COE Supplements

Rise and Fall of Persia, What do you think?

Moderators: Tommy, Atheling, Leondegrande, Guy

  • Advertisement

Re: Rise and Fall of Persia, What do you think?

Postby socalwarhammer » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:12 am

I think some folk look at COE and want it to be WAB. Well, it's not. While historians can debate many things, records are poor at best.

Persinas are really limited, immortals not being core, the numbers of troops you must take, ie one row of long soear and three ranks of archers minimum in the standard infantry? why have a long spear if you cant have a second rank of spears. Confusion over Spara rules.

The Persians use of the spear (when used in mixed infantry-archer formations) was somewhat different than that of the Greek Phalanx, it was not used for attack, it was primarily a defensive tactic. The Spear/Shield armed front rank was primary designed to protect the rearward archers from being attached by skirmishers and light cavalry which was a common tactic in Persia. The Persians famously used the bow to decisive outcomes, albeit intermittently against the Greeks, who utilized the self-bow in a more limited way. The Persians did utilize completely spear armed units, as was the case with many levy infantry units. I think COE does a good job expressing how the units were designed and utilized historically, then transferring it into a game mechanic. In all of my research on the subject, I have yet to come across an account where a mixed archer-infantry (commonly known as Median Infantry) survived contact with the phalanx.

Another important note regarding 'The Immortals' and other 'Guard' units played a very different role in the Persian army. They were professionals who varied equipment as needed for battle. These elite units were deployed sparingly or to exploit a weakness in the enemy and Guard units were normally present if the Great King led the army.

In conclusion, both WAB and COE are different systems with similar mechanics, but different rules. I think Stuart has done a great job the Rise and Fall of Persia, but so did Jeff Jonas with Alexander the Great, but they were working with different systems/rules. Well that's just my humble opinion. :D
Only the dead have seen the end of war....Plato

Check out my blogs at http://nwhistoricalwargames.wordpress.com/ & http://gigharbor40k.wordpress.com/
Be sure to listen to the Historical Wargames Podcast at http://www.historicalwargames.org
User avatar
socalwarhammer
Shaman
Shaman
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: Formerly of Orange County, California (USA); Now in Washington State

Re: Rise and Fall of Persia, What do you think?

Postby argh » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:09 am

I think you've 'nailed' it on the head!

Yep, Alexander was a great book, but it doesn't help CoE does it?
The new Rise and fall of Persia book is (IMO) excellent, and suits CoE perfectly, erm, well it should really :oops:

I'm quite happy with the way the armies play in the new book, and I would happily try out Persians against all comers.

The classical phalanx rules are VERY restricting, and a crafty player will run rings around the Greeks (maybe not Spartans)

:D
you know it makes sense
User avatar
argh
Warlord
Warlord
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:28 am
Location: earth (Manchester)

Re: Rise and Fall of Persia, What do you think?

Postby Canario » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:59 am

The first thing, excuse me for my bad English.

I have just bought and to read this supplement and am very satisfied with. I believe that the lists very well, so much historically like to level of game. As for the topic of the Persian ones, Socalwarhammer has reason.

As for the complaints for the number of companions and elephants it is necessary to bear in mind that one is in the habit of playing 2500 or 3000 points, which gives us approximately 5 or 6 closed units. If you put mas of a companions' unit it would be too as a whole, as mas of three elephants also it might be too much.

At least this one is my opinion.
Canario
Warhound
Warhound
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: Rise and Fall of Persia, What do you think?

Postby aecurtis » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:05 pm

I've included Jim's, Mark's, and waaslandwarrior's concerns about the Macedonian lists on a new thread on the CoE forum, here:

http://rofe.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2233

Size of armies and % of elites aside, it's important to get the overall ratios between the main components of the army right; that can't be done with the current lists. The Macedonian army *was* a fairly elite army!

Allen (Lucullus)
User avatar
aecurtis
Warlord
Warlord
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:05 am

Previous

Return to COE Supplements