View Full Version : Elephant mounted cannons
ZombieFriedNuts
02-20-2006, 23:51
I read it in PC gamer are they taking the mick or are they really going to mount cannons on elephants I admit it would be funny but after they get the first round off wont they have a loose elephant on their hands.
Personally I love the idea and would love to see what happened to the first person who tried it in real life, if someone was that stupid. O and didn’t cannons explode regularly back then elephant stew anyone.
~:cheers:
Hello ZombieFriedNuts,
I recall reading something about certain units being able to move cannons, including elephants. That's something different from them being mounted.
I don't know about history here. I guess elephants could be mounted by the very heavy arquebusses, type of like those used on ramparts. I wonder what the grey giants would do when they get fired :elephant:
P.S. wasn't PC gamer I read.
PROMETHEUS
02-21-2006, 01:59
I am happy to know that there will be elephants , means we can mod in them for Cartaginians ^^ ....
Watchman
02-21-2006, 02:00
I know they sometimes mounted ballistas on the backs of elephants in SE Asia. But any gunpowder weapon above small swivel-guns would probably be a bit too much, in terms of both weight and recoil, for both the animal and the howdah. Gotta be a pain and a half to train the big animals to get used to the noise, anyway.
Zenicetus
02-21-2006, 03:02
Arquebusses are not enough. I want Chinese rockets (JATO) strapped to the sides of my elephants, so they can fly over city walls.
Elephants can be trained to ignore loud noises in a circus, but this does sound a bit over the top. Even ignoring the noise, that's a lot of weight to put on one of these beasts, if you include the ammo. Reloading on a moving elephant would be fun too. Is there any historical basis for this idea?
CA aren't the people you should be asking that. You should ask big huge games. They put an elephant with a culverin on it's back in RON:Thrones and patriots.
matteus the inbred
02-21-2006, 11:44
i'd like sharks with frickin' laser beams strapped to their heads...come on people, throw me a bone here.
bit silly really. i presume this means a Moghul campaign or similar? Elephants were used to bring up siege guns during the Mahratta Wars, but that's well outside the medieval time period...
well the training for the noise is quite simple. Warhorses were tied to a post at a shooting range until the animal accepted gunshots as a part of everyday life.
I don't think anyone would think of putting a large cannon on the back of an elephant, however something the size of a one-pounder swivel gun or probably something smaller would have been feasible at the time. If you are talking about elephants pulling cannon then the elephants don't even need to be represented in the game, just the cannon.
Didn't one of the MTW mods have the camel mounted guns, or was that just handgunners on camels?
mfberg
ZombieFriedNuts
02-21-2006, 23:09
no they defiantly say mounted
BelgradeWar
02-22-2006, 00:11
Now that's silly...what is it with CA and half-fantasy units?
Putting cannons on elephants is just impossible. The first shot (providing that the animal could take the cannon, operator and a SINGLE shot) would be the last.
The only animal that could have cannon mounted on top of her is a whale. But I think CA would keep that for Moby Dick Invasion expansion pack.
lancelot
02-22-2006, 01:18
Didn't one of the MTW mods have the camel mounted guns, or was that just handgunners on camels?
mfberg
Actually, camel guns were going to be in the original version of MTW- the CA original. They went as far as writing the text for the parchment description (which is still in the MTW files along with many other unused stuff including many buildings (like a wood harvester type thing IIRC) )
So it wasnt a modder gone nuts, it was all a CA idea. If you have MTW you can look it up for yourself.
Trithemius
02-22-2006, 02:17
Actually, camel guns were going to be in the original version of MTW- the CA original. They went as far as writing the text for the parchment description (which is still in the MTW files along with many other unused stuff including many buildings (like a wood harvester type thing IIRC) )
So it wasnt a modder gone nuts, it was all a CA idea. If you have MTW you can look it up for yourself.
I believe (although my sources are from other wargamers, as I am not really an afficianado of the period) that the Moghul and the Maratha used camel-mounted guns (the zamburak). This occurred well out of what we would consider the medieval period though - probably from the mid 16th C. onwards.
The Moghuls also trained elephants to bear firearm-equipped marksmen; its amazing what animals will accept if you condition them well enough. >_>
no they defiantly say mounted
Operational or transport? It doesn't seem physically (!) impossible to use an elephant like a pack horse for small cannons/mortars (few hundred maybe 1,000+ lbs).
Watchman
02-22-2006, 21:59
Really small mounted cannon, really little more than muskets too large to be used with just hands, were AFAIK tried at several points of hitory. None, AFAIK, were worth the trouble or too effective. Taking a light field piece, reducing the weight of the frame to a minimum, and adding a larger team of horses were generally a way better method for creating genuinely mobile firepower that could keep up with cavalry.
I don't really know how much your average elephant can bear and what the requirements for frames would be, but I strongly suspect it is simply physically impossible to mount a cannon heavier than the really light close-support guns - type 2-pounder or something similarly puny - on a howdah without serious issues with weight and recoil. Mind you, especially if they're of the breech-loading variety and use something similar to grapeshot, those things aren't half bad antipersonnel weapons.
HalfThere
02-25-2006, 18:44
Before certain unimaginitive people go badmouthing elephant-cannons, they should consider the additional tactical possibilities they will add. I'm sure it'll be a fun niche unit.
no they defiantly say mounted
I recall the preview as well (I think it said "cannons mounted on elephants"), but another article mentioned "cannons pulled by elephants", so I thinks it's just the reviewer at error here. Anybody remember the R:TW preview which said you would be able to fire burning pigs into enemy cities? IIRC it resulted in some hilarious dialogue in the Colloseum.
Ah, here it is: Just for Laughs - the "Time" Magazine "Review" (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=35826).
Watchman
02-25-2006, 20:05
Elephants aside, I just thought of something interesting CA probably isn't going to even try putting in - the Hussite war wagons. We'll call you back, little pachyderms.
Now those would be a whole different tactical nut to crack.
buster123
02-25-2006, 21:19
Just a bit of useless info on elephants & artillery.
In the 18th century the Moghul emperor Nizam ul Mulk lined up 225 elephants
in front of his artillery as a test,after one volley most of them ran for miles,
trampling 306 infantrymen in the panic !!!!
Moghul elephants are the earliest recorded using firearm crewmen and the
nellies were trained with the use of fireworks to accustom them to the noise,
the thought of MTW2 with bombard armed elephants makes me cringe !!
Silver Rusher
02-25-2006, 22:13
Elephants aside, I just thought of something interesting CA probably isn't going to even try putting in - the Hussite war wagons. We'll call you back, little pachyderms.
Now those would be a whole different tactical nut to crack.
I thought that CA already said they were going to have wagons...
Trithemius
02-26-2006, 02:28
I thought that CA already said they were going to have wagons...
That'd be totally neat!
sprucemoose
02-26-2006, 11:34
plain stupid!!!!
whatever next,maybe
knife throwing dwarfs
ill tempered tigers
they should stick to whats best and keep it along the lines of MTW,and as for the americas hmmmmpppphhhhh.
:furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
PROMETHEUS
02-28-2006, 14:02
Operational or transport? It doesn't seem physically (!) impossible to use an elephant like a pack horse for small cannons/mortars (few hundred maybe 1,000+ lbs).
Not so Impossible if the cannon is of small size , and if a Camel can do it why not an Elephant ?
https://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9931/camelgun8ql.jpg
Not so Impossible if the cannon is of small size , and if a Camel can do it why not an Elephant ?
https://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9931/camelgun8ql.jpg
#2
But if it's only to tranport, then it could even be larger.
PROMETHEUS
02-28-2006, 18:53
yes , infact on some battles like the one of Samugarh was one of the decisive battles for the succession to the mughal throne after Shah Jahan. Aurangzeb and Murad Baksh, sons of Shah Jahan, fought Dara Shikoh, the eldest son And the Dara Shikoh’s Army consisted of least one hundred thousand horses, more than twenty thousand infantry and eighty pieces of cannon. The light artillery consisted of camels with swivel guns on their backs.
PROMETHEUS
02-28-2006, 19:05
here could be a probable look of what could be probably an Elephant with swivel gun on it...
https://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3985/fmi18gajanalelephant2crew3di.jpg
while this represents a bigger cannon as u say ....
https://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6476/offth26hd.jpg
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-28-2006, 22:41
How about a multi-staged weapon?
An elephant has a cannon on its back that shoots another elephant into the air. The second elephant, which is smaller, has a swivel-mounted cannon on it. Perfect for siege assualts; the second stage elephant is shot over the walls and then shoots the defenders off the walls from behind. Now that's Total War.
ZombieFriedNuts
03-01-2006, 00:38
I like the swivel guns on them, I thought they meant mounting big ba****d cannons on the back of the animal like the one at the bottom of PROMETHEUS post not the small ones.
This is a very funny thread... so long as we're on fantasy units why don't they just add water buffalo with crews of spearmen... that would be great.
Trithemius
03-01-2006, 04:24
they should stick to whats best and keep it along the lines of MTW,and as for the americas hmmmmpppphhhhh.
:furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
I have no idea why people are annoyed about the Americas. The exploitation of New World resources had a major impact on the politics, and thus the warfare, of Europe.
Admittedly, the current dates given for the span of MTW2 (1080-1530 as far as I know) might mean that the game ends too early for the profound effects of the New World to be felt, but given the "alternative history" aspect of the TW games I don't think its a bad thing to have the Americas involved in some way.
The only real problem would be people "beelining" to the New World, and there are pretty easy ways of dealing with that.
Trithemius
03-01-2006, 04:25
How about a multi-staged weapon?
An elephant has a cannon on its back that shoots another elephant into the air. The second elephant, which is smaller, has a swivel-mounted cannon on it. Perfect for siege assualts; the second stage elephant is shot over the walls and then shoots the defenders off the walls from behind. Now that's Total War.
What about some kind of two-stage weapon with MIRVed flaming pigs?
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-01-2006, 05:10
Perfect. Pork-round Pachyderm-based Pyro-mania.
The second elephant fires a salvo of flaming pigs. Unstoppable.
PROMETHEUS
03-01-2006, 10:04
Did u know that flaming pigs where used in history right?, more than once , even timurids used flaming camels against elephants ....
Sykotyk Rampage
03-01-2006, 16:10
Not literal flaming camels.
They placed smoking straw in braziers in large baskets on the back of camels and sent them into the elephants. The elephants became frightened by the smoke, smell and camels and ran amok through their own troops.
I find it odd that people are so set in their views of the past.
Why is it that so many people can't seem to accept that odd things did happen? Flaming pigs have been flamed more than they ever were in reality and these cannon-eles seems to be going in the same direction. DESPITE certain evidence.
Why is that? I mean we produce far stranger stuff today. War-dolphins (sniffing for mines) and plants that grow in strange colours when on top of a landmine... Those are in a stranger chategory than either the eles or the pigs.
People back then weren't any different than us in thoughts, they too would create odd things.
What should be argued is if the use of those units warrent an inclusion (and some people luckily go this direction). That is far better. And instead of just trying to shoot down these odd units try and see if they actually existed before doing so. It saves a lot of 'looking foolish'.
Sykotyk Rampage
03-01-2006, 17:37
I totally agree.... strange things did happen and still do...monkeys in space, dogs sniffing for bombs,drugs etc, pigeons delivering messages, parakeets to detect poison gas, monkeys to explode landmines,
Pigs on fire were used
Camels on "fire" did happen
Elephants with small "cannons/guns" on their backs were used
Dogs and handlers were part of history
Pigeons delivered Caesars messages
Cats and foxes had a rope attached to their tail with a oil ball of cloth and were set alight and sent into enemy crops and villages.
Priests did march into battle
Women did howl and scream at the enemy
Oxen, buffalo, etc, were panicked into approaching troops
The list goes on and on
The world is strange and history is a sure example of man’s genius at coping with it. Strange things happen in love and war………….I can’t wait to blast a hole in the gate with my elephant gun or mow down a charging knight. If you don’t like the units don’t use them or mod them out but don’t say CA can’t put them in. They are using history as a resource and expanding the opportunities of the gamers.
Elephants with guns on their back are a part of history. It may not have been effective or used to a great extent but it is documented.
Personally I love these odd stuff and is more interesting then the normal stuff and should be in.
If they could create such units in the past then we should be able to create them too.
Of course they should be tweaked so that they don't become uber.
The flaming pigs were a nice balance IMO.
The chance of success were slim with those units and it seemed to have been the same historically.
Let's not forget that people are still very adamant about certain, even modern, strange contraptions.
For instance the well documented (and pictured) mine-dogs of the Russian army in WWII. People continually deny their existance, even if they have no proper knowledge of the matter. It is simply too 'strange' to be true.
Keep that in mind when you are about dismiss something...
I saw a book a while ago about military animals. Quite some strange things in there: bats carrying mini bombs.
No doubt a lot of doomed projects, some never pulled off. And several of those that did, were limited in use.
What would Hannibal say when we told him we use bacteria to kill each other in modern 'civilised' warfare?
What would Hannibal say when we told him we use bacteria to kill each other in modern 'civilised' warfare?
Well... He would likely say: "What's that???" But given he knew what they were and where they came from, he would say: "Ahhh... We did the same, we tried to get halfrotten dead animals or people into besieged cities."~;)
Well... He would likely say: "What's that???" But given he knew what they were and where they came from, he would say: "Ahhh... We did the same, we tried to get halfrotten dead animals or people into besieged cities."~;)
~:)
Trithemius
03-03-2006, 00:33
Did u know that flaming pigs where used in history right?, more than once , even timurids used flaming camels against elephants ....
Yes.
The idea that I would recruit them, and maintain them in my army, and have them take up a slot that could be occupied by something else is madness though.
"Tell the third cohort to stay at home! We are taking the pigs today!"
Trithemius
03-03-2006, 00:39
I totally agree.... strange things did happen and still do...monkeys in space, dogs sniffing for bombs,drugs etc, pigeons delivering messages, parakeets to detect poison gas, monkeys to explode landmines,
Soviet dog-mounted anti-tank mines seem to be the closest modern equivalent to anti-elephant flaming pigs. :)
The fact is that elephants were an important part of warfare on the Indian subcontinent for far later than they were further West; it's not peculiar that people would search for ways to use firearms with them. If the game covers this area, and includes the development of firearms, then there is no problem with such units being recruitable.
I personally think that units like the flaming pigs in RTW are less likely candidates since they were used rarely and with dubious effect. The best elephant killers tend to be artillery or skirmishing troops who don't have rigid lines to smash into - not walking barbeques. ;)
Trithemius
03-03-2006, 00:42
Let's not forget that people are still very adamant about certain, even modern, strange contraptions.
For instance the well documented (and pictured) mine-dogs of the Russian army in WWII. People continually deny their existance, even if they have no proper knowledge of the matter. It is simply too 'strange' to be true.
Keep that in mind when you are about dismiss something...
Oh dammit! I figured someone would beat me to it.
The Soviet mine-dogs are especially funny, given the different fuel-systems of German and Soviet tanks of the period. :)
Trithemius
03-03-2006, 00:43
I saw a book a while ago about military animals. Quite some strange things in there: bats carrying mini bombs.
No doubt a lot of doomed projects, some never pulled off. And several of those that did, were limited in use.
What would Hannibal say when we told him we use bacteria to kill each other in modern 'civilised' warfare?
The USA during WW2 was going to use bats to terrify the Japanese weren't they? Someone high up was convinced that Japanese people were absolutely terrified of bats.
Watchman
03-03-2006, 00:50
In the late 1600s Carolus XI of Sweden attempted to create an unit of elk-mounted cavalry, being something of a fan of the big animals and there being no shortage of them in the Scandinavian forests (Swedish monarchs found them useful royal gifts to the regents of less arboreal lands, too). As you might imagine it kind of... didn't work too well. The project was quietly abandoned after a lot of broken bones among the riders.
Compared to that, or foe that matter the odd stab at mounting swivel-gun sized artillery on horses, utilizing elephants as light anipersonnel artillery platforms sounds quite sensible.
Zenicetus
03-03-2006, 01:57
In the late 1600s Carolus XI of Sweden attempted to create an unit of elk-mounted cavalry, being something of a fan of the big animals and there being no shortage of them in the Scandinavian forests (Swedish monarchs found them useful royal gifts to the regents of less arboreal lands, too). As you might imagine it kind of... didn't work too well. The project was quietly abandoned after a lot of broken bones among the riders.
Compared to that, or foe that matter the odd stab at mounting swivel-gun sized artillery on horses, utilizing elephants as light anipersonnel artillery platforms sounds quite sensible.
I'm still trying to figure out why a swivel gun on a howdah would be better than an archer or two, especially if it's not a modern breech loader. You're going to load powder, shot, wad, then tamp, and then light a fuse on a moving elephant in the heat of battle? The reload time must have been very slow. Maybe it was only used for "shock and awe" at the start of battle?
Trithemius
03-03-2006, 02:21
I'm still trying to figure out why a swivel gun on a howdah would be better than an archer or two, especially if it's not a modern breech loader. You're going to load powder, shot, wad, then tamp, and then light a fuse on a moving elephant in the heat of battle? The reload time must have been very slow. Maybe it was only used for "shock and awe" at the start of battle?
Interestingly, such reasoning was why the Ottoman sipahi were so slow to adopt fire-arms, traditionally their bow-skill was a mark of their status and so they were unwilling to trade their bows in for guns which were dirty, noisy, and had a lower rate of fire.
Perhaps the advantage of the elephant as it was an elevated and defensible firing position, and it could also accomodate some additional crew to reload the firearms. Firearms might have also offered greater range and penetration over the types of bows that were able to be effectively used on elephant-back.
Perhaps though it was just a mania for these fancy new weapons coupled with the idea that elephants were the supreme battlefield vehicle?
I'm still trying to figure out why a swivel gun on a howdah would be better than an archer or two, especially if it's not a modern breech loader. You're going to load powder, shot, wad, then tamp, and then light a fuse on a moving elephant in the heat of battle? The reload time must have been very slow. Maybe it was only used for "shock and awe" at the start of battle?
That is the point. They were used in the east as far as I have understood. There the elephant tactics were a bit different than the rather aggressive western (Persia and westwards) ones. Elephants were meant to be a stabilizer, and a sort of bulwark against enemy attacks, thus they were relatively still for a lot of the battle.
The elevated position would of course help a lot too. A small 1-2 pounder could really do damage to dense infantry blocks, and it wouldn't take up much room either, not much more than an archer (since the gun would be mounted on the howdah wall rather than in the middle). So in effect you could have a gun and two archers. Good combo if you ask me.
cunobelinus
03-03-2006, 22:35
from what ive heard this only ever happened once in recorded history so im not sure if it should be included but i spose they have to open it to a wider range of people so they have to include units with small historical accuracy
from what ive heard this only ever happened once in recorded history so im not sure if it should be included but i spose they have to open it to a wider range of people so they have to include units with small historical accuracy
Well, that is how the argument should be made. Does the usage of the unit warrent its inclusion. But look back a little and see how people dismissed the thing as pure fantasy...
Well, that is how the argument should be made. Does the usage of the unit warrent its inclusion. But look back a little and see how people dismissed the thing as pure fantasy...
True.
But there's more. You can say: 'it didn't work in history so exclude it'.
You can also say: 'it didn't work in history, but it was there. Can you, the player, make better use of it'?
It's wrong to make such units uber and have them dominate the battlefield (stat or cost wise: a strong unit should cost a lot, a normal unit shouldn't get supernatural powers ). It's also wrong to introduce completely out of time technology (V2 rocket for HRE). But demi culverins in 1380 or 1392? A history book may tell you the exact date. These games are a what if -if they weren't, why are people actually playing it and trying to beat Rome playing the Greek?- not a 100% re-enactment.
1,000 history books - close to reality (cough).
TW games - 'what if' reality.
Lord of The Rings -fantasy.
I think it's nice to include these things for several reasons (and remember, since MTW, we can always remove any unit we don't like. Kraellin advocated that a lot):
-There's something educative about it. Medieval times is not just about knights and princesses, there were elephants too. :elephant:
-Can I make use of it? It fails because, but can be made to work if? A hallenge for the player.
-It possibly attracts more people, more people means $ale$. Despite what people say: money is required to make things.
-More units imply more possibilities for the game-engine (sure more bugs to hunt) --> more playing and more mod fun (remember you can REM units but also create new ones) and more unit parameters to make units. MTW VI stats allowed to do much more than STW MI.
Of course there's also a problem with balancing it. A difficult task, very difficult and impossible even when there are not enough individual parameters, the game using too simplified models (which don't allow any tweak) or other features in the game totally voiding all efforts. Some examples.
-MTW had vs cavalry defending and attacking bonusses, individual for each unit (one stick is not the other). Very useful to balance the important cavalry vs infantry. Unless I completely overlook something, that in depth tweak is not around in RTW. STW didn't offer this at all: a spear was a spear was a pike.
-While arquebusses are a very clear part of Sengoku Jidai, the STW gunmodel is too simplistic to include firearms. There's no way to make them so that you don't run into some disturbing glitch or two.
-All TW games, except MTW VI, have MP battlefield upgrades. Fine/acceptable in some cases, but there are also some extreme ones that void any balancing effort made. Cheap STW H0 Kensai only had to made 2 kills to become H1, 4 to become H2 and thus become a much more expensive and dangerous unit. H0 no-dachi were very effective in 1,000 koku games for the same reason, MTW Lancers, RTW has the battlefield upgrades too (arcanii?).
The upgrade by itself is an example of disturbing balance (not saying upgrading is a bad thing or unrealistic): better training and better quality weapons are fine and authentic. But the way it works is wrong: in STW and MTW any unit gained the same, swamping the original purpose of that unit (a submarine captain doesn't learn how to fly a Raptor. RTW improved by updating the ranged effectiveness.
So, an important question to include a unit is: does it look good and can it be made to work logical/physically realistic?
Kensais did exist, not like Mushasi after Sengoku, but they weren't 12 feet tall. Ninjas did exist, and them performing battlefield tasks is not unlikely (Oda Nobunaga even waged war against them), them wearing black kimono's and cowls on the battlefield is not likely, but ok. Them wearing large banners, but also having a portable Romulan cloaking device and thus gunners being unable to target them is a clear no.
The 'more is better doctrine' is wrong, the 'more is worse thought' is also wrong.
More & more can be good.
ZombieFriedNuts
03-04-2006, 18:22
I think that if they tried it once, you should have the chance to try it
Zenicetus
03-04-2006, 21:14
<snip>
So, an important question to include a unit is: does it look good and can it be made to work logical/physically realistic?
<snip>
The 'more is better doctrine' is wrong, the 'more is worse thought' is also wrong.
More & more can be good.
But only when a developer has unlimited resources and time to throw at a game, which is never the case. Every unique unit in the game has to be modeled, animated, and playtested for game balance. That puts a cap on the number of unique units. There may also be technical issues (polygon count, RAM space, etc.) that limit how many unique units can be represented at once.
Given that reality, my $.02 opinion is that semi-fantasy units, or units that are somewhat "fringe" types that are interesting but were seldom used, are fine in the game.... but ONLY if they're in a faction where all the main bases have been covered, so the army is more-or-less historically representative.
It can be a problem with factions that did use may different unit types on a regular basis, and there are barely enough slots to represent them. That's where "stealing" a slot with a fringe unit should be avoided. So it basically depends on the faction, and how many slots you need to make the army more-or-less authentic.
Watchman
03-06-2006, 00:52
As a side note, early small-end guns - just the sorts of swivel-guns and very light cannon an elephant howdah could conceivably accommodate - were quite commonly breechloaders. Or at least the gunpowder was in a separate, detachable iron "bottle" that was wedged in place and replaced after use. Presumably you could pack the ball in one too, but I'm not sure if this was actually done. So long as you had ready "bottles" available rate of fire was obviously pretty high, however this sort of design was abandoned as both unsafe and underpowered (as the gas tended to bleed from the less-than-perfectly-fitted join between the "bottle" and the gun proper).
I didn't believe it when I saw it!!!!!!!
http--image.com.com-gamespot-images-2006-255-931592_20060913_screen001.jpg
That is definitely an elephant with some sort of mounted gun.
I'll have to wait and see how they behave in the game. Then I'll decide whether they should be in the game or not.
Callatian
10-10-2006, 20:12
I didn't believe it when I saw it!!!!!!!
http--image.com.com-gamespot-images-2006-255-931592_20060913_screen001.jpg
That is definitely an elephant with some sort of mounted gun.
I'll have to wait and see how they behave in the game. Then I'll decide whether they should be in the game or not.
Loll .. I've played with them - as well as with the missile launcher elephants:
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y256/Cain2/MTW2/tanks.jpg
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y256/Cain2/MTW2/MEinbattle-1.jpg
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-10-2006, 22:53
It looks exactly like the historical artwork.
Oops, I guess they got it right.
SirGrotius
10-11-2006, 04:27
Elephant artillery, eh...
This reminds me of players in FPSs who always use rockets and power ups and have ADHD.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.