Elephant Cost

[nikgaukroger]

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."

[ShrubMiK]

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.

[lionheartrjc]

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.

[badhabum]

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

[LawrenceG]

But the crew might also be influenced by a general.

[badhabum]

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 ?    Ok I'll leave

[Onurbm]

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 

[martymagnificent]

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

[nikgaukroger]

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.