So this question arose to me when I realized in total war, a game series I'm sure some of you guys have heard of, you can't use elephants like they were historically used, shock troops straight down the middle to wreak havoc on the enemy front line before sending your own front line in.

In total war you can (and are pretty much forced) to use elephants as a heavy shock flanking force, but I realized some of the weaknesses of real elephants would have been covered by flanking too. If you were able to hold elephants in reserve until the the enemy skirmish was occupied or used up (thinking Roman Pilum) your elephants were safer, and if your elephants are in the back of enemy armies then they have far less chance of crushing your own men, and lastly, in engaged battle the enemy army can't open up columns of free space to let them pass and be engaged in active melee at the same time.

Now I know that the back line is a bit much, troops weren't all committed into a giant melee generally. But flanks definitely seem viable in my mind. And the advantages I brought up still seem to be there to a lesser extent.

So I know I must have a fundamental misconception of battles in antiquity because I'm sure some Howdah or General would have thought of this and listed off reasons as to why it's terrible. I just want to know why I've never heard of it, from the battles of Panipat to Zama to the Hydaspes I can only recall this straightforward shock charge or at least front line use of elephants into opposing frontline infantry, even pikes and guns, rather than being used on flanks. So obviously I'm missing something critical.