Elephants, Disorder and Dice Reduction

[jonathanc]

Have you any evidence to back this up?

Off the top of my head, no, I can't give you chapter and verse - because it's kind of an 'omission proves the point' thing. TE Lawrence doesn't mention it in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, for example, as far as I know. But I'll look further in my available sources.

I haven't seen any 'elephants scared the pants off us' quotes from the other side of the argument either. It's all just been say-so to date on this thread.

Does anyone have any evidence that e.g Carthaginian or Indian cavalry were significantly affected by their own elephants? Please note I am not disputing the effect on an enemy that is not accusomed to elephants or camels.

Jonathan

[frederic]

... but I think any combat effect from enemy elephants (i.e. the loss of 1 die in 3) should only apply if your army has no elephants.

That's not because your army has elephants that your horses are used to fight against them.
Cavalry riding at 5-10 meters from elephants feels better than cavalry fighting them on its face.

[jonathanc]

... but I think any combat effect from enemy elephants (i.e. the loss of 1 die in 3) should only apply if your army has no elephants.

That's not because your army has elephants that your horses are used to fight against them.
Cavalry riding at 5-10 meters from elephants feels better than cavalry fighting them on its face.

I entirely agree, except some Indian cavalry knowing they would be facing elephants presumably trained against them. And again, horses are probably frightened by a pike phalanx or other cavalry if they charge towards them , hell, a horse can be frightened by a paper bag in a hedge or a rabbit jumping out. My point was that elephant scariness in combat is allowed for in the advantages that elephants get over mounted in the combat mechanism (isn't it?). The disorder disadvantage is specifically stated to be because of unfamiliarity with elephants and it was stated that this is fine even with friendly elephants because they cannot cause you a combat disadvantage. That is, friendlies disorder you a bit but don't affect your fighting ability. My argument is that this should be true for enemy elephants if your horses are used to them. They are still tough to fight because in the combat mechanisms you get no POAs and they do. If you think elephants or camels are so scary in combat then give them more POA.

[philqw78]

But, one of the combat mechanisms is disordering the enemy cavalry/camelry

[frederic]

I entirely agree, except some Indian cavalry knowing they would be facing elephants presumably trained against them.

If you play Indian, it's better to send a bowmen BG in front of elephant rather than your cavalry.

[Warchariot]

Have you any evidence to back this up?

I have never understood this question. People who ask it have the same available sources/evidence as the writers. I believe the question really comes from why don't my elephants, LH, flaming pigs work like they did in...(privious rule set I used). One of the delightful parts of FoG is discovering the differences and figuring out how to use these BGs. I can remember a set were Celt charoits worked like panzer divisions if you had enough of them. The writers have written the rules to reflect what they believe happened when BGs interact and then they explain their thinking to us just to be asked for evidence. So THANKS to all who put years of experience into these rules as they are the finest I have played for both enjoyment and making sense.

[bigdamnhero]

Seems to me that the rules cover this easily. Any horse within one base width is affected! Surely that is simple enough? The fact that there are various die modifiers only add to the fog of war. I guess logically if i were charged on horse by elephnats, and fighting them i would be somewhat disordered coinsidering the terror they may instill. However, if i were ion the same side as the elephants and in close combat near to them with other troops, (say pike for instance), i would be less inclined to feel disordered by what is goin on, on my left as im already too busy!

Ive got a ptolemaic army which was fair to middling at Ascot and the elephants wrere kept well away from my horse anyway - just in case!

I think the combat example given makes perfect sense. Not enough bases of friendly horse to be disordered where dice are concerned. Great rules, great game, and insofar as i have seen in six months of FoG playing, logical overall!

Cheers!

[Montagu]

...
However, it was not our intention that there should be no effect on friendly cavalry at all, just less than on the enemy. You have already pointed out the effect on CMT. Also if you put elephants on both sides of a BG of your cavalry, they will lose dice.

The effect is the effect we intend.

I don't get the "elephants on both sides". Wouldn't the stands/units of cavalry within 1 base width lose dice?

Not enough bases of friendly horse to be disordered where dice are concerned.

I also don't get this quote.... I don't see where the number of bases has anything to do with if horse near elephants are disordered.

From my reading of the rules, it seems pretty simple. In 15mm, any cav bases within 20mm (EL bases being 40x40mm) would be disordered (-1 CMT, lose 1 dice per 3 in combat). Enemy units that lost combat would additionally be at -1 for cohesion tests.

Am I missing something?

[lawrenceg]

...
However, it was not our intention that there should be no effect on friendly cavalry at all, just less than on the enemy. You have already pointed out the effect on CMT. Also if you put elephants on both sides of a BG of your cavalry, they will lose dice.

The effect is the effect we intend.

I don't get the "elephants on both sides". Wouldn't the stands/units of cavalry within 1 base width lose dice?

Not enough bases of friendly horse to be disordered where dice are concerned.

I also don't get this quote.... I don't see where the number of bases has anything to do with if horse near elephants are disordered.

From my reading of the rules, it seems pretty simple. In 15mm, any cav bases within 20mm (EL bases being 40x40mm) would be disordered (-1 CMT, lose 1 dice per 3 in combat). Enemy units that lost combat would additionally be at -1 for cohesion tests.

Am I missing something?

Code: Select all

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
YYYYYYEE
YYYYYY

X = enemy cavalry
Y = friendly cavalry
E = friendly elephants

Enemy bases disordered would be the two X fighting the elephants, one X corner to corner withthe elephants and the three X behind these. Normally they would have 6 dice so losing 1 per 3 they lose 2.
Friendly bases disordered would be the Y next to the elephant and the one behind it. Normally these would have 2 dice but losing 1 per three they do not lose any (as they don't have a full set of 3).
The net result is the friendly cavalry are affected less than the enemy (in this case no effect at all).

If you have elephants on both sides of your cavalry:

Code: Select all

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
EECCCCEE
  CCCC

Then there will be one file of friendly bases disordered on each side, total 4 bases. These would normally have 4 dice, so losing 1 per 3 they lose 1. So now there is a slight effect of elephants on the friendly cavalry, but it is still much less than the effect on the enemy.

This is what people have been talking about. OTher than that, your understanding appears to be corrrect.

[Montagu]

Thanks a million for the detailed and clear explanation!!!

[flameberge]

I think horses being used to elephants because they are in your army is drastically different than a horse not panicking when they are charged by an elephant. I do however agree that I can't see any logic in horses remaining scared of camels.

[philqw78]

When did animals become logical?

[ars_belli]

Horses are herd/prey animals, and tend to startle and bolt very easily. Even very well-trained ones need constant handling and reassurance, and can be frightened by almost any kind of new or unexpected sound, odor, or movement. There tend to be a lot of these things in battles! The important thing to remember is that their behavior when under stress is no more predictable than that of people.

Here is some more information that may be of interest:

http://www.nchorsenews.com/articles_pg1.htm
http://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html

Cheers,
Scott

[flameberge]

When did animals become logical?

Touche'