A problem with the elephants

[Wambat]

Early in my campaign as the Greek Coalition I determined to eliminate the Roman threat in its infancy. With a large army of hoplites and skirmishers I made my way from Sicily up the Italian boot. Being an honourable and peaceable fellow, I did not make a practical assault on Epirus whilst in it's vicinity, but sent the majority of my forces northward to finish off the supposedly mutual Roman enemy. Naturally, around the time I was poised to strike the final blow on the republic, Epirus sensed the opportunity to stab me in the back and took it.

Along my way up the boot I had only left a single skirmisher unit in each city to garrison, having little practical use of them in my battles. Epirus immediately laid siege to one of the Italian cities in my possession; somehow these cities had been too scary for them when they contained Roman troops. With my Army at least two turns away by foot, and still wanting to finish off the Romans, I resigned myself to losing the city, along with its garrison.

Desiring, at the least, to take as many of Epirus's troops down with my garrison, I chose the manual battle, and set my skirmishers behind the low wooden wals to give the apraoching enemy a good volley as they approached. Up to the walls approached the intimidating elephants of the Epirus armies to knock down the gate; my skirmishers heaved a single volley, and, low and behold, ONE elephant remained. This elephant, quite understandably, when mad at the sight and buggered off, as did the rest of the massive army.

Methinks this must not be what is desired. Can there be any point to the elephant unit given this kind of frailty? I do not think even an equivalent number of human targets would meet with such a fate against a single javelin volley. Certainly the hit point equivalent in human solders would not be do devastated, even under the worst of circumstances. What is going on here?

[Carados]

Ahhhh. I was hoping someone would bring this up eventually. Elephants are vulnerable to skirmishers and there are a couple of instances where javelins etc were used to drive them off. Elephants haven't really been touched upon too much and so they are still highly vulnerable to javelins and the like. This is a relic from RTR which took the easily killed route, howver being driven off doesn't mean they were killed. I personally think elephants should be hard to kill but not stupidly so. The skin is about 2 inches thick, and if the angle of incident isn't within a certain range the weapon won't do much damage. Even if a weapon does penetrate the skin deep enough, it might only be a minor flesh wound to the elephant considering it's size. However, they can still be brought down if enough persistant damage is done. I would much prefer them to run amok than to be killed. There are plenty of times were elephants swapped between factions because they were captured after running from the battle. Elephants can only be captured if they are alive. Elephants can only be alive if they don't get turned into pin cusions.

I can't remember if this applies to all thrown weapons, but I've read they get more and more powerful the higher the targets hit points are. Since elephants typically have several hit points, this leads them to being killed very quickly to said weapons. Chariots are also at risk for much the same reason though it must be said they have a much lower hit point rating.

[Quinn Inuit]

Interesting. Ok, the changes at hand are going to need two parts. First, should we take away the bonus vs. elephants that some units have? Second, we could give elephants a few points of armor to make them less vulnerable. Third, we could reduce their morale to make them more susceptible to rampaging.

I wish I could find a thread where the explain the hit points/missile weapons relationship. I swear I remember something about that, too.

[Wambat]

I don't see that it is particularly appropriate to give any missile weapon a bonus against elephants. I think the reason such weapons where used historically against elephants, as well as historically in the game, had more to do with people not wanting to get stepped on than missile weapons being particularly more damaging than other weapons.

I do agree that skirmishers should have a bonus when up against elephants, but I think this should be a defensive rather than offensive bonus, reflecting the greater ability of skirmishers to avoid elephant attacks in close quarters. The game play solution to elephant units should be a close quarters assault by skirmishers which pins the elephants down, concurrent with a concentrated missile assault by every unit capable of one; in other words, if you want to kill off the enemy's elephant unit, you should be prepared to sacrifice one or more skirmisher units. Countering elephant units should cost you.

One more element that ought to be addressed is the environmental sensitivity of elephants. Eastern elephants should suffer a moral and stamina penalty in desert areas, and both eastern and African elephants should suffer a moral and stamina penalty in snow. Maybe this has already been implemented, I haven't tested, but if it hasn't it should be added to the list.

Also, the environmental impact of elephants might be considered: if it is possible to implement, an army with elephant units should cause considerably more devastation in enemy territory than one without to reflect the tremendous appetite of these creatures, and the fact that no commander of elephants would risk cutting their rations, as he might his human troops.

[Carados]

Interesting. Ok, the changes at hand are going to need two parts. First, should we take away the bonus vs. elephants that some units have? Second, we could give elephants a few points of armor to make them less vulnerable. Third, we could reduce their morale to make them more susceptible to rampaging.

Surely that's 3 parts? Some weapons are probably going to be more effective than others at wounding an elephant since axes were used to hack away at the legs I believe. Even so, it won't be so effective that it'll kill one in a couple of seconds. I might have misread the EDU "manual" at the top of the file, but elephants already have several points of armour? Standard africans have 12 if memory serves me well. Anyway. I don't think we have to mess about with the defence stats too much. When I have elephants I make sure I eliminate all units with pointy sticks before I commit them. I find them to be quite resistant to damage from infantry when the skirmishers are gone. I'm not sure about lowering morale though. I'd like to see how they work without there being any super effective units around anymore.

One more element that ought to be addressed is the environmental sensitivity of elephants. Eastern elephants should suffer a moral and stamina penalty in desert areas, and both eastern and African elephants should suffer a moral and stamina penalty in snow. Maybe this has already been implemented, I haven't tested, but if it hasn't it should be added to the list.

They have a negative "bonus" in woods but not anywhere else at the moment. We can change stat_heat though to accomodate for the climates.

Also, the environmental impact of elephants might be considered: if it is possible to implement, an army with elephant units should cause considerably more devastation in enemy territory than one without to reflect the tremendous appetite of these creatures, and the fact that no commander of elephants would risk cutting their rations, as he might his human troops.

Don't think this is possible. I've not come across the mechanics of devestation though, mind.

[Quinn Inuit]

Yeah, we can't control devastation, which is a shame.

Actually, elephants have only defense skill ATM, with a few having two armour points. Check the "elephants" section of the EDU.

Hmmm...good point. AP weapons are just going to do a better job against elephants. If we give elephants skin armour, though, we can represent that they weapons are better against elephants simply because they're AP. Most javelins won't be AP, though...

[Carados]

Are you sure??

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

type carthaginian elephant forest
dictionary rtr_carthaginian_elephant_forest
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Light_1
soldier numidian_small_elephant_archer, 6, 3, 7.4
mount elephant forest
mount_effect horse +4, camel +4, chariot +8,
attributes sea_faring,frighten_foot,frighten_mounted,can_run_amok,can_swim
formation 7, 9, 13, 13, 1,square
stat_health 2, 7
stat_pri 0, 50, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 , 1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 11, 23, no, 0, 0, melee, other, blunt, none, 0 , 0.5
stat_sec_attr ap,launching,area
stat_pri_armour 0, 5, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 12, 2, flesh
stat_heat -1
stat_ground 0, 0, -8, 0
stat_mental 15, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 2, 2590, 2952, 169, 266, 1900
ownership carthage

That looks like 12 armour and 2 defence skill though?
And something even more rediculous than them having a higher attack than indian elephants... these can swim!!

[Alavaria]

Hmm, interesting.

stat_health 2, 7
stat_sec 11, 23, no, 0, 0, melee, other, blunt, none, 0 , 0.5
stat_sec_attr ap,launching,area
stat_sec_armour 12, 2, flesh

Elephant has 7 hit points, 12 armor, 2 defense. 7 hit points seems a little low to me, though I might be used to eles with 12 or more HP and 20+ armor (which demand either javelins or preferably strategies to make them run amok - the latter is good if the eles belong to the AI).

Though, it does only 11 attack with 23 charge. I'm a little surprised, I would have imagined they did more attack. It's funny to watch a general fight an elephant, he can take a while to go down... (11 attack +4 bonus, I guess).

The people on top of it have 2 hit points and 5 defense.

[Quinn Inuit]

Oh, you're right, I'm wrong. I wasn't paying close enough attention.

They can swim? Well, technically, I suppose they can swim, but I don't think elephants ever swam during combat conditions. Yeah, I think we need to rebalance these elephants.

[Carados]

I suppose you are right. Then again, everything else can swim and they don't have that option. Still, it's going whether they can swim or not (I think they float more than swim to be honest).

Anywho. Since elephants are clearly wrong, we need to do something about it.

Before we can do that though, what do we know about them in terms of their performance in battle? Obviously they have the fear factor about them. They are difficult to kill and can kill men quite easily. They are also very effective in scaring horses and breaking up cavalry. They are vulnerable to skirmishers. However, pointy sticks don't kebab them as easily as they do currently.

Indian elephants are MUCH larger than the african forest. Thus they'll be even harder to kill but will be more susceptible to the heat. They'll do a whole lot better in colder climates though (due to their enourmous size, they'll generate and retain more heat, thus won't die from the cold so easily). They will have an enourmous cost to go along with it, however.


With that said, I'll get the ball rolling and suggest this:

African
Attack: 14
Charge: 14
Armour: 10
Skill: 2
Hp: 6
Upkeep per elephant: 200

Indian
Attack: 18
Charge: 16
Armour: 14
Skill: 2
Hp: 9
Upkeep per elephant: 600

A charging elephant is absolute murder however, from a theorectical viewpoint, the actual benefit from a charge won't be as great for an elephant as it would be for cavalry. My reasoning for this is that for a cavalry charge the whole momentum of the charge is transferred through a single point - the spear tip. The force on that single point is immense, whereas for an elephant the force would be spread over a larger area. To compensate, the elephants get a much higher base attack - they have so much more mass behind them. Getting whacked by an elephant weighing several thousands of kilograms is going to hurt (I imagine the africans to weigh around 8'000-12'000, the Indians 12'000-15'000). Getting stabed by a pointy weapon from a person weighing less than 100kg isn't so much of an issue in comparison.

Discuss

[Domitan]

For the proof of swimming lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywXYfLFapLY

[Carados]

See!
Floating!!
What they're doing with their legs is paddling xD

[Wambat]

This is weird; I was sure I already replied to the swimming issue, oh well. I can think of two documented instances of occasions where comabt elephants where used in the ancient world not only to cross a river under their own power, but to assist the crossing of other units who would not otherwise have been able to cross under the weight of their arms.

This, of coarse, is the vital factor in whether or not a unit is capable of crossing a river. If the unit is armored, or is carrying heavy arms, it will not be able to cross. Added to this the unit should be from a culture whose population has a high percentage of swimmers. I will get back to humans later; the point is that elephants would have similar limitations. The North African elephants who have only the single rider on its back/neck should be able to swim across rivers I am not sure if these are still in the game at this point). Any elephant encumbered with a tower should not be able to swim across rivers; even though the elephant is likely to survive, the war equipment and passengers would not. An exception might be argued for the largest Indian elephants as being tall enough to simply walk across, but I would be prejudiced against such an exception.

Getting back to humans, I think it would be wise to consider an overhaul of the swim capable units. First, any light horse, particularly those of the central Eurasian steppe and northern Europe, should be able to use their horses to swim across rivers. Second, while the barbarian and Greek cultures would have swimming, as a skill, pervasive among the class of people who would make up their militaries, such that any of their unarmored units should be able to cross rivers this way, the eastern and African cultures should not. One significant exception, which I am very surprised no one has commented on, is that Spartan worriers were trained to swim in armor, and should be able to swim across rivers while in the combat theartre. This is the only instance I can think of an infantry unit that should be both armored and capable of swimming across rivers.

[Quinn Inuit]

I've added those swim notes to my to do list.

Carados: Those elephant numbers look pretty good.

[Carados]

The "thrown" attribute is what does the damage to elephants. If we want elephants to stand up to them, I can think of two things.

1) remove the thrown attribute
2) lower elephant hp but increase defence

Option 2 is obviously better.

[Cheomesh]

Wombat, while I don't doubt you and the idea of an armored force swimming across natural defenses is pretty badass, I don't see someone swimming successfully with their aspis.

M.

[Carados]

Those stats don't work...
Hah... they absolute murder units without any problem.

I have therefore changed it so it looks like this:

African
Attack: 7
Charge: 14
Armour: 16
Skill: 2
Hp: 3
Upkeep per elephant: 200

Indian
Attack: 10
Charge: 16
Armour: 20
Skill: 2
Hp: 5
Upkeep per elephant: 600

I've also removed ap and launching from them.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As comical as these things are, giving "reach for the stars" a new meaning is a little over the top (the screenshot -is- FOE, I was using it as an example). Of course, if people still want to see that kind of thing then we can always have an add-on for it (or have the "add-on" remove the launching aspect? Either way, on a personal basis launching is gone ).

Armour piercing is a completely different matter altogether and it basically comes down to how much harder do we want it for these elephants to kill armoured targets relative to unarmoured ones?

[Quinn Inuit]

I think it should be harder to kill armoured targets, even for elephants. There would be padding, and a lot of glancing blows would probably be blocked.

[Sardaukar One]

Perdicass tried to use elephants to help his men ford the Nile in his failed attempt to invade Egypt.
The elephants were to act as barriers against the current of the Nile in order to prevent the soldiers from being swept away.
Unfortunately, the elephants brought up so much silt that they made the riverbed deeper. And the soldiers could not cross. Those soldiers who had already crossed were recalled and crocodiles got some of them.
Saying that, I don't think any elephants should be able to swim. Especially not with towers and armour on their backs.

I do think that elephants are killed a bit too easily in the game.
One unit of peltasts unloads one volley and half your elephants are gone. Three or four units unloading at your ellys at one time! Okay! But one unit? Thats a bit over the top.
Still, you have to be careful not to make them too difficult to kill.
And I agree with the position put forth that they should certainly be more prone to routing or running amok than being killed.
Still, the most practical way to kill them probably has to be javelin armed troops.

Versus city gates. Frankly, the city gate ought to airhole an elephant. Ballistas ought to be able to kill an elephant if it hits. And thats sorta what should be installed in a city gate one would think.

Something not done very well in any mod i've played is the proper effect that elephants have on cavalry.
Too many times i see cavalry charge my elephants. Thats just not going to happen in most cases.
I know that some Seleucid cavalry was trained to be used to elephants. So they could act in concert with the elephants without being overcome with fear. But thats a far cry from charging right into enemy elephants.
I was playing an epirote campaign, and in a number of battles, gallic cavalry charged my elephants.
Thats just not likely to happen. But i'm not sure what you can do to change this.

[Quinn Inuit]

Well, by making morale lower overall, the "frighten_mounted" attribute of elephants will be more powerful. Cavalry will have a very difficult time charging elephants. Unfortunately, I can't increase the effect of that attribute.