Elephants: Balanced or not?

Just thought I'd post this after playing with some elephants today for the first time in EB.

In my opinion they are way under powered now, as Javelin throwers take them down too easily.

It amazes me that you can hurl a crap load of javelins into a low armoured 240 man phalanx and take down maybe one guy if you are lucky, and another time throw a smaller amount of javelins and basically enter the elephant on 'the worlds most endangered species list' 2500 years before they are supposed to be there.

Add to this the enormous cost of the things, and I ask myself are they worth it? The conclusion: are they heck as like.

So if elephants were really this expensive to upkeep and so easy to take down, what the hell was Hannibal doing marching them from N Africa, to Spain, through S Gaul, all over the Alps (the long route) and finally into battle against the Romans, when he could have taken a shorter route with his men and left the damn things at home?

(note: approx 3/4 of the elephants died en route, but it's said that Hannibal, placing so much faith in them, was still overjoyed at so many being still alive on the east side of the alps, when marching into N Italy).

Why go to all this effort, for "walking sheesh kebabs"?
Why was Hannibal so happy that a quart were still alive? (unless he had some weird elephant fetish or something)
Why does the elephant always come to mind when talking about Hannibal?
I'm not entirely sure on this, but I thought that Hannibals legendary elephants, struck fear into Roman hearts...

Something just doesn't add up here...

Please discuss

Specialty unit, I think. Much like you keep cavalry away from the front of a phalanx, keep elephants way, way away from skirmishers. I'm pretty happy though with what elephants can do when they crash through most units, especially low-morale units - it's impressive. Though, like cavalry, they are a little more vulnerable when they lose momentum inside of a heavy infantry unit with a strong morale, I guess. I'm trying to remember, weren't elephants eventually considered almost obsolete in history, once the Romans or whoever figured out how to fight them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

Just thought I'd post this after playing with some elephants today for the first time in EB.

In my opinion they are way under powered now, as Javelin throwers take them down too easily.

It amazes me that you can hurl a crap load of javelins into a low armoured 240 man phalanx and take down maybe one guy if you are lucky, and another time throw a smaller amount of javelins and basically enter the elephant on 'the worlds most endangered species list' 2500 years before they are supposed to be there.

Add to this the enormous cost of the things, and I ask myself are they worth it? The conclusion: are they heck as like.

So if elephants were really this expensive to upkeep and so easy to take down, what the hell was Hannibal doing marching them from N Africa, to Spain, through S Gaul, all over the Alps (the long route) and finally into battle against the Romans, when he could have taken a shorter route with his men and left the damn things at home?

(note: approx 3/4 of the elephants died en route, but it's said that Hannibal, placing so much faith in them, was still overjoyed at so many being still alive on the east side of the alps, when marching into N Italy).

Why go to all this effort, for "walking sheesh kebabs"?
Why was Hannibal so happy that a quart were still alive? (unless he had some weird elephant fetish or something)
Why does the elephant always come to mind when talking about Hannibal?
I'm not entirely sure on this, but I thought that Hannibals legendary elephants, struck fear into Roman hearts...

Something just doesn't add up here...

Please discuss

---

As far as I know, there's some balancing to do regarding the defensive abilities of the elephants. I wouldn't hold my breath for more attack power, though.

In history, elephants were generally only really effective when the opposing army didn't know how to deal with them. The romans seemed to need at least one battle per generation to enable them to deal with the animals. They also seemed to have their uses in disrupting enemy cavalry charges, as battles between the Sucessor states seemed to indicate.

They seem to gradually loose their importance in the West and Near East, seem to become increasingly hard to get, and ultimately dissapear alltogether from these battlefields. However in India and the in Southeast Asia, they remained a valuable weapon well into the 17th century.

BTW, Hannibal was not famous for actually using the elephants; as you said most of them died in the trip, and they never seem to have that much value in the earlier battles. What he was famous for was, the actual trip itself- the Alps were exceedingly difficult to cross in the winter, let alone in hostile territory (it was Celtic country after all), *and* on top of that, bring elephants along with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

I'm trying to remember, weren't elephants eventually considered almost obsolete in history, once the Romans or whoever figured out how to fight them?

---

Not really. I mean when the Romans fought the Sassanians, they were scared of the Elephants, mainly because the Romans had a few hundred years to forget about them.

But elephants need heavy protection. Horse archers or horse javilen men can destroy them, like they did in history. You just shoot the elepants till there dead, and there really too slow to catch up.

You don't even usally have to kill them, just hurt them enough that they stop letting their manhout order them around.

Anyway, they have a ton of attack power, and they scare enemy units. In the next build they'll be a bit hardier too, but they're not tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

You don't even usally have to kill them, just hurt them enough that they stop letting their manhout order them around.

Anyway, they have a ton of attack power, and they scare enemy units. In the next build they'll be a bit hardier too, but they're not tanks.

---

I usually try to rout them so they wreak havoc on the enemy's lines :devil:

I noticed some kind of bug though.. I think.

According to my in game experience there doesn't seem to be much (if any) difference between war elephants and armored elephants.

They die just as easily but they cost a shitload more. They also look identical on the battlemap I think.


GMT :bow:

Elephants are worth they weight in gold.
I would give kingdom for one unit of this beasts in my Gatai campaigne.
Just keep them away from skirmishers and watch havoc they cause in enemy ranks.
Non the less they should be a bit more resistent to javelin fire, but only a small bit.

Having read what you gentlemen have wrote, I have reached this conclusion:

Normal Elephants (unarmoured)- Have the correct stats, however their upkeep cost seems to be a bit exaggerated, as the cost of housing and feeding them would not be that great (how much did a bale of hay cost in ancient times?), and only their handlers would require any pay from the army.
Their recruitment cost seems to be right though, I can't imagine they were all that common.

Armoured Elephants- Stats seem to indicate they are not correct, as it would be almost impossible to penetrate the armour even with a well aimed javelin (in my opinion. look at well armoured troops ingame). Upkeep and recruitment costs could do with a little rise (cost of armour etc etc), to balance things out should the EB team decide to implement these suggestions in game.

Just my thoughts

Please discuss some more

As said, keep them away from skirmishers. When possible, charge the line with elephants and send in heavy infantry or some form of cavalry to follow up and exploit the temporary chaos. As always using various types of units in support of each other vastly increases their usefulness.

Hannibal's elephants were reportedly very useful when crossing the Alps; they may have held up the line, but they did dissuade the tribes from attacking the army column wherever the elephants were located due to their unfamiliarity with such creatures.

Besides, elephants did need to be well-trained for battle. See what happened when Hannibal took to the field with a large force of newly trained elephants at Zama, and that then they were more of a liability than a boon.

Elephants were really overpowered in RTW and RTR, but now I think that are underpowered. Keeping them away from skirmishers is good against some armies, but when fighting Romans they can't be used at all. They get shot up too easily by the legionaries. I really think they should be a little tougher to kill, not a lot, but a little.

Maybe a bit off topic but, a question. In my Carthage campaign i am unable to recruit anything but forest elephants :wall:, and only those in a few provinces. It's 242 bc and i have lvl 5 baracks in most of my African provinces. Is there some type of reform that needs to happen to get them (I've seen something called a nietos reform in the barracks description window) or has the ability to recruit them not been implimented yet.

Btw great mod, finally nice to see Carthiginian cavalry that is better then Roman.

The only elephants in that part of Africa are forest elephants. You'll have to go somewhere else if you want other elephants.

I agree they are somewhat underpowered. Playing mostly Carthage campaigns I obviously have a lot of experience using them. They are ok in melee, and if you are stupid and try to run down skirmisher cavalry with them, then yes you will get them killed pretty easily. I have been smart about using them so far, but even so, I do believe they get killed too easily. Whenever I have used them it was usually to either drive through infantry followed by an instant cavalry charge, or prolonged melee with cavalry, in which they are at their best. Like I said, they are ok in melee, but can take quite a few casualties simply from a prolonged melee with infantry (which most of the time has been simply skirmishers for me). And when in melee with these skirmisher units, and they decide (as they do alot) to launch their missles while engage, they can kill half my elephants in one throw.

Personally I think the Hit points should be at least increased a couple. As for now, the bang is not completely worth the buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Maybe a bit off topic but, a question. In my Carthage campaign i am unable to recruit anything but forest elephants :wall:, and only those in a few provinces. It's 242 bc and i have lvl 5 baracks in most of my African provinces. Is there some type of reform that needs to happen to get them (I've seen something called a nietos reform in the barracks description window) or has the ability to recruit them not been implimented yet.

Btw great mod, finally nice to see Carthiginian cavalry that is better then Roman.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

The only elephants in that part of Africa are forest elephants. You'll have to go somewhere else if you want other elephants.

---

Then my question is this, why even have the Elephant Resource in Carthage and other Carthaginian provinces if you are not going to be able to recruit any elephant units?

Currently from what i recall, elephants in EB run on average 4 HPS, whereas in RTW vanilla, they were 12 for forest and 15 for war and armoured ele's.. i like to see a comprimise between the numbers in the neighborhood of 8-9. I mean its embarrasing that i can make 3 units of war elephants go down like a sack of potatos with 1 unit of conscript militia skirmishers on VH difficulty. Very ironic that a unit of potion drinking -armorless- naked men can manage to outfight being surrounded by respectable infantry, whereas in kind a behemoth of a creature armored from head to toe has to have the planets align for it to be effective. If my comrade in battle is taking the brunt of a Gasetae fighter from the front, and i thrust my sword into his bareskinned back and it goes through his chest, and then i yank my blade to one side.. it dont care if the guy's on PCP... he's going to feel that!

Thanks for the response. Then were are the recruitment area's for African Bush war and armored elephants located at?

It seems that when I play on huge, the numbers of peltastai and akonstitai and 'javelineers' increase dramatically compared to the elephant units. They have like 240 men against like 15 elephants or so. I understand that they will be balanced more in coming versions, but I'm just trying to reinforce the fact that they shouldn't be killed off by just one volley from one unit of skirmishers.

BTW: Isn't there a topic like this on the twcenter forum too?

Yes, they'll be a bit tougher in the next build.

African Bush Elephants are avaiable in the Ethiopia/Nubia/Upper Nile area, but they aren't very good. While they are the biggest and strongest of Elephants in the game they're the least predictable and will route or run amok much more easily than Forest or Indian. Indian are the way to go really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slider6977

Then my question is this, why even have the Elephant Resource in Carthage and other Carthaginian provinces if you are not going to be able to recruit any elephant units?

---

Er... Like previous posts indicated, forest elephants are available in Carthage, just not the other elephant types.

I find that elephants are better suited to staying behind your main battle line. Then just punch through a weak point once you've engaged them and let your reserve fold around their flanks in. If you can also use your cavalry then to hit their rear and slaughter them. If you do use them on your flanks or relatively isolated keep light cavalry near or mix some light infantry (like iberii caetratii) in loose formation with the elephants.

To be honest I'd rather go for one hundred sacred band cavalry- cheaper and pack more punch and killing power...

Elephants as they are, are redundant...

"You don't even usally have to kill them, just hurt them enough that they stop letting their manhout order them around.

Anyway, they have a ton of attack power, and they scare enemy units. In the next build they'll be a bit hardier too, but they're not tanks."

...This is incorrect. An animal will always listen to you, unlike humans. I ride horses, and have trained plenty of animals.

My point is that a horse (or any other animal) can be steered into a poll, into another horse, you can tell it to jump something that it knows it won't make it over but it wil try, they will do anything (they will stop if they don't think the ground is stable however, thats why they have trouble walking over crosswalks [they think they are bars with holes inbetween] and won't step on humans) as long they trust you.

It is far more likely that the manhout loses control and tells the elephant to run amok, than the elephant actually gets scared enough to run.

Why is this? Why can you get an animal to do almost anything for you when riding them? You train discipline, and a disciplined animal will follow your lead. Otherwise we wouldn't have elephants in the circus, as if anything spooked them or hurt them, they would run amok, which is not the case.

Now you could point to the times when elephants have "run amok" but that is because thay have been improperly trained, or do not trust their trainer. There is a lot of variables here, but my Fresian horse will do whatever I tell him to, because he trusts me.

Thus if elephants were to be realistic, they would only break when presented with enough firepower to kill/disable the manhout. But otherwise, they would do whatever the manhout (if their is proper trust) tells the elephant to do.

You've made this argument before, it's disputed by a ton of military historians as well as plenty of ancient sources in a lot of contexts, and frankly I don't buy it. Animals aren't machines, despite the ideas you put forward in your car analogy.

You can train an animal extremely well, but any animal, just like a human has a breaking point. And they are smart animals, when they feel pain, they don't like it (all animals, that is).

omited

I think the thing is, that lightly-armoured skirmishers have a looser formation and can get out of the way easier than tightly-packed legionaries. They're not standing up to the charge or something.

As for animals always obeying when properly trained, we know from real life that when under pressure they may forget their training and go back to their instincts, just like people. They may not always be perfectly trained, either.

I supported, and still support fallen851 point, as far as he mention horses. Elephants on the other hand are quite smart, and will behave more like human and try to escape from danger. The different thing is running amok. This is, I think wrongly represented - elephants running amock should attack and try to kill everybody, not run away, as in this state ele are acting as mad killing machines (sth like berserkers). Eleph. should either run away OR run amock in battle situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

...This is incorrect. An animal will always listen to you, unlike humans. I ride horses, and have trained plenty of animals.

My point is that a horse (or any other animal) can be steered into a poll, into another horse, you can tell it to jump something that it knows it won't make it over but it wil try, they will do anything (they will stop if they don't think the ground is stable however, thats why they have trouble walking over crosswalks [they think they are bars with holes inbetween] and won't step on humans) as long they trust you.

---

So you can ride a tame, domesticated animal against a pole into a training yard. Okay, I can believe that. However, from this it does not necesarily follow that an undomesticated, barely tamed (as most elephants were not bred in captivity, probably because of the food bill) animal will obey its master in the middle of a noisy, chaotic, bloody (the smell of blood is reported to terrify elephants) battlefield when it is being pelted with arrows, stones and javelins.

Hey, horses are quite smart O'ETAIPOS. My mom works with mistreated horses, and they are certaintly smart enough to not trust people for a long time after being starved and beaten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Er... Like previous posts indicated, forest elephants are available in Carthage, just not the other elephant types.

---

Er... No. Forest Elephants CAN'T be recruited in Carthage, like my previous post indicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Hey, horses are quite smart O'ETAIPOS. My mom works with mistreated horses, and they are certaintly smart enough to not trust people for a long time after being starved and beaten.

---

try to beat or starve elephant - he will simply kill you!

Er...I think we are all kind of deviating from the original intent of the post.

Wether or not elephants would or would not obey their masters or if they really would "run amok" is for another thread perhaps?

The original reason for the topic is about the Elephants current state in EB, and wether or not they are too weak etc etc.

It would be more helpful I think, that if you think they are currently correct in EB as it stands that you say so and your reasons why you think they are right.

But if you think they are represented incorrectly in game at the moment, state your reasons why and a possible solution/suggestion.

Obviously I have no power to enforce that you keep the thread "on topic", i only appeal that you do so, as i'm sure the EB team will take more notice and find it easier to gauge what most people think by keeping it constructive.

After all we all want a good game no?

Here was my suggestion for change from earlier:

Normal Elephants (unarmoured)- Have the correct stats, however their upkeep cost seems to be a bit exaggerated, as the cost of housing and feeding them would not be that great (how much did a bale of hay cost in ancient times?), and only their handlers would require any pay from the army.
Their recruitment cost seems to be right though, I can't imagine they were all that common.

Armoured Elephants- Stats seem to indicate they are not correct, as it would be almost impossible to penetrate the armour even with a well aimed javelin (in my opinion. look at well armoured troops ingame). Upkeep and recruitment costs could do with a little rise (cost of armour etc etc), to balance things out should the EB team decide to implement these suggestions in game.


Please discuss, and pick apart my suggestions if you believe they are not valid. But remember to add your own suggestions so that the next person to post can pick them apart and add his/her own suggestions and so on and so forth.

If we keep to this we may all come to the right conclusion in the end, without having to trawl through all the "this idea sucks!"replies.

Cheers

I think that even the unarmoured elephants are a little to weak- IIRC they don't have any armour at all right? That would mean that a 4hp elephant gets killed by 4 well placed arrows. Elephants have pretty thick skin - sensitive though, wich is why elephants would panick after being showered with projectiles - that would protect them from serious injury from arrows. Javelins would be better.

It's worth remembering though, that the Seleucids only used their elephants as an anti-cavalry screen at their flanks. The prevalence of skirmishers in the east probably would have had something to do with this.

I actually like elephants as represented in the vanilla game. I want them to be combat monsters that give you fits. Even as such, there are relatively easy ways to deal with them (e.g. let them chase a skirmisher to the edge of the map, effectively neutralising them for much of the battle). I think they should be rare and expensive as they are now, but tough enough in the game to justify that cost.

It probably does not matter too much to the human - maybe they can use them well enough to avoid missiles etc - but elephants under the AI will just die too easily if you make them very vulnerable to missiles (a human will make them an "all tubes" target) and that will be anti-climatic.

I realise this is a subjective gameplay point of view, not one based on history. But my sense of history is that elephants often made an impression on enemy generals as a problem unit to square up to, regardless of how they actually performed in battle.

We need threats from the AI - gestatae, hetairoi etc are the kind of units that make the battles fun and sometimes scarey. Elephants should join them.

I agree Simon. I think they should be beefed up though. I don't know all the elephant types but armoured should be considerably stronger. Someone posted earlier that Javelins should'nt be able to penetrate the armour so easily and i agree. Wen i battle Phyrrosand his (Indian?) elephants i get scared for a minute drop a volley maybe two and they're dead or routing. Elephants should be rampaging thoruogh my lines. (well i'd rather not have it off course~;) ) It seems it only depents if you have javelineers or not which is i find odd. Could you not give armoured elephants the 'frighten skirmishers' trait or something?
So you're skirmishers can take 'um out but also rout easier.
On hp it is now 4 and was 15 in original RTW maybe 8?

grtz kod

I got a ton of great usage from Pyrrhos' start elephants. They are terrific for smashing up Mak phalangitai if there are no skirmishers around. I keep them in the back if there are some of those present and just let their archers shoot. I finally lost them in an ambush where I destroyed a huge makedonian army with only a few units - but those elephants did their job up until they finally got caught up by a skirmisher unit that my general had routed - and then it recovered itself and I didn't notice it (fighting in forests).

So I guess I'd be for giving them just a little better hp, but not much better.

I totally agree Teleklos (for unarmoured elephants), apart from the fact that javelins should not be able to pierce armour so easily.

If you look at the rest of the armoured troops in game, they are not vunerable at all to javelins really. (don't even get me started on the naked guys who have no armour, yet are still unaffected by 200 javelins, each 3.5 feet long, being thrown into their midst :0). Being on drugs doesn't stop sharp things from piercing naked flesh! )

So...common sense would suggest that armoured elephants should get the same (if not more) benefits/protection as armoured troops, as they are both wearing armour.

If you don't agree with the above statement, then you at least have to admit that a rampaging behemoth, that is 10ft tall and weighs in at 2/3 tonnes (add an extra 1/2 tonne for armour) and runs about 40mp/h (EDIT-40kp/h for sheep) stands a better chance at surviving a javelin than a naked, ramapaging, drug addict, that weighs in at about 14 stonnes and runs about 20mph? (not even in a straight line he is so wacked)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

If you look at the rest of the armoured troops in game, they are not vunerable at all to javelins really.

---

This may be true, but if so, it seems more worrying than the fragility of the pachyderms. I would have thought javelins were nasty weapons, regardless of armour. I've heard they could pierce almost all armour. Indeed, light infantry might even be better at handling javelin fire because they can dodge and weave to avoid them (javelins are slow, but have great penetration). Yes, a big heavy shield might protect you, but often that would be end of the shield - or at least, that was the intent of the pila - and given that the game can't represent that, some direct casualties would seem to be warranted. But, I don't want to drag this off-topic.

Intuitively, lots of javelin armed skirmishers do seem a reasonable response to elephants. It's just that in the game, it is anti-climactic.

I don't think the elephants should get extra hp. Elephanting in melee is now balanced I think, and that would screw it up. Rather, some of their defense skill should be changed into armour (their "natural armour", thick skin). Result: performance in combat is uneffected, but the little monsters are now less vulnerable to missiles.

After checking in custom battle: 2 Elephant units - Indian and armoured indian were killed by 1 unit of basic HA on flat groud, almost without losses. It doesnt seem to be right.

I would agree that Elephants seems useless in EB.
They can even be easily killed by Arkontisais, peasants without much trainning. As there are always a lot of javelins in each army, there is no way to use them. I know that it is intended that javelins should be used against elefants, but historicaly I don´t think that peasants can wipe them out so easily as in EB.

Well, it's incorrect to say "there is no way to use them" as I have used them to great effect against infantry - you just have to keep them away from quick skirmishers with ranged weapons. Still I agree that there should be some changes in their stats.

Playing as Epirhotes i sold my arm and leg to keep them in my army.
And they where winning battle afther battle afther battle.
Incredibly strong unit. But you cant just shout charge and hope elaphants will win the day singlehanded.
But i to agree that they stats should be altered A LITTLE.

Just a quick thought...what would the effect be, if you took the "bonus vs elephants" attribute away from skirmishers?

If this made the balance between elephants and skirmishers even, then there would be no need to adjust any stats, thus leaving the balance that is already there between infantry and elephants untouched.

Even if it's not balanced at first when you do this, you could go on to give missile troops negative effects vs elephants until the right balance was there....

Just a thought anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

You've made this argument before, it's disputed by a ton of military historians as well as plenty of ancient sources in a lot of contexts, and frankly I don't buy it. Animals aren't machines, despite the ideas you put forward in your car analogy.

---

Now,with qwerty's suggestion as to our anologies he believes we make, we will pit the two "machines" together in a royal rumble

Car vs. Forest elephant

http://www.break.com/index/elephantattack.html

Good stuff :laugh4:

Also, elephants should be giving the modifier "Causes fear to restaurant owners"

http://www.break.com/index/elephant1.html

and now imagine what that would be like when all thats between you and the elephant is a shield and an pointy stick

the discipline potential of elephants..

http://www.break.com/index/coolelephant1.html

and when they run amok..

http://www.break.com/index/madelephant.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

After checking in custom battle: 2 Elephant units - Indian and armoured indian were killed by 1 unit of basic HA on flat groud, almost without losses. It doesnt seem to be right.

---

Well that is a very inaccurate test. You can not hope to defeat any unit single-handedly with just the mear pressence of Elephants. That was what was so backwards about the power of Vanilla elephants. Just as in history, Elephants do not make an army. Hannibal used Elephants to probably the greatest effect of any general in history. And he did it on the knowledge that they were simply an excellent, horrific addition to his already excellent army.

Elephants in EB, just as in history, need to be supported by a variety of troops. And depending on who you are fighting, and with what units, you have to protect them, and possibly even prevent them from entering such dangerous battles, again just as in history.

Overall, I am happy they are not the tanks they were in Vanilla (although I played Carthage a lot and LOVED their tankness). However I do feel they are somewhat underpowered. As much as I have used them to effect, I still believe they are either a couple hit points off, or are completely overpowered by 200 men units of scirmishers. I believe they need to be adjusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

After checking in custom battle: 2 Elephant units - Indian and armoured indian were killed by 1 unit of basic HA on flat groud, almost without losses. It doesnt seem to be right.

---

Not at all. The point of horse archers were to stay away from slow things, and elephants are slow. Horse archers are the best way to kill elephants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Not at all. The point of horse archers were to stay away from slow things, and elephants are slow. Horse archers are the best way to kill elephants.

---

But the ele has tower with archers. I was standing still with HA and elephants were aproaching. Routed about 30 metres from my men, rest killed in rout. I needed 2-3 HA's to fight "nudists" on the other hand.

I was quite sure my HA's will win, but killing 2 units of ele (one armoured) loosing 2-3 men without avoid tactic (cant. circle) seems strange. And if you compare costs ...

I ALREADY MADE THEM TOUGHER! IN THE NEXT PATCH THEY WILL BE STRONGER!

:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

try to beat or starve elephant - he will simply kill you!

---

In India, wild elephants captured to serve and help foresters in their chores were, captured before they reached adulthood, bound to a tree and forcefully put into an unconfortable position (one leg up) and sleep deprived (20 villagers shouting all night long, all month long) and starved until they are broken into submission. From here on, the training could begin.

Broken is the key word here.
The images were hard, I have the image of an elephant crying and moaning burned deep within my mind.
What's why I interrupted too.

seen on some -12 rated documentary shot in the late 90s on French learning TV La Cinquieme (probably bought from TLC or the like)

Please, let the poor Hannibal rest in peace when it comes to elephants. He was a great general but had little time to use elephants. Contrary to some belief none of his elephants died during the crossing of the alps. They died exept one (Surus, the Indian) after the battle at the Trebia because of the cold winter and perhaps exhaustion. At Zama Hannibal had to use 80 recently captured and very illtrained forest elephants; they killed a lot of Roman soldiers but were finally beaten by Scipios cunning preparations.

The true elephant users were others, the Indian kings, the Successors, esp. the Seleucids, Pyrrhos, sometimes the Romans (!), the Sassanids, the Mughals etc.. Some big battles were decided by elephants, sometimes they failed totally.

I'm also of the opinion that elephants are not so well depicted in EB now. They are much to weak. It is indeed very difficult to kill an elephant with small missiles. So the elephant losses were minimal on the fields. Elephants however can be scared by the pain they receive if hit by missiles. Either they flee or run amok. The more they were trained and had trust and a good connection to the mahout the better they could stand the pain and horror of the battles. The hp should be raised therefore.

Armoured elephants should be much harder to kill even.


Some additional remarks in no special order:
1. I never heard of the use of bush elephants for warfare. Do you have a source for this? I think only African forest elephants and Indian elephants should be in the game.
2. Playing as Ptolemaioi I could recruit elephants in Meroe. At least the description of the build MIC says that. But the unit does not appear in the towns unit roster and so is not recruitable. What is to do?
3. It's a pity that Epeiros cannot longer recruit armored Indian elephants. I would like to insult you therefore but unfortunately you are right in doing this, because Pyrrhos seems to have used unarmored ones and the crazy plan to breed a herd in Epeiros of course never succeeded. The only successful breed ever seemed to be the later Roman herd of African forest elephants (even today breeding of elephants in Europe is extremely difficult).
4. I saw that close combat cavalry with + factors against elephants exists in EB. That is not very realistic because horses are frightened by elephants and even well trained horses were easily killed by elephants if they dared to come close.

Are EB members all of those who have that nice EB-marked picture where says EB Member?:inquisitive:
If so, How is it posible that you do not agree on such important thing,

I was so afraid of that elephant of Pyrros at my Pela:ahh: , but than I almost by chace killed them all in just two-spear drops by ONE! of my javelinman unit..I mean w..what?!?


And let me add that Europeism in history will not bring any solutions to debates like this one.. If there were some of our Asian friends here (that now about history of warfare) -- they would say somthing smarter, but here am I and I will say what I know - shortly.

Elephants in India and SE Asia were ridden before horses (not literaly) in Europe, and by the time horses were used by nomads to rundown Roman Empire -- Elephants were drinking tea i China (:clown: )... Besides, elephants were are even in some battles of today in rebel states of Indian peninsula, and in 18 and 19 century -- they were able to whitstand some serious gunpower before they would fall...:juggle2:

I san not belive that one of my javelin unit can beat elephants so easy:no:

Anyway, + 1 hp for elephants would do great

be well my friends!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

I totally agree Teleklos (for unarmoured elephants), apart from the fact that javelins should not be able to pierce armour so easily.

If you look at the rest of the armoured troops in game, they are not vunerable at all to javelins really. (don't even get me started on the naked guys who have no armour, yet are still unaffected by 200 javelins, each 3.5 feet long, being thrown into their midst :0). Being on drugs doesn't stop sharp things from piercing naked flesh! )

So...common sense would suggest that armoured elephants should get the same (if not more) benefits/protection as armoured troops, as they are both wearing armour.

If you don't agree with the above statement, then you at least have to admit that a rampaging behemoth, that is 10ft tall and weighs in at 2/3 tonnes (add an extra 1/2 tonne for armour) and runs about 40mph stands a better chance at surviving a javelin than a naked, ramapaging, drug addict, that weighs in at about 14 stonnes and runs about 20mph? (not even in a straight line he is so wacked)

---

Maybe the skirmishers aim for the riders, not the elephants themselves - it's not like the guy can move from where he's sitting... :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

Maybe the skirmishers aim for the riders, not the elephants themselves - it's not like the guy can move from where he's sitting... :beam:

---

Very true. However, I wrote that well over a year ago, and was not as clued up in regards to the game engine limitations. ~;p

What bothers me is that my best weapon against eleohants has previously been slingers. Haven't tried it in 1.0 though. When playing the Macs, Epirus always attacked Pella with her elephants, but one unit of slingers always cut them down with three to four volleys. Maybe now it's a little different...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megalos

If you don't agree with the above statement, then you at least have to admit that a rampaging behemoth, that is 10ft tall and weighs in at 2/3 tonnes (add an extra 1/2 tonne for armour) and runs about 40mph

---

What planet do you come from where elephants run 40mph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheep

What planet do you come from where elephants run 40mph?

---

Downhill with a head wind perphaps?

I dispute fallen's argument; The main difference between training elephantry and cavalry comes down to how personalized training of a certain animal looks like and the means available to train them for war; There is a difference between leading a horse to lunge at an enemy and to simply trample over them than leading a raged elephant for assault. Now that you have trained Friesian horses (Pleasant animals they are, docile, complying but nonetheless a powerful animal) I must point out that while they share many characteristics with the Nisaean breed of antiquity (The ideal horse for heavy cavalry at the time), they cannot quite be compared to each other; The Akhal-Teke... Forget it, there is a reason why Scythians valued the "Golden Horse", and half the prize was apparent; Those who could train it, earned it. Usually elephants were either fed with fermented wine, figs or dates shortly before battle to enrage them. This is an immense difference.

Elephants are not docile animals, perhaps more apparent in today's stock of the African bush elephant, than their Indian cousins, but usually on well-furnished war-elephants we see them carrying straps or sometimes chains on various places and a central girdle holding a heavy tower of wooden planks while the pîlbân (Mahout) ushers the elephant to charge, like a battering ram. This is a lot to deal with, even for a strong elephant. Obviously more is expected from an elephant than cavalry; The latter is far more comparable to camelry. Why? Well, let us go back to horse-furnish, what is perhaps more important than a good saddle and other means of rider stability? The bridle, or perhaps more specifically the bit. This overlooked aspect in equestrian warfare is tremendously important, and more so thanks to it rather than stirrups did it truly pave way for the plated knights of Medieval ages; As horses got larger the bit had to improve. In this aspect, the Sassanians were paving much of the way in improved horse-furniture. Camels too are "manipulated" by the similar means. I would almost tip for habit rather than pure trust.

Now, there is another fundamental difference in breeding horses and elephants for war; The former would have a relatively small margin of "rejects" if the cavalry instructors were skilled, whereas the latter required an immense toll of elephants; The majority that could not be trained were usually slaughtered for consumption. We may ask ourselves the question why the elephant-driver was usually equipped with a mallet and a spike to kill a "problematic animal", as well as we may ask ourselves how the elephant-driver gave commands to the elephant. We cannot compare apples with oranges, that we are able to train horses so easily today is the result of intensive horse-breeding by our ancestors. The means of training elephants today have also improved; Enough to allow the beasts for different versions of polo, but not to the same degree. Camels, especially dromedaries have grown so dependent on humans that they are unable to live in the wild. The elephant however begs to differ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, oddly under the Ears section

Walking at a normal pace an elephant covers about 3 to 6 km/h (2 to 4 mph) but they can reach 40 km/h (24 mph) at full speed.

---

Just quoting regarding the speed issue. Perhaps Megalos confused mph with km/h, or has information from elsewhere.
Elephant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

Perhaps Megalos confused mph with km/h, or has information from elsewhere.
Elephant

---

Indeed this is may be true. I can't exactly remember for sure as it was written along time ago, but i'm sure I was checking out wiki for some stats.

I live in britain, which is kind of a mixing pot between metric and imperial measurement systems...sorry for the slip, i'll edit my post.


Mega

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

I dispute fallen's argument; The main difference between training elephantry and cavalry comes down to how personalized training of a certain animal looks like and the means available to train them for war; There is a difference between leading a horse to lunge at an enemy and to simply trample over them than leading a raged elephant for assault. Now that you have trained Friesian horses (Pleasant animals they are, docile, complying but nonetheless a powerful animal) I must point out that while they share many characteristics with the Nisaean breed of antiquity (The ideal horse for heavy cavalry at the time), they cannot quite be compared to each other; The Akhal-Teke... Forget it, there is a reason why Scythians valued the "Golden Horse", and half the prize was apparent; Those who could train it, earned it. Usually elephants were either fed with fermented wine, figs or dates shortly before battle to enrage them. This is an immense difference.

Elephants are not docile animals, perhaps more apparent in today's stock of the African bush elephant, than their Indian cousins, but usually on well-furnished war-elephants we see them carrying straps or sometimes chains on various places and a central girdle holding a heavy tower of wooden planks while the pîlbân (Mahout) ushers the elephant to charge, like a battering ram. This is a lot to deal with, even for a strong elephant. Obviously more is expected from an elephant than cavalry; The latter is far more comparable to camelry. Why? Well, let us go back to horse-furnish, what is perhaps more important than a good saddle and other means of rider stability? The bridle, or perhaps more specifically the bit. This overlooked aspect in equestrian warfare is tremendously important, and more so thanks to it rather than stirrups did it truly pave way for the plated knights of Medieval ages; As horses got larger the bit had to improve. In this aspect, the Sassanians were paving much of the way in improved horse-furniture. Camels too are "manipulated" by the similar means. I would almost tip for habit rather than pure trust.

Now, there is another fundamental difference in breeding horses and elephants for war; The former would have a relatively small margin of "rejects" if the cavalry instructors were skilled, whereas the latter required an immense toll of elephants; The majority that could not be trained were usually slaughtered for consumption. We may ask ourselves the question why the elephant-driver was usually equipped with a mallet and a spike to kill a "problematic animal", as well as we may ask ourselves how the elephant-driver gave commands to the elephant. We cannot compare apples with oranges, that we are able to train horses so easily today is the result of intensive horse-breeding by our ancestors. The means of training elephants today have also improved; Enough to allow the beasts for different versions of polo, but not to the same degree. Camels, especially dromedaries have grown so dependent on humans that they are unable to live in the wild. The elephant however begs to differ.

---

Ahhhh... Proffessor TPC is in the house. Ok kids, file in, in an orderly fashion and have a seat...but I must warn you...you do so at the risk of perhaps learning a thing or two.