WABFORUM FORMAT Sumerian City States and Enemies 2800BC

[Leondegrande]

Hi.

Here the next collection of army lists built around the army of the early sumerians:

WABforumArmies-Sumerian City States and Enemies 2800BC.pdf

(63.36 KiB) Downloaded 311 times

Sumerian City States, Elam, Old Kingdom Egypt, Makkan, Meluhha, Early Bedouins, Early Libyans, Gutians, Nubian, Early Syria.
As always, comments and ideas are warmly welcome.
And as always, as long as no WAB 2.0 is available I create army lists


Cheers
Olaf

[Justin]

[Leondegrande]

Royal Suicide Squad sounds valid
As you can see I avoid WS4 and stubborn where possible and prefer short bow instead of bow over all lists. The royal guard may be stubborn if accompanied by the general (for free) and WS4 seems to be mandatory.

Sumerian phalanx is more a defensive option me think and doing hard to move or maneuvre. Maybe only in first round of combat first strike and not also compulsatory.

Didn't have the sumerians equid mounted scouts? No horses at all, like all other lists too, M6 only.

With the onager chariots, it's tricky, I know (dislike to change existing rules, but this one is another point of view on them). For me they are the prototype of light chariots (but bigger) not heavy impact causing ones.

Straddle cars, you may be right, I thought they alo were used as a unit of their own (rarely off course). But used only by characters sounds valid, especially without extra attacks .

In the sumerian list there was no space left extra for the "Nim", so I add the option to the Skirmishers.

Thanks for the feedback, Justin. Highly appreciated.
It's version 0.1 and a lot of playtesting is needed to make them proofed!

Cheers
Olaf

[Justin]

[Leondegrande]

Short bows there is, as option for skirmishers.

Short bow generally instead of normal bow is mandatory for the very early period in desert warfare me think. Otherwise the bow is to powerful. Just a "fun" decision

EDIT: Valid point on the sumerian phalanx. Maybe the "attacking with two ranks" option is better to display their advantage then the "first strike and immobility". Have to make some more research in AANE too Thanks for the proposal.


Cheers
Olaf

[Justin]

[Leondegrande]

Very good links, especially the first one.
Thanks Justin.

Cheers
Olaf

[Leondegrande]

New version added in the first post.

Cheers
Olaf

[Goltron]

Hello Olaf .

No so much familiar with most of the lists, but some comments:

Why making a new Sumerian list when there is allready one? I think it´s better to "spice" these a bit up:

Onager Chariots:
I´d make these light, not heavy chariots: First of all, heavy chariots with B6 are not of much use. In nearby any case they will need to wheel a bit and have then M3. 6" charge range. Not good for a unit that must charge to be effective. Second, the illustrations in CW seem not to justify treatment as heavy chariots, they seem to have more in common with light chariots. For the less manoverability they have only M6. However, the following special rule might give some extra flavor:

Medium chariots: -1M when moving not straight ahead. Does one strenght 3 impact hit on charge.

So, you loose some movement when wheeling around but you get a single impact hit for that. A compromise between light an heavy chariot what seems a good thing to me.

I´d also drop that giddy up rule and improve characteristics to that of the other chariots warriors (T4, A2) but leave the second wound out - after all there is only one warrior on the chariot, and i see nothing to justify two wounds. Also i add a +1 armour save to the front for that front shields attached on the chariots...the chariot will need it and it´s a nice detail on most model that can be brought into play in this way.

Point costs should be unchanged. Even then i think the later available chariots are far better. You get the following after all:


Sumerian chariot...30 pts
M6, WS4, BS4, S3, T4, LP1, I4, A2, LD8
Equipment: Hand weapon, javelins, light armour, front shield (as half barding, but no movement penalty)

Special rules: medium chariot - counts as light chariot but suffers -1M (-2M if marching or charging) if moving not straight ahead. One impact hit on charge.

Next are the spearmen: I dont think that this phalanx rule has much historical sources so i´d drop it. After all, i think sumerian spearmen are quiet okay, maybe make them cheaper as the sumerians must rely more on them than the later (chariot riding) nations. Light armour should be only 1pts to make any sense compared to large shields. Also, units not armed with large shields might take pikes (+1pts) to portray these long spears often seen on pictures of Ur-style spearmen. These are not real pikes after all, but for in eriod play the same effect seems okay for me. After all, equiping the spearmen with armour and large shields for 4+ armoursave is still better.

Bowmen should keep their composite bows, i think Nigel knows what he does (most times, at least! . Maybe gutians can be a point cheaper, i wonder why they are more expensive than in the babylonian list.

For egyptians i think it´s also better to take the existing list as a base, if i remember right guy has this already done and his lists were pretty good. Also egyptians haven´t used thrusting spears in this period, this is quoted also in CW itself .

Don´t know what to write on the other lists, sorry.

[Justin]

[Goltron]

Because the current is possibly the worst list (that is weakest) list in the game and it might be nice to see Sumerians up and being used.

You can also do this by changing the existing list a bit. Some new chariot rules, maybe a bit cheaper infantry, that´s enough and theres not much else you can do.

Tried it and makes them too good. It was a sight to see Macedonians beaten by Sumerians.

Than says only that the macedonian player was no real opponent for the sumerian one. With my suggestian the Ur-style spearmen have the same cost and equipment than a makedonian phalanx...but no phalanx rule.

[Justin]

[Goltron]

Well, my Hoplites cost more points but are inferior...

It does work as Sumerians aren´t suppose to fight Macedonians . And Macedonians seem a "bit" overpowerd to me, so no good base for discussion.

At all WAB ist not as good balanced as it could be, the Sumerians are very weak and should be spiced up a bit what my suggestions aim for. So i don´t get your point.

A question is still why the Sumerians are to good with that pike thing .

[Justin]

[Goltron]

Well, i think we have here different view of game effectiviness.

First, i think that pike this gives a nice flavour to the army. It´s only available to the Ur-style spearmen, they used that nice looking cloasks to have both hands free for long spears - i think it´s (in period) okay to treat these as pikes.

However, this pikes prevent you from taking a large shield (while light armour + pike should cost the same as spear + large shield). Imho the better save from the large shields is at least equal to the strike first option of the pikes. At all, the variant of taking light armour and large shield ist still the best. So i don´t think that the spearmen get with the pike option more effective at all.

A special situation in chariot wars might be the chariots, striking first against them a powerfull options. But i don´t think that this makes the sumerians to good. At least, even the sumerian chariots themselves can throw javelins at them.

This strike out of two ranks on the charge is a very powerfull thing - imho better than pikes. Normally you have really problems making a succesfull charge with thrusting spears, with this rule you haven´t. Also, it seems historical not correct to me giving them a speciality that phalanxes (and not many others) use about 2000 years later.

again, great for defending but I can also attack as they have a number of characters who boost the attack on the charge - and with warband all they have to do is simply win and outnumber to auto-break the enemy.

You might notice that sumerians haven´t the warband rules and also not the characters to do this.

[Guy]

I have to agree Goltron, you have to read it 'ground to map' not 'map to ground', yah that old bugbear of 'historical accuracy'.
I remember reading the suggestion of giving them phalanx rules thinking WOW they really developed Phalanxes a Millenia or two before the Greeks! Ditto with the pikes. Army lists should at least bear some accuracy, not be just about gameplay.

My 10 cents?
Halberds? Spot on!
Spear armed troops? Give them a 4+ save (large shield and light armour/cloak). That'll be pretty nifty.
Chariots, I'm veering towards them being light chariots. No impact hits just slower moving missile platforms or hero transport.
Their main advantages over their historical opponents as I see it was Bronze and organisation. Against anyone else? They should have a bit of trouble.

Some bows should be composite bows, that was a Sumerian innovation. The Egyptians of the same era would use simple bows until the arrival of the Hyksos.

Guy

[Guy]

Well its sort of like, someone makes a mistake (wrong points values for troop types), does not mean that we should repeat it.

Ah that old bugbear... you're automatically assuming it was a mistake. I don't think it was at the time.

Guy

[Goltron]

Spear armed troops? Give them a 4+ save (large shield and light armour cloak). That'll be pretty nifty.

Yeah, they´ll do. However, i think of would be nice to make use of them without the good large shields, as some of them were running around with this cloaks only.

Army lists should at least bear some accuracy, not be just about gameplay.

I think they should bear much of it. But i still think pikes (or something like this, maybe only for the first round) are an option for in period gaming. Not using a shield has the advantage to have two hands free for a longer spear - and i think it´s nice to portray this on the army list somehow.

Chariots, I'm veering towards them being light chariots. No impact hits just slower moving missile platforms or hero transport.

Agree. But they should have the same chariot characteristics as the other chariots - T4 and A2.

Ah that old bugbear... you're automatically assuming it was a mistake. I don't think it was at the time.

I´m still curiuos how it couldn´t be a mistake when Makedonians phalangites are better than Hoplites for the same price and have also more army list options (good cavalry).

I´m also thinking much about why republikan legionaries cost the same as imperial ones, have about the same equipment but a bunch of special rules and free command (sorry Olaf ).

No joke, i´d really very thankfull if someone can explain this things to me!

[Guy]

No joke, i´d really very thankfull if someone can explain this things to me!

For that, you require the words of Jervis. Do a search on the group. Its something Justin disagrees with and so will the future AoA so I'm told.

You also need to understand the conditions under which chariot wars was written, which myself I didn't know up until very recently.

Guy

[Goltron]

or that, you require the words of Jervis. Do a search on the group. Its something Justin disagrees with and so will the future AoA so I'm told.

Ehm, on what group? Also, i fear i will disagree too .

You also need to understand the conditions under which chariot wars was written, which myself I didn't know up until very recently.

Mh, i don´t see what CW has to do with underpointed makedonians. However, i (ind i´m sure some others here around...) will be pleased if you can tell them to us.