Slitherine

Hi

I am still building my first army as EAP and wondered if, when I eventually get to play, anyone had any tips for playing against the Greeks (other than stocking up on Medizing hoplites, which kind of defeats the object I think).

Thanks

The obvious answer is you need as much terrain as possible. Make sure you've got a maximum sized large piece of each compulsory terrain you might have and plenty of maximum sized normal pieces of the other terrain types.

Don't fight hoplites in the open. Get on their flanks, skirmish against them in front.

Try to win by defeating all the non-hoplite BGs.

Good advice so far.

If you have no choice but to go up against Hoplites frontally, do it with your mounted in one rank. They can't be totally ignored, and can skirmish with the Hoplites while your Immortals (hopefully wearing silver masks and black ninja outfits) and other Saparabara infantry move around on the flanks. Never under-estimate the power of the skirmish shooting from light horse.

Think about this. If you had 3 disrupted BG's of Hoplites next to one another (through lucky shooting). You've naturally ganged up on the one on the flank, so in the next turn it goes fragmented. You charge, he has to test and breaks, forcing the one next to it to test, which is at a -1 for being disrupted and possibly even a further -1 for threatened flank... you can see how this can be a disaster for the Hoplites?

Patients will be your biggest asset.

It's a reasonable meeting of forces in a friendly 'all night' game. It's a pretty horrible match up in a 3.5 hour comp.

Ian

I've beaten classical Greek with EAP. The key to it is Immortals powering through terrain, medizing Greeks next to them and the cavalry slowing down the other flank. The Immortal tend to break through and hit the Greek flanks before the other end goes.

grahambriggs wrote:I've beaten classical Greek with EAP. The key to it is Immortals powering through terrain, medizing Greeks next to them and the cavalry slowing down the other flank. The Immortal tend to break through and hit the Greek flanks before the other end goes.

Could you do it in comp time?

Ian

Just out of curiousity, does this appear historical? It seems the greeks always wanted terrain to neutralize the persian mounted advantage.....and is their any historical reason why the persian infantry would prefer terrain to open ground?

IanB3406 wrote:Just out of curiousity, does this appear historical? It seems the greeks always wanted terrain to neutralize the persian mounted advantage.....and is their any historical reason why the persian infantry would prefer terrain to open ground?

They wanted flank protecting terrain, but they wanted nice bowling greens to fight over.

Their idea of ideal terrain would be a bowling green next to a brick wall.

I know not enough about historical archery to comment on whether persian infantry would like terrain or not, but it seems reasonable to me.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:

IanB3406 wrote:Just out of curiousity, does this appear historical? It seems the greeks always wanted terrain to neutralize the persian mounted advantage.....and is their any historical reason why the persian infantry would prefer terrain to open ground?

They wanted flank protecting terrain, but they wanted nice bowling greens to fight over.

Their idea of ideal terrain would be a bowling green next to a brick wall.

I know not enough about historical archery to comment on whether persian infantry would like terrain or not, but it seems reasonable to me.

Ian

which is exactly the terrain i played spartans on a week or so back. the immortals were... ok. the spartans spanish foot absolutely destroyed the medizing greeks in about three phases.

IanB3406 wrote:
Just out of curiousity, does this appear historical? It seems the greeks always wanted terrain to neutralize the persian mounted advantage.....and is their any historical reason why the persian infantry would prefer terrain to open ground?

I tend to agree. I understand why FoG classified Persian foot as MF. The units were probably 90% bow-armed, and it reasonable to give the entire unit bows. And foot archers in FoG are either LF or MF. But in this case, I am not really convinced MF quite fits the EAP infantry. The balance of the 10% of the foot were normally armed with quite large and cumbersome sparas. I really don't think this shield was very conducive to operating in difficult terrain. But making 1/2 the BG HF light spear and 1/2 MF bow probably would have been a worse solution.

In the case of the EAP infantry, given the constaints of the troop classifactions, MF may have been a necessary, but unfortunate, compromise. No set of rules or army lists will ever be perfect for representing ~3000 years of history.

DaiSho wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:I've beaten classical Greek with EAP. The key to it is Immortals powering through terrain, medizing Greeks next to them and the cavalry slowing down the other flank. The Immortal tend to break through and hit the Greek flanks before the other end goes.

Could you do it in comp time?

Ian

Yes - easily. The Immortals make things move very quickly.

IanB3406 wrote:Just out of curiousity, does this appear historical? It seems the greeks always wanted terrain to neutralize the persian mounted advantage.....and is their any historical reason why the persian infantry would prefer terrain to open ground?

Well it certainly would have helped them at Marathon - given them time to shoot down a few more hoplites before they came crashing into the Spara.

Also at Plataea didn't the Persians hold off attacking for several days because they didn't want get caught on the open ground between the 2 armies?

Also at Plataea didn't the Persians hold off attacking for several days because they didn't want get caught on the open ground between the 2 armies?

Well, sort of. Both sides were reluctant to cross the Asopus. North of the Asopus the terrain was gentler. South of the Asopus the terrain was more constricted. Both sides wanted to fight on their own side of the river. The Persian cavalry did raid the Greek supply lines south of the river. I don't think the Persians planned on attacking south of the river until they believed the Greeks were retreating in apparent disarray.

So in summary the Persians liked to break up their opponents as much as possible with archery ("our arrows will blot out the sun") before getting to grips.

Therefore the longer it took the enemy to reach them, and the slower they were moving when they did, the better.

IanB3406 wrote:Just out of curiousity, does this appear historical? It seems the greeks always wanted terrain to neutralize the persian mounted advantage.....and is their any historical reason why the persian infantry would prefer terrain to open ground?

If anything it was the reverse - the greeks wanting terrain to guard their flanks, the persians open ground for their cavalry. The MF classification for Immortals means they are suitably vulnerable against armoured hoplites in the open. However, there seems no evidence that 'manouvre through rough going' was a persian tactic.

So in summary the Persians liked to break up their opponents as much as possible with archery ("our arrows will blot out the sun") before getting to grips.

Therefore the longer it took the enemy to reach them, and the slower they were moving when they did, the better

One would think so. But if the Persians really did like to fight in difficult terrain there were positions south of the Asopus River they could have defended before the Greeks arrived. Instead, they preffered the plains noth of the river. Evidence implies that they looked for open terrain for their cavalry and infantry. In general, slowing or rough terrain can be very uneven, and could potentially interfere with the line of sight for effective archery.

Given a choice the Greeks would always choose a position like Thermopylae, and the Persians would have always choosen a position like Arbela (despite the actual outcomes of both battles).

Delbruck wrote:One would think so. But if the Persians really did like to fight in difficult terrain there were positions south of the Asopus River they could have defended before the Greeks arrived. Instead, they preffered the plains noth of the river. Evidence implies that they looked for open terrain for their cavalry and infantry. In general, slowing or rough terrain can be very uneven, and could potentially interfere with the line of sight for effective archery.

Given a choice the Greeks would always choose a position like Thermopylae, and the Persians would have always choosen a position like Arbela (despite the actual outcomes of both battles).

Perhaps this was more to do with numbers.

Perhaps this was more to do with numbers

HA, HA. I think I need to avoid commenting on that subject. I quess you will just have to read the book

The film was a bit to in depth so the book?

Which movie was too in depth for you, 300 or the 300 Spartans?

The book I was referring to is Delbruck's "History of the Art of War". If you are not familiar with this, he deals a lot with numbers. And his army sizes are usually far smaller than many mordern historians.

Delbruck wrote:Which movie was too in depth for you, 300 or the 300 Spartans?

300. Is 300 Spartans the sequel to Meet the Spartans?