Elephants

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

tamerlan
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:20 pm

Re: Elephants

Post by tamerlan » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:46 pm

Coming back to elephant deployment I completely agree that they had an anti-everything role, the point is, in my view, that if they do have an anti-cavalry role as well not permiting deployment in the outer 12 inches does not quite fit; in any case, and being the only one raising the subject, surely I am wrong, which is a pity, as I often play a moghul army and that would be a most welcome change ....

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: Elephants

Post by marshalney2000 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:59 pm

Don, I suppose my question is - did they actually hide their elephants in real life? Dare I suggest they did not as they actually say them as a battle winning tactic.
John

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Elephants

Post by timmy1 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:11 pm

In the examples I have read about since this thread started, their use against mounted in India in the 16th Century is against armies that deployed mounted in the centre. They countered the elephants by putting artillery behind wagons or similar fortifications and shot the elephants or they outflanked the elephants by moving the mounted round them.

We have already decided to not allow artillery to shoot in the flank zones (or something that has the similar effect), so I don't see a case for El deployed in the flank zone. I also don't see a case for hiding them in the accounts - in Siamese/Burmese warfare it is more like the Iliad but with elephants rather than chariots.

The 2 base BGs retain the glass hammer effect. If they were real battlefield winners the Mughals would have used them outside India and the Yuan/Ming would have been unable to make their conquests with mounted armies.

2 seems right to me. I defer to Don's greater talent and expertise as to cost.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Elephants

Post by ravenflight » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:08 pm

timmy1 wrote:We have already decided to not allow artillery to shoot in the flank zones (or something that has the similar effect),
We have?

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Elephants

Post by kevinj » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:26 pm

We haven't decided anything for certain yet, but it is something that has been tried and seems to work as desired.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Elephants

Post by hazelbark » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:54 pm

timmy1 wrote:The 2 base BGs retain the glass hammer effect. If they were real battlefield winners the Mughals would have used them outside India and the Yuan/Ming would have been unable to make their conquests with mounted armies.
I think that supposes a control over the army composition comparable to gamers. As we know taking Elephants on long journeys is not easy.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Elephants

Post by madaxeman » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:08 pm

hazelbark wrote:
timmy1 wrote:The 2 base BGs retain the glass hammer effect. If they were real battlefield winners the Mughals would have used them outside India and the Yuan/Ming would have been unable to make their conquests with mounted armies.
I think that supposes a control over the army composition comparable to gamers. As we know taking Elephants on long journeys is not easy.

Maybe not for some of you...

Image

:D
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Elephants

Post by timmy1 » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:35 pm

Out of period therefore that evidence is inadmissible (even if very funny...)

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Elephants

Post by ravenflight » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:19 am

madaxeman wrote: Image
pretty sad. After this post I decided to do a bit of a look at 'Hannibal' on Google. 4 pages of Hannibal TV series CRAP before history gets a look in.

urbanbunny1
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:54 am
Location: London

Re: Elephants

Post by urbanbunny1 » Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:23 pm

maybe allowing them to deploy out to the flanks would be go. I looked to take elephants to Warfare this year and when I had a good look at the rules I saw that elephants had to deploy with the foot.

So, knowing that I would be going into a musket/artillery fest, my elephants stayed at home.

they are too fragile and expensive you have to really protect them and as Donm2 says, most of their supporting cav is useless.

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: Elephants

Post by donm2 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:36 pm

I would go with 20 points each, deployment as cavalry and hopefully the supporting cavalry will get cheaper / better if their cost is reduced.

Don

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Elephants

Post by quackstheking » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:58 pm

donm2 wrote:I would go with 20 points each, deployment as cavalry and hopefully the supporting cavalry will get cheaper / better if their cost is reduced.

Don
Divisional moves?

Otherwise they go out with the cavalry and then get left behind! :roll:

Don

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Elephants

Post by ravenflight » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:44 pm

quackstheking wrote:
donm2 wrote:I would go with 20 points each, deployment as cavalry and hopefully the supporting cavalry will get cheaper / better if their cost is reduced.

Don
Divisional moves?

Otherwise they go out with the cavalry and then get left behind! :roll:

Don
The division CAN slow down. They don't HAVE to be left behind. The commander makes that decision.

I'm not saying that they necessarily shouldn't get to divisional move with the mounted, but there has to be justification for them having done that for it to be included.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Elephants

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:05 am

ravenflight wrote:
quackstheking wrote:
donm2 wrote:I would go with 20 points each, deployment as cavalry and hopefully the supporting cavalry will get cheaper / better if their cost is reduced.

Don
Divisional moves?

Otherwise they go out with the cavalry and then get left behind! :roll:

Don
The division CAN slow down. They don't HAVE to be left behind. The commander makes that decision.

I'm not saying that they necessarily shouldn't get to divisional move with the mounted, but there has to be justification for them having done that for it to be included.

I'd be OK with nellies being able to deploy into the flank sectors. Looking back the restriction of nellies seems to have been an accident of them not being mounted and it not really being noticed until very late in the day, at which point although Richard and I had no strong views it was decided that in order to avoid an issues being created by a last minute edit it would be left as was. It wasn't helped that at one play test (at least) we deployed nellies in the flank sector thinking they were mounted :lol:

I'd not change divisional moves though.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Elephants

Post by timmy1 » Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:56 am

Allowing Nellies to deploy in the flank sector combined with artillery not being able to shoot into the flank sectors (I know that is not the proposed rule change but it is the effect) would mean that they would become rather like Camels as a good way of denying a flank area to emeny mounted, certainly on the defensive if not on the offense.

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Elephants

Post by quackstheking » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:45 am

Playing Devil's advocate, could I understand the rationale for not allowing Elephants, Divisional moves with cavalry, with the assumption being that such moves would be limited to 2 and that movement would be at the elephant rate of 4" - thus giving a max Divisional move of 8"?

As I understand it, a Divisional move is a General taking the troops under his command forward in formation. Why therefore would a General in charge of a flank not have the supporting Elephants under his command? They would, by virtue of the Divisional move restrictions, have to be at least 1BW away from the cavalry so would not be disordering them, and most armies with nellies did some elephant familiarisation with the cavalry.

Of course you could deploy 2 Generals, one to move the Nellies and one to move the cavalry, so it can be done, but this does beg the question as to why the General commanding the cavalry couldn't get the nellies to move! In fact what we are likely to see is in the 1st move, the cav race forward 15" while the Nellies plod forward 4". Then in the two intervening JAPS the same general races back 12" to pick up the Nellies!

Just asking! 8)

Don

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Elephants

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:12 am

quackstheking wrote:Playing Devil's advocate, could I understand the rationale for not allowing Elephants, Divisional moves with cavalry, with the assumption being that such moves would be limited to 2 and that movement would be at the elephant rate of 4" - thus giving a max Divisional move of 8"?
Isn't that the current situation?

Mounted troops cannot be in a division with foot troops, but nellies are not foot troops.

May have missed something on a quick check though so may be making a fool of myself here (again) :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Elephants

Post by ravenflight » Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:57 am

quackstheking wrote:Playing Devil's advocate, could I understand the rationale for not allowing Elephants, Divisional moves with cavalry, with the assumption being that such moves would be limited to 2 and that movement would be at the elephant rate of 4" - thus giving a max Divisional move of 8"?

As I understand it, a Divisional move is a General taking the troops under his command forward in formation. Why therefore would a General in charge of a flank not have the supporting Elephants under his command? They would, by virtue of the Divisional move restrictions, have to be at least 1BW away from the cavalry so would not be disordering them, and most armies with nellies did some elephant familiarisation with the cavalry.

Of course you could deploy 2 Generals, one to move the Nellies and one to move the cavalry, so it can be done, but this does beg the question as to why the General commanding the cavalry couldn't get the nellies to move! In fact what we are likely to see is in the 1st move, the cav race forward 15" while the Nellies plod forward 4". Then in the two intervening JAPS the same general races back 12" to pick up the Nellies!

Just asking! 8)

Don
That doesn't necessarily ring true though. "A general in charge of the central sector with mixed mounted and foot" can't move his entire division.

Again, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, I'm just saying that just because they do put troops together doesn't necessarily mean they cooperate. Indeed, with the natural aversion of horses to elephants, I'd think you'd have a better chance justifying mixed foot and horse formations than horse and elephants.

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Elephants

Post by quackstheking » Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:01 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
quackstheking wrote:Playing Devil's advocate, could I understand the rationale for not allowing Elephants, Divisional moves with cavalry, with the assumption being that such moves would be limited to 2 and that movement would be at the elephant rate of 4" - thus giving a max Divisional move of 8"?
Isn't that the current situation?

Mounted troops cannot be in a division with foot troops, but nellies are not foot troops.

May have missed something on a quick check though so may be making a fool of myself here (again) :lol:
Aha - having never had Elephants in the flank zone, there's never been a situation where I'd have put them in a Division. However on reading the rules again now, it seems Elephants can be in a Division with Cavalry or Foot!! Cavalry being restricted not to be in a Division only with Foot!

Well I never knew that (cos it never happened!).

Don :mrgreen:

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Elephants

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:06 am

quackstheking wrote:However on reading the rules again now, it seems Elephants can be in a Division with Cavalry or Foot!! Cavalry being restricted not to be in a Division only with Foot!

Its what I thought was the case, hence why I said I wouldn't change the divisional moves - nice to be right for once 8)
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”