Slitherine

I saw 2 of them, this weekend in my last game... And they killed 2 of my Agema and 2 of my companions before surrender!

And they began to lose only when the prodomoi charge them in the back!!
their friends another BG of elephant stomped the remaining companion and scared to death my remnant Agema
Honestly I don't think they were undervalued....

MatthewP wrote:If elephants are an effective and valued troop type, why do you never see them?. Because nobody wants a bloody great hole appearing in their battle line in the middle of combat. No other troop type is as brittle or as expensive as elephants. Unles they are toughened up they will dissapear from the wargaming table and that will be a loss to the hobby.

I have not used elephants for a while mainly because I have not played with armies that can use them....

It may be that elephants are not that good in armies that only have one or two BGs of them which combined with the fact that Empires of the Dragon was one of the later releases in the army book sequence means that as most of the armies with lots of jumbos are in EotD that they have not seen too much use.

Looking at the database Classical Indian has been used 197 times and has won some comps so it can't be all bad.

Strategos69 wrote:
I like Julián's and Ranimiro ideas. One thing I thought about trying in my games was that, when elepahnts fail a death roll or are broken, they flee inmediately in a random way.
1 straight left
2 45 degrees to the left
3-4 straight
5 45 degrees to the right
6 straight to the right

Every unit crossed by the elephants will lose a level of cohesion. I think this rule could also work for expendable charriots.
If results are 1 or 6 effects can be devastating in your line, as they are usually described in Ancient accounts of battles (another reason not to deploy them with the main line, which happened in some battles).

This is straight from Warhammer and it was a load of poo in that too.

I don't mind how elephants play, but they are probably a bit too expensive. I think Nik's post of making them 20AP instead of 25AP would be jsut about right.

I also think allowing a few armies Superior elephants would have been nice - would have added some romanticism/interest to some otherwise dull looking armies (mostly I am thinking the SE Asians, Burmese, Southern India, etc would have had something unique to them with Super Elephants). I don't think they would have been particularly unbalancing.

Some elephants, such as Sassanids would have had a large number of bow-armed crew or escorts. Why not let them shoot? They would have had at least as many bowmen as bow armed chariots.

Some elephants, such as Kushan would have had armour. On the Khurasan website it says:
"Note the elephant has the barding depicted in Indian art of the period, with large rectangular plates of metal, and the correct howdah with crenellated top."
http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/km1111.jpg
Why not give them some advantage in shooting and melee? Elephant armour would have ben expensive to produce so must have been considered effective.

dave_r wrote:
This is straight from Warhammer and it was a load of poo in that too.

Very consistent as an argument, Dave.

I didn't know they already had that in Warhammer. The point is that elephants in FoG do not behave as described in the sources. In them elephants are described as disordering enemy or their own ranks in many accounts of battles. You have to be very clumsy in FoG so that happens to you. Maybe it is just that they are getting things right in Warhammer,

Strategos69 wrote: Maybe it is just that they are getting things right in Warhammer,

No thats it I'm m,ad

I think that tougher but more "inestable" elephants could be a nice ademdum for historical battles but i can see tounament players not liking this idea at all because it introduces complexity and randomness in the games.

MatthewP wrote:If elephants are an effective and valued troop type, why do you never see them?. Because nobody wants a bloody great hole appearing in their battle line in the middle of combat. No other troop type is as brittle or as expensive as elephants. Unles they are toughened up they will dissapear from the wargaming table and that will be a loss to the hobby.

You haven't fielded Battlewagons then. Lose a BG of them and you've got a gap an army can drive through.

MatthewP wrote:If elephants are an effective and valued troop type, why do you never see them?. Because nobody wants a bloody great hole appearing in their battle line in the middle of combat. No other troop type is as brittle or as expensive as elephants. Unles they are toughened up they will dissapear from the wargaming table and that will be a loss to the hobby.

I use very often one or two BG of El in my tournaments armies and they perform very well (I had one at the ITC 2010).


A small decrease of the cost can be a good thing but it is not mandatory for me.

Regards
Lionel

One of the Plymouth players has rashly entered his Khmer army into our local competition.

Although there are lots of Elephants, the army has so far been a disaster, since the Elephant units have proven too brittle.

Breaking after one failed death roll often leaves him with three or four broken units at the end of the first round of combat, and on at least one occasion, two units broke at the end of the first round of shooting in the game, having taken three hits each.

He thinks they are overpriced for their effect, but believes units of three would help - but units of four would be too much.

johno wrote:Although there are lots of Elephants, the army has so far been a disaster, since the Elephant units have proven too brittle.

Breaking after one failed death roll often leaves him with three or four broken units at the end of the first round of combat, and on at least one occasion, two units broke at the end of the first round of shooting in the game, having taken three hits each.

He thinks they are overpriced for their effect, but believes units of three would help - but units of four would be too much.

If they took three hits and lost a base I suggest that he looks at the rules as it is impossible for an elephant BG to lose a base from 3 shooting hits.

Strategos69 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
This is straight from Warhammer and it was a load of poo in that too.

Very consistent as an argument, Dave.

I didn't know they already had that in Warhammer. The point is that elephants in FoG do not behave as described in the sources. In them elephants are described as disordering enemy or their own ranks in many accounts of battles. You have to be very clumsy in FoG so that happens to you. Maybe it is just that they are getting things right in Warhammer,

The issue is that in Warhammer despite what the rules might claim about each model representing more than one thing the rules play very much as if each model is infact just one thing. In FoG a BG of elephants represents perhaps 20 animals, certainly a lot more than 2. If one stampedes in the wrong direction yes it would have a detrimental effect but the whole bunch are not all going to head the same way.

IIRC in Warhammer you can pay extra points so that the mahout can have a chisel to give you an suto destruct button on the elephant. This is not really relevant in a game at the level of FoG.

hammy wrote: If they took three hits and lost a base I suggest that he looks at the rules as it is impossible for an elephant BG to lose a base from 3 shooting hits.

Yeah, I've just realised having re-read my post

I didn't actually see the game, but I remember he said that the total number of hits weren't excessive, and the target death rolls shouldn't have been difficult (implying 2+ or similar), but having failed them, that was the end of those BGs.

He has found that brittleness very difficult to cope with - you can't afford to assume the elephants are expendable, since they are so expensive, but they often feel that way!

Reducing the cost of El is the way to go. Not sure if taking them from 25 points per base to 20 would not be too far but it is a start.

One other way to improve would be to have the disruption distance increase by 1 MU or base width for armies without any El deployed on the table - the old we are used to them you are not trick. This then makes the effect a little wider.

johno wrote:

hammy wrote: If they took three hits and lost a base I suggest that he looks at the rules as it is impossible for an elephant BG to lose a base from 3 shooting hits.

Yeah, I've just realised having re-read my post

I didn't actually see the game, but I remember he said that the total number of hits weren't excessive, and the target death rolls shouldn't have been difficult (implying 2+ or similar), but having failed them, that was the end of those BGs.

He has found that brittleness very difficult to cope with - you can't afford to assume the elephants are expendable, since they are so expensive, but they often feel that way!

If he put his elephants in situations where his opponent could even get 4 shooting dice against them he was probably doing something pretty wrong. Most missile weapons are at evens against elephants so for them to die from shooting with 4 dice you are looking at a 1 in 16 chance of 4 hits and then a 1 in 6 chance of them losing a base. That is a 1% chance (near enough) and then only if you put the elephants in a bad situation to start with.

Yes they are brittle but if you bear the brittleness in mind they can deliver the goods. The real point with elephants is that you MUST support their flanks.

Strategos69 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
This is straight from Warhammer and it was a load of poo in that too.

Very consistent as an argument, Dave.

I didn't know they already had that in Warhammer. The point is that elephants in FoG do not behave as described in the sources. In them elephants are described as disordering enemy or their own ranks in many accounts of battles. You have to be very clumsy in FoG so that happens to you. Maybe it is just that they are getting things right in Warhammer,

Has it ever occurred to you that frequently ancient generals were very clumsy? I played a game a few weeks ago and some Elephants charged my Cavalry, I beat them 2-0 and they threw a one and broke. The unit behind went disordered as they watched it, then fragged as the elephants routed through them. They were there to provide rear support. It possibly was clumsy, but it was also unlucky.

Which sources describe elephants breaking from combat and then disordering enemy and friends as they rout?

The Warhammer method was rubbish, because if you threw three ones (or sixes) in a row then they turned around and then smashed through the enemy that just routed them. I have read that happen in a lot of sources.....

hammy wrote:
The issue is that in Warhammer despite what the rules might claim about each model representing more than one thing the rules play very much as if each model is infact just one thing. In FoG a BG of elephants represents perhaps 20 animals, certainly a lot more than 2. If one stampedes in the wrong direction yes it would have a detrimental effect but the whole bunch are not all going to head the same way.

I know what you mean (and I am not here precisely to defend Warhammer: I even did not know they had that random rule) and I really don't care actually if they went to the right or left. This is not what I want to represent. But I think that somehow it should be modeled that in Ancient accounts of battles it is commonly said: the elephants went crazy, and ran into their own troops disordering them. This simply does not happen in FoG because they die before or it is stupid to deploy them all alone in the front. If there is a risk they can sweep your line, then they will be used in various ways. And it can be a funny rule: make the elephants (and scyted charriots too, maybe) a little bit more powerful but also more random.

Why elephants were sent as a front line in some battles and it has no sense to do it in the rules? I took FoG level of abstraction as depicting the game as what could be described by a player in a few sentences. I sent a flank attack, my elephants in front of my infantry line, my elephants turned back, disordered my ranks and I was sliced to pieces by the enemies infantry. That never happens in FoG, but it is pretty much what you can read in Ancient accounts of battles when elephants were present.

dave_r wrote: Which sources describe elephants breaking from combat and then disordering enemy and friends as they rout?

"When all was ready for battle on both sides, the Numidian horse having been skirmishing with each other for some time, Hannibal ordered the drivers of the elephants to charge the enemy. 2 When the trumpets and bugles sounded shrilly from all sides, some of the animals took fright and at once turned tail and rushed back upon the Numidians who had come up to help the Carthaginians, and Massanissa attacking simultaneously, the Carthaginian left wing was soon left exposed. p4933 The rest of the elephants falling on the Roman velites in the space between the two main armies, 4 both inflicted and suffered much loss, until finally in their terror some of them escaped through the gaps in the Roman line with Scipio's foresight had provided, so that the Romans suffered no injury, while others fled towards the right and, received by the cavalry with showers of javelins, at length escaped out of the field. 5 It was at this moment that Laelius, availing himself of the disturbance created by the elephants, charged the Carthaginian cavalry."
(Polybius, Hist. XV)

Strategos69 wrote:

hammy wrote:
The issue is that in Warhammer despite what the rules might claim about each model representing more than one thing the rules play very much as if each model is infact just one thing. In FoG a BG of elephants represents perhaps 20 animals, certainly a lot more than 2. If one stampedes in the wrong direction yes it would have a detrimental effect but the whole bunch are not all going to head the same way.

I know what you mean (and I am not here precisely to defend Warhammer: I even did not know they had that random rule) and I really don't care actually if they went to the right or left. This is not what I want to represent. But I think that somehow it should be modeled that in Ancient accounts of battles it is commonly said: the elephants went crazy, and ran into their own troops disordering them. This simply does not happen in FoG because they die before or it is stupid to deploy them all alone in the front. If there is a risk they can sweep your line, then they will be used in various ways. And it can be a funny rule: make the elephants (and scyted charriots too, maybe) a little bit more powerful but also more random.

Why elephants were sent as a front line in some battles and it has no sense to do it in the rules? I took FoG level of abstraction as depicting the game as what could be described by a player in a few sentences. I sent a flank attack, my elephants in front of my infantry line, my elephants turned back, disordered my ranks and I was sliced to pieces by the enemies infantry. That never happens in FoG, but it is pretty much what you can read in Ancient accounts of battles when elephants were present.

Actually it does happen in FoG. I had to umpire the unfortunate incident where Mr Ruddock managed to breag a BG of elephants with his lancers and then they routed through the supporting foot