Do Parthia need a boost?

[bodkin]

Playing as the Parthians it's extremely hard to have an even match up with some of their historical infantry heavy rivals like Rome and Seleucids. They were able to match and defeat them in battles historically but in this game the light archer cavalry with only five shots are soon ineffective, do they need more (cheaper) cataphracts or maybe a boost to how many arrows they can carry? I would love to play them more but it's a bit one sided at the moment.

[rbodleyscott]

Playing as the Parthians it's extremely hard to have an even match up with some of their historical infantry heavy rivals like Rome and Seleucids. They were able to match and defeat them in battles historically but in this game the light archer cavalry with only five shots are soon ineffective, do they need more (cheaper) cataphracts or maybe a boost to how many arrows they can carry? I would love to play them more but it's a bit one sided at the moment.

Revisiting the Parthian list is on the wishlist.

[JorgenCAB]

To be honest I think it is very hard to represent fully mounted armies using point systems accurately since most such battles tended to be the infantry army finding a good defensive position and the cavalry army a good place to deploy their cavalry. We also know little about force size but most battle suggest roughly equal number of troops and in games like these that is hard to achieve with a point system. 10.000 Parthians versus 10.000 Romans seem like a forgone conclusion in an open field. Although, most research indicate that Parthian armies deployed infantry as reserve forces mostly likely stationed to defend their camp so these never took part in the battles but it would likely be 8000 mounted Parthians versus 10.000 Roman mixed forces which seem like an overwhelming Parthian force in game terms. In most battles we find the Romans did manage use terrain to their advantage to reduce the effect of the overwhelming Parthian cavalry advantage but on the other hand the Romans cold never really conquer the Parthians.

[JaM2013]

main problem with Parthians is the fact they are limited to 5 turns of ammo... One of the reasons why they were victorious at Carrhae was in fact they brought huge amount of arrows and were able to shoot at marching Romans whole day.. (some historians claim 4 milion arrows was fired, but some claim 8 million) Crassus adopted the hollow square because he thought they will quickly run out of ammo, yet they didnt...

[nikgaukroger]

(some historians claim 4 milion arrows was fired, but some claim 8 million)

One can't help wondering if those figures are based on any historical source or just pulled out of the air.

[rbodleyscott]

main problem with Parthians is the fact they are limited to 5 turns of ammo... One of the reasons why they were victorious at Carrhae was in fact they brought huge amount of arrows and were able to shoot at marching Romans whole day.. (some historians claim 4 milion arrows was fired, but some claim 8 million) Crassus adopted the hollow square because he thought they will quickly run out of ammo, yet they didnt...

Which suggests that they usually did. It was apparently an unusual measure for the Suren to bring so many spare arrows.

Hence normally they follow the ammunition rules, but these are suspended for the Carrhae scenario.

[JaM2013]

there were 8000 horse archers at Carrhae, so if every one of them carried 100 arrows it gives 800.000 arrows available to each of them immediately. And it was said they came back and ressuplied multiple times, so they were able to shoot entire day, up till dark.

If single archer fired 4 arrows per minute, then he could release 240 arrows in one hour.. battle took 14 hours, but i guess not all of them were shooting all the time.. anyway it means each of them must have spent at least 500 arrows during battle, which could be done teoretically in 2 hours of constant shooting

[GiveWarAchance]

They shipped in the extra arrows in big bundles on camels at Carrhae. That was a very common sense idea that I wondered why nobody ever did that in other battles. Like in Europe, they could have brought horses loaded up with arrows or put them in wagons. Like if I was a commander back then, I'd want a constant storm of arrows hailing down on the badguys every moment possible to help reduce them. Maybe it takes too much time & effort to make that many arrows.

[nikgaukroger]

Playing as the Parthians it's extremely hard to have an even match up with some of their historical infantry heavy rivals like Rome and Seleucids. They were able to match and defeat them in battles historically but in this game the light archer cavalry with only five shots are soon ineffective, do they need more (cheaper) cataphracts or maybe a boost to how many arrows they can carry? I would love to play them more but it's a bit one sided at the moment.

Revisiting the Parthian list is on the wishlist.

Having just spent an hour playing Parthians "for science" (against Pontic FWIW) I can say 3 things:

1. I'll never see that hour again

2. It is a very dull list

2. I'll never voluntarily play Parthian again

IIRC there is evidence of some of the lighter cavalry having lances - might be worth looking into that to give them a bit of extra bite.

[nikgaukroger]

there were 8000 horse archers at Carrhae, so if every one of them carried 100 arrows it gives 800.000 arrows available to each of them immediately. And it was said they came back and ressuplied multiple times, so they were able to shoot entire day, up till dark.

If single archer fired 4 arrows per minute, then he could release 240 arrows in one hour.. battle took 14 hours, but i guess not all of them were shooting all the time.. anyway it means each of them must have spent at least 500 arrows during battle, which could be done teoretically in 2 hours of constant shooting

I'll take that as saying no, there isn't an historical source on which to base the number then. Speculations based on assumptions - fun to do but just speculation nonetheless.

[edb1815]

Parthians or as we say "shooty cav" armies play much differently on the table top without the limited ammo rule. Still not easy to play and could often end up in a draw result. More frustrating for the infantry army player tbh.

[Scutarii]

Maybe mounted archers-javelin units needs more turns before leave the 100% fire status, is the easier solution but i think in a more "generic" change for all light troops.

Now with limited fire turns i think game can introduce supply units that could cost points like any other unit BUT that offer a certain amount of fire turns supplies before run out of arrows-javelin-ammunition... i think in Tiller supply wagons, they have a resupply value and when an unit is low of ammo and in the wagon area ressuply it and when have 0 supply unit disappear.

Because is not the same an arrow than a javelin resupply archers could cost 1 point and resupply a javelin unit 2 points... same if you compare arrows with shots for an archebus (i think in posterior periods army lists).

Of course you can capture enemy resupply units assaulting them (supply units allways lose assault, and never can evade-scape) lossing 50% of their resupply points when they are captured by enemy.... and you can recapture them to losing another 50% of supply points.

That supply units could cost more or less related with the army list you play... parthia and in general cavalry armies can have them cheaper and other armies need pay more for them and even with lower supply points.

Other history is that light troops need a change in the way the penalty in fire after move is used... now if you move an unit (waste action points) you lose 20% fire power... for me this need be changed, how???

Mounted lights mantein 100% fire power if they dont use over 50% action points and light infantry is not use over 25% action points, this help range units (and arty to) to dont lose allways a 20% of firepower because they search the position to attack enemy... the idea is you can in your turn move lights to attack enemy with chance to dont lose 20% of firepower because you need move one square forward.

PD: slingers.... i dont know why they cant respply if stand in rough terrain a certain amount of turns... maybe 2 turns in rough means 50% chance resuppy one point, same if javelin units enter in a square where impact foot or lights fight.

[nikgaukroger]

Maybe mounted archers-javelin units needs more turns before leave the 100% fire status, is the easier solution but i think in a more "generic" change for all light troops.

Additional shooting at full effect for LH who have no Impact of Melee capability perhaps? Or, dare one say, more effective shooting during those 5 turns at full effect.

BTW I have no doubt that a seasoned Parthian player* would do better than most of us can at present as they will learn to manage when to use those 5 full effect shots over the game. So I wouldn't rush to a big change as it may well have unforeseen consequences.


* mind you I would question the sanity of anyone who wanted to play Parthians to any great extent

[JaM2013]

Maybe mounted archers-javelin units needs more turns before leave the 100% fire status, is the easier solution but i think in a more "generic" change for all light troops.

Additional shooting at full effect for LH who have no Impact of Melee capability perhaps? Or, dare one say, more effective shooting during those 5 turns at full effect.

BTW I have no doubt that a seasoned Parthian player* would do better than most of us can at present as they will learn to manage when to use those 5 full effect shots over the game. So I wouldn't rush to a big change as it may well have unforeseen consequences.


* mind you I would question the sanity of anyone who wanted to play Parthians to any great extent

everything in FoG2 is against the Parthian player actually... he has limited ammo to 5 turns, and he has just 23-24 turns to win... If battle of Carrhae was fought in those rules, Crassus would easily win the battle.

[the_iron_duke]

In FoG I, I felt it wasn't generally worth spending so many points on generals for horse-archer armies compared with others, so that would mean some extra points to spend on troops.

[Scutarii]

I dont remember now if lights when are assaulted have a bonus because they dont shot (if they are assaulted is because enemy take the iniciative and lights simple eat the charge).

My point is in how game punish lights when use action points, any use of them means 20% firepower less even if they simple change facing... we talk about units with no formation, for them is not a great problem change attack range because they dont have formation... is something i never understand well in FOG, why lights need facing... in the end they are like skirmish in nap wargames, an unit with no facing-ZOC...

I dont say remove attack angle for lights but at least made they can use action points and still mantein the full punch.

I never was a fan of mounted armies, i prefer a solid line of infantry and use cavalry as reserve to do what i need when and where i need do it, but is true that limited the fire turns hit hard mounted armies... a supply unit is needed for them to use their historical tactic of move, shoot all you have, retreat, resupply and repeat.

To prevent abuses like in firsg FOG and the infinite ammo you can limit them to 1 supply, nothing more, imagine a camel unit with 10 supply points that can resupply 10 mounted bow units, 5 if is a non light mounted bow unit (non lights use double ammo points because are bigger)... you have a light bow that need use the 5 fire points to suppy from camel unit and nothing more, after 1 supply cant do it more, this made you need adjust suppy units to your army size and not simple buy all you want because units after one supply cant do it more.

The good point with a supply army is you need do like in real life and retreat to supply the "out of ammo" unit, not simple have 10 fire turns and use them... you have 5 and if you want another 5 you need retreat to the supply unit... this force player use "wave" tactics to rotate supplied units in first line... and if is possible made that when they run out of ammo first time CANT shoot more until resupply, residual fire only is avaliable after you empty 2nd load.

Good thing is you can use this in archer armies...

[JaM2013]

yeah, i think it would be best, if there was an option to "buy" extra supply for ranged units with unit points... so you would have less units with more ammo or something...

[Cumandante]

My point is in how game punish lights when use action points, any use of them means 20% firepower less even if they simple change facing... we talk about units with no formation, for them is not a great problem change attack range because they dont have formation... is something i never understand well in FOG, why lights need facing... in the end they are like skirmish in nap wargames, an unit with no facing-ZOC...

I dont say remove attack angle for lights but at least made they can use action points and still mantein the full punch.

I think this might be a good idea.

[jomni]

Regarding facing, I am also for the 360 degree shooting capability.
Mongols actually shoot arrows sideways and not head on... I suppose Parthians do the same thing.

[Cheimison]

Aside from probably needing unique units or at least supply options, the biggest problem is that point games try to be balanced and there's nothing balanced about steppe hordes or their Persianid descendents. They had tons of horses and the kind of land to make such horses sustainable. They had a long tradition of well made armor, life time riding experience, the best bows, lances and long sabres in the world. They were not invincible, but for centuries - millennia, really - they were totally dominant in their region and scared the crap of their neighbors. Real life doesn't give a damn about balance, and a Persianid or Mongol army - tens of thousands of men, all with bow, sabres and lances, some heavily armored and most with some armor - and every one of them a better rider than anyone except enemy nomads, is a monster that just won't be fair in any situation they're likely to fight in. Yes, you can use terrain to compensate, but they can refuse to fight there and you can't catch them. Only defending conquests really ever managed to force them into a fight.
For comparison, think of how most modern countries have no real air force. When fighting France or China these countries are at a huge disadvantage, though the airforce isn't web auto win it's an advantage that can't be countered by having more men or better jeeps. It just ain't fair, and the only people who care about point costs are tax payers.