|
|
Post by redrob on Oct 30, 2019 9:10:45 GMT
How com Scythed Chariots and Elephants destroy enemy formations when fleeing. If they don't do that when they are deliberately attacking - and presumably doing what they were skilled at/designed to do? Maybe an extra combat, with the losing element destroyed no matter how close the result lose or draw, but if they win they survive. Unless of course the initial contact finds them hit in the flank or facing the other way. But as angry/out of control the beasts are, the the enemy element has the same level of survival instinct. I accept the fact that friendlies so contact would suffer from extreme levels of surprise/ shock/indignation at being attacked by friends so tough!
can anyone explain this logic?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 30, 2019 12:10:29 GMT
Perhaps it’s because when fighting frontally they are still under control and are looking to preserve themselves by not charging wildly and uncontrollably into a wall of enemy troops. When fleeing they are in fact in a stampede, are not trying to preserve themselves, and in their blind panic they are not deterred by an obstacle of little puny humans but will uncontrollably smash into them as they franticly try to escape, regardless of the harm it does to themselves. (I do like to try and justify things, where I can)  Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Oct 30, 2019 19:07:25 GMT
The surprise/shock would also be a significant factor as. unlike the enemy units the elephants or chariots had just fought, the units contacted would be quite unprepared to resist their former friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 30, 2019 20:38:41 GMT
Ditto to both above suggestions. Controlled combat vs uncontrolled panic on part of both attacker and defender.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 7, 2019 22:12:50 GMT
Because in the mind of wargamers you need an elephant panic rule - and pity the designer who leaves one out. It reflects the danger of design by anecdote - an elephant crashing into its own side would catch the attention of some ancient scribe while those doing the normal thing - crashing into enemies would be routine and not worth much noting. Hence the obsession with them killing their own.
Observer bias in analyzing sources is something history majors get pounded into them (and flukes of eyewitness testimony are likewise a part of any legal investigators analysis).
TomT
|
|
