Save the elephant

[shall]

A simpler version on same theme that is a bit less dramatic might be on their rout

1,2 1 base left
3,4 normal path
5,6 1 base right

This would create some of the potential chaos of routing elements next to you or if you are behind, but keep it simple. Simple way of bringing in that characteristic perhaps?

None of us are very keen to overcomplicate special troops. It would be easy to have a couple fo pages and all sorts of assumed material differences between light and heavy elephanst.

Trust me I worked at a zoo for a week - all elephants are heavy!!

Si

[timmy1]

Si, I like it.

[VMadeira]

A simpler version on same theme that is a bit less dramatic might be on their rout

1,2 1 base left
3,4 normal path
5,6 1 base right

This would create some of the potential chaos of routing elements next to you or if you are behind, but keep it simple. Simple way of bringing in that characteristic perhaps?

Well....honestely it feels a little like those fantasy battle games i played in my youth Also it would slow the game with another die roll for little gain.

I would prefer a solution like:

- Friends seeing Elephants rout have an extra -1 on cohesion tests. Enemies would also test if in contact with the elephants, but at a +1 modifier, as it is less likely that the beasts would stampede to its attackers, or
- increase the radius for seeing friendly elephants rout, or
- Troops that are 1 base from an Elephant BG routing (even after the first rout move) have to test, simulating that the animals would be dispersed through the battlefield

Well actually, these also adds dice rolls.... whatever
-

[Strategos69]

Well....honestely it feels a little like those fantasy battle games i played in my youth Also it would slow the game with another die roll for little gain.
-

In fact, this is the second time I have heard a rejection of this idea because of the resemblence with "certain" fantasy game. I think that there is a great gain giving the flavour of some randomness to elephants, which I think is needed. Indeed sometimes it makes games funnier (at least you can blame the dice and not yourself!). In the few AAR I have seem the elephants are deployed between phalanxes and that is the safest way to do it in FoG whereas it was not that safe for Seleucids when they did so (Carthaginians never deployed them that way).

I agree that the 45 degrees might be too much and overcomplicate the table. With right, left and back would be enough. I would use an 1 and 6 for each side (which means that your elephant routing can disrupt your whole line) and the rest for straight, which means that elephants will cross anything in their path and will not deviate as other troops do.

Another changes would be that troops do not pursue elephants, except for other elephants or anti-elephant devices maybe.
Finally I think that cavalry, cataphracts and knights are too powerful against elephants (allowing to take the risk to charge them and relly on numbers). I wonder how it will be with 3 dice but still I think that cavalry should count as heavily disordered when attacking elephants.
A final point should be about autobroken elephants and if they should be made routing and keep running through the battle field instead of being retired.

[MatthewP]

Elephants are already brittle. if you have them routing in random directions you are even less likely to see them used on the gaming table.

[Strategos69]

Well, some improvements have been said, like the 3 dice, heavily disordering cavalry and a reduction in point cost of 5. The idea is that elephants should be used as historically, mainly in front of the infantry line or in the flanks. You can lance your elephants against the enemy line and if they "die" there is still a chance that they run onto the right or left and cause an extra damage. I think it is something worth trying.

[dave_r]

Well, some improvements have been said, like the 3 dice, heavily disordering cavalry and a reduction in point cost of 5. The idea is that elephants should be used as historically, mainly in front of the infantry line or in the flanks. You can lance your elephants against the enemy line and if they "die" there is still a chance that they run onto the right or left and cause an extra damage. I think it is something worth trying.

That's not how the Indians used them historically though is it? You need to widen your horizons from classical warfare to include Easter theatres too.

Personally I think this

Friends seeing Elephants rout have an extra -1 on cohesion tests

Is quite a good idea - just add it onto the two reasons to test bullet point - i.e. Two reasons to test or for seeing friendly elephants routed -1.

However, elephants still need a something to make them less brittle - points cost reduction won't help the fact that when they throw a one they leave a big gap in the middle of the line. Why not just allow Elephants to not autobreak when reduced to one element? At least that gives you some time to prepare for the hole rather than it simply appear.

[waldo]

Well, some improvements have been said, like the 3 dice, heavily disordering cavalry and a reduction in point cost of 5. The idea is that elephants should be used as historically, mainly in front of the infantry line or in the flanks. You can lance your elephants against the enemy line and if they "die" there is still a chance that they run onto the right or left and cause an extra damage. I think it is something worth trying.

That's not how the Indians used them historically though is it? You need to widen your horizons from classical warfare to include Easter theatres too.

That might be relevant if he uses an Indian army, rather than a ‘Classical’ army with elephants.

Walter

[Strategos69]

Well, some improvements have been said, like the 3 dice, heavily disordering cavalry and a reduction in point cost of 5. The idea is that elephants should be used as historically, mainly in front of the infantry line or in the flanks. You can lance your elephants against the enemy line and if they "die" there is still a chance that they run onto the right or left and cause an extra damage. I think it is something worth trying.

That's not how the Indians used them historically though is it? You need to widen your horizons from classical warfare to include Easter theatres too.

That might be relevant if he uses an Indian army, rather than a ‘Classical’ army with elephants.

Walter

Which is the case, actually...

The point here is that if Indian elephants were used differently to the Western type, it is not good game mechanics to make all elephants to fight as if in Indian or Classical warfare. (Phil suggested a nice division of different elephant types.) In Classical warfare they were not an important part of the infantry line (at most it can be argued that mixed formations of elephants and phalanx were tried leaving small gaps between phalanxes, but those gaps were small). Elephants were mostly deployed in front of the line and they were able to fight more on their own. FoG does not cover that as it is now and changes in the CT will not alter that.

[rogerg]

The brittleness of elephants already makes the CT worse for their friends. It is common practice to move troops away from fragmented troops to avoid the test if they break. This is not possible with elephants. The fact that the elephants often go from steady to broken on a single death roll makes this penalty enough for their friends.

I would be against any further special rule for elephants. More complexity should always be avoided if possible.

How many of us have actually used elephant based armies in competitions? I've used the Burmese, but can't remember seeing more than two other mass elephant armies in the past few years and I've played a lot of events.

[philqw78]

I would be against any further special rule for elephants. More complexity should always be avoided if possible.

How many of us have actually used elephant based armies in competitions? I've used the Burmese, but can't remember seeing more than two other mass elephant armies in the past few years and I've played a lot of events.

Which shows that they need some special consideration

[azrael86]

How many of us have actually used elephant based armies in competitions? I've used the Burmese, but can't remember seeing more than two other mass elephant armies in the past few years and I've played a lot of events.

That isn't the only thing. The fragility has meant that few combined arms forces use elephants any more. No shortage of Ghaznavid, Sassanid, Carthaginian, Selecuid or Alexandrians, but elephants are rare, if picked at all.

[hannibal]

I've noted before that I don't see the brittleness of elephants as a major problem - they seem to have been very unpredictable, but I think that they are not good enough offensively - if they are more likely to break frontal opponents quickly then the brittleness is counter-weighted somewhat. The 3 dice idea sounds interesting, and would have a similar result as my earlier thought about causing disorder to foot and severe disorder to mounted - namely that the elephants end up with more dice than their opponents. IMO elephants should win quickly or die quickly - doesn't feel right for them to hang around in a protracted melee.

Marc

[Jilu]

A simpler version on same theme that is a bit less dramatic might be on their rout

1,2 1 base left
3,4 normal path
5,6 1 base right

This would create some of the potential chaos of routing elements next to you or if you are behind, but keep it simple. Simple way of bringing in that characteristic perhaps?

None of us are very keen to overcomplicate special troops. It would be easy to have a couple fo pages and all sorts of assumed material differences between light and heavy elephanst.

Trust me I worked at a zoo for a week - all elephants are heavy!!

Si

why not do the same for the impact ? Elephants and scyted chariots?

[Strategos69]

The 3 dice idea sounds interesting, and would have a similar result as my earlier thought about causing disorder to foot and severe disorder to mounted - namely that the elephants end up with more dice than their opponents. IMO elephants should win quickly or die quickly - doesn't feel right for them to hang around in a protracted melee.
Marc

Yes, I think you are right and therefore they should be given a bigger advantage at impact (I don't think PoA's cover that right now). The disorder to all foot (except light foot) and severe disorder to mounted is also a nice idea I like, at least for Western warfare fits very well. Maybe the difference between Indian and Western use of elephants is that western type were not intended for melee, whereas Indians were well trained to do so (thus a difference in PoA for melee can work there for those elephants). That way there is an incentive to deploy elephants as they were, in front with the protection of some skirmishers and not between your main line for the western type and differently for the Indians.

By the way as Jilu says, it is true that some elephants were used in some ocassions as scythed charriots, like Carthaginians in Zama and Bagradas and the randomness of charriots flights can work too.

[azrael86]

The disorder to all foot (except light foot) and severe disorder to mounted is also a nice idea I like, at least for Western warfare fits very well. Maybe the difference between Indian and Western use of elephants is that western type were not intended for melee, whereas Indians were well trained to do so (thus a difference in PoA for melee can work there for those elephants). That way there is an incentive to deploy elephants as they were, in front with the protection of some skirmishers and not between your main line for the western type and differently for the Indians.

By 'western' do people mean 'carthaginian/north african'? Because IIRC most successor elephants (excet some used by the ptolemies) were obtained from India (and presumably came with crews) and would have shared the ability, albeit the numbers available might have led to differences in usage.

Rating the north african elephant the same as the Indian, would seem to contradict Polybius.

[Jilu]

1,2 1 base left
3,4 normal path
5,6 1 base right
Si

why not do the same for the impact ? Elephants and scyted chariots?

Another of my mad ideas:

Impact phase :
impacts of elephants and scythed chariots must be moved first and the die is trown. move accordingly, the other impacts take place if still possible.

Melée phase: if oponents of elephants stay steady at the end of the phase the elephants take a cohesion test if not already done as a melee result.

[Strategos69]

By 'western' do people mean 'carthaginian/north african'? Because IIRC most successor elephants (excet some used by the ptolemies) were obtained from India (and presumably came with crews) and would have shared the ability, albeit the numbers available might have led to differences in usage.

By western I mean both North African (Carthaginian, Ptolemies, Numidian, Roman) and successors (but not all times). I think that you are right in what you say though. Specially the first elephants the Successors obtained had both their crews and animals brought from India. Even Carthaginians did so in some ocasions. For example, Hannibal's last elephant name was Syrus (or Cyrus), which means the Syrian. I think it is accurate to infere that the animal was brought from there.

But whether it was for their numbers or training, most of the time elephants were deployed in front of the army by the Successors. You are right in pointing this because I can see those elephants from Indian origin being given more complex tasks (for example, some deployments among the gaps of the phalanx, the manouvers made by Pyhrrus elephants).

Rating the north african elephant the same as the Indian, would seem to contradict Polybius.

I acompletely agree and it seems to me that it is not only a matter of grading but some other features. I know it might be a crazy idea, but can Indian elephants be considered drilled compared to North African ones? Can Indian elephants be considered to have more resistence in melee? Might it be accurate that north African elephants cause disorder in their own infantry?

[azrael86]

Rating the north african elephant the same as the Indian, would seem to contradict Polybius.

I acompletely agree and it seems to me that it is not only a matter of grading but some other features. I know it might be a crazy idea, but can Indian elephants be considered drilled compared to North African ones? Can Indian elephants be considered to have more resistence in melee? Might it be accurate that north African elephants cause disorder in their own infantry?

Well, there are two obvious differences -

a) Indian elephants are noticeably bigger than african forest elephants - and about 3' taller.

b) India seems to have a much longer tradition, hence they may have been better trained. TBH drilled elephants sounds a bit odd, plus drilled would apply whoever you were facing, so I'd go for something like:

North african elephants facing indian elephants take a CT at 3MU. In close combat African elephants losing to Indian elephants have a -1 on any test. "Indian elephants" means any asian elephant (or any successor descended from asian stock).

[marty]

I quite like the way the "Brittleness" of elephants is captured by the 2 element units and their "averageness". This is a simple and elegant rules mechanism to captue a wide range of things that could be happening. I also like the way they add almost no complication to the game by been all the same and having almost no special rules.

Having said that no one uses them because with all these built in problems they are easily the most overpriced thing in the game. They make artillery look like a sensible buy. I feel they should be no more than 18 or so points. Even at 20 they would still be overpriced.

Martin