Save the elephant

[rpayne]

Perhaps as a simple way to simulate Elephants having a more disastrous effect when they rout through allies, rather than having random flee directions and etc, you could simply have a -1 to the cohesion test of units within 3" of elephants when they break.

[hammy]

Perhaps as a simple way to simulate Elephants having a more disastrous effect when they rout through allies, rather than having random flee directions and etc, you could simply have a -1 to the cohesion test of units within 3" of elephants when they break.

I like that as an idea.

The random flee direction thing is fine when an elephant represents one beast but when it is representing 10-20 it is hardly likely that they will all panic in the same direction.

[Jilu]

Perhaps as a simple way to simulate Elephants having a more disastrous effect when they rout through allies, rather than having random flee directions and etc, you could simply have a -1 to the cohesion test of units within 3" of elephants when they break.

I like that as an idea.

The random flee direction thing is fine when an elephant represents one beast but when it is representing 10-20 it is hardly likely that they will all panic in the same direction.

not sure there is the Herd effect

[Strategos69]

Perhaps as a simple way to simulate Elephants having a more disastrous effect when they rout through allies, rather than having random flee directions and etc, you could simply have a -1 to the cohesion test of units within 3" of elephants when they break.

I like that as an idea.

The random flee direction thing is fine when an elephant represents one beast but when it is representing 10-20 it is hardly likely that they will all panic in the same direction.

Good point. My problem is that 3MU is predictable and you can do things to counter that. I think that the nature of these beasts is precisely the unpredictability. What about a radius of 5MU (their movement) +VMD. to determine the radius of the effect? Troops within that would have to check a CMT (no minus modifiers)

[spikemesq]

Perhaps as a simple way to simulate Elephants having a more disastrous effect when they rout through allies, rather than having random flee directions and etc, you could simply have a -1 to the cohesion test of units within 3" of elephants when they break.

I like that as an idea.

The random flee direction thing is fine when an elephant represents one beast but when it is representing 10-20 it is hardly likely that they will all panic in the same direction.

Good point. My problem is that 3MU is predictable and you can do things to counter that. I think that the nature of these beasts is precisely the unpredictability. What about a radius of 5MU (their movement) +VMD. to determine the radius of the effect? Troops within that would have to check a CMT (no minus modifiers)

A 5MU time bomb when a 2-base BG breaks (i.e., loses a stand) will send Elephants to the figure box graveyard.

Since Elephants are far more likely to Autobreak than they are to rout, a more tempered approach could be (a) troops alongside (=< base width) the Elephant BG have CT modifier; and/or (b) friendly troops other than LF within 3-5 MU (phantom VMD maybe?) of the breaking Elephant must immediately take a CT with a -1 modifier if mounted.

Even under this, I think Elephants need more staying power if their loss will have additional ripple effects.

[philqw78]

Good point. My problem is that 3MU is predictable and you can do things to counter that.

Like what people do already when they expect a rout. The thing is elephant routs are very unpredictable and you normally don't get chance to move away. They are winning one second and then vaporize the next.

[rogerg]

This thread is about saving the elephant. They are not being used in games because they are not effective enough. I do not think we need ideas for making them more difficult to use.

[rpayne]

I thought the general feel of the thread was to make them more powerful in combat, and counterbalance this with more mayhem when they break?

[rogerg]

That would leave us more or less where we are now. I can see no need for further negatives. The 2 base BG generates the disaster as it is. You cannot see the break coming so other troops are more likely to get caught near by. 3 dice in impact and melee would be about right. Keep it simple and leave everything else as is.

[ethan]

This thread is about saving the elephant. They are not being used in games because they are not effective enough. I do not think we need ideas for making them more difficult to use.

They need to be a better value overall than they are now. There are many ways to achieve this.

[expendablecinc]

I propose:

Let elephants be in BGs of Three (Similar to the artillery in FogR)
Let them not be disordered in rough and move at full rate.

That should do it really.

[Strategos69]

I thought the general feel of the thread was to make them more powerful in combat, and counterbalance this with more mayhem when they break?

Yes, at least that is how I see them. IF the whole pack is applied they improve a lot:
- Reduce to 20 points per base
- Heavily disordering mounted
- Disorder HF and MF
- 3 dice
- Mixed formations with infantry for some armies

That way they will be stronger. They could act on their own if the list allows them in numbers. They will be weak against shooting and skirmishers. The unpredictability encourages the use of them in front of the line, rather than between your line. You can still deploy them between your units, but if things go wrong you go to a disaster, like what sometimes happened as we have seen.

[spikemesq]

I thought the general feel of the thread was to make them more powerful in combat, and counterbalance this with more mayhem when they break?

Yes, at least that is how I see them. IF the whole pack is applied they improve a lot:
- Reduce to 20 points per base
- Heavily disordering mounted
- Disorder HF and MF
- 3 dice
- Mixed formations with infantry for some armies

That way they will be stronger. They could act on their own if the list allows them in numbers. They will be weak against shooting and skirmishers. The unpredictability encourages the use of them in front of the line, rather than between your line. You can still deploy them between your units, but if things go wrong you go to a disaster, like what sometimes happened as we have seen.

Wow, that would make Elephants a mess.

Recall that the disordering effects apply to both sides, so El would cripple friendly mounted and even some friendly foot (e.g., Pikes and spears). Enemy mounted would never break-off from foot in the open if an elephant was nearby.

Cheaper and +50% in dice?

[rpayne]

Yeah, the changes above would be ridiculous and a mess. I really think people shouldn't screw with the disorder effects. Remember, they affect both sides, and disorders do affect CMTs of friendly troops. Awful lot of stuff to remember, there.

This is kind of what I have in my head in regards to the elephant conversations, tell me what you think of this:

Elephants split into two unit types. For lack of names, lets call them Lesser Elephants and Greater Elephants.

Lesser Elephants (roman, cartheginian, ptolomeic etc. elephants)
Fight and based as they are now
Reduced to 20 points per base
Additional -1 to CT of units seeing them break within 3"


Greater Elephants (Indian/Southeast Asian Elephants, heavily armored later Seleucid elephants)
Still 25 points per base
3 dice per base (possibly 3 dice on impact only? or 3 vs. mounted only? 3 all around seems too strong to me, should these elephants fight Spear at an advantage in melee?)
Additional -1 to CT of units seeing them break within 3"

Asian armies such as Indian lists, Thai, Burmese etc would mix Greater Elephants in BGs with their MF in a special formation, to easily create a structure where mounted cannot attack the MF without also engaging elephants.

[Fluffy]

This topic is really long so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Everything I've read about elephants gives me the impression that they are a powerful but risky weapon, I think FoG represents this quite well, but I also feel they lack some power.
Why are they not shock troops?

I like playing elephants so cheaper elephants sound good, but note that they are cheaper per frontage than Triarii, legionares, superior pike and any good cavalry.

Battle groups of 3 and superior would be nice though.

I'm not convinced it is needed, but if you want to have stampeding elephants maybe have one base running around but not controlled.
So that you know, I'm from Africa so believe me any herd sticks together when doing pretty much anything (except the one being eaten), most of all when panicked, have any of you ever herded cattle?

[nikgaukroger]

Everything I've read about elephants gives me the impression that they are a powerful but risky weapon, I think FoG represents this quite well, but I also feel they lack some power.
Why are they not shock troops?

Why should they be? It wouldn't help their performance BTW.

[VMadeira]

Yes, at least that is how I see them. IF the whole pack is applied they improve a lot:
- Reduce to 20 points per base
- Heavily disordering mounted
- Disorder HF and MF
- 3 dice
- Mixed formations with infantry for some armies

Yes they would improve a lot, in fact they would improve excessively

[Strategos69]

Wow, that would make Elephants a mess.

Recall that the disordering effects apply to both sides, so El would cripple friendly mounted and even some friendly foot (e.g., Pikes and spears). Enemy mounted would never break-off from foot in the open if an elephant was nearby.

Cheaper and +50% in dice?

The point is making them better but also encouraging to fight on their own. And if they route, you can suffer the consequences. I can't remember any battle where Carthaginian and Roman elephants were used combined with MF or HF, thus the disorder effects, to avoid watching them in the middle of the line where they were not deployed. It is true that in Magnesia they were deployed between the gaps of the phalanx, with disastrous effects by the way.

Indian elephants are another story but it seems that they could be dealt better with a special formation.

[rpayne]

I think if the Lesser Ellies were cheaper they would more naturally gravitate towards use as wing guards or a seperate attack wing.

As is, when you're buying elephants you want to be using them in your front line, because they're frigging expensive. If you don't want to put them in your main attack line you just buy something else.


A 40 point Lesser Elephant unit would cost as much as a unit of LH Bow/Swords, and still be an effective wing guard against enemy Lancers. Plus, with an additional -1 on CTs when they break, you'd want them away from other troops if possible.

Making the Greater Elephants tougher would end up gravitating them more towards your main line, because they would be your primary attack troops.

[mbsparta]

Elephant questions:

I was told that if a BG of cavalry is within a base width of an elephant, only that element is disordered not the entire BG. Is that accurate, because I do not read the rule that way?

I suggest that we make certain that elephants disorder nearby cavalry etc by BG not just element; that is if a BG of cavalry etc. is within one base width of an element the entire BG is disordered.

And I would like to see two catagories of elephants (1) Indian (2) African: Indian gain a +poa vs African elephants. Or call them big elephants and bigger elephants, whatever.

Other than those two issues, I think elephants work very well ... you win some and loose some with them. Seems about right to me. I use them because they were historically used by that army. Putting them back in the toy box because you don't like how the rules deal with them is, IMHO, childish.

Mike B