Arcite36575
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2003
- Messages
- 119
Cut, cut, cut!
yes! yes! Yes!
Chariots: Cut or Keep?
- Thread starter Kael
- Start date
yes! yes! Yes!
I also really like the light/heavy cavalry idea. To expand a little on what was said before, horse archer could keep current stats (this would be your light cavalry), you'd just need to add a stronger NU horse archer to replace war chariot.
Then replace chariot with a heavy cavalry that is say 6/4 attack/defense plus all weapon upgrades, but only 2 speed and no withdrawal (might want to bar it from getting mobility II and flanking promotions). Compare to champion - 6/6 plus weapon upgrades, 1 speed, receives defensive bonuses, can get city raider promotions and natural 25% vs. melees. You would probably want to move it a little higher in the tech tree than chariot is now, but keep in mind you still need to go down the melee line for weapon upgrades to get full use of this unit. This would of course upgrade to knight, whose stats you'd want to adjust (speed 2/no withdrawal, higher strength).
This gives the mounted line a viable champion alternative that's different enough not to simply be a champion-clone (heavy cavalry), but they still have a fast raider with withdrawal for pillaging and softening enemy defenses (horse archer/light cavalry).
Then replace chariot with a heavy cavalry that is say 6/4 attack/defense plus all weapon upgrades, but only 2 speed and no withdrawal (might want to bar it from getting mobility II and flanking promotions). Compare to champion - 6/6 plus weapon upgrades, 1 speed, receives defensive bonuses, can get city raider promotions and natural 25% vs. melees. You would probably want to move it a little higher in the tech tree than chariot is now, but keep in mind you still need to go down the melee line for weapon upgrades to get full use of this unit. This would of course upgrade to knight, whose stats you'd want to adjust (speed 2/no withdrawal, higher strength).
This gives the mounted line a viable champion alternative that's different enough not to simply be a champion-clone (heavy cavalry), but they still have a fast raider with withdrawal for pillaging and softening enemy defenses (horse archer/light cavalry).
blacknight
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 56
I note that many people are comparing the mounted line unfavorably to the recon line, saying everything mounted can do recon can do better, earlier, and with side benefits. I think this says more about the recon line that the mounted line, and would really like to see all recon units above scout lose a point of strength and gain sentry, better withdraw, and/or ignore terrain movement costs. Just food for thought.
PS - What is the reasoning behind hunters being a prereq for archers? They are better in so many ways, I have a hard time justifying the cost of researching and building archery rangers then archers even with their new abilities.
PS - What is the reasoning behind hunters being a prereq for archers? They are better in so many ways, I have a hard time justifying the cost of researching and building archery rangers then archers even with their new abilities.
Its hard to say what is best for the game, but I do know something about history. Of course, FfH is a fantasy game and we can change history.
Early Chariots
Chariot technology was developed in many places around the world in stone and bronze age civilizations. In the Iliad, we see chariots mostly used for transportation and somewhat for mobile attacks. The chariots would have a driver, and the non-driver then would throw a spear. He would then either dismount and fight on foot, or repeat the tactic. Note it then takes multiple people to launch an attack. Also, chariots were used to recover wounded on the field.
The Assyrians made major use of chariots in their conquests. Most of the early iron age civilizations could not control large armies of foot soldiers, and they were dominated by an elite class that would use chariots.
As many people have said, they were pretty much useless unless on flat ground and badly unmaneuverable. Most people like the Hittites and the Assyrians had large three man chariots. The Egyptians, however, had a combined arms force and used lighter two man chariots.
In our tiny knowledge of the battle of Kadesh, it seems that the Egyptian two man chariots proved to be superior as being more maneuverable. It is also interesting to note that the battle was mostly an arrow and chariot battle, there was not a lot of fighting by the foot soldiers. So, we already see, even as unwieldy as chariots are, that mobility in open spaces was critical.
At this point, there were few 'horsemen'. The Romans had a class of 'equities' who fought on horse, and even the Greeks had a few horsemen, but the only group using horsemen as their major force at that point were the steppe nomads, originally the Scythians (and then the Sarmatians). In the far east, there were other nomad horse riders. They were considered the best horsemen, fighting directly from horseback using bows.
However, at this point, chariots could be used as shock troops, while cavalry could only be used as a light force, with bows or as classic light cavalry.
One ominous note was the ancient dark ages. The Hittites and the Middle East were overrun by a group called the 'Sea Peoples'. Militarily, how did this group defeat the Hittite Chariots? Many historians feel that they were something rare in the ancient world, a real infantry army that was large and they potentially could defeat an elite army of chariots. The Egyptians defeated the Sea People, ironically, at sea.
Later Chariots
The Persians had a force of scythed chariots, that were their main shock force. Indeed, it appears that Darius III's biggest error was relying on these potentially devastating weapons against Alexander. We can imagine their power against the various groups bordering the huge Persian empire; but they were a total disaster against Alexander. Alexander had what we would view as professional troops. They simply opened up their lines as the scythed chariots just rolled through; once the chariots lost momentum, they were slaughtered by the Greeks.
The Celts in Britain also used chariots mostly for shock. Celtic warfare was often badly coordinated, and the chariots were useful since their inability to coordinate was not so much of a burden. However, against the disciplined Romans, there performed poorly.
The Rise of Cavalry
During Roman times, there were always powerful armies to the East. The Parthians occupied what we now think of as Persia; they were a Sarmatian tribe that had their roots in the steppes. The Romans always had the upper hand, slightly, but they had a tough time. In particular, the Battle of Carrhae was a disaster. It is interesting to see the usual Roman tactic of handling horse cavalry -- it was to go into Testudo (turtle) formation and wait for the enemy to run out of arrows!
In the early third century, the Romans had a new, greater problem -- the Parthians were overthrown by the Persians. Also skilled horsemen, they had a central taxation system, advanced culture, etc. Rome and Persia fought incessantly for the next few centuries even though it was clear neither could defeat the other.
The stirrup is usually given the credit for changing cavalry to the dominant military arm. Clearly, the stirrup was a critical invention. However, we must also recognize that between the stone age to the late iron age we had also breakthroughs in animal husbandry, care of horses, armor and shoes for horses, fletching and the testing of the best feathers, arrows, bows for shooting from horseback, cavalry tactics, and perhaps other improvements.
In the late fourth century, the 'key' battle of Hadrianople is often cited as the period that cavalry surpassed infantry, as the Gothic cavalry simply rode down the Roman infantry. Of course, these weren't the Romans of Caesar or Trajan, but cavalry was here to stay.
At this point, we do often see heavy differentiation of cavalry into archery cavalry, classic light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and even medium cavalry. The Byzantine army had cataphracts, who trained to fight on horseback but also dismount.
The absolute masters of cavalry warfare were the Mongols. Their coordination, combined arms, and tactics (including a series of dirty tricks) are almost unbelievable. By this time (12th century), we see all kinds of fancy innovations: silk shirts to reduce arrow damage, groups for care and feeding of extra horses and rotation, special arrows (they had armor piercing arrows, arrows for high shots, etc.), specialized fletcher's and arrow makers, etc.
Conclusions
Chariots were useful early for mobility, especially in periods of non-professional soldiers.
Early chariots were used mostly for light use, but more organized armies like the Assyrians used them for shock. The Persians used them this way.
Early cavalry was more maneuverable and therefore superior, although it was hard to fire bows from horseback.
Substantial technical innovations for cavalry had them advance as a force of warfare. Chariots are obsolete. The stirrup were a key development.
By the late 4th century, cavalry had risen to the dominant arm and a great variety of cavalry was available.
Cavalry flavors advance to specialization, and can be used for shock, archery, and light purposes and other specialization.
In the Game
I think regular BtS does a pretty good job for a simplistic game. Chariots are introduced early where they can be useful. They are supplanted by light cavalry and then knights.
The biggest problem I have with the use of cavalry in BtS is far more complex, namely that city combat is far more important and therefore cavalry appears less important perhaps than it should be. Also, with horseback riding as a dead end tech, it loses its appeal.
As far as FfH goes, I do like the idea of having a heavy and light track, or perhaps an archery vs. non-archery track and have the differentiation coming from upgrade choices. I also think that chariots should be an early game choice and true cavalry later.
Personally, I think that cavalry should be made stronger in the open; they should be tougher than the the scout-hunter line. Perhaps they should get a big bonus for fighting on grasslands or plains to offset their disadvantage in cities.
Best wishes,
Breunor
Early Chariots
Chariot technology was developed in many places around the world in stone and bronze age civilizations. In the Iliad, we see chariots mostly used for transportation and somewhat for mobile attacks. The chariots would have a driver, and the non-driver then would throw a spear. He would then either dismount and fight on foot, or repeat the tactic. Note it then takes multiple people to launch an attack. Also, chariots were used to recover wounded on the field.
The Assyrians made major use of chariots in their conquests. Most of the early iron age civilizations could not control large armies of foot soldiers, and they were dominated by an elite class that would use chariots.
As many people have said, they were pretty much useless unless on flat ground and badly unmaneuverable. Most people like the Hittites and the Assyrians had large three man chariots. The Egyptians, however, had a combined arms force and used lighter two man chariots.
In our tiny knowledge of the battle of Kadesh, it seems that the Egyptian two man chariots proved to be superior as being more maneuverable. It is also interesting to note that the battle was mostly an arrow and chariot battle, there was not a lot of fighting by the foot soldiers. So, we already see, even as unwieldy as chariots are, that mobility in open spaces was critical.
At this point, there were few 'horsemen'. The Romans had a class of 'equities' who fought on horse, and even the Greeks had a few horsemen, but the only group using horsemen as their major force at that point were the steppe nomads, originally the Scythians (and then the Sarmatians). In the far east, there were other nomad horse riders. They were considered the best horsemen, fighting directly from horseback using bows.
However, at this point, chariots could be used as shock troops, while cavalry could only be used as a light force, with bows or as classic light cavalry.
One ominous note was the ancient dark ages. The Hittites and the Middle East were overrun by a group called the 'Sea Peoples'. Militarily, how did this group defeat the Hittite Chariots? Many historians feel that they were something rare in the ancient world, a real infantry army that was large and they potentially could defeat an elite army of chariots. The Egyptians defeated the Sea People, ironically, at sea.
Later Chariots
The Persians had a force of scythed chariots, that were their main shock force. Indeed, it appears that Darius III's biggest error was relying on these potentially devastating weapons against Alexander. We can imagine their power against the various groups bordering the huge Persian empire; but they were a total disaster against Alexander. Alexander had what we would view as professional troops. They simply opened up their lines as the scythed chariots just rolled through; once the chariots lost momentum, they were slaughtered by the Greeks.
The Celts in Britain also used chariots mostly for shock. Celtic warfare was often badly coordinated, and the chariots were useful since their inability to coordinate was not so much of a burden. However, against the disciplined Romans, there performed poorly.
The Rise of Cavalry
During Roman times, there were always powerful armies to the East. The Parthians occupied what we now think of as Persia; they were a Sarmatian tribe that had their roots in the steppes. The Romans always had the upper hand, slightly, but they had a tough time. In particular, the Battle of Carrhae was a disaster. It is interesting to see the usual Roman tactic of handling horse cavalry -- it was to go into Testudo (turtle) formation and wait for the enemy to run out of arrows!
In the early third century, the Romans had a new, greater problem -- the Parthians were overthrown by the Persians. Also skilled horsemen, they had a central taxation system, advanced culture, etc. Rome and Persia fought incessantly for the next few centuries even though it was clear neither could defeat the other.
The stirrup is usually given the credit for changing cavalry to the dominant military arm. Clearly, the stirrup was a critical invention. However, we must also recognize that between the stone age to the late iron age we had also breakthroughs in animal husbandry, care of horses, armor and shoes for horses, fletching and the testing of the best feathers, arrows, bows for shooting from horseback, cavalry tactics, and perhaps other improvements.
In the late fourth century, the 'key' battle of Hadrianople is often cited as the period that cavalry surpassed infantry, as the Gothic cavalry simply rode down the Roman infantry. Of course, these weren't the Romans of Caesar or Trajan, but cavalry was here to stay.
At this point, we do often see heavy differentiation of cavalry into archery cavalry, classic light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and even medium cavalry. The Byzantine army had cataphracts, who trained to fight on horseback but also dismount.
The absolute masters of cavalry warfare were the Mongols. Their coordination, combined arms, and tactics (including a series of dirty tricks) are almost unbelievable. By this time (12th century), we see all kinds of fancy innovations: silk shirts to reduce arrow damage, groups for care and feeding of extra horses and rotation, special arrows (they had armor piercing arrows, arrows for high shots, etc.), specialized fletcher's and arrow makers, etc.
Conclusions
Chariots were useful early for mobility, especially in periods of non-professional soldiers.
Early chariots were used mostly for light use, but more organized armies like the Assyrians used them for shock. The Persians used them this way.
Early cavalry was more maneuverable and therefore superior, although it was hard to fire bows from horseback.
Substantial technical innovations for cavalry had them advance as a force of warfare. Chariots are obsolete. The stirrup were a key development.
By the late 4th century, cavalry had risen to the dominant arm and a great variety of cavalry was available.
Cavalry flavors advance to specialization, and can be used for shock, archery, and light purposes and other specialization.
In the Game
I think regular BtS does a pretty good job for a simplistic game. Chariots are introduced early where they can be useful. They are supplanted by light cavalry and then knights.
The biggest problem I have with the use of cavalry in BtS is far more complex, namely that city combat is far more important and therefore cavalry appears less important perhaps than it should be. Also, with horseback riding as a dead end tech, it loses its appeal.
As far as FfH goes, I do like the idea of having a heavy and light track, or perhaps an archery vs. non-archery track and have the differentiation coming from upgrade choices. I also think that chariots should be an early game choice and true cavalry later.
Personally, I think that cavalry should be made stronger in the open; they should be tougher than the the scout-hunter line. Perhaps they should get a big bonus for fighting on grasslands or plains to offset their disadvantage in cities.
Best wishes,
Breunor
I recall that Alpha Centauri's mobile units (whatever the first ones were . . . pre-hovertank) got a big bonus to fighting in flatlands, which made them useful for hit-and-runs against the enemy.
Maybe something similar (echoing Breunor)?
Maybe something similar (echoing Breunor)?
Suggestion: make them Griffon riders.
The Empyrean religion is kinda boring / sucky right now. Shiny Griffon knights (give the Griffons golden armor like Knight's horse armor) would make it a lot more tempting.
Nikis-Knight
Deity
Before we had 4 high end mounted units:
War chariots, with high offense, lower defense, and early availibility
Camel Archers, with higher withdrawl
War Elephants, with a bonus against other mounted units (a vanilla holdover?)
& Knights, cavalry generalists, no real disadvantages other than late availibility & tech costs (with a very high and tech requirement at the time)
Now we just have the War Chariots and Knights, and their roles have converged, though their techs remain distinct, leaving knights with little appeal, other than the joy of fielding knights, which probably isn't enough for anyone else other than me.
I would prefer to still have two high-end options, though magic and divine tech lines have been unified from two to one each without too much loss. If one or the other (leave Knights in, even if they are just placed where War Chariots were anyway; knights are synonymous with fantasy!) were taken out, I think horse archers should be strengthened slightly to keep a decent cavalry force an option.
War chariots could be made the Arquebusiers of the mounted line; weaker than T4s in general but without limit.
I don't really favor giving them (WC's) collateral; that weakens the role of seige and makes berserkers less special.
Another option would be to have the second mounted unit more variable; most civs would have Knights (except the Clan, I suppose), while some civs would have War Chariots, Dwarves perhaps, some would have elephants, some light cavalry & so forth. But that's probably a lot of work to make interesting & useful overall.
War chariots, with high offense, lower defense, and early availibility
Camel Archers, with higher withdrawl
War Elephants, with a bonus against other mounted units (a vanilla holdover?)
& Knights, cavalry generalists, no real disadvantages other than late availibility & tech costs (with a very high and tech requirement at the time)
Now we just have the War Chariots and Knights, and their roles have converged, though their techs remain distinct, leaving knights with little appeal, other than the joy of fielding knights, which probably isn't enough for anyone else other than me.
I would prefer to still have two high-end options, though magic and divine tech lines have been unified from two to one each without too much loss. If one or the other (leave Knights in, even if they are just placed where War Chariots were anyway; knights are synonymous with fantasy!) were taken out, I think horse archers should be strengthened slightly to keep a decent cavalry force an option.
War chariots could be made the Arquebusiers of the mounted line; weaker than T4s in general but without limit.
I don't really favor giving them (WC's) collateral; that weakens the role of seige and makes berserkers less special.
Another option would be to have the second mounted unit more variable; most civs would have Knights (except the Clan, I suppose), while some civs would have War Chariots, Dwarves perhaps, some would have elephants, some light cavalry & so forth. But that's probably a lot of work to make interesting & useful overall.
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
now that I think of it, War Elephants would be great as a mounted NU. or at least be buildable 
blacknight
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 56
@Breunor: Thanks very much for the insight. Very helpful.
@Nikis-Knight: I must say I strongly disagree with making War Chariots the "Arquebusiers of the mounted line" without a national limit. I feel this is the opposite of the direction the game should go. Due to this being a fantasy game I do not mind (and actually enjoy) occasional powerful chariots, elephants, camels, or zerglings. My problem with them is that they are too generally useful, and every mobile armies first choice (a place it seems the knight should hold). I feel chariots are special, and should certainly not be a weapon that is mass produced!
I miss war elephants and would be happy to see their return, though they would most likely fill the same roles as knights. Gryphon riders would be fun as a high end horse archer...
Mounted unit's bonus vs Archers makes them, illogically, best at attacking cities. Though cavalry is often shown as good against archers, maybe they should lose their bonus for this reason.
While we are at it, cavalry should be great at hunting recon units, but currently are no better than anything else. In my humble opinion, giving horsemen and knights a 40% bonus vs recon in place of the bonus vs archers would go towards making FFH2 an even better game than it already is.
Cheers,
@Nikis-Knight: I must say I strongly disagree with making War Chariots the "Arquebusiers of the mounted line" without a national limit. I feel this is the opposite of the direction the game should go. Due to this being a fantasy game I do not mind (and actually enjoy) occasional powerful chariots, elephants, camels, or zerglings. My problem with them is that they are too generally useful, and every mobile armies first choice (a place it seems the knight should hold). I feel chariots are special, and should certainly not be a weapon that is mass produced!
I miss war elephants and would be happy to see their return, though they would most likely fill the same roles as knights. Gryphon riders would be fun as a high end horse archer...
Mounted unit's bonus vs Archers makes them, illogically, best at attacking cities. Though cavalry is often shown as good against archers, maybe they should lose their bonus for this reason.
While we are at it, cavalry should be great at hunting recon units, but currently are no better than anything else. In my humble opinion, giving horsemen and knights a 40% bonus vs recon in place of the bonus vs archers would go towards making FFH2 an even better game than it already is.
Cheers,
I'm glad that some people like the splitting of mounted into light and heavy branch. Chariots could be made into either light (chariot archer) or heavy cavalry replacement for certain civs. Also, horse archer should gain defensive strike ability, and his position in upgrade tree should be consistent- it shouldn't flip back and forth between sword user, archer and chariot.
EmptyWolf
Priest of Winter
After seeing all the discussion and Kael's reasons for considering removing Chariots, and some more thought on the subject beyond the initial shock of suggesting chariots be removed... my opinion has changed to thinking it would be more efficient to cut chariots if they continue to offer little more than a few extra knights, and simply allowing more knights would be nearly the same as it is now with chariots. But I would hate to see Chariots go just like that and I still think it's possible for chariots to be reworked somehow to stay in FFH. Perhaps they could be moved and adjusted to fill one of the weaker parts of the mounted lines? Or the Hippus getting it as another UU as other(s) suggested. There's plenty of ways it could be put to use. And the mounted line could use some changes, as many seem to dislike it for various reasons.
However removing chariots means a small problem for the Lanun who have the awesomely defending war tortoise (and yes I know it sees rather limited field use), although that unit could still be kept in for the Lanun.
However removing chariots means a small problem for the Lanun who have the awesomely defending war tortoise (and yes I know it sees rather limited field use), although that unit could still be kept in for the Lanun.
While War chariots are a bit confusing in the balance area, chariots themselves are the answer to a siege oriented build. It's the only mobility you get going for the economic and construction tech lines while heading for golems.
I mostly skip cavalry outside of certain scenarios that either involve a 10% boost to withdrawal via horselord and defender, or occasionally the wonderful raider trait. As Hippus I use the traditional cavalry for flanking promoted damage spell alternatives, the chariots are my long range hammers.
If you took away their access to flanking, it would really differentiate them. The standard chariot would lose a little versatility, and the war chariot would be a lot less powerful than it is now. They're already far less powerful with that 10% boost, but you need all three promotions before you really start missing that extra flanking that the normal cavalry have.
I mostly skip cavalry outside of certain scenarios that either involve a 10% boost to withdrawal via horselord and defender, or occasionally the wonderful raider trait. As Hippus I use the traditional cavalry for flanking promoted damage spell alternatives, the chariots are my long range hammers.
If you took away their access to flanking, it would really differentiate them. The standard chariot would lose a little versatility, and the war chariot would be a lot less powerful than it is now. They're already far less powerful with that 10% boost, but you need all three promotions before you really start missing that extra flanking that the normal cavalry have.
far_wanderer
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 454
First, my serious suggestion from the thread this poll came from (didn't notice the discussion had moved here when I first posted)
Having gotten than out of the way, I have a far more unusual suggestion for refining the mounted line: Keep Chariots (and War Chariots), but keep only them. Replace all other mounted units with a single 'horse' unit that can be sacrificed to give the 'mounted' promotion to melee, archery, arcane, and disciple units. +2 movement, 20% withdrawal chance, but no more defensive bonuses. It would be required for the Flanking promotions. Hippus could get a unique version of the horse unit that gives a bigger bonus (and/or that is significantly cheaper to produce).
That also opens things up for more unusual mounts, each imparting an improved version of the mounted promotion. Griffons could give a flying version, Elephants a strength boost but no withdrawal chance, and so forth. Elves could have the option to use deer, and Dwarves could have boars (both the same as horses, but with different resource requirements).
Depending on just how in-depth you wanted to get, you could have Spider mounts (only +1 move but adding fear, or possibly mountain climbing), Sea Serpents (Like Elephants, but with Water Walking), and use captured animals as a mount option for people that don't have any access to horses.
With this method you get rid of the problem that most mounted units (especially with the suggestions to make War Chariots do collateral) are simply melee units with a higher cost, a withdrawal chance, and no defensive bonuses. Plus, the actual 'mounted' unit category could be optimized to represent chariots.
Spoiler :
Having gotten than out of the way, I have a far more unusual suggestion for refining the mounted line: Keep Chariots (and War Chariots), but keep only them. Replace all other mounted units with a single 'horse' unit that can be sacrificed to give the 'mounted' promotion to melee, archery, arcane, and disciple units. +2 movement, 20% withdrawal chance, but no more defensive bonuses. It would be required for the Flanking promotions. Hippus could get a unique version of the horse unit that gives a bigger bonus (and/or that is significantly cheaper to produce).
That also opens things up for more unusual mounts, each imparting an improved version of the mounted promotion. Griffons could give a flying version, Elephants a strength boost but no withdrawal chance, and so forth. Elves could have the option to use deer, and Dwarves could have boars (both the same as horses, but with different resource requirements).
Depending on just how in-depth you wanted to get, you could have Spider mounts (only +1 move but adding fear, or possibly mountain climbing), Sea Serpents (Like Elephants, but with Water Walking), and use captured animals as a mount option for people that don't have any access to horses.
With this method you get rid of the problem that most mounted units (especially with the suggestions to make War Chariots do collateral) are simply melee units with a higher cost, a withdrawal chance, and no defensive bonuses. Plus, the actual 'mounted' unit category could be optimized to represent chariots.
MaxAstro
Spiral Knight
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 645
*points at Patch F changelog* Looks like Kael has found a "best of both worlds" fix yet again. Overall, I'm glad to see the Mounted line get the huge overhaul it has been needing (can we do the archery line next, Kael? 
).
...Also curious about this new Kuriotate hero...
Overall, I'm glad to see the Mounted line get the huge overhaul it has been needing (can we do the archery line next, Kael? )....Also curious about this new Kuriotate hero...
Medicine_Man_55
Warlord
If you decide to cut chariots, just keep the ratha in, as a special anti-recon unit.
EmptyWolf
Priest of Winter
Great to see that Kael and the team yet again create order out of a mess. I'm surprised and very satisfied with the results. I can see a lot of thought and consideration was put into the current change (and for the better too!)
I did vote Kael is crazy, but it's that highly intelligent kind of crazy.
Cylnar
Enemy of corporatocracy
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 86
I voted to keep but modify. I personally use them in their current incarnation quite a bit...I find their ability to take metal weapons promos makes them more useful in most cases than horse archers.
What I would suggest after reading MagisterCultuum's post and Bruenor's dissertation is some fairly drastic changes for realism - which might, as Kael said earlier, mean "axe the unit":
1) Most civs would use chariots mostly as an early-game unit, replaced as they were in real life by mounted horsemen. To this end they should:
a) Only be allowed to move on flat, open terrain or roads;
b) Only allowed to attack on flat, open terrain or if that can't be done at least given a significant penalty to strength on non-flat and/or non-open terrain (like -50% or even more);
c) Reduced in cost (like to 35-50
) and base 
(maybe base 2 with +100% vs. melee units to equal 4 against the opponents they were made to counter) and made available at animal husbandry;
d) Tech prereq change suggestions: chariots would be upgradeable to horsemen at horseback riding (bonus vs. archery units should be replaced with bonus vs. melee units), horsemen could upgrade either to horse archers at stirrups and archery (archery should be removed as a prereq for stirrups as it's equally likely they could have evolved from the need for secure footing for guys using spears to stab their enemies and not be dismounted) or lancers (basically a weaker version of knight) at stirrups and military strategy. Knights would be the NU version/upgrade for lancers while cuirassiers/mounted arquebusiers would be the NU version/upgrade for horse archers.
2) The Hippus should never, ever, ever have chariots in any form! These guys live on horseback - not in horse-drawn carts, even carts modified for war! They should get a UU to replace chariots - perhaps a "mounted warrior" that gets base warrior of 3, +50% vs. melee units; this would make the Hippus slightly more powerful on horseback (4.5 vs. melee), as they should be.
3) Dwarves, with their technological prowess (and small stature) should use chariots exclusively instead of mounted troops! Actual horse-drawn chariots that is. As cute as the goat-chariot art is, any force of tall folk would laugh at goat-drawn chariots and in a plausible world, they would be right to. If the Khazad or Luchiurp want a mobile unit at all it makes more sense for them to use chariots - horseback is just too high off the ground! They could upgrade from regular chariot to medium chariot instead of horsemen and then to heavy chariot instead of lancer or chariot slingers instead of horse archer. And they would keep the war chariot to replace knight, with chariot arquebusiers to replace the mounted version. I can virtually guarantee no one would laugh at the sight of a force of dwarven heavy chariot thundering across the plain toward them...well, maybe just the first time when they saw the periscope assembly used to see over/around the horses... Though the best (and bravest) dwarven chariot commanders might have a step to stand on to see over the horses directly... Maybe they would innovate some sort of turreted arrangement like a tank...who knows. 
What I would suggest after reading MagisterCultuum's post and Bruenor's dissertation is some fairly drastic changes for realism - which might, as Kael said earlier, mean "axe the unit":
1) Most civs would use chariots mostly as an early-game unit, replaced as they were in real life by mounted horsemen. To this end they should:
a) Only be allowed to move on flat, open terrain or roads;
b) Only allowed to attack on flat, open terrain or if that can't be done at least given a significant penalty to strength on non-flat and/or non-open terrain (like -50% or even more);
c) Reduced in cost (like to 35-50
) and base (maybe base 2 with +100% vs. melee units to equal 4 against the opponents they were made to counter) and made available at animal husbandry;d) Tech prereq change suggestions: chariots would be upgradeable to horsemen at horseback riding (bonus vs. archery units should be replaced with bonus vs. melee units), horsemen could upgrade either to horse archers at stirrups and archery (archery should be removed as a prereq for stirrups as it's equally likely they could have evolved from the need for secure footing for guys using spears to stab their enemies and not be dismounted) or lancers (basically a weaker version of knight) at stirrups and military strategy. Knights would be the NU version/upgrade for lancers while cuirassiers/mounted arquebusiers would be the NU version/upgrade for horse archers.
2) The Hippus should never, ever, ever have chariots in any form! These guys live on horseback - not in horse-drawn carts, even carts modified for war! They should get a UU to replace chariots - perhaps a "mounted warrior" that gets base warrior
of 3, +50% vs. melee units; this would make the Hippus slightly more powerful on horseback (4.5 vs. melee), as they should be.3) Dwarves, with their technological prowess (and small stature) should use chariots exclusively instead of mounted troops! Actual horse-drawn chariots that is. As cute as the goat-chariot art is, any force of tall folk would laugh at goat-drawn chariots and in a plausible world, they would be right to. If the Khazad or Luchiurp want a mobile unit at all it makes more sense for them to use chariots - horseback is just too high off the ground! They could upgrade from regular chariot to medium chariot instead of horsemen and then to heavy chariot instead of lancer or chariot slingers instead of horse archer. And they would keep the war chariot to replace knight, with chariot arquebusiers to replace the mounted version. I can virtually guarantee no one would laugh at the sight of a force of dwarven heavy chariot thundering across the plain toward them...well, maybe just the first time when they saw the periscope assembly used to see over/around the horses...
Though the best (and bravest) dwarven chariot commanders might have a step to stand on to see over the horses directly... Maybe they would innovate some sort of turreted arrangement like a tank...who knows.
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
I think a Cuirassier ( mounted arquebusier ) would be great as a NU that upgrades from horse archers. quite flavourful and cool.
edit: btw, I really dig the changes to the Clan of Embers in patch F. I've always thought the Ogres belonged to the melee line. well done
edit: btw, I really dig the changes to the Clan of Embers in patch F. I've always thought the Ogres belonged to the melee line. well done
Humakty
Happy Goblin
I'd say not to cut, as one appeal of this mod to me is being able to have different armies at one point of the game. I very much like the diversity this mod offers on this point.
The only problem with chariots, apart the fact they are too powerfull from a realistic point of vue (see Breunor post), is that they come with trade and construction, which are two key research that don't need to give a powerfull and mobile unit.
The only problem with chariots, apart the fact they are too powerfull from a realistic point of vue (see Breunor post), is that they come with trade and construction, which are two key research that don't need to give a powerfull and mobile unit.
Similar threads
