Slitherine

What Paul is finding is that version 2 has not improved his dice during a game.

Yes, that was what I found most disappointing about V2, you still have to roll dice

jonphilp wrote:What Paul is finding is that version 2 has not improved his dice during a game. Mind you the Spartans army list has always left questions as a well rounded Spartan army will not be significantly better quality than say an Athenian force. The moral superiority of the true Spartans over fellow Greeks on the battlefield is not shown by the rule set as no elites can be fielded.

The Spartans are allowed 4 and a half times as many Superior hoplites as other Classical Greek armies. So, yeah, they are pretty much the same as the others

And as the thread appears to be about Spartans vs Achaemenid Persians, I should point out that the Persians never fought a mainly Spartan army (not even at Thermopylae).

ShrubMiK wrote:
The important thing is: do the rules mechanisms produce reasonable results. If it turns out that pure archer BGs are still seen as being too vulnerable to being run over by anything charging them, there may be a case for allowing the front rank bowmen some sortt of benefit - e.g. shoot at reduced capability to reflect getting one shot off before switching weapons; or an impact POA for being bow armed vs. certain types of chargers.

The trouble with that approach is, people would then start to question the fact that the front rank shot at a penalty so that by the time V4 came along, the penalty would be removed.

This is already what's happened with the rear support shooting penalty. The original point (that support shooting is just that - SUPPORT shooting) is lost and the new point becomes the fact that the troops have a handicap which tournament players don't want them to have.

This is why, in general, I am resistant to the idea of rule changes - because often they mean that the original historical point behind a rule is forgotten and the point instead becomes the handicap for its own sake (Elephants are brittle, undrilled aren't manouvreable etc).

I don't think the front rank of the sparabara would have operated with bows and certainly not when receiving a charge. Quite clearly the principle was that the front rank provided a pre-fabricated "fortress wall" from behind which the archers could operate.

ShrubMiK wrote:
The important thing is: do the rules mechanisms produce reasonable results. .

I would rather say The important thing is: does the points system produce reasonable results?

Trying to produce fairer results by altering the rules risks homegenisation of all the unit types - anathema to ancients rulesets in particular.

Eques wrote:I would rather say The important thing is: does the points system produce reasonable results?

Trying to produce fairer results by altering the rules risks homegenisation of all the unit types - anathema to ancients rulesets in particular.

Surely points should reflect value and be changed where necessary, and the rules themselves changed where necessary if they produce poor results*.
And points are only important to competition players (or one off club games). So get the rules right and change the points to match

* I won't say historical as its a game and historical games would be exceedingly boring and the end result for most would be visible at the outset. Line up charge forwards.

Eques wrote:This is why, in general, I am resistant to the idea of rule changes - because often they mean that the original historical point behind a rule is forgotten and the point instead becomes the handicap for its own sake (Elephants are brittle, undrilled aren't manouvreable etc).

I don't think the front rank of the sparabara would have operated with bows and certainly not when receiving a charge. Quite clearly the principle was that the front rank provided a pre-fabricated "fortress wall" from behind which the archers could operate.

Most of the V2 rule changes seem to me aimed at getting a more historical effect. E.g v1 elephants were brittle. In v2 they are brittle but scary. For MF archers, the v1 problem is that they were so weak people didn't field them. Hence the slight improvement in v2. At least now you might see more of them in the line of battle.

Re the sparabara formation, there's more gaps than knowledge. What we do know is pieced together from the few written souces, artwork on vases and archaeology. The most plausible explanation is that the men in the first rank put together the mantlet wall and the remaining 7 or more ranks shot with bows. The more senior units (apple bearers, etc.) may have had more spears, and place guards might have used the older gerhon shields. In terms of the FOG scale theough, most of the troops represented by the front rank bases would have had bows.

Generally I think V2 is a better but not perfect representation of Persians vs hoplites. They can win against a too thin line of hoplites (the centre at Marathon). Line sparabara have enough of a chance against armoured Athenians that you might try to take them on, and ditto Immortals against Spartans. But it's generally a losing proposition unless you can get the cavalry into play. Not perfect perhaps, but good enough.

Right, Spartans vs Persians on Saturday.
Only a couple of pics from the start and end of the game as I wasn’t intending to do a full AAR.

Totally contrary to history this was a purely Spartan/Peroikoi force as I wanted no undrilled types rushing off into the blue.
Persians won the initiative and elected for hilly to give them some rough ground to hide in but that gave me steep hills to reduce the manoeuverabilty of his cavalry.

As you can see the Spartans refused their left and centre and went for the jugular with the Peers. I only had three generals and part of the plan was to get the peers into action with the IC and then get him over to the centre for when the arrow storm hit the peroikoi who were to sit tight.
A few skirmishers on the left were there to slow up and delay the Persian right.





A few turns in saw on their left the Persian LH luckily seen off by the Greek archers and the Persian cavalry skirmishing against the peers who rolled on regardless.





The Immortals (2BG of 6) turned smartly left and headed for the broken ground with the undrilled elements of the Persain line trying to follow suit.




So the first clash was the three leading units of Peers hitting Immortals in broken ground and in the open and one unit of ordinary Persians in the open. The Spartans had shrugged off all the shooting due to armour, size of the units (8’s) and the IC but lost every impact phase. The melee phase didn’t go particularly well either leaving two Peers disrupted and for a time it looked pretty shaky especially when the Spartans fighting the average Persians in the open broke. However, despite a late intervention by Persian cavalry the immortals were broken after a hard fight and the victorious Persian foot couldn’t pull off the same trick twice when they ran into the reserve unit of peers, despite winning the impact again.

The peroikoi finally came into action late in the day by which time the IC had hurried across to help out with the shooting and lost two out of three impacts, the other was a draw. The far left peroikoi unit was suffering as a unit of Persian LF arrived on its flank so it was facing 10 dice of shooting hence the decision to charge in.
The peroikoi managed better than the Peers quickly fragmenting two of the Persian foot to end the game 14-5.




As expected the impact phase mostly went against the Spartans both in rough going and the open. But in melee, even if disrupted or disordered they eventually pulled the cat out of the bag, with one exception. And to be honest my dice were pretty average but my opponents were rolling, mostly, fives and sixes which meant the melees were going on a lot longer than you would think.
Shooting was mostly shrugged off and we were not really troubled by it at all as most tests were on +2 or 3 as rarely did we suffer 1HP2B.

Just one game of course but if the Spartans can beat the Persians with me in charge then they still have sufficient edge. But it was tough.

Sigh. Eques talking bollix about "homogenisation". Again.

Make something better than v1, and you are apparently homogenising.

Make something worse than v1, and you are apparently homogenising.

As usual, no analysis or evidence, just assertion that something has changed and that is A Bad Thing.

Perhaps in this case we should follow the line of argument that says shooting in impact is over-rated, and go the other way. Assume it had minimal effect, and disallow it. So light spear would roll the exact same dice in impact as light spear bowmen. All in the interests of avoiding homegenisation across different troop types, of course.

Vespasian28 wrote:
As expected the impact phase mostly went against the Spartans both in rough going and the open. But in melee, even if disrupted or disordered they eventually pulled the cat out of the bag, with one exception. And to be honest my dice were pretty average but my opponents were rolling, mostly, fives and sixes which meant the melees were going on a lot longer than you would think.
Shooting was mostly shrugged off and we were not really troubled by it at all as most tests were on +2 or 3 as rarely did we suffer 1HP2B.

Just one game of course but if the Spartans can beat the Persians with me in charge then they still have sufficient edge. But it was tough.

About what I'd expect - though taking on the Immortals in rough going is a big risk which might go badly wrong. Of course had the Persians flank marched their cavalry it might be a different battle!

Eques wrote: This is why, in general, I am resistant to the idea of rule changes - because often they mean that the original historical point behind a rule is forgotten and the point instead becomes the handicap for its own sake

What about rule changes made by the original authors after long and careful consideration, and made only because extensive player experience across thousands of games has demonstrated that the "original historical point" that underpinned the thinking behind a specific rule had not, in practice, actually delivered the tabletop outcome the author originally intended it to do?

That I suspect describes almost every change made in V2.0 - most if not all are being made precisely because the original historical point has not been forgotten.

By not changing all you may be doing is propogating an incorrect historical point that the author never intended and is attempting to correct before his original intent is forgotten....

... at which point everyone's head explodes....

Anybody who is resistant to the idea of changes in rules should not even be playing FoG. What is FoG (or any other new ruleset) but a massive change to the rules that were previously used, when you step back far enough to look at it without all that ridiculous rule set tribalism getting in the way?