Chariots should be nerfed

[Heraclius]

Why do table top war games so overrate chariots? This is not just FoG, but also older classics like “The Great Battles” series. From the time of Gaugamela till the Roman Invasion and occupation of Britain the Celts, Britons, Persians, Indians, Seleucids, Pontics etc all used chariots and all lost to the Romans and or Macedonians. Chariots often times could not even defeat the Macedonian or Roman skirmishers. At Gaugamela, Alexander had his archers shoot the horse that pulled the chariots and that took care of the Chariot threat. Given that the ancient records show us that after the Bronze Age chariots were rather useless why are the so powerful in FoG? They can route legions even. A good case in point is the Mons Graupius Scenario, but according to Tacitus the Caledonian chariots were really a non-issue in the battle. After the Bronze age chariots, to the extent they are included for historical accuracy should only be fore window dressing, since that about all they were in post-Bronze Age warfare.

[Heraclius]

Tabletop game designers in implementing chariots should learn a little from Vegetius who in his De Re Militari has this to say with chariots:

"The armed chariots used in war by Antiochus and Mithridates at first terrified the Romans, but they afterwards made a jest of them. As a chariot of this sort does not always meet with plain and level ground, the least obstruction stops it. And if one of the horses be either killed or wounded, it falls into the enemy's hands. The Roman soldiers rendered them useless chiefly by the following contrivance: at the instant the engagement began, they strewed the field of battle with caltrops, and the horses that drew the chariots, running full speed on them, were infallibly destroyed. A caltrop is a device composed of four spikes or points arranged so that in whatever manner it is thrown on the ground, it rests on three and presents the fourth upright."

No table top game I am aware of has utilized caltrops, if possible they should implement them, if not then nerf the chariot. Chariots should pose no threat at to a Macedonian Phalanx or Roman Legion.

[TheGrayMouser]

The problem is, Veggie doesn't state what would have happened if the Romans didn't have/utilise those "contrivances"

[fogman]

you're late to the chariot bashing party

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=40842

[Old_Warrior]

Thought that the WRG miniature rules covered caltrops. Not sure about boardgames.

[Heraclius]

“you're late to the chariot bashing party”

Yes apparently I am.

“Thought that the WRG miniature rules covered caltrops.”

I did not know that. Do you mean FoG utilizes caltrops?

In the thread linked to by fogman TheGrayMouser has a little tidbit on celtic chariots:

“"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).”

It seems from Caesar’s accounts that British chariots were either mobile skirmishers or the ancient equivalent of dragoons. Not shock weapons. In fact even the experts when discussing Bronze Age warfare have disagreements over whether chariots were mobile firing platforms of shock weapons. See:

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse. ... &user=&pw=

http://www.academia.edu/768238/Evolutio ... _Near_East

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse. ... &user=&pw=

TheGrayMouser said: “The problem is, Veggie doesn't state what would have happened if the Romans didn't have/utilize those "contrivances"”

Simple given that FoG gives heavy infantry a count of 1500 men per unit and chariots 20 men per unit, and given the fact that legions were given pilum (something FoG does not to my knowledge represent) just have the front row of legions throw their pilum at the chariots. At Gaugamela Alexander’s skirmishers/archers shot the scythe chariot’s horses rendering them unusable. Let’s say the frontage of 1500 is only 200 or 300 that is still well over 10 javelins per horse, it would be a very bad day for the chariots and this is not including velites and their javelins.

Accept for the unlike instance where chariots are able to charge a legion or phalanx from behind I fail to see how they can break line of heavy infantry.

[Old_Warrior]

“Thought that the WRG miniature rules covered caltrops.”

I did not know that. Do you mean FoG utilizes caltrops?

No, never said that. Just that the old WRG miniature rules had them. I remember guys standing around a game store talking about them being used in a game. You paid additional points for them. That was WRG rules 6th edition. Probably in 7th and any later edition after that.

Miniature rules tend to get more detailed than board games. This FoG game is a simple adaptation of ancient warfare ... I have read the rules and apart from those on how to expand and contract your units I found them rater easy to follow. Got rid of the rules and army books some time back and still miss them. Good historical reading in the army list books.

[TheGrayMouser]

Some Chariot stuff by an army that used cavalry, heavy infantry and CHARIOTS all at the same time.... ( as did the Assyrians and other middle eastern empires as well....but that the Romans certainly did NOT, yet all the quotes about chariots are from what appears to be a soley Roman viewpoint...)


http://earthwaterfireair.com/library/st ... teachings/
(basically from the "Six Secret Teachings" from the Warring States period)
the bolded parts are my doing.
King Wu asked Tai Gong:"When chariots and infantry engage in battle, one chariot is equivalent to how many infantrymen? How many infantrymen are equivalent to one chariot? When cavalry and infantry engage in battle, one cavalryman is equivalent to how many infantrymen? How many infantrymen are equivalent to one cavalryman? When chariots and cavalry engage in battle, one chariot is equivalent to how many cavalrymen? How many cavalrymen are equivalent to one chariot?"
Tai Gong replied:"Chariots are the wings of the army, the means to penetrate solid formations, to press strong enemies and to cut off their flight. Cavalry are the army’s fleet observers, the means to pursue a defeated army, to sever supply lines and to strike roving forces.
Thus when chariots and cavalry are not engaged in battle with the enemy, one cavalryman is not able to equal one foot soldier. However, after the masses of the army have been arrayed in opposition to the enemy, when fighting on easy terrain, the rule is that one chariot is equivalent to eighty infantrymen, and eighty infantrymen equal to one chariot. One cavalryman is equivalent to eight infantrymen; eight infantrymen is equivalent to one cavalryman. One chariot is equivalent to ten cavalrymen; ten cavalrymen is equivalent to one chariot.
The rule for fighting on difficult terrain is that one chariot is equivalent to forty infantrymen, and forty infantrymen are equivalent to one chariot. One cavalryman is equivalent to four infantrymen; four infantrymen are equivalent to one cavalrymen. One chariot is equivalent six cavalrymen; six cavalrymen is equivalent to one chariot.
Now chariots and cavalry are the army’s strong weapons. Ten chariots can defeat one thousand men; one hundred chariots can defeat then thousand men. Ten cavalrymen can drive off one hundred men, and one hundred cavalrymen can drive off one thousand men. These are the approximate numbers."
King Wu asked:"What are the numbers for chariot and cavalry officers and their transformation?"
Tai Gong replied:"For the chariots - a leader for five chariots, a captain for ten, a commander for fifty and a general for one hundred.
For battle on easy terrain five chariots comprise one line. The lines are forty paces apart, the chariots from left to right should be ten paces apart, with detachments sixty paces apart. On difficult terrain the chariots must follow the roads, with ten comprising a company and twenty a regiment. Front to rear spacing should be twenty paces, left to right six paces, with detachments thirty-six paces apart. If they venture of the road more than two li in any direction, they should return to the original road.
As for the number of officers in the cavalry: a leader for five men; a captain for ten; a commander for one hundred; a general for two hundred.
The rule for fighting on easy terrain: Five cavalrymen will form one line, and front to back their lines should be separated by twenty paces, left to right four paces, with fifty paces between detachments.
On difficult terrain, the rule is front to back, ten paces; left to right, two paces; between detachments, twenty-five paces. Thirty cavalrymen comprise a company; sixty form a regiment. For ten cavalrymen, there is a captain. In action, they should not move out of the range of one hundred paces, after which they should circle back and return to their original positions."
"Excellent!" said King Wu.

[Heraclius]

The plain fact is that, by the time of the Greco-Persian wars, in the ancient Near East and Europe Chariots were only a novelty and no one took them seriously, which FoG does not represent. The Macedonians and Romans ate Persian and Celtic chariots for lunch.

Mouser your quote comes from the second millennium BC China hardly relevant in a simulator for classical warfare.

[TheGrayMouser]

The plain fact is that, by the time of the Greco-Persian wars, in the ancient Near East and Europe Chariots were only a novelty and no one took them seriously, which FoG does not represent. The Macedonians and Romans ate Persian and Celtic chariots for lunch.

Mouser your quote comes from the second millennium BC China hardly relevant in a simulator for classical warfare.

480-221 BC is not 2nd millennium!

[fogman]

let's put this thing to rest with some impeccable sources, both primary and secondary:

"Xenophon's criticism of the scythe-bearing chariots pertains to the quality of those who manned them and their training not to the usefulness of the chariots themselves. They were an enduring feature of grand Asiatic armies. We first met them at Cunaxa in 401 BC (Xen. Anab, 1.8.20) where their effectiveness was barely tested by the Greeks; by declining to follow the order obliquely to advance to their left, the Greeks remained largely outside of action. In winter of 395/394, however, one gets a glimpse of their usefulness, when Pharnabazus came on a sizeable part of Agesilaus' army foraging on flat ground. He put the two scythe-bearing chariots he had with him in front of the cavalry and charged the Greeks about seven hundred of whom had formed up to meet the attack. The chariots broke them and scattered them, and his cavalry then did great damage, killing about one hundred (Xen. Hell. 4.1.17-19)." (George Cawkwell: 'The Greek Wars: the Failure of Persia', Oxford University Press, 2005, p 213).

[Heraclius]

Mouser I don’t know how you can say you quotes come from the Warring States they do not. Read your own link! See:

“The Tai Gong Six Teachings

Jiang Ziya

c. 1700 BCE – 1045 BCE

Tai Gong Six Teachings

Written by Jiang Taigong. He is the military advisor of King Wen and Kin Wu, helping them to defeat the fatuous Shang Dynasty’s king, King Zhou, to establish the Zhou Dynsasty”

Unless you want to say the Shang dynasty ended between 480-221 BC you better be more careful in your claims about your own sources!


Fogman

The citation in the Hellenics only deals with the scattering of forgers hardy a steady body of men. You have provided no examples where chariots routed a legion or a phalanx in good order. Foragers don’t count. In the Anabasis account, you give; the Greeks easily nullify the chariots effect and come to little harm.

“They were an enduring feature of grand Asiatic armies.”

A lot of good they did them from Alexander to Pompey. The great Asiatic armies were smashed by organized bodies of infantry. Not until the Parthians, at Carrhae, who did not use chariots was the inexorable tide of western arms halted.

At the battle of Arbela Alexander handily dealt with Darius III’s Chariots.

“Diodorus records that, when the chariots attacked the phalanx, the Macedonians beat their shields with their spears, creating such a din that the horses shied, turning the chariots back on the Persians. Those that continued forward were allowed to pass as the soldiers opened wide gaps in the line. Some horses were killed as they charged ahead but the momentum of others allowed them to ride through, the blades of the chariots severing "the arms of many, shields and all, and in no small number of cases they cut through necks and sent heads tumbling to the ground with the eyes still open and the expression of the countenance unchanged, and in other cases they sliced through ribs with mortal gashes and inflicted a quick death" (XVII.58.2-5).”

The scythes killed the horses of their neighboring chariots, a rather humorous failing!

In Caesar’s account of his Briton campaigns and in the campaigns of Sulla and Alexander the ancient sources agree that Scythed Chariots were ineffective against Phalanx’s or Legions’. Nothing provided thus far contradicts the above citation of Vegetius.

Let’s put this scythed chariot nonsense to rest shall we.

Here is the most detailed account of Scythed chariot use I have found anywhere online: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/enc ... riots.html

Apart from Cyrus at the Battle of Pteria and Mithridates and fogmans battle of the foragers Scythed chariots, by classical times have little to no successes. Mithridates won the battle of Amnias River by the use of scythed chariots, but the Bithynian’s were ill disciplined and when Mithridates fought Sulla they were only a triviality.

“Yet, three years later at the Battle of Chaeronea, those same chariots were carried through the Roman line by their own momentum. Then, "before they could turn back they were surrounded and destroyed by the javelins of the rear guard" (Appian, The Mithridatic Wars, XII.42). Or the quick advance of the Romans did not allow them to gain any speed. Indeed, the chariots were so feeble that the "Romans, after repulsing them, clapped their hands and laughed and called for more, as they are wont to do at the races in the circus" (Plutarch, Sulla, XVIII.2-3). Frontinus, too, relates that they were hung up on stakes driven into the ground, screened by men in front, or driven back by the shouts and javelins of the Romans (Strategems, II.3.17).” The chariots only evinced laughs from the Romans. “Lucullus confronted the scythed chariots of Mithridates in 74 BC (Plutarch, Lucullus, VII.4) and paraded ten of them in his triumph in 66 BC (XXXVII.3). They also were used by Mithridates' son Pharnaces II at the Battle of Zela in 47 BC. Disconcerted at first, Caesar's legionaries soon halted the attack with a barrage of missiles in what is the last reliable account of the scythed chariot in battle (Aulus Hirtius, On the Alexandrian War, LXXV.2).”

“To be sure, the grievous injury caused by scythed chariots had a profound psychological effect but tactically they were much less daunting, especially against disciplined troops. Requiring flat, open, and dry ground (Curtius, VIII.14.4) to maneuver and gain sufficient momentum, they often were prevented from charging by a quickly advancing enemy and overwhelmed before they could gain sufficient speed. Horses and drivers, too, shied from charging into a phalanx of Greek hoplites or a wall of Roman legionaries. Horses were thrown into confusion by the noise of battle or chariots allowed to pass and then surrounded and attacked in the rear.”

“By the fourth century AD, Vegetius could dismiss the scythed chariot as a "laughing-stock," rendered ineffective if a single horse were killed or wounded (Epitome of Military Science, III.24)—which, as Appian recounts, is exactly what the Romans sought to do, "for when a horse becomes unmanageable in a chariot all the chariot becomes useless" (The Syrian Wars, XI.6.33). Most of all, says Vegetius, they fell victim to spiked caltrops, which the Romans scattered over the field. In battle, "the speeding chariots were destroyed as they encountered them."”
“Presumptuous but well-meaning, the unsolicited advice likely was never read by the emperor. To be sure, such a chariot was completely fanciful—a modification of a weapon that had not been deployed for four centuries and never was part of traditional Roman warfare, a liability to those foolhardy enough to use it, and contemptuously dismissed when it was. By then, the cavalry—mobile and able to function in rugged terrain, less costly and more practical—had long assumed the role of the chariot, scythed or otherwise.”
By the era of classical warfare no western general of quality Alexander, Sulla or Caesar took Chariots seriously. The only response the gained from the Romans was laughter. All I ask is that a game which claims to simulate ancient battles actually live up to its own standards.

[Heraclius]

PS

"Meanwhile as Alexander moved forward the Persians sent their scythe-chariots into action against him, in the hope of throwing his line into confusion. But in this they were disappointed; for the chariots were no sooner off the mark then they were met by the missile weapons of the Agrianes and Balacrus' javelin throwers, who were stationed in the advance of the Companions; again, they seized the reigns and dragged the drivers to the ground, then surrounded the horses and cut them down. Some few of the vehicles succeeded in passing through, but to no purpose, for the Macedonians had orders, whenever they attacked, to break formation and to let them through deliberately: this they did, with the results that neither the vehicles themselves nor the drivers suffered any damage whatever. Such as got through were, however, subsequently dealt with by the Royal Guard and the army grooms."

Arrian: Campaigns of Alexander, Penguin Group, 2005, p 168

I wish I could dispose of chariots this easily in FoG.

I guess Alexander did not know about the 80 to 1 rule.

[fogman]

dude, in the text i gave, it clearly said the greek infantry formed up to receive the attack.

now i'm aware of those texts you're citing. yet consider that

1. The Seleucids (ie Macedonians/Greeks) used the scythed chariots. why would conquerors use the military technology of the vanquished unless they saw something the texts don't mention? you figure that out. were they all dumb? that would make for a fascinating thesis: on the dumbness of the Seleucids.

2. The Romans and the Macedonians had to think of special devices and tactics to deal with scythed chariots. that showed they were a special concern to them, not a matter of laughter. Similarly, infantry formations figured out that the way to deal with cavalry was to form a square.

3. You said chariots were useless against disciplined infantry. So was cavalry because I can pile on examples of cavalry crushed by infantry in squares or formed up in thick ranks behind pikes/spears/bayonets. Nobody said cavalry was useless and a matter of laughter.

4. Finally you cite Vegetius, from the IV century AD, dismissing the chariots. I tell you what else was out of favour then: the Macedonian phalanx, heck, even the pilum throwing heavy legionary of Caesar's time was gone. The chariots had its uses for its time and place.

[Heraclius]

"1. The Seleucids (ie Macedonians/Greeks) used the scythed chariots. why would conquerors use the military technology of the vanquished unless they saw something the texts don't mention? you figure that out. were they all dumb? that would make for a fascinating thesis: on the dumbness of the Seleucids."
I would not say they were dumb, just slow to adapt to change. After Cynoscephalae the phalanx usually lost to the Legion, why did the Macedonians not change? Again people make changes slowly.

"2. The Romans and the Macedonians had to think of special devices and tactics to deal with scythed chariots. that showed they were a special concern to them, not a matter of laughter. Similarly, infantry formations figured out that the way to deal with cavalry was to form a square."

Or the quick advance of the Romans did not allow them to gain any speed. Indeed, the chariots were so feeble that the "Romans, after repulsing them, clapped their hands and laughed and called for more, as they are wont to do at the races in the circus" (Plutarch, Sulla, XVIII.2-3).

"3. You said chariots were useless against disciplined infantry. So was cavalry because I can pile on examples of cavalry crushed by infantry in squares or formed up in thick ranks behind pikes/spears/bayonets. Nobody said cavalry was useless and a matter of laughter."

Two points, then why can in FoG an unbroken phalangite corp be routed by a chariot?


" Or the quick advance of the Romans did not allow them to gain any speed. Indeed, the chariots were so feeble that the "Romans, after repulsing them, clapped their hands and laughed and called for more, as they are wont to do at the races in the circus"

"4. Finally you cite Vegetius, from the IV century AD, dismissing the chariots. I tell you what else was out of favour then: the Macedonian phalanx, heck, even the pilum throwing heavy legionary of Caesar's time was gone. The chariots had its uses for its time and place."

First of Vegeitus was citing examples form Zela in 46 BC definitely within the time frame of classical warfare.
Second the pilum was not obsolete only modified even the Byzantines had throwing spears.

[Heraclius]

fogman did you even read my account of Battle of Arbela? The Macedonian skirmishers yanked the riders out of their chariots! Imagine skirmishers yanking knights of their mounts! Alexander's men did not even break a sweat.

Again nothing said so far has shown that chariots were in anyway useful against Macedonian and Roman armies in the classical era. I don't want Celtic chariots routing my cohorts in Britain when Caesar treats them as a non issue.

"Nobody said cavalry was useless and a matter of laughter."

Neither to I because at Carrhae they defeated Crassus. Name me a battle where Chariots were the decisive element in defeating the Romans or Macedonians?

[Heraclius]

"Antiochus had expected that they would throw the enemy into confusion, but for Livy it all was a "silly show." Placed in front, the horses were terrified by the shouts and missiles directed at them and bolted wildly, without bit or bridle. The battle, in fact, could not even begin until they had been gotten off the field. But the panic and confusion had so demoralized the auxiliary troops held in reserve that they took flight. Exposed, they were routed by the Romans cavalry and the whole flank collapsed. The retreating soldiers, stumbling blindly over one another, were trampled to death by elephants and camels, and the scythed chariots."

[fogman]

Name me a battle where Chariots were the decisive element in defeating the Romans or Macedonians?

You know, this is a really dumb rhetorical question. it's not different from, say,

1. Name me a battle where the Immortals were the decisive element in defeating the Macedonians.
You can't? well the Immortals were little useless sissies.

2. Name a battle where the Old Guard were the decisive element in defeating the English.
You can't? well the Old Guard grenadiers were little useless sissies. Did you read the part where the English just shot them to pieces as they marched up at Waterloo?

Roman (or rather Roman era) authors can make as much fun as they want. Greek authors like Xenophon, who actually wrote from experience, not hearsay centuries later, did not have that kind of dismissive opinion.

The funny thing in all of that is that chariots SUCK in the game. Not worth the cost.

[Heraclius]

"You know, this is a really dumb rhetorical question. it's not different from, say"

You only resort to this childishness because you have clearly lost the argument.

"The funny thing in all of that is that chariots SUCK in the game."

No they don't. Persian and Celtic chariots, in the designed maps have done terrible damage to my Legions and Phalangites.

[Heraclius]

"Greek authors like Xenophon, who actually wrote from experience, not hearsay centuries later, did not have that kind of dismissive opinion."

Sulla and Scipio speak from experience Chaeronea and Magnesia. Are Chaeronea and Magnesia hearsay? Or Caesar in Briton?

Again your resort to this petty rhetoric because you clearly have lost.