Rise and Fall of Persia, What do you think?

[staffordgames]

I have just been reading through the new book and it looks very interesting!

It may challenge a few of your pre-conceptions about your favorite army like Companions not being a core shoice for Macedonians but on the whole it looks really good, time will tell!

[argh]

I love the choice of armies, a real 'flavour' of the period.

I already have questions!
eg;
how does a hoplite benifit from the expert swoedsman rule?
These are of course all 'healthy' questions....

On the whole I'm 'chuffed to mintballs'

[staffordgames]

I would assume that you would choose not to use the spear and use your sword instead.

One and a half ranks fighting and -1 to armour save instead of two ranks fighting?

Might be useful when disrupted, below size for a phalanx etc

[staffordgames]

I really like the potted history of each army before the army lists, very useful.

It actually makes you think that maybe the authors know what they are talking about!

[Mithridates]

Looking forward to my copy. It will be interesting to compare the CoE potted histories with the respective WRG list. Still use my WRG copy as reference material.

Garry

[staffordgames]

Looking forward to my copy. It will be interesting to compare the CoE potted histories with the respective WRG list. Still use my WRG copy as reference material.

Garry

Is that the good old 6th Edition army lists?

[Mithridates]

I still have my 6th Edition (along with most of the others) but the lists I was referring to were the DBMM set. I have not played WRG for years but do like their lists. I use them as the basis for both WAB and CoE if no other is around.

[argh]

yep, I still do that!

Maybe we should all be playing WRG 6th?????

nah

[staffordgames]

yep, I still do that!

Maybe we should all be playing WRG 6th?????

nah

Have you tried getting modern cataphracts on a 15mm frontage recently?

[argh]

ah the 'modern' cataphract!
What we need is some plastic cataphracts!
(and Indians and Macedonians AND Egyptians and..........)

I'm thinking about some of the more obscure lists in the book?
Libyan or Lykian maybe?

[Mithridates]

Even (!!) Phil Barker accepted the fact that 15mm is too much of a squeeze and he allows 3 figures to a (close order) 60mm base - including cats. I did actually get 4 Essex Seleucid cats on a 60mm base but only by having it 50mm deep and staggering the figures!!! They are very close and I will re-base these for WAB in any event.

I am now getting impatient for my copy of the CoE lists!!!!

[keithb]

Will get mine tomorrow and will try out Indians

[keithb]

Loving the lists hours of fun

[socalwarhammer]

Well I just my copy in the mail from Brookhurst Hobbies today. I spent all afternoon going through the book and it was a great read. I loved the lists, so I have to give it an overall solid review.

Well, time to get back to the gaming table.

[jim clarke]

I have been surprised by the lack of comments on R&FoP so far. So for what is worth, here are my initial comments.

First off, high praise to Sturart to getting R&FoP released and proactively (and publically) dealing with the publication delays. This shows a wise choice of releasing a supplement covering a much requested historical period and is a big improvement over WAB's continued failure to release obvious publication topics covering for example subjects like imperial rome, hoplites-Greek & Persians, Successors, HYW etc. Well technically I think most of those supplements were completed and submitted long ago but never rose to the publication level as we had to deal with BL and then FW's publication queue logic. No need to rehash that anymore than I just did...

As for the supplement itself, as much as I appreciated its release, I have to say I was a bit disappointed. The supplement overall just seemed a bit too generic for my tastes. It falls somewhere in between the level of detail of the original AofA and the remainder of the period specific WAB supplments that have been released. I would have preferred more detail, but I acknowledge that CoE really had a no win situation to address, come out with a supplement quick, respond to the request for lists, and provide the "potted history" for each list that others on this thread have said they wanted and appreciate and wanted.

The lists seem a bit of a mixed bag. Some are quite good, for example the greek and persian lists overall are very good. Others show some questionable selections, for example, companions as non-core troops for the maceodonians? Yet they can have 0-2 medium cavalry units in the core troop selections. Just what exactly are these "medium" cavalry supposed to be? The Indian list is also a mixed bag. With only 3 elephants allowed, this seems too few in relation to both their prevalance historicaly and in comparison to the number of elephants allowed in other lists posted online by CoE. The indian list also references light chariots being allowed, but provides no troop category for light chariots.

Overall I am willing to allow CoE the opportnity to grow with its publciation experience and perhaps add more detail in later supplements, if that is the direction they choose to go. My only suggestion as to the supplemnets is to recomend they adopt a play testing/informal group editorial process for the new supplements akin to the WAB supplement process so that perhaps the lists can go through a more familiar vetting process by mutliple sets of eyes before they reach the public.

Jim

[staffordgames]

One of the things I don't like is the generic 'Allies'.

Anyone who can take allies from a an army gets to choose from the same list of troops as every other army that can take them as allies which takes no account of what troops they historically used as allies.

I hope that makes sense!

[Dan Atherton]

I understand what you are saying Roland but its not entirely true. For example the Thessalian list only allows you to take certain allies if you have any wedge formed troops because the other options are from an earlier era and so wouldn't have mixed.

[lannes0300]

I have to agree with Jim’s comments. I ran the local Northern California WAB tournaments for many years. WAB has died out here. I guess it is a combination of the hatred for WAB 2.0 and the lack of new army lists.
I was hoping that COE would replace WAB locally since the rules are similar and well presented, supported, and accessible.
While the army lists presented on the website are more subdued then the corresponding WAB lists, I found them to be generally good and I only had a few quibbles here and there.
While I like the number of lists in the book and like the overall presentation, the lists themselves are rather dull and generic. I accept the more toned down lists compared to WAB and the paring down on the number of skirmishers in the lists. While I can’t speak to every list, I have few comments on the following:

Rise of Macedon
The list on the website was much better and matched other rules lists.
Why one companion unit? Multiple units were present at most battles. They should be a core choice. Given their cost it is unlikely to see more than 1 or 2 anyway.
Why one Hypaspist unit and one Agema Hypaspists unit? I am ok with limiting the close order Hypaspist to one each as you would figure they would all fight in one larger unit, but you figure they would fight in smaller groups if open order and with javelins. Also, I like the offensive spearmen option for the light Hypaspists as it makes them more flexible and unique. How they are handled in the website list is a lot better.
What’s up with the medium Macedon cavalry? Where did they come from? Prodromoi should be able to fight in wedge. If there is medium cavalry mentioned, it is Greek mercenary cavalry.
No Agrianian javelin men? No mercenary peltasts? I suppose you could get these troops through the allies section, but certainly Macedonians were not shy about hiring capable mercenaries for support and skirmishers.

Imperial Macedon
Same comments as above. Persian companions as a core choice?
Again the list on the web is much better.

Neo Babylonian
Assyrian cavalry used mixed units or units with spear and bow. I assume that Babylonians would do the same or even have spear and bow armed cavalry. As far as the horse barding, would it not be cloth? No bows in the chariots? Also, I would think at this stage chariots would be a core choice not a support choice.

Also in some cases troops really pile on the extras which increases their cost for little gain in fighting ability. The Spartan hoplites with drilled phalanx and swordsmen are a good example. They are really good but really expensive. One could argue why you choose to stop fighting in phalanx and switch to swordsmen, perhaps the chance of a disruption is attractive. I think it would be better to have that swordsmen option as an upgrade choice rather than an included ability. If a player feels that he wants/needs it, he can pay for it. If not, it helps keep the cost of elite troops down and removes the clutter of special abilities.
That is it for now; these are the first lists I really looked at. As always these are just my opinions your mileage and play may differ…

Mark

[kaimorg]

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 seond rank of spears. Confusion over Spara rules. Does it mean if you move you loose the large shield? small choice in the mid of core troops, The high cost of the king of kings 100 points, ok gets the +3 to morale but a huge cost. the huge restrictions of Ballista, no other army has such. The Persian empire only being able to take allies that are listed rather than any of the troops. Given that they are under occupation?
Im disapointed with the lack of choice and the restrictions on unit make up to be honest.

[Waaslandwarrior]

I can understand why for example Companions are not core troops. You have to buy some others (core units) before you can get your elite troops, for example Companions. This does not seems unreasonable to me. It takes care of the fact that certain people would build their army using only the elite units - powerplayers!
On the other hand, I think only 1 unit of Companions is to low, 2 would be better (equal number as Thessalian units).

What I don't understand is that Agrianians are not armed with javelins. I always assumed these where excellent javelin-armed troops?
Also, I have no idea what the Macedonian medium cavalry is supposed to be.

I don't have read through the whole book, but it does seems to be what I'm looking for
Greeks, Persians and Macedonians are what I'm interested in, next to Successor armies (a future book?)