Cv(S)

[drusilla1998]

Let me preface this by saying, I truely enjoy the DBMM2 rules and in fact, they happen to be the best and most fun rules set I have played in quite some time.  With that said, I am perplexed by the apparent disregard that has been made to Cv(S), in particular, irrCv(S).  I believe that several players have expressed their displeasure of how Cv(S) changed from DBMM to DBMM2.  Since I never played DBMM, I don't know exactly what they are talking about.

 What I am perplexed at is that irrCv(S) are classed as CLUMSY IRREGULARS.  On the surface, it doesn't appear to be that big a deal, but on closer examination, it is a huge deal.   Since irrCv(S) are classed as CLUMBSY, the PiP expenditure to do anything but move straight ahead, is significantly more then regCv(S), to the point that I wonder if irrCv(S) are worth taking.

What makes matters worse, is that irrCv(S) are only one point cheaper then regCv(S), yet the difference in the way they can operate on the table is strikingly different.  So much so, that the cost difference between them should be more then one point.  Unless I am missing something, I now hesitate fielding Sassanid Asvaran as irregulars.

Do others have the same opinion, or am I off base?

Lou Cardinale

[toby]

Nope, I would say that your opinion is pretty widely shared. I would reckon that Irr Cv (S) are worth about the same as O. They  became clumsy because Phil reckons that Sassanid Asawaran didn't maneuver and just advanced in a block. All other S are just stuck because of that. The points value are certainly out of whack though.

[Orcoteuthis]

Irr Cv (S) were clumsy (or "inept" as the term was back then) in v1 too, but people didn't care as much then as Mtd (S) in general were more powerful, and Asvaran were quite capable of simply steamrolling through most foot. In v2 Mtd (S) was defanged a bit and the lack of manoeurvrability began to hurt more.

So yes, the consensus is they're not worth their points now. Go for Irr Cv (O) or Reg Cv (S) instead if you have the option. Generals are an exception as they're not affected by clumsiness, and a Irr Cv (S) general adds a bit of extra punch to a formation of Irr Cv (O).

(That Irr Cv (S) costs 9AP is a bit of an anomaly in itself, BTW, usually Irr (S) costs the same as Reg (O), which would be 8AP for Cv.)

[drusilla1998]

Guys, thanks for the response and as I love using the Sassanids, I will field them as regCv(S), along with a Hunnic Ally.

[Barritus]

Guys, thanks for the response and as I love using the Sassanids, I will field them as regCv(S), along with a Hunnic Ally.

I don't have a strong view either way on the cost-effectiveness of Irr Cv (S), as I don't have armies which use them. Accordingly I'm happy to defer to the views above.

However, I wouldn't be too quick to choose only the one solution to the problem. I suspect there are other solutions available.

For one example, have you considered the option of a Brilliant C-in-C in combination with the Change Deployment stratagem? In this case, you might like to consider the option of Lakhmid LPIA allies instead of Huns. The idea here is that you take the Arabs for their Cm (O), with the intention of deploying them against any Kn in the enemy army. If the Kn aren't opposite the Cm when you deploy, use the Change Deployment stratagem to switch the Arabs with the command currently facing the enemy Kn. Your tactics are then a quick advance to pin your opponent in place, then using the Cm to neutralise enemy Kn while the Cv (S) deal with everything else...

Obviously, an alternative to the potentially unreliable (but cheap!) Arabs is a command of elephants, again using a Brilliant C-in-C.

[Doug M.]

Phil hates Sasanians, and Irr Cv(S) suck. In fact it is almost impossible to get a decent list out of II/69. I know, I have tried... repeatedly, for years...   there are all sorts of little wrinkles that prevent it being quite good enough to even be 'C' class, like the refusal to acknowledge cataphract cavalry were still in use in the 6th Century, regular infantry only available on frontier walls, no distinction between the spahbed and royal armies etc..

[Valentinian Victor]

Phil hates Sasanians, and Irr Cv(S) suck. In fact it is almost impossible to get a decent list out of II/69. I know, I have tried... repeatedly, for years...   there are all sorts of little wrinkles that prevent it being quite good enough to even be 'C' class, like the refusal to acknowledge cataphract cavalry were still in use in the 6th Century, regular infantry only available on frontier walls, no distinction between the spahbed and royal armies etc..

Whilst Doug and I sometimes have differing thoughts on this topic, I do agree that I can see no rational from the evidence in certainly 4th Century AD sources for Asavaran to be 'clumsy'. Phil bases his bias on the Sasanids on 5th/6th Century accounts where he believes the Asavaran fought in shower-shooting blocks, despite evidence at a number of battles where they manuevered and engage in hand to hand combat, Dara being a prime example. And talking of Dara, why would the Byzantines dig ditches behind which they could defend if they were facing shower-shooters, whose archery would surely have forced the Byzantines away from the field defences?