The Onager and the Elephant: Psychological Warfare

I have frequently seen games with the words "No Art No Ele" in the title. The fact is, these units are by no means the bastions of destruction people seem to think they are.

I know some of you are thinking "Any n00b can use an onager to shoot from far away." Well, the point I'm trying to make is, an Onager gets MAYBE 15-30 kills a game. Yes there are rare instances in which that firepot will land on a testudo formation or a large clump of cavalry, but that is luck, and luck is a part of warfare.

The simple fact is, the onager is more of a psychological weapon than a high powered long range killing machine. He forces your army to advance while he sits pretty and fires away at you, landing maybe 3-5 shots on the way. Anyone who gets Onagers for their killing power is a fool.

There are two ways of countering an onager user, you can get them yourself and knock out his onagers, or you can rush him, in which case you will be playing into his hand by;

A. Tiring out your army by running across an open battlefield to close the gap
B. Breaking formation and overall strength of your front line


Now, the dreaded elephant, a very deadly unit when used correctly, but also a very fragile one. Elephants are by no means the invincible beasts people make them out to be. I have killed an entire Armored Elephant division with 2 of my Royal Pikeman because of a poorly-placed charge. These animals are nothing but very resilient shock troops. They are by no means uncounterable.

Some of the elephants' weaknesses are fire, javelins, onager fire, and those pesky incendiary pigs ~;). I have seen 3000 denarii go down the drain the second my enemy sends his elephants at my 6 dicisions of Companion Cavalry, or into my front line, just to be met by my 200 denarii pigs, thinking they were invincible. Also, people seem to forget that elephants are still classified under "Heavy Cavalry" and are still weak to a phalanx formation, even if they don't die immediately.

I suppose I created this little "article" to enlighten some of the players that these units are NOT the end-all-be-all units of the game. They have their counters, and they work very well if used properly. These units counters' take a little more effort, but are still very blatant.

And with that, I point to my sig..... ~:cool:

I agree mostly with you opinion about onangers and elephant.
I dont fear onangers i fear a bit elephants but then i use fire arrows and mostly get those eles under control.
I know that when you control your eles well they can be like real tanks but they have there high price so for me they are not overpowered.

Anyway i know that most games are called no art no ele cause

a) u use fire and will lag game
b) art will cause always a specific movement (breaking formation, doubling etc.)

Inmo i dont care what oponent uses but i feel games with art are a bit unconfortable even i feel also they mostly 15-30 kills for about 720 denari which is crappy.

I totally agree desperado. it bugs me no nd when people censor certain units, and as for lag caused by onager firepots, never come across it but fir arrows on the other hand yeah i can understand why peeps dont like em.

Ah, I also forgot to mention. KNOW YOUR ARMIES STRENGTHS, AND KNOW YOUR ENEMIES WEAKNESSES.

If you are Egypt or a Greek empire, use your archers!! They are the strength of your army. Not to mention very effective against onager crews.

Completely agree.

Welcome to the Org Desperado.

Since I am unable to host I must join other's games, and about the only thing I won't jump in is a castle (MTW).

The reasons for rules vary from weakness (people who can't handle artillery so they ban it) to style (people who don't like artillery so they ban it).

I have found that the more you experience a certain phenomenom the better able you are to handle it. We had these same conversations about pumped up Ashigaru in Shogun and in MTW about the Byz, and I think that these discussions are healthy, as long as we don't get personal.

Once I saw a guy do a really stupid thing. I turned to my father and said "It takes all kinds I guess"

To which he replied, "no son, it doesn't. We got all kinds, tho."

Nice thread for a first post.

ichi

:bow:

To be honest I find artillery to be a pain...I just think that they're way too accurate and they're rate of fire is ridiculous... :furious3:

Of course this doesn't mean that I can't handle them, but these onager shootouts that I've seen take place are a joke. That's why I tend to ban artillery in the games that I host... :bow:

Also because artillery tends to destroy my way of playing the game in more skirmishing and mobile approach. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desperado[1G]

Now, the dreaded elephant, a very deadly unit when used correctly, but also a very fragile one. Elephants are by no means the invincible beasts people make them out to be. I have killed an entire Armored Elephant division with 2 of my Royal Pikeman because of a poorly-placed charge. These animals are nothing but very resilient shock troops. They are by no means uncounterable.

Some of the elephants' weaknesses are fire, javelins, onager fire, and those pesky incendiary pigs ~;). I have seen 3000 denarii go down the drain the second my enemy sends his elephants at my 6 dicisions of Companion Cavalry, or into my front line, just to be met by my 200 denarii pigs, thinking they were invincible. Also, people seem to forget that elephants are still classified under "Heavy Cavalry" and are still weak to a phalanx formation, even if they don't die immediately.

I suppose I created this little "article" to enlighten some of the players that these units are NOT the end-all-be-all units of the game. They have their counters, and they work very well if used properly. These units counters' take a little more effort, but are still very blatant.

And with that, I point to my sig..... ~:cool:

---

no comment about arty or elephants. just one.. why would anyone with some brain use elephants vs spear and pikemen?

Generally war elephants has attack 7 and defend 16 to 19, charge of 11, a size of 18 (riders) and 6 elephants of HP12. One unit of armoured elephants has total combat points of (7+19=26), sum HP of (90), morale 8, missile range of 120, ammo of 60 (typical archers 30, horse archer 40), costing 2780 denarii, cause fear to nearby enemy. Of the defend 19, 16 is armour against missile. If you just look plainly at its combat power vs non-spear, it has a 26x6x12 = 1872 man-equivalent total combat points, which is abt 1.49 denarii per combat point.

A roman praetorian cav has attack 12 and defend 22 (total combat point = 34), charge 9, 27 horses of HP1, morale 10, no missile, costing 840 denarii. Missile defend is 15. It has a 27x34=918 man-equivalent total combat points, which is abt 0.92 denarii per combat points. However considering the -12 combat point penalty fighting against elephants, its more like 1.41 denarii per combat point.

Due to the upgrade model of RTW, upgrading the experience level of a unit make it less denarii efficient. At E3, roman praetorian cav is CP=40 @ 1500 denarii, which is 1500/(27x40)=1.39 denarii per combat point, or 1500/(27x28)=1.98 denarii per combat point vs elephants.

Therefore you have an armoured elephant units that is equivalent to 2 missile units (and an armour/missile defend of 16 vs foot archer 0 to 7) who can virtually absorb all missiles thrown at it, better than a E3 roman praetorian cav in term of efficient usage of your money and effective fighting power, morale modifier adv. Downside is run-amok. At high denarii games, its more sensible to get a slot for elephant than an E3 cav.

Yes i agree indeed it give one great sense of satisfaction to beat an army complemented by 2 armoured elephants in a 20k game, esp when the opponent has the common sense of not rushing them into spear, and a coordinated attack instead of solo with bbq pigs.

But i will stick to a 10k game for now. :charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

Once I saw a guy do a really stupid thing. I turned to my father and said "It takes all kinds I guess"

To which he replied, "no son, it doesn't. We got all kinds, tho."

---

Your father is a vise man, I will gladly be led by him in battle
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aw89

Your father is a vise man, I will gladly be led by him in battle
:bow:

---

Once when drunk, he said the most profound thing

"Right's right, and wrong's wrong, and don't ever let anyone tell you the difference"

oh, and

"when you're 18, you're out of this house!"

aregato aw

ichi
:bow:

When I first started playing Rome I carried over the no artillery rule from MTW. So far as elephants were concerned, they are never a problem when the denarii of the game was limited to 12.5k or 10k.

I have recently joined a ladder were the rule is no more than 2 elephants or 2 artillery pieces, and so I am beginning to feel my way in relation to artillery.

I guess the no artillery rule I started with came from Medieval. I am now being forced to re - assess that. Yes artillery does alter the game, but as pointed out above the kill rate is relatively slight for the money spent.

I often see people use rampaging elephants. However, I thought a more appropriate use of elephants was as an archery tower, not as a melee weapon, or have I missed a trick?

tootee,

Nice analysis. I think the battlefield upgrade is going to benefit the elephant combat power and morale during the battle. However, the battlefield upgrade won't increase the armor, so their vulnerability to ranged fire won't change.

Actually I dont think the upgrades are viable at all for an elephant unit. The upgrades are several hundred dollars for +1 in any of its attributes, making it financially stupid. Elephants are shock troops, not just archery towers. While they do rack up a number of kills, I use them more for breaking an enemies lines. They may only kill 1-2 guys per charge, but they knock down anywhere from half to an entire division. THAT is where they make their money in my opinion, as it gives your infantry a window to charge in there while the enemy is lying on the ground and put them to the sword.

Well, when they patch the fire arrow memory leak hopefully they won't lag as much as they do now.

Elephants are scared very easily. an onager firepot doesn't even have to hit them, it can land anywhere near them and have a chance to scare them. Not to mention fire arrows from foot archers.

The 2 empires that have Armored Elephants have very weak archers, Carthage's range unit being mercenary slingers.

I will always use 3 onagers and 4-5 archer groups against either Carthage or Seleucid, because that is their weakness, as is the weakness of the Elephants.

And if you are a pikeman empire, that just makes your job easier.

I'd say it depends on two things: Denarii amount and faction used. In lower denarii games, I agree completely with you that the elephants and artilery are fair. As my normal Scythia army, I can handle both without any change in battle plan easily (Artilery doing 4-5 kills before being taken out).

Things aren't as simple in high denarii games though. In 25k denarii games (50k for a 2v2), which are pretty common, they can easily get 5 or more Armored Elephant units, without stopping them from having their 20 elite units. If used in combined arm-fashion, they can easily break your lines.

Only 5 factions out of the whole group has flaming pigs. Not everyone uses Roman or Greeks. Let's take the Briton trying to stop a few armored elephants units.

They have no foot archers, so no fire arrows (Beside, using them in multiplayer is akin to stopping the game due to lag, so it's a no go). They have no onageers. They have no phalanx. About your only hope is the Woad Warrior charging + Head Hurlers + Druid chanting + Chariot running around morale destroying combo. By the time you rout a few units, your own formation will be completely destroyed, no matter what. You HAVE to stop the elephants, but it takes enough time and most of your troops to do so. During that time, the enemy simply send in their regular troops, pretty much unopposed.

About countering onagers with onagers, again, not everyone has them :)

In low denarii games, I agree completely with what you said. In high denarii ones, it really depends on which faction you have. I can personally understand those who play with no art/elephants, and those who prefer no rules. As long as there's no fire arrows (Computer can't handle it too well), it's fine with me. I personally join in any game I can anyway(even those "Melee infantry only" games), it's fun playing different styles and strategies! Adapting is always fun :)

As I have posted in another thread:

Personally, I believe to hold a rather unique stand among the MP players.

Though I never played M:TW or S:TW online, I did play Rome, and was confronted at once with a multitude of “no art no elephants” game titles. I joined any that I could - with the “failed to connect to host” problem you aren’t very picky about your opponents and games, right? - and have always played by the rules. Ones I have double-clicked a game to join and joined another one instead; in this 2vs2 flat terrain game art wasn’t allowed, and people started basically yelling at me “NO ART NO ART”!!! Too beaucoup, ok, I get it, no problem; I took my one unit of catapults, deployed it at the end of the space and faced it to the edge of the map, so it wouldn’t ever get a chance to fire accidentally upon anyone.

I was stricken how repulsive people are towards the artillery a lot of times.

Funnily, last time I played I joined 1vs1 game saying “no art”. I didn’t take any art, of course, since I always respect the rules of the host; then the other guy rushes me with elephants, and I simply had to laugh out loud.

Other match I played was 2vs2; the two opposing armies were composed solely out of cavalry and they rushed me and my ally. We were wiped out in a matter of minutes.

Now to my stand; anything goes. Also, and this may sound pompous, but it is how I truly feel, I believe that people that overly complain on art and elephants are simply unable to find proper tactics against such weapons. I never complain that my opponent had an army composition that I didn’t expect; I see it as my own failure to respond to his tactics. Have an elephant only army, five pieces of art, whatever you want, your free choice. I must stress once more that I always respect the rules of the host.

Last time I was hard pressed from a Eggy chariot-archers army; I found no proper way to ward off their attacks with the army composition I had. However I see no reason why should I press people to play with those units I find more comfortable for me.

So, I don’t complain upon whatever my opponent chooses to play with, as long as he doesn’t cheat. Furthermore, if we ban art and elephants, the already unit-poor Rome will become even poorer than this. I can however understand that the clan wars are fought without artillery, much like there is only one sniper per squad limit in almost all CoD tournaments, but, once again, I never ban any unit from my games.

I think we're missing a trick here. I personally think that besides the lag issues, one reason for putting restrictions on games, and this holds true personally as well, is that experienced MPers know what sort of battles are the most fun. One thing I can say is that any battle where one side is overly influenced by a single unit type are less fun than battles with balanced sides (although i'm fine having all cav, or all elephant battles now and then just for a laff).

If your opponent plays with 4 onagers, it effects the way you must play the game and the resultant battle is less fun than if they didn't have 'em. Same with the guy who has loads of cavalry, or too many elephants. Although, yes, it is true that a truly good player would be able to adapt his tactics to whatever the opponent put in front of him (i'm not saying i'm one of them), and his unit selection should allow him to do this, I, for one, do not play MP because i want to beat everyone - I play to have a good tactical battle, which is why i wasn't keen on competition games in STW. Therefore, if i put up a battle restricting unit types, or the number you can have, its more to do with the fact that i want a fun battle, than the fact that i am afraid of artillery or elephants.

As an aside, i do think onagers on battlefields are historically laughable, but that's another issue for another thread.

Those are good points Kyodai, I would only add that a "real" general would want to outnumber his enemy by 10-1 if possible, but that would be so tactically dull that it wouldn't be worth our time-- so we play with even armies.

The idea is to enhance the tactical depth of the game, and an artillery piece here and there can do that. But if they are the major focus of every battle then you are losing tactical depth--thus the desire to set some restrictions on some battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dionysus9

The idea is to enhance the tactical depth of the game, and an artillery piece here and there can do that. But if they are the major focus of every battle then you are losing tactical depth--thus the desire to set some restrictions on some battles.

---

~:cheers:

which is why elephant at 10k is totally fine.. it doesnt sacrifice any tactical depth because one has to balance the various tactical parameters.

in high denarii game (> 20K), where typically on average (esp for factions with cheap units) there will be valor upgrade for most units (except the most expensive, with elephants topping the list), such an exercise reduces the efficiency of the upgraded unit compared to the more expensive but not-upgraded unit. This loop-sided effect compromise the tactical depth of high denarii games.

I find the main reason why some go for 20K game instead of 10K is to buy elephants.. otherwise at 10K, where already more than half of the army can be at morale > 8, in which most of them will fight to the last man, is not much different to 20K.. except it benefits more the factions with expensive units.

Yuuki,

the battlefield upgrade occurs with more kills? or more killed? i usually see my unit get upgraded the more men it lost. If by # of kills, yea elephants stand to gain the most.. getting even tougher to kill it the more it kills..

I agree with Steeleye. Its not so much that these units can't be countered, as they can be. But, the whole purpose of playing the game for me is, I want to out-think my opponent. I like to be able to approach the battle with some caution, pick apart my enemies' army, and beat him piece by piece.

Elephants don't bother me as much as artillery. When a 40 man unit is reduced to 5-8 men because of a 'lucky shot', it doesn't seem like all too much skill and planning was necessary on their part. It's not that I can't handle the artillery, or that I can't handle a rush, or any other tactic. But when someone has artillery, the game is already a foregone conclusion to me. If its 2v2 or 3v3, we move away from the artillery and double or triple someone. If its a 1v1, then I rush at least until I get rid of that artillery. And what fun is that? I already know whats going to happen.

The real fun of this game to me is, being able to bring the exact same armies to the exact same map, and having completely different tactical games. Having different factions with different strengths/weaknesses only enhances that for me. So to me, artillery just limits the tactics, and thats the opposite of what I play for.

Artillery users pretty much spoil the MP game for me.

There is no skill in sitting back and unleashing a volley of fireballs at the enemy. thinning out his units with "lucky shots", especially given the vast number of shots that ornagers get!

I played a game with someone earlier who refused to attack me when I chose not to wander into his position (which had a couple of ornager units, backed up by 4 units of Aux archer and urban cohorts).

His entire setup was entirely defensive and he moaned like hell when I decided not to attack. "I'm the defender, your meant to be the attacker"

Still it really annoyed me so I decided to attack from the side, I still got holes blown in my formations and it wasn't a pretty sight...

Artillery sucks.