Elephants

[tamerlan]

Coming back to elephant deployment I completely agree that they had an anti-everything role, the point is, in my view, that if they do have an anti-cavalry role as well not permiting deployment in the outer 12 inches does not quite fit; in any case, and being the only one raising the subject, surely I am wrong, which is a pity, as I often play a moghul army and that would be a most welcome change ....

[marshalney2000]

Don, I suppose my question is - did they actually hide their elephants in real life? Dare I suggest they did not as they actually say them as a battle winning tactic.
John

[timmy1]

In the examples I have read about since this thread started, their use against mounted in India in the 16th Century is against armies that deployed mounted in the centre. They countered the elephants by putting artillery behind wagons or similar fortifications and shot the elephants or they outflanked the elephants by moving the mounted round them.

We have already decided to not allow artillery to shoot in the flank zones (or something that has the similar effect), so I don't see a case for El deployed in the flank zone. I also don't see a case for hiding them in the accounts - in Siamese/Burmese warfare it is more like the Iliad but with elephants rather than chariots.

The 2 base BGs retain the glass hammer effect. If they were real battlefield winners the Mughals would have used them outside India and the Yuan/Ming would have been unable to make their conquests with mounted armies.

2 seems right to me. I defer to Don's greater talent and expertise as to cost.

[ravenflight]

We have already decided to not allow artillery to shoot in the flank zones (or something that has the similar effect),

We have?

[kevinj]

We haven't decided anything for certain yet, but it is something that has been tried and seems to work as desired.

[hazelbark]

The 2 base BGs retain the glass hammer effect. If they were real battlefield winners the Mughals would have used them outside India and the Yuan/Ming would have been unable to make their conquests with mounted armies.

I think that supposes a control over the army composition comparable to gamers. As we know taking Elephants on long journeys is not easy.

[madaxeman]

The 2 base BGs retain the glass hammer effect. If they were real battlefield winners the Mughals would have used them outside India and the Yuan/Ming would have been unable to make their conquests with mounted armies.

I think that supposes a control over the army composition comparable to gamers. As we know taking Elephants on long journeys is not easy.

Maybe not for some of you...

[timmy1]

Out of period therefore that evidence is inadmissible (even if very funny...)

[ravenflight]

pretty sad. After this post I decided to do a bit of a look at 'Hannibal' on Google. 4 pages of Hannibal TV series CRAP before history gets a look in.

[urbanbunny1]

maybe allowing them to deploy out to the flanks would be go. I looked to take elephants to Warfare this year and when I had a good look at the rules I saw that elephants had to deploy with the foot.

So, knowing that I would be going into a musket/artillery fest, my elephants stayed at home.

they are too fragile and expensive you have to really protect them and as Donm2 says, most of their supporting cav is useless.

[donm2]

I would go with 20 points each, deployment as cavalry and hopefully the supporting cavalry will get cheaper / better if their cost is reduced.

Don

[quackstheking]

I would go with 20 points each, deployment as cavalry and hopefully the supporting cavalry will get cheaper / better if their cost is reduced.

Don

Divisional moves?

Otherwise they go out with the cavalry and then get left behind!

Don

[ravenflight]

I would go with 20 points each, deployment as cavalry and hopefully the supporting cavalry will get cheaper / better if their cost is reduced.

Don

Divisional moves?

Otherwise they go out with the cavalry and then get left behind!

Don

The division CAN slow down. They don't HAVE to be left behind. The commander makes that decision.

I'm not saying that they necessarily shouldn't get to divisional move with the mounted, but there has to be justification for them having done that for it to be included.

[nikgaukroger]

I would go with 20 points each, deployment as cavalry and hopefully the supporting cavalry will get cheaper / better if their cost is reduced.

Don

Divisional moves?

Otherwise they go out with the cavalry and then get left behind!

Don

The division CAN slow down. They don't HAVE to be left behind. The commander makes that decision.

I'm not saying that they necessarily shouldn't get to divisional move with the mounted, but there has to be justification for them having done that for it to be included.

I'd be OK with nellies being able to deploy into the flank sectors. Looking back the restriction of nellies seems to have been an accident of them not being mounted and it not really being noticed until very late in the day, at which point although Richard and I had no strong views it was decided that in order to avoid an issues being created by a last minute edit it would be left as was. It wasn't helped that at one play test (at least) we deployed nellies in the flank sector thinking they were mounted

I'd not change divisional moves though.

[timmy1]

Allowing Nellies to deploy in the flank sector combined with artillery not being able to shoot into the flank sectors (I know that is not the proposed rule change but it is the effect) would mean that they would become rather like Camels as a good way of denying a flank area to emeny mounted, certainly on the defensive if not on the offense.

[quackstheking]

Playing Devil's advocate, could I understand the rationale for not allowing Elephants, Divisional moves with cavalry, with the assumption being that such moves would be limited to 2 and that movement would be at the elephant rate of 4" - thus giving a max Divisional move of 8"?

As I understand it, a Divisional move is a General taking the troops under his command forward in formation. Why therefore would a General in charge of a flank not have the supporting Elephants under his command? They would, by virtue of the Divisional move restrictions, have to be at least 1BW away from the cavalry so would not be disordering them, and most armies with nellies did some elephant familiarisation with the cavalry.

Of course you could deploy 2 Generals, one to move the Nellies and one to move the cavalry, so it can be done, but this does beg the question as to why the General commanding the cavalry couldn't get the nellies to move! In fact what we are likely to see is in the 1st move, the cav race forward 15" while the Nellies plod forward 4". Then in the two intervening JAPS the same general races back 12" to pick up the Nellies!

Just asking!

Don

[nikgaukroger]

Playing Devil's advocate, could I understand the rationale for not allowing Elephants, Divisional moves with cavalry, with the assumption being that such moves would be limited to 2 and that movement would be at the elephant rate of 4" - thus giving a max Divisional move of 8"?

Isn't that the current situation?

Mounted troops cannot be in a division with foot troops, but nellies are not foot troops.

May have missed something on a quick check though so may be making a fool of myself here (again)

[ravenflight]

Playing Devil's advocate, could I understand the rationale for not allowing Elephants, Divisional moves with cavalry, with the assumption being that such moves would be limited to 2 and that movement would be at the elephant rate of 4" - thus giving a max Divisional move of 8"?

As I understand it, a Divisional move is a General taking the troops under his command forward in formation. Why therefore would a General in charge of a flank not have the supporting Elephants under his command? They would, by virtue of the Divisional move restrictions, have to be at least 1BW away from the cavalry so would not be disordering them, and most armies with nellies did some elephant familiarisation with the cavalry.

Of course you could deploy 2 Generals, one to move the Nellies and one to move the cavalry, so it can be done, but this does beg the question as to why the General commanding the cavalry couldn't get the nellies to move! In fact what we are likely to see is in the 1st move, the cav race forward 15" while the Nellies plod forward 4". Then in the two intervening JAPS the same general races back 12" to pick up the Nellies!

Just asking!

Don

That doesn't necessarily ring true though. "A general in charge of the central sector with mixed mounted and foot" can't move his entire division.

Again, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, I'm just saying that just because they do put troops together doesn't necessarily mean they cooperate. Indeed, with the natural aversion of horses to elephants, I'd think you'd have a better chance justifying mixed foot and horse formations than horse and elephants.

[quackstheking]

Playing Devil's advocate, could I understand the rationale for not allowing Elephants, Divisional moves with cavalry, with the assumption being that such moves would be limited to 2 and that movement would be at the elephant rate of 4" - thus giving a max Divisional move of 8"?

Isn't that the current situation?

Mounted troops cannot be in a division with foot troops, but nellies are not foot troops.

May have missed something on a quick check though so may be making a fool of myself here (again)

Aha - having never had Elephants in the flank zone, there's never been a situation where I'd have put them in a Division. However on reading the rules again now, it seems Elephants can be in a Division with Cavalry or Foot!! Cavalry being restricted not to be in a Division only with Foot!

Well I never knew that (cos it never happened!).

Don

[nikgaukroger]

However on reading the rules again now, it seems Elephants can be in a Division with Cavalry or Foot!! Cavalry being restricted not to be in a Division only with Foot!

Its what I thought was the case, hence why I said I wouldn't change the divisional moves - nice to be right for once