Been musing cost of elephants for some time.
Have used them a little myself and have played against them a lot. Generally find them pretty underwhelming for their high cost. Great against cavalry who can't get away, terrible against shoot and scoot mounted, vulnerable to shooting in general and tend to get outlasted by infantry in melee (sure the elephants are generally 'up' but as long as the infantry are rolling whites they prevail because of the small unit size of the elephants). They do have the potential to be a destructive 'glass cannon' but I think in MeG they are more glass than cannon.
In general I actually prefer elephants not to be too strong. I have played a number of systems were a majority of competition games seem to involve elephants and don't want that but I do think their cost could go down a little in MeG. I would also suggest that bow is a little too much. losing any chance of a free charge on a unit that is already so card hungry and paying to shoot when you generally want to be in combat is a poor combo. This could perhaps be fixed by giving elephants automatic shoot and charge if they have bow so they are more likely to get use out of it.
Just my impression. What do others think?
Martin
Having used them quite a bit with Sasanids and Muslim Indian Sultanates, and also with Nanzhao and Angkor - plus having faced them - I am happy with the cost and the effect. I wouldn't make any changes.
I will suggest that they are a troop type that on the face of it are simple to use, but in reality actually take a bit of thought and effort.
The main mistake I see is players allow their elephants to get overlapped. Though often on black, the extra dice from supporting files often is enough to make the difference.
FWIW my view is elephants are a touch on the expensive side (perhaps I would reduce them by 20pts/base), but it is not enough that I would lose any sleep over it. I have used Gupta and Rajput Indians with elephants quite successfully. Elephants are most useful when your opponent over-reacts to facing them. If I am facing elephants with infantry or shooty cavalry I don't worry and trust that my white and black dice can roll wounds. It mostly works. Only if I have lancer or spear cavalry am I going to avoid them (and they ought to be able to avoid them!).
Richard
My experience tends to suggest one unit can be a benefit to an army (like in my Carthaginian) but taking multiple units that are relied on to be the strike arm of an army is pretty ineffective. The more games my regular opponent plays with his classical Indian the fewer elephants he uses.
20 points a base less would be good
Martin
I think the cost is good, the problem is how most players use those nellies.
If you sent them all alone forward to break trough ..well you might loose them quickly.
I played Classical indian and struggled to cover the flanks and if so it works but I agree that the dreaded white/black dice can work miracles ( or not )
let us do it the belgian way, Marty says 20 points less, so I propose 10 points less ;)
At the recent UK non-europe theme comp (ie plenty of elephant armies permitted) there were 6 armies with any elephants (out of 32). Many of these were single units and none managed a top ten finish. There was even an Angkor army with only 8 elephants, 6 of which had artillery and had been downgraded to poor! There were a number of lists that had the option of elephants but chose none.
At the last 'Skullrollers' (open) there were 2 armies with any elephants out of, I believe, 30 armies. Both finished out of the top half.
I would suggest this is hardly a ringing endorsement of their current status.
Martin
I am not sure that the stats on numbers of armies chosen with elephants are any sort of reflection on the perceived cost effectiveness of elephants. Just under 20% of the lists used at Ice and Fire had elephants but that is only going to show them as being underrepresented if that is lower than the percentage of lists allowed elephants compared to the total number of lists allowed. I haven't totted it up but I'd be willing to bet that less than 20% of the allowed lists for Ice and Fire could take elephants - but I may well be wrong.
I'd caution on drawing conclusions from individual army lists as well. The Angkor example is where they player has a very specific tactical approach in mind for using the army which means that the elephants with Art do not need to be anything other than Poor - it is not a reflection of them being over-priced per se.
Likewise finishing positions of armies is not a clear cut way of assessing effectiveness of a single troop type, although it can be a useful pointer - overall army composition is important as are the opponents they face. I could point out that I have consistently finished in the top half of comps using my Sasanids and Muslim Indian with elephants including winning comps. Basically it'd need somewhat deeper analysis for this stat to have real meaning; if somebody wants to do it that would be great of course.
I would agree, elephant TUGs appear to be not worth the cost, however it is their fragility that I find to be the problem rather than cost. Tinkering with the cost I don't believe will change that.
A possible solution is to give all elephant TUGs the Fanatic characteristic at no extra cost.
Quote from: AlecJH on January 29, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I would agree, elephant TUGs appear to be not worth the cost, however it is their fragility that I find to be the problem rather than cost. Tinkering with the cost I don't believe will change that.
A possible solution is to give all elephant TUGs the Fanatic characteristic at no extra cost.
Think that might be a bit much. Would also remove their historical tendency to panic and run through their own armies.
Nik, I'm not really capable of the sort of statistical analysis you suggest and I accept what I have pointed to is not definitive 'proof' but I do think it is safe to say that, in general, elephants are not currently a popular or often successful choice. Some players may, once in a while, do well with them but it does not change the discernible trend.
Martin
I don't think it is at all safe to say that "elephants are not currently a popular choice". Now it can certainly differ from playing pool to playing pool, however, in the UK they are seen pretty commonly at comps.
Success is a different thing, but as I have mentioned I think a lot of players are deceived by nellies which look to be fairly easy to use of the face of things and don't put enough thought into using them. I all too often see them thrown in without proper support or screening and the player wondering why they died so quickly. I am certainly not a fan of changing points to compensate for players not doing things right.
In a way it strikes me that this has some similarities to shooty cavalry; until you work out how to get the best effect from them they are rather underwhelming, but when you do they can be devastating.
It also strikes me that I am arguing against something I can benefit from as I'd not turn down extra points to spend when I feel the current points are value for money - but I really don't feel it is justified.
They are less popular than in any other ancient wargame I have ever played. Of course that is not a 'historical' comparison and they are probably way too prevalent in many ancients systems (including a currently popular one that starts with A and ends with G)
I'm not sure I buy all the 'people need to get good' arguments. Many Elephant armies are not capable of supporting the elephants 'properly' given the troops they have available. They can't all be Sassanids.
Martin
Currently EL are also penalized because they do not benefit of the Generals bonus in combat.
Of course this is logical if the general is on horseback or on foot, but in EL ARMIES, the king (or general) are riding
special selected dominant male EL that do have an effect on the (pre-dominant) female 'warrior' ELs.
So allowing the generals bonus in combat to those armies that really rely on EL as there main strike force (and have generals riding EL), this would be a small improvement, without given an overall advantage to other armies that us EL more as 'gimmick' or are not a lot dependent on them.
It would also increase of course the risk of the generals (EL) dying with a reverse effect on the other EL, but that would be justified as well.
I like that idea!
Quote from: Ambiorix on January 29, 2022, 11:20:17 AM
Currently EL are also penalized because they do not benefit of the Generals bonus in combat.
Of course this is logical if the general is on horseback or on foot, but in EL ARMIES, the king (or general) are riding
special selected dominant male EL that do have an effect on the (pre-dominant) female 'warrior' ELs.
So allowing the generals bonus in combat to those armies that really rely on EL as there main strike force (and have generals riding EL), this would be a small improvement, without given an overall advantage to other armies that us EL more as 'gimmick' or are not a lot dependent on them.
It would also increase of course the risk of the generals (EL) dying with a reverse effect on the other EL, but that would be justified as well.
So says the giy who wants to use his Thaï army with 12 SUP nellies ;D
Now back to the nellies : the problem is or might be , as Nik wrote, that people have to learn how to use them .
They are a battering ram but it is a fire and forget tool as once aimed at the enemy they go for it, for glory or death ...often both !
If impact is good, they may crush the enemy , if it fails or if their flank is open they may die quickly .
You do not need to be a sassanid to protect the Nellies flanks. Even your indian foot INF can do so for a time, the time needed to make a breaktrough .
You can also use your nellies as a reserve or to engage enemy shooty mounted once it is already engaged by your mounted ...but this takes some carefull timing and a bit of luck.
Nellies are a powerfull tool but are fragile
If you have a lot of nellies and do face a Norman army, I wonder who will dominate the field !
Quote from: Ambiorix on January 29, 2022, 11:20:17 AM
Currently EL are also penalized because they do not benefit of the Generals bonus in combat.
Of course this is logical if the general is on horseback or on foot, but in EL ARMIES, the king (or general) are riding
special selected dominant male EL that do have an effect on the (pre-dominant) female 'warrior' ELs.
So allowing the generals bonus in combat to those armies that really rely on EL as there main strike force (and have generals riding EL), this would be a small improvement, without given an overall advantage to other armies that us EL more as 'gimmick' or are not a lot dependent on them.
It would also increase of course the risk of the generals (EL) dying with a reverse effect on the other EL, but that would be justified as well.
Richard posted a reply elsewhere that included a reply to this (as far as I can see), so brining it here:
"All elephant herds are led by a dominant individual. It doesn't need a general sitting on the elephant to make it the dominant individual (although generals mounted on elephants would want to be on the dominant individual). This is why generals don't contribute to the fighting ability and there are no plans to change this rule."
Another thought - should elephants suffer KaB tests if non-elephant friends break? If the rules were to change to "no", that would make the use of rubbish supporting troops to stop overlaps more attractive. And you could justify it along the same lines as: it is the elephants doing the fighting, and they don't care about the presence of a general.
Quote from: ShrubMiK on January 29, 2022, 01:27:42 PM
Another thought - should elephants suffer KaB tests if non-elephant friends break? If the rules were to change to "no", that would make the use of rubbish supporting troops to stop overlaps more attractive. And you could justify it along the same lines as: it is the elephants doing the fighting, and they don't care about the presence of a general.
We are not looking at rule changes. The crew might still be unhappy even if the elephant wasn't.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on January 29, 2022, 02:10:47 PM
Quote from: ShrubMiK on January 29, 2022, 01:27:42 PM
Another thought - should elephants suffer KaB tests if non-elephant friends break? If the rules were to change to "no", that would make the use of rubbish supporting troops to stop overlaps more attractive. And you could justify it along the same lines as: it is the elephants doing the fighting, and they don't care about the presence of a general.
We are not looking at rule changes. The crew might still be unhappy even if the elephant wasn't.
Fully agree
But the crew might also be influenced by a general.
Quote from: LawrenceG on January 30, 2022, 09:48:01 AM
But the crew might also be influenced by a general.
Ok that's a possibility but then we could have those nellies to pay the shater ? 8) Ok I'll leave
Do i understand ? In game elephants are little used but they are used ... about 10% when the theme allows armies with elephant; right ?
Myy 10 cents : In real life, which armies did reject elephants when they had easy acces to it ? Roman and Chinese empires did give it a try but dropped the beast except for circus use ... not cost effective. and they ha the ressources and oppotunities o test ( Circus maximus ? )
Elephants where NOT COST EFFECTIVE in real life , with only some limited specific efficiency . They should remain so in MEG else we will face the issue of excessive use of elephants as we do with other rule sets.
Bis : Elephants should remain expensive as they were in real life and of limited intrest. As experienced players noticed , they do they need be carefully protected and used in specif conditions. else they just die and thats bad for morale.
this was my 10 cents 8)
I don't think the MeG points system is supposed to reflect real life costs/availability. It is supposed to reflect 'in game' effectiveness
Martin
Quote from: martymagnificent on February 01, 2022, 11:43:18 AM
I don't think the MeG points system is supposed to reflect real life costs/availability. It is supposed to reflect 'in game' effectiveness
Absolutely right.