Slitherine

zocco wrote:I'd actually like to see Elephants rated as Poor ..

I'm not sure why the authors decided not to have the possibility of different quality elephants. It would have solved the African vs Indian issue without the need for special rules.
For example :
Later Seleucid armoured Indian elephants - superior
Hannibals untrained african elephants at Zama - poor.

I think camels should be 1 AP cheaper. The cost for being camel is over rated in its effect especially considering they are usually poorly rated in other categories.

Just to see an occasional BG on the table.

A key test whether the troops in question get picked for competition armies.

Elephants are rarely seen in FoG competitions. Historically, it would appear that they were very much in demand. They must have been good in battle.
Battle wagons deter no-one who has seen how poor they are in FoG. They are very rare and will get rarer in competitions.

Messing around with the points for these types will do little. Cheap rubbish is still rubbish. These troop types need beefing up. Both the above troop types appear in a limited number of lists. Those lists have other drawbacks so there is little danger of them becoming dominant armies. Elephants need to be powerful enough to be scary. Probably double plus at impact might do it. Given that they die so easily, they will still be a risky choice. Wagons I have argued for in another thread.

rogerg wrote:A key test whether the troops in question get picked for competition armies.

Elephants are rarely seen in FoG competitions. Historically, it would appear that they were very much in demand. They must have been good in battle.

IMO the record of nellies in battle is actually rather sub-standard, although they seem to have had an attraction for generals that far outweighed their usefulness. A good example would be the Ghurid and Mughal invaders of India who, despite having a very good winning record against elephant using armies, and never being beaten because of elephants used against them, started to incorporate nellies into their armies - the Mughal especially then finding them something of a liability

Wargamers seem rather more hard nosed about them

I think FoG has the effect about right (somewhat flaky), but the points are too high.

I am happy with my Tuareg Camels (recently annihiliated Tibetean Cats and happily wiped out some Christian Knights) however I would like them to be a bit cheaper. However I must admit I would like to see more examples of Camelry (beyond 1BG of poor Camel Scouts) in the other Arab Armies.

Have some hopes for my Tuareg Allies in my North African Dynasties army for this year's club competition.

So keep Camels, please, just spread 'em around a bit more......

As far as Elephants go the real problem seems to be the size of the BG - with only average quality, one kill = a BG. So folk don't pick them because they are too brittle to trust in the line of combat.

Why not make them 3 to a BG and require 2 kills to break (but not make them superior in the fight), that way they get to go in, can survive a bit longer, but don't have a huge dice advantage.

The camels have two problems I see:

- They are almost always protected which is a problem in a world in which most cavalry is armoured. So any changes that are designed around making protected cavalry more viable should also help camels.

- The "camel" factor in many cases seems to be in lieu of being a swordsmen (and there is some rough equivalence between a PoA and disrupting your enemy) so that the camel factor isn't in many cases a bonus, it is just there instead of being a sworsmen.

ethan wrote:The camels have two problems I see:

- They are almost always protected which is a problem in a world in which most cavalry is armoured. So any changes that are designed around making protected cavalry more viable should also help camels.

- The "camel" factor in many cases seems to be in lieu of being a swordsmen (and there is some rough equivalence between a PoA and disrupting your enemy) so that the camel factor isn't in many cases a bonus, it is just there instead of being a sworsmen.

But camels were shit. As soon as people in camel using areas could afford to get a horse to fight on they did.

Perhaps horses look better to girls. So, you camel fanciers, if you want to be macho and have a camel well, I'm in touch with my sexuality and I'd rather have a girl, or a horse if the only other choice was a camel.

Polkovnik wrote:

zocco wrote:I'd actually like to see Elephants rated as Poor ..

I'm not sure why the authors decided not to have the possibility of different quality elephants. It would have solved the African vs Indian issue without the need for special rules.
For example :
Later Seleucid armoured Indian elephants - superior
Hannibals untrained african elephants at Zama - poor.

Did they ever meet in battle?

Jilu wrote:
Did they ever meet in battle?

They did at the battle of Raphia, see Polybius Book V.84

"A few only of Ptolemy's elephants ventured to close with those of the enemy, and now the men in the towers on the back of these beasts made a gallant fight of it, striking with their pikes at close quarters and wounding each other, while the elephants themselves fought still better, putting forth their whole strength and meeting forehead to forehead. 4 The way in which these animals fight is as follows. With their tusks firmly interlocked they shove with all their might, each trying to force the other to give ground, until the one who proves strongest pushes aside the other's trunk, 4 and then, when he has once made him turn and has him in the flank, he gores him with his tusks as a bull does with his horns. 5 Most of Ptolemy's elephants, however, declined the combat, as is the habit of African elephants; 6 for unable to stand the smell and the trumpeting of the Indian elephants, and terrified, I suppose, also by their great size and strength, they at once turn tail and take to flight before they get near them. 7 This is what happened on the present occasion; and when Ptolemy's elephants were thus thrown into confusion p207and driven back on their own lines, Ptolemy's guard gave way under the pressure of the animals."

rogerg wrote:A key test whether the troops in question get picked for competition armies.

How many Camel armies have you sen on the table, not many.

ethan wrote:The camels have two problems I see:

- They are almost always protected which is a problem in a world in which most cavalry is armoured. So any changes that are designed around making protected cavalry more viable should also help camels.

- The "camel" factor in many cases seems to be in lieu of being a swordsmen (and there is some rough equivalence between a PoA and disrupting your enemy) so that the camel factor isn't in many cases a bonus, it is just there instead of being a sworsmen.

The protected bit is true I took a camel army this weekend with nine BG of protected Lancer/sword I expected to only get 5 points during the day got 30 but I'll doubt I'll take them again till something is done to either downgrade the armoured or help out in some way for the protected unless something is done there are armies you'll not see on the table.