Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[ZajacMWZ]

I'm looking at the Early Indian list and debating the value of the escorts mounted on the same base as elephants and the chariot runners. What are the pros and cons of using same-base mounted escorts versus instead attaching an LI element?

Is there a difference to using escorts versus an attached element if the elephant crews are armed with bow or instead with javelins?

[scott holder]

Anybody else wanna jump in on this?

The biggest disadvantage is the inability to roll up on charge/pursuit moves.

As to your second question, it boils down to what you're using the formation for. If it's primarily as a shooting formation, well, you want to maximize that thus, your escorts should be bow-armed. If in a chariot formation and you're hoping to use it as a massive impact formation, you want the escorts armed with JLS. Most people who try this discover it's tough to get such formations into contact since your opponent does everything to prevent that.

scott

[Ewan McNay]

"Anybody else wanna jump in on this? "

Sure. On-base escorts: moving as foot in tactical moves is a big loss. Being unable to roll long is a big loss. They're really expensive as on-base. If irregular, they double the fatigue you take in hth, which is a big problem.

The upside is that you are slightly less vulnerable to incoming missile fire, and have slightly more offensive power. I don't think that either comes close to making them worthwhile.

As detachments, they function really *only* to bulk up against missile fire. Again, not worth the points in my opinion: there are far better uses.

Some of this assumes that you're not running e.g. a 2-elephant unit out in front of your opponent's bow block. On the other hand, if you're doing that then you're going to lose regardles of whether you have runners on your base.

Me, opinions?

[jamiepwhite]

Seleucid gets regular LI escorts on the elephant base, which made them less painful. Steve Rawls had an Osprey book on war elephants, the escorting infantry is historical.

Khmer regular loose order foot as a parent or detachment to the elephant models is a different story, very much worth doing then. You'll see debate about which line infantry to use, but for Khmer the regular foot is great to pair with the elephant models.

Jamie White

[Frank Gilson]

Note: Nothing stops you from having some elephants with LI on the base, and some not...

Counting as 7 figures per element but taking double fatigue often puts you at the same condition (tired or not tired) as if you counted 5 per element, but undisordered...which is huge. It's a combat math thing, really.

If you use the escorts as a detachment...you can skillfully have the best of both worlds...LI attached when you need to count as more figures...detached when you need to move as mounted and go long. Just, umm, don't get disordered with your LI detachment in a 2nd rank, ok?

Frank

[Ed Kollmer]

Thanks guys.
I am trying to get my Trojans together and also my carthagians , and I always wanted to know the difference about the escorts.
Ed the rash

[lilroblis]

I think you also nee+d to knopw your army, my chinese would never use escorts on the base, my macedonians do it all the time, because otherwise they get shot up and due to poor morale almost always have to halt - however if you can running 3 el blocks deals with this in a very good way as against shooting armies you drop back an element, against others go three wide - works very well
I personally will never run detachmants again, as they have all the negatives if on base (again given limited escorts) li and none of the advantages - a flank charge by LC will probably rout you etc
It is army specific in my opinion, but of high value in non-shooting or all elephant armies