Elephants: Balanced or not?

[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

[Danest]

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?

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[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.

[GMT]

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

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

[LorDBulA]

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.

[Megalos]

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

[Sarcasm]

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.

[fallen851]

"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.

[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.

[Steppe Merc]

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).

[EdwardL]

omited

[Malrubius]

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.

[O'ETAIPOS]

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.

[EdwardL]

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

[Malrubius]

Good stuff

[EdwardL]

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

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

[Baldrick]

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

[Ludens]

...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.

[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.

[O'ETAIPOS]

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!

[Megalos]

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

[Poulp']

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)

[Maksimus]

Are EB members all of those who have that nice EB-marked picture where says EB Member?
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 , 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 ( )... 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...

I san not belive that one of my javelin unit can beat elephants so easy

Anyway, + 1 hp for elephants would do great

be well my friends!

[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.