MeG

I have opened this stream for chariots specifically so we can discuss and gauge reaction.  The only really material change in what we are proposing to do. 

We will post a list of classifications for consideration shortly.

S

I think we should keep Battle Chariots. It is true that the most up to date scholarship does not support the notion of chariots charging home as an impact weapon. On the other hand; (1) this is a subject which has been debated back and forth for years without any new or conclusive evidence. Surely it is possible it may go back the other way? (2) the notion that chariots with 4 horses and 3+ crew were simply missile platforms seems hard to swallow. This is a hugely expensive machine. All this for ONE ARCHER!?! When we add to this that chariots were fielded in the hundreds and thousands, this seems really a stretch. If chariots truly did not charge home against foot, they could easily have been slaughtered by a mob of naked bowmen on foot. They were not. (3) Reconstructions of 4 horse 3+ crew Chinese chariots don't look mobile enough to skirmish away from well-motivated foot. What did they do when the foot men got tired of getting shot and charged home? Those things require space to turn, can't make sharp turns at speed, and aren't  all that fast anyway.

Look when I say that nobody really knows how chariots fought, I definitely include myself. The scholarship is in doubt. Leave room for all viewpoints.

The late massive Assyrian chariots will be charging combat types (as has been mentioned previously). They're going to be something like ArmHrs/Protected Chariots, SSp, Dev Charge, ME and some sort of shooting capability.

BTW from what I understand reconstructions of larger chariots have shown them to be surprisingly manoeuvrable - at least that's what Nigel Tallis always says  ;D

Here is a selection of the classifications from the Chariot sets

4-wheeled battle cars:   Chariots, Tribal Close, Superior, Protected, Short Spear. Rationale:  As Tribal they will be harded to manouvre.  As close they will move 4BW not 5BW.  As they don't have missile weapons they won't be able to evade.  They won't be subject to forced charges except at 1BW.

Maryannu and Egyptian chariots:  Chariots, Drilled Loose, Superior, Protected, Short Spear, Skilled Bow.   Rationale:  This is the same as 2019.  This was really the peak of "light chariot" warfare with two horses.
Hittite 3-crew chariots:  Chariots, Drilled Loose, Superior, Protected, Short Spear, Skilled Bow, Melee Expert.  Rationale:  This is the same as 2019. Personally I am not convinced that the third man in the Egyptian reliefs of 2-horse chariots was a member of chariot crew. 

8th century 4-horse, 3-crew chariots: Chariots, Formed Loose, Superior, Protected, Short Spear, Skilled or Experienced Bow, Melee Expert.   Rationale: These will no longer be forced chargers, but will be capable of evading.  Four horses allowed a third and later fourth crew member. These extra crewmen often seem to have had more of a defensive role, carrying shields.

Dendra Panoply chariots (Early Mycenaean): Chariots, Protected, Formed Loose, Superior, Long Spear.  Rationale: These will no longer be forced chargers at 3BW, only at 1BW.  The lose the combat advantage for BCh, but move at 5BW not 4BW.    These are a bit of an oddity because they seem to have been used for almost "knightly" duels between members of the aristocracy and it is doubtful if any large scale battles involving the Early Mycenaeans and anyone else ever occurred.

7th century Later Sargonid chariots 4-horse 4-crew:  Chariots, ArmHrs/Protected, Drilled Loose, Superior, Short Spear, Devastating Chargers, Melee Expert, Experienced Bow, Shoot & Charge.  Rationale: Move at 4BW (because of the armoured horses). These will not be forced chargers but get free charges at 3BW.  Cannot evade.  These represent the shock vehicles introduced as cavalry started to take over the battlefield.

ps. I strongly disagree with the posting by Antiochus III.  Great advances have been made in understanding chariot warfare in the last 15 years through better analysis of the sources including Hittite training manuals and through reconstructive archaeology. Ignoring this material and saying that we don't really know how chariots fought is sticking your head in the sand. Read the latest material.  For example, reconstructions of 4-horse chariots have shown they are as manouvreable as 2-horse chariots, but the level of skill needed is greater.  In at least some 2-horse, 2-crew chariots the driver controlled the reins with his waist whilst shooting and the second crew member was their to protect the driver.  3-horse chariots are more of a mystery, we aren't entirely sure the images that seem to represent them are accurate.  My own theory is that the third horse was not attached to the yoke but used as a sort of living shield to protect the other two horses.  If it got wounded you cut the strap and let it go whilst you carried on, but I admit there is no evidence to support this.

Horse teams were crucial.  You couldn't mix and match.  Stamina was also important for chariot teams.  Hittite teams were capable of sustained speed for over 4 miles (think of the Grand National at Aintree). 

pps. I'll admit I am not so knowledgeable about Chinese chariots.  The only reconstructions I have seen are from the Terracotta Army.  Are there any papers/sources?

Richard

Leaving the historical argument to one side, what are the implications of this from a game play POV. I would suggest they are pretty much entirely negative;

1) It reduces variety/granularity. It is essentially making all chariots the current light chariots (albeit with more capabilities). Light chariots basically function the same as cavalry (slightly bigger base, a little worse in terrain). You almost may as well do away with a chariot classification altogether and just have a catch-all 'mounted' category.

2) Those chariots that are meant to be 'shock' are getting Dev Charger instead of the current Battlechariot classification. This is simply not as good. It required 2 ranks and, in general gives a +1 instead of a +2. Under the current points it also costs more. It also removes the ability to evade. The only advantage these chariots would retain from the new classification is an extra MU of movement. This is of particularly limited use on a unit that needs to charge from within 3 to use it's shoot and charge anyway.

3) Chariots are already a fairly marginal option. I don't think Light Chariots are currently better than battle chariots from a competitive POV. How would making all chariots light chariots help? Where is the game imperative to hit chariots with the nerf bat coming from?

4) Many of the armies that currently have battle chariots are otherwise composed of some pretty marginal loose order foot that rely on the shock chariots to keep the enemy away from them and give the army a chance in the open. The new chariot classifications will not perform this role anywhere near as well

Martin

@ Richard- I feel your outrage. I would cheerfully try to read any new sources you'd care to recommend. I have read some of the sources based upon reconstruction, and I still see no clear idea of what the chariots did in battle expressed. I like to think I am educable, though.

Richard,
I just screened the art of war.
2 mentions to chariots, in a few words there are light ones and the heavy shock ones.
I m pretty sure we can find more in the 36 strategy book.




[attachment deleted by admin]

Quote from: martymagnificent on August 16, 2019, 11:16:56 PM
Leaving the historical argument to one side, what are the implications of this from a game play POV. I would suggest they are pretty much entirely negative;

1) It reduces variety/granularity. It is essentially making all chariots the current light chariots (albeit with more capabilities). Light chariots basically function the same as cavalry (slightly bigger base, a little worse in terrain). You almost may as well do away with a chariot classification altogether and just have a catch-all 'mounted' category.

2) Those chariots that are meant to be 'shock' are getting Dev Charger instead of the current Battlechariot classification. This is simply not as good. It required 2 ranks and, in general gives a +1 instead of a +2. Under the current points it also costs more. It also removes the ability to evade. The only advantage these chariots would retain from the new classification is an extra MU of movement. This is of particularly limited use on a unit that needs to charge from within 3 to use it's shoot and charge anyway.

3) Chariots are already a fairly marginal option. I don't think Light Chariots are currently better than battle chariots from a competitive POV. How would making all chariots light chariots help? Where is the game imperative to hit chariots with the nerf bat coming from?

4) Many of the armies that currently have battle chariots are otherwise composed of some pretty marginal loose order foot that rely on the shock chariots to keep the enemy away from them and give the army a chance in the open. The new chariot classifications will not perform this role anywhere near as well

Martin

All interesting and point to come back to looking at new vs old.  There are tweaks we can make as well within the system.  Hence the stream.

Si

Quote from: Rino on August 17, 2019, 07:09:37 AM
Richard,
I just screened the art of war.
2 mentions to chariots, in a few words there are light ones and the heavy shock ones.
I m pretty sure we can find more in the 36 strategy book.

What we need to always be careful of is to then interpret according how our rules function.  There is no doubt there are light and heavy chariots. But a continuum from 2 horse 2 crew to 4 ArmHrs and loads of crew feels better than a split line in representing them.  You can try to use all chariots for shock methods.  The early greek ones fought off cavalry and then tried to shock a phalanx - and got wiped out!

Also the philosophy has always been to get the historical interaction correct first and then solve the value of bases thereafter in the points system. So the ex Battle chariots are going to get cheaper.

Keep the dialogue going as RJC and I both feel it is better but are off the view we want to convince the audience as such and not be wedded to it.

S

If you feel the history compels us to make this change to chariots I would make a couple of suggestions to keep them at least within striking range of consideration for a competition list:

1)   Make as many of the capabilities optional as possible. If you are trying to design a list with chariots as a dedicated, fast moving shooting platform the last thing you want is compulsory melee expert and shoot/charge.

2)   Have a look at the points. The 'new' chariots will be less of a problem if they are cheap enough. As mentioned earlier one thing I would consider is making Dev Charger free. It is, at best, a 'side-grade' anyway.

3)   There is no reason for the +1 for fighting mounted shooters who didn't charge to apply against chariots. I assume it represents mounted getting caught 'Bow in Hand' in a fight. The archer in a chariot can easily keep the enemy at a safe distance thanks to the chariot structure/horses and the protection of other crewmen (shieldbearers and the like). Changing this would have the added benefit of creating a point of difference between chariots and cavalry as well as giving them a little boost in effectiveness.

4)   Make the shooting better. I am aware of no reason why Egyptian, Assyrian, Mitanni and a whole swathe of other Near Eastern chariots are skilled shooters but no Chinese one is (perhaps just lists written by different people?). If they are going to be shooting platforms make as many of them effective ones as possible.

I would probably prefer to keep Battle-chariot classification as it is but if you decide the new classification has to happen the above could help

Martin

Quote from: lionheartrjc on August 16, 2019, 08:03:50 PM

pps. I'll admit I am not so knowledgeable about Chinese chariots.  The only reconstructions I have seen are from the Terracotta Army.  Are there any papers/sources?

Richard

You may regret this, Chinese sources are, erm, tricky ...

Anyway, here atatched is a section of the Six Secret Teachings that covers chariots. Purports to be a conversation between C11th BCE ruler and adviser, but the text dates from the Warring States period.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Same source talking about if your army is surrounded - "use your military chariots and valiant cavalry to startle and confuse their army, and urgently attach them"

Some general stuff about relative use of troops types:

"Chariots are the feathers and wings of the army, the means to penetrate solid formations, to press strong enemies, and to cut off their flight."

".. when fighting on easy terrain the rule is that one chariot is equivalent to eighty infantrymen .."

"One cavalryman is equivalent to eight infantrymen"

"... when fighting on difficult terrain is that one chariot is equivalent to forty infantrymen ..."

"Now chariots and cavalry are the army's martial weapons. Ten chariots can defeat one thousand men ... ten cavalrymen can drive off one hundred men ..."

Same source on 8 conditions of terrain where chariots will gain victory.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Couple of pic of reconstructions.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BF5RX0/chinese-ancient-chariot-in-the-art-of-war-culture-city-of-china-huimin-BF5RX0.jpg

http://www.chariotmaker.com/images/chariot-DSCN1754%20(002).jpg

From the pics, so very subjective, I think it is safe to sat they're going to be heavier than the "classic maryannu" type, however, they look to me as probably lighter than the big very late Assyrian types. I also have a recollection of a Chinese source saying that if a chariot got stuck the driver could manhandle it out of trouble on his own.

QuoteIf you feel the history compels us to make this change to chariots I would make a couple of suggestions to keep them at least within striking range of consideration for a competition list:

1)   Make as many of the capabilities optional as possible. If you are trying to design a list with chariots as a dedicated, fast moving shooting platform the last thing you want is compulsory melee expert and shoot/charge.

We will of course take a good luck at that to not overburden.  But bear in mind with similar troops you can probably find a list that has them in or out anyway.  So you can pick a "shoot" variant or a "combat enabled" one.

Quote2)   Have a look at the points. The 'new' chariots will be less of a problem if they are cheap enough. As mentioned earlier one thing I would consider is making Dev Charger free. It is, at best, a 'side-grade' anyway.

Definitely reviewing the points.  I essence they start as cavalry less something for the terrain issues.  Once we have the classifications were can fix some numbers.

Quote3)   There is no reason for the +1 for fighting mounted shooters who didn't charge to apply against chariots. I assume it represents mounted getting caught 'Bow in Hand' in a fight. The archer in a chariot can easily keep the enemy at a safe distance thanks to the chariot structure/horses and the protection of other crewmen (shieldbearers and the like). Changing this would have the added benefit of creating a point of difference between chariots and cavalry as well as giving them a little boost in effectiveness.

Something I had intended and forgotten so thanks for the reminder.

Quote4)   Make the shooting better. I am aware of no reason why Egyptian, Assyrian, Mitanni and a whole swathe of other Near Eastern chariots are skilled shooters but no Chinese one is (perhaps just lists written by different people?). If they are going to be shooting platforms make as many of them effective ones as possible.

Also being looked at.

QuoteI would probably prefer to keep Battle-chariot classification as it is but if you decide the new classification has to happen the above could help

Martin

Thanks for the input.  We plan on testing chariots out in and out of period before finalising.  Have to lock it down around end October.

Weren't some chariots, eg the English ones, used as unarmoured personnel carriers to cite a modern equivalence, that race up, deposit 1-3 light infantry each, to throw javelins at slower enemies, then chariots return and pick them up when withdrawing?

And weren't some of the effects of chariots psychological rather than actual physical damage? Bit like camels disordering unfamiliar horses, I receall reading Ceasar's comments on the sheer noise of hundreds of clanking chariots unsettled his troops.

Mark

Certainly was a psychological effect with all the noise and chaos.
In the way Elephants were.
Could build it in to KaB system but felt it was necessary complexity.


Ancient British was a skirmish platform for javelins as you say.
throw jabs and rebound.  One big advantage being ammo they could carry.

Si

Quote3)   There is no reason for the +1 for fighting mounted shooters who didn't charge to apply against chariots. I assume it represents mounted getting caught 'Bow in Hand' in a fight. The archer in a chariot can easily keep the enemy at a safe distance thanks to the chariot structure/horses and the protection of other crewmen (shieldbearers and the like). Changing this would have the added benefit of creating a point of difference between chariots and cavalry as well as giving them a little boost in effectiveness.

This is a bit of red herring as most of the chariots in question have Shoot&Charge so are not subject to it.

Si

Not really a 'red herring' as it would apply to chariots that have skirmished/evaded and when (because of charge activation sequence or some other issue) they haven't declared a charge.

Take it from me (having played them a lot) it does happen and will now happen more often as:

1) more chariots will be evading

2)  they will be even  weaker in a fight so will be even less keen to actually declare a charge

Martin

Yes but want it to count if caught when evading.

S

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 19, 2019, 08:45:49 AM
Yes but want it to count if caught when evading.

S

Perhaps Chariots (and/or all units with shoot and charge) should be able to shoot while receiving a charge without penalty?

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on August 19, 2019, 12:19:35 PM

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 19, 2019, 08:45:49 AM
Yes but want it to count if caught when evading.

S

Perhaps Chariots (and/or all units with shoot and charge) should be able to shoot while receiving a charge without penalty?

Martin

It is already set up so they can cards permitting.  They just declare a charge back.  Get to shoot immediately.

why not stopping the changes on the chariots?

the balance on the table if not historical is not too bad on the table compared to the ideas we have on it and what we want to have in MEG
why changing for changing?

PUNCH " tweaking or twearking that is the question?"

People fear all those changes

So people or just one or two?
Its hard to judge but am open to the counsel from players and organisers.
It is after all the whole point of posting them.

We can put them out soon and you can all try them and then see if you prefer them or not.
The decision though is now or not for a long time as doing a major print.
Maybe start a FB poll on it or one in here - with my full blessing.

S

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 21, 2019, 12:25:46 PM
Maybe start a FB poll on it or one in here - with my full blessing.

I think reasoned posts are more useful than polls.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 21, 2019, 12:25:46 PM
So people or just one or two?
Its hard to judge but am open to the counsel from players and organisers.
It is after all the whole point of posting them.

We can put them out soon and you can all try them and then see if you prefer them or not.
The decision though is now or not for a long time as doing a major print.
Maybe start a FB poll on it or one in here - with my full blessing.

S

At this point, we should go ahead and make the necessary changes. But after that stop discussion the armies, the rules ...just play the GAME as it is a GAME no less, no more . This is not a reenactment . It must be fun and simple .

Would like to see the changes (including points) to give it a go.

Hard to see how it will be a good thing though. A quick perusal of MeG comp results would suggest chariots are already a troop type that is unpopular/struggling, the 'one or two' people raising concerns could well be a large proportion of those active on the forum who have much experience playing BattleChariots in open competition. My regular opponent, Paul Rattray, was quite despondent about the prospects of battlechariots after running a chariot based Assyrian list at Wintercon.

I actually don't mind a process of constant change but think we should be careful about downgrading a troop type that is already a challenge to make work. If the History demands a change be made steps need to be taken to make sure they still work in the game.

Martin

I think you are right on the principle and we want to avoid downgrading anything that will affect players badly.
But give them a try.  I am going to as well.
The fact that there are very few such armies used is actually one of the points.
For me the armies will play better this way, but different.
Could Paul share his list with me and I will give the new version a go.

Si

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 22, 2019, 12:59:26 PM

Could Paul share his list with me and I will give the new version a go.

Si

Sent to you by email - it was posted in the comp results forum.

Its one where the chariots change quite a bit from charging types to shooty/skirmish types but with useful combat options for (probably) after softening up - the army will not work in the same way under the revisions.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 22, 2019, 01:30:17 PM

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 22, 2019, 12:59:26 PM

Could Paul share his list with me and I will give the new version a go.

Si

Sent to you by email - it was posted in the comp results forum.

Its one where the chariots change quite a bit from charging types to shooty/skirmish types but with useful combat options for (probably) after softening up - the army will not work in the same way under the revisions.

If the 'useful combat option' is melee expert I would suggest a sensible player would not willingly spend the points. Essentially what we will have is the same as light chariots now (ie shifting from one unpopular option to another!). In fact Paul has experimented extensively with the Assyrian lists where the chariots are already lights (in games with me) and came to the conclusion that while the Battle-chariots are not awesome they are still a better option than the lights.

Martin

Just done my shot at the points system for chariots and run through an Assyrian army mentioned from Australia.
Clearly it changes the army from tanks to more subtety but to me makes it a better army with time to get value from its skilled shooting chariots.
Effectively you swap  BCH/4BW/Impetuous for ability to evade/5BW/Control.  Following is the old army repointed for 2020 ... gives you spare points make the Palace Chariots Exceptional.
Second one is my preferred design with new way of playing it.  Must say I prefer the second and would fear it more than the first.
Those who like head on tank charges will of course prefer the old one.

Si

[attachment deleted by admin]

My preferred Neo-Assyrian now ...
Pretty potent army IMHO ... even in open period.
The chariots will be a real handful now as don't have to charge and are dangerous with 5BW move and filled shooting.

Si

[attachment deleted by admin]

Simon you keep saying they 'don't have to charge', have more 'control' and are no longer 'impetuous'. This is not the case. Battle chariots with missile weapons already had the best of all worlds on this. They could charge for free but never had to. The changes make them less controllable as they lose the free charge.

I hope the melee expert will at least be optional. It is an expensive upgrade that is unattractive on a unit that probably wants to evade/break off whenever possible.

All I see is a small manouverable army that no longer has a real strike arm.

Martin

Simon, your neo  Assyrian army list looks like an NKE one save the shoot and charge and mêlée expert...

Quote from: Rino on August 27, 2019, 01:22:29 AM
Simon, your neo  Assyrian army list looks like an NKE one save the shoot and charge and mêlée expert...

And that the infantry are rather different and it has some cavalry. So not like a NKE really other than in the broadest terms that it has chariots and infantry ...

Quote from: Rino on August 27, 2019, 01:22:29 AM
Simon, your neo  Assyrian army list looks like an NKE one save the shoot and charge and mêlée expert...

That's a rather big difference....  S

Quote from: martymagnificent on August 26, 2019, 10:21:51 PM
Simon you keep saying they 'don't have to charge', have more 'control' and are no longer 'impetuous'. This is not the case. Battle chariots with missile weapons already had the best of all worlds on this. They could charge for free but never had to. The changes make them less controllable as they lose the free charge.

I hope the melee expert will at least be optional. It is an expensive upgrade that is unattractive on a unit that probably wants to evade/break off whenever possible.

All I see is a small manouverable army that no longer has a real strike arm.

Martin

Yes you are correct on the forced charges. Sorry.  Forgot I freed them last time from it. 

I see it a bit differently. 
It's a delayed strike army now. 

Quite an interesting character to it.

Teutonic Knights = strike army
Byzantines = shoot & strike army
Assyrian = sustained shoot & delayed strike army
HA or NKE = sustained shoot & finish off army

So yes it move heavy chariots out os type (a-) to type (c) but I do think that is their real historical character and makes them more playable in open comps as they are not as good an (a) as knights in Mortem et Gloriam.  Also better reflects the real evolution to cavalry over chariots.

So if you want assyrians to be an a- you won't be keen, but I think it is much better as a c+ and we will see more of them in non-biblical comps.

Si

I would have said they are not a type a (using your list) and are already a type b. Their shooting is already a vital part of what they do and not just when they charge either.

Yes they struggle with knights at the moment but there are plenty of things they do better than this new version will (like sit in front of virtually any infantry and shoot whilst daring them to charge and ride down less impressive cavalry). What are these new chariots going to do against knights anyway? Run away and expose their light spear/bow infantry to certain destruction would seem the most likely scenario. I don't get the impression Knight armies are exactly terrified of shoot and scoot mounted at the moment and the chariot armies will never be good shoot and scoot lists anyway because of all the second rate infantry many of them need to protect.

We don't see many light chariot bow armies in open comp now. There is no reason to leap at the chance to run the same thing but saddled with extra capabilities you don't want.

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on August 27, 2019, 09:38:46 AM
I would have said they are not a type a (using your list) and are already a type b. Their shooting is already a vital part of what they do and not just when they charge either.

Yes they struggle with knights at the moment but there are plenty of things they do better than this new version will (like sit in front of virtually any infantry and shoot whilst daring them to charge and ride down less impressive cavalry). What are these new chariots going to do against knights anyway? Run away and expose their light spear/bow infantry to certain destruction would seem the most likely scenario. I don't get the impression Knight armies are exactly terrified of shoot and scoot mounted at the moment and the chariot armies will never be good shoot and scoot lists anyway because of all the second rate infantry many of them need to protect.

We don't see many light chariot bow armies in open comp now. There is no reason to leap at the chance to run the same thing but saddled with extra capabilities you don't want.

Martin

Yes they are more a (b) I suppose in that list.
Some people will like them as (b) and some as (c).
Can't help that.

I think as (c) they are a lot more capable in open comps.

Clearly you won't want the extras if you want to play it (b) style...  that is kind of self-fulfilling.  (a) and (b) armies fear (c) much more than (b) or (d) I would say. Anything skilled that can evade but still handle a melee is pretty dangerous.

QuoteYes they struggle with knights at the moment but there are plenty of things they do better than this new version will (like sit in front of virtually any infantry and shoot whilst daring them to charge and ride down less impressive cavalry).

On these though isn't it just different in the right tactics.  Infantry will still not charge you easily, and you just break off and shoot again. Much more dangerous to be be able to skirmish back and shoot repeatedly rather than stand and fight.

On the cavalry you now sit and tempt them to charge you bit yes you cannot ride them down so easily in one go. Skirmish back and take the hit if they reach you.  Have a field day if they don't.  Feels more powerful versus both those opponents as you get time to make full use of shooting in the new version where as BCh you get 1 shot.

S

If you are going to play the evade and break off game Melee capabilities represent poor value because you won't get the multiple rounds of grinding melee that make these expensive upgrades worthwhile. They also tip units that have already bough an impact capability and some of the games most expensive shooting over the point where they are cost effective. They are simply over-equipped and are unlikely to make good use of it all. 

The sort of cavalry you could ride down with battlechariots will often never charge the new chariots as they will be able to win a shoot out with your 230 point each chariots through weight of numbers. You will often end up needing to charge them, you will just be less effective at it. It is not better to evade and shoot against charging infantry than fight them with the current battlechariots. Currently you respond to their charge by declaring your own (free), shoot and then fight at massive factors with shatter. Even longspear is significantly disadvantaged against most battle-chariots if the spear charge. You then break-off and repeat.

If what you were suggesting worked well it would already be working (probably more efficiently) with the current light chariots.

Martin

Not a fan. Light Chariots aren't great. Now we are just getting more flavour of light chariots.

At least I won't have to buy my Chariot period army now!

Dru

Quote from: martymagnificent on August 27, 2019, 12:07:18 PM
If you are going to play the evade and break off game Melee capabilities represent poor value because you won't get the multiple rounds of grinding melee that make these expensive upgrades worthwhile. They also tip units that have already bough an impact capability and some of the games most expensive shooting over the point where they are cost effective. They are simply over-equipped and are unlikely to make good use of it all. 

The sort of cavalry you could ride down with battlechariots will often never charge the new chariots as they will be able to win a shoot out with your 230 point each chariots through weight of numbers. You will often end up needing to charge them, you will just be less effective at it. It is not better to evade and shoot against charging infantry than fight them with the current battlechariots. Currently you respond to their charge by declaring your own (free), shoot and then fight at massive factors with shatter. Even longspear is significantly disadvantaged against most battle-chariots if the spear charge. You then break-off and repeat.

If what you were suggesting worked well it would already be working (probably more efficiently) with the current light chariots.

Martin

It doesn't due to lack of impact factors and melee expert.
It is what does work with HA armies with those things - Sassanids, Ottomans etc.
So yes it is already working.  Just not with chariots much.

S

So the transformation of chariots in to cavalry with bigger bases will be complete? Horse archer armies aren't troubling the scorer here in Australia. They don't look like they rule the roost in UK comp results either (although the proposed changes to bow cost and prompting through fire may help )

If you decide to go ahead, and I would strongly prefer you didn't, there is no reason to not make melee expert optional. It is always a capability that is entirely open to interpretation. Let chariots keep some hope by giving them the choice.

Martin

The 38 chariots in my army dream of melee expert!

Which army?

It is always more of a positive when an option.

Martin

so if in the example you show us you take the same characteristic but for Cavalry, the cavalry will be more expensive in points.
in open comp? give me chariots...and leave the cav at home, the chariots are deadly and way better than cav.

Quote from: Jilu on August 28, 2019, 05:12:37 AM
so if in the example you show us you take the same characteristic but for Cavalry, the cavalry will be more expensive in points.
in open comp? give me chariots...and leave the cav at home, the chariots are deadly and way better than cav.

They are slightly cheaper (5 or 10 points I think) but less able to handle terrain. If that is enough to make them such a winner you seem to be the only one who has realised.

Partially the issue is that run away cav armies generally don't want to have anything much else in them or if they have other things they need to be of specific types (you don't want to leave your opponent a target while the cavalry runs). Most chariot armies cant avoid having a fair bit of other stuff because they just aren't allowed that many chariots or they have significant infantry minimums. Even if the chariots become good horse archers most of the armies will still not be good horse archer armies.

Martin

Marty/Jilu

I think that is trying to make them type (d).
To me they are shoot and strike armies with shooting foot support.
I don't think that makes them better or worse.

More a character of their own in open comps.
And more balanced between each other in period - where previously the BCh armies would dominate all.

I rather fancy using one of the biblical armies with these changes.
Will try it in the next open competition after MoaB (where I have been asked to bring a 2019 Classical Indian)

S

QuoteMore a character of their own in open comps.

By making different types of chariots more like each other and all chariots more like cavalry?

Martin

QuoteMore a character of their own in open comps.

By making different types of chariots more like each other and all chariots more like cavalry?

I do sense your frustration Marty and don't wish to do something that is not seen as a net + by players.  Would be good to hear from there chariot users and would be chariot users as well? 

To me at present they have no character at all in open comps as almost never seen. 
Don't think I have seen one played in the UK.  Saw one in US and it got battered.
BCh is a bit of a liability in most open comps.  In period BCh is a bit of an overkill.

So my sense is we win/win as a game.
They become playable in open comps now and in period you get the same effects anyway overall as even without S effects and an extra + at impact the big ones are deadly vs loose formation foot in the open.

The extra variety of characteristics is quite large, so we have much more variety within type than other rule systems.  One of the big pluses.  And DC when added gives back the BCh effect to a fair degree for the few we want to work that way.

All I would ask now is give the armies you like with BCh a try under this alteration and then report back. Obviously play them differently.

For my part I would never field a biblical army in an open comp but now I am liking the look of several.... I am not the crash in head on type though.

S

Perhaps more players need to give them a try as they are.

I won an open comp with an army using 24 battle-chariots.

https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=242.0

I was a little fortunate in that there weren't many knight present, but it can be done.

I'm not saying its easy to make them work but from the look of the UK comp results you aren't seeing light chariots either. This would suggest the changes are unlikely to help in making the armies competitive.

Martin

I've seen a few more more light chariots in use.
NKE and Hittites.
Is there an AAR you can relate to for the comp?
Are you at MaoB as a great place to chat better.
Si

In my Gallic army I use light chariots and cavalry, half and half. I like the chariots' better shooting. I would not be averse to running all chariots, but you go to war with the army you have!

I also have a Mycenaean Greek, but have not used it so much. I do like the suggestion of changing the Dendra riders to LCh, since it was weird having light and battle chariots that looked basically the same.

We have several Classical Indian armies here. In essence, no one runs battle chariots more than once. After that, just leave them home and bring elephants.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 28, 2019, 04:58:19 PM
I've seen a few more more light chariots in use.
NKE and Hittites.
Is there an AAR you can relate to for the comp?
Are you at MaoB as a great place to chat better.
Si

It was a while back, but from memory:

Game One was against Trevor and his Spartans. Long Spear, melee expert, lots of superiors and one exceptional. An interesting game where I exploited the Battlechariots total freedom with regards to charges in order to survive. Basically the Spartans charged the chariots, would fight a scary impact, a very favourable melee and then the chariots would break off and we would start again. At the same time I pressured the flanks of the Spartans with my infantry but found that the Spartans were supremely untroubled by second rate Chinese foot either to the front or rear. The single unit of Spartan cavalry died an entirely predictable and rapid death as well as a handfull of skirmishers. Ended in a draw

Game two was against Tony and Early Imperial Roman. This was his second game of MeG and, thank to some extreme dice rolls, the chariots rode straight over the legionaries. My favourite combat of the comp saw a unit of chariots obliterate a fresh unit of legionaries in a single impact phase thanks to some truly exceptional rolling. Tony did nothing wrong. Deployed in a tight block with secure flanks. It just didn't matter. 15-0 to me.

Game three was against Craig and his Free Company. He really wanted some terrain for his loose infantry and to narrow the front. He got none. As a result I managed to get the chariots and my polearm infantry in to his lose infantry and dismounted men at arms and this went in my favour. He had some knights but they were neither numerous or top quality and were unable to make a difference. 15-2 to me.

Game 4 was Paul and another Imperial Roman army. I dont remember this game very well. I think he may have had an Armenian ally or something similar. I suspect the chariots went through the Roman foot in a series of charges. 15-0 to me.

I was lucky not to play the Serbian (chock full of good quality knights).

I will be at MOAB but I am playing FOGN (I don't get as many opportunities for games of that). Will definitely come over to check out the MeG action and to say hello.

Martin

Thanks.  All good.
See you at MaoB.
I used to play FoGN a lot in the UK comps.

Glorie de Guerre is well on the way.

If you fancy joining in the testing next year let me know.

Si

Happy to have a look at playtesting them but I'm pretty keen on V2 of FOGN (as are my regular Napoleonic opponents)

Should have a chance to give 'new recipe' chariots a go this weekend. Will let you know how it goes.

Martin

Great that would be good.
Yes FoGN is a good set of rules.
By far the best so far.
Alas not played much anywhere now though.

Terry did a great Jon on the rules.
But it was very badly written unfortunately.
Took me ages to work it out.

S

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 30, 2019, 01:15:28 PM
Great that would be good.
Yes FoGN is a good set of rules.
By far the best so far.
Alas not played much anywhere now though.

Terry did a great Jon on the rules.
But it was very badly written unfortunately.
Took me ages to work it out.

S

i fuly agree, played some FOGN with Jacques

Back to chariots, what bugs me in open comp...is that we will see chariot armies with skilled shooters and not much else.
on top of that skilled cav armies are rare..most only have 1/2/4 or 1/2 of skilled shooters max and some cantabrian witch will be worse of against chariots as the will have to evade fleeing not skirmishing.

if shoot and charge the chariots will simply outshoot cav and kill them in melee as only few cav armies have bow/melee expert

Interesting and good to test out for sure.
We need to be sure they do not dominate cavalry armies like for like.
That wouldn't be historical.

Si

Hence it must be tested for some time not published untested

Quote from: badhabum on August 31, 2019, 08:27:24 PM
Hence it must be tested for some time not published untested

Except that the issue brought up by Jilu was not really about the changes. Chariots already have a high proportion of skilled and shoot and charge. It was, in fact, suggesting chariots are already too good in the match up with shooty cavalry.

Martin

I had a try with the new chariots this morning. I took my, previously successful, Five Hegemons list and modified it to suit the new classifications (see attached list). As the chariots now cost significantly more (and I had upped a general to 4 cards in anticipation of needing better cards to make up for fewer free charges) I had to make all 24 bases of archers combat shy. Other than this, essentially the same list. I made the superior chariots devastating charger so I could try both types.

I played Paul R and his new Trastamara Spanish list (with Italian States Allies). He had 3 6 base knight units (allies), mounted crossbow, jinetes, 4 colunela and 2 pike blocks.

The result of the game wasn't really determined by the new classifications. Paul deployed across an open table with (from one flank to another) his colunella and Jinets opposing my mixed , his pike and mounted crossbow in front of my superior chariots and his knight command in front of my average chariots and polearm foot. Paul advanced too enthusiastically with the knights (understandably confident) but failed to pin the superior chariots with his pike (He was recovering from a night out). As a result one of the superior chariots units turned and ploughed in to the side of his knight command and this tipped the combat in my favour. His colunela were chewing slowly but surely through the mixed units but not quickly enough to make up for the collapse of the other flank.

Some thoughts on how the chariots fared in these match ups as opposed to how they would have done as the old battlechariots.

1) Against the knights (or indeed any other lancer or elephant) the new classification is unquestionably better. You can either evade or you get a factor as devastating charger you wouldn't have as a Battlechariot. Of course many favour Longspear cavalry as their shock arm these days and against them the old battlechariots were a better option.

2) Against other types of mounted (like the mounted crossbow) it is a mixed bag. You are more likely to catch them thanks to your 5 mu movement but they have less reason to fear fighting you as you no longer have the battle chariot factors.

3) Against pretty much all sorts of infantry I would still prefer to be the old battlechariots. They just don't have as much reason to fear you know. I loved the way battlechariots could sit in front of even pikeman and it was risky for them to charge thanks to the impact factors. Now you are either a weaker, more expensive version of a battlechariot (if you have devastating charger) or you are just another run away horse archer. You also wont be able to ride down foot shooters/ tribal hordes/ Romans/ shieldwalls etc anywhere near as well as you could.

The extra movement and slightly easier ability to back up are sometimes generally useful

Devastating charger represents very poor value under the current points regime. My chariots were paying 18 points a base and losing their evade to sometimes get a single impact factor. If this is how 'heavier' combat chariots are going to be represented it needs to be free. There is no way you will see anyone taking it otherwise (and even then I suspect many would prefer to keep the evade).

Martin

[attachment deleted by admin]

Hence it must be tested   8)

I was not referencing only to Jean-Luc's comment ( JILU ) but all the changes . IMO the proposed modifications for chariots and so on first need to be tested. All tournaments prior july 2020 should either follow the rules as they are NOW or be specified as test games for the new rules to be published in july 2020 when the changes have been tested . My opinion but I fear new rules untested based on what we think should be changed , published too soon and then ...we have what has been criticized ...a new update.

Rules will never be perfect and in french we say : le mieux est l'ennemi du bien . The better is the enemy of what is good .

Had another trial game. This time I used Paul R's Assyrian models as the list Simon posted. He used Ordonance French. Managed a win with the Assyrians. The exceptional chariots proved capable of handling some average knights and superior chariots managed to ride down some loose infantry in the open.

Nothing really happened that changed my thinking from my previous test game. Former battle-chariots are now better against knights. Different against other mounted (pros/cons) and less effective against pretty much everything on foot.

I'm still inclined to see it overall as a weakening. There are a lot more foot out there than lancers.

Martin

Martin, thanks and all helpful.
Jacques, they are being tested.
I never do anything without testing them out a fair bit.

But I am listening and can feel the "its great already so change as little as possible" sentiment coming through.
Am pondering therefore.

Si

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 07, 2019, 07:22:29 PM
Martin, thanks and all helpful.
Jacques, they are being tested.
I never do anything without testing them out a fair bit.

But I am listening and can feel the "its great already so change as little as possible" sentiment coming through.
Am pondering therefore.

Si

No problem. It is not as bad a change as I first thought. I still don't, however, see it as an improvement from a gameplay POV (ie I don't think you will start seeing more chariots in comp as a result). Implementing the proposed changes to prompting through fire and the cost of bow may help a little.

Martin

Thanks.  I didn't think it was but still that you see it as a net - is something we must bear in mind.
We are testing today as a team.

Si

And very useful the testing was indeed. Personally I felt things worked well, a bit differently compared to now of course, but went well - felt more like I imagine chariots to have worked.

What is more important if you want to change the chariots is NOT to discuss if it seems more historical but do the changes PLEASE the chariot lover players  8)

Are they happy with it

Unfortunately, for now , we do not play enough in Belgium to test the new rules

Quote from: badhabum on September 08, 2019, 07:42:03 PM
What is more important if you want to change the chariots is NOT to discuss if it seems more historical but do the changes PLEASE the chariot lover players  8)

Are they happy with it

Unfortunately, for now , we do not play enough in Belgium to test the new rules

Well, I am adding more chariots to my Hittites because of it and am doing another army with chariots because they are now no longer Battle Chariots and will, IMO, work better.

After todays testing I am likely to field a chariot army for the first time.
Never been my favourite period bit I like how the Assyrians play now.
Even in open.

S

I think many underestimate how good battlechariots already are. I find they only really struggle against knights (and probably elephants).

Martin

And warwagons...

Quote from: mad lemmey on September 09, 2019, 07:26:21 AM
And warwagons...

True, although beyond my experience. I would also point out that the 'new' chariots will not really be any better.

Martin

QuoteWell, I am adding more chariots to my Hittites because of it and am doing another army with chariots because they are now no longer Battle Chariots and will, IMO, work better.

Out of curiosity what did you gents actually test? Which match ups do you feel they handle better now? I just can't shake the impression they are losing more than they are gaining.

Martin

In terms of Battle Chariots, which I guess are the ones you are asking about, I've tested around the Assyrian ones in the Assyria and Babylon list set, including the late very heavy chariots. I know Richard has tested wider and that Simon has looked at Chinese chariots in his testing. FWIW I've also revisited the earlier maryannu types as a bit of a comparison.

Where I see the new scheme as better is in the overall behavior and how you use these chariots, it fits my view of how they operated batter than the Battle Chariot classification - other than the very late Assyrian, etc. ones they are not battering rams, they need more finesse than that.

So they are 'better' in a historical accuracy sense, not actually stronger in game play. Why would that lead to you adding more of them to your list?

Martin

I actually think they are better in game play than when they were Battle Chariots - different from then, but I prefer the flexibility they now have.

If you're just looking for a batter ram approach they will be worse, but I'm not.

That they are, IMO, more historical is also important as I like my troops to operate in an historically based manner  ;D

Oh, and in terms of armies the change also means I am including chariots in my Han build options - I wasn't going to when they were Battle Chariots.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 10, 2019, 08:21:58 AM
I actually think they are better in game play than when they were Battle Chariots - different from then, but I prefer the flexibility they now have.

If you're just looking for a batter ram approach they will be worse, but I'm not.

That they are, IMO, more historical is also important as I like my troops to operate in an historically based manner  ;D

Oh, and in terms of armies the change also means I am including chariots in my Han build options - I wasn't going to when they were Battle Chariots.

If by 'Battering ram' you mean I wan't them to beat some opposition frontally without first engaging in a drawn out process of repeated shooting and evading, then yes I consider that stronger. Especially in MeG where if you are a white dice shooter (like all Chinese chariots) you would often be able to shoot for the entire duration of a competition game against some opposition without having enough of an effect.

I actually see this as a fairly simple equation. The current battlechariots generally have no reason to evade from anything they get their factor against. This means there is only a narrow range of opposition where losing their factors and gaining an evade is a win.

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on September 10, 2019, 08:36:21 AM
If by 'Battering ram' you mean I wan't them to beat some opposition frontally without first engaging in a drawn out process of repeated shooting and evading, then yes I consider that stronger.

Its as good a definition as any without getting bogged down in when you may or may not want to evade ;D

And if that is what you're looking for most chariots will now not meet that (assuming the change goes through).

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 10, 2019, 08:42:41 AM
And if that is what you're looking for most chariots will now not meet that (assuming the change goes through).

None of them will meet it as well as they do currently.

Unless there are details in the changes I'm unaware of, I'm still hoping battlechariots stay as they are.

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on September 10, 2019, 08:03:33 AM
So they are 'better' in a historical accuracy sense, not actually stronger in game play. Why would that lead to you adding more of them to your list?

Martin

Nothing is better or stronger in game p;lay Martin.  That is the job of he points system.  All are equal for their points.

S

Quote from: martymagnificent on September 10, 2019, 08:36:21 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 10, 2019, 08:21:58 AM
I actually think they are better in game play than when they were Battle Chariots - different from then, but I prefer the flexibility they now have.

If you're just looking for a batter ram approach they will be worse, but I'm not.

That they are, IMO, more historical is also important as I like my troops to operate in an historically based manner  ;D

Oh, and in terms of armies the change also means I am including chariots in my Han build options - I wasn't going to when they were Battle Chariots.

If by 'Battering ram' you mean I wan't them to beat some opposition frontally without first engaging in a drawn out process of repeated shooting and evading, then yes I consider that stronger. Especially in MeG where if you are a white dice shooter (like all Chinese chariots) you would often be able to shoot for the entire duration of a competition game against some opposition without having enough of an effect.

I actually see this as a fairly simple equation. The current battlechariots generally have no reason to evade from anything they get their factor against. This means there is only a narrow range of opposition where losing their factors and gaining an evade is a win.

Martin

Except Charging Lancers which are one of the most prevalent troop type in the game .... 
and any Pike or Long Spear foot who are happy to risk a Shatter against them at contact and ...
.... and anything with Impact Weapon that is also a Melee Expert that can do the same.
I would gladly attack Superior Battle Chariots with any of these at the moment.

I found it mich easier to get the aggressive ones into the right places now they move 5 as cavalry.
And the flex to hold a bit was perfect.  That was in a mixed arms army of Chinese.

I've tried Hittites, NKE and Late Assyrians down here as well.

S

QuoteNothing is better or stronger in game p;lay Martin.  That is the job of he points system.  All are equal for their points.

That is a little like historical objectivity, a noble aim but never actually achieved. MeG is better than most.

QuoteExcept Charging Lancers which are one of the most prevalent troop type in the game .... 
and any Pike or Long Spear foot who are happy to risk a Shatter against them at contact and ...
.... and anything with Impact Weapon that is also a Melee Expert that can do the same.
I would gladly attack Superior Battle Chariots with any of these at the moment.

They will undeniably be better against lancers although I think longspear cavalry have eaten in to their 'prevalance' a bit. Foot who charge them are risking more than a 'shatter' they are fighting an impact that is generally red on white (longspear foot charging a superior battlechariot with shortspear) and that's after the shooting in the charge. The foot can drag it back in the melee but charging battlechariots is always a risky move.

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on September 11, 2019, 10:42:09 AM

QuoteNothing is better or stronger in game p;lay Martin.  That is the job of he points system.  All are equal for their points.

That is a little like historical objectivity, a noble aim but never actually achieved. MeG is better than most.


ONE KEY OBJECTIVE.  Mortem et Gloriam IS VERY CLOSE NOW.  ALL OTHERS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN FUNDAMENTALLY ADN BADLY FLAWED.  FOG (take all Superiors)/DBM (Blades not worth the money)/ADLG (mix thereof) ALL ARE.

QuoteExcept Charging Lancers which are one of the most prevalent troop type in the game .... 
and any Pike or Long Spear foot who are happy to risk a Shatter against them at contact and ...
.... and anything with Impact Weapon that is also a Melee Expert that can do the same.
I would gladly attack Superior Battle Chariots with any of these at the moment.

They will undeniably be better against lancers although I think longspear cavalry have eaten in to their 'prevalance' a bit. Foot who charge them are risking more than a 'shatter' they are fighting an impact that is generally red on white (longspear foot charging a superior battlechariot with shortspear) and that's after the shooting in the charge. The foot can drag it back in the melee but charging battlechariots is always a risky move.

Martin

In case I an missing something ... very tired form trip to uk ... but ...

Average Hoplites would be +2 for Long Spear;  so as BCh I just have to get in the right place and you will often have to charge me. Then it's a disaster for the chariots. 2-1 at contact will be the end of them. They haven't the numbers to survive that.

If the Hoplites charge then your Superior Battle Chariot with Short Spear would be +4 instead of +1 (1 for Sup, 1 for BCh, 1 for SSp, 1 for charging foot).  So YELLOW-WHITE?  Where is the other one for RED-WHITE?  Maybe I am missing somethin? Big difference.

4 wide gives average damage from 1.33W vs chariots from 4 WHITE DICE and 3.33W on the spearmen from 4 YELLOW DICE, excluding shatter risks.  So Chariots on average carry a W and Spearmen on average lose 1 base and a wound. In Melee it's then +2 for the spears and +1 for the chariots on three files and 0 vs +1 on the other.  3G/1W each = 2.33 vs 1.67 Total losses pre-shatter = Chariots 3.67; Spearmen 5.00. So pretty even given a 4 vs. and 8, and the spearmen wouldn't be 2 deep they would have 2 reserves so actually worse.  So no big shatter result and chariots are in trouble.  Much worse vs. Pikes.

Am I missing something, as I would gladly take on your chariots with a wall of Tribal Long Spear right now .... under the proposed changes the chariots do much much better as they are not forced to stand so they have all the initiative and are harder to press for a while giving a chance to weaken the spears.

Si

You are actually missing a few things

Quoteso as BCh I just have to get in the right place and you will often have to charge me

No BCH with a bow (which is pretty much all of them) ever has to charge anyone. Charges are always free but never compulsory

QuoteIf the Hoplites charge then your Superior Battle Chariot with Short Spear would be +4 instead of +1 (1 for Sup, 1 for BCh, 1 for SSp, 1 for charging foot).  So YELLOW-WHITE?  Where is the other one for RED-WHITE?  Maybe I am missing somethin? Big difference.

BCH is not +1, it is +2. As a result the chariots are red on white. They will also throw either 3 white or 3 green as they charge from their shooting. I'm not saying I would love to fight a wall of longspear (which mounted army would?) but BCH aren't at all bad at it.

I'm not sure you guys should be making changes to battlechariots if you don't fully appreciate what they do now.

Martin

Do the Hopilites get shield cover ?

Quote from: Kokor Hekkus on September 12, 2019, 12:16:38 PM
Do the Hopilites get shield cover ?

No

Martin

Quote from: martymagnificent on September 12, 2019, 12:07:16 PM
You are actually missing a few things

Quoteso as BCh I just have to get in the right place and you will often have to charge me

No BCH with a bow (which is pretty much all of them) ever has to charge anyone. Charges are always free but never compulsory

You didn't mention bows so I was referring to your version ...
Superior BCh SSp.... so was using those. 
Which do have to charge IIRC ....
... if they have bows then I imagine you don't want to charge ...?
...  soften up first and then charge?

QuoteIf the Hoplites charge then your Superior Battle Chariot with Short Spear would be +4 instead of +1 (1 for Sup, 1 for BCh, 1 for SSp, 1 for charging foot).  So YELLOW-WHITE?  Where is the other one for RED-WHITE?  Maybe I am missing somethin? Big difference.

BCH is not +1, it is +2. As a result the chariots are red on white. They will also throw either 3 white or 3 green as they charge from their shooting. I'm not saying I would love to fight a wall of longspear (which mounted army would?) but BCH aren't at all bad at it.
[/quote]

Ah apologies I  used the 2018 sheet by accident.   :( >:(
As I said rather tired from UK travels.
So you would get RED on a charge by LONG SPEAR infantry. 
So PIKES are going to do better as that will the Yellow vs White.
Average Long Spear Red-White has quite a bit of hazard as you say.
That said its about 190pts for your chariot I reckon? and about 70pts for average tribal Long spear from memory?
2.5:1 advantage in numbers. Too tired to rerun it and then need to take shatter risk into account a lot more.
I would probably set up theban style 4 deep and have to charge you or you will sit and shoot all day.

QuoteI'm not sure you guys should be making changes to battlechariots if you don't fully appreciate what they do now.

Martin

Indeed, but worry not. I do know really.

Just the effect of 13000 miles, 4 nights in UK, 2 on planes, 34 14 hour days and a total of about 24 hours sleep over 6 days....  I can hardly tell you what a chariot is right now!
Reasons for which will become public soon.

So bottom line is no worse than other mounted vs. long spear and pike.
Worse vs. C Lancers.

What do you find it rides down well?
What will you miss being able to clobber frontally?

As is?

Si

QuoteWhat do you find it rides down well?
What will you miss being able to clobber frontally?

I find they can ride down most infantry without longspear/pike pretty well (especially if loose).

They are devastatingly effective against most non-lancer mounted (cataphracts are a bit iffy). The 2 factors and ability to often catch mounted who run (thanks to shoot and charge) make them really effective against run away mounted. The changes will reduce them from 'predators' to peers in this match up.

I would also point out it isn't as simple as just needing to be able to smash stuff frontally. Battlechariot armies are rarely all battlechariots. I find the chariots in these armies performs an important role in pinning enemy troops in place (either through charging or making them unwilling to charge) so that the accompanying infantry get more time to shoot. The 'new' chariots just can't really do this.

QuoteGood player with added punch and it works.

QuoteIf you need the punch (and most of us do) then don't pick an army without it - simples  ;D

Above are comments from you an Nik in another thread about the need for 'punch' troops in shooty mounted armies (eg cataphracts and elephants in Sassanid). In Chariot armies the chariots are meant to be the 'punch' and none of these armies get anything 'punchier'. I think the changes will leave many of these armies with a very ineffectual overall structure.

Martin

Battle chariots last night ran over one legion, but their friends did not like being flank charged...

Parking aside the overall downgrade to the BCh (in the noble, but perhaps misguided, aim to make everything perfectly historical for the game), the fact that it fundamentally changes lists (and removes that 'punch' that Marty quotes Nik and Simon stating is needed for shooty lists), is a big concern. How unplayable are lists going to become? Are you introducing new 'punch' units (all 100% historically accurate of course) to ensure every affected list remains viable...?

I really don't get the imperative for the changes, from a game balance, play-ability and list viability perspective.

Clearly I must be missing something. Big changes to try and make BCh more like what some think might be more historical, at the expense of the game itself, surely isn't the major driver (I hope), so what's the reason for the change. They work as they are.  Can someone explain the reason for the changes?

Now if Light Chariots got a bump, that's cool by me (and they may with the prompt changes??).

Dru

Quote from: Dru on September 14, 2019, 12:24:45 AM
Clearly I must be missing something. Big changes to try and make BCh more like what some think might be more historical, at the expense of the game itself, surely isn't the major driver (I hope), so what's the reason for the change. They work as they are.  Can someone explain the reason for the changes?

History is the big driver here. Based on testing it is not at the expense of the game IMO, but it does mean using the armies in question differently.

Quote
Now if Light Chariots got a bump, that's cool by me (and they may with the prompt changes??).

The prompting through fire will assist the light chariots as they are shooty types.

QuoteClearly I must be missing something. Big changes to try and make BCh more like what some think might be more historical, at the expense of the game itself, surely isn't the major driver (I hope), so what's the reason for the change. They work as they are.  Can someone explain the reason for the changes?

Now if Light Chariots got a bump, that's cool by me (and they may with the prompt changes??).

The reason the game is so good is that it puts historical representation first and then uses all the levers to create game balance.  At present Huns feel like Huns, Romans feel like Romans (and different in all periods too).  That's a first for any set.  But Chariots do not feel like Chariots yet.  The last bit from 3000-1500 that doesn't feel right.

So trust is to work it to where the feel is right and the game balance is right as well.  We've done it for everything else really well.

Si

QuoteThe reason the same is so good is that it puts historical representation first and then uses all the levers to create game balance

There is going to need to be some pretty serious further 'levering' (that we haven't already heard about) to create game balance for many of the chariot armies if the changes proceed.

Martin

Well once we are settled on all the classifications we can work the point system to balance.
The feel will of course be different as that is the opening intent.
Have to say I am getting happier the more I doodle with armies.

Si

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 16, 2019, 03:48:39 PM
Well once we are settled on all the classifications we can work the point system to balance.
The feel will of course be different as that is the opening intent.
Have to say I am getting happier the more I doodle with armies.

Si

There are limits to what can be achieved with points (especially as a light chariot needs to have a base cost essentially the same as cavalry minus a few points). Points adjustments will do nothing to fix the unfortunate structure/mix of these armies once they don't have battlechariots.

Martin

Quote from: AntiokosIII on August 16, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
if chariots truly did not charge home against foot, they could easily have been slaughtered by a mob of naked bowmen on foot. They were not.

I think thats a pretty dangerous assumption,when you think about it,and diminishes your more potent arguments .Chariot swarms would in my view with all the dust  and gaps in light troops would simply break that mob up into dysfunctional groups,and im sure there would be many collisions,give me speed and protection anytime when that happens

Quote from: JACKB nIMBLE on September 21, 2019, 09:19:45 AM

Quote from: AntiokosIII on August 16, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
if chariots truly did not charge home against foot, they could easily have been slaughtered by a mob of naked bowmen on foot. They were not.

I think thats a pretty dangerous assumption,when you think about it,and diminishes your more potent arguments .Chariot swarms would in my view with all the dust  and gaps in light troops would simply break that mob up into dysfunctional groups,and im sure there would be many collisions,give me speed and protection anytime when that happens

What you say is true if the naked bowmen have reason to fear a chariot charge. If the chariots don't or can't charge home, the naked bowmen can shoot away with confidence. Horses are as vulnerable a target as naked bowmen, and the naked bowmen put a LOT more arrows in the air than one or two archers per chariot. That was my point.

I quoted this in another post, from the Arthasastra, a 2500 year old Indian text:

"...reuniting broken ranks, breaking up unbroken ranks, causing terror, showing magnificence and making a frightful din, these are the functions of chariots."

I can't see even tooled up light chariots causing much terror or breaking up unbroken ranks too easily. For a start to get the devastating charger you have to be two ranks deep, so the frontage of 'terrifying' chariots will be much smaller.

Well that is really just noise and panic being caused which I considered but rejected as being too fiddly to deal with.  Wondered about a KaB test for chariots coming with 4BW for the first time (and elephants) but creates memory effects so not really ideal.

You get the same type of terror, magnificent and din words from the Romans facing the Ancient Britons so apparently Light Chariots can do that bit too.

I'm happier them being a factor worse.  The stuff they were up against 2500 years ago was hardly the ancient worlds best infantry.  The chariots in new form are deadly against them in the open even without DC.   Most of those would be Ave loose foot vs Sup chariots.  So they would be right to be pretty terrified and find their ranks broken up.  Yellow vs white without DC, Red vs white with... nasty enough I think.

Si

May well be fine in period. Doesn't help much in out of period match ups though. In that context it is most likely the chariot armies that are trying to keep their own loose infantry alive somehow in the open. It's hard to see shoot and evade chariots doing this really well. It would, I think, push army selection towards evade-capable chariots and as little else as possible, which is not terribly historical. Who wants to hinder the chariots with a bunch of dead men walking they can't protect?

Martin

Hi Marty,

I agree in open periods it will be more those types of chariots. In period the tank like ones will still work.  Which is about spot on really I think.

There isn't much terrain in most of those battles so you tend to find loose in the open a lot.  otherwise the chariots are in a big mess and both sides tend to rely on them.

In terms of rule philosophy we want to get the feel right in period and then use the points to balance out of period. 

As we discussed there is no doubt that it will change the character of late Assyrian battle tanks a bit, but brings other pluses to the armies.  Just a matter of adapting a little, which having now met you I have no doubt you can sir  ;)

How did the FoG N end up at MoaB?  Didn't manage to come visit the last game.

Si

Another really good FOGN comp (in spite of the somewhat noisy room). I came second, Richard Stubbs got first with his Russians.

It and MeG are my current wargaming loves and I find it hard to pick what to play when both are available.

I'm looking forward to playing MeG at Cancon, now even more so, thanks to the generous prize support!

Assuming the chariot changes go ahead and are out by then I may give some chariots a run to see ho it all plays out.

Martin

Great. 
Maybe we will get a game.

Indeed those are my two favourite rulesets too. ;)

Si

Wondering what the Minoan chariots will become in the new ruleset ? A few more days to wait

Sneak preview:

Charioteers in Dendra panoply - Chariots, Formed Loose, Superior, -/Fully Armoured, Long Spear.
Charioteers with javelins - Chariots, Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Short Spear, Experienced Javelins.

Richard

Just a few more days to wait

Lots of good stuff in the 2020 materials but bitterly disappointed by what I am seeing with the chariots.

No points reduction (if you have bow it is very slightly cheaper)

You pay for devastating charger (ie probably paying to make chariot worse as you lose evade)

Not only is melee expert compulsory on pretty much all the previous battle chariots it costs more than it did

Chinese chariots are still worse shots than the biblical ones

Unless I have missed something it is essentially the full propsed change with no softening of the blow at all. Your former battlechariots are now light chariots loaded up with a whole lot of characteristics you may or may not want.

Martin

Great that you see lottos good stuff in 2020.
And hope you like the new dedicated Mortem et Gloriam website.

Don't be disappointed yet as you have the points wrong above....

Points are down 10 a base for an old Battle Chariot to new chariot!
Bow down 5 for mounted, Cross bow 7.

So a bow battle chariot is not 15 less as its base cost which is quite a bit!
Run them through and you will see quite a difference.

Dev charger remains as was at 13 as we felt it gives the killer icing if you want to charge it was n't right to remove it as it takes away evading - as evading is not what you plan.

Also we don't want to overshoot.  Chariots is an area where clearly we need to keep an eye on costs having made the changes.  If there is a modest error we will leave it but if a big one we will fix it with an updated army builder.  Having tested them a fair bit I don't think there is one.

I much prefer them cheaper and able to evade for most.  The big hitters are still pretty nasty.

Si

Don't be disappointed yet as you have the points wrong above....

Points are down 15 a base for an old Battle Chariot to new chariot!
5 for an old Light Chariot vs new Chariot.
Bow down 5 for mounted, Cross bow 7.

So a bow battle chariot is not 20 less as its base cost which is quite a bit!
Run them through and you will see quite a difference.

Comparing them to battlechariots is meaningless, they no longer do what Battlechariots did. From a base POV they are identical to the old light chariots so that is the obvious and only fair comparison. I have both army builders open in front of me and the cost of the old light chariot is identical to the new chariot cost, I don't know if this is not what you intended?

Dev charger remains as was at 13 as we felt it gives the killer icing if you want to charge it was n't right to remove it as it takes away evading - as evading is not what you plan.

It's a pretty limited sh&@!y icing that in no way makes up for the loss of evade. The extra points cost is just adding insult to injury.

Also we don't want to overshoot.  Chariots is an area where clearly we need to keep an eye on costs having made the changes.  If there is a modest error we will leave it but if a big one we will fix it with an updated army builder.  Having tested them a fair bit I don't think there is one.

Overshoot? they're getting worse not better and couldn't even dominate in a biblical theme comp under the old rules!

I think mine are going on the shelf.

Martin

IVEE EDITED IT AS FAULTY MEMORY. DUH.

Its funny as I think mine are coming out for the first time in vengeance.

Well you get the benefit of not paying for BCh points as you lose the punch.
Not comparing just pointing it out.

It's funny as I think mine are coming out for the first time in vengeance.
I think you like tanks more than I do though - at least in this period! :-)

Overshoot not in abilities but points reduction.
We can always bring them down more if they are not being used.
The market is a good measure not we have made the change to fit without historicity principle.

Plenty more armies to try Marty - we have 650!
And when and if the price suits you roll 'em again.

Si

Don't really think it can be fixed with points.

Just don't particularly want to run light chariots with melee expert. Can't understand why something as subjective as melee expert couldn't at least be made optional. Upping its cost just really pushes it over the edge in to 'hard no' territory.

To further add to my bemusement the army I run most often (Five Hegemons) can't have its cheap and effective shortspear any more. If it wants an impact factor it has to buy mounted frickin polearm. Expensive, a worse impact factor and leaves them puzzlingly good in melee (and massively expensive) because they still have to by melee expert.

We are supposed to accept that these chariots were so good in melee that they are superior, polearm, melee expert. You then have a troop type that has spent 70 or so points on melee capabilities but also pays to shoot and evade!! It's a simply terrible, overequipped combination.

Martin

Anything like that post to the list query section as that is a list not a rule issues.

Richard always listens to such things.

Si