Slitherine

What about these types of troops?
It seems consensus they are not worth the points they cost; in fact, It's very strange find these troops on the table.
There is some idea on the carpet to make these troops viable?

They are seen occasionally. At our club they have all been seen in the last month. But yes, they are generally poor value. I think the concern of the authors is to allow them to exist, as they provide interest, but not to make them good value, or they might dominate.

Also scythed chariots.

I think WWg bases should be split to 40mm x 40mm. Then they won't die as stupidly quickly. People would need to re-base though. Horses at front, wagon at back, take half off when one dies. I'd suggest the horse bit.

philqw78 wrote:I think WWg bases should be split to 40mm x 40mm. Then they won't die as stupidly quickly. People would need to re-base though. Horses at front, wagon at back, take half off when one dies. I'd suggest the horse bit.

If the main problem is dying too quickly, wouldn't an extra + on the death roll sort this out ? Without having the problem of rebasing.

There are a number of problems. Changing formation is another. This would also become easier and not need special rules. An extra plus one would make them too hard. But if you had 4 bases instead of 2 in your average BG they could lose bases as normal and would not need the +1 they get now. You could also have BG of 6 bases, you cannot have a 3 (double) base BG now. For most people it would just mean modelling 1 new 40x40 base with the cart and a few dead horses. Take an 80x40 off and put the 40x40 on when losing a base. Most could stay, in effect, double based.

Moro wrote:What about these types of troops?
It seems consensus they are not worth the points they cost; in fact, It's very strange find these troops on the table.
There is some idea on the carpet to make these troops viable?

Elephants are currently all represented in the same way.

Burmese elephants would have had a large number of bow-armed escorts. Why not allow them to shoot?

Some elephant would have had armour. Why not give them some advantage in shooting and melee?

An example of the latter would be Kushan Elephants, which are described on the Khurasan website as follows:
Note the elephant has the barding depicted in Indian art of the period, with large rectangular plates of metal, and the correct howdah with crenellated top.
http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/km1111.jpg

RichardThompson wrote:

Moro wrote:What about these types of troops?
It seems consensus they are not worth the points they cost; in fact, It's very strange find these troops on the table.
There is some idea on the carpet to make these troops viable?

Elephants are currently all represented in the same way.

Burmese elephants would have had a large number of bow-armed escorts. Why not allow them to shoot?

Some elephant would have had armour. Why not give them some advantage in shooting and melee?

An example of the latter would be Kushan Elephants, which are described on the Khurasan website as follows:
Note the elephant has the barding depicted in Indian art of the period, with large rectangular plates of metal, and the correct howdah with crenellated top.
http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/km1111.jpg

I am not sure if the Burmese elephant thing is a wargamer myth rather than historical fact. I know that in other rules they had huge crew on the elephants but I have a feeling that there is a significant degree of evidence that the 'crew' might have actually been close escort infantry.

As ofr differentiation between elephants there was something to that effect in the beta but it was removed to reduce complexity.

But there were different uses for elephants. Some were just deployed to discourage cavalry, with large distances between them, others were used to burst holes in enemy lines, close together. Perhaps there should be light elephants and heavy elephants. Would take a bit of thinking about. But to recreate the effect of those used to close off flanks to cavalry you would need 4 base BG of poor elephants probably, with some other stuff to make them worse than the close packed assault nellies.

hammy wrote:

RichardThompson wrote:

Moro wrote:What about these types of troops?
It seems consensus they are not worth the points they cost; in fact, It's very strange find these troops on the table.
There is some idea on the carpet to make these troops viable?

Elephants are currently all represented in the same way.

Burmese elephants would have had a large number of bow-armed escorts. Why not allow them to shoot?

Some elephant would have had armour. Why not give them some advantage in shooting and melee?

An example of the latter would be Kushan Elephants, which are described on the Khurasan website as follows:
Note the elephant has the barding depicted in Indian art of the period, with large rectangular plates of metal, and the correct howdah with crenellated top.
http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com/km1111.jpg

I am not sure if the Burmese elephant thing is a wargamer myth rather than historical fact. I know that in other rules they had huge crew on the elephants but I have a feeling that there is a significant degree of evidence that the 'crew' might have actually been close escort infantry.

As ofr differentiation between elephants there was something to that effect in the beta but it was removed to reduce complexity.

I described them as escort infantry in my post.

Letting some elephants shoot would not be complex.

RichardThompson wrote:I am not sure if the Burmese elephant thing is a wargamer myth rather than historical fact. I know that in other rules they had huge crew on the elephants but I have a feeling that there is a significant degree of evidence that the 'crew' might have actually been close escort infantry.

As for differentiation between elephants there was something to that effect in the beta but it was removed to reduce complexity.

I described them as escort infantry in my post.

Letting some elephants shoot would not be complex.[/quote]

Nor is putting a BG of LF bow infront of a BG of elephants.

I know that variations among elephants were considered but did not make the final cut.

philqw78 wrote:Perhaps there should be light elephants and heavy elephants.

Light as in capable of evading? Now THAT's an idea! Dave, what do you reckon?

Better put in an order for those Hephthalite elephants ASAP.

jlopez wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Perhaps there should be light elephants and heavy elephants.

Light as in capable of evading? Now THAT's an idea! Dave, what do you reckon?

Better put in an order for those Hephthalite elephants ASAP.

I have seen elephants in cantabrian cirle...

[Back in WRG 5th edition days]

Yes, I had byzantine kataphractoi doing the same. Elephants would have been more impressive though as they can grab onto the tail of the elephant in front whilst going around

I might be tempted to make nellies 20 points a base instead of 25.

The main problem with heavy artillery is that it cannot move, which makes it too easy for targets to avoid its field of fire.

Why not let heavy artillery wheel by 1MU each round?

Most ancient artillery had wheels so this should have been possible.

I'd actually like to see Elephants rated as Poor . For some reason the rules seem to think that grading elephants as Average is a no brainer. In reality their battlefield performance was erratic (as is their pychological response to batttlefield conditions) being rather clever animals knew that a battlefield was not a good place to be.

zocco wrote:I'd actually like to see Elephants rated as Poor . For some reason the rules seem to think that grading elephants as Average is a no brainer. In reality their battlefield performance was erratic (as is their pychological response to batttlefield conditions) being rather clever animals knew that a battlefield was not a good place to be.

If they were poor their behaviour would be much less erratic. It would just be poor.

Elephants are erratic in FoG! A tough looking line of elephant battlegroups charges the enemy. All goes well and the enemy are reeling. Then the enemy happens to win one of the combats. You roll a one. One BG dead. The two either side test and are then overlapped so don't last long...

Yes, they are erratic, but such in a way they are not worth the point! Ok, against mounted enemies they are great, provided they can reach close combat without suffering from shooting, but not so against foot.
Maybe making elephant BGs in 3 could make them more affordable.

...And yes: reducing their cost is also a good answer!
But what about artillery and WWg? Now they are quite useless, if not counterproducing...

Artillery in the middle of a line of static shooters can draw the enemy into a ring of death quite nicely, and warwagons on a flank where you're expecting to be hit by a cavalry flank can be quite tasty if you use them right. The sheer presence of some hussite style warwagons can dissuade the other player from going ahead with his attack.