Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Dave Markowitz]

Why are elephants disordered in woods? By my research (watching the
discovery channel), woods get disordered by elephants, not visa-
versa.

[Phil Gardocki]

An individual elephant is not "disordered" by woods. A formation of
elephants and people are.
Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

>Why are elephants disordered in woods? By my research (watching the
>discovery channel), woods get disordered by elephants, not visa-
>versa.

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[Chris Damour]

Hey Folks,
This has been a "Say what?" issue with me as long as I
have been playing the game also. As a biologist, I can tell
you that elephants have absolutely NO trouble moving through
dense vegetation.
However, after having argued this point (usually over a
beer and not the game table) I have come to the conclusion
that it makes sense in game terms for a unit of elephants to
be disordered by any terrain with trees or buildings. This
is more due to how they are used in war rather than an
inability to negotiate the terrain itself.
In 7th and Warrior, elephants are actually representing
the massed units of elephants rather than the Hellenistic
practice of putting one elephant (with supporting
skirmishers) every couple of hundred yards across the army
frontage. (I realize that some lists that used elephants in
this "spread out" fashion get elephants, but face it, the
game does NOT model this use at all...) Further, elephants
that are carrying people do not move through terrain with
the same ease as they do by themselves. The short
explaination is that mahouts don't like to get whacked in
the head by branches!
When used in a mass fashion as the game simulates, the
"cohesiveness" of the unit is vital for the combat effect.
When negotiating close terrain, elephants either spread out
or drop into single file(s). This would adversely impact
the combat power of the unit. Disorder is a reasonable
method to represent this loss.
Having said (typed?) all that, I also believe that the
terrain that is represented by "brush" typically would not
affect a unit of elephants sufficiently to cause a loss of
combat power. Thus, I do not feel that elephants should be
disordered by brush. But brush would be the only rough or
difficult terrain that would NOT disorder elephants. (IMNSHO
of course!)
Let me know what 'ya think.
Chris Damour

> I have always wondered this myself. Elephants, unlike other
> mounted, work fine in rough and difficult terrain. I don't think they
> should be disordered in brush, either. I certainly don't think there is
> any history to back this disorder up.
> Jevon
> > Why are elephants disordered in woods? By my research (watching the
> > discovery channel), woods get disordered by elephants, not visa-
> > versa.

[Chris Damour]

Recognized for at last! <<grin>> OK all, all lines that
begin with ">" are Ewan, those with "> >" are me...

> > Having said (typed?) all that, I also believe that the
> > terrain that is represented by "brush" typically would not
> > affect a unit of elephants sufficiently to cause a loss of
> > combat power. Thus, I do not feel that elephants should be
> > disordered by brush. But brush would be the only rough or
> > difficult terrain that would NOT disorder elephants. (IMNSHO
> > of course!)
>
> OK: this may be fine in a simulation sense. From a game point of view, it
> would take away the only reasonable defense that many armies have against
> elephants, which is the use of brush. An elephant that could negotiate
> brush would have to go up hugely in cost - I actually think that the
> current cost is about right; the increased 'smell zone' vs. 6th is if
> anything more of a hindrance than a help - and the testing of all this...
> ain't gonna happen before July 10 anyway .
Hrmmnnn... Good point. It does open up a whole new
can of worms about charging etcetera. Have to think on this
some more...
Just to toss out another idea, what do y'all think
about allowing LI to frontally charge steady elephants?
That's All Folks!
Chris

Chris,
Sounds good to me, Chris! Francis Reed

[Jevon Garrett]

I have always wondered this myself. Elephants, unlike other
mounted, work fine in rough and difficult terrain. I don't think they
should be disordered in brush, either. I certainly don't think there is
any history to back this disorder up.

Jevon

>
>
> Why are elephants disordered in woods? By my research (watching the
> discovery channel), woods get disordered by elephants, not visa-
> versa.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE Secure, online sales force
> automation with 5 users FREE for 1 year!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2658/2/_/_/_/961633887/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

[Ewan McNay]

Chris quoth thusly:

> This has been a "Say what?" issue with me as long as I
> have been playing the game also. As a biologist, I can tell
> you that elephants have absolutely NO trouble moving through
> dense vegetation.

Agreed.

> In 7th and Warrior, elephants are actually representing
> the massed units of elephants rather than the Hellenistic
> practice of putting one elephant (with supporting
> skirmishers) every couple of hundred yards across the army
> frontage. (I realize that some lists that used elephants in
> this "spread out" fashion get elephants, but face it, the
> game does NOT model this use at all...) Further, elephants
> that are carrying people do not move through terrain with
> the same ease as they do by themselves. The short
> explaination is that mahouts don't like to get whacked in
> the head by branches!

Also agreed. For those of you who are stunned by my agreeing with the
good Mr. Damour twice in one email, rest assured that there is some debate
below.

> When used in a mass fashion as the game simulates, the
> "cohesiveness" of the unit is vital for the combat effect.
> When negotiating close terrain, elephants either spread out
> or drop into single file(s). This would adversely impact
> the combat power of the unit. Disorder is a reasonable
> method to represent this loss.

As is the forced contraction into column if marching through such terrain.

> Having said (typed?) all that, I also believe that the
> terrain that is represented by "brush" typically would not
> affect a unit of elephants sufficiently to cause a loss of
> combat power. Thus, I do not feel that elephants should be
> disordered by brush. But brush would be the only rough or
> difficult terrain that would NOT disorder elephants. (IMNSHO
> of course!)

OK: this may be fine in a simulation sense. From a game point of view, it
would take away the only reasonable defense that many armies have against
elephants, which is the use of brush. An elephant that could negotiate
brush would have to go up hugely in cost - I actually think that the
current cost is about right; the increased 'smell zone' vs. 6th is if
anything more of a hindrance than a help - and the testing of all this...
ain't gonna happen before July 10 anyway .

[All of which really means that I'm agreeing with Chris again - the
current treatment of Els is pretty ok. One possibility that I have toyed
with, and which would be a list rule for the several lists to which it
applied, is allowing single elephants to be made part of foot units,
simulating the spread-out use. One would have to avoid the silliness
that I once saw in an Indian list, though, where I faced six or so 'units'
consisting of one elephant or one chariot plus a stand of LI, the whole
being a 'unit' (!) with the LI hiding behind, of course.]

Ewan

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Phil Gardocki]

I agree with Chris as well. If Elephants can ignore 5 foot implaced stakes,
the can ignore an arborvitae grove.

Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
-----Original Message-----
From: damourc@... <damourc@...>
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2000 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Elephants in Rough Terrain


> Having said (typed?) all that, I also believe that the
>terrain that is represented by "brush" typically would not
>affect a unit of elephants sufficiently to cause a loss of
>combat power. Thus, I do not feel that elephants should be
>disordered by brush. But brush would be the only rough or
>difficult terrain that would NOT disorder elephants. (IMNSHO
>of course!)
> Let me know what 'ya think.
>Chris Damour

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[Greg Regets]

Just to toss out another idea, what do y'all think about allowing LI to
frontally charge steady elephants?

That's All Folks!
Chris


>>>> Greg >>>> Pretty funny .... we just got finished with an argument where
many people thought light infantry was too good, :-)

Greg ~current painter of elephant army~

I agree in substance with Ewan's arguments re: game balance vs
historical simulation. In historical terms, one may argue for a
different treatment of really skillful users of elephants, such as
the Tamils of southern India, whether it be the classical or Medieval
periods, or (what the heck) right now we're talking about. For the
Tamils, I think Chris's brush argument is compelling. One might
readily concede that most classical armies that used elephants were
really bad at it (pikers as it were -- ouch!); the Tamils, however,
were and continue to be superb handlers of elephants. But, surprise,
I like to play Indians, Tamils in particular; it would be nice (for
me) to have the luxury of brush-stomping Tamil elephants (especially
to oppose Aztecs), but there is no compelling reason to do this in
Warrior.