Save the elephant

[rogerg]

Cost is of little relevance. 36 points of ineffective elephants is little different to 50 points worth. If they are not effective, there is little point in having them.

[rpayne]

I haven't taken the time to read through this thread like I probably should, but what I'm gathering from skimming it is an idea that elephants in general are not tough enough. I really don't think this is true.

In the San Jose group I play Classical Indian almost exclusively, and take the maximum number of elephants (12 stands) every game. I originally took fewer so I could take more chariots, and eventually came to the conclusion that the elephants were better than the chariots. I also for a few months switched lists to Early Seleucid, and eventually came to the conclusion that the relative ease of giving elephants rear support made them more reliable than Pike.

Generally I'll run my 6 units of elephants in between my 4 units of 6 bow, who depending on the matchup will often be deployed 2x3 instead of 3x2, to minimize foot frontage and maximize elephant frontage. The foot end up adding combat dice to the elephants, who scare mounted away from charging the foot. When the entire line has rear support the end result is very effective, and can operate inside and outside of terrain.

I have some pretty reasonable tournament results with this list, and using it have beaten such esteemed players as Dan Hazelwood, Dan Martz Sr and Steve Payne.

It can be a little disheartening when a unit of elephants charges a unit of superior Cavalry and breaks on impact due to a death roll. It's happened to me more than once. But it is not nearly as common as memories of bad times will let you think.



That said, I do have an issue with elephants in this ruleset, and that is the lack of differentiation between differing units of elephants from differing countries. Not all elephants were created equal, yet in FOG all elephant BGs are the same. It makes zero sense to me that a Thai or Burmese elephant BG is equivalent to a Ptolomeic elephant BG or a Cartheginian elephant BG, and that they will fight each other equally.

Logically the Thai/Burmese BG would have a higher concentration of elephants in it per stand, and their elephants would likely be better trained. Some armies had armored elephants, or elephants with much more serious bodyguards, etc. I understand that the POAs for elephants are largely due to the fear and shock factor of the beasts, but that doesn't explain why elephant on elephant battles are equal.

I would love to see certain armies having Superior Elephants, or perhaps Elephants with Bow or Bow* for armies whose elephant bodyguard was primarily bow armed. I also wouldn't mind certain armies having Poor Elephants, armies with primarily African Elephants, or armies whose elephant count had dwindled over the years and could no longer support full sized units.

In order to make sure that Superior elephants move just as ungainly as the ordinary type, a rule could be added saying that Elephants cannot make quality rerolls for CMT tests.

[marty]

I'm not convinced that elephants are so awful that they aren't worth it at any points. A 15-18 point elephant is somethimg I would consider using, a 25 point one is not.

Even if changing the points value isn't enough to lure everyone I think it is pretty clear that any average, undrilled, fairly vulnerable and not particularly fast element cant possibly be worth 25 points.

Martin

[Lionelc62]

Hi,

I have already said that before but I don't think that El are awful at all. I use them on a regular basis (although i haven't used more than 2 BG in an army) and don't lose them very often. If they are overpriced at 25 points (not my feeling ) their price can be decreased a little bit but 15-18 points is FAR too much (22 points can be OK) !


Regards
Lionel

[hammy]

I'm not convinced that elephants are so awful that they aren't worth it at any points. A 15-18 point elephant is somethimg I would consider using, a 25 point one is not.

Even if changing the points value isn't enough to lure everyone I think it is pretty clear that any average, undrilled, fairly vulnerable and not particularly fast element cant possibly be worth 25 points.

Martin

It rather depends on the death rolls The last time I tried elephants I only had to make four death rolls, two 1s, a 2 and a 4 (after my Elephants charged some MF and lost the impact 4-0 :O Sadly I failed every single death roll which rather reduced the effectiveness of my nellies.

[Strategos69]

Indeed the problem here is the unhistorical use of them and the fact that FoG does not capture the potential damage to its own troops, other than just leaving gaps (usually in Western Mediterranean armies they were so unreliable that there was always a second line behind them). That can be achieved by some sort of random flight. In fact cavalry can damage elephants fairly well in a number of ocassions when that was really unexpected too. In my opinion it is not only a fact of being good or bad, but getting the troop type better historically. As it has been said, it is rather odd that all elephants are treated the same.

Another point: should elephants be joined by generals other than the ones that have already been modelled as an "elephant general"? In my last game the general joined elephants in combat to give them the necessary punch to win a melee. If they do so they can be terrific to MF, but I wondered how much would it help to those elephants seing a human in horse fighting along them. The same happened to me while bolstering or making them turn with my general. They made me wonder if that had any logic behind.

[hazelbark]

Another point: should elephants be joined by generals other than the ones that have already been modelled as an "elephant general"? In my last game the general joined elephants in combat to give them the necessary punch to win a melee. If they do so they can be terrific to MF, but I wondered how much would it help to those elephants seing a human in horse fighting along them. The same happened to me while bolstering or making them turn with my general. They made me wonder if that had any logic behind.

I think that over visualizes what the generals represent. Historically troops that were shaken didn't always need a high level commander to get them sorted out. The generals are a combination of factors for game purposes, color and to put a loose command and control system in place.

[madaxeman]

Another point: should elephants be joined by generals other than the ones that have already been modelled as an "elephant general"? In my last game the general joined elephants in combat to give them the necessary punch to win a melee. If they do so they can be terrific to MF, but I wondered how much would it help to those elephants seing a human in horse fighting along them. The same happened to me while bolstering or making them turn with my general. They made me wonder if that had any logic behind.

I think that over visualizes what the generals represent. Historically troops that were shaken didn't always need a high level commander to get them sorted out. The generals are a combination of factors for game purposes, color and to put a loose command and control system in place.

Agreed - but to be fair, in what way could any of the factors that generals represent "for game purposes" be brought into play to make an elephant unit be more likely to continue in a fight it was losing?

[marty]

I dont think death rolls are the only problem.

I know it is not always valid to compare troop types but I think elephants can be most easily compared from a points point of view with knights or chariots. They move the same distance fight 2 dice in a single rank and are generally strong in close combat. An elephant costs about the same as a Superior drilled heavily armoured knight. They are probably about the same in fighting power. The elephant gets better POA's against some things but the knight will sometimes get 2 POA's up which the elephant never will. The knight will also fight as superior. In terms of manouverability the drilled knight leaves the elephant for dead. In the shooting phase most people need a 5 (or at best a 4) to hit the knight where as an elephant is hit on a 4 (or sometimes a 3). Whent it comes time to do a CMT or cohesion test the knight is superior the elephant is not. The elephant does give a - to people they defeat in melee as well as Impact.

This unflattering comparison for the elephant is then made even worse by the elephant death roll situation which is forced on them by the 2 element units in the list.

An elephant is clearly overpriced at 25 points and I would suggest is still a bad buy at 20. I'm glad some people have had success with them but the competition results and army rankings suggest this a far from typical experience. I like the fact that elephants aren't overly effective (I used to play warrior and 7th edition where they ruled the table to an unreasonable degree) but think the points system needs to at least make them an option you can consider.

Martin

[hammy]

I know it is not always valid to compare troop types but I think elephants can be most easily compared from a points point of view with knights or chariots. They move the same distance fight 2 dice in a single rank and are generally strong in close combat. An elephant costs about the same as a Superior drilled heavily armoured knight. They are probably about the same in fighting power. The elephant gets better POA's against some things but the knight will sometimes get 2 POA's up which the elephant never will. The knight will also fight as superior. In terms of manouverability the drilled knight leaves the elephant for dead. In the shooting phase most people need a 5 (or at best a 4) to hit the knight where as an elephant is hit on a 4 (or sometimes a 3). Whent it comes time to do a CMT or cohesion test the knight is superior the elephant is not. The elephant does give a - to people they defeat in melee as well as Impact.

A very reasonable comparison and what would IMO seem to be a compelling case for a reduction in cost for the elephants.

Dropping them to 20 points would give a singnificant boost to armies that use a lot of them but 10 points for a single BG would not really be that significant.

I suspect that elephants may have ended up weaker than perhaps they might have been after a Ghaznavid army dominated the first beta tournament with two BGs of 4 elephants each of which had a permanently attached commander.

[marco]

totally agree with the clever analysis of martin
i will just add, as usual user of elephant :
they are average, you can help with a general
but this general will help only 2 elephants/two bases in the line...

without the help of a general they are still a good target for other troops
better to send superior troop against elephant, whereas they get - poa, they can resist, the elephant with a bad turn, usual when you are average, are dead...

and average mean : any shooter can easily disrupted you...
and if you cross the way of crossbow or javelin....(a knight don't know such a disavantage)

anyway i play 11/12 december at ballainvillier french great tournament) with classical indian.....

[Strategos69]

Agreed - but to be fair, in what way could any of the factors that generals represent "for game purposes" be brought into play to make an elephant unit be more likely to continue in a fight it was losing?

That is what came to my mind in the last battle when, after failing a CMT, I had to send Hannibal to make them turn and exploit the gap in the center of the enemy line. Has he been training with those elephants in a circus and no historian wrote about that?

I suspect that elephants may have ended up weaker than perhaps they might have been after a Ghaznavid army dominated the first beta tournament with two BGs of 4 elephants each of which had a permanently attached commander.

This makes me wonder if the real problem is letting generals to bolster them and fight along them to increase their fighting power. The more I think about generals bolstering and fighting along them, the less sense it makes to me. Because maybe the solution is making them more powerful (3 dice, severely disordering cavalry, disordering heavy and medium infantry nearby, extra PoA against mounted) but brittle (not allowing any benefit from commanders and keeping the shooting PoAs as they are, no change in death rolls).

[VMadeira]

(3 dice, severely disordering cavalry, disordering heavy and medium infantry nearby, extra PoA against mounted)

Are you serious ?

May I remind that, death rolls make elephants brittle, but to have any effect on elephants BGs, you first have to beat them, or else they will be rolling with a +3 bonus to the die roll, which is something that with the above proposed changes seems rather difficult to happen.

As to the vulnerability to missiles it is very easy to just have a skirmisher screen (which by the way sounds realistic) and avoid most of the missile fire.

[hammy]

(3 dice, severely disordering cavalry, disordering heavy and medium infantry nearby, extra PoA against mounted)

Are you serious ?

May I remind that, death rolls make elephants brittle, but to have any effect on elephants BGs, you first have to beat them, or else they will be rolling with a +3 bonus to the die roll, which is something that with the above proposed changes seems rather difficult to happen.

As to the vulnerability to missiles it is very easy to just have a skirmisher screen (which by the way sounds realistic) and avoid most of the missile fire.

With only 2 average dice it is not that uncommon for Elephants to only get one hit. My elephants seem to do a very good job of losing even when fighting cavalry or knights who are not overlapping them. Add in an overlap and elephants struggle.

I think uping elephants to 3 dice at impact and in melee would not be a game breaker but if you also increase the dissorder they cause it would be too much IMO.

[philqw78]

I think 3 dice per base for elephants is a good idea. Also, at the moment, it is best for other mounted to fight elephants in rough or difficult going at the moment. They end up on the same dice. Perhaps nellies should have their move reduced in these terrains but not thier dice in rough and only count disordered in difficult. Or reduce the other mounted's dice more for having a disorder upon a disorder

[rbodleyscott]

Also, at the moment, it is best for other mounted to fight elephants in rough or difficult going at the moment. They end up on the same dice. Perhaps nellies should have their move reduced in these terrains but not thier dice in rough and only count disordered in difficult. Or reduce the other mounted's dice more for having a disorder upon a disorder

Clocking up the nanometers here again. Better to keep things simple and concentrate on getting the interaction right in the open.

[grahambriggs]

One problem that people have mentioned with elephants is that they are too fragile because they are in BGs of 2. On the other hand, BGs of 4 were said to be too strong in early testing.

A BG of 3 elephants might be a decent compromise. 75AP. If you had them in a single rank, they could lose a base and still fight, but presumably overlapped. You could put them two wide with a spare in the back rank and that wold make them reasonably surviveable but morale would still be flaky (average, with 25% casualties).

Army lists allow only BGs of 2 of course, but a blanket amendment isn't too bad.

[rpayne]

I think 3 dice per base in Melee Elephants would be extremely difficult to stop, even for good close order foot, personally.

I would probably lean more towards 3 dice at Impact and 2 in Melee, if dice were being increased. Or perhaps 3 dice against mounted and 2 against foot.


I'd also like to point out an interesting thought, based upon many games played taking 10-12 elephants.


The fact that Elephants are only a 2 stand unit makes the chances of them bursting through friends much lower.

The reason here is that elephants very rarely break by actually breaking. Since it is so easy to give them rear support and since only one death roll kills the unit, they almost always break by losing a stand, and rarely through cohesion tests. This means even when an entire Indian army is supported by cheap infantry and cavalry in the back line, it is easy to engineer things so your 1 stand elephant unit can either evade out of the way of rear support units, or evaporates due to being one stand before it reaches them.

I'm not sure what you all want to make of that, but it is an observation that I've noticed in my games.

[marty]

Perhaps elephants should be at an automatic ++ against mounted. They lose to mounted far to frequently at the moment and this would be an asy fix. Even the Mongols got off their horses to fight elephants!

Martin

[Strategos69]

May I remind that, death rolls make elephants brittle, but to have any effect on elephants BGs, you first have to beat them, or else they will be rolling with a +3 bonus to the die roll, which is something that with the above proposed changes seems rather difficult to happen.

As to the vulnerability to missiles it is very easy to just have a skirmisher screen (which by the way sounds realistic) and avoid most of the missile fire.

The point has to be analyzed as a whole: in my proposal elephants (and remember I am referring to the ones used in the Western classical world) would not get any advantage of the general for any reason (bolstering, CT's, CMT) and they would disorder both enemy and friendly cavalry and infantry. This would mean that they should be used more on their own or face the consequences (for example, some troops might not count as steady because of the elephants proximity). That would make of them a powerful but difficult tool to use.

In the other hand, as PoA stand right now, elephants are even at impact and with a PoA advantage at melee against legionaries. If the interaction is to be analyzed, I would think that elephants should be advantaged at impact (the fierce of the charge of the animals charging at full speed) and even at melee (the troops have stopped them). The other interactions with infantry are disadvantaged against pikemen and even with spearmen. I wonder what was the rationale behind this (maybe the importance of impact as first clash?).

Regarding cavalry, I agree with marty that elephants can lose against cavalry more than it should be expected, especially because they usually are outnumbered.

The reason here is that elephants very rarely break by actually breaking. Since it is so easy to give them rear support and since only one death roll kills the unit, they almost always break by losing a stand, and rarely through cohesion tests. This means even when an entire Indian army is supported by cheap infantry and cavalry in the back line, it is easy to engineer things so your 1 stand elephant unit can either evade out of the way of rear support units, or evaporates due to being one stand before it reaches them.

Earlier in this post there was a proposal of making elephants flee randomly even if they autobroke. This movement should be straight, without turning and maybe with both bases still on it (the autobreak taking place after the initial "rout")