It's just a giraffe with better stats, I guess.
As for the battle...
It depends on their strategies, really.
I think the side with the gorillas has the slight advantage, because they have a larger armored force (the silverbacks), while still having competent quick-strike forces. (The griffons). In addition to this, the archers on gorilla-back can support each other and facilitate breakthroughs through enemy lines. The side with the bears has a lot of cavalry (the bears), but the bears aren't armored, so a few good ranged volleys should be capable of reducing their cavalry to a group of warriors milling around. Besides, crossbows aren't that good on bearback, I think. As for the battle giraffes, I guess they're vulnerable because the clerics, rangers, casters are all only lightly armored, which means that concentrated fire could probably wipe them out.
What I see happening is that the bears and gorillas charge at each other, both take casualties but all of the bears die, leaving only the warriors and crossbowmen. Meanwhile, a detatchment of gorillas, along with the griffins attack the giraffe-mounted forces from one of their flanks and begin targeting the casters. They get wiped out, but the casters all die. So then you have, let's say, 8 armored giraffes and 40 infantry on foot versus 15 silverback gorillas and the rangers riding them. The gorillas first charge the armored giraffes, taking them down without sustaining too many casualties, then get charged by the enemy's infantry, but evade the attack and surround the milling infantry. The rangers snipe at them while evading the enemy's archers, eventually they run out of ammo, and they all charge the infantry, wipe them out.
Factor in some siege weapons. Ballistae, catapults.
|