How Purist Are You?

[Eques]

Feasible in the sense that yes it probably happened given that the EAP empire abutted India and included Indian troops however I don't believe it's covered by any of the histories that have come down to us.

Also, it depends _which_ EAP you use. I've played EAP vs classical indian in a themed competition, but we had medising hoplites. Armoured hoplites, Immortals and protected sparabara vs unprotected archers and not even the max is not enough elephants. Mmmm - tasty.

Given the Persian tendency towards regional government. you might surmise that an EAP drawn from Bactria/Sogdia for an Indian campaign might well look more like Bactrian Greek (though without the Greek bits!) - mostly heavy and light horse. Without the imperial applecarriers and greek pointy-stick chaps not such a sure thing for Persia facing all those chariots...[/quote]

i'm pretty sure it is documented that darius 1 campaigned in india (check persian fire). he certainly wouldn't have had medizing hoplites with him though! aren't you only supposed to use them against the greeks in 480/479?

[philqw78]

..........he certainly wouldn't have had medizing hoplites with him though! aren't you only supposed to use them against the greeks in 480/479?

I've seen them used against Greeks in 1230. The knights rolled over them, killing a couple of generals on the way. Lucky but effective.

But then I chose otion 1.

[gozerius]

Well, here in Minnesota, there are at least a score of us that are actively playing. Most have armies from RoR and IF, and SoA, but there is a lot of duplication. MRR and Hannibal are very popular. Our base is growing though. last week we had Fatimids vs Early Byzantine, Later Teutonics vs Later Poles, and Later Ottomans vs Early Seleucids on the tables, with Med Burgundians and Early Carthaginians idle for lack of table space. HYW English are popular too. Most people gave up on ancients after DBM 3, and its been a bit slow rebuilding a base, but progress is being made. I prefer historical matchups, but I don't get a lot of play opportunities, so won't turn down "Kirk vs the Gorn" if that's all that comes to the table.

[philqw78]

..so won't turn down "Kirk vs the Gorn" if that's all that comes to the table.

That would be slave revolt v's classical indian then?

[DrQuahog]

We are playing Scots Isles vs Dominate Romans tonight.
True, 1400 years apart, but it will basically be the opening scene from Gladiator. And i have no 'unhistorical' problem with that.
The Egyptians didnt fight Vikings or Huns, but they fought Sea Peoples and Cimmerians, so the tactical challenges were similar.
I might allow my opponent certain extra options tonight, like fire catapults, forest cavalry, and commander dogs.

[JadedMantis]

I prefer historical opponents or at the very least something that seems believable to me.
Still, I would rather play a game than not play at all so I will generally try to get as close to historical as possible then just play whatever that is.

[Eques]

How about if you had 2 games available - one with an accurate historical match up but against a player you didn't know and another with a totally anachronistic match up but with a good mate/regular opponent.

Which would you choose?

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

How about if you had 2 games available - one with an accurate historical match up but against a player you didn't know and another with a totally anachronistic match up but with a good mate/regular opponent.

Which would you choose?

I'll take the player I don't know, but not to get a historical match up per se but to give a potential new friend a good game.