Slitherine

Nick it seems to me a good idea. Adding scorts and creating a mixed battle group of LF and elephants (2+2) could work. Elephants would not break that easily and they could cover a bigger front. That's also something I thought it was missing in Hellenistic elephants in FoG lists. I don't think that would be the case for Roman and Carthaginian elephants, though.

Well I wasn't suggesting that at all, and think it would not get the right results for nellies in Hellenistic armies.

nikgaukroger wrote:Well I wasn't suggesting that at all, and think it would not get the right results for nellies in Hellenistic armies.

Why?

Basically you were saying that they acted as "battlegroups". I can't see any other way of making something act as a battlegroup without being one that does not imply a major switch into the rules.

ethan wrote:not sure this is a good idea...

but what if EL could charge through LF (simulating foot escorts)? perhaps on a list be list basis?

I really don't see that helping much but then I think elephants are OK as they stand and that the biggest problem is finiding an army that can have more than 12 elephants

nikgaukroger wrote:

waldo wrote: I would be interested to read the sources for cavalry defeating elephants in combat.

Walter

Try the Tabakat-i-Nasiri.

I wonder if you could throw me a bigger bone as I don't have that particular work; perhaps direct me to some examples. Are there any Hellenistic examples of cavalry defeating elephants?

I will go out on a limb and say that some highly trained Indian tent-peggers/elephant-toenail-stabbers does not necessarily mean other cavalry should be able to beat elephants in a straight up fight.

Walter

Strategos69 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Well I wasn't suggesting that at all, and think it would not get the right results for nellies in Hellenistic armies.

Why?

Thought it would be obvious - because I think, as I've said before, that the current rules get the flaky nature of nellies about right, if you make them 4 bases you lose that. Allowing LF support means they are still vulnerable to the death roll, but more able to pass CTs which may end up an suitable representation.

Basically you were saying that they acted as "battlegroups". I can't see any other way of making something act as a battlegroup without being one that does not imply a major switch into the rules.

I don't think allowing nellies to get support from LF is in any way a more major change than allowing a mixed BG of nellies and LF, possibly less.

OMG, I find myself having to agree with Nik, AGAIN!

i agree with the fact that the elephants are
too fragile or .....too expensive

the real reason i think is that the conceptor hate the classical indian !
unprotected mf bow drilled
(early english longbowmen are not)

only 3 generals (how many list like that ?)

elephants who acts like a candle in the wind

6 lf only

mountain indian dont have any elephants
ect...


i keep my army in box waiting for a change in the rule or a change of rule

nikgaukroger wrote:I don't think allowing nellies to get support from LF is in any way a more major change than allowing a mixed BG of nellies and LF, possibly less.

Giving elephants LF support will make very little difference to the classical indians. They don't get none!

They get 1 BG.

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:I don't think allowing nellies to get support from LF is in any way a more major change than allowing a mixed BG of nellies and LF, possibly less.

Giving elephants LF support will make very little difference to the classical indians. They don't get none!

They get 1 BG.

As I previously mentioned, Indians, etc. appear to have actually formed their nellies up differently - as combined "units" of nellies, cavalry and infantry building from a "squad" level upwards.

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:I don't think allowing nellies to get support from LF is in any way a more major change than allowing a mixed BG of nellies and LF, possibly less.

Giving elephants LF support will make very little difference to the classical indians. They don't get none!

They get 1 BG.

As I previously mentioned, Indians, etc. appear to have actually formed their nellies up differently - as combined "units" of nellies, cavalry and infantry building from a "squad" level upwards.

But you don't want to model that so have given the armies that most rely on elephants nothing..

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Giving elephants LF support will make very little difference to the classical indians. They don't get none!

They get 1 BG.

As I previously mentioned, Indians, etc. appear to have actually formed their nellies up differently - as combined "units" of nellies, cavalry and infantry building from a "squad" level upwards.

But you don't want to model that so have given the armies that most rely on elephants nothing..

May I draw your attention to something I wrote yesterday?

" I wonder if there is a nice elegant solution to representing this formation - we didn't really have a chance to investigate it when doing the FoG:AM lists."

Do keep up, old boy

nikgaukroger wrote:May I draw your attention to something I wrote yesterday?

" I wonder if there is a nice elegant solution to representing this formation - we didn't really have a chance to investigate it when doing the FoG:AM lists."

Do keep up, old boy

Wondering is not very productive, unless you are a dyslexic nomad. You have obviously not investigated it yet. So you have still given them nothing.

nikgaukroger wrote:
May I draw your attention to something I wrote yesterday?

" I wonder if there is a nice elegant solution to representing this formation - we didn't really have a chance to investigate it when doing the FoG:AM lists."

Do keep up, old boy

Yes, and basically you have said that and the opposite. If the interaction is about right now, no change is needed to represent that. Therefore, there is no elegant solution needed as those would be already comprised in the elephants' BG. The problem I see there is that we have elephants that behaved differently and they got a chance to fight each other in a few battles. And some of them proved to be better than the others, but in FoG it is not covered.

If we look at how elephants were used (at least in Western Ancient warfare: I don't know about India), they are usually (not always) deployed in one line in fornt of the infantry line. In fewer cases they are deployed within the gapes of the phalanx. Now in FoG they are always deployed within the main line. It is not only about saving the elephant to be used more (25 AP might be too much), but making rules that allow both deployments (or stating that some elephants should be reclassified as another troop type).

So we now know that there are at least 3 types of Elephants that need top be represented.
1. Light Elephants. Strung out thinly to deter cavalry
2. Western Type battle elephants possibly with some escorts
3. Indian battle Elephants with other supporting troops built up around them to make a Battle group.

Elephants need some special rules.

philqw78 wrote:So we now know that there are at least 3 types of Elephants that need top be represented.
1. Light Elephants. Strung out thinly to deter cavalry
2. Western Type battle elephants possibly with some escorts
3. Indian battle Elephants with other supporting troops built up around them to make a Battle group.

Elephants need some special rules.

I agree with you.

Would elephants used by Hannibal in Zama correspond to number 1 type? Elephants deployed in one line and thrown into the enemy ranks to cause confusion.

Strategos69 wrote: Yes, and basically you have said that and the opposite. If the interaction is about right now, no change is needed to represent that. Therefore, there is no elegant solution needed as those would be already comprised in the elephants' BG.

I'm happy that the interaction is correct for those nellies represented by BGs wholly of nellies, however, I am thinking about those that are not best so represented. I've not been clear about that differential I'm afraid. (Partly because this Indian issue has only just crossed my mind )

philqw78 wrote:So we now know that there are at least 3 types of Elephants that need top be represented.
1. Light Elephants. Strung out thinly to deter cavalry

You are, I assume, thinking of Ipsos. Are there other examples of this usage?

2. Western Type battle elephants possibly with some escorts
3. Indian battle Elephants with other supporting troops built up around them to make a Battle group.

Elephants need some special rules.

I think 3 needs to be looked at as to how the BGs are represented, whether they would need special rules would depend on that solution. I think the Japanese lists may indicate a way forward.

Strategos69 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:So we now know that there are at least 3 types of Elephants that need top be represented.
1. Light Elephants. Strung out thinly to deter cavalry
2. Western Type battle elephants possibly with some escorts
3. Indian battle Elephants with other supporting troops built up around them to make a Battle group.

Elephants need some special rules.

I agree with you.

Would elephants used by Hannibal in Zama correspond to number 1 type? Elephants deployed in one line and thrown into the enemy ranks to cause confusion.

No.

Case 1, which I assume is Ipsos, is a line of 480 nellies strung out to block the return to the battle of enemy cavalry - a sort of terrain feature really

Zama was a line of 80 nellies placed in front of the army and thrown headlong at the enemy somewhat as a one shot weapon.

Strategos69 wrote:Would elephants used by Hannibal in Zama correspond to number 1 type (light)? Elephants deployed in one line and thrown into the enemy ranks to cause confusion.

That would depend on the solutions found, but IMO yes, they weren't particularly battle elephants so a lighter less effective type would be represent them better.

Another thing for elephants.

Enemy non-nelly mounted should CMT to move closer to elephants in 6MU. That would keep them at a 25pt value.