Slitherine

Here's just another vote that the chariots come over as far too strong.
I appreciate the difficulties in abstracting single moves in a turn-based game, when simulating moves that should be thought of as simultanious.
Nevertheless, I've on several occasions had single chariots win melee while I had, otherwise unopposed, cavalry or MF on their flanks. In 'real life' that would have been an instant kill of the chariots.
Regardless of the issues of missile impact on the horses and the willingness of chariots to charge home, a flank attack on a chariot unit, while engaged at it's front, would be devastating.

Might I suggest, in order to make the chariots slightly less über and simulate their inability to turn quickly, that a flank attack, while enaged at the front, would cause an immediate cohesion loss?
That way, if you can manage to charge in line with several chariots, you can still have a good shock weapon. On the other hand, if units can work their way to their sides before a break-off move, they should be toast.
Also you would have to invest in several chariots for them to be effective and not just take one to drive across the battlefield like a tank. You should be able to sweep cavalry before you, when in line, but doomed if they flank you.

Latro wrote:Here's just another vote that the chariots come over as far too strong.
I appreciate the difficulties in abstracting single moves in a turn-based game, when simulating moves that should be thought of as simultanious.
Nevertheless, I've on several occasions had single chariots win melee while I had, otherwise unopposed, cavalry or MF on their flanks. In 'real life' that would have been an instant kill of the chariots.
Regardless of the issues of missile impact on the horses and the willingness of chariots to charge home, a flank attack on a chariot unit, while engaged at it's front, would be devastating.

you can argue that for any unit. but you're assuming every chariot in the battle group is engaged frontally. that's not the case. rear units of the battle group are able to turn and face incoming flank attacks. of course they will not be able to bring the same weight and that is why flank attacks have a +1 in melees.

The more I play FoG, the more chariots (in Gaugemela and the various Rome in Britain scenarios) become ludicrous. We have two factual descriptions of how easily chariots (both the heavy, scythed chariots of Gaugemela and light chariots used in Britain) were destroyed by auxiliary missile troops (in records of the battle of Gaugamela and in the writings of Tacitus about the Battle of Mons Graupius) and zero factual evidence they could ever stand and fight against frontline infantry and cavalry troops at the time of the battles in FoG. Chariots also seem to have few, if any, restrictions regarding terrain. They cross streams anywhere,and when evading cross and move several spaces beyond in one turn, drive through scrub and over ditches like they are not there, and even enter woods. Their fighting and movement abilities create a surrealistic effect and ruin the above mentioned battles, because chariot abilities in FoG bear no resemblance to actual reality. Despite what is known of their extreme vulnerabilities to missile troops in real battles, in FoG they are essentially immune to missile troops. I request the abilities given to chariots be downgraded significantly to reflect reality in any future upgraded of FoG. The way chariots are currently scaled is ridiculous.

I couldn't resist...

Please Google "arguing on the internet" and check out the pictures...


That said, I will reiterate what has come before.
1. Its a game. I feel it is a very fun game. It seeks to loosely emulate history. I think it does pretty good (and certainly better than any other period computer based game).
2. I enjoy using chariots, but I've never had my Caledonian light chariots beat Romans from the front in any meaningful way. Now, once they are behind, that is much different.
3. Good players are still good players. Sometimes luck takes a part, but generally speaking I have a really difficult time beating certain players with any army. That is a balanced game.
4. I use chariots to threaten and run away mostly. Once the enemy is spread out, they can become dangerous. Otherwise, not so much. A tight group of early Romans will never lose to light chariots. Light chariots coordinated with some timely barbarian charges - maybe.

Yes, I agree, it's a game. but it's supposed to be a historically realistic ancient battles game. Ever notice chariots being decimated by missile troops, as noted in the historical record (mentioned in my previous post)? If a unit isn't scaled correctly it throws off the game. In some of the Caesar in Britain battles light chariots are used as shock troops, destroying hundreds of legionnaires and cavalry, which is a physical impossibility. Now I have no problem with using "chariots to threaten and run away", that was likely how they were used, but when they are virtually impervious to missiles and are employed as shock troops, that's just historically incorrect. The idea of a historical wargame is to make it as realistic as possible. This the game mostly accomplishes, but chariots are scaled like some fantasy weapon. This should be changed.

Chariot BGs in the game are generally about as effective as similarly equipped cavalry and generally more expensive. Shooting at them uses the same PoAs as armoured cavalry so they are as vulnerable to shooting. So I don't see any basis for claiming they are super troops compared with cavalry for example. One thing to note is that the number of troops listed for each BG is completely meaningless and not even consistent with the very nominal scales mentioned for the TT rules. Think of a chariot BG as representing the number chariots required to be about as powerful as a BG of cavalry.

Chris

So what, now I'm supposed to view the numbers of chariots as something other than what is listed (i.e. 20 is actually a 100 or 1000 or whatever). Which would mean there would be many hundreds or thousands of chariots in Gaugemela and the Brit battles. Again WTF? How does this make things more realistic? Chariots are much more expensive to make and maintain than an equivalent number of cavalry, and the training to make them battle ready is much greater (two or more horses, driver, warrior need to be equipped and taught to work in tandem). The historical record notes the extreme vulnerability of chariots to missile weapons, since damage to any of the horses or men or the chariot would likely end the chariots weapon functionality. Why isn't this scaled in the game? In Gaugemela the scythed chariots are much harder to destroy, and kill many more of the Macedonian troops than happened at the actual battle. This makes a vitally important ancient battle play nothing like what actually occurred. Where's the realism in this? Make chariots much more vulnerable to missiles or admit they are fantasy weapons. And I note, these comments say nothing of chariots ability to mostly ignore what should be terrain limitations (ditches, scrub, and crossing any stream that is over a several feet deep—virtually every stream in Britain).

Mate i think you should get over it and move on. Yes we know you dont like chariot performance in FOG and maybe they are unbelivable at times but its only a game

+1 for Turk1964's thought... it's a game, man. Chill out. BTW, IMHO, I think it's great that the only thing you want to complain about is chariots - the game is otherwise THAT awesome! I agree! Unless ... uh-oh ... you're just getting started ...

'Nicomedes' Bithynian plananx was now bucnched up... Craterus unleashed his chariots. The drivers whipped their powerful horses into a full-speed gallop.. The vicious blades, spinning at a velocity three times the speed of the wheels, churned through the densely packed enemy. The shock was overwhelming, the carnage terrible.' p149, the Posion King by Adrienne Mayer, relating to Pontic victory over Roman-Bithynian forces on the Aminias River in 89BC.

Lucretius wrote: '..the scythed chariots, ravenous for slaughter, sheared off limbs so suddenly that legs and arms fell writhing on the floor before a man even felt any pain'

Granted these were heavy chariots, not the Britons' light chariots. Also granted that in most cases heavy chariots had limited impact after Chaeronea. Nonetheless, there is evidence that even against trained troops and capable generals, chariots could have some success far later than you have suggested.

I'm a newbie in FoG and I like it very much, but the power of chariots looks excessive also to me. I'm learning tactis by acceppting challenges and last of those was with an early gallic tribal army. My army was a Roman Legion based army. Assuming my knowledge of history, I didn't worry about the chariots and it was fatal. Yes, I know that I don't have yet the necessary experience in order to face complicated situation in large battlefield (it was on 1000 pts), but I think effectively chariots should be a little bit more weak. FoG is not an historical simulation but a brilliant game system. However it would be more good lovely more would be realistic too .

Perhaps it is helpful to think of the Briton's chariots as containing the very elite of the martial society, rapidily dismounting from their chariots and fighting as the most well armed and fierce Celtic heavy infantry - the 'Furor Celtica' that haunted Roman imaginations since the days of Brennus!

It really confuses me that some people think that light chariots of all things are powerful. They're terribly weak against legions. Weaker in impact, weaker in melee. I guess they cost a tiny bit less, but hardly less enough to be considered broken. In fact, I've always thought light chariots are really weak, but I still use them since I love chariots. It's more or less impossible to make them any weaker without making them utterly pointless. The only advantage they have over other units is that they ignore armor. And that is often a hindrance compared to Armored or even Protected cavalry! A protected swordsman cavalry is much better in most cases than light chariots(ironically fighting against legions is literally the only possibility where the light chariots actually are better. ), since few units have armored or heavy armored so you'll actually benefit from the light chariots, and what's more, having Swordsman is extremely valuable.

Why do I think light chariots are scaled unrealistically? In a recent battle against the AI in which light chariots appeared an elite legion of 1500 attacked a light chariot grouping of 20. Over the course of several turns the light chariot unit inflicted about 700 casualties and eventually routed the elite legion unit while itself suffering a loss of only 2 or 3 and was never even disrupted by the legion. This kind of result has happened over and over in the games where light chariots and legions or calvary are opposing units. These kinds of results are bogus beyond belief. Light chariots are scaled wildly incorrect. This should be changed.

From the Wikipedia article on Roman infantry tactics: "It should be noted also that superb as the Gallic fighters were, chariots were already declining as an effective weapon of war in the ancient world with the rise of mounted cavalry. At the battle of Mons Grapius in Caledonia (circa 84AD), Celtic chariots made an appearance. However they were no longer used in an offensive role but primarily for pre-battle show - riding back and forth and hurling insults. The main encounter was decided by infantry and mounted cavalry."

Right, I utterly forgot that scaling was the problem since it makes things seem absurd from a realistic point of view. Forgive me, since I generally tend to think things from game mechanical balance perspectives. The units my brain uses to compare the stuff in the game are, well the units, instead of the numbers they are supposed to represent.
For that matter, some of the scenarios have stuff like 5000 skirmishers throwing javelins at 300 legionaries. One would think that it would cause more damage than just 3 people dead.

I concede that historical/realistic representation wise chariots are a mess, but game mechanically balance wise(on a unit to point cost rather than apparent unit size comparison) they aren't.

As a quick note, the nominal strengths for BGs in the game have no effect what ever on game play and limited or no resemblance to historical units. Basically BGs in the game can go frmo 0-100% in strength and that is the only thing that affects game play. So complaining that chariots are unrealistic based on their nominal strength of 20 chariots is meaningless.

Chris

Whether chariots are 20, 100, or 1000 makes absolutely no difference. It's not my point. My point is that neither light or heavy chariots are scaled to reflect their actual value in combat. It is a historical reality that chariots were extremely susceptible to massed missile troops. This is not reflected in the game at all, where they usually take only slight damage, if any. Light chariots could never stand toe to toe with either heavy infantry nor cavalry units and survive let alone inflict the kind of casualties I have described above.

The description of FOG includes under features: "Detailed and accurate depiction of ancient warfare (combat mechanics, leaders, morale)." Now you are trying to tell me, "the nominal strengths for BGs in the game have no effect what ever on game play and limited or no resemblance to historical units." So which is FOG? Is it a "detailed and accurate depiction of ancient warfare" or one that has "no resemblance to historical units"? Chariots need to be scaled to reflect reality, to be accurately depicted, rather than someone's nonsense idea that they are the ancient warfare equivalent of AFVs.

In FoG, chariots are generally less effective than the equivalent cavalry. Light chariots generally are disadvantaged against HF and cavalry and therefore will lose against them if they try to stand. Heavy chariots have more chance but again are unlikely to win against lance armed cavalry and are more expensive than those. Chariots are more disadvantaged in terrain than cavalry is as well.

Cavalry and chariots are both fairly vulnerable to massed missile fire in FoG. I don't know of any specific historical sources that seem to indicate that chariots should be more so than other mounted troops who are not fully armoured and riding fully armoured horses, e.g. cataphracts and heavily armoured knights.) Do you have a historical source(as opposed to modern speculation) that indicates chariots should be extremely vulnerable to massed missile fire? Certainly the historical accounts of the battles of Megiddo and Kadesh where many of the foot troops were bow armed do not seem to indicate that chariots were ineffective.

In general, with an army list where I can choose chariots or equivalent cavalry I will take the cavalry in preference to the chariots as far as possible. (The Gaulic list is the one I've used most often and it's why the later Gaullic list is generally stronger than the earlier.)

Chris

bates, have you bothered to read all my earlier posts? In them, I've noted Gaugemela and Mons Graupius where contempory written accounts of the battles describe the virtual nonentity combat abilities of both scythed and light chariots. The two battles you mention were both well before 1000 BC when chariots were still an effective weapon and utilized in huge numbers (thousands). Plus I've also described several incidents in FoG games I've played against the AI, where chariots inflicted huge amounts of damage against both elite legions and massed cavalry. I can't even stand to play Gaugemela or many of the Caesar in Britain battles any longer, because chariot abilities are completely out of line with what actually transpired in the historical record. So I ask again, what is FoG? Is it a "detailed and accurate depiction of ancient warfare" as described under features on your website, or one that has "no resemblance to historical units", as you claim?

bjarmson wrote:bates, have you bothered to read all my earlier posts? In them, I've noted Gaugemela and Mons Graupius where contempory written accounts of the battles describe the virtual nonentity combat abilities of both scythed and light chariots. The two battles you mention were both well before 1000 BC when chariots were still an effective weapon and utilized in huge numbers (thousands). Plus I've also described several incidents in FoG games I've played against the AI, where chariots inflicted huge amounts of damage against both elite legions and massed cavalry. I can't even stand to play Gaugemela or many of the Caesar in Britain battles any longer, because chariot abilities are completely out of line with what actually transpired in the historical record. So I ask again, what is FoG? Is it a "detailed and accurate depiction of ancient warfare" as described under features on your website, or one that has "no resemblance to historical units", as you claim?

First off, I have no connection with Slitherine other than as a customer and having moderator privileges for the FoG PC forums which I volunteered. So the Slitherine site is not my site.

My comment about no resemblance to historical units was only regarding the nominal BG strengths in the game. Overall I think the game gives a fair simulation of ancient warfare. Detailed and accurate may be a bit of an overstatement but isn't what I would qualify as false advertising.

The Gaugamela scenario was contributed by one of the players of the game and isn't one I would rank as historically accurate. In particular there is far higher percentage of scythe chariots than the historical accounts of the battle would indicate. If Darius had 10 times as many as he did historically, they might have had some effect. Barring much good luck the British light chariots shouldn't have much effect on Roman legions since they are down in both impact and melee.

Chris