Elephants and V2 Romans

[zocco]

1. Romans versus elephants
I’m concerned with the effect of the proposed v2 changes for elephants (namely give them 3 combat die for each base) would have on impact foot and light spear. As in melee these are down a POA against elephants and the v2 changes would further skew the outcome in the pachyderm’s favour.
I also feel that this would seriously disadvantage Roman infantry when compared to spearmen, pike and heavy weapon types (which have a +POA in melee versus elephants).
Personally I don’t believe that this discrepancy can be justified – ie what historical evidence is there to indicate that DRILLED impact foot/swordsmen and light spear/swordsmen were any less effective at fighting elephants than spearmen and such.

If we use Romans as an example the only battles I can think of straight off where they lost to elephants was in their early battles against them. Against Pyrrhus (2 out of 3 anyway) - and even this is debateable as it may well have been the novelty of facing Pike for the first time that was the major reason for those defeats, and then in the First Punic War. Probably the losses were due in some part to inexperience in fighting elephants The loss at The battle of Tunis often being attributed to the use of a deep formation versus elephants - an erroneous decision as it turned out – but much of the cause was just as likely to have been due to Carthaginian cavalry superiority leading to the flanks collapsing (ie a double envelopment).

The Second Punic War was a watershed for the Romans - the long war creating a core of veteran troops. These troops defeated elephants at Zama and subsequently at Magnesia. In both of these battles light infantry countered the elephants but there's no evidence to show elephants discomforted the heavier foot.
The other point to make about these battles is that the light infantry were predominately armed with javelins - a seemingly very effective weapon against the creatures. Indeed at the battle of Beneventum the camp guard aided legionaries by casting javelins at the enemy elephants – so discomforting them that they fled.

Given the large amount of missile power of Roman heavy and medium foot (eg pila, javelins, darts and supporting bow fire) and the effectiveness of such against elephants I don’t think there is any clear cut evidence to show that they were inferior to spearmen or pike in this regard. Also it should be noted that late Hellenistic armies also failed at times versus elephants - at both Cynoscephalae and Pydna when they were attacked by Roman elephants they crumpled. Putting these things together I think we can safely surmise that Roman HF and MF were at least as effective in combat against elephants as were spearmen and pikes. Therefore an increase in POA’s for DRILLED light spear /swordsman and impact foot/swordsman is warranted. The following suggestions try to address this;



Suggestions

1. Allow drilled swordsmen in melee phase a + POA vs Elephants.

Rationale

Drilled light spear /impact foot (aka Romans) were certainly well equipped to deal with Elephants. Giving them + POA in melee would represent not only swords but missile weapons (eg javelins, darts, pila etc) which would certainly continue to be thrown during the melee phase. It also represents unit level tactics by troops that have more individual flexibility in close combat (as opposed to less flexible troops such as spearmen) enabling them to let the elephants advance and then surround them (as suggested by Vegetius).


2. Elephants taking a CMT have a -1 for elephants losing.


Rationale

Elephants were prone to panic and such and could never be totally relied on. They were relatively hard to kill but were prone to being unreliable.

[kevinj]

The proposed change is to give the Elephants 3 dice at Impact only, so it is not as drastic as you fear.

[VMadeira]

I agree that romans should not be worst off against elephants than pikes or spearmen.

In impact and in Melee:

Pikes: +1 POA
Spearmen: 0 POA
Romans: -1 POA

Is there any historical support for this? Don't think so!

Even with the 3 dice only at impact, the new rules make it easier to lose cohesion when losing impact.

[ShrubMiK]

I can certainly recall at least one historical battle where legionaries were trampled by nellies attacking frontally. And there is circumstantial evidence too - at Zama Scipio took special measures to deal with the threat of being trampled, and no that didn't involve trying to get the legionaries to defeat the elephants on their own

Not sure about evidence for elephants trampling steady spears/pike in frontal attack. Intuition tells me that the longer weapons and the ability to brace them against impact should provide more protection, but whether that was actually true as judged by history is another matter.

So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that legionaries should be more scared of the initial impact of elephants. At the moment, in FoG, this is not particularly the case IMO. Even when elephants are comfortably winning they seem to have an unhappy knack of rolling a 1 on the dice of death!

Whether the proposed changes would swing the balance too far the other way is another question, and I guess that is what play-testing is for.

[VMadeira]

I may be wrong but pillum, darts and javelins seems to me a much better way to deal with elephants than a spear or a pike (as it happened in Magnesia).

In Zama and indeed in other batlles simple stratagems like opening ranks and letting the elephants pass and then attacking them with missile weapons (remember the legionaries have them), or making loud noises could put the elephants out of the fight. And the romans were much better at this than any spearmen or pike army that i can remember.

On the other hand hellenistic armies used the elephants mainly in front of their pikemen line, aimed at the opponent's pikemen, so it should not be such a bad matchup, unless all hellenistic generals would be dumb . In FOG, at least, this certainly would be a bad idea.

[ShrubMiK]

No, I think you are right. Maybe I agree missile weapons are the recommended best way of dealing with elephants, but that comes with a caveat - being able to avoid being trampled and harass them for a long enough period of time to produce an effect. No single missile is likely to do the job! What would close range pilum bombardment do to elephants in the final moments before impact? I don't really know, but my point is that the Romans seemed to be concerned enough about the results going against them that they adopted unusual measures. A bit circumstantial I know.

I was specifically thinking of Magnesia when I took care to talk about "frontal assault" by elephants As I understand it, at Magnesia the elephants never got into contact, they sat in between the sub-units of the phalanx under fire for some time before eventually panicking and running amok as the Seleucid commander was attempting to withdraw in good order. No specific evidence, but I suspect this was more likely to be bow, sling, and perhaps javelin bombardment from light troops. If it was legionaries standing off the enemy and acting as long-range missile troops there are a few problems with representing that in FoG - most of all, the rules don't allow it!

Actually there might be other problems representing what happened at Magnesia on the table...if the elephants are assumed to be intermingled in the Seleucid front line rather than tucked away behind, legionaries aligned carelessly might well find some BGs charging impetuously in against pikes whilst those who could contact the elephants don't need to test.

It's also worth considering that the Romans seemed unwilling to commit their elephants at Magnesia. Okay they were a smaller flavour than the Seleucid ones (something else that FoG does not really model), which perhaps indicates they didn't think elephants charginginto pike was a good plan.


But having said all that, I would be interested to hear about battle accounts which contradict me.

Zama is also hard to reproduce in FoG, if you assume the lanes between legionary units were on a large scale. Maybe there should be a rule for elephants to have to test not to charge skirmishers, so they could be tempted into gaps between legionaries, not sure exactly how it would work.

[zocco]

Just to add a little bit to this - Ammianus Book 25.6 (?) mentions a number of 'legions' killing Sassanian elephants namely the Jovian/Herulian legions killed a few and later the Jovii/Victores killed two. Given the combat record of Elephants many more in these engagements probably fled - this being the main effect of missiles against them. Additionlly The African War mentions a story of a legionary of the 5th single handedly causing an elephant to flee by hacking at its trunk with his sword

I certainly feel that there is no reason to rate DRILLED impact foot//swordsman or lt spear/swordsman at a -ve POA vs Elephants - the evidence showing otherwise. Also the current rule rates Roman HF and MF on par with warband types vs elephants - which is very hard to believe and again not supported by any evidence.

[marty]

Aren't HI IF equal POA with elephants in impact?

From there on out unit size and superiority should keep the legion in the fight long enough for the elephant to eventually roll badly and blow up. I dont think this interaction is aproblem as things stand.

Martin

[zocco]

Aren't HI IF equal POA with elephants in impact?

From there on out unit size and superiority should keep the legion in the fight long enough for the elephant to eventually roll badly and blow up. I dont think this interaction is aproblem as things stand.

Martin

'Eventually' has a nasty habit of never coming around. As for impact there's no guarantee that the foot will win and losing to elephants means a -1 for CMT. In melee this gets worse for the foot as they are at - POA and still suffer the -1 CMT. When you're fighting at those odds hits are hard to come by and then the elephants get a bonus on the death roll. All up its not good for impact foot /lt spear types - so yes it is a problem. And this will get worse if the El's get 3 die a pop.

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Currently HF or MF IF are evens vs El at impact. Superior legionaries would therefore have a good chance of autobreaking an El BG at impact. If they dont they are at - in melee.
At v1 El are not widely played due to their fragility.
At v2 with 3 dice at impact EL would be slight favorites vs legionaries but an unlucky death roll will still be a problem.
I think an El charge should be frightening and the 3 dice will have the desired effect and should see some of us dusting off those armies with El we dont use at v1.

Paul

[VMadeira]

Yes IF is even at impact

Nevertheless they still fight worse than spearmen and pike against elephants (because of the melee), which i still don't think is historical.

We should remember that the romans after the initial shock, learned to beat elephants with stratagems that cannot be represented in the game, so the best way to deal with it is levelling the POA's.

However, the truth is that they dealt very well with elephants, even without these stratagems the legion was able to hold against elephants quite well (for example in Thapsus).

Remember Elephants disappeared from the battlefields for some reason (in the mediterranean region), they simply were easily countered.

[VMadeira]

Currently HF or MF IF are evens vs El at impact. Superior legionaries would therefore have a good chance of autobreaking an El BG at impact. If they dont they are at - in melee.
At v1 El are not widely played due to their fragility.
At v2 with 3 dice at impact EL would be slight favorites vs legionaries but an unlucky death roll will still be a problem.
I think an El charge should be frightening and the 3 dice will have the desired effect and should see some of us dusting off those armies with El we dont use at v1.

Paul

Is it a good thing, to worsen the historical representation of the relation between troop types, just to incentivate players to use certain troop types instead of others?

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Since you ask I think the correct way to incentivise the use of unpopular troops is the points system.
I am also relatively neutral on this from an army viewpoint I have Dom Roms as well as Ghaznavid and Seleucid so am not defending my favourite troop type. Incidently I never use the Ghaznavids as El are not much use at v1.
Historically Elephants were expensive and difficult to control even to the point of being risky to their own troops, despite this many armies went to a lot of effort to obtain them. I believe that this was because realistically nothing can stop an elephant charge. Braced pike or spears using the elephants own weight might have a chance but these are the troops that hellenistic generals quite happily used elephants against.
I understand your argument about opening lanes not being allowed but this like using clubs vs cataphracts is subsummed into the high rating of legionaries.
Actually the major factor in the success of elephants appears to be the familiarity of the opponent with elephants. If the opponent had not met elephants before they could swing a battle on their own.
Another problem is that impact foot classification covers both barbarians such as the Galatians who were on the receiving end of the elephant victory as well as legions.
However, in FOG its not all about head to head factors. The extra manoeuverability of drilled compared to elephants (and galatian foot) which need a general or a CMT to even wheel or move short means that Roman armies are popular and with the current factors (legions at - vs EL in melee) elephant ones aren't.


Paul

[VMadeira]

Since you ask I think the correct way to incentivise the use of unpopular troops is the points system.
I am also relatively neutral on this from an army viewpoint I have Dom Roms as well as Ghaznavid and Seleucid so am not defending my favourite troop type. Incidently I never use the Ghaznavids as El are not much use at v1.
Historically Elephants were expensive and difficult to control even to the point of being risky to their own troops, despite this many armies went to a lot of effort to obtain them. I believe that this was because realistically nothing can stop an elephant charge. Braced pike or spears using the elephants own weight might have a chance but these are the troops that hellenistic generals quite happily used elephants against.
I understand your argument about opening lanes not being allowed but this like using clubs vs cataphracts is subsummed into the high rating of legionaries.
Actually the major factor in the success of elephants appears to be the familiarity of the opponent with elephants. If the opponent had not met elephants before they could swing a battle on their own.
Another problem is that impact foot classification covers both barbarians such as the Galatians who were on the receiving end of the elephant victory as well as legions.
However, in FOG its not all about head to head factors. The extra manoeuverability of drilled compared to elephants (and galatian foot) which need a general or a CMT to even wheel or move short means that Roman armies are popular and with the current factors (legions at - vs EL in melee) elephant ones aren't.


Paul

Basically I agree with what you say

I just don't like is that the troops that historically better dealt with elephants (considering pikes, spearmen and legions) are those that in the game are worst against them.

And just to clarify, I rarely play with romans (only one tourney in 15 or more atended), i prefer the Late Medieval Period

[expendablecinc]

'Eventually' has a nasty habit of never coming around. As for impact there's no guarantee that the foot will win and losing to elephants means a -1 for CMT. In melee this gets worse for the foot as they are at - POA and still suffer the -1 CMT. When you're fighting at those odds hits are hard to come by and then the elephants get a bonus on the death roll. All up its not good for impact foot /lt spear types - so yes it is a problem. And this will get worse if the El's get 3 die a pop.

I used to think this way but when thinking about it from the opposing point of view it can actually seem much different.

The example is my classical greek armoured OSp ve legions.

I initially would avoid legions due to the cringe moment of being a factor down at impact which I will likely lose somewhere along the line vs a wall fo Legions.

But...

thinking from teh legion point of view they must win and I have to drop at impact (a once off chance) or they are a factor down and ultimately doomed by the dice from then on. its much worse for the legion.

There are additional benefits for elggion that there are vs elephants:
legions are larger and able to atake a base lose - eelephants cant/ generals provide much more value when attached.

[zocco]

'Eventually' has a nasty habit of never coming around. As for impact there's no guarantee that the foot will win and losing to elephants means a -1 for CMT. In melee this gets worse for the foot as they are at - POA and still suffer the -1 CMT. When you're fighting at those odds hits are hard to come by and then the elephants get a bonus on the death roll. All up its not good for impact foot /lt spear types - so yes it is a problem. And this will get worse if the El's get 3 die a pop.

I used to think this way but when thinking about it from the opposing point of view it can actually seem much different.

The example is my classical greek armoured OSp ve legions.

I initially would avoid legions due to the cringe moment of being a factor down at impact which I will likely lose somewhere along the line vs a wall fo Legions.

But...

thinking from teh legion point of view they must win and I have to drop at impact (a once off chance) or they are a factor down and ultimately doomed by the dice from then on. its much worse for the legion.

There are additional benefits for elggion that there are vs elephants:
legions are larger and able to atake a base lose - eelephants cant/ generals provide much more value when attached.

I'm not sure I follow your logic - if you look at your argument the legions are worse off in BOTH cases (often) as in the first if the legions don't win they are a factor down and vs elephants its the same. The fact that there might be a (very slight) silver lining for the Romans - re base losses is purely an unintentional side-effect of the combat system.

The real crunch is - were Roman infantry less effective at combating elephants than say spearmen or pikemen. The answer is demonstrably NO. Their combat record was actually very good so they should be as good as spearmen or pike vs elephants.

This is what an evidence based ruleset is supposed to be all about. I might add that I could probably make a similar case for the vulnerability of STEADY Roman foot to cataphracts - where is the evidence – from an historical point of view it simply doesn't exist (and I hope to post on this separately).

[ValentinianVictor]

Just to add a little bit to this - Ammianus Book 25.6 (?) mentions a number of 'legions' killing Sassanian elephants namely the Jovian/Herulian legions killed a few and later the Jovii/Victores killed two. Given the combat record of Elephants many more in these engagements probably fled - this being the main effect of missiles against them. Additionlly The African War mentions a story of a legionary of the 5th single handedly causing an elephant to flee by hacking at its trunk with his sword

I certainly feel that there is no reason to rate DRILLED impact foot//swordsman or lt spear/swordsman at a -ve POA vs Elephants - the evidence showing otherwise. Also the current rule rates Roman HF and MF on par with warband types vs elephants - which is very hard to believe and again not supported by any evidence.

Just a point here, the Jovii and Victores are erronously called 'Legions' in Ammianus, yet in other parts of his history they are noted as being auxilia, the Notitia also lists them as auxilia.

It's very pertinent to mention that the only 'battle' in Ammianus where Elephants actually engage the Romans in combat is described by Ammianus as a combined ambush with Sasanid Cataphracts on the rear of Jovian's retreating column! It's this skirmish which Ammianus describes in Book 25. In all other descriptions the Elephants form the second or third line in field battles, and I have put forward my own theory as to why (See Vegetius)

[expendablecinc]

There is a lto fo talk about dice and poa changes for elephants but I was wondering whether thier vulnerability to flank charges (undrilled and can afford to lose a base) is a part of the problem.

Historically are there may instances of enemy charging elephants without extreme pressure from the top? ie should troops have to test to charge elephants (from any direction).

Regardless would this then be of much benefit to elephant players and would it reward thier historical use.

They woudl certainly then be better at running along the side of a phalanx as a sort of elephant shaped abalative armour (until they get whittled down or frenzied by shooting).

Anthony

[azrael86]

On the other hand hellenistic armies used the elephants mainly in front of their pikemen line, aimed at the opponent's pikemen, so it should not be such a bad matchup, unless all hellenistic generals would be dumb . In FOG, at least, this certainly would be a bad idea.

Not sure where you get this from. Alexander deployed his pike opposite the enemy elephants at Hydaspes - was he 'dumb'?

The major battles of hellenistic greece where elephants played a part were the 'elephant victory' over the Galatians(which I guess is a major source for the interaction of elephants and impact foot) and at Ipsus, where they were deployed against the cavalry.

Zocco mentioned Pyrrhus' success, and attributed it to the phalanx, which is odd as the Romans never had serious trouble with any phalanx other than Pyrrhus' - suggesting that the issue was either elephants, or perhaps more significantly, Pyrrhus.

Unlike the successors, the Romans also developed specific anti-elephant tactics (flaming pigs etc) - which suggests that they regarded disrupting elephants before contact as fairly important.

[philqw78]

Zocco mentioned Pyrrhus' success, and attributed it to the phalanx, which is odd as the Romans never had serious trouble with any phalanx other than Pyrrhus' -.

Where did you get this fact from?