1. Horse Breeding already leads to Calvary Tactics through Flintlock tech. Having it would be redundant. Vokarya did a great job of reducing redundant tech requirements.
Ok. I was just tossing ideas about a bit haphazardly there.
2. Chariots ARE stronger than early mounted units. Remember the Horseman / Camel Rider / Elephant Rider comes BEFORE Chariots. Its later that you get Mounted Infantry and then Horse Archers. It basically goes ...
Horseman -> Early Chariot -> Chariot -> Chariot Archer -> Mounted Infantry -> Horse Archer
Note that they are on separate lines so those is more in the tech order than the upgrade order. There are 3 lines ...
Horseman -> Mounted Infantry ->
Chariot Archer -> Horse Archer ->
Early Chariot -> Chariot -> War Wagon ->
Each have their own specializations.
Yet I'd suggest it be more like:
Horseman -> Horse Archer -> Early Chariot -> Chariot -> Chariot Archer -> Mounted Infantry
How hard can it be for people to figure out how to ride and fire a bow after archery and riding have been figured out? I might even put Horse Archer before early chariot. When I think of horse archers, the early mongols or huns come to mind, perhaps early classical age. When I think Mounted Infantry I think Early Medieval. By then, the 'fast' horse was put much less to use than the heavy warhorse. Even the lighter horse units were still enamored of putting more heavily armored warriors on them as armor was the in-thing at that point.
I would put these like this:
Horseman -> Mounted Infantry ->
Horse Archer -> Chariot Archer ->
Early Chariot -> Chariot -> War Wagon ->
3. I think if anything the Horse Archer (and Horse Crossbowman) should be buffed if you think they are not useful enough where they are.
Horse Crossbowmen would be another issue, far stronger as a result of extending the use of the crossbow to the horse. Horse Longbowmen or a
stronger form of horse archer seems in order to match that progression as well.
Here is a timeline ...
X17 = Horseman (6)
X24 = Early Chariot (4) and Chariot Archer (4)
X25 = Chariot (5)
X28 = Mounted Infantry (7)
X30 = Horse Archer (8)
X31 = Crossbow Horseman (8) and Light Calvary (8)
X32 = War Wagon (8)
X38 = Heavy Calvary (13)
X39 = Knight (11)
X40 = Mailed Knight (14)
X43 = Siege Wagon (12) and Cuirassier (15)
X45 = Dragoon (16)
X46 = Carabanier (21) and Lancer (18)
X52 = Calvary (27)
X63 = Trench Calvary (33)
Horsemen may be (6) but they have contemporaries, elephant riders for example, that have 7. This may be what's throwing things out of whack a bit.
I'd move the horse archer before the early chariot (why would they learn to fire from a chariot before learning to fire from a horse anyhow? Wouldn't mastering the art of firing a bow from horseback be a step more immediately developed after archery and riding were both known?) Put the Horse Archer at 7 and give no greater upgrade for those 7 pt riding units at that stage. Add more withdraw for the horse archer so that becomes their greatest strength.
And the Chariots seem very under strength for a base, regardless of the adjustments they may be getting. The Chariot should grow to 8 str AND have the modifiers as Koshling stated them, which seem appropriate to me (and penalties for terrains they should not be fighting in still.) Spears would still trounce them but would be challenged to do so.
You missed taking note of the stronger alternative riding units like the War Elephant and such and that should come soon after the chariot has its time in the sun as a great counter to those units, even though spears do a moderate job of matching them.
Being strong against melee is a poor advantage when pretty much all strong units in the era are something else. Horsemen, Javelineers, Town Watchmen, Archers and Rangers are all more desirable than Axemen, and of those the only melee are Javelineers (Which is weird actually, since they upgrade from and to archery units), which have an inherent bonus against mounted. This means that Horsemen are far stronger in practice than Chariots.
THIS is why its necessary to have a throwing class... we can't figure out if they should be archers or melee and neither is a good fit!
Terrain/feature attacks stack with combat type attack modifiers, so the effect would be +75% vs melee in plains/grass, +50% vs everything else.
I also agree that other flat terrains could be added potentially (though I'm not sure about desert - wheels in sand don't work too well generally unless they are rather specialized - very wide generally)
Loving it. And if you keep the penalties associated with negative terrains they become extremely well suited where they should apply and poorly suited where they shouldn't... which would be fitting as they probably were the most terrain dependent military in all history as far as effectiveness was concerned.
You are confusing dunes and desert. Egypt did quite well in desert with chariots.
Agreed.
The Chariot should only have +25% or so vs Melee IMO, and +15% vs Horses. That way Spears are very clearly singled out as their counter.
With the terrain benefits, I agree completely. They offered some protection for their riders over what a horse unit alone would offer at the cost of some reduced mobility and the spinning spikes out the sides of the wheels would take a horse's legs off if a rider got too close on the flank. Plus the passenger in a more advanced chariot was a dedicated warrior leaving the driver to maneuver and combined, they had a bit more ability to address threats than a rider who had to also manage the horse as well as his weapon. But their big weakness was their terrain vulnerabilities and again... a little less maneuverability which full on riders could turn to their advantage, thus the minimum bonus vs mounted would be understandable.
just one of my neighbors civ?
I have 5 cities and all of them have a minimum of 20???? And i am running on LOW % now
