Slitherine

Don't you think Elephants should be treated like "foot" rather than like "mounted" when it comes to bashing their way into a fortified camp? That is, they would sack the camp with a 5-6 like foot rather than with a 6 like other mounted. ( pg 88 )

Terry G.

Yes, although it is an exception to the rule and would have to wait until one of the authors sobered up enough to do FOG version 2.

It's an interesting question. I would say no, they should continue to be treated like mounted for breaking into a fortified camp. I am curious what the designers think

Dale

I think the mounted class represents the smaller actual number of elephants than foot and I don't believe they would be any better at breaching a fortified camp than any other mounted. Us 2 legged types are better suited for running up and over those earthworks than large slow pachyderms.

deadtorius wrote:I think the mounted class represents the smaller actual number of elephants than foot and I don't believe they would be any better at breaching a fortified camp than any other mounted. Us 2 legged types are better suited for running up and over those earthworks than large slow pachyderms.

My thoughts exactly

Dale

philqw78 wrote:wait until one of the authors sobered up enough to do FOG version 2.

They were sober the first time...or ever? Surely not all at the same time.

Should we hold a poll to guess which is the least sober?

Do they count as sober if they drink enough to stun a Rhino but still appear to be able to tap rules into a key board?

I've been on a trek through the jungle in Thailand. Sorry to dis-illusion you guys, but elephants can go pretty much anywhere a human can. We climbed steep trails on foot in very wet conditions, slipping and sliding, only to come across very large piles of shit. As the guide said "no problem for elephant, only farang".
While mounted on the elephant we passed through a bamboo grove we couldn't have walked through as the bamboo was too close. The Elephants just shoved them aside or ripped them from the ground with their trunks. This was while walking uphill. Struck me at the time as similar to trying to breech a palisade.
Having experienced it first hand I believe elephants should count brush, vineyards and plantations as good going, anything other than very large trees doesn't slow them at all.
The argument for them to be mounted for looting would be the small amount of damage (actual looting) they would do once they broke in not the difficulty in entering the camp.
Andre

Of course, using elephants to attack the enemy camp is probably a poor use of resources in any case.

rbodleyscott wrote:Of course, using elephants to attack the enemy camp is probably a poor use of resources in any case.

Probably, but when they won't turn and the camp is the only thing in range, oh well.....

What did the authors think about elephamts attacking camp? ... well just speaking for myself ..err....absolutely nothing at all.

I don't know if they are any better or worse vs a fortified camp frankly. Don't mind them being mtd, equally wouldn't object to giving them a +1. ...and never yet seen it happen. Not an issue that made the radar really.

Si

Well, it happened in one of our games recently. The elephants had pursued and remained in contact for a couple of turns, putting them deep in the enemy rear and closer to the camp than to any enemy troops, so on they went. They rolled the required "6" on the third try, looted the camp and won the game. It is just my own imagination of elephants crashing through gates or over less stout fortifications that led me to bring it up.

Terry G.

Hey fair enough ... my imagination roams sort of the same way ... although I think Elephants in the wild tend to avoid buildings and prefer trampling smaller items ... they are pretty smart.

My gut feel is they should be a 6 loke toher mounted rather than a 5 but willingto be convinced if anyone has any good historical example of elephnats crushing paslidaes/fences, ditches etc.

Si

shall wrote:Hey fair enough ... my imagination roams sort of the same way ... although I think Elephants in the wild tend to avoid buildings and prefer trampling smaller items ... they are pretty smart.

My gut feel is they should be a 6 loke toher mounted rather than a 5 but willingto be convinced if anyone has any good historical example of elephnats crushing paslidaes/fences, ditches etc.

Si

Try reading up on Indian warfare, should get you plenty of examples. Elephants should have 5+, they might not have the ability to climb up on ramshackle ladders etc but then they would not need to as they would barge trough the palisades/gates anyways. But then there is much that could/should be done about the Elephant rules in FOG.

Try reading up on Indian warfare, should get you plenty of examples. Elephants should have 5+, they might not have the ability to climb up on ramshackle ladders etc but then they would not need to as they would barge trough the palisades/gates anyways. But then there is much that could/should be done about the Elephant rules in FOG.

Any good examples of them actually doing it rather than us thinking they did it.

When I was in Sri Lanka the military guys there with Elephants said they would almost certainly not charge through things any more than a horse would. They are quite sensible and like squashing small things. The impression I got was that this "deadly tank" theory we all have may be a bit mistaken.

Clearly I could read up on all warfare covered by FOG but I would be in the library until retirement ... can anyone who has done so post a few bits that might trigger thinking?

Me very interested if anyone can.

Si

Tx Si

shall wrote:

Try reading up on Indian warfare, should get you plenty of examples. Elephants should have 5+, they might not have the ability to climb up on ramshackle ladders etc but then they would not need to as they would barge trough the palisades/gates anyways. But then there is much that could/should be done about the Elephant rules in FOG.

Any good examples of them actually doing it rather than us thinking they did it.

When I was in Sri Lanka the military guys there with Elephants said they would almost certainly not charge through things any more than a horse would. They are quite sensible and like squashing small things. The impression I got was that this "deadly tank" theory we all have may be a bit mistaken.

Clearly I could read up on all warfare covered by FOG but I would be in the library until retirement ... can anyone who has done so post a few bits that might trigger thinking?

Me very interested if anyone can.

Si

Tx Si

IIRC there is a story in Kipling's "Jungle Books" in which elephants towing artillery were too cautious even to approach within artillery range of enemy fortifications, necessitating the use of draught oxen to pull the guns into final position. Presumably this was based on observation of Indian Army practice. Out of our period, but would elephant psychology have changed much? (Elephant training might have.)

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:Don't you think Elephants should be treated like "foot" rather than like "mounted" when it comes to bashing their way into a fortified camp? That is, they would sack the camp with a 5-6 like foot rather than with a 6 like other mounted. ( pg 88 )

Terry G.

Disagree Terry.

A Fortified Camp isn't just a bunch of sticks, it's a full redoubt. Can you imagine an elephant climbing a 45 degree hill with sticks pointing out of it at strategic places? Sure, they could use their tusks and trunks to clear the sticks, but then they have guys throwing stuff at them as well...

Nah, I don't think it would be as easy for the elephants as it would for the foot.

Additionally (and more a metagaming point of view) the chances of an opponent:
1 - having a fortified camp vs elephants; and,
2 - having the elephants move far enough through for it to attack a camp.
is so remote that I don't think it's worth a special rule for. I mean, it sounds a lot like it's happened to you, but message me next time it happens.

Ian

lawrenceg wrote: ...but would elephant psychology have changed much? (Elephant training might have.)

I've read that Indian Animal Psychologists were far better in the pre 1500 period than during the period of the Raj.

Perhaps a special rule allowing only Indian Elephants the 5+.

No, this post is not meant to be taken seriously.

Ian

DaiSho wrote: Disagree Terry.

A Fortified Camp isn't just a bunch of sticks, it's a full redoubt. Can you imagine an elephant climbing a 45 degree hill with sticks pointing out of it at strategic places? Sure, they could use their tusks and trunks to clear the sticks, but then they have guys throwing stuff at them as well...

Nah, I don't think it would be as easy for the elephants as it would for the foot.

Additionally (and more a metagaming point of view) the chances of an opponent:
1 - having a fortified camp vs elephants; and,
2 - having the elephants move far enough through for it to attack a camp.
is so remote that I don't think it's worth a special rule for. I mean, it sounds a lot like it's happened to you, but message me next time it happens.

Ian

I disagree.

Its not a full redoubt. And there is not a 45 degree hill. The only guy throwing stuff at them are the ones that can do nothing to protect the camp when it is unfortified.

And, in this forum, things the owners found inconcievable appear to happen quite often.

philqw78 wrote:I disagree.

Its not a full redoubt. And there is not a 45 degree hill. The only guy throwing stuff at them are the ones that can do nothing to protect the camp when it is unfortified.

And, in this forum, things the owners found inconcievable appear to happen quite often.

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/l ... /tpod.html
http://www.uoregon.edu/~klio/im/rr/Roma ... camps2.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_kY8jkGBXjUc/RkRur ... C_0229.JPG
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1314/997 ... 8707bc.jpg

Now, that was a quick search, but every single one of them has a 45 degree redoubt. Some of them have lasted thousands of years. These camps weren't exactly 'scratch a line in the dirt and say "don't cross that line"' sort of camps. They were full fortifications - which is why you're spending 25 points in the damned things!

Ian

and all knocked up over night by an army on the march no doubt