Chariots: Cut or Keep?

[MagisterCultuum]

I really don't see why the Hippus should have Hippus UUs if no one else does. I suppose it is ok if it is not something that replaces another unit, but as a replacement of a more tradition mounted unit it is not very thematic. The Hippus live in the saddle most of their life, but I know of no actual references to them riding in chariots. With chariots the relationship between horse and rider are not that strong. There is no reference to the Hippus excelling at making machinery even as simple as a chariot. I tend to think they are not good at it, since the civ of their opposing sphere (The Khazad) are the best. Also, the Hippus lands are described as being hilly, so chariots wouldn't do so well there.




While I think letting Chariots carry cargo could be cool, I was not suggesting that that change be made. From what I hear the AI cannot understand the concept of using land units as transports for other land units, so this ability would place them at an unfair disadvantage. I would really like it if they could be taught, and also if cargo restrictions were redesigned so that certain units could take up more spots than others, so that ships could carry rangers carrying hawks, so that Beastmasters could carry all sorts of animals around, etc., but I don't really expect this to happen and am not sure it is worth dealing with at all unless we are willing to put a lot of effort into doing it right. I'm thinking it is something that it would be better to try to get Xienwolf to figure out and use for FF than to try to get done in Ice.




I could go for having a Light Cavalry (basically horse archer) and Heavy Cavalry line, but I'd probably want to these two in addition to a chariot line, at least in my version. I'd guess that the light mounted units would need to gain defensive strikes like archer have, and in FF or my modmod also have ranged attacks, but not have access to matal promotions like the heavy cavalry does. If we ever do get cargo working the way I'd like it it would be awesome to have 3 mounted lines with very different uses.

Whatever is done, Dwarven (War) Chariots and Ophanim must remain, and should gain the ability to deal collateral damage.

 

[PotatoOverdose]

Well, you could also consider giving chariots their own mechanic akin to what was done to archery units with defensive strikes. Maybe allow chariots to have some form of zone of control mechanic, like in civ II. A hostile unit that moves from one tile adjacent to the chariot to another adjacent tile has a % chance to suffer % damage.

I would be totally fine with cutting chariots if rathas were left in the game and, as others have pointed out, a clear alternative/substitute is put forth so as to keep the mounted line in line with other tech paths.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

While I think letting Chariots carry cargo could be cool, I was not suggesting that that change be made. From what I hear the AI cannot understand the concept of using land units as transports for other land units, so this ability would place them at an unfair disadvantage

And yet they always try to build the trojan horse. It's nice for nostalgia value, but I'd like that cut, personally.

 

[KingOfLands]

And yet they always try to build the trojan horse. It's nice for nostalgia value, but I'd like that cut, personally.

It's been a while since I tried to hide catapults in it, but I think I remember doing that in an older version and I may try it again. Only use, theoretical or actual, that I've found for the dang thing.

I voted to cut chariots, but I'm also in the "Save the goats!" camp. Perhaps boar riders could be done away with in favor of goat-chariots for the Khazad? Dwarves have short legs, it stands to reason that they can't ride anything. Rathas ought to stay too.

The idea of letting the regular mounted units use metals is a little scary but probably wouldn't break the game; I'd be willing to give it a shot.

 

[Blackmantle]

Keep in mind that a vote for "keep chariots but change them dramatically" implies that you dont see much value in their current incarnation. Thats a common reply to anytime we ask to cut something and is more an objection to removing something (most prefer to see things added) that it has to do with the object in question.

The ideas to have chariots unable to enter some features or to transport land units are both very bad for the AI. In the first we will create WoC issues, handicap the AI (who will be buildings units without understanding that he cant get them to his enemies). The second will be simply ignored by the Ai or lock up units without an understanding of when and where to transport the unit to. Both pretty cool flavorful ideas, but not worth the AI cost.

The problem i see here (as written in the other thread) is that the extent of the whole change is quite non-transparent.

If cutting Chariots and War Chariots would for example mean the axing of Stirups-tech and Armored Cavalry-tech as well as the relocation of Horse-Archers to Trade tech and Knights + Shadowriders to Warhorses tech (with unchanged tech-costs for Trade and Warhorses techs) i might reconsider and give a new assessment (might still come to a similar verdict but surely less strongly. I still think there are no issues with the mounted line being overpowered even remotely... Recon and Melee are just way to far ahead by leaps and bounds. Even highly experienced hippus players seem to favor Warriors because they offer more solid bang for buck.)

As is its just not clear how such a change would really look like and thus people post their ideas since cutting chariots and leaving the rest as is, leaves quite a vacuum on that line...

But then a new poll would be in order, which states what is possible and what isn't and makes clear to the voters what the poll is exactly about, instead of leaving the part of figuring out to themselves...

 

[Kael]

As is its just not clear how such a change would really look like and thus people post their ideas since cutting chariots and leaving the rest as is, leaves quite a vacuum on that line...

What sort of vacuum? What is the functional purpose of chariots in their current implementation?

 

[Blackmantle]

The only sensible use of the mounted line beyond horsemen (hippus a bit excluded for obvious reasons)?
With Horse-Archers and Knights being utter overpriced junk, i mean it (Beastmasters come about the time of War Chariots with comparable power and Mobility. Knights don't stand a chance even remotely with having to compete with Druids and Archmages or High Priests.
Horse Archers compare to an army of battle hardened Rangers / Iron Champions / Priests and in case of facing an AI oponent Longbowmen.
All of which completely beat them in any possible field save fast raiding, which regular horseman / chariots do just as well / better for less hammers in greater numbers)
compared to the investment in terms of both research and hammers (And that counts for the times i have faced AI mounted units as well. With a huge stack of Chariots with Iron beeing more scary then those wimpy horse archers, which come in lower numbers and can withdraw as their only real perk (first strikes added into that.
But I'm already fond of Drill + Blitz for Mounted Units and withdraw is capped at 85% which means civs / leaders favoring mounted (hippus + defenders) get there with chariots / horsemen with just one more promotion). And those are in the game way earlier usually.)

And playing Sidar (which later build a War Chariot / Knight a turn and plenty of Horse Archers because you cant produce a unit faster than 1/turn.) i use the mounted line quite heavily (Ride of the Nine Kings grants Units of Level 5 with a short "ride" to wane. Nuff said. ) despite it being rather subpar overall... So i do have quite some experience.

Chariots on the other hand i use regularly as most civs (still far from exclusively with either Priests / Recon or Melee forming the Main army.) because the tech they are available at is really interesting for many reasons (and even easier to reach now with an alternate route ) which i doubt need explaining.
+ They are usable both for fast fighting in the field and fast hit and run raids relative to the time they appear.
So they have a real value beyond fluff. The same counts for War Chariots with being the earliest Tier 4 unit in the game closely beating Beastmasters.

 

[Kael]

The only sensible use of the mounted line beyond horsemen (hippus a bit excluded for obvious reasons)?
With Horse-Archers and Knights being utter overpriced junk, i mean it (Beastmasters come about the time of War Chariots with comparable power and Mobility. Knights don't stand a chance even remotely with having to compete with Druids and Archmages or High Priests.
Horse Archers compare to an army of battle hardened Rangers / Iron Champions / Priests and in case of facing an AI oponent Longbowmen.
All of which completely beat them in any possible field save fast raiding, which regular horseman / chariots do just as well / better for less hammers in greater numbers) compared to the investment in terms of both research and hammers (And that counts for the times i have faced AI mounted units as well. With a huge stack of Chariots with Iron beeing more scary then those wimpy horse archers. And those are in the game way earlier usually.).

And playing Sidar (which later build a War Chariot / Knight a turn and plenty of Horse Archers because you cant produce a unit faster than 1/turn.) i use the mounted line quite heavily despite it being rather subpar overall... So i do have quite some experience.
Chariots on the other hand i use regularly as most civs because the tech they are available at is really intersting, usable both for fast fighting in the field and fast hit and run raids.

Very well said. I think you point out a few errors here with the mounted line and have given me some great things to think about. Let me play with the numbers a bit and see what I can come up with.

 

[TheJopa]

And yet they always try to build the trojan horse. It's nice for nostalgia value, but I'd like that cut, personally.

Yeah, I never build it, AI can't use it, and besides, Trojan reference does not really fit Erebus. It was nice in FFH1 but now we have much, much richer lore and more toys to play with and Trojan Horse has no use.

 

[marioflag]

I would like to see Chariots as UU for some of the civs and cut them to all other civs

 

[Blackmantle]

Thanks alot for listening to our doubts and considering them + communicate to us in a very timely manner.
Hard to find among developers these days, sadly.
One of the reasons i not only like the mod but also the forums alot.

Another small thing about horse archers: requiring Archery further "weakens" them (aka the Stirups tech) further since Hunters are on the way then.
(and those by themselves nearly beat Horse Archers on their own. Especially for Svarts and/or civs with early acess to poisoned blades. Even though that's rather situational akin to homeland / horselord and agressive traits) not to mention rangers + assassins (+ Satyrs for FoL civs which complement the Recon line to an all in one goodness covering all roles in the game save raiding or stack-busting.), which techs combined are still cheaper than Stirups i believe (or at least comparable in costs) and about the most interesting Units in Tier 3 for quite some civs (especially if those 2 / all 3 are combined.).

Another possible idea to beef up Horse Archers and simplify the tech-tree: Axe Stirups and relocate those mounted bow-users to Bowyers (The AI is rather fond of that tech and given its cost + that tech needs further improvement still imo.). That might also help to make the archery line more interesting to the players and reward the rather archer-liking leaders with something other than straight out city defense.... (if you also cut the cost of bowyers by 1/3 to 2/3 of its current cost you might get many players to go down that line for a change...)

 

[Ploeperpengel]

Kael's crazy. And i think that the original poster was talking about war chariots, not normal chariots? I say keep war chariots as UU's for the hippus (cut for rest), and keep chariots for all civs (maybe they can only fight on flat terrain?)

I agree here.

Another benefit would be we don't need to worry about the hazzle to make all those warchariot models. We already have a couple of chariots but not many warchariots. Given that chariots probably need the most work per unit and warchariots don't add much to the game I'd say cut them(but keep the ancient chariots).

Maybe give Knights some more value as well.

 

[Nor'easter]

I like TheJopa's suggestion of splitting the mounted line into light and heavy. My suggestion would be to keep chariots as an early game mounted unit, upgradeable into the light or heavy line first-tier unit.

You could actually consider splitting mounted units into three lines: heavy cavalry, light cavalry, and horse archers, with national units at the culmination of each. Chariots would upgrade into the first-tier unit of each line. And war chariots, although they can be fun to play with, don't make sense as a late-game powerful mounted unit, for the historical reasons others have mentioned.

 

[Fafnir13]

Chariots on the other hand i use regularly as most civs (still far from exclusively with either Priests / Recon or Melee forming the Main army.) because the tech they are available at is really interesting for many reasons (and even easier to reach now with an alternate route ) which i doubt need explaining.
+ They are usable both for fast fighting in the field and fast hit and run raids relative to the time they appear.
So they have a real value beyond fluff. The same counts for War Chariots with being the earliest Tier 4 unit in the game closely beating Beastmasters.

Thank you for this most eloquent statement. I couldn't agree more.

 

[JeffSteel]

Having read this topic, I am also inclined to side with those who favor splitting the mounted line along light raiders and heavy hitters. Presumably the lights would have high mobility, and withdraw chance. Maybe put shadow riders here, or whatever those Esus knights are called. The heavies would have greater base strength and could use weapons. Since this would likely take some effort and complicate things even more, this could be compensated for by cutting out chariots, which were phased out of military use once mounted horsemen were introduced anyway. So I voted for cutting chariots.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I think chariots should be the first mounted unit available ( horseback riding + construction ? ) .

horsemen should come later, with Stirrups, and then Horse archers with Stirrups+archery.

War Chariots should get collateral damage and Knights should get higher strength.

 

[Guale]

I had the same idea about splitting into heavy and light as soon as I read the opening post. Give the light units lower strength, +1 movement, and extra withdrawl and definately move the horse archer to this line. Give the heavy units higher strength, the current 3 movement, leave them all at 25% withdrawl, and let them use weapons.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Actually, it could make more sense for Chariots to come before Horseback Ridding. You aren't ridding on their backs after all, just sitting in something dragged behind them. How about requiring Animal Husbandry and Construction?

I tend to think that basic Horsemen should stay at horseback ridding. People rode horses for many centuries before the invention of stirrups, but were restricted to largely recon roles because they could not easily use the horse's weight in a charge in addition to their own, or stand up to aim their bows better.

 

[OzzyKP]

Cut, cut, cut!

 

[Monkeyfinger]

As the mounted line currently looks Chariots need to stay, as they are. They're the best mounted unit in the game, with 2 highly useful, relatively low cost techs as prereqs, and the same overall strength as horse archers when you get iron, only better overall because attack is more valuable for a unit like that than defense is.

If the mounted line is going to be tweaked, than I can't comment because I don't know what the changes will be like.

Voted keep.