Slitherine

just a slight worry. my copy of immortal fire is turning up soon, but wondered if i'm getting what i thought i was.

is the early successor list equivalent to the dbm asiatic successor list?

or should i be looking at rise of rome?

It covers the DBM Asiatic Successor as well as the early period Seleukids, Ptolemaics, Lysimachids, etc. I.e it covers all the early successors before the various lists in Rise of Rome start - I think the blurb with the list essentially says this

thanks nick. i read the blurb, but it was a little too general for me.

will rest assured now.

nikgaukroger wrote:It covers the DBM Asiatic Successor as well as the early period Seleukids, Ptolemaics, Lysimachids, etc. I.e it covers all the early successors before the various lists in Rise of Rome start - I think the blurb with the list essentially says this

Nik:

The DBM army lists found reason to do a lot of differentiation between the different Successors, and Rise of Rome did some as well. Why none for the earlier period?

Marc

Because they could easily be handled within a single list so why use more? what benefit is there to multiple lists for the sake of them? Which lists would you have dropped from Immortal Fire to get separate successor lists?

nikgaukroger wrote:Because they could easily be handled within a single list so why use more? what benefit is there to multiple lists for the sake of them? Which lists would you have dropped from Immortal Fire to get separate successor lists?

ah. that's interesting.

the reason i'm after the asiatic list is the eastern cavalry. i want to be able to use units from a later achemeneid persian army in with the macedonians.

will i be happy? or will i start using the greaco-bactrian? (which probably wouldn't be a bad option...)

Well the Early Successor has a line for Persian, etc. cavalry so there is no problem there - not Baktrian types though as they don't seem to have been used, probably too separist.

babyshark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:It covers the DBM Asiatic Successor as well as the early period Seleukids, Ptolemaics, Lysimachids, etc. I.e it covers all the early successors before the various lists in Rise of Rome start - I think the blurb with the list essentially says this

Nik:

The DBM army lists found reason to do a lot of differentiation between the different Successors, and Rise of Rome did some as well. Why none for the earlier period?

They are differentiated, they just don't have completely sepearate lists in the early period. They get different maxima for various things

i'm picturing a list structured the same way as the condotta italian.

which should give me a reasonable degree of flexibility in morphing the army...

OldenTired wrote:i'm picturing a list structured the same way as the condotta italian.

which should give me a reasonable degree of flexibility in morphing the army...

Well its a pretty morphable set of armies since essentially it was just a civil war.

rbodleyscott wrote:Well its a pretty morphable set of armies since essentially it was just a civil war.

This makes it a particularly good setting for a wargames campaign. One of these days I will find other players who wish to field other armies from this period.

Incidentally will the Early Successor list include the forces available to Pyrrhus prior to his Italian campaigns?

Quintus wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:Well its a pretty morphable set of armies since essentially it was just a civil war.

This makes it a particularly good setting for a wargames campaign. One of these days I will find other players who wish to field other armies from this period.

Incidentally will the Early Successor list include the forces available to Pyrrhus prior to his Italian campaigns?

pyrrhus is in Rise of Rome.

i recently read "The Hellenistic World" by f.w. walbank. good little overview of the alexandrian/successor period. kindled my interest in this period, instead of say, north east asia.

OldenTired wrote:pyrrhus is in Rise of Rome.

i recently read "The Hellenistic World" by f.w. walbank. good little overview of the alexandrian/successor period. kindled my interest in this period, instead of say, north east asia.

The Pyrrhus list in Rise of Rome states that it commences with his Italian campaign.

I must have a look at Wallbank. I bought a good book on the subect by Carey a couple of decades ago but it was an old book then! The Hellenistic World is fascinating - and, I hazard to say, largely unknown to most people. Rome dominates the history of that time much as it came to overtake the Greek East.

rbodleyscott wrote:

babyshark wrote:Nik:

The DBM army lists found reason to do a lot of differentiation between the different Successors, and Rise of Rome did some as well. Why none for the earlier period?

They are differentiated, they just don't have completely sepearate lists in the early period. They get different maxima for various things

Thanks for that. It is just exactly the information I was looking for.

Marc

Quintus wrote:

OldenTired wrote:pyrrhus is in Rise of Rome.

i recently read "The Hellenistic World" by f.w. walbank. good little overview of the alexandrian/successor period. kindled my interest in this period, instead of say, north east asia.

The Pyrrhus list in Rise of Rome states that it commences with his Italian campaign.

I must have a look at Wallbank. I bought a good book on the subect by Carey a couple of decades ago but it was an old book then! The Hellenistic World is fascinating - and, I hazard to say, largely unknown to most people. Rome dominates the history of that time much as it came to overtake the Greek East.

heh. roman culture owes pretty much everything to the hellenes.

but for fear of starting a flame war i'd say they were little more than a b@stardisation of the greeks!