Elephants

[ars_belli]

Given the level of command being represented in AoW, and the highly commendable goal of keeping the rules relatively clean and simple, it seems to me that this (African vs. Indian vs. war vs. riding elephants) is precisely the sort of detail best handled in the army lists, rather than in the rules themselves.

Just my two rupees' worth.

[nikgaukroger]

the definitive contemporary statement that Indian jumbos were better than African ones

Only against each other IIRC.

Indeed - so it'd just need a PoA for Indian ones againts African ones. Of course this is what you did have until you decided it wasn't needed

[rbodleyscott]

Given the level of command being represented, and the highly commendable goal of keeping the rules relatively clean and simple, it seems to me that this (African vs. Indian vs. war vs. riding elephants) is precisely the sort of detail best handled in the army lists, rather than in the rules themselves.

Just my two rupees' worth.

Ah, but our policy is not to have any list specific rules in the army list books, so that people competing in open tournaments are not forced to buy every single army list book just to know the applicable rules.

There is nothing to prevent players seeking an additional level of historical detail for historical battle re-enactions from making their own scenario specific rules - provided that both players agree.

For example, a friend and I re-fought the Battle of Trebia 218 BC (Romans vs Carthaginians under Hannibal). We decided that the scenario would start after the Romans had crossed the freezing Trebia, and that all their infantry would be on - POA throughout to represent the effects (in accordance with the contemporary accounts).

The battle went according to history. Despite their disadvantage, the Roman infantry cut their way through the Carthaginian centre, but were defeated on both wings and overall.

So, if you want to re-fight the Battles of Raphia or Magnesia, give the African elephants a - POA vs Indian ones if you like.

[rbodleyscott]

the definitive contemporary statement that Indian jumbos were better than African ones

Only against each other IIRC.

Indeed - so it'd just need a PoA for Indian ones againts African ones. Of course this is what you did have until you decided it wasn't needed

Indeed. But we are trying to keep the number of POAs to a minimum, and having one just for African elephants vs Indian elephants seemed a bit OTT - not to mention classicocentric.

One can always find good reasons to increase the complexity of wargames rules. Keeping them (relatively) simple while retaining the essentials of the simulation is the harder (but righteous) path.

It is also worth pointing out that the African elephants were outnumbered by the Indian elephants at Raphia, and heavily outnumbered (so hardly surprising they apparently weren't deployed) at Magnesia.

[ars_belli]

Ah, but our policy is not to have any list specific rules in the army list books, so that people competing in open tournaments are not forced to buy every single army list book just to know the applicable rules.

There is nothing to prevent players seeking an additional level of historical detail for historical battle re-enactions from making their own scenario specific rules - provided that both players agree.

That works, too!

[SMK-at-work]

However, the effect of being routed through by scythed chariots is likely to have been far more than psychological. You have only to read Appian's account of the successful scythed chariot charge at the Battle of the River Amnias in 88 BC to see that the effect of scythed chariots was far from purely psychological. (Although it was about the only account I could find in the sources of a successful scythed chariot charge).

Xenophon has an account of a small action including scythed chariots in Hellenica - 4.1.17:

On
one of these occasions the troops, who had grown reckless and scornful
of the enemy through long immunity from attack, whilst engaged in
collecting supplies were scattered over the flat country, when
Pharnabazus fell upon them with two scythe-chariots and about four
hundred horse. Seeing him thus advancing, the Hellenes ran together,
mustering possibly seven hundred men. The Persian did not hesitate,
but placing his chariots in front, supported by himself and the
cavalry, he gave the command to charge. The scythe-chariots charged
and scattered the compact mass, and speedily the cavalry had laid low
in the dust about a hundred men, while the rest retreated hastily,
under cover of Agesilaus and his hoplites, who were fortunately near.

Large numbers are also mentioned in the anabasis, in the original battle at 1.8.10, but they have no effect on the Greeks - what effect they have elsewhere is not mentioned:

But with the forward movement a certain portion of the line curved
onwards in advance, with wave-like sinuosity, and the portion left
behind quickened to a run; and simultaneously a thrilling cry burst
from all lips, like that in honour of the war-god--eleleu! eleleu! and
the running became general. Some say they clashed their shields and
spears, thereby causing terror to the horses[4]; and before they had
got within arrowshot the barbarians swerved and took to flight. And
now the Hellenes gave chase with might and main, checked only by
shouts to one another not to race, but to keep their ranks. The
enemy's chariots, reft of their charioteers, swept onwards, some
through the enemy themselves, others past the Hellenes. They, as they
saw them coming, opened a gap and let them pass. One fellow, like some
dumbfoundered mortal on a racecourse, was caught by the heels, but
even he, they said, received no hurt, nor indeed, with the single
exception of some one on the left wing who was said to have been
wounded by an arrow, did any Hellene in this battle suffer a single
hurt.

[pzroque]

Hello.

How is represented the shooting from the troops in the elephants? Will be diferences in the tipe of shooting made? Will a crew of bowman shoot more wide than a crew of javelins? And in a mixed (Bows and javelins) crew?

Tanks.

Pedro

[rbodleyscott]

How is represented the shooting from the troops in the elephants? Will be diferences in the tipe of shooting made? Will a crew of bowman shoot more wide than a crew of javelins? And in a mixed (Bows and javelins) crew?

Shooting by the relatively few men represented by the crew of the elephants represented by an elephant base is insufficient to be relevant to the distant shooting mechanisms. It can be assumed to be part of the overall close combat effect of the elephant base. We have chosen not to distinguish between different types of elephant crew as we do not consider that the differences would make a significant difference to the overall effect of the elephants at the scale of simulation we are dealing with.

[pzroque]

Shooting by the relatively few men represented by the crew of the elephants represented by an elephant base is insufficient to be relevant to the distant shooting mechanisms. It can be assumed to be part of the overall close combat effect of the elephant base. We have chosen not to distinguish between different types of elephant crew as we do not consider that the differences would make a significant difference to the overall effect of the elephants at the scale of simulation we are dealing with.

Thanks for the answer.

Regards.
Pedro

[vsolfronk]

Shooting by the relatively few men represented by the crew of the elephants represented by an elephant base is insufficient to be relevant to the distant shooting mechanisms. It can be assumed to be part of the overall close combat effect of the elephant base. We have chosen not to distinguish between different types of elephant crew as we do not consider that the differences would make a significant difference to the overall effect of the elephants at the scale of simulation we are dealing with.

And what about the Burmese bow-chainguns/bleacher seats, or the Khmer artillery elephant?
Both very silly but add flavor to the game.

[rbodleyscott]

Shooting by the relatively few men represented by the crew of the elephants represented by an elephant base is insufficient to be relevant to the distant shooting mechanisms. It can be assumed to be part of the overall close combat effect of the elephant base. We have chosen not to distinguish between different types of elephant crew as we do not consider that the differences would make a significant difference to the overall effect of the elephants at the scale of simulation we are dealing with.

And what about the Burmese bow-chainguns/bleacher seats, or the Khmer artillery elephant?
Both very silly but add flavor to the game.

Well the Khmer/Cham ones don't exist. They are IIRC derived from depictions of artillery being transported on baggage elephants.

[vsolfronk]

Well the Khmer/Cham ones don't exist. They are IIRC derived from depictions of artillery being transported on baggage elephants.

Awww...you are no fun!! Of course they must have existed if they were included in the Khmer army list!!

(Along with the Late Imperial Roman's Cataphract Sythe Chariot from 7th Ed.)....

[hazelbark]

How are Elephants depicted as Units. I am thinking of the dichotomy of some armies massing Elephants at one point(ie a unit) versus some armies that would string them along the front in Multiple packets if you will. (single element in DBM terms, not sure of AoW use.

So will we see mutliple multi-stand units of Elephants,e tc?

[shall]

Elephnat BGs come in two-base blocks. Some armies can have many. I have 5 in a Classical Indian design...although only 2 in the design going to Leeds later today.

You can spread them out or mass them together as you wish - I have seen both tried. Certainly 6 elephnants in a line is

1) very scary to be opposite
2) not too hard to avoid for half a game - its pretty difficult to avoid fighting in AOW

Use the time wisely.....

Si

[rbodleyscott]

2) not too hard to avoid for half a game

If you are a skilled player and take steps to outmaneouvre the enemy army. You won't avoid them by some cheesy skirmishing technique that in other rules would slow them to a crawl.

[shall]

shall wrote:
2) not too hard to avoid for half a game

If you are a skilled player and take steps to outmaneouvre the enemy army. You won't avoid them by some cheesy skirmishing technique that in other rules would slow them to a crawl.

Indeed ... hence my use of half a game....in AOW you are going to have to fight things to win one way or another,,,so better win elsewhere quickly before the big bad elepants get you in such a situation. There will be no dodging them with most armies.

Si

[riddcowler]

Will manipular Roman armies be allowed the historical tactic of opening their files to channel elephants through? I would assume the success (or otherwise ) of the tactic would need to be diced for.

Ridd

[nikgaukroger]

To be pedantic there was no such Roman tactic as opening the files to let the elephants through.

At Zama (wjich is where this misconception comes from) Scipio formed the maniples of his legiones up behind each other rather than in the usual chequer-board fashion and then the velites could use these more effectively. IIRC the lephants were defeated as much by noise as anything else but were fought as the velites took a mauling.

Hannibal's elephants at this battle are a bit of a funny case as well IMO which doesn't help.

[tadamson]

How is represented the shooting from the troops in the elephants? Will be diferences in the tipe of shooting made? Will a crew of bowman shoot more wide than a crew of javelins? And in a mixed (Bows and javelins) crew?

Shooting by the relatively few men represented by the crew of the elephants represented by an elephant base is insufficient to be relevant to the distant shooting mechanisms. It can be assumed to be part of the overall close combat effect of the elephant base. We have chosen not to distinguish between different types of elephant crew as we do not consider that the differences would make a significant difference to the overall effect of the elephants at the scale of simulation we are dealing with.

? How many elephants does each base represent ? Standard Indian elephants have 15-18 archers each (mostly in the attached infantry).

Just curious, their archery seems to be pretty close range in the sources.

[riddcowler]

To be pedantic there was no such Roman tactic as opening the files to let the elephants through.

At Zama (wjich is where this misconception comes from) Scipio formed the maniples of his legiones up behind each other rather than in the usual chequer-board fashion and then the velites could use these more effectively. IIRC the lephants were defeated as much by noise as anything else but were fought as the velites took a mauling.

Hannibal's elephants at this battle are a bit of a funny case as well IMO which doesn't help.

Agreed that the gaps, avenues or whatever else people have called the spaces between the maniples, were created by lining them up directly behind each other but as there is no representation (at least from replies received to other postings) of the manipular formation in AOW it won't make any difference. However, the Carthaginian elephants were decisively beaten by Scipio's tactic so as these rules apparently aim to recreate historical tactics should not a manipular Roman army (particularly if commanded by the great man himself) have some positive factor when facing enemy elephants to reflect their flexibility of response.

Ridd