 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trajanus
That's not very realistic. In fact elephants were never that powerful. They were deployed to scare enemy cavalry mainly, and as most Roman units very quite mobile they could easily let the elephants charge passed their ranks without any harm!
|
This isn't really the case. In fact, the mod website explains the elephants:
quote:
Actually, there were "immortal" elephants led by the graecian armies in southern italia- they were the primary reason Pyrhus managed to defeat the Romans at Heraclea. The romans also thought them to be immortal (or at least unstoppable) and although having heard about elephants from the hellenic campaigns in the east- this was the first time they encountered them. Only at Asculum did the Romans have the first bits of success at repelling elephants (using ox-drawn chariots with blades attached to them and flaming pots) and they did not MASTER elephant counter-combat until zama.
The African war elephants (Which Greece/Carthage and Egypt would be using) for example were smaller then their indo-asian equivalents, had a square shaped skull, and were unable to support a firing tower upon their backs, only a rider and perhaps an archer or two were supported. The ancients rarely used the BUSH elephant which was tempramental, and instead used the smaller forest elephant type. Only 6-8 feet in height, these are the elephants which made up the mainstray of Hannibal's forces and were found at the base of the Atlas mountains. The interpretation of Hannibal with giant elephants was flawed- he is not noted as having asian war elephants amongst his forces, although he probably had a few (at least one, which was his personal mount before he crossed over into the alps).
The asian elephants on the other hand (Which the greece/parthians/seleucids/pontus/scythians etc would be using) were larger and had a conical shaped skull, they could be fully armored (and often were) in scale, banded, leather or padded armor. They supported firing towers and a rider. They were massive, some as tall as 15 or 16 feet and could shatter lines apart. They were distinctive from their African brothers in size, usage, apperance and combat readiness.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traianvs
|
 |
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000
time: 06:24
|
|
Yeah Boris, at first they were feared as nobody had ever seen anything like it, which is understandable. But as soon as the novelty had worn off, they didn't have much actual fighting importance. They could serve a purpose in disrupting enemy lines, but then again you would need to place your elephants in between the enemy rank and your own. Chances are the elephants are pushed back and wreak havoc in your own ranks.
One of the simpler tactics of disposing of elephants was throwing spiked objects of which I don't know the English term ( ) in front of them so their feet would be wrecked, causing enormous pain and making them go berzerk or fall down.
Elephants were debastating for an unprepared enemy sure, but really,... It was much like scythed chariots. They were simply outmanoeuvred by the Romans. I'd like to know about a few Roman battles that were lost (or nearly) because of enemy elephants, because I don't know any personally!
And btw: I'd be surprised to see Parthian, Scythian,... elephants...
In fact they used cavalry rather than elephants.
Better research is needed in my humble opinion. But still it has some good improvements, that's not the point 
Last edited by Traianvs on 07-04-2005 at 03:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trajanus
I'd like to know about a few Roman battles that were lost (or nearly) because of enemy elephants, because I don't know any personally!
|
Heraclea, it mentioned it in the article. Elephants were the primary reason the Romans lost. Phyrrus also used them to break the Roman lines at Asculum. Considering his methods, elephants were certainly the deciding factor in these battles.
The point of the game mechanic is that until a certain point, Romans were not able to deal with elephants very effectively. In order to preserve the "realism" of the historical situation, they found it necessary to make the elephants very tough until a certain point in the game.
quote:
And btw: I'd be surprised to see Parthian, Scythian,... elephants... |
Why? They did. Usage of elephants in war spread around the world. The Seluecids used elephants all the time, so there's no reason to think the Parthians wouldn't.
http://nabataea.net/elephants.html
"As late as the Roman Empire all known war elephants seem to come from India, via the Parthian / Sassinid Empire."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
The developers (CA) have stated that they will NOT be patching the load/save bug issue in RTW.
They are laughingly calling it a "pre-designed feature". lol
This has caused quite a furor over that the .org.
This, along with many other bugs, have essentially pounded the nail into this game.
If you must have RTW, wait until it's in the bargain bin... but be warned that saving and reloading a game will essentially screw with the AI.
In the meantime return to MTW and STW and all their mods...
Cheers!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
CA's patch support makes Firaxis look like gods. Sure it took Firaxis 15 patches to get CIV3 'right'. Then 20 more for PtW. Conquests is still patching I suppose after 30 or so. But at least Firaxis patched their mistakes (and didnt add too many more as they patched). CA's position seems to be stick your head in the sand and hope it blows over. |
Even Paradox, although they put out buggy games, at least admits to the bugs and patches them, and patches them, and...
But CA/Activision seem to have this "two patches and no more" rule. Which is odd for a game as complex as the TW games are...
Interesting that about this same time Activison sold CA to Sega (and we will soon be getting the console game "Spartan Total Warrior").
I have seen this happen before: good developer makes great games, then everything seems to take a header off the belltower...
Let's see:
There was Talonsoft, SSI, 3DO, and maybe soon to come... CA...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kassiopeia
On the other hand, I have a habit of playing sessions of several hours when I do play, so no loss there, but CA's attitude is just disgusting. |
It's only when you need to save, and then later re-load...
It's at this time when the AI seems to take a coffee break...
Try to save only when there are no sieges going on. The save/reload bug seems to have the biggest affect on these (the AI will break-off all sieges and go for a hike in the countryside).
On CA's forums they have been locking and deleting threads left, right and center...
Not a good way to piss off your dedicated fan base, which they seem to be doing with particular finely-honed skill... lol
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traianvs
|
|
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Heraclea, it mentioned it in the article. Elephants were the primary reason the Romans lost. Phyrrus also used them to break the Roman lines at Asculum. Considering his methods, elephants were certainly the deciding factor in these battles.
The point of the game mechanic is that until a certain point, Romans were not able to deal with elephants very effectively. In order to preserve the "realism" of the historical situation, they found it necessary to make the elephants very tough until a certain point in the game.
Why? They did. Usage of elephants in war spread around the world. The Seluecids used elephants all the time, so there's no reason to think the Parthians wouldn't.
http://nabataea.net/elephants.html
"As late as the Roman Empire all known war elephants seem to come from India, via the Parthian / Sassinid Empire." |
Actually, I meant after Pyrrhus, because like I said earlier on they had no experience with it. But Pyrrhus was the first and last to use elephants against Rome effectively. After that they never lost a fight because of elephants.
Seleucids used elephants, of course. Nearly all diadochs used elephants. I was talking about the other non-Greek civilisations in the East. Parthians relied on cavalry almost 100%. Their land was perfectly suited for cavalry, whereas Roman terroritory was better for legionaries. That is why both the Romans and Parthians never managed to get a grip on eachothers territory for long. Except the Roman occupation in mesopotamia and the occasional Parthian raid.
Scythians and Parthians and similar peoples never used conventional armies so it would be pointless for them to deploy elephants. They would only be cumbersome for the army and without decent infantry support elephants would be routed immediately. And Scythians were semi-nomadic. How could they support elephants! They lived north of the Alexander/Persian empire and were nearly impossible to conquer due to their mobility. Darius suffered a serious defeat in an attempt to conquer Scythian territory...
Finally: Carthaginian elephants were African elephants. Even that article says so
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2005 08:40
I never knew of a specialised asian war elephant - they sound like huge tanks!!
|