Elephants...

[Artannis Wolfrunner]

...are worthless. Seriously. They are no longer worth using. They cost more than 10000 to train, have more upkeep than a *naval fleet*, and get absolutely SLAUGHTERED by ranged weapons. Arrows will cut them to pieces quickly, and a unit of Peltasts will kill half a unit of elephants instantly with a single volley. I was commanding an army today lead by a 4 star general and was fighting a much smaller army lead by a Captain. I had a unit of elephants charge some archers, and a unit of Peltasts was right next to them. All of a sudden I saw my unit of 36 elephants drop to 12 and run amok. Then 3. An entire 10000 mnai unit of elephants dead in 3 volleys from a peasant-levy unit of Peltasts.

Is it intentional that elephants are so vulnerable? I know they were hardly they tanks they are in vanilla, but seriously....the way they are now is just bad. They simply aren't worth the price tag. *disbands and replaces with Hippeis*

[Bonheddwr]

I had a similar experience when I attacked the Gaulish city to the north of Epirius' starting lands. My elephants charged into their town to scare the infantry but one unit of charging light cavalry killed every single elephant in the first charge. All this on M/M difficulty. While they shouldn't be giant tanks, shouldn't they at least be able to stand up to a cavalry charge?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

There will definitely be some changes in respect to these problems in upcoming builds.

[davepyne]

I agree elephants should be tough, and a little cheaper too. But I think that Peltasts, and all javelineers for that matter, should be able to make mincemeat of them. That's how some African Tribes kill them to this day, with throwing spears. I like the elephants in RTR. They seem pretty balanced, just keep them away from those javelins.

[Fondor_Yards]

Indian Archers have a bonus vs elephants. Is this because they had to fight elephants all the time....so their arrows could kill them easier?

[LordSaradain]

Is it realistic that all the taxes received from a medium sized city (income 1000) over a period of 2,5 years equals the cost to recruit one unit of elephants and then the upkeep is swallows the rest of the taxes received over then next years...

One unit of elephants cant have been that expensive to maintain, comon...

[Simetrical]

Well, they did eat a huge amount, plus there's the upkeep of their entire crew, and the cost to replace them when they die of old age/disease and such. What does one unit of elephants represent, 20 or 30 of them? So possibly that would be the income of a mid-sized city, yeah, or rather the amount that goes into the general treasury (rather than the amount that pays the city's administrators and employees, which you as the faction leader never get). I could see that.

[Khelvan]

Remember, our scale is something in the neighborhood of 1:20. So one elephant inside a unit would represent 20 elephants inside that unit. 10 elephants would represent 200.

Additionally, we simply cannot represent a realistic classical economy, so trying to equate upkeep with "realistic" expense of units is futile. The cost of items in the game is desiged to stimulate play that provides the same challenges and opportunities that a classical general might have, not be "realistic."

Anyone expecting "true" realism from EB highly overestimates the capabilities of the game engine. Let's face it, RTW was built around common RTS conventions.

[LordSaradain]

ok ok ok, but even if the upkeep and cost is 'realistic', its definetly unbalanced. Sure elephants can be effective if used by a splendid general, but that money could be spent on something much more effective. Elephants aren't worth recruiting, they just drain away your money, and EB has already made sure that players will have financial problems anyway...
If they are that expensive they should be more worthwhile having. Make them more resilient to normal arrow fire at least, a unit of horse archers which is standing still, can eliminate a unit of elephants before they even get close.

[RZZZA]

I noticed right away how vulnerable elephants are...but theyre still damn useful if you keep them towards the back until your army envelopes the enemy army into a tight formation. thats when you let loose your elephants, when all the pletasts and such are busy fighting melee combat so they cannot be bothered to throw their missles. Thats when you aim your elephants for the enemy general or for the nearest mass of phalanx/infantry troops. Elephants are still very useful, they are just much more vulnerable...even taking a single unit in phalanx mode straight on is a bad idea. They are the new glorified beserkers...huge attack but pitiful defence. I agree that they cost a bit too much as it is now, their price can do with lowering a bit but as far as their effectiveness and vulnerability is concerned, I have no complaints.

[LordSaradain]

Elephants should be vurnurable to javelins but how about making them less vurnurable to normal arrows?

[Khelvan]

Yes, there is a problem with elephant vulnerability and it will be addressed in the next patch. We've already stated this.

[Maethius]

Making a note to myself for next campaign with a faction that has elephants. Dissaband the elephants and don't by anny.

[CANTANATRIX]

Realistically (and historically) arrows were more a weapon to inflict injury and sap the morale of an enemy than to kill them (that was a bonus). Ancient bows and arrows simply didn't have the technolgy or stopping power to readily kill people, let alone elephants. Massed aroows would of course wear an enemy down eventually but to a possibly armoured but definately thick-hided large animal like an elephant-arrows would be more a nuisance than a mortal threat. Javelins and spears, however are very different. These were lare enough and could be thrown with enough force to kill and seriously maim both elephants and people. Slinged lead bullets could also cause a lot of damage. Therefore, I think, Javelins/throwing spears, and to a slightly lesser extent (more en masse) lead bullets should be very effecte vs. elephants, but archers (bar of course flaming ammunition) should be ineffective-very vs. elephants, and slightly more effective vs. infantry (even more so vs. unamoured)
My 2 cents

[QwertyMIDX]

Realistically (and historically) arrows were more a weapon to inflict injury and sap the morale of an enemy than to kill them (that was a bonus). Ancient bows and arrows simply didn't have the technolgy or stopping power to readily kill people, let alone elephants. Massed aroows would of course wear an enemy down eventually but to a possibly armoured but definately thick-hided large animal like an elephant-arrows would be more a nuisance than a mortal threat. Javelins and spears, however are very different. These were lare enough and could be thrown with enough force to kill and seriously maim both elephants and people. Slinged lead bullets could also cause a lot of damage. Therefore, I think, Javelins/throwing spears, and to a slightly lesser extent (more en masse) lead bullets should be very effecte vs. elephants, but archers (bar of course flaming ammunition) should be ineffective-very vs. elephants, and slightly more effective vs. infantry (even more so vs. unamoured)
My 2 cents

Western archery was like this (mostly) but this is not true of eastern archery. Indian Archers had very large and heavy arrowheads that were quite effective elephants and the composite bow has always been a battle winning weapon. What you said is far more true of the selfbow, although good armor would obviously make the composite bow less effective (although it would make it almost impossible to catch the guy on the horse who was taking pot shots at you).

[CANTANATRIX]

*Quote*
Western archery was like this (mostly) but this is not true of eastern archery. Indian Archers had very large and heavy arrowheads that were quite effective elephants and the composite bow has always been a battle winning weapon. What you said is far more true of the selfbow, although good armor would obviously make the composite bow less effective (although it would make it almost impossible to catch the guy on the horse who was taking pot shots at you).

[CANTANATRIX]

Yes the eastern composite bow was generally superior to Western bows but nevertheless was fairly limited in its capacity to be an accurate, heavily damaging weapon.
They were used en masse against armies-in the belief that with so many targets they must hit something . This was effective yes with horse archers who could easily outpace their foes firing as they went-as Crassus discovered to his cost in Parthia, but only over time-even the best bows could only slowly wear down armoured infantry. As such elephants should not get taken down in a couple of volleys-maybe stationary elephants but large though they are (although many war elephants used such as African bush elephants weren't that big) a charging elephant would be very difficult to hit at range-especially if its charging at you! Its only much much later in the 100 years war that you see bows (the english longbow) effectively taking down (relative-compared to infantry)fast armoured targets (french knights ) with accuracy and speed in a relatively short space of time.
Eastern missile units used to elephants should get bonuses vs. elephants but those not should have morale bonuses - and be less effective at dealing with them.

[LorDBulA]

Elephants are worth they weight in gold. Yea i know they cost that much.
They can be devastating, but using them is tricky. But ow boy when they go into action they are just riping everyone to shreads.
They saved my ass more then one time.
But i agree they should be a little more toughter agains range weapon.
But only a little.

[QwertyMIDX]

The real problem is that eastern archers are a touch too good, the fact that leathality doesn't work on ranged weapons is causing stat balancing problems.