Slitherine

shall wrote:Elephnat BGs come in two-base blocks. Some armies can have many.

So if we used to run in DBM say 4 EL-i in the Later Carthagenian.

Would we have 2 BGs or 2 each in AoW, or would we have 4 BGs of 2 each?

I am partially trying to guess about keeping/selling/painting elephants.

Good luck at Leeds.

Just for you Dan I'll tell you that the Later Carthos can have up to 6 elephants and as the must be in 2 base BGs this means you can have up to 3 BGs.

nikgaukroger wrote:Just for you Dan I'll tell you that the Later Carthos can have up to 6 elephants and as the must be in 2 base BGs this means you can have up to 3 BGs.

! how many do real elephant armies get then ? eg Medieval Indian where 70% of the fighting troops could be elephants and crews.

More

nikgaukroger wrote:Just for you Dan I'll tell you that the Later Carthos can have up to 6 elephants and as the must be in 2 base BGs this means you can have up to 3 BGs.

Thank you very much Nik. So it looks like a safe rule of thumb that baring large list changes the same number of Elephants we had before will be used again. I suspect that the lone Elephant armies of other rules now need a 2nd elephant?

Correct - as you cannot have a single base BG the minimum will be a single 2 base BG.

nikgaukroger wrote:Correct - as you cannot have a single base BG the minimum will be a single 2 base BG.

So all the Hellenistic armies will loose their elephants as they have too few to make 2 bases on the scale needed to represent a 50,000 man army ??

So all the Hellenistic armies will loose their elephants as they have too few to make 2 bases on the scale needed to represent a 50,000 man army ??

First, remember to breathe.

I am fairly certain that AoW (like DBM does currently) will include 2x BGs of elephants in those armies to represent their significance even if that overstates the number of elephants in the army according to figure scale. So those armies with a single El in DBM are likely to have a single 2x BG in their AoW counterparts.

Spike

double post

rbodleyscott wrote:

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

Only against each other IIRC.

I belive this is incorrect, isnt it? The statement doesn not say "only" does it? The statment as ive read it just say that African elephants fled from Indian when pitted against them. Not that they in other circumstances where equal.

Forest elephants are smaller (male shoulder height is rearly above 2,5 m compared to up to 3.5+ m in asian elephants; weight is 2,000-4,000 compared to Asian Elephants 3,000–5,000 kilograms or more). Ther tusks are smaller aswell and their head are more narrow. The main point of this is mass and height - mass gives momentum, thicker protection (skin) and above all strenght/power, height gives protection. The conclusion is that asian (or indian) elephants compares to a heavy tank whereas an african forest elephant is more like a medium tank. They have different characteristics. This can be seen in their usage on the historical battlefield i belive - asian elephants could assault heavy infantery and be victoriuos wheras african forest elephants where used more to battle or deter cavalry.

Towers has been almost sneezed at, the justification beeing that towers where mostly used by nations with a low supply of elephants - which is a clearly void arguement since war elephants in indian armies had them.

Ok, here comes some theorycraft:
Imagine the combat effectiveness of a lone warrior astride a weaker, unprotected, 2,5 meter elephant and an armoured 3.5 meter elephant with 3 fighting crew on a "stable", protected, platform. Wich unit would preform best? would they perform, comparably, as unprotected cavalry and fully protected cavalry for instance? I belive so, of course there is a difference between an unarmoured african forest elephant and an armoured asian. Is it within the scope of this ruleset? Yes, since basically all other troops are so graded.

I know its to late but i find it a shame that elephants has been singled out (yes, along with SCh but thats no biggie for me) to be overly streamlined by regulating them to "average" for all armies. I see no justification for this, it would not slow game speed at all since its a common mechanism for instance (why not class african elephants as "poor"? and perhaps the most special ones as "superior"?). I would have been content if all other trooptypes where stereotypes aswell but they are not. I have yet to see a proper arguement justefying (from a unit behavioral and effect point of view) streamlining elephants above (basically) al other troops.

The arguement "we dont want to and need no other justification and its our game" is ok - it is your game after all . But it would be nice with another, more intellectual one.

Disclaimer: English is not my fist language, spelling and grammar might be lackning!

Fulgrim wrote:Imagine the combat effectiveness of a lone warrior astride a weaker, unprotected, 2,5 meter elephant and an armoured 3.5-4 meter elephant with 3 fighting crew on a "stable", protected, platform. Wich unit would preform best?

The combat efficiency of individuals in a crew-based weapons systems is high because they are a crew (i.e., 2 or more whose participation is needed for the weapons system to operate). Fascinatingly relevant to chariots and elephants just as in the present day. Grossman, "On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace." Very interesting and useful book.

To your point, though, the size of the elephant will certainly matter in a head-on confrontation among elephants, but from a functional perspective in the game elephants are elephants, and 2 bases of African elephants may have to represent more actual elephantsthan those of Indian elephants.

Mike

To reiterate I believe that the authors view is that the only time we can discern differences between elephant types from historical sources is when they fought each other - based on a comment in Polybios. In other cases they appear to have had the same effect on the enemy regardless of species, crew, etc. Therefore, in an abstract game such as FoG it was decided to keep it simple.

The dice will take care of such minor things.
It's up to you to invent a suitable reason for why you rolled only 1's and your opponent rolled 6's.
(I think that's what the historians did...)

If you are playing Indian elephants then you just have to roll better.

"I was using Indian elephants hence it was OK for me to use weighted dice"