Slitherine

Polkovnik wrote:

DavidT wrote: This is not true of all mixed BGs. Many later armies have mixed Def Sp/Bw (or XBw) BGs and these are not as good. .

I agree, these are crap. Maybe they should be changed to Light Spear. Why would such a formation have been used if there weren't enough spearmen to be useful (i.e. gain a POA) ?

It cancels the (usual historical) opponent's lance and sword, so in effect does give you a POA.

Polkovnik wrote:I agree, these are crap. Maybe they should be changed to Light Spear. Why would such a formation have been used if there weren't enough spearmen to be useful (i.e. gain a POA) ?

Yes, I agree, the Old egytians were a bit thick as well. Most of their troops are rubbish. Why did they bother at all?

lawrenceg wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:

DavidT wrote: It cancels the (usual historical) opponent's lance and sword, so in effect does give you a POA.

I think spear should be changed so the first rank gives essentially the same PoAs as lt spear/sw and being steady with a rear rank cancels sword and lance PoAs (and should cancel Lt Spear PoAs from mounted IMO). This will make spear a bit tougher and eliminates some of their brittleness.

philqw78 wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:I agree, these are crap. Maybe they should be changed to Light Spear. Why would such a formation have been used if there weren't enough spearmen to be useful (i.e. gain a POA) ?

Yes, I agree, the Old egytians were a bit thick as well. Most of their troops are rubbish. Why did they bother at all?

OK, I'll bite. Normally an army doesn't get a lot of choice about the troops it has, and change takes a long time. So some armies do have rubbish troops because that was what was available.
However, if you have Spearmen and Archers in your army, you can choose to deploy them separately or in mixed units.
Now maybe the mixed units were crap and it was a bad idea, in which case they should be reduced in points to reflect this *. Or maybe there was a valid reason for it, and the rules do not properly reflect their capabilities. Something is wrong when a mixed BG of 4 defensive spearmen and 4 bow has to line up 4 deep to get two ranks of spear in order that it can fight with reasonable POAs (as I've seen happen).

* The points cost of spears is for their impact and melee POAs. If they are not going to get these POAs because of the formation they are in, they should be reduced in cost.

lawrenceg wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:

DavidT wrote: This is not true of all mixed BGs. Many later armies have mixed Def Sp/Bw (or XBw) BGs and these are not as good. .

It cancels the (usual historical) opponent's lance and sword, so in effect does give you a POA.

Yes sort of. But I think these formations end up being pretty vulnerable.
Armoured Sup lanc Sword vs 1 HF Def Sp prot ave and 1 MF bow aver unprot
Impact
2 dice needing 4s rerolling 1s vs 2 needing 4s and 1 dice needing 5.
So the likely result is probably a wash or a difference of 1. If it is the mounted win the xtra CT -1 for lances is critical

Melee
2 dice needing 4s rerolling 1s vs 2 needing 5s.
Now the likely result is probably a a difference of 1 in favor of mounted.

If the mounted get a disrupt vs the foot in either phase which is not that uncommon (probably what? better than 40% chance) then the foot will get groud to oblivion a bit quicker than the historical record warrents. The foot have to depend on being a large BG and getting overlaps in melee or no HPB on the CT tests. Many armies can't afford to divert those army points to these units. The risk to the mounted is possible it disrupts and breaks off and the shooting next turn knock it to frag.

Given all this, I think something to aid this formation is needed to represent the historcial interaction.

If mixed BGs get POAs based on their front rank and dice based on their number of ranks (e.g., Sw in front rank give POA to non-Sw in back rank), why not do the same for Spearmen in mixed BGs. They count as two ranks of Sp for close combat, if the BG is in 2 ranks, steady, etc.?

Does this make them too powerful? More so than other mixed BGs that get "phantom" Sw POAs from the rear ranks? Hell, those BGs get the "phantom" POA bonus even if they are disrupted/fragged. Why not extend that to spearmen and/or pikemen (if pikes even exist in mixed BGs)?

hazelbark wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:

It cancels the (usual historical) opponent's lance and sword, so in effect does give you a POA.

Yes sort of. But I think these formations end up being pretty vulnerable.
Armoured Sup lanc Sword vs 1 HF Def Sp prot ave and 1 MF bow aver unprot
Impact
2 dice needing 4s rerolling 1s vs 2 needing 4s and 1 dice needing 5.
So the likely result is probably a wash or a difference of 1. If it is the mounted win the xtra CT -1 for lances is critical

Melee
2 dice needing 4s rerolling 1s vs 2 needing 5s.
Now the likely result is probably a a difference of 1 in favor of mounted.

They shoot better than pure spearmen but not as well as pure crossbow
and they fight in close combat better than pure crossbowmen but not as well as pure spearmen.
This is exactly what one would expect from a mixture of spearmen and crossbowmen.

Now it may be that they do not do either well enough to be effective in either role and therefore are not worth the points.

A simple analysis does not quite capture it as you have to factor in the chances of the shooting disrupting the opponent before they charge.

The original point I was answering was that they don't get a POA and should be changed to light spear. I pointed out that against historical opponents, in effect they do get a POA.
(Except when charged by two ranks of Def Spear, in which case they are worse than pure bowmen but that could be fixed by a revision to the impact POA wording that IIRC I suggested elsewhere)

spikemesq wrote:If mixed BGs get POAs based on their front rank and dice based on their number of ranks (e.g., Sw in front rank give POA to non-Sw in back rank), why not do the same for Spearmen in mixed BGs. They count as two ranks of Sp for close combat, if the BG is in 2 ranks, steady, etc.?

Does this make them too powerful? More so than other mixed BGs that get "phantom" Sw POAs from the rear ranks? Hell, those BGs get the "phantom" POA bonus even if they are disrupted/fragged. Why not extend that to spearmen and/or pikemen (if pikes even exist in mixed BGs)?

I was thinking the same thing. Change the POAs for spearmen, so that they still must be in two ranks to get the POA, but the two ranks do not both need to be spearmen. Maybe in melee only, as they will get support shooting at impact.

lawrenceg wrote: They shoot better than pure spearmen but not as well as pure crossbow
and they fight in close combat better than pure crossbowmen but not as well as pure spearmen.

Against some opponents only.

The spears may have some use against charging lancers, but if charged by any other cavalry or any infantry it seems the spears suddenly become useless.

Does anyone actually use them, and find them worth the points ? I doubt it.

And what about Late Achaemenid Guard Spearmen - Half and Half Offensive Spear / Bow. They cost more points than the Def Spear version, and get nothing for the points except being forced to charge even though they get no POAs when they charge. They must be about the worst troop type in the game. Has anyone ever seen these used in a game ?

Polkovnik wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: They shoot better than pure spearmen but not as well as pure crossbow
and they fight in close combat better than pure crossbowmen but not as well as pure spearmen.

Against some opponents only.

The spears may have some use against charging lancers, but if charged by any other cavalry or any infantry it seems the spears suddenly become useless.

They still cancel all other cavalry and infantry sword and skilled sword in melee, as long as they are steady.


I have used them occasionally in friendly games and I agree they are fairly rubbish troops. However, the ability to shoot i quite handy vs skirmishers (much better than pure spear). Also being on evens at impact versus lances is pretty handy compared to MF bow being at --, but the lesser firepower means the attacker is less likely to be disrupted before charging. I suspect they give reasonable value for money against the LH/lancer armies that seem popular, but not against anything else. A bit like skilled sword (Only good value vs sword and HW foot).

I was thinking the same thing. Change the POAs for spearmen, so that they still must be in two ranks to get the POA, but the two ranks do not both need to be spearmen. Maybe in melee only, as they will get support shooting at impact.

Alternatively give the rear rank a defensive spear as well as the bow. Otherwise you get a BG that fights as D spear in melee AND shoots, but costs the same as pure D spear that can't shoot. OR maybe give the front rank a bow plus D spear and the rear rank just a bow as AFAIK these formations were often a single rank of pavisiers with spears and everyone else missile troops. One could make this decision on a list by list basis.

lawrenceg wrote: OR maybe give the front rank a bow plus D spear and the rear rank just a bow as AFAIK these formations were often a single rank of pavisiers with spears and everyone else missile troops. One could make this decision on a list by list basis.

In which case why not make them Bow with Light Spear in the front rank, like persian infantry ?

It would make them more aggressive and more fragile. They would get a plus charging and anybody with a sword would then count it against them in melee. It would make them very different.

It seems to me that one of the main problems of mixed BGs point costs has not been mentioned yet. This is for the Byzantine mixed cavalry of lance front rank/bow rear rank. The bow armed cav cost as much as bow armed cav of their class not mixed with lancers. However since they are mixed with lance armed they have lost one of the abilities that make bow armed more expensive (generally) than similar lance armed. That is they cannot evade as they cannot go in a one deep line. So, for example, a rear bow armed bukellari stand costs as much as a comparable Sassanid bow armed (if drilled), yet the Byzantine cav is missing the ability to evade which the Sassanid enjoys. I suggest that bow armed cavalry in mixed BGs should be equivalent points to the lance armed front rankers to make up for this missing ability.

Paul G.

Polkovnik wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: OR maybe give the front rank a bow plus D spear and the rear rank just a bow as AFAIK these formations were often a single rank of pavisiers with spears and everyone else missile troops. One could make this decision on a list by list basis.

In which case why not make them Bow with Light Spear in the front rank, like persian infantry ?

Because that does not cancel the sword POA in melee.

PaulByzan wrote:It seems to me that one of the main problems of mixed BGs point costs has not been mentioned yet. This is for the Byzantine mixed cavalry of lance front rank/bow rear rank.

Its not as bad as Bw*.

something about destroying Carthage

PaulByzan wrote:It seems to me that one of the main problems of mixed BGs point costs has not been mentioned yet. This is for the Byzantine mixed cavalry of lance front rank/bow rear rank. The bow armed cav cost as much as bow armed cav of their class not mixed with lancers. However since they are mixed with lance armed they have lost one of the abilities that make bow armed more expensive (generally) than similar lance armed. That is they cannot evade as they cannot go in a one deep line. So, for example, a rear bow armed bukellari stand costs as much as a comparable Sassanid bow armed (if drilled), yet the Byzantine cav is missing the ability to evade which the Sassanid enjoys.

A valid point indeed. A points discount would seem to be in order if the representation remains as it currently is.

However, an alternative proposal is to do something like detached shot in FOGR, and allow the Bow to be detached at deployment. (Koursores/Defensores).

philqw78 wrote:It would make them more aggressive ...

No, as they would now have to pass a CMT to charge.

philqw78 wrote: It would make them very different.

Do we have evidence that the medieval troops described as "these formations were often a single rank of pavisiers with spears and everyone else missile " fought differently to Persian Sparabara, who seem to fit the same description ?

Polkovnik wrote:Do we have evidence that the medieval troops described as "these formations were often a single rank of pavisiers with spears and everyone else missile " fought differently to Persian Sparabara, who seem to fit the same description ?

Do we have evidence that the reacted the same. They certainly fought different enemies. Sparabara faced bow wielding donkey wallopers and Middle age types* faced a noble knightly foe.

*and advancing baldness

philqw78 wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:Do we have evidence that the medieval troops described as "these formations were often a single rank of pavisiers with spears and everyone else missile " fought differently to Persian Sparabara, who seem to fit the same description ?

Do we have evidence that the reacted the same.

I don't know, but I'm no historian. Maybe the list authors can offer some insight. I suspect (as in many cases) we don't know much other than what they were armed with. In which case we make a best guess as to their performance and treat them accordingly. So it would be interesting to see why they are treated differently to the similarly armed persian foot.
I'd also like to know on what basis the Later Achaemenid Guard Spearmen are graded as Offensive Spear / Bow. Did they regularly charge enemies, only to find they actually weren't very good at fighting when they got there ?

Polkovnik wrote:I'd also like to know on what basis the Later Achaemenid Guard Spearmen are graded as Offensive Spear / Bow. Did they regularly charge enemies, only to find they actually weren't very good at fighting when they got there ?

It was pointed out to the authors when the list came out that this is absolutley the worst troop combination. IIRC they, or at least some, agreed. They are bloody awful.