The Onager and the Elephant: Psychological Warfare

[Desperado[1G]]

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.

[AyraWinla]

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 :)

[Voigtkampf]

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.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

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.

[Dionysus9]

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.

[tootee]

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.

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..

[Aelwyn]

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.