Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Couple of Pahlava Issues

  1. #1

    Default Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Playing a Pahlava campaign with the latest version. Have a few queries / issues / complaints-

    1) Empire currently covers most of the historical Parthian area but I have a total of 2 'Royal Satrapies', out of about 25 provinces - Ekbatana and Persepolis. These are the only two provinces where I can recruit cataphracts, at an incredibly slow rate. Also only a handful of the other provinces are 'satrapy' level government, most are 'border march'. For example Hecatompylos has the 'border march' government, yet it was the capital! Rationale behind this? Any way I can check the government hidden resources?

    2) I can't recruit any horse archers post reform anywhere except on the steppes, where I presume other factions can do the same. I thought they were supposed to be a key element in Parthian armies?

    3) The 'Persian heavy spearmen' seem worse than the 'Iranian spearmen' they replace post-reform. They have lower attack, lower defense, lower unit size, and are a tiny bit cheaper. They have 'hardy' while the pre-reform unit doesn't but with the superior numbers and stats it seems like a downgrade. 'Our infantry is really bad, I propose we replace them with worse infantry'.

    4) From the 'Partho-Hellenic' satrapies I can recruit thureophoroi, at a rate of one per 25 turns... They also have a max of one. So I need to check all these cities to recruit them on time so I don't waste my 1/25th of a thureophoroi per turn which is the only decent unit provided by this government, unless I want hoplites in my Parthian army (same rate).

    Now I understand that there has been a rethink on troop availability of EB2 and a move away from faction-specific troops and that's fine, but playing Pahlava now I feel I might as well be playing any other faction, since the troops I'm using are all regional. I have a single type of unit unavailable to other factions - Parthian cataphracts, but these are only recruitable in two cities seemingly chosen at random. I don't feel I have any 'core' territory, fighting style, or units at all. Seems kind of boring to me and difficult to see how it's historically accurate.

    Thoughts? Something I am doing wrong / missing? Thanks!

  2. #2

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    I am just starting on my Persian campaign, and this looks like some bleak future

  3. #3
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,554

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    Playing a Pahlava campaign with the latest version. Have a few queries / issues / complaints-

    1) Empire currently covers most of the historical Parthian area but I have a total of 2 'Royal Satrapies', out of about 25 provinces - Ekbatana and Persepolis. These are the only two provinces where I can recruit cataphracts, at an incredibly slow rate. Also only a handful of the other provinces are 'satrapy' level government, most are 'border march'. For example Hecatompylos has the 'border march' government, yet it was the capital! Rationale behind this? Any way I can check the government hidden resources?
    You can only build Royal Satrapies in places with the royal_core hidden_resource. The full list is: Mysia, Bithynia, Lydia, Tsopk, Egrisi, Kartli, Adurbadegan, Syria, Adiabene, Media, Persis, Khwarazm, Gandhara, Trinikarta, Pantikapaion and Skythiapolis.

    They are not a routine government to be put everywhere, as was the case before the change, but your top tier government for places with historically well-developed administrative structures.

    The "best" government for your core territories post-reform is the Settled Nomadic Territory, that retains cataphracts (or not upgrading Royal Clans at all). The Border Marches-Satrapy-Royal Satrapy chain is for Iran, Anatolia and India, primarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    2) I can't recruit any horse archers post reform anywhere except on the steppes, where I presume other factions can do the same. I thought they were supposed to be a key element in Parthian armies?
    The steppe is where they come from, it's not as easy as you might think to settle horse herds on agricultural land (in fact it has never worked, that's why conquering horselords either become a settled aristocracy or return to the steppe).

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    3) The 'Persian heavy spearmen' seem worse than the 'Iranian spearmen' they replace post-reform. They have lower attack, lower defense, lower unit size, and are a tiny bit cheaper. They have 'hardy' while the pre-reform unit doesn't but with the superior numbers and stats it seems like a downgrade. 'Our infantry is really bad, I propose we replace them with worse infantry'.
    Changes over time aren't necessarily "better". They reflect the changing pattern of recruitment, not an improvement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    4) From the 'Partho-Hellenic' satrapies I can recruit thureophoroi, at a rate of one per 25 turns... They also have a max of one. So I need to check all these cities to recruit them on time so I don't waste my 1/25th of a thureophoroi per turn which is the only decent unit provided by this government, unless I want hoplites in my Parthian army (same rate).
    That government's recruitment mimics the polis, using the exact same recruitment. Ultimately, you are not playing a Hellenistic faction, thus don't get ready access to Hellenistic units.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    Now I understand that there has been a rethink on troop availability of EB2 and a move away from faction-specific troops and that's fine, but playing Pahlava now I feel I might as well be playing any other faction, since the troops I'm using are all regional. I have a single type of unit unavailable to other factions - Parthian cataphracts, but these are only recruitable in two cities seemingly chosen at random. I don't feel I have any 'core' territory, fighting style, or units at all. Seems kind of boring to me and difficult to see how it's historically accurate.

    Thoughts? Something I am doing wrong / missing? Thanks!
    There is no intention of making sure each faction has "unique" units that no other faction does. While there are a handful of uniques in a few places, that's coincidental.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    You can only build Royal Satrapies in places with the royal_core hidden_resource. The full list is: Mysia, Bithynia, Lydia, Tsopk, Egrisi, Kartli, Adurbadegan, Syria, Adiabene, Media, Persis, Khwarazm, Gandhara, Trinikarta, Pantikapaion and Skythiapolis.

    They are not a routine government to be put everywhere, as was the case before the change, but your top tier government for places with historically well-developed administrative structures.
    Wait so I can build royal satrapies in Israel and Crimea and Syria where the Parthian empire never extended, but can't build them in Assak or Hecatomplylos which were the capital cities?

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    The steppe is where they come from, it's not as easy as you might think to settle horse herds on agricultural land (in fact it has never worked, that's why conquering horselords either become a settled aristocracy or return to the steppe).
    I don't think it's easy, I think in gameplay terms Parthia had a large component of horse archers in their armies, so they should be able to recruit basic versions relatively easily. Think of it as 'ordering' horsemen from the main centers and having them arrive if you like. If they can't, then it's not practical to have historically accurate army compositions.


    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Changes over time aren't necessarily "better". They reflect the changing pattern of recruitment, not an improvement.
    This isn't very convincing. The Iranian spearmen are uninfluenced by hellenic traditions. They represent the pre-Alexander Eastern infantry. They have inferior equipment and, according to the unit description, inferior training to the newer unit which are based on Greek styles. It stands to reason they would be better in gameplay terms.


    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    That government's recruitment mimics the polis, using the exact same recruitment. Ultimately, you are not playing a Hellenistic faction, thus don't get ready access to Hellenistic units.
    However in-game the effect is just to annoy the player because it is altogether impractical to bother with any of these units when the recruitment rate is so painfully slow, which means you end up not using them at all. The unit cap I think is the main problem. Slow recruitment would be bearable if the cap wasn't a single unit.



    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    There is no intention of making sure each faction has "unique" units that no other faction does. While there are a handful of uniques in a few places, that's coincidental.
    Fair enough.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    This isn't very convincing. The Iranian spearmen are uninfluenced by hellenic traditions. They represent the pre-Alexander Eastern infantry. They have inferior equipment and, according to the unit description, inferior training to the newer unit which are based on Greek styles. It stands to reason they would be better in gameplay terms.
    According to the recruitment viewer, the Persian heavy spearmen have the following advantages:

    - slightly lower cost (upkeep and recruitment)
    - higher defence skill
    - more powerful charge
    - higher mass
    - an additional attack bonus (though I don't know what "spear_bonus_4" does, exactly. I suspect they're better vs cavalry)
    - better stamina


    The original Iranian spearmen have the following advantages:

    - larger unit size
    - higher attack
    - higher shield value
    - better discipline (not sure why that is, tbh)
    - better in forests and hot weather (fewer penalties)

    Not sure which unit is ultimately the better one.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    The cost difference is negligible. Unit numbers is a very important factor, and in this case multiplied by higher overall stats. Charge bonuses for infantry are virtually irrelevant because of how combat works in the mod, particularly in this case for line infantry. Stamina is the only true advantage and even that is marginal. In my opinion it's quite clear the earlier unit is superior.

    From the unit description for Persian Heavy Spearmen -

    'These men have been trained and carry uniform equipment, making them more reliable than other Eastern infantrymen' - Reality : Their equipment is worse, and they are less reliable.

    'Equipped with thureos shields and spears, they provide a strong infantry line, which levied men would not be able to hold against organised opposition.' - Reality : They provide an infantry line worse than antiquated Achaemenid spearmen.

    'this very infrastructure later allowed Alexandros Megas to muster and train Asiatikoi in Hellenistic warfare and indeed the practice was kept alive by the Seleukidai, who improved the Kardaka even further by furnishing them thureos shields' - Reality : Presumably improving them 'even further' from much worse than the old infantry to slightly but clearly worse.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's important to look at the full picture when comparing stats, not just at the stats displayed on the in-game unit card (many people take the unit card at face value when complaining about stats and don't look at the EDU entry). I'm curious myself what the rationale is behind giving the Kardakes lower discipline, and a significantly higher penalty in forests, despite having the same armour value plus lighter shields and a smaller unit size (IMO, the latter two factors should give you an advantage in forests, if anything).

    edit: I think the oddly small difference in cost might be due to the spear bonus. Has anyone tested how these two units compare when fighting cavalry or elephants?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Yeah I don't mean the stats on the unit card, I mean the description, which clearly indicates that this unit should be better than the earlier Persian infantry, which were world-renowned for being crap.

    The recruitment viewer shows the EDU values as far as I know. The comments on their stats are with reference to this.

    Apart from what you have mentioned I don't see any reason why their attack should be lower.

  9. #9
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,554

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    Wait so I can build royal satrapies in Israel and Crimea and Syria where the Parthian empire never extended, but can't build them in Assak or Hecatomplylos which were the capital cities?
    Yep, those are places best left with a Royal Clan government, or if you must a Settled Nomadic Territory. Just because they were capital cities doesn't mean they were universally recognised seats of power when contrasted with all those other places on the map which merit the royal_core hidden_resource.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    I don't think it's easy, I think in gameplay terms Parthia had a large component of horse archers in their armies, so they should be able to recruit basic versions relatively easily. Think of it as 'ordering' horsemen from the main centers and having them arrive if you like. If they can't, then it's not practical to have historically accurate army compositions.
    From all I understand about the steppe societies, the notion of "ordering" even one small band of riders to do something isn't very realistic. They did as they pleased, though an influential lord might invite them to do something.

    As it is, that invitation is represented by the colony system, which the post-reformed Pahlava has access to. I forget now exactly how it was before the rewrite that is in the patch, but in the new system at least, Parthian and Dahan riders feature quite frequently in Iranian pools.

    Are you using the Foreign Colonies? They are supposed to be your main source of line troops, not the governments alone. The latter are generally better for your garrison troops, having a spread of levies in them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    This isn't very convincing. The Iranian spearmen are uninfluenced by hellenic traditions. They represent the pre-Alexander Eastern infantry. They have inferior equipment and, according to the unit description, inferior training to the newer unit which are based on Greek styles. It stands to reason they would be better in gameplay terms.
    They're both semi-professionals, in statistical terms. There is a blip with the discipline of the Kardakes, but otherwise they are as they should be. If their attack stat seems weak, that's a function of them fighting underhand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    However in-game the effect is just to annoy the player because it is altogether impractical to bother with any of these units when the recruitment rate is so painfully slow, which means you end up not using them at all. The unit cap I think is the main problem. Slow recruitment would be bearable if the cap wasn't a single unit.
    The slow recruitment and the cap are one and the same; all the pools are budgeted by allocating a cap value, which is associated with a fixed refresh.

    Again, the pool featured is simply a replication of the polis_two, it is a simulation of the non-Hellenistic faction being able to recruit from the polis. Which is not a strictly military institution by any means, thus all the levies.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    How can a place be a recognized seat of power when the empire never extended to there? Doesn't make any sense.

    I'm building any recruitment buildings I can but perhaps I'm doing something wrong.

    I still don't buy it at all. If their attack is weaker because they fight underhand then they should fight overhand... Is there historical evidence that these later troops weren't as effective as the earlier ones? The historical flavor text in the unit descriptions suggests the exact opposite. Or, as you say, they suddenly decided to fight underhand and not overhand and thus were not as effective?

    Ah, I didn't know the cap and refresh were fixed together.

  11. #11
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,554

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    They're historical seats of power across the map, not specific to Pahlava.

    Are you building Foreign Colonies or not?

    They're essentially the same men, but equipped and trained differently. Both units fight with an underhand grip, if I'm remembering correctly. This has all come about because the Nezagdar were originally levies, then moved up to semi-professionals.

    Higher cap means higher refresh. The recruitment for the Philhellenic Satrapy is under discussion at the moment, so that may be amended in the patch.
    Last edited by QuintusSertorius; October 11, 2019 at 06:07 AM.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    If I understand Aradan's EDU guide correctly, the Kardakes have an attack bonus of +4 vs cavalry, which the Nezagdar do not (both have a defensive bonus vs cavalry, being spearmen). So that's one advantage. If the discipline discrepancy is addressed (assuming I understood QS correctly), that might actually change the picture. Though I still don't get why Nezagdar are better in forests.

    edit: just had another look, and it turns out the Nezagdar also have a +2 attack bonus vs cavalry, albeit via the mount_effect line.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    They're historical seats of power across the map, not specific to Pahlava.
    Makes no sense at all, from either a historical or gameplay standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Are you building Foreign Colonies or not?
    I'm pretty sure I was, but I quit that campaign and when I went to check realized I'd overwritten the save.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    They're essentially the same men, but equipped and trained differently. Both units fight with an underhand grip, if I'm remembering correctly. This has all come about because the Nezagdar were originally levies, then moved up to semi-professionals.
    So what you're saying is they are essentially the same men, but the later ones are equipped and trained worse. However all of the historical in game text and common sense would suggest they are equipped and trained better. Also becoming semi-professional apparently means they get worse than when they were peasants. I hope you can understand my lack of interest in arguing this much further.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Higher cap means higher refresh. The recruitment for the Philhellenic Satrapy is under discussion at the moment, so that may be amended in the patch.
    Cool, I do think the current rate is a bit slow but the cap especially is irritating from a gameplay standpoint. If you can't change one without the other that's fine.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    If I understand Aradan's EDU guide correctly, the Kardakes have an attack bonus of +4 vs cavalry, which the Nezagdar do not (both have a defensive bonus vs cavalry, being spearmen). So that's one advantage. If the discipline discrepancy is addressed (assuming I understood QS correctly), that might actually change the picture. Though I still don't get why Nezagdar are better in forests.

    edit: just had another look, and it turns out the Nezagdar also have a +2 attack bonus vs cavalry, albeit via the mount_effect line.
    Thanks for looking into this more. I just edited my own EDU and brought the Kardakes attack to 5 and their discipline to normal for a quick fix. I agree the forest bonus/malus doesn't make much sense either.

  15. #15
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,554

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    Makes no sense at all, from either a historical or gameplay standpoint.
    They are all the places that had actual royal capitals in them (or places just as significant in their wider region like Syrakousai). Whether or not they were Parthian capitals is irrelevant, that's not the rationale for the assignment of the hidden_resource.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    I'm pretty sure I was, but I quit that campaign and when I went to check realized I'd overwritten the save.
    Foreign Colonies (and colonies in general) are the mechanic that represents a policy of settling soldiers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    So what you're saying is they are essentially the same men, but the later ones are equipped and trained worse. However all of the historical in game text and common sense would suggest they are equipped and trained better. Also becoming semi-professional apparently means they get worse than when they were peasants. I hope you can understand my lack of interest in arguing this much further.
    No, the point was the Nezagdar were originally statted as levies, but were upgraded to semi-professionals on review. On further review, they were over-statted by that change. There's no reason for them to have a higher spear attack than other semi-professional eastern spearmen (like the Archer-Spearmen), they have no more armour in evidence than the Axemen (none of them have helmets), their shields aren't as big as those used by the Ethiopians (which are a 7). Their formation should be untrained, not trained. That kind of oversight can happen when a unit is changed in isolation.

    For anyone editing their own EDU, the new stats are a downgrade of the Nezagdar - they lose a point of spear attack, armour, shield and trained becomes untrained on their stat_morale line. The Kardakes have their discipline increased from low to normal.

    It still remains the case that there is no assumption that a reform or phased change in unit is an "improvement". There is no straight line of progress where things must always get better, that isn't the only reason for change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    Cool, I do think the current rate is a bit slow but the cap especially is irritating from a gameplay standpoint. If you can't change one without the other that's fine.
    They're one and the same. Anything with a cap of 1 is going to have a refresh of 0.03 (every 33 turns) or 0.04 (Every 25 turns), barring a few specific exceptions that use a different formula. If that cap was 2, it would be 0.06 (every 16 turns) or 0.08 (every 12 turns). We're discussing whether the Philhellenic Satrapy needs a professional pool in addition to the part that imitates recruiting from the polis.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    No, the point was the Nezagdar were originally statted as levies, but were upgraded to semi-professionals on review. On further review, they were over-statted by that change. There's no reason for them to have a higher spear attack than other semi-professional eastern spearmen (like the Archer-Spearmen), they have no more armour in evidence than the Axemen (none of them have helmets), their shields aren't as big as those used by the Ethiopians (which are a 7). Their formation should be untrained, not trained.
    That is a pretty massive nerf which should definitely make them inferior the Kardakes. I had already been wondering about the armour stat, downgrading it makes sense to me.


    That kind of oversight can happen when a unit is changed in isolation.
    Which is why some people use statting tools

  17. #17

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    They are all the places that had actual royal capitals in them (or places just as significant in their wider region like Syrakousai). Whether or not they were Parthian capitals is irrelevant, that's not the rationale for the assignment of the hidden_resource.
    For Pahlava to have only two places they can recruit their best units in their historical empire at a rate that could never keep up with any amount of fighting is without any rationale that I've heard so far. Add to that 'border march' lowest tier governments in historical capitals. A recommendation to leave Assak with pre-reform government is just a recommendation to bypass nonsensical design by gaming the system. Isn't Assak one of the cities you need to build lvl 4 farms in to get the reform in the first place?

    Compare with KH where they can install high tier governments and recruit good units in a whole host of cities, even though they never had any kind of empire.

    If we're going to be giving fantasy reforms that aid expansion for some factions, and I think that's great, then actual major historical empires should have a core of provinces where they can recruit their key units and install good governments in gameplay terms. Right now Pahlava sucks, which is a shame because they are my favorite faction. I will give Hayasdan a try next I think and I expect them to be much better in-game, even though in reality they did far less.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    For anyone editing their own EDU, the new stats are a downgrade of the Nezagdar - they lose a point of spear attack, armour, shield and trained becomes untrained on their stat_morale line. The Kardakes have their discipline increased from low to normal.

    It still remains the case that there is no assumption that a reform or phased change in unit is an "improvement". There is no straight line of progress where things must always get better, that isn't the only reason for change.
    Ok I think a nerf to the earlier unit is fine, but personally I'm leaving the Kardakes attack at 5. They are still much worse than thureophoroi.

    When an entire region is crushed by an invader and later the defeated reform and adapt some of the equipment and training methods of the conqueror it is very reasonable to assume this will result in an improvement, all other things being equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    They're one and the same. Anything with a cap of 1 is going to have a refresh of 0.03 (every 33 turns) or 0.04 (Every 25 turns), barring a few specific exceptions that use a different formula. If that cap was 2, it would be 0.06 (every 16 turns) or 0.08 (every 12 turns). We're discussing whether the Philhellenic Satrapy needs a professional pool in addition to the part that imitates recruiting from the polis.
    I see. I think a cap of 1 is too slow for just about any unit, barring maybe artillery or some warships, but just personal opinion. It's more a convenience issue.
    Last edited by Camcolit; October 12, 2019 at 12:51 PM.

  18. #18
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,554

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    For Pahlava to have only two places they can recruit their best units in their historical empire at a rate that could never keep up with any amount of fighting is without any rationale that I've heard so far. Add to that 'border march' lowest tier governments in historical capitals. A recommendation to leave Assak with pre-reform government is just a recommendation to bypass nonsensical design by gaming the system. Isn't Assak one of the cities you need to build lvl 4 farms in to get the reform in the first place?

    Compare with KH where they can install high tier governments and recruit good units in a whole host of cities, even though they never had any kind of empire.

    If we're going to be giving fantasy reforms that aid expansion for some factions, and I think that's great, then actual major historical empires should have a core of provinces where they can recruit their key units and install good governments in gameplay terms. Right now Pahlava sucks, which is a shame because they are my favorite faction. I will give Hayasdan a try next I think and I expect them to be much better in-game, even though in reality they did far less.
    Farm development in Asaak has nothing whatsoever to do with changing the government type. You can leave the Royal Clan there and still meet the reform. Equally, a Settled Nomadic Territory allows cataphract recruitment, which I'm assuming is what you mean by "best units". Making the wrong choice and following the Border Marches chain doesn't make the government options broken.

    There's no point comparing with KH, they're a different faction with different rules at work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    Ok I think a nerf to the earlier unit is fine, but personally I'm leaving the Kardakes attack at 5. They are still much worse than thureophoroi.

    When an entire region is crushed by an invader and later the defeated reform and adapt some of the equipment and training methods of the conqueror it is very reasonable to assume this will result in an improvement, all other things being equal.
    They're not supposed to be equivalent to the Thureophoroi, they are only semi-professionals, where the Thureophoroi is a professional unit, and is thus more expensive.

    Nope, not reasonable to assume that at all. The Seleukids fixed the "problem" of eastern infantry not being very good by importing their own. Ultimately, Iranians of quality didn't fight on foot, they fought on horseback.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    I see. I think a cap of 1 is too slow for just about any unit, barring maybe artillery or some warships, but just personal opinion. It's more a convenience issue.
    To be blunt, I'm not interested in convenience. Pools have a fixed budget to balance, which means some units will only get a cap of 1 because of the variety that needs to be covered. Often there is a combination available, or else other units from other recruitment sources which are alternates.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Yes, they are a different faction with government availability and recruitment zones that make sense.

    Just a strawman. I never said they are supposed to be equivalent to thureophoroi, I said they are still much worse than thureophoroi, which themselves aren't great, so it's not like I am making them overpowered by leaving their attack at a measly 5.

    Actually again it's perfectly reasonable to assume. Whether Iranians of quality fight on horseback or not, adopting some equipment and training of a culture who has beaten your traditional troops soundly will tend to improve them. Not interested in arguing this any more, it's blindingly obvious.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Couple of Pahlava Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Camcolit View Post
    . Whether Iranians of quality fight on horseback or not, adopting some equipment and training of a culture who has beaten your traditional troops soundly will tend to improve them.
    Kinda, but we're still talking about the Parthians, i.e.: cavalry people.
    Think of it this way: you can't recruit quality Iranian spearmen with the Seleukids, who favoured infantry much more than the Achaemenids did. Why should you be able to do so with the Pahlavans/Parthians, who put a lot more emphasis on horse archers and heavy cavalry? It's not unreasonable to think the training of spearmen declined even further with the arrival of people who had fought on horseback most of their lives - especially since fighting on horseback was already favoured by the natives of Persia.
    Last edited by Weltschmerz; October 13, 2019 at 07:01 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •