Camels

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
Scrumpy
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: NoVa

Camels

Post by Scrumpy »

What changes if any are planned for the humped ones?
madaxeman
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3002
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Camels

Post by madaxeman »

Scrumpy wrote:What changes if any are planned for the humped ones?
I was under the distinct impresssion all camels had humps, and so when it comes to camels it is more a question of one hump or two?

8)
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Camels

Post by david53 »

Scrumpy wrote:What changes if any are planned for the humped ones?
IIRC theres something about terrian but nothing to do with factors ect
Scrumpy
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: NoVa

Re: Camels

Post by Scrumpy »

Any plans for them to need a Camel mounted general like elephants may need a nelly mounted general?
Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Camels

Post by Vespasian28 »

What general in his right mind would go anywhere near a camel in the first place? There is a certain dignity and nobility to riding an elephant that can't be said about the obnoxious, bad tempered and, literally, foul mouthed camel :)

Obviously I have a Classical Indian army so somewhat biased.
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Camels

Post by hazelbark »

Scrumpy wrote:Any plans for them to need a Camel mounted general like elephants may need a nelly mounted general?
None.
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Camels

Post by hazelbark »

david53 wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:What changes if any are planned for the humped ones?
IIRC theres something about terrian but nothing to do with factors ect
At one point there was something else that made them marginally less worthless, but i don't know if that ever happened.
Scrumpy
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: NoVa

Re: Camels

Post by Scrumpy »

Vespasian28 wrote:What general in his right mind would go anywhere near a camel in the first place? There is a certain dignity and nobility to riding an elephant that can't be said about the obnoxious, bad tempered and, literally, foul mouthed camel :)

Obviously I have a Classical Indian army so somewhat biased.
A Tuareg C-in-C? But I was thinking of the Hatrene Cataphract Camels, would they need a Camel Ally-General in the Parthian list lol
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Camels

Post by kevinj »

I don't think we ever saw any restrictions on Camels and Generals in any of the V2 announcements.
Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Re: Camels

Post by Eques »

kevinj wrote:I don't think we ever saw any restrictions on Camels and Generals in any of the V2 announcements.
I don't see why there would be.

The elephant one is surely down to the fact that it would be hard for a commander or messenger down on the ground to shout detailed instructions up to a mahout.

The same would not really apply to camels.

IMO even the elephant one is going a little OTT anyway.
Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Re: Camels

Post by Eques »

hazelbark wrote:
At one point there was something else that made them marginally less worthless, but i don't know if that ever happened.
I have found them quite handy - cheap, flexible and manouverable. Can be used as a screen, a stumbling block, improvised skirmishers, an extra "pair of hands" in both close combat and shooting, reserves.

Plus the sand advantage and discomfiture of horses (not that I have managed to use those).

I really don't understand this need for all units to be crack troops.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Camels

Post by philqw78 »

Eques wrote:I really don't understand this need for all units to be crack troops.
Apart from Romans in your case
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Re: Camels

Post by Eques »

Some troops should be crack - the ones that actually were. But you won't find me arguing, for example, that legionaries should have bows, or evade, or move 5. And I think it right that they should have their efforts frustrated by skirmishers.

The first two armies I painted were actually EAP (from which I deliberately excluded Medizing Hoplites) and Ancient British.

And when I do make a Roman one it will have raw legions in it (which is apparently almost unheard of in game terms but would reflect the history).
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Camels

Post by grahambriggs »

Eques wrote:
hazelbark wrote:
At one point there was something else that made them marginally less worthless, but i don't know if that ever happened.
I have found them quite handy - cheap, flexible and manouverable. Can be used as a screen, a stumbling block, improvised skirmishers, an extra "pair of hands" in both close combat and shooting, reserves.

Plus the sand advantage and discomfiture of horses (not that I have managed to use those).

I really don't understand this need for all units to be crack troops.
A club member uses them as an ally with his Romans and finds one BG is worthwhile as they disorder cataphracts who charge the legions and that is often just enough to make the difference. Against other opponents they're often out on a flank skirmishing. While they are poor and not particularly great at fighting they are cheap and opponents often under estimate them to their cost.

The difficulty for most armies with camels in is not necessarily the +2 points for camelry (though that's perhaps a bit overpriced for what they do). It's more that the equivalent cavalry would also be rubbishy: unprotected or protected mounted in large numbers is hard to use. And then they come up against armoured cavalry lancers and get shredded in melee anyway!
viperofmilan
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:26 am

Re: Camels

Post by viperofmilan »

Eques wrote:
hazelbark wrote:
At one point there was something else that made them marginally less worthless, but i don't know if that ever happened.
I have found them quite handy - cheap, flexible and manouverable. Can be used as a screen, a stumbling block, improvised skirmishers, an extra "pair of hands" in both close combat and shooting, reserves.

Plus the sand advantage and discomfiture of horses (not that I have managed to use those).

I really don't understand this need for all units to be crack troops.
I have used 1 unit of poor bow-armed camels available to the later-Ptlomeics with great success out on a flank against enemy LF or LH. They wouldn't last long against proper Cv, but they are fun.

Kevin
ShrubMiK
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Camels

Post by ShrubMiK »

>And when I do make a Roman one it will have raw legions in it (which is apparently almost unheard of in game terms but would reflect the history).

That's a bit of a specialty* of mine. The last game I played I fielded 24 legionary bases - 2x8 poor and 2x4 average. The idea was that this was the garrison detchment from one of the remote bases in Gaul, about to get thier heads kicked in by the unsporting Gallic locals...when Caesar arrives flying to their aid with some small forces he has manged to gather up at short notice.

* translation: specially stupid ;) I thought armoured poor legionaries vs. protected average Gallic warband might be an interesting match up. And I'd try and win the battle by manouvering better troops elsewhere. Remember what I said about the unsporting locals? A BG of 6 aroured elite Soldurii with a general went stright through my line like a knife through that stuff that claims it's butter but actually tastes really rubbish. Which is actually quite a good metaphor for my Roman army...
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Camels

Post by grahambriggs »

ShrubMiK wrote: I thought armoured poor legionaries vs. protected average Gallic warband might be an interesting match up. And I'd try and win the battle by manouvering better troops elsewhere. Remember what I said about the unsporting locals? A BG of 6 aroured elite Soldurii with a general went stright through my line like a knife through that stuff that claims it's butter but actually tastes really rubbish. Which is actually quite a good metaphor for my Roman army...
Sounds historical though. Raw legions on the flat = dogmeat against warbands. Send for Marius. He'll reform the army, train them properly, trick the barbarians into attacking uphill into him, then ambush them from the rear :)
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”