Chariot rules and classification

[FOGwargames]

I hope V.2 will address the frankly broken chariot rules whereby at the moment the Minoan chariot of 2 men and 2 horses can generally beat the tiger tank of the ancient world - the Late Assyrian 4 horse 4 man chariot in a straight fight.
Even in period the Minoan chariot easily defeats all the other light chariots around - who would have thought the Minoans should have conquered the known world. The classification of the Minoan as Heavy chariot is on the flimsiest of evidence - bascially a carving of a charioteer with a long spear which some believe is evidence they used long lances to charge into a group of infantry like a medieval knight. Later studies on the practical use of the use of chariots have shown that this would be almost impossible. They should just be light chariot with light spear. With such apparent superior technology why is it that the Later Mycenaeans they then went back to the Light Chariot in the Late Bronze Age. Complete nonsense because in reality they probably didn't have a heavier chariot in the first place. In addition it is well known the Minoans and Mycenaeans used the bow from the chariot like everyone else in the period.
Going back to the issue of the late Neo-Assyrian chariot one possible way to rectify this without changing any rules is just to give that heavy chariot a light spear as well as bow. This is in fact what they had hence they built a 3 or 4 man heavy chariot with more crew so they would have close combat ability as well as distance from the bow.
While on the subject I would also reclasify the Hittite Heavy chariot as average with light spear to make it a fairer fight with the Egyptians. Such inaccuracies are putting me off an otherwise good set of rules.

[nikgaukroger]

I hope V.2 will address the frankly broken chariot rules whereby at the moment the Minoan chariot of 2 men and 2 horses can generally beat the tiger tank of the ancient world - the Late Assyrian 4 horse 4 man chariot in a straight fight.
Even in period the Minoan chariot easily defeats all the other light chariots around - who would have thought the Minoans should have conquered the known world. The classification of the Minoan as Heavy chariot is on the flimsiest of evidence - bascially a carving of a charioteer with a long spear which some believe is evidence they used long lances to charge into a group of infantry like a medieval knight.

That would include the one of the charioteer spearing the infantryman? The rather evocative illustration on the Osprey on the Mykenaians was based on that IIRC.

Later studies on the practical use of the use of chariots have shown that this would be almost impossible.

That was certainly the view of Littauer & Crouwel, however, more modern authorities such as Tallis (who has been involved with reconstructing ancient chariots as well as it being something of a research speciality of his) have shown their view to be highly flawed and believe that it is indeed possible. I am fairly sure he has expounded on this on the Yahoo Ancmed group which is freely accessable - mind you it was some years ago and the Yahoo search is poor so I'm not sure how easy it would be to find it.

They should just be light chariot with light spear. With such apparent superior technology why is it that the Later Mycenaeans they then went back to the Light Chariot in the Late Bronze Age.

There were some rather significant disruptions during the Mykenaian period, substantial enough to cause material changes that may not appear logical if looked at in a narrow sense.

While on the subject I would also reclasify the Hittite Heavy chariot as average with light spear to make it a fairer fight with the Egyptians. Such inaccuracies are putting me off an otherwise good set of rules.

IMO the evidence points to Hittite chariotry having the same sort of kit as the Egyptians, just adding the extra man at Qadesh - I'd not have had the Lt Sp option if left to myself in list writing.

[FOGwargames]

I agree that actually the Hititte chariot should actually be light chariot bow armed as the egyptians and that probably the 3rd man on the chariot at Kadesh is merely a chariot runner hitching a ride. Of course we will probably never know for sure. There is still the 1st warrior shown with a spear so enough to justify the light spear but then either they should be average heavy to even it out with the Egyptians or preferably just take out the heavy option and have light chariot options as already there. Hittites are problematic but there is really no question that the Minoan chariots should be re-classified as they are far too powerful both in period and out. In terms of numbers they are also allowed more heavies than any other list including the Assyrians. The late Assyrian chariots also need to have a light spear added in line with their greater manpower.

[nikgaukroger]

I agree that actually the Hititte chariot should actually be light chariot bow armed as the egyptians and that probably the 3rd man on the chariot at Kadesh is merely a chariot runner hitching a ride. Of course we will probably never know for sure. There is still the 1st warrior shown with a spear so enough to justify the light spear but then either they should be average heavy to even it out with the Egyptians or preferably just take out the heavy option and have light chariot options as already there.

I'm not sure why you think there is a need to "even out" here - perhaps you could expand. We are somewhat hindered, of course, by the fact that for the 3 man chariots we are just talking about Qadesh which was a rather messy affair with little that could be classified as a straight up fight to draw conclusions from.

The late Assyrian chariots also need to have a light spear added in line with their greater manpower.

Having played with, and against, late Assyrian chariots I am unconvinced there is any need to change them - seem to get the right effect to me. Are there some interactions you think are demonstrably wrong?

Also I'd say from experience of having used both Lt Sp and Bw Hittite chariots I'd take the Bw version every time as a far better option

[prb4]

I suspect the issue is that I prefer the light spear option for my Hittites and seem to be able to make them work ok.
The same can be said for the Minoans.

I assume "player" is you Peter and you are basing this assult upon my two favorite (and only) biblical armies on the games we have played?

Actually I have just read the Osprey book on Qadesh and from my reading of that I think the heavy chariot clasification for the Hittites is well founded.

Peter

[FOGwargames]

Yes Peter it is me.
My issue is really on this thread is with the Minoans being completely out of sych with the rest of the Bronze Age chariots and having, I think, an unfeasibly great advantage against foes in period. As you know me Peter, I am not trying to put down the Minoan army because it is difficult to beat in the games we have played as I am not that gamey. I just want a more feasible historical position on these. I really do think these rules just bolted on chariots without much thought and certainly the chariot clssifications were based straight from the DBM lists. Minoans were Kn (F) though at least they distingiushed between these apparent early heavy chariots and the later Assyrian chariots. I would interested to play some more games with you Peter and experiment with my proposed changes with chariots to see how they play.
Nick, I haven't got the time to endlessly debate my views on here. If you don't agree with my views, fine. It is just something the rules writers should re-consider by thinking about it more deeply, as I have said they seem to have just followed DBM style classification without a re-think.

[nikgaukroger]

Nick, I haven't got the time to endlessly debate my views on here. If you don't agree with my views, fine. It is just something the rules writers should re-consider by thinking about it more deeply,

I'm asking for input as I believe it will assist, or even trigger, a review of the thinking behind chariots - it isn't as if they weren't thought through first time around (despite what you may feel). Now is the opportunity with v2 under way - it need not be an endless debate, just a statement of position with supporting information, that would be useful IMO.

as I have said they seem to have just followed DBM style classification without a re-think.

It should, of course, be noted that the DBM model was created with the input of an expert - Nigel Tallis - who when last asked (IIRC) stated that for the style of rules that model was about as good as you were going to get*. By adopting a similar model for chariots FoG is at least following a course that has credible support.


* and you'd need a very chariot specific set just for the bronze age to fully explore the possibilities as any set that covers 4500 years of warfare will just have too many compromises.

[pyruse]

Quoth Nik G:
That was certainly the view of Littauer & Crouwel, however, more modern authorities such as Tallis (who has been involved with reconstructing ancient chariots as well as it being something of a research speciality of his) have shown their view to be highly flawed and believe that it is indeed possible. I am fairly sure he has expounded on this on the Yahoo Ancmed group which is freely accessable - mind you it was some years ago and the Yahoo search is poor so I'm not sure how easy it would be to find it.
---------------------
If you read Littauer & Crouwel on Bronze Age Minoan chariotry you'll find they start by saying:
"It's clearly impossible to use a long spear from a chariot". They give no evidence for this; it is just asserted.
The book is full of pictures of people in chariots wielding long spears and spearing other people with them.
Each time they say "Since we've shown that you can't use a long spear from a chariot, obviously this scene isn't realistic".
A classic case of starting with an assumption and then ignoring the (large) amount of evidence which contradicts it.

But I have to say while Minoan chariots probably did use long spears in combat, classing them as 'heavy' is very odd; they are even lighter than Egyptian chariots in construction.
They are clearly light chariots - but light chariots designed for close, not distant combat.

But this is surely an army list issue, not a rules issue?

[philqw78]

Surely the FoG classification is used to produce the result the authors thought was correct, not based upon if the chariot was heavier or lighter than a chariot that the authors thought should have a different effect.

[FOGwargames]

That's my point Pyruse. While the chariot rules can work if only they get the classifications right. There are enough permutations to accurately portray how each chariot can work against each other. For example the minoan could be light chariot, superior, light spear. The later neo-assyrian could be heavy superior bow and light spear. I don't think this would make the late assyrian too powerful as they could be countered by other chariots with a skirmish screen - chariot runners which would lessen the assyrian bow in the chariot. I am happy to get involved in the debate if any of the rules writers are going to listen but not bother if it goes on deaf ears.

[FOGwargames]

Phil again that's my point as it does not seem right that Minoan chariots can easily outnumber and beat the later cream of the Neo-Assyrian army - chariots simpler from 1000 years earlier. I know you will say that it is relative in period that they are fighting enemies in but there were also light chariots around at the time of the later Neo-Assyrians.
Also, in period, it seems that it almost impossible to beat Minoan chariots in period with other chariots partly because of the numbers they are allowed and the heavy and spear status. Who knew they were such a superpower chariot nation, rolling around on their rocky island, above that of the Egyptians, Mitanni and Assyrians?

[nikgaukroger]

I am happy to get involved in the debate if any of the rules writers are going to listen but not bother if it goes on deaf ears.

Post and I can assure you it will be read and considered - obviously I cannot promise it will necessarily be agreed with

[FOGwargames]

Pyruse, it also is about the interpretation of the images we have of the Minoans. Just because there is an image of a man stabbing another from a riding chariot does not make it a so-called heavy chariot with completely different tactics. The minoans also had bow armed chariots which is not reflected in the rules and other nations also used spear from the chariot including syrians and egyptians but they are only light chariots.

[prb4]

I think it is also worth keeping in mind playability.

An army made of Light spear light chariots is of little use in my opinion.
They don't skirmish well and they don't fight well.

[nikgaukroger]

I think it is also worth keeping in mind playability.

An army made of Light spear light chariots is of little use in my opinion.
They don't skirmish well and they don't fight well.

Depends what is with them - Ancient British can be extremely effective.

[lawrenceg]

I think it is also worth keeping in mind playability.

An army made of Light spear light chariots is of little use in my opinion.
They don't skirmish well and they don't fight well.

Depends what is with them - Ancient British can be extremely effective.

True, but even then they still don't skirmish well and they still don't fight well. Also, that is not "an army made of Light spear light chariots" as it has a lot of MF and skirmishers as well.