Chariots

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[AntiokosIII]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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 

[lionheartrjc]

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

[martymagnificent]

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

[AntiokosIII]

@ 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.

[Rino]

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]

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[martymagnificent]

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

[nikgaukroger]

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]

[nikgaukroger]

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 ..."

[nikgaukroger]

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

[attachment deleted by admin]

[nikgaukroger]

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.