WTF Chariots?

[bjarmson]

Recently bought and begin playing the game. My initial impressions are positive, except for the abilities chariots have when used in certain battles. I started playing the Ceasarian battles last night and chariots seem to be considered invincible, all-terrain super weapons. They (20 chariots groups) regularly destroy hundreds of heavy infantry, heavy calvary, and missile troops while taking, at most, only a negligible amount of damage. They drive into woods, across rivers, through ditches as if they are not there. They never break down, which they were susceptible to doing on all but the flattest surfaces. Apparently the game designers know nothing about chariots. Chariots usage as a weapon peaked well before 1000 BC, and by the time of Caesar they were totally obsolete and virtually worthless as weapons. Any competent missile troops should virtually destroy a group of twenty chariots in one attempt. The horses, drivers,and weapon handlers, lightly armored at best, would simply be annihilated in a cloud of arrows, javelins, or stones, yet the game never depicts this. Heavy infantry and calvary units would also make short work of chariots, but the game regularly has the chariots destroying a hundred or two of these groups while taking only minimal damage (1, maybe 2, chariots and then retreating). Such a depiction of chariots as a weapon (in any battle after 1000 BC) is ludicrous. It throws the game off completely, as if chariots are some sort of early AFV, please either remove chariots from the game or redo them completely to reflect their total insignificance as weapons in classic era battles.

[Tiavals]

Your assessment of chariots in the game is not fair.

First you must realize that the number 20 is just a flavor number that truthfully means nothing and should not be considered. It is the % underneath that matter.

Now, I don't know if you refer to heavy or light chariots, but whichever it is, they are both terrible in terrain, in fact, they are the worst units in the game when it comes to terrain, disruption wise. The fact that their armor negating ability exists in terrain may make them seem okay, but the fact is that they are almost always fragmented, meaning they roll just 2 dice. Now, many other units are fragmented in forests as well, such as heavy infantry and cavalry, but medium and light infantry should have no problems against chariots there.

The game is not intended to be a simulation, but a tactical scale wargame, which is why only things considered important are taken into account. Supplies and morale are abstracted, weaponry is abstracted, training is abstracted, that they would take into account minor details about how a chariot works would mean they'd have to do so with all units and that would be a whole lot of work without much payoff.

Again, a group of "twenty" chariots is equal to a group of 5000 skirmishers mechanics wise, it is just a flavor number someone estimated and is not meant to represent the real situation. A loss of 2 chariots is equal to 10% damage, which is the same as losing 30 men in a squad of 300. A huge amount.
You are right about chariots being pretty shielded against ranged attacks, they fare as well as armoured cavalry, I think, but then, do you think they should be as poor as protected lancers?

The fact is that the game is intended to have a single ruleset which allows for both intra- and cross-age battle. That chariots were the best weapon ever devised up until the iron age means they SHOULD be extremely good against everything, to depict otherwise would be against how things were. Now, the fact that you can play against Romans with the Early Achmaenids doesn't mean you should, if you want historic accuracy. And if they wanted to simulate the power legionaries and later era tactics have against chariots, they'd need a whole new ruleset, which is too much work for too little gain, again. Have you taken into account how much a unit of chariots costs in comparison to another unit?

A better idea than to redo chariots or remove them, is that you simply don't play battles that have them. To deprive everyone else the joy of chariots simply because you think they are poorly represented in the game is a bit too much.

Furthermore, you may have had a stint of bad luck, which is common in FOG and can cause a wrong image on how the things work on the long term.

The fact is, that chariots are a fringe weapon that is mostly worse than cavalry in all situations. There are only a few places where they are objectively worth the points, and that is against roman legionaries and cataphracts. The reasons are because heavy chariots are the only unit in the game that has an advantage against impact heavy foot and that they ignore armor. I love FOG not because it's a super accurate depiction of ancient and medieval era battles, but because it gives a varied and interesting portrayal of said battles, with a solid set of mechanics to drive forth competition between players and give a challenge. To take chariots away from that equation would be to lessen the joy in the game.

[TheGrayMouser]

This is likly the ist post I can recall where someone thought chariots were too good in this game!

The only thing I think might be out of kilter with reality is chariots are a little too maneuverable when compared to cavalry.

Also remember that the light spear the lighter chariots get represents javelins etc thrown from close range and not that the light chariots are trying charge into and or thru legion formations!

[bjarmson]

The battle that drew my rancor is Caesar in Britain (First Encounter). It's not so much that I think they are too good, since they really don't affect the outcome (though when I attacked one with an elite Legion unit and a calvary unit and took about 400 casualties and had both units disordered while inflicting no damage on the chariot unit, it certainly is bogus), it's that they are fantasy weapons. It's supposed to be a historically accurate game, I expect units to reflect actual abilities, not nonsense ones. That's just sloppy game mechanics. You wouldn't accept a WWII game where tanks could enter woods or cross rivers, but that's what chariots are able to do (they cross the Great Stour River anywhere, and when evading they cross the river and move several spaces beyond, impossible, unless they can fly). By the time of this battle, chariots had been obsolete as weapons for a thousand years. The Brit chieftains might have still considered them a nifty, prestige item, and they might have been useful against local lightly armed tribes, but Roman Legionnaires are a different matter. Chariots would be quickly annihilated by missile troops or calvary units, or even standard Legion infantry units (who quickly learned ways to deal with elephants), and this is not reflected in the game. Thus they are fantasy units, their abilities in no way reflect historical reality. One armed man, a driver, and, at best, several lightly armored horses would swiftly fall to a hail of arrows, javelins, or even stones aimed at them. Several calvary riders could easily outmaneuver a chariot and spear humans and horses. Chariots also break relatively easily when maneuvering over all but the smoothest, flattest terrain.

If a group of 20 chariots supposedly equals 5000 skirmishers, then the game mechanics belong in bizarro world. Chariots are expensive items, which require a lot of expertise and training to use. There would be relatively few on any battlefield. Horses are fragile creatures, easily wounded and rendered useless by hundreds of arrows, javelins, or stones being rained on them. Damage to a single horse would render the chariot useless. Chariots were only ever effective against poorly trained, immobile troops armed only with edged weapons, which is why they quickly became obsolete when missile troops appeared in numbers on the battlefield. Most of the other units reflect historical accuracy, why should chariots inhabit the realm of fantasy land?

[fogman]

Horses are fragile creatures, easily wounded and rendered useless by hundreds of arrows, javelins, or stones being rained on them. Damage to a single horse would render the chariot useless. Chariots were only ever effective against poorly trained, immobile troops armed only with edged weapons, which is why they quickly became obsolete when missile troops appeared in numbers on the battlefield. Most of the other units reflect historical accuracy, why should chariots inhabit the realm of fantasy land?

Horses are not that vulnerable. Masses of cavalry charging masses of infantry with missile capability were effective up to and including the napoleonic wars! and we're talking muskets and cannons here, not ancient arrows. arrows lose their kinetic energy very quickly. an arrow from a scythian bow (the most commonly used by the persians) has a maximum kinetic energy of 36 joules on release (50 joules for the english longbow). at 50 yards it's down to 20, and then 15 at 105 yards. anything under 35 joules would not breach 0.04 inches of bronze armour, less if not 90 degrees. horses are not bulls but they can take a beating. an arrow (or multiple arrows) that does not hit a vital area will not bring down a horse (it may bleed to death hours later though if untreated).

[bjarmson]

fogman, don't know where you are getting your info at, but cavalry was essentially ineffective against infantry from the 16th century onward. Cavalry units were relegated to reconnaissance, fighting against opposition cavalry, or to run down routed infantry units. By the time of the Napoleonic Wars cavalry was useless against infantry. At Waterloo 9000 French cavalry made repeated charges at English and German infantry and were simply shot to pieces. Horses no matter how well trained will not attack massed barriers of pointed metal (pikes or muskets with bayonets) which infantry units were quick to adopt (medieval pikemen were early anti-cavalry units).

Chariots are a different matter. There were always small numbers of them, they had to get close enough to the enemy so that arrows could be shot or javelins thrown. This makes them vulnerable to return fire, which is why they had became obsolete by 1000BC. A group of missile troops firing hundreds of arrows or scores of javelins would soon hit some vulnerable spots, rendering the chariot useless. Neither Alexander nor the Romans used chariots, which makes a pretty good argument about their worthlessness as military weapons.

[Tiavals]

bjarmson, where are you getting your info? A quick look at the wiki implies that what you have claimed is mostly untrue. Chariots did not become obsolete until around 300BC, and they were excellent against skirmishers. The fact that the Romans and Alexander didn't use chariots means nothing, since the use of chariots had long ended in their lands due to non-plain terrain and the adoption of different military tactics. If chariots were so worthless, why were they used for thousands of years, for hundreds of years after the introduction of cavalry and archers? That speaks for itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_tactics

I bet there are dozens of people here who could argue that every single unit in the game is represented incorrectly and should be vastly different. But the point is, nothing about ancient warfare is known for a fact. No one has used pikes or chariots for a long time, so any practical knowledge about them comes from ancient texts and legends. The point is that chariots were a very important weapon in certain time periods, and to take that away would be to deny the historical significance they had. If you can't stand them, do not play any battles that feature them.

[bjarmson]

Tiavals, where are you getting your info? Chariots were a weapon of the Bronze Age. They were originally developed because horses of antiquity were too small for all but the lightest of humans to ride. Once horses were bred large enough cavalry quickly supplanted them. Chariots had their heyday at the Battle of Kadesh (1274 BC). At the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC), the army of Alexander simply opened their lines, let the scythed chariots of Darius III pass and attacked them from behind. Tacitus, noting their use at the Battle of Mons Graupius (83 or 84 AD),said: "The chariots did not win even their initial engagement with the Roman auxiliaries". I see no reason not to imagine similar results when used against Caesar 140 years earlier.

I fully appreciate the difficulties of assessing the military abilities of various units from 1000-2000 years ago. I understand little is known for certain of many ancient battles, but so far I've found infantry, cavalry, and most auxiliaries seem scaled fairly well. Chariots, however are scaled completely wrong. They had virtually no impact on any battle after about 1000 BC. However, they are misrepresented in the various Caesar in Britain battles (which I could ignore, but I'm interested in playing them) as some kind of early AFV, exceptionally effective against infantry and cavalry, virtually impervious to attacks from missile troops. This is a bogus, fantasy depiction of their actual abilities (as noted by Tacitus). The introduction of fantasy abilities skews battles. If the designers want to include fantasy chariots in a Lord of the Rings battle pack, fine by me. They don't belong in historical battles. Chariot abilities badly need to be changed to represent their nonentity role in these battles.

[fogman]

By the time of the Napoleonic Wars cavalry was useless against infantry. At Waterloo 9000 French cavalry made repeated charges at English and German infantry and were simply shot to pieces. Horses no matter how well trained will not attack massed barriers of pointed metal (pikes or muskets with bayonets) which infantry units were quick to adopt (medieval pikemen were early anti-cavalry units).

absolutely not, at waterloo, the union brigade (with the famed scot greys) trotted right into d'Erlon I corps and made a mess of it and was only driven off by french cavalry. two days earlier at quatre bras, kellerman's cuirassiers mauled a british brigade so badly it lost its colour (the only one lost in the campaign). at albuera, 1811, an entire british infantry brigade was virtually annihilated by polish lancers. on the first day of aspern-essling, the entire french centre was held only by cavalry and its charges held in check superior austrian forces the entire day. at eylau a massive charge by up to 10,000 horsemen broke through the russian centre. and then there was the legendary charge of the polish lancers at somosierra when they went up a mountain pass. there are numerous tactical examples of cavalry breaking infantry.

sure, disciplined infantry in square will chew up cavalry. but cavalry supported by infantry and artillery will destroy infantry squares. that is what happened to some imperial guard squares at the end of waterloo. a famous example of that is rocroi, 1643, where the french cavalry defeated its spanish counterpart and surrounded the helpless elite tercios; that was that battle that signaled the end of the pike and shot era.

everything is a function of tactical situation. infantry in square bests cavalry but cavalry will best infantry in line, in column, on the march etc. you can't take one particular set of circumstances and draw conclusions. it's not because the french knights got shot up at agincourt that heavy cavalry became obsolete... if you have a battalion of t-34 charging over clear terrain at a battery of dug in german 88s, you know what's going to happen but it doesn't mean the t-34 are worthless...

truth is in the napoleonic era, no infantry formation would stand up to a heavy cavalry charge unless in a square. as a matter of fact the mere presence of enemy cavalry would pretty much immobilize infantry without cavalry support. so much for obsolescence!

[TheGrayMouser]

The battle that drew my rancor is Caesar in Britain (First Encounter). It's not so much that I think they are too good, since they really don't affect the outcome (though when I attacked one with an elite Legion unit and a calvary unit and took about 400 casualties and had both units disordered while inflicting no damage on the chariot unit, it certainly is bogus), it's that they are fantasy weapons. It's supposed to be a historically accurate game, I expect units to reflect actual abilities, not nonsense ones. That's just sloppy game mechanics. You wouldn't accept a WWII game where tanks could enter woods or cross rivers, but that's what chariots are able to do (they cross the Great Stour River anywhere, and when evading they cross the river and move several spaces beyond, impossible, unless they can fly). By the time of this battle, chariots had been obsolete as weapons for a thousand years. The Brit chieftains might have still considered them a nifty, prestige item, and they might have been useful against local lightly armed tribes, but Roman Legionnaires are a different matter. Chariots would be quickly annihilated by missile troops or calvary units, or even standard Legion infantry units (who quickly learned ways to deal with elephants), and this is not reflected in the game. Thus they are fantasy units, their abilities in no way reflect historical reality. One armed man, a driver, and, at best, several lightly armored horses would swiftly fall to a hail of arrows, javelins, or even stones aimed at them. Several calvary riders could easily outmaneuver a chariot and spear humans and horses. Chariots also break relatively easily when maneuvering over all but the smoothest, flattest terrain.

If a group of 20 chariots supposedly equals 5000 skirmishers, then the game mechanics belong in bizarro world. Chariots are expensive items, which require a lot of expertise and training to use. There would be relatively few on any battlefield. Horses are fragile creatures, easily wounded and rendered useless by hundreds of arrows, javelins, or stones being rained on them. Damage to a single horse would render the chariot useless. Chariots were only ever effective against poorly trained, immobile troops armed only with edged weapons, which is why they quickly became obsolete when missile troops appeared in numbers on the battlefield. Most of the other units reflect historical accuracy, why should chariots inhabit the realm of fantasy land?

Well, this is what Caesar says about em:

"In chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to throw their opponents' ranks into disorder. Then, after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from the chariot and engage on foot. In the meantime their charioteers retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such a position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have an easy means of retreat to their own lines. Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying power of infantry; and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that even on a steep incline they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them in a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back into the chariot as quick as lightning" (Gallic War, IV.33).

Note he doesnt say the legions just picked some rocks and destroyed the enemy charioteers in one volley either...

Also note that at one point the brits under Casellvannus reportedly had 4,000 "charioteers" shadowing his army engaging in effective harrasing hit and run tactics. Although a likly exageration as he probobly means the men not the # of actual chariots, still 1500-2000 chariots is a lot! Considering too that Ceasar had 2k Gallic cav;lry with him , the chariots still were quite capable of effective guerilla warefare in the rugged terrain .

Anyhow the specific scenario you speak of with the chariots "flying over a river" is more likly a scenario design decision to make the river a stream easily fordable rather than a deep river and has NOTHING to do with the game mechanic of how chariots behave in game. Chariots vs heavy Roman Infantry are DOWN a POA in both impact AND melee and will get clobbered. (of course rolling badly is always a possiblity in this game:) )

[Tiavals]

Tiavals, where are you getting your info? Chariots were a weapon of the Bronze Age. They were originally developed because horses of antiquity were too small for all but the lightest of humans to ride. Once horses were bred large enough cavalry quickly supplanted them. Chariots had their heyday at the Battle of Kadesh (1274 BC). At the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC), the army of Alexander simply opened their lines, let the scythed chariots of Darius III pass and attacked them from behind. Tacitus, noting their use at the Battle of Mons Graupius (83 or 84 AD),said: "The chariots did not win even their initial engagement with the Roman auxiliaries". I see no reason not to imagine similar results when used against Caesar 140 years earlier.

I fully appreciate the difficulties of assessing the military abilities of various units from 1000-2000 years ago. I understand little is known for certain of many ancient battles, but so far I've found infantry, cavalry, and most auxiliaries seem scaled fairly well. Chariots, however are scaled completely wrong. They had virtually no impact on any battle after about 1000 BC. However, they are misrepresented in the various Caesar in Britain battles (which I could ignore, but I'm interested in playing them) as some kind of early AFV, exceptionally effective against infantry and cavalry, virtually impervious to attacks from missile troops. This is a bogus, fantasy depiction of their actual abilities (as noted by Tacitus). The introduction of fantasy abilities skews battles. If the designers want to include fantasy chariots in a Lord of the Rings battle pack, fine by me. They don't belong in historical battles. Chariot abilities badly need to be changed to represent their nonentity role in these battles.

I mainly use wikipedia for my information, as should have been obvious from my post. I am fully aware of the beginnings and reasons for chariots, but by your own example it is apparent that chariots were used for centuries after horses had become common. The fact that Alexander's move worked was because his army was an elite army and he was the most legendary commander in the history of the ancient world. You surely cannot make the claim that any army could easily do the same and expect the same results? The whole reason why scythed chariots had scythes was that if an enemy opened up, they'd be cut anyway(the fact that Alexander managed to do it so efficiently they evaded the chariots and then manouver into a position from which they could annihilate them tells leagues about the training of his units). As for Tacitus, you cannot deduce the whole military history of chariots from a single battle.

As for chariot use after 1000 BC, it varied. It was no longer the universal weapon it had been, but that doesn't mean it had virtually no impact. Chinese use of chariots began after that time and lasted for centuries as an important aspect of their armies. Indians used chariots extensively in that period as well. Chariots were introduced to after 1000 BC and became so critical to them that they became part of their mythology and chieftains were buried with their chariots. The fact that the Romans(one of history's most successful war based empires) defeated chariots in a battle is no surprise to anyone. They defeated most gallic armies wholesale, chariots or not, so it's not an accurate assessment to say chariots were worthless when even their heavy infantry was worthless against Romans. And if you're talking about Light Chariots, game mechanically they are inferior to almost every unit in the game. Any unit with the swordsman perk(almost all roman units) will be at an advantage against them at melee, any impact foot or lancer will be at an advantage in the impact phase. And as I said earlier, they're no better against missiles than most other cavalry. Just because you had a stint of bad luck doesn't mean the whole concept has been misrepresented.

[bjarmson]

Gaugemela. Now here is a ancient battle about which more is probably known than perhaps any other battle of antiquity. Fact, Darius' scythed chariots (of which there were approximately 200) were a total nonentity in this battle. Horses won't charge into massed pikes, infantry formations parted to let the chariots charge through, missile troops quickly annihilated the chariots. Now I understand this parting tactic can't be replicated in the FoG battle, but if chariots were scaled correctly (as virtual nonentities) the FoG battle might begin to replicate what we know actually happened. However, in the FoG battle the chariots run right up against infantry formations, attack, and inflict numerous casualties, in some cases disrupting, fragmenting, and even routing infantry formations, while usually taking relatively minor injuries. Missile troops, for whatever reason, are essentially ineffective against chariots (usually inflicting 0 casualties and rarely more than 1, rather than what ought to be 15-20). This makes playing this battle a travesty of the historical event, because FoG chariots are scaled totally inaccurately when compared to their actual significance. Didn't anyone play test this battle and notice this. This battle, as are several of the Caesarian battles, is completely skewed because of the AFV-like qualities of the chariots. If you don't believe me, play these FoG battles for yourself. I'm not making up the stats I've used.

As to their role in the Caesarian battles. While Caesar records their use in his writings, there seems no mention of their being of any hindrance in any battle. Come on, let's be logical, 20 chariots means, 20 warriors shooting arrows or tossing javelins, an insignificant number versus 500 or 1000 missile troop auxiliaries, a ludicrous number to inflict virtually any damage on infantry or calvary formations. How is it even physically possible for those numbers to inflict 100s of causalities on any group of troops? 500 or 1000 missile auxiliaries inflict no where near these kinds of numbers on infantry and cavalry even though they are firing 25 to 50 times more missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. And 20 warriors dismounting to fight would be brushed aside as if they weren't even there by any Legionnaire troops. The abilities chariots have in FoG battles are a complete fantasy. Running guerrilla skirmishes are not major battles, and while chariots may have had some use when used in this manner, they were useless in major battles (which Gaugemela proved, and Tacitus noted). Caesar is also one of the greatest generals of the ancient world. He would certainly have known of Alexander's tactics against chariots, which were recorded in several different chronicles describing the battle. Chariots would have meet the same fate in Britain versus Caesar as they did on the flat, specially prepared surface of the Gaugemala battlefield. But this is not supported by what happens in the FoG battles, because chariots are scaled ludicrously out of proportion to their actual abilities, given virtual AFV-like abilities. It results in FoG battles in which they appear (Gaugemela in particular) that bear no resemblance to actual reality. I request that future versions of FoG represent chariots actual real life abilities and not someone's imaginary version of them as early AFVs.

[Tiavals]

Again I say, your problem will vanish if you use the percentual representation of units instead of numbers. Suddenly, instead of 20 chariots killing hundreds of guys, they inflict 5% damage. No longer is there a problem with scale. It is purely cosmetic. For your own mental health, I suggest you change the representation to %s.

[TheGrayMouser]

No offence but when you say the developers of this game made up fantasy units and dont "get it", when you state that playtesters/scenario designers must have not done there job and suggest people (many whom have been playing this game since 2009) that they actually play the scenario to "see the light" , it comes off a little hostile.

The game aint perfect but it does basically what it intended to do which is port a table top game over to the PC. Abstractions warts and all.
The design behind the TT game and thus the PC game is a top down aproach to get the basic feel correct. That why there is no mechanism of charioteers dismounting or attached bodies of runners that fight with them etc. The game doesnt care if legions carried 2 pila or one, or if its a kopis a spada or a claymore an infantryman is carrying, from a macro scale its a friggin sword! and abstracted in the overall capability of the BG.
The scenario ist Encounter must be a different one than on MY computer since the Brits have 69 BG's of which only 8 are chariots. They can be a nuisence but they arnt going be decisive on there own. As for the Auxilia units in Ist Encounter, well they are skirmishes after all, and cavalry (or chariots) should be able to run em down in open terrain.
I get what your saying because from a literall point of view a volley of 500 lead sling stones likly would cripple a charge of 20 chariots BUT this isnt what is literally supposed to be happening:

I think you are looking too closely as the # of men in the units and the casualties inflicted and coming up with in-correct assumptions about the game mechanics( a common issue for many new and alot of old hands as well)
When the game ist came out they , for whatever reason, coded all HI as having 1500 men, cavalry and mediums 1000 and lights 500, war engine/vehicles were coded as 20. Most scenario desighners kept the same convention. Of course with such a scale of men per hex, it was out of kilter with the range of missle weapons so they adjusted and now all units (except war engines) are now coded to 300 men in the DAG armies.
However it matters NOT ONE BIT because the game engine calculates casualties and kills based off a % of 100% So a unit takes a hit that causes 10% casualties is at 90% effectiveness . If the scenario desighner made that unit have a 100 men it now has 90 men, but the same unit could have been made to have 10,000 men and thus will be reduced to 9000. The game engine doesnt care though, as the effective strength of each unit is simply "90%"
The best thing is not to worry about the # of men in each BG but rather the % strength, I chose to visualize the % strength not as LITERally the # of men survivng but the slow breakdown of the BG , ie wounded , some dead, physical fatigue, degradation of command and weapons, low ammo or the slow gradual lack of interest in exposing ones body to more risk ie combat fatigue, or something like that:)

The goal in this game is to break (ie rout) enough enemy BG's to cause the whole army to rout. So think in terms of BG's not men!

(oops looks like Tiavals basically said the same think in two sentances rather than my overly long blurb)

[bjarmson]

It's not about % or numbers or how the game engine works. It's about one particular unit, light chariots (whether 20 or 100), being used in the role of shock troops to assault large infantry and cavalry formations. This is not possible, it is not realistic, they would be immediately obliterated. I have no problem with them being in the game, as long as they are used as skirmishers or for running down routed units, which is likely what their roles were. The reason chariots became obsolete was they were exceptionally vulnerable to massed missile troops. TGM, you say: "I get what your saying because from a literall point of view a volley of 500 lead sling stones likly would cripple a charge of 20 chariots BUT this isnt what is literally supposed to be happening". Why not? If that's what would actually happen, why isn't reality reflected in a supposedly historical war-game? Would you be supportive of a WWII game in which skirmisher units (say light infantry) regularly assaulted tank units and got the kind of results light chariots regularly get against infantry and cavalry units in FoG? If you are going to have a historical battles game, which I've been playing since board game days, you must do your best to insure historical realism. I actually like FoG otherwise, most other units seem scaled correctly. However, the way chariots are portrayed in FoG is wildly inaccurate. This should be changed. Reality should be our guide, not imaginary nonsense. I want to be able to play Gaugemela close to how it happened in reality, not some nonsensical battle with super chariots.

[TheGrayMouser]

It's not about % or numbers or how the game engine works. It's about one particular unit, light chariots (whether 20 or 100), being used in the role of shock troops to assault large infantry and cavalry formations. This is not possible, it is not realistic, they would be immediately obliterated. I have no problem with them being in the game, as long as they are used as skirmishers or for running down routed units, which is likely what their roles were. The reason chariots became obsolete was they were exceptionally vulnerable to massed missile troops. TGM, you say: "I get what your saying because from a literall point of view a volley of 500 lead sling stones likly would cripple a charge of 20 chariots BUT this isnt what is literally supposed to be happening". Why not? If that's what would actually happen, why isn't reality reflected in a supposedly historical war-game? Would you be supportive of a WWII game in which skirmisher units (say light infantry) regularly assaulted tank units and got the kind of results light chariots regularly get against infantry and cavalry units in FoG? If you are going to have a historical battles game, which I've been playing since board game days, you must do your best to insure historical realism. I actually like FoG otherwise, most other units seem scaled correctly. However, the way chariots are portrayed in FoG is wildly inaccurate. This should be changed. Reality should be our guide, not imaginary nonsense. I want to be able to play Gaugemela close to how it happened in reality, not some nonsensical battle with super chariots.

Sigh.. Their not super weapons in game, there very expensive and most players that have an option to take cavalry in lie of chariots in certain dag armies would definately take the cavalry.

Again, the definition of light spear capabilty assumes (in many cases ) these guys arent trying to drive their chariots THRU a heavy infantry BG but are darting up close an hurling javelins etc with that xtra velocity from hurling them with the speed of a chariot/horse behind it. Yes I get it as when they attack in "impact " it is visually and mechanic wise represented like they literally are doing what they wernt capable of but the game assumes certain abstractions of how this is portrayed.

If it really irks you, the good news is the scenario editor will allow you to really make chariots suck "apropriately" to your hearts desire.
You could take away their spear capabilty and make them average quality which will go a long way, or you could even code them as war carts(like the ancient Indian lists have) and make them poor quality (they will only be able to move 3 hexes as well and they really will be horrible!)

BTY my analogy of 500 slingers that theoritically could wipe out 20 chariots holds true ONLY if in some unplausible circumstance that the slingers actually had a frontage and line of site to get that volley in
Lets face , at 50 yards a hex, how many slingers skirmishing would likly to be in a hex . Maybe 40-60 tops? Clearly they wernt going to be lined up shoulder to shoulder napoleonic musketeer style where every man is firing off volley togther , they are skirmishers after all. With this idea 500 skirmishes in line would likly need stretch across 8-10 hexes. I can easlily see 10-20 chariots being able to charge and meanever on a 1-2 hex front . Assuming the chariots attacked up the middle of our imaginary 10 hex wide slinger screen, I really do not beleive every slinger would be able to converge fire on such a small taget with enfilade fire. Just wouldnt happen. Generally missle troops would be concern at what in front of them, the units further away down the line would be concentrating on units in there front "arc of awareness"
Of course ALL turn based hex games have this "issue of whats happening vs what you can actually do game wise" because no doudt you will say: :But why cant the units on the flank shoot when I only moved one chariot up the middle? But in a turn based game you move one unit at a time and people forget the abstraction in turn based games that realistically , all units would be moving somehat simultaniously..

Now in FOG there is no "reaction fire " from the inactive players side but think of various WW2 game that do feature reaction fire ie steel panthers, East Froint Etc. Likly you will aske why I am trying to explain what I mean in such a roundabout way but here it is:

In Steel Panthers You could have a line of infantry squads in fox wholes every other hex with a front of a thousand yards(stll feasable rifle range), and lets say the enemy battalions leap out of their parrallel trenches 200 yards away and charges WW1 style. Turn based hex games for the most part have the same problem : The ist unit that pops out of his trench up the middle will take opp fire not only from your squads directly in front of this unit , but assuming LOS and weapon range, potentially ALL of your units could take extreme defilade shots on that happless enemy squad.. Next your opponent decides to move his next squad from his extreme flank and it happens again. In reality the enemy battalion technically is advancing all at once and if this was the case , do you beleive a man in a fox hole would popp off a shot at an enemy squad 200 yards directly to his front , then turn his body 75 degrees to his left and take a few pops at an enemy squad at an extrem oblique angle at 1200 yards and then do the same to his right? All turn based games are victums of the abstraction of one unit moves and resolves combat at a time and FOG is no different.

Anyhow, hopefully one unit class' combat abilities that you take exception too wont prevent you from enjoing the rest of the game
Cheers!

[ZeaBed]

Just FYI. For those thread participants who have access to the programs of the US-based PBS television channel via cable or dish, you might find it interesting to know they're airing a Nova documentary episode on The Chariots of Pharaoh (or some such title). Experts dissect the ancient Egyptian war chariot in this program and explain precisely why it was designed that way and how it worked on the field. The announcement I watched has this installment airing on the evening of Tuesday, February 26 (9 p.m. ET).

[fogman]

I watched it, they were trying to recreate the war chariots. the chariots' design turned out to be very sturdy. the way they looked at it, battle tactics amounted to charging towards the enemy, discharging arrows and turning around, very much like renaissance non shock cavalry tactics (the 'caracolle' i believe it was called),

[ZeaBed]

I watched it, they were trying to recreate the war chariots. the chariots' design turned out to be very sturdy. the way they looked at it, battle tactics amounted to charging towards the enemy, discharging arrows and turning around, very much like renaissance non shock cavalry tactics (the 'caracolle' i believe it was called),

Interesting. I'll be sure to watch it when it airs in my region. So, with those battle tactics... I don't know if any gaming engine can duplicate that sequence: charge, arrow discharge, finishing with a turnaround retreat. And that would only apply to the Egyptian light chariots, as heavier chariots would need a wider turn radius and could not employ such battle tactics.

[batesmotel]

The video is currently available at the PBS web site as Building Pharoah's Chariot. Definitely worth a watch.

Chris