Slitherine

Ok, I can see your point now: I was lost in translation.

I was asking because then I can see a type 4: elephants used as scythed charriots. It depends on how you read the sources. It seems that the way in which Carthaginians used their elephants in most battles (not only Zama) corresponds more to this kind. They formed them in a line and throw them to the enemy to disorder their ranks. This would not be exactly the western type as sometimes they were deployed within the line, and that requieres better training.

EDIT: ok, the lighter option seems right to me too.

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.

I'd have thought that they are trying to do job number 2: get stuck in and throw the enemy foot into confusion. Their lack of training made them rubbish at it. So perhaps a poor version of type 2.

I'm not sure the "mark 1" elephant type is needed. In that elephants were generally difficult for cavalry to approach closely. So the spooking the horses effect (e.g. Phil's CMT to advance within 6MU) should apply to all elephants. To represent the blocking effect you could then space out BGs of elephants with BGs of light foot nearby.

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?

Ahhh! Special rules for individual lists! Noooooooooo.

On the other hand, the general idea is pretty interesting.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

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?

Ahhh! Special rules for individual lists! Noooooooooo.

On the other hand, the general idea is pretty interesting.

Marc

would be no more than bills interpenetrating longbows...

Lionelc62 wrote:

hammy wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:While bigger BGs of elephants gave issues (I understand) during trialling, the 2 base BGs do seem a little lightweight. A possible way to make them tougher could be to allow them to be the exception that can keep on fighting as a single base? That might increase the resilience of elephant lines to their historical extent? Plus you'd have more chance of routing elephants bursting through friends as they won't dissappear in the JAP.

Allowing a single base to continue to function would be possible but is a fairly major rules shift.

Having played against an army with two BGs of 4 elephants each with their own personal commander I can safely say that BGs of 4 elephants are way too good.

Overall I am fairly happy with elephants as they are. Classical Indian is definitely on my list of armies to use some more.

Elephants are also ok for me. They don't need a fix or only a small increase of their disordering effect.
They are quite good if use well.

Lionel

I find elephants better than average. They certainly give my seleucid army a boost and I prefer to have them than not. They are one of the few BGs that it is worthwhile giving rear support to as you can be sure they are unlikely to burst through your supporters. You just have to remember they can vanish quickly so dont assume they can form part of your battle line.

I use mine in combination with cataphracts and xystoporoi for a multi angled mounted attack on a wing with the elephants on the inside so they can also suport the phalanx if need be. handy troops

I am not so sure about true elephant armies as I havent tried them before though.

I think that like most things in FOG it maybe needs a little tweek rather than root-and-branch reform. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I sort of like the brittleness as it feels quite historical, but I'm not sure that the balance is right in the elephants vs cavalry fight in particular - superior cavalry can do pretty well against elephants in FOG, but facing off cavalry seems to have been their use of choice by Hellenistic generals?

Given that (at least in Hellenistic battles) the main purpose of the elephants seems to have been to block/ disorder/ disrupt, is there an argument for treating the elephants as expendables (so no CT for troops seeing them break and don't count towards army break point) and/or increasing the disorder that they cause? Maybe they should cause severe disorder to mounted and disorder foot?

Another idea might be to "reduce" the grading of troops fighting them by one level - superior fight as average etc? This might better simulate the fear that elephants are going to cause in all troops they contact. No matter how good your training, if an elephant is charging towards you, trumpeting etc you're going to soil your armour!

Just some thoughts

Marc

WE have them on a list to up a bit. A POA shift miay be too much. Two options might be better:

3 dice at impact (this encourage 2 to fight side by side [but with POAs adjusted a bit to keep it balanced]
Serious disordering of mounted [but I don't like this effect of friendly cav]

On PA rebalance might exclude current + vs any foot with LSp, Sp, Pk at contact.... they would still have 6 dice to 4.

Si

Oh no!

Here comes the elephant brigade smashing everything in front
How will the game simulate the several "elephant contermeasures" that some armies used to make them completelly innefective ?

VMadeira wrote:Oh no!

Here comes the elephant brigade smashing everything in front
How will the game simulate the several "elephant contermeasures" that some armies used to make them completelly innefective ?

You mean like Pikes, bows, firearms, javelins, manuver?

You mean like Pikes, bows, firearms, javelins, manuver?

Basically yes, specially concerned about maneuver, in the way that restricting drilled infantry maneuver (as it has been spoken of in the forum) will not help, but also, maneuvres like those the romans learned to do, opening ranks and let elephants pass through their lines and then harass them with missiles, they did this in Zama, I think.

But there were other sucessuful stratagems, like the stratagem of loosing pigs with their tails on fire, whose screams scared the elephants. Even other loud noises could scare the beasts.

Elephants were very powerful weapons,yes, but only until their opponents found good countermeasures to them.

You mean like Pikes, bows, firearms, javelins, manuver?

I forgot to mention that if the elephants form in a single file and are in the middle of a battle line, they will be almost immune to shooting, even with the positive POA for most missile weapons.

3 dice at impact (this encourage 2 to fight side by side [but with POAs adjusted a bit to keep it balanced]
Serious disordering of mounted [but I don't like this effect of friendly cav]

On PA rebalance might exclude current + vs any foot with LSp, Sp, Pk at contact.... they would still have 6 dice to 4.

And with that, you really put the balance on the Pike + Elephant against roman legion (even if with elephant also, as the elephant will affect more negativelly the romans).

Remember that while the pilum is accounted for in the impact phase, in reality they would throw it to the enemy a few yards away (20-40 ? don't have the data on this).

Don't worry we have no intention of allowing Elephants or anything else to become super troops.

And I doubt much will want to form single file in vs 2.0. We are planning to restrict columns in the "combat area" somehow (several options uinder consideration) so it will be better to be 2 wide/1deep with 2 elephants. We will of course count anything in single file as a fighting formation (4 pikes, 2 spear, 2 Cv) as "not a column".

S

Currently elephants count casualties as first rank only. Single file for elephants gains no benefit. No problem with this rule.

3 dice at impact is a nice idea. No need to mess with the factors. Probably 3 dice all the time would be better. They are still very vulnerable to a single reverse in combat or failing CMT's to charge. Elephants, being average, don't even scare superior knights much. It would be nice to see elephants on the table more. The armies that can have more than a couple are not otherwise full of super troops so there is little danger of Indians suddenly becoming the dominant army.

VMadeira wrote:

3 dice at impact (this encourage 2 to fight side by side [but with POAs adjusted a bit to keep it balanced]
Serious disordering of mounted [but I don't like this effect of friendly cav]

On PA rebalance might exclude current + vs any foot with LSp, Sp, Pk at contact.... they would still have 6 dice to 4.

And with that, you really put the balance on the Pike + Elephant against roman legion (even if with elephant also, as the elephant will affect more negativelly the romans).

Remember that while the pilum is accounted for in the impact phase, in reality they would throw it to the enemy a few yards away (20-40 ? don't have the data on this).

I had thought that in the barbarian foot thread (where it was proposed that losing to barb impact foot would give a -2 on CT) you had asked whether elephants should get it as well. So on one thread you want elephants improved but in this thread you don't? Or are you just opposing all changes?

I had thought that in the barbarian foot thread (where it was proposed that losing to barb impact foot would give a -2 on CT) you had asked whether elephants should get it as well. So on one thread you want elephants improved but in this thread you don't? Or are you just opposing all changes?

My opinion is if one get it, then all should get it (which means knights and scythed chariots should also cause -2 on CMT at impact) their charge is no less fierce than that of the barbarian foot.

Besides, my comments where on the change to 3 dice per base at impact with a POA's change to reduce the effect on Pikes, spears and light spears, but not to impact foot. My concern here was the balance of pike armies vs legionnaires (when there are elephants involved).

Or are you just opposing all changes?

Ah, ah, ah certainly not.

Many of the changes proposed are needed and have my support, I just don't make a post in every thread, as i don't feel i have anything to add to what was said.

shall wrote:Don't worry we have no intention of allowing Elephants or anything else to become super troops.

And I doubt much will want to form single file in vs 2.0. We are planning to restrict columns in the "combat area" somehow (several options uinder consideration) so it will be better to be 2 wide/1deep with 2 elephants. We will of course count anything in single file as a fighting formation (4 pikes, 2 spear, 2 Cv) as "not a column".

S

It seems nice and necessary. I also think that the 3 dice can improve them in the way needed, but I wonder if you are planning to do something with elephants that behaved differently (there is a post of Phil about that) and different qualities of elephants. It is not a big issue but it seems to me that in FoG we miss the random character of elephants and they are rarely a big damage to their own troops (despite what we read on the sources).

Elephants pose a risk to their own troops in FoG because of their brittleness. When a BG has friendly elephants on its flank and these elephants fail a death roll the effect is quite significant. Whilst the elephants may be unlikely to rout through their friends, the CT, the gap in the line and the subsequent enemy overlaps are a major problem for elephant armies.

rogerg wrote:Elephants pose a risk to their own troops in FoG because of their brittleness. When a BG has friendly elephants on its flank and these elephants fail a death roll the effect is quite significant. Whilst the elephants may be unlikely to rout through their friends, the CT, the gap in the line and the subsequent enemy overlaps are a major problem for elephant armies.

I think you are right in what you say, but I am wondering if that game effects really correspond to what we read in the sources and I quoted some posts ago. Elephants are described bursting throug enemy or their own ranks. Whereas the first can happen, it is not the case for the latter. If elephants fail a death roll or a CT and get broken, they should suffer a random flight, which should include going back, to the right or left.
For example, roll two dice and sum them:
2 Elephants flee to their left
3-4-Elephants flee in a 45 degrees angle to the left
6-9 Elephants flee straight back
10-11 Elephants flee n a 45 degrees angle to the right
12 Elephants flee to their right

Elephants should keep fleeing in a straight line in the next bounds and if you want to add some more randomness new dice can be cast (except that in that case they would not flee back but keep going straight). I think that is a simple but interesting proposal that can go in the elephants special rules.