Slitherine

I must admit I have not worked out the probabilities, but at a quick glance they looked about 50-50 taking in to account the impact shooting. In the 3 games I had (third one was against Kushan elephants) the Chinese infantry won all 3, Lucky dice . Although all games were played using the ipad version maybe that had something to do with it?
The discussion here however was not on how effective Burmese (eastern elephant) armies are or should be. But does having elephants in units of 4 (eastern armies) with a shooting capability make them overly powerful. The conclusion I came too, was yes they are more powerful but considering the other troop types in these types of armies this did not seem to unbalance the game. However one egg does not make a cake and more testing is needed. As mentioned above,I to feel an opportunity was missed to add some flavor to eastern elephant armies

I think the play test of V1, which was considerably longer, ruled out superior, shooting and 4 base elephant BG (also 12 base spear) as too powerful.
But V2 should maybe have tought about bringing them back

scuzi wrote:I must admit I have not worked out the probabilities, but at a quick glance they looked about 50-50 taking in to account the impact shooting. In the 3 games I had (third one was against Kushan elephants) the Chinese infantry won all 3, Lucky dice . Although all games were played using the ipad version maybe that had something to do with it?
The discussion here however was not on how effective Burmese (eastern elephant) armies are or should be. But does having elephants in units of 4 (eastern armies) with a shooting capability make them overly powerful. The conclusion I came too, was yes they are more powerful but considering the other troop types in these types of armies this did not seem to unbalance the game. However one egg does not make a cake and more testing is needed. As mentioned above,I to feel an opportunity was missed to add some flavor to eastern elephant armies

I suspect the combat power would not be too unbalancing - same factors after all. The bow would be a benefit. But the unbalancing would be that when the four bases of elepahant rout, that would be 2 AP lost not 4. You'd need to fix that somehow I suggest.

I don't think that is such a huge problem Graham as the army would have a lot less BG
Perhaps someone who knows the reasons for the V1 decisions should comment

philqw78 wrote:I don't think that is such a huge problem Graham as the army would have a lot less BG
Perhaps someone who knows the reasons for the V1 decisions should comment

Say the army had 12 elephant models and 8 other BGs. If the elephants are in 2 base BGs losing them all would be 12 ot of 14 AP to break the army and easy to pick up the remaining 2 AP when the elephants have gone. If the elephants are in 4 base BGs losing them all would be 6 AP lost out of 11, so another 5 AP to go to break the army. Sounds quite a diference to me.

Perhaps chariots should be in 2 base BG for the same reason then.

And what about the joy of artillery mounted on elephants like the Khmer had? How could we depict them, as Lt Arty moving 4" but not firing unless stationary?

Wait for people who think that shooty elephants in one rank should be able to evade too

philqw78 wrote:Perhaps chariots should be in 2 base BG for the same reason then.

^this. Practically speaking elephants are not terribly different form Superior Knights and they are not over-powering in 4s (or 6s!). I think this is one where the early play testing showed and issue that in retrospect just isn't that big a deal.

That said, I sort of like elephants in 2s with the +1 death roll. It makes them fragile and different. What IMO is really missing is elephants being somewhat differentiated. Making a few superior for some otherwise dull armies and a some (Burmese, perhaps Khmer/Cham) with Bow capability would liven the game up a bit. Especially given the overall weakness of some of these armies, giving them something unique to make them playable (like was down with the New World armies) would be a good thing.

I agree, there should be elephants from super to poor and some shooty ones. There should even be light elephants, strung out widely to deter horse.

Practically speaking elephants are not terribly different form Superior Knights and they are not over-powering in 4s (or 6s!). I think this is one where the early play testing showed and issue that in retrospect just isn't that big a deal.

That is the conclusion I have come to, for 25 points are they any more powerful than superior knights, well no! and a lot more Vulnerable (shooting, no re-rolls etc)

That said, I sort of like elephants in 2s with the +1 death roll. It makes them fragile and different. What IMO is really missing is elephants being somewhat differentiated. Making a few superior for some otherwise dull armies and a some (Burmese, perhaps Khmer/Cham) with Bow capability would liven the game up a bit. Especially given the overall weakness of some of these armies, giving them something unique to make them playable (like was down with the New World armies) would be a good thing.

For western elephants i think how they have it now is probably about right and why I have been careful to highlight eastern elephants.
Yes i totally agree elephants need to be revisited, may be 2.1

philqw78 wrote:I agree, there should be elephants from super to poor and some shooty ones. There should even be light elephants, strung out widely to deter horse.

It would have been interesting to have the Elephant attchment to a unit. disorders enmeny mounted and maybe one extra dice at impact and the CT modifiers. But alas too different.

Still I think they new rules work well.

grahambriggs wrote: Say the army had 12 elephant models and 8 other BGs. If the elephants are in 2 base BGs losing them all would be 12 ot of 14 AP to break the army and easy to pick up the remaining 2 AP when the elephants have gone. If the elephants are in 4 base BGs losing them all would be 6 AP lost out of 11, so another 5 AP to go to break the army. Sounds quite a diference to me.

Having elephants in 4 would certainly give you a lower AP value,but as long as you've got between 10 and 12 your probably ok. I had 15 AP in the games I experiment with but when one elephant unit went home the other soon followed, making 15 not as good as it sounds. It would mean you would have to take on some of the other very cheap troops, is this a bad thing?

Saw plenty of Elephants in use at the 25mm tournament in Plymouth. 2nd place Paul used a Sassanid army with at least 4 pachyderms. Alexandrian, Seleucid and Carthaginian armies also used Elephants. That said, they also seemed to die quite readily.

Elephants are vulnerable to shooting and being overlapped in combat. Avoid both of those, and they can still die to an unlucky die roll. That said, 3 dice at impact is still scary when you are fighting them.

grahambriggs wrote:Say the army had 12 elephant models and 8 other BGs. If the elephants are in 2 base BGs losing them all would be 12 ot of 14 AP to break the army and easy to pick up the remaining 2 AP when the elephants have gone. If the elephants are in 4 base BGs losing them all would be 6 AP lost out of 11, so another 5 AP to go to break the army. Sounds quite a diference to me.

A great benefit for a wargamer designing a competition army....but the current 2-base rule means that armies that rely on lots of elephants as their strike troops also need lots of support units to bulk out the army. Which might actually be better for making these armies a tad more historical..

madaxeman wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Say the army had 12 elephant models and 8 other BGs. If the elephants are in 2 base BGs losing them all would be 12 ot of 14 AP to break the army and easy to pick up the remaining 2 AP when the elephants have gone. If the elephants are in 4 base BGs losing them all would be 6 AP lost out of 11, so another 5 AP to go to break the army. Sounds quite a diference to me.

A great benefit for a wargamer designing a competition army....but the current 2-base rule means that armies that rely on lots of elephants as their strike troops also need lots of support units to bulk out the army. Which might actually be better for making these armies a tad more historical..

My Khmer plus Thai ally (7 BGs of elephants) came second out of 8 at the weekend (didn't play the winning Indians who got a big win in the last round to leap frog me). The other 6 armies were predominantly heavy foot. Crap MF to provide rear support and an IC made the army viable. On balance, very few elephant BGs blew up by failing death rolls and the IC generally meant friends didn't fail their consequential cohesion tests.

The army still needed careful playing.

Classical Indians with 12 elephants and no chariots won Badcon in a field of 38 teams, ending with a score of 93/100

Perhaps that answers the question, at least when the elephants are in the hands of expert players (Dave Handley and Steve Royle). They may be less valuable in the hands of less skilled players.

In other words, if foolproof troops are what you want, then elephants aren't for you.

(Real men use elephants.)

rbodleyscott wrote:...Real men use elephants...

Is this some sort of size or something like that?

Ok We

L'Empereur

My school boy French was never that good and is VERY rusty but does your sig really mean Wicked Beastly Emperor?

timmy1 wrote:L'Empereur

My school boy French was never that good and is VERY rusty but does your sig really mean Wicked Beastly Emperor?

Your french is not so bad and fareway!

it means stupid and wicked... and Our Empire is wide!

Classical Indians with 12 elephants and no chariots won Badcon in a field of 38 teams, ending with a score of 93/100

Perhaps that answers the question, at least when the elephants are in the hands of expert players (Dave Handley and Steve Royle). They may be less valuable in the hands of less skilled players.

Crikey that is good going from the perspective of one of the "less skilled players" who has won twice in about a dozen outings with CI's.

Any chance Dave and Steve could drop some pearls of wisdom to us lesser folk?