Slitherine

What changes if any are planned for the humped ones?

Scrumpy wrote:What changes if any are planned for the humped ones?

I was under the distinct impresssion all camels had humps, and so when it comes to camels it is more a question of one hump or two?

Scrumpy wrote:What changes if any are planned for the humped ones?

IIRC theres something about terrian but nothing to do with factors ect

Any plans for them to need a Camel mounted general like elephants may need a nelly mounted general?

What general in his right mind would go anywhere near a camel in the first place? There is a certain dignity and nobility to riding an elephant that can't be said about the obnoxious, bad tempered and, literally, foul mouthed camel

Obviously I have a Classical Indian army so somewhat biased.

Scrumpy wrote:Any plans for them to need a Camel mounted general like elephants may need a nelly mounted general?

None.

david53 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:What changes if any are planned for the humped ones?

IIRC theres something about terrian but nothing to do with factors ect

At one point there was something else that made them marginally less worthless, but i don't know if that ever happened.

Vespasian28 wrote:What general in his right mind would go anywhere near a camel in the first place? There is a certain dignity and nobility to riding an elephant that can't be said about the obnoxious, bad tempered and, literally, foul mouthed camel

Obviously I have a Classical Indian army so somewhat biased.

A Tuareg C-in-C? But I was thinking of the Hatrene Cataphract Camels, would they need a Camel Ally-General in the Parthian list lol

I don't think we ever saw any restrictions on Camels and Generals in any of the V2 announcements.

kevinj wrote:I don't think we ever saw any restrictions on Camels and Generals in any of the V2 announcements.

I don't see why there would be.

The elephant one is surely down to the fact that it would be hard for a commander or messenger down on the ground to shout detailed instructions up to a mahout.

The same would not really apply to camels.

IMO even the elephant one is going a little OTT anyway.

hazelbark wrote:
At one point there was something else that made them marginally less worthless, but i don't know if that ever happened.

I have found them quite handy - cheap, flexible and manouverable. Can be used as a screen, a stumbling block, improvised skirmishers, an extra "pair of hands" in both close combat and shooting, reserves.

Plus the sand advantage and discomfiture of horses (not that I have managed to use those).

I really don't understand this need for all units to be crack troops.

Eques wrote:I really don't understand this need for all units to be crack troops.

Apart from Romans in your case

Some troops should be crack - the ones that actually were. But you won't find me arguing, for example, that legionaries should have bows, or evade, or move 5. And I think it right that they should have their efforts frustrated by skirmishers.

The first two armies I painted were actually EAP (from which I deliberately excluded Medizing Hoplites) and Ancient British.

And when I do make a Roman one it will have raw legions in it (which is apparently almost unheard of in game terms but would reflect the history).

Eques wrote:

hazelbark wrote:
At one point there was something else that made them marginally less worthless, but i don't know if that ever happened.

I have found them quite handy - cheap, flexible and manouverable. Can be used as a screen, a stumbling block, improvised skirmishers, an extra "pair of hands" in both close combat and shooting, reserves.

Plus the sand advantage and discomfiture of horses (not that I have managed to use those).

I really don't understand this need for all units to be crack troops.

A club member uses them as an ally with his Romans and finds one BG is worthwhile as they disorder cataphracts who charge the legions and that is often just enough to make the difference. Against other opponents they're often out on a flank skirmishing. While they are poor and not particularly great at fighting they are cheap and opponents often under estimate them to their cost.

The difficulty for most armies with camels in is not necessarily the +2 points for camelry (though that's perhaps a bit overpriced for what they do). It's more that the equivalent cavalry would also be rubbishy: unprotected or protected mounted in large numbers is hard to use. And then they come up against armoured cavalry lancers and get shredded in melee anyway!

Eques wrote:

hazelbark wrote:
At one point there was something else that made them marginally less worthless, but i don't know if that ever happened.

I have found them quite handy - cheap, flexible and manouverable. Can be used as a screen, a stumbling block, improvised skirmishers, an extra "pair of hands" in both close combat and shooting, reserves.

Plus the sand advantage and discomfiture of horses (not that I have managed to use those).

I really don't understand this need for all units to be crack troops.

I have used 1 unit of poor bow-armed camels available to the later-Ptlomeics with great success out on a flank against enemy LF or LH. They wouldn't last long against proper Cv, but they are fun.

Kevin

>And when I do make a Roman one it will have raw legions in it (which is apparently almost unheard of in game terms but would reflect the history).

That's a bit of a specialty* of mine. The last game I played I fielded 24 legionary bases - 2x8 poor and 2x4 average. The idea was that this was the garrison detchment from one of the remote bases in Gaul, about to get thier heads kicked in by the unsporting Gallic locals...when Caesar arrives flying to their aid with some small forces he has manged to gather up at short notice.

* translation: specially stupid I thought armoured poor legionaries vs. protected average Gallic warband might be an interesting match up. And I'd try and win the battle by manouvering better troops elsewhere. Remember what I said about the unsporting locals? A BG of 6 aroured elite Soldurii with a general went stright through my line like a knife through that stuff that claims it's butter but actually tastes really rubbish. Which is actually quite a good metaphor for my Roman army...

ShrubMiK wrote: I thought armoured poor legionaries vs. protected average Gallic warband might be an interesting match up. And I'd try and win the battle by manouvering better troops elsewhere. Remember what I said about the unsporting locals? A BG of 6 aroured elite Soldurii with a general went stright through my line like a knife through that stuff that claims it's butter but actually tastes really rubbish. Which is actually quite a good metaphor for my Roman army...

Sounds historical though. Raw legions on the flat = dogmeat against warbands. Send for Marius. He'll reform the army, train them properly, trick the barbarians into attacking uphill into him, then ambush them from the rear