Elephants vs Pikemen

Hi Folks. It has been a while.
I am going through the new rules and the new Warbook, and I have a couple questions.
Have I got this right?

Elephants charge pikemen in open ground:
Elephants do not get their impetus bonus (since "mounted"), and only count their VBU for dice.
Page 7 says : "... but they keep their Impetus Bonus also if no longer fresh in all other circumstances."

Just a little confused.

I also wonder about scythed chariots in this regard. Page 7 seems to suggest that they keep the bonus, but chariots are still counted as mounted.

7.4 makes it clear that all mounted units lose their impetus against infantry armed with pike and long spear. I think 2.2.2 is reminding players Elephants keep their impetus until exhausted (a new change.) Take a look at 2.5.1 where there is no exception for any troop type. With that said Scythed Chariots do not lose their impetus when taking a loss of VBU (which by right they should being now exhausted) but they do lose impetus against pike/long spear infantry. It could be more clearly stated for sure.

Yeah, 7.4 does seem pretty definitive with bullet 3, right?
I think what throws me off is the severe disadvantage that elephants (and the scythed chariots, I suppose) would then be fighting at.
Elephants at 5-6 dice versus 8-9 for the pike?
It just seems a little odd. Elephants at the Hydaspes gave phalangites a hard time, and I think they were pretty useful in roman hands at Kynoscephalae and I think Pydna later on.
In the above interpretation attacking pikemen with elephants seems rather foolish, with the dice disadvantage and the pike absorbing the casualties in the rear ranks. With the elephants keeping the bonus, they are close to the same attack dice, but yet still likely to deteriorate faster than the pikemen with all losses affecting VBU directly, unlike the pikemen.

Same with the Chariots. With no impetus bonus charging pike or spear is pretty silly. Yet, we have Gaugamela -- where it was of course unsuccessful but still attempted. Even with the impetus bonus, the chariots don't seem likely to survive the first round with VBU 2 against so many dice, yet there is some hope they may cause some disorder or a few casualties before exploding.

Philip Sabin, in his book Lost Battles, describes Hydaspes as the quintessential "lost battle" because of the confusion found in the sources and the overall limits of the sourcing material (Arrian is only major narrative of the battle.) So I'd be careful to draw too many conclusions from this battle about the phalanx/elephant matchup. I think it is fair to say that the it was Elephants and a lot of other troop types that took on the Macedonian phalanx at Hydaspes. Any rating in a rules set has to be based on the overall performance of a troop type, not one battle. One doesn't normally see Elephants taking on pike blocks in most ancient battles.

I think we have it about right.

Elephants in this era at least are principally about screening enemy cavalry not an assault weapon. They rely principally on missiles and would be hard pressed to make headway against formed pike. Hydaspes may be an exception (except as GC notes we really don't have much info) due to river crossing and mud but I don't thin the elephants were the major issue - they make a good story though. And someone was impressed enough fr Seleucus to trade the Indus for a stud farm.

Scythed chariots likewise - as far as we understand it these were driven up to speed and then the drivers bailed before contact. What impact they may have will be limited, a certain amount of fear and shock causing disorder but its hard to see horses ploughing through a solid pike front. Although again I don't think we know as the sources say they were taken out by psiloi/peltasts - whether before they hit the phalanx or after is hard to say.

Occasionally, just occasionally CF have a moment of glory and burst through an FP line but mostly they explode. They're a gambit not a troop type

I get what you guys are saying, but if im getting 9 or 10 dice to 5 or 6, i think i would consider going elephant hunting with the phalangites rather than the lighter foot. The risk is low, and it look like you have a good chance of knocking them out of the battle in 1 round. You could easily waste a few rounds shooting elephants with no result.
The same with the chariots. Why bother with a skirmisher screen at all? 10 dice to 2? Why would you care? Not likely to even disorder you.

that's a very wargamery invention whilst your pike are being pulled to the flanks by elephants what's happening to your centre? Starbursts of pike are just a flank invitation ... Anyway, interactions just don't occur in isolation like this - well not in my games anyway.

Well the CF in the only engagements we know about were wholly unsuccessful, so that seems right doesn't it?

Well this is a wargame. We do what works. Why would the elephants be on the flanks? Were they not often deployed in front as well? Why would the pike have to be all alone in your situation?
The second statement seems broad, and I am not convinced that it is true.

I hope the author can chime in, I'd like to know what he intended.

You raise an interesting point Pezhetairoi but have you had a chance to yet game Indian vs Alexander? How does it play in practice? After all, both armies are made up of several troops types. The effectiveness of the army is determined by the interplay of these types, not simply a one on one matchup. With that said, part of the art of the game is getting the preferred matchups. Pike not only beat Elephants they beat pretty much everything else frontally. How to get to the flanks of the Pike is the big challenge.

Gaius by quoting Phils book/Rules Lost Battles brings back many happy memories. Phil is a good friend and I spent many hours play testing his rules. Over the years along with Phil staged many demonstration games of Lost Battles on behalf of the society of ancients. Anyone wanting to stage historical refights from Marathon 490BC to Pharsalus 48BC will find this book invaluable it is well researched and describes 35 battles based on original sources plus deployment maps. You should be able to prepare Impetus 2 army lists from this info. Sadly Phil has now retired and emigrated from the UK.
Getting back to the original query with the aid of info from Phils book prepared Impetus 2 army lists for a refight of Hydaspes which included EL in all 3 Indian commands. It is hard for the Indians and so it should be as mentioned in Phils book they suffered enormous losses. That said the Indians have options such as for 3 points upgrade EL to escorted which then gives them the firepower of a good javelin unit, maybe use the longbow 2 units deep so by interpenetrating both fire, Ox wagons on flank of centre command. On the one occasion I won with Indians was the interaction between the longbow and EL various missile fire to try to stagger the pike cause disorder and cause the odd casualty with the hope to get the initiative so that the EL can fire and charge the pike supported by longbow fire before the pike could rally. I managed to stall the pike attack long enough to win on the flanks, the various weapon fire before combat of heavy chariots and EL and good die roll tipped it in my favour on the flanks.
The whole point of this is to say its not just a simple case of the factors of pike v EL its a combination of how these units can interreact.
I wouldn't shy away from EL v pike although difficult I'd give it a go. Regards Eric

Pezhetairoi wrote:Well this is a wargame. We do what works. Why would the elephants be on the flanks? Were they not often deployed in front as well? Why would the pike have to be all alone in your situation?
The second statement seems broad, and I am not convinced that it is true.

I hope the author can chime in, I'd like to know what he intended.

Elephants in Hellenistic forces were usually deployed on the flanks against cavalry - a couple of occasions they were deployed all along the front as a screen and then moved to the flanks, and once famously intermingled highly unsuccessfully. That being said, you'll appreciate we actually have very, very little hard information to work with.

Yes, it's broad but if it's not essentially true, what were the instances that CF were used effectively?

Elephants in Hellenistic forces were usually deployed on the flanks against cavalry -

I don't think that is correct.
A quick scan has elephants deployed in front of the line in the following battles:
Hydaspes, Paraitakene, Gabiene, Gaza, Ipsos, Appolonia, Beneventum, Kynoskephalai, Pydna(questionable), Metaurus, Zama, Bagradas,

what were the instances that CF were used effectively

Xenophon describes a battle in 395bc, where the chariots catch some of Agisilaus' hoplites out in the open.
Pontus defeated a Bythinian army at the River Amnias (89bc), which is credited to the charge of the scythed chariots.
Xenophon also claims The Persians used them against Croesus with some success, smashing up the Egyptian spearmen line for a follow-up attack ~547bc

In the cases above, the chariots were well supported with cavalry following closely behind -- which my be the key to their usefulness.
Also -- I know Arrian's account is usually preferred, but Curtius and Diodoros describe the chariot attack at Gaugamela as well, and though the attack was not a success, the descriptions suggest at least some casualties and what we'd probably describe as "disorder" in Impetus -- and this is after passing through the light infantry screen.

The scythed chariot probably was intended for a combined-arms attack. The temporary trauma and chaos they would cause should be immediately followed up with other forces. "Success" would be causing some casualties, wearing the enemy down, and making holes in the line.
I'll argue that 2 dice (when the impetus bonus is lost to the spears and pikes) makes that all but impossible.

I don't think that is correct. A quick scan has elephants deployed in front of the line in the following battles: Hydaspes, Paraitakene, Gabiene, Gaza, Ipsos, Appolonia, Beneventum, Kynoskephalai, Pydna(questionable), Metaurus, Zama, Bagradas,

I might quibble with a few of your examples but overall I take your point. Still, none of the battles listed shows that the elephants were particularly effective against pike/spear blocks.

As far as the CF goes I am persuaded by your argument that they should get their full 7 dice when attacking pike/long spear. After all, they are likely a one trick pony that will die after the first round of melee.

Pezhetairoi wrote:
A quick scan has elephants deployed in front of the line in the following battles:
Hydaspes, Paraitakene, Gabiene, Gaza, Ipsos, Appolonia, Beneventum, Kynoskephalai, Pydna(questionable), Metaurus, Zama, Bagradas

In my view we know so little about many of those that its extremely difficult to tell what was going on. Some do however 'seem' to use the elephants as an army screen but my impression is that this is for deployment and then they drift to the flanks where they are intended to operate against cavalry. But again it's interpretation. Zama is unusual and we're told the deployment of elephants as a shock wave is unusual.

Pezhetairoi wrote:
Xenophon describes a battle in 395bc, where the chariots catch some of Agisilaus' hoplites out in the open.
Pontus defeated a Bythinian army at the River Amnias (89bc), which is credited to the charge of the scythed chariots.
Xenophon also claims The Persians used them against Croesus with some success, smashing up the Egyptian spearmen line for a follow-up attack ~547bc

In the cases above, the chariots were well supported with cavalry following closely behind -- which my be the key to their usefulness.

Interesting list but as usual we're having to guess at details or why. Following closely with cavalry would seem to be a dangerous occupation ...

Pezhetairoi wrote:
Also -- I know Arrian's account is usually preferred, but Curtius and Diodoros describe the chariot attack at Gaugamela as well, and though the attack was not a success, the descriptions suggest at least some casualties and what we'd probably describe as "disorder" in Impetus -- and this is after passing through the light infantry screen.

Fair point and I wouldn't be against any (non-SK) unit surviving contact with CF from being disordered come what may.

Pezhetairoi wrote:
The scythed chariot probably was intended for a combined-arms attack. The temporary trauma and chaos they would cause should be immediately followed up with other forces. "Success" would be causing some casualties, wearing the enemy down, and making holes in the line.
I'll argue that 2 dice (when the impetus bonus is lost to the spears and pikes) makes that all but impossible.

I would imagine combined arms with them would be devilishly difficult, I'd deploy light troops with them, somewhat similar to elephant guards to add missiles at the point of contact and keep enemy lights busy. But yes, some kind of exploitation would seem key to any lasting success.

I guess 2 dice is rather meagre, or rather it's a very harsh reduction. I wouldn't necessarily be upset if that change was made, as GC says they are a one-trick pony and rather easily disposed of if not used cleverly. But we need to ensure they do not become a 'super-weapon' in the process of giving them a bit more punch

However if the key to their success is other units exploiting the disruption caused shouldn't we be encouraging that rather than upping the CF dice? So auto-disorder as a minimum, removal and immediate activation of a unit in support ...

This has been an interesting discussion, I too have thought that Elephants and CF might have been underrated. I have begun to wonder if I had read the rules correctly. Looking back to section 2.2.3 where Wagenburgs, Camels, Elephants and Scythed Chariots are defined, the first sentence jumped out, "These are Mounted Troops with some special rules.' The trouble with the phrase 'special rule' is that it creates ambiguity as to which ordinary rule it is overriding. So further in the section, specifically about impetus bonus for elephants, after excluding impetus against light troops we have "...but they keep the Impetus Bonus...in all other circumstances." Likewise in the paragraph for Scythed Chariots there is "They always keep their Impetus Bonus even if they take losses."

So they may be Mounted Troops, but the special rule overrides the normal loss of Impetus.

Now I'm confused, wish I had not read the rules.

Elephants automatically disorder all mounted troops when they are in a melee with the exception of Elephants and Camels.

Mounted troops, with exception of Elephants, do not get an Impetus Bonus when fighting them.

Elephants do not have Impetus Bonus against Skirmishers and Non-Impetuous Light Infantry, but they keep the Impetus Bonus also if no longer Fresh in all other circumstances.

Elephants retreat when they take losses due to missile fire.

Clarification on "all other circumstances" is needed, ordinarily I'd always assume that special overrides usual in rules and normally 'all other' is all encompassing but language is always a thing with Impetus ...

Scythed Chariots (CF) move like Heavy Chariots. They cannot form a Group, even with other Scythed Chariots. They never become disordered but must take a Discipline Test if they perform more than one Movement Action and if they fail they cannot move further for that activation.

They always keep their Impetus Bonus even if they take losses.

They don’t disperse enemy Skirmishers, but they pass through them (causing disorder) and suffering automatically from the Skirmisher’s Defensive Fire (see par. 7.8.2 for details).

They are automatically destroyed if they don’t win the first round of a melee or if they move through Broken or Difficult Terrain.

Given that CF are destroyed after the first round of combat they lose, it's hard to imagine what the 'keep their Impetus Bonus' line refers to, if not negating the Mounted Troop loss? But again clarification required - quirky language again

This is a very good discussion!
I'll try and compare to other wargames as well. Everyone sees the interaction a little differently. But It usually seems like a close contest.

In DBA, elephants are at an even roll if the pikes are single line, but at a disadvantage if the pikes are doubled up. However, the elephants get a quick kill vs the pikes, if they ever roll higher (+mods) than the pike player the pike are instantly destroyed.

In Field of Glory, elephants are at an advantage vs pikes in the impact phase (the initial charge) by rolling more dice, but if the pike survive intact (50/50?) they are at an advantage in subsequent rounds with equal dice but better odds.

In Warrior (the WRG rules) The elephants were at a slight disadvantage to the pikes, having fewer "figures", but a higher "factor". The pike had more figures, but a lower factor, resulting in slightly more casualties on an even roll. However, if the pike rolled badly, or the elephants rolled well, it would be disastrous.

What I have never seen is a wargame that has been able to recreate the "elephant screen" we see in some of the battles of this time. I have suspicions why ... but that would be kinda neat.

The basic tell on that being that elephants start at an initial advantage with the possibility of quick success but are likely going to lose if it drags on, especially if elements can swing the gate on the flanks.

Still there was nothing quite like your Sassanid elephants leading a wild, impetuous charge of IRR D levy downhill ... (usually to their doom   )

Screening has always been an issue - just the way we base our elephants turns them into sledgehammers. Even a few elephants were often deployed in long thin lines. Even the huge numbers at Ipsos are a thin screen. Wargames don't come close to that.

Impetus does have the unusual added thing of forcing elephants to retreat from effective shooting.

Zippee wrote:
Clarification on "all other circumstances" is needed but I will always assume that special overrides usual in rules and normally 'all other' is all encompassing but language is always a thing with Impetus ...

I'd be very surprised if it turns out that Elephants are allowed to keep their impetus against LS/Pike. Just saying. If it were the case we would expect to see this listed in the main body of the rules and not in a summary section on troop types.

I agree, I think its just saying they keep it when not fresh against stuff they don't lose it to.
For clarity that statement should be written as:

"Elephants do not get their Impetus Bonus when in melee with Skirmishers, Foot armed with Pike or Long Spear, and any Non-Impetuous Light Infantry. However, they keep their Impetus Bonus even if no longer Fresh in all other circumstances."

I think

(I should have added "ordinarily I'd assume" ...)

One other thing to consider is that Elephants have gone down in cost (even taking into consideration the reduction in impetus) in Warbook 1 by about 20% while Pike block has stayed at roughly the same cost. So a pike block of 3 stands costs about the same as 2 units of Elephants. I think 2 Elephants might be able to hold their own against a pike block.

What Gaius argumented in his last post is true. Cost of troops has changed and fitted to work with the new balance of Impetus 2. And interaction of course is the key.
As said Elephants were mostly used against mounted, so the best place was on the flank. On the other hands they cause problems also to friendly cavalry and to move on they needed the "help" of foot. That's why in center was an option. Not a troop type very easy to manage.
There are not many troops that can charge frontally with no consequence a pike block of 3 Units. Pikes are not cheap on the other hands and historically not always they were deployed so deeply.

Thanks for the clarification!