Stinky Camels

vsolfronk · Post by **vsolfronk** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:31 am

Since the subject of elephants and war wagons has been breached, I was wondering how camels will be handled. Will they be their own troop type? Will they be more anti-infantry in terrain types as in DBMM, or stay as more anti-mounted in DBM? Should I keep my FB Tuaregs or pound them into pennies?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:48 am

IIRC they are treated as their cavalry equivalents with a disordering effect on horses.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:29 am

So does this mean, that as well as counters for fragmented, disrupted and broken troops, we will need counters for disordered troops as well?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:41 am

philqw78 wrote:So does this mean, that as well as counters for fragmented, disrupted and broken troops, we will need counters for disordered troops as well?

No. Disordered troops are disordered by things that are obvious on the table without the need for counters - e.g. being in certain terrain, or being within a certain distance of elephants or camels.

No counters needed.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:13 am

But why do we even need the definition of disorder. If Heavy foot or mounted are in disordering terrain give them a combat minus. If horse or elephants are in contact with camels give them a combat minus. If horse are in contact with elephants give themn a combat minus. Cuts out extra waffle in the rules

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:33 am

philqw78 wrote:But why do we even need the definition of disorder. If Heavy foot or mounted are in disordering terrain give them a combat minus. If horse or elephants are in contact with camels give them a combat minus. If horse are in contact with elephants give themn a combat minus. Cuts out extra waffle in the rules

True but it would create extra lines in the combat POA charts. Thinking about it, these would more than outnumber the text required to treat troops as disordered. Note that there isn't just one level of disordering terrain - different troops are differently affected by different levels of terrain, and there is also "severe disorder" for close order troops in really close terrain.

Suffice it to say that your proposal would be a viable alternative way of doing things, but would not, in practice, reduce the "waffle".

bryan · Post by **bryan** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:21 pm

What about troops who fought behind tethered camels as in the DBM moorish list? How will they be treated?
Or was that another DBM flight of fancy?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:11 pm

Nope, historical fact. Moors are recorded as doing this by Prokopios IIRC.

I'm sure they'll be allowed

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:24 pm

So how about the charging camels or camel cataphracts. Same treatment or different.
i.e. PB's tuaregs, which get better in every rules, Beja/Blemye/Christian Nuban/Nabatean Camel Cataphractii or whatever.

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:19 pm

Given the above comment about treating them similarly to their cavalry counterparts, I would hazard a guess that "camel cataphracts" might be something like: Superior or Average, Undrilled, Armoured, Impact(?) Cavalry, armed with Spears and possibly Bows.

Cheers,
Scott K.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:54 pm

hazelbark wrote:So how about the charging camels or camel cataphracts. Same treatment or different.
i.e. PB's tuaregs, which get better in every rules, Beja/Blemye/Christian Nuban/Nabatean Camel Cataphractii or whatever.

Same treatment - so armoured and equipped as their cavalry counterparts but on camels. So catafract camels would probably be Camelry, Heavily Armoured, Lancers, Swordsmen, Undrilled, Superior - quite nasty

bryan · Post by **bryan** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:38 pm

Thnaks for the reply Nik.
I've got some Moors modelled already for DBM including javelinmen behind camels. I hope the army might be more effective in AoW.
Camels sound pretty tough.
Will they maneuver as well as cavalry too or does that just depend on being drilled or not?
If so I imagine they would cost more.

tadamson · Post by **tadamson** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:11 pm

Here's a copy of a post I put on TNE a while back. The key point was that actual fighting mounted from camels was very, very unusual historically.

[TNE] Re: Caravan Guards

Hi Stuart,

There is a difference between "troops that existed" and "troops that
were used in battle in large enough numbers to be represented by an
element on table".

The key here is that camels were widely used for riding and pulling
carts, but hardly ever used in battle.

There were tricks: Cyrus mounting infantry on baggage camels in one
battle. Parthians armouring a bunch as "big cataphracts" in one battle.
Disguised as elephants on a couple of occasions.
There were people too poor to afford horses: mostly various types of
Bedu. Toureg etc who all switched to horses as soon as they could afford them.
And there were baggage camels.

In Persia and Khurisan there was a very long tradition of warriors
riding on a camel and their horse following behind (same principle as a
Western man at arms riding a palfrey and leading his destrier, or a
nomad with a string of ponies). There is also the artistic image of the
"poor hero", with not enough money to by a horse so he rides a camel (In
China the equivalent is the hero riding an Ox). There are also some
gods etc who ride camels in myths. We have images of all three, hence
the supply of camel mounted warrior 'originals'.

Caravan guards definitely existed but the vast majority rode horses
(mobility is key in fighting off bandits and ambushes) but there were a
few routes across desserts where the guards rode camels (and
contemporary travellers note this as an unusual and interesting detail).

You could stick a couple on your baggage bases for colour, but elements
of them in battle should be written out of the lists.

rgds.
Tom..