebalanced the pikes remain the unit type most in need of overhaul. Pikes suffer unique double taxing of POA from casualties that actually makes them one of the most casualty sensitive units in the game even though they are paying a high premium for their numbers that intuitively should provide high redundancy. As a result they suffer especially in veterancy in comparison to similarly priced units. The low veterancy has a terrible synergy with their low numbers and high unit cost.

The reason why Pikes currently have to be as expensive as they are is the unnecessarily high POA values that make them cut down cheaper units with incredible ease (at least until they take light losses and rapidly lose most of their POA).

Personally I think the total maximum POAs of Pikes could be reduced a bit and the base amount of POA should be increased with only a smaller portion being tied to losses (and it should be lost over 50% rather than 25% of the total unit strength). This would make full strength Pikes less overwhelming, give them more lasting power and it would allow the unit cost of Pikes to be reduced which would make them suffer less from having low number of low veterancy units on the battlefield. Impact Foot Impact POA vs pikes could be reduced so that the Impact balance between Impact Foot and Pikes wouldn't change as its already not that great for the pikes with their relatively low veterancy.

[MVP7]

In a way, they'd be better off as cheaper 36 point undrilled heavy infantry. Or maybe bump them up to above average to give them a slight advantage. Like with Merc Hoplites, I'm not sure the "maneuver" bonus is worth the cost increase.

Unless there are some consistent historical cases of Abid al-shira being better than the Shieldwalls and other units considered average in the time period, I really don't see how lightly armed slave infantry would qualify as above average.

Only circumstantial evidence in the increase usage by Fatimid Egypt over time. But that could also be due to political considerations due to need to maintain balance between the various ethic groups within the military between Turkish Ghilmans, Dalami foot, and Sub-Sahara African infantry.

Keep in mind that 'Abid al-shira are 'slave' soldiers in the same way Turkish Ghilmans are slave soldiers: bought as slaves, then trained and freed to form a body of professional soldiers that are loyal to the ruler with no links to the society at large. While the defensive spearmen found in the Fatimid list are most likely militia troops, mostly found in border areas away from Egypt itself. The professional core of the Fatimid military would be formed from Ghilmans, Dalami, and Abid al-shira with an effort made to maintain a balance of power between the three groups so no one group is able to gain too much influence politically.

Politics could have indeed played a big role in their popularity. Easy availability might have have had as much to do with Abid al-shiras' popularity as their combat performance and their political reliability might have been even more important than that.

The high quality of Ghilman and Dailami is often noted in literature but I haven't really seen Abid al-shira being mentioned as something out of ordinary (although the Sudanese archers seems to have been highly regarded). Overall they sound pretty average .

In any case Average is not a low quality unit. Scandinavian non-hird infantry and majority of select-fyrds and comparable units are rated average while lower quality (general-fyrd, levies etc) are usually Raw.

In terms of FoG2 gameplay the Abid al-shira are better at attacking than defensive spearmen and they can be used to force defensive spearmen into unfavorable charge. They are not the best infantry in the game but the late Muslim armies generally rely more on their excellent selection of cavalry. It would seem odd if even the Arab infantry could evenly match the shieldwalls that the Scandinavians completely rely on at the cost of having very little cavalry. The Arab lists are some of the most well rounded in the game and they don't really need better infantry.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Unless there are some consistent historical cases of Abid al-shira being better than the Shieldwalls and other units considered average in the time period, I really don't see how lightly armed slave infantry would qualify as above average.

Only circumstantial evidence in the increase usage by Fatimid Egypt over time. But that could also be due to political considerations due to need to maintain balance between the various ethic groups within the military between Turkish Ghilmans, Dalami foot, and Sub-Sahara African infantry.

Keep in mind that 'Abid al-shira are 'slave' soldiers in the same way Turkish Ghilmans are slave soldiers: bought as slaves, then trained and freed to form a body of professional soldiers that are loyal to the ruler with no links to the society at large. While the defensive spearmen found in the Fatimid list are most likely militia troops, mostly found in border areas away from Egypt itself. The professional core of the Fatimid military would be formed from Ghilmans, Dalami, and Abid al-shira with an effort made to maintain a balance of power between the three groups so no one group is able to gain too much influence politically.

Politics could have indeed played a big role in their popularity. Easy availability might have have had as much to do with Abid al-shiras' popularity as their combat performance and their political reliability might have been even more important than that.

The high quality of Ghilman and Dailami is often noted in literature but I haven't really seen Abid al-shira being mentioned as something out of ordinary (although the Sudanese archers seems to have been highly regarded). Overall they sound pretty average .

In any case Average is not a low quality unit. Scandinavian non-hird infantry and majority of select-fyrds and comparable units are rated average while lower quality (general-fyrd, levies etc) are usually Raw.

In terms of FoG2 gameplay the Abid al-shira are better at attacking than defensive spearmen and they can be used to force defensive spearmen into unfavorable charge. They are not the best infantry in the game but the late Muslim armies generally rely more on their excellent selection of cavalry. It would seem odd if even the Arab infantry could evenly match the shieldwalls that the Scandinavians completely rely on at the cost of having very little cavalry. The Arab lists are some of the most well rounded in the game and they don't really need better infantry.

No the issue here is that in the Fatimid list, the defense spearmen represent border militia units, while the Abid al-shira are professional heavy infantry forming the backbone of Fatimid armies. But their respective performances in-game are completely inverted compared to expectations.

I think Abid al-shira should retain their average rating and drilled maneuverable status to be in-line with what we know historically. But I wouldn't mind if they get re-classed as average/drilled defensive spearmen like a slightly cheaper Byzantine skoutatoi, or maybe average/drilled light spear/darts to retain a more distinct flavor.

[MVP7]

No the issue here is that in the Fatimid list, the defense spearmen represent border militia units, while the Abid al-shira are professional heavy infantry forming the backbone of Fatimid armies. But their respective performances in-game are completely inverted compared to expectations.

I think Abid al-shira should retain their average rating and drilled maneuverable status to be in-line with what we know historically. But I wouldn't mind if they get re-classed as average/drilled defensive spearmen like a slightly cheaper Byzantine skoutatoi, or maybe average/drilled light spear/darts to retain a more distinct flavor.

The kind of Abid al-shira in the game seems to be the javelin and sword armed one described by William of Tyre who specifically mentions the javelins as their most notable weapon. Making them defensive spearmen doesn't seem like a historically sound solution.

According to Ian Heath, some Sudanese 'Ghulams' fought as "spearmen" and many as archers but the former probably includes the javelinmen or refers to differently armed Sudanese spearmen like the 1000 strong guard unit of Khumarawayh ibn Ahmad ibn Tulun. These spearmen are probably better depicted by the average quality Muslim Spearmen than the Abid al-shira in any case.

Other than making them undrilled, one cheap buff for the Abid al-shira would be giving them 20% archers which would make them slightly more resistant against charges. It would make more sense than Darts and the archers are even mentioned in their unit description.

[Geffalrus]

The reason why Pikes currently have to be as expensive as they are is the unnecessarily high POA values that make them cut down cheaper units with incredible ease (at least until they take light losses and rapidly lose most of their POA).

Personally I think the total maximum POAs of Pikes could be reduced a bit and the base amount of POA should be increased with only a smaller portion being tied to losses (and it should be lost over 50% rather than 25% of the total unit strength). This would make full strength Pikes less overwhelming, give them more lasting power and it would allow the unit cost of Pikes to be reduced which would make them suffer less from having low number of low veterancy units on the battlefield. Impact Foot Impact POA vs pikes could be reduced so that the Impact balance between Impact Foot and Pikes wouldn't change as its already not that great for the pikes with their relatively low veterancy.

I think my perpetual issue with pikes is that they seemed designed to be closer to the large pike blocks of the Renaissance that worked as walking fortresses, as opposed to the more maneuverable syntagma of hellenistic times. Battles of the Macedonians were less about massive infantry formations steamrolling their opponents, and more about the pikes pinning enemies in place while the cavalry delivered the flanking blow. Due to the cost and power of the pikes, they're more likely to crush something frontally well before any cavalry gets involved. Cavalry spend more of their time desperately defending the flanks of the pikes because the cost of the pikes makes it inevitable that you're heavily outnumbered. You also have......frustrating situations where high level impact foot can blast their way through pikes frontally, something that we don't really have any record of happening. Rather, the well attested weaknesses of hellenistic pikes are: 1) flanking, 2) rough terrain, and 3) Roman infantry after a protracted melee. Number 3 is generally the opposite of what we see now, where pikes are most vulnerable on impact, but then generally dominate in melee.

I think a better dynamic for pikes would be: 1) cheaper so that you can afford the rest of the traditional Hellenistic kit, 2) have a very high impact score, 3) be less dominant in melee so that they don't steamroll. The deep pike bonus is a bit of a red herring, and something I think should be removed. The rear ranks of the pike formation had no effect on the strength of the pike formation, something that was more due to the extreme length of the sarissa. Of 16 theoretical ranks (I think they only actually went into battle with 8 ), only 5 actually deployed their weapons offensively. So to me, that seems more like something that should be viewed as a high impact POA that doesn't get decreased by casualties. The ease with which you can chip away at the deep pike bonus, and the fact that pikes are the - only - unit that can lose impact POA, contributes to their weird impact vulnerability. Especially since casualties - don't - affect impact foot.

I need to think more on this, but in my mind, a better dynamic for hellenistic factions would be a feeling of safety for your pikes on impact, but then essentially a timer starts ticking - if your cavalry doesn't arrive to take your enemies in the flank, your pikes won't overcome the enemy on their own (at least non-superior pikes won't). But since the pikes are cheaper/weaker, the hellenistic player would have more points to put into other units to help the cavalry do that job. That, at least, would lead to some interesting strategy as the hellenistic player can't rely on the pike steamroller.

[MVP7]

Yeah, pinning enemies is what I'd generally expect from Hellenistic pikes but they rarely do that. I'd rather see them reduce the impact POA of impact foot than have an excessively high impact POA themselves. Anything to bring the cost down.

I don't know if the Macedonian pikes generally deployed in thinner formations though. It does seem weird that deep formation would give any significant benefits but in late medieval pikes returned as a deep formation and even before Macedonian pikes the Greeks, especially Thebans often used ridiculously deep phalanxes to compensate for quality and it often worked.

[Geffalrus]

The funny thing is that impact foot like Scutari et al do that (pinning enemies) very well, because they essentially front-load all their POA to impact, allowing them to punch above their weight in that round of combat.

So here's the thing about formation depth. Ancient armies were pretty evenly matched in numbers more often than not. Situations where one side had a massive numbers advantage were generally special occasions, and thus the ones that became famous. A lot of times, it was 20-30,000 heavy infantry on both sides. So when one side's formation is twice the depth, it's going to be half the width of the other similarly sized army. Which seems like a severe liability for a formation like that phalanx that is so vulnerable to flanking. The Macedonian phalanx was fundamentally a linear formation, while Medieval and Renaissance pikes operated as semi-independent pike blocks. To guard their own flanks, they thus had to be deep enough to effectively direct pikes in every direction.

As far as the Thebans are concerned, formation depth was focused on one part of the line by removing hoplites from the rest. The deep ranks of that hoplite phalanx worked a little differently than the Macedonian version, however. Othismos in the hoplite phalanx was a function of how the aspis allowed the hoplites to essentially stack themselves like dishes (so to speak). Holding the sarissa orients the body very differently, so there's no way for people to effectively push front to back.

[Schweetness101]

...the well attested weaknesses of hellenistic pikes are: 1) flanking, 2) rough terrain, and 3) Roman infantry after a protracted melee. Number 3 is generally the opposite of what we see now, where pikes are most vulnerable on impact, but then generally dominate in melee.

...I think a better dynamic for pikes would be: 1) cheaper so that you can afford the rest of the traditional Hellenistic kit, 2) have a very high impact score, 3) be less dominant in melee so that they don't steamroll.

...a better dynamic for hellenistic factions would be a feeling of safety for your pikes on impact, but then essentially a timer starts ticking - if your cavalry doesn't arrive to take your enemies in the flank, your pikes won't overcome the enemy on their own (at least non-superior pikes won't). But since the pikes are cheaper/weaker, the hellenistic player would have more points to put into other units to help the cavalry do that job. That, at least, would lead to some interesting strategy as the hellenistic player can't rely on the pike steamroller.

I second this reasoning very strongly. I think pikes need to be overhauled from the way they are so that Hellenistic armies feel and fight in a more historical way. My understanding (which is pretty limited lol) is that the pikes were basically cheap levies armed with extremely long Sarissas and drilled hard to compensate for the fact that they were otherwise poorly armored peasants, and that they used the phalangite to hold their opponents in place while the elite cavalry units struck the decisive blow. They were effective because of combined arms with elite lancers, light cavalry, and skirmishers, but not because they could defeat enemies single handed

*later pikes after becoming more experienced were much more than mere peasant levies of course.

Instead, in FOG2 the pikes steamroll the enemy army while whatever paltry cavalry and light foot you can afford after paying for pikes desperately hold off flanks.

Also, did Macedonian pikes form square like they can in the game? I thought that was also a renaissance or Scottish thing.

[Gaznak]

Appian describes the Seleucid pikemen forming a square after their support was destroyed. The Romans declined to charge them and just showered them with missiles.