Scythed Chariot Question

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Assuming that scythed chariots make it into EB2, (and why shouldn't they?) will they have one or two crewmen? In EB1 they had only a driver, which I found a bit odd since most war chariots had two crewmen, though I had assumed that since the chariot itself was the weapon and not just a transport machine for someone with a weapon, that wasn't necessarily all that weird. However, I'm curious to know which would be more historically accurate: a two-man scythed chariot or a one-man scythed chariot? And which would be featured in EB2, if either?

[Apázlinemjó]

I wonder too if they will be in EB, since game wise they were pretty useful against the tanks on the east.

[vartan]

What if you had quiver for javelins, quiver for arrows, and two to four people total on that chariot? or does M2TW only support primary and secondary weapons? In any case, if primary and secondary were composed of the javelin and the arrow, wouldn't that still constitute three weapons? That is, would the chariot still kill all in its path simply because it is modeled as such?

(I assume the answer is no, as the engine doesn't look at models; the intelligence isn't there. Rather, if at all semblant of RTW, the game looks at the data, and the data only holds two weapon slots. Shame shame.)

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

Yeah, not like M&B where you could carry 3 different weapons and a shield on horseback!

[Horatius Flaccus]

The Garamantine Chariots have two crewmen, so I assume the scythed chariots can also have two.

https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3950/55901437.jpg

[MeinPanzer]

The scythed chariot has a single driver as historical evidence hints that such chariots were manned by only one driver in the Achaemenid army. We don't know if this was the case for the Seleucids, but considering that the scythed chariot was adopted directly from the Persians, and the fact that they were shock vehicles and thus didn't need more than one driver, it seems likely.

[Megas Methuselah]

The scythed chariot has a single driver as historical evidence hints that such chariots were manned by only one driver in the Achaemenid army. We don't know if this was the case for the Seleucids, but considering that the scythed chariot was adopted directly from the Persians, and the fact that they were shock vehicles and thus didn't need more than one driver, it seems likely.

WOW, it's MeinPanzer!

[vartan]

WOW, it's MeinPanzer!
Banter.

I can see how the scythed chariots would each only require one driver. I guess I was thinking more of the war chariot. In the war chariot's case you would need a driver, and one or two other men. Perhaps three other men if you were Assyrian, haha. Then again, by the time we get to the Assyrians in the 9th century BCE we start seeing the use of cavalry as a war unit.

[Megas Methuselah]

MeinPanzer, it's great to see you back, man! I hope to see ya posting more often.

[geala]

A single driver would make sense in a chariot that is the weapon in itself. Without a second man on the vehicle you spare about 60 to 80 kg that you can invest in more armor and/or speed and movability. So there is very good argument that the later scythed chariots were also manned only by one person.

[jirisys]

Yes but, weren't they armed with a javelin thrower? I haven't read any detailed info about the Battle of Guamela (just the wikipedia article) so it is possible that there was a javalineer for skirmishing and long range attacks (they were weak against the pestalts of Alexander), please correct me if i'm wrong

~Jirisys

[Ludens]

I doubt the equipment of such chariots was standardized. Chariots were prestige weapons, so those who chose to employ them may have added a fighter even if it wasn't strictly necessary. However, I doubt that a single javelineer would have made much difference against determined light infantry. If the noise and the scythes didn't panic their assailants, a few javelins are not going to scare them off either.

[jirisys]

Well, my point wasn't to scare them, but to have a long range weapon, they had the scythes and horses, so why not a skirmisher?

~Jirisys

[Cute Wolf]

Well, my point wasn't to scare them, but to have a long range weapon, they had the scythes and horses, so why not a skirmisher?

~Jirisys

extra - unarmoured - skirmishers was actually a bad things, you could let them fall and see your own men start to experience morale drop... and heavily armoured skirmisher (as the driver do), will costs more, and not as effective, as the Ludens said.... so maybe they will stick on one man one car concept for that reason... maybe another skirmisher laden chariots was another unit perhaps ?

[jirisys]

True that, isn't there something (like pottery, a description, a sculpture or a relief) that ilustrates the scythed chariot (That was made in that epoch)?

[Ludens]

Well, my point wasn't to scare them, but to have a long range weapon, they had the scythes and horses, so why not a skirmisher?

And my point is the long-range weapon would be ineffective against determined light infantry, so why would they?


maybe another skirmisher laden chariots was another unit perhaps ?

If such a thing was necessary, they would have used ordinary cavalry for that. The chariot was definitely getting out-dated by EB's time-frame.

[Cute Wolf]

If such a thing was necessary, they would have used ordinary cavalry for that. The chariot was definitely getting out-dated by EB's time-frame.

I meant about how Chidainh would be portayed...... they are skirmisher laden chariots right?

[Lvcretivs]

...but only because the M2TW engine does not allow units dismounting on battlefield - their historical tactical role akin to mounted infantry combining both a chariot-based skirmish phase (I) and subsequent dismounted melee (II) - including the possibility of re-mounting chariots and redeploy (III) - sadly cannot be implemented. (cf. Caesar, de bello Gallico IV, 33:'(...)Primo per omnes partes perequitant et tela coiciunt atque ipso terrore equorum et strepitu rotarum ordines plerumque perturbant(I), et cum se inter equitum turmas insinuaverunt, ex essedis desiliunt et pedibus proeliantur(II). Aurigae interim paulatim ex proelio excedunt atque ita currus conlocant ut, si illi a multitudine hostium premantur, expeditum ad quos receptum habeant.(III)(...)"

[Ludens]

I meant about how Chidainh would be portayed...... they are skirmisher laden chariots right?

Ah, I see: I thought you meant that the Seleucids would have used other chariots to clear the way for the scythed ones. The Cidainh will presumably still be missile platforms. However, as Lvcretivs pointed out, they were also used to quickly deploy heavy infantry (battle taxis as it were). There were some ideas on how to implement this in R:TW, but even if they worked, I doubt the A.I. would be able to figure it out.

[jirisys]

Ah, I see: I thought you meant that the Seleucids would have used other chariots to clear the way for the scythed ones. The Cidainh will presumably still be missile platforms. However, as Lvcretivs pointed out, they were also used to quickly deploy heavy infantry (battle taxis as it were). There were some ideas on how to implement this in R:TW, but even if they worked, I doubt the A.I. would be able to figure it out.

If it would be made into a special ability (like the phalanx is being made), i doubt they'll use it, even in M2TW the ai doesn't use special abilities, not even flaming arrows, so it would be an unfair advantage to the player

~Jirisys (replying to Ludens)

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Okay, so the general consensus here seems to be that they were one-man vehicles.
Also, I recently read a description about the battle of Gaugamela in a book that said the chariots had only a driver, and that the Greeks used archers to pick off the chariots' drivers, thus making them useless. According to that book the charioteers also jumped off of the chariots just before they hit the enemy lines, though I find that idea somewhat unlikely, unless the guys had low morale and just didn't feel like dying.

[Cute Wolf]

Okay, so the general consensus here seems to be that they were one-man vehicles.
Also, I recently read a description about the battle of Gaugamela in a book that said the chariots had only a driver, and that the Greeks used archers to pick off the chariots' drivers, thus making them useless. According to that book the charioteers also jumped off of the chariots just before they hit the enemy lines, though I find that idea somewhat unlikely, unless the guys had low morale and just didn't feel like dying.

Ancient suicide car chariot bombs? oh yeah, they didn't want to doing suicide because the philoshopical system 2200 years ago was much less pessimistic and fatalistic than today...

[oudysseos]

Though there will be more chariots in EB II than in EB I, there is still a sever limiting factor to their use: as far as the game engine goes, they are really elephants with highly modified models and animations- but they will still behave like elephants. That restricts what we can do with them (getting them to skirmish correctly is proving difficult), so don't expect dozens of chariot units.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Ancient suicide car chariot bombs? oh yeah, they didn't want to doing suicide because the philoshopical system 2200 years ago was much less pessimistic and fatalistic than today...

Actually in most cases I doubt it would even be a suicide mission. Most of the time no one is going to try to take the guy in the chariot out unless they can reach him without being run down. The vehicle wasn't even meant to take the guys on up close, it was just supposed to run madly through the enemy line and get to the other side. So against most enemies the chariot probably could do its job.
But at Guagamela the chariots were used to attack the front of a Macedonian phalanx, and they were being shot at by archers, so that probably would have been a suicide mission. Of course, it was a suicide mission for almost everyone in the center of the Persian army. Not that it was supposed to be, it just ended up that way.


there will be more chariots in EB II than in EB I
As long as that's historically accurate, YAY!

[vartan]

Though there will be more chariots in EB II than in EB I, there is still a sever limiting factor to their use: as far as the game engine goes, they are really elephants with highly modified models and animations- but they will still behave like elephants. That restricts what we can do with them (getting them to skirmish correctly is proving difficult), so don't expect dozens of chariot units.
Why are the chariot companies based off elephant models instead of horse cavalry models?

[Zradha Pahlavan]

I know next to nothing about the modeling process, but my best guess is that the elephant unit models have a larger space around each individual elephant in the unit than the horse companies do for each individual horseman. Chariots, which need more room to turn than a dude on horseback, would need the extra space, hence using the elephant model as a base.

[vartan]

I know next to nothing about the modeling process, but my best guess is that the elephant unit models have a larger space around each individual elephant in the unit than the horse companies do for each individual horseman. Chariots, which need more room to turn than a dude on horseback, would need the extra space, hence using the elephant model as a base.
Regardless of the model, is there any mechanism in the game engine that allows you to modify unit spacing? I've heard of spacing as an attribute of units in EBI. Is this lacking in EBII?

[Ludens]

Regardless of the model, is there any mechanism in the game engine that allows you to modify unit spacing? I've heard of spacing as an attribute of units in EBI. Is this lacking in EBII?

I don't think spacing is the problem. Chariots are treated as elephants to represent the momentum of a chariot charge, as well as the capability fire missiles independently of moving. The melee attack is less important. Since chariots were used as missile rather than melee platforms, this was considered the least unrealistic option.

[vartan]

...as well as the capability fire missiles independently of moving...
And horse cavalry somehow seem to have no problem firing missiles even though they are on the move. What do you mean by momentum when it comes to the game? If we're talking about charge, that's just another variable number, right?

EDIT: Don't want to sound meticulous, just want to learn something.

[Megas Methuselah]

EDIT: Don't want to sound meticulous, just want to learn something.

I agree with you. The EB Team probably has a good reason I'd like to hear out.

[jirisys]

I agree with you. The EB Team probably has a good reason I'd like to hear out.

I bet it's because when you charge with cavalry, they stop, they have not enough force to penetrate easily, i mean, you can charge very powerfully, but eventually the troops would stop you, that is not the case with elephants, they are not stopped by infantry or cavalry due to their mass and (when charging) momentum, so it would be better applied to a chariot (since two horses + wheels + wooden plate = ripping through enemy lines very easily)

Side note: why don't you put the trait "Intimidates cavalry" to the spearmen (especially phalanxes) since horses are reluctant to charge into a wall of spears, just a suggestion

~Jirisys (Newton's second law states that the force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration; the relationship between the two is
F=ma where F is the net force applied, m is the mass of the body, and a is the body's acceleration. If the body is subject to multiple forces at the same time, then the net force is the vector sum of the individual forces:
F= F1+F2+...+Fn

The second law also states that the net force is equal to the time derivative of the body's momentum p:

F=ma=m(dv/dt) = dmv/dt = dp/dt where, since the law is valid only for constant-mass systems, the mass can be taken inside the differentiation operator by the constant factor rule in differentiation. Any mass that is gained or lost by the system will cause a change in momentum that is not the result of an external force. A different equation is necessary for variable-mass systems.

Consistent with the first law, the time derivative of the momentum is non-zero when the momentum changes direction, even if there is no change in its magnitude (see time derivative). The relationship also implies the conservation of momentum: when the net force on the body is zero, the momentum of the body is constant. This can be said easily. Net force is equal to rate of change of momentum for those who are unfamiliar with calculus.

Newton's second law requires modification if the effects of special relativity are to be taken into account, since it is no longer true that momentum is the product of inertial mass and velocity.... Ho...ly.... ****)

[A Very Super Market]

Units that scare other units have an area of effect. Giving all spearmen elephant-like ability to terrify cavalry would cause horses to get panicky just because a a few hoplites are several yards to their left. Obviously, this was not the case, or we would have graduated from horses and moved onto motor vehicles long ago.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

Can you change the area of effect? If so, then it might be possible to better portray certain units' fear, i.e. make the spearmen's fear zone very small.

[jirisys]

Can you change the area of effect? If so, then it might be possible to better portray certain units' fear, i.e. make the spearmen's fear zone very small.

Or move it in front of them maybe? if it was possible, anyway, the response to vartan and megas meth is the post #31

~Jirisys (hating mad bodyguard charges in front of hoplites, and hoping to stop 'em)

[A Very Super Market]

Can you change the area of effect? If so, then it might be possible to better portray certain units' fear, i.e. make the spearmen's fear zone very small.

Real Cavalry won't charge a tight and ready formation, but totally destroy a scattered unit.

I don't think the "Scary unit" effect differentiates based on formation. So your cavalry would be scared even if half the spearmen were off having a siesta. And it isn't as if horses can't fight in the midst of spearmen. They just don't like to run into them, which isn't a proper allegory of the game's morale. It would also cause cavalry units in combat with other unit types, say Slingers, to get scared if a few spearmen wandered by close enough. Besides which, why would the fear effect be needed? It isn't as if cavalry have any trouble dying if you charge them straight into a phalanx.

[jirisys]

Real Cavalry won't charge a tight and ready formation, but totally destroy a scattered unit.

I don't think the "Scary unit" effect differentiates based on formation. So your cavalry would be scared even if half the spearmen were off having a siesta. And it isn't as if horses can't fight in the midst of spearmen. They just don't like to run into them, which isn't a proper allegory of the game's morale. It would also cause cavalry units in combat with other unit types, say Slingers, to get scared if a few spearmen wandered by close enough. Besides which, why would the fear effect be needed? It isn't as if cavalry have any trouble dying if you charge them straight into a phalanx.

umm but what if you use a hoplitai (regular, ekdromoi, spartiates, or haploi) then it would be greater the damage, let's not talk about bodyguard damage too, and i find it unrealistic, but maybe an EB member can clarify this more properly

~Jirisys (THIS IS SPARTA!!!!! *flies off when a seleukid Somatophylakes Strategou charges to his front)

[A Very Super Market]

umm but what if you use a hoplitai (regular, ekdromoi, spartiates, or haploi) then it would be greater the damage, let's not talk about bodyguard damage too, and i find it unrealistic, but maybe an EB member can clarify this more properly

~Jirisys (THIS IS SPARTA!!!!! *flies off when a seleukid Somatophylakes Strategou charges to his front)

Umm, what are you trying to say? My point is that adding cavalry-scaring action to spearmen is unneccessary because cavalry lose anyways if you blindly charge them into hoplites, and they would become scared in otherwise perfect conditions.

[Ludens]

And horse cavalry somehow seem to have no problem firing missiles even though they are on the move. What do you mean by momentum when it comes to the game? If we're talking about charge, that's just another variable number, right?

True, but they can't fire while in melee. They just get stuck. Anyway: I don't see how this addresses the problem. Chariots should behave differently from cavalry or elephants. Missile cavalry is perhaps closest to how the chariots themselves were used, but that does not simulate their melee power and disruptive ability properly (never mind them being redundant next to cheap missile cavalry). So the team went with elephants. Not perfect either, but now the unit is useful if fragile when properly employed, and the A.I. can get some use out of it too.


Side note: why don't you put the trait "Intimidates cavalry" to the spearmen (especially phalanxes) since horses are reluctant to charge into a wall of spears, just a suggestion

Except that it doesn't work that way. Cavalry should simply not respond to orders to charge into a spear walls. Using a morale penalty will not have that effect: it means that low-morale cav will rout near spearunits (whether these are formed, disorganized or looking another way), while high-quality cav will still charge and a rout a bit earlier.

[antisocialmunky]

I rather just see increased MAD from charging spears or formed infantry.

[vartan]

True, but they can't fire while in melee. They just get stuck. Anyway: I don't see how this addresses the problem. Chariots should behave differently from cavalry or elephants. Missile cavalry is perhaps closest to how the chariots themselves were used, but that does not simulate their melee power and disruptive ability properly (never mind them being redundant next to cheap missile cavalry). So the team went with elephants. Not perfect either, but now the unit is useful if fragile when properly employed, and the A.I. can get some use out of it too.
Thanks. That helps a bit. The problem is obviously a matter of what implications each choice of model base has. Thanks again.

[Apázlinemjó]

Scythed Charioteer reenactor, someone?

[Bucefalo]

Chariots are based on elephants in the fact that they both share the same behaviour on battle. I think they are actually a whole unit class, apart from infantry or cavalry. There are several differencies between how chariots/elephants behave in battle compared to cavalry, here are some:

-Chariots/elephants can run down soldiers without actually killing them, only knocking them down. I think this is related to the mass of the mount, but i also think part of it is determined throught the unit type. I have not seen yet any infantry knocking down enemies on the charge, no matter how high mass they have.

-Chariots/elephants act like a hammer, they push into the enemy lines and then they lose most of their fighting power. This is similar to cavalry, but the actual animations of the chariots/elephants are much different and generally they first break the enemy ranks, then continue forward a bit, and then turn back to attack the enemy. A cavalry unit just charges in and do casualties on the charge, then they stay there in the front of the enemy unit and use their secondary weapons.

-I am not totally sure about this, but i think that this unit class (chariot/elephant) is vulnerable to thrown weapons (like javelins) much like the cavalry class is vulnerable to spearmen.

There are probably more differences but i hope those few serve to show the example, basically they are a different class of unit, neither cavalry or infantry, and they have their own behaviour in battle which is very different from the other two. Just watch closely how elephants and chariots behave in EBI and you will realise that except for their stats, models, textures and animations they share a lot of things.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

-I am not totally sure about this, but i think that this unit class (chariot/elephant) is vulnerable to thrown weapons (like javelins) much like the cavalry class is vulnerable to spearmen.

Oh, it is. Numidian skirmishers and Parthian horse archers can wipe the floor with elephants.

[Cute Wolf]

Chariots are based on elephants in the fact that they both share the same behaviour on battle. I think they are actually a whole unit class, apart from infantry or cavalry. There are several differencies between how chariots/elephants behave in battle compared to cavalry, here are some:

-Chariots/elephants can run down soldiers without actually killing them, only knocking them down. I think this is related to the mass of the mount, but i also think part of it is determined throught the unit type. I have not seen yet any infantry knocking down enemies on the charge, no matter how high mass they have.

-Chariots/elephants act like a hammer, they push into the enemy lines and then they lose most of their fighting power. This is similar to cavalry, but the actual animations of the chariots/elephants are much different and generally they first break the enemy ranks, then continue forward a bit, and then turn back to attack the enemy. A cavalry unit just charges in and do casualties on the charge, then they stay there in the front of the enemy unit and use their secondary weapons.

-I am not totally sure about this, but i think that this unit class (chariot/elephant) is vulnerable to thrown weapons (like javelins) much like the cavalry class is vulnerable to spearmen.

There are probably more differences but i hope those few serve to show the example, basically they are a different class of unit, neither cavalry or infantry, and they have their own behaviour in battle which is very different from the other two. Just watch closely how elephants and chariots behave in EBI and you will realise that except for their stats, models, textures and animations they share a lot of things.

I'm thrilled to see Charots will be able to break up wooden walls and gates in EB II :clown:

Maybe to gain a "skirmish" traits, you can switch their class to "skirmish cavalry", that class, as far as memory can tel, always give their "skirmish" ability, even with pure melee units.

[jirisys]

They will? I find the physics in that very unrealistic, i don't think two horses can break a wall, their mass, speed and strenght is not that big (IMO)

~Jirisys (they will break the walls! With what?? Chariots!! Whaaaaaaaaa????? :confused:)

[Cute Wolf]

that was basically the same when I put a man as an elephant model, and have invisible rider on top of him.... they can break the walls with just sword! (it was the elephant's properties and behavior)

[Bucefalo]

As far as i know elephants can´t break door walls in M2TW like they do in RTW. If you want to check how chariots are working in M2TW the mod TATW check the Rhun faction that have a unit of chariots, if you want to try them.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

They will? I find the physics in that very unrealistic, i don't think two horses can break a wall, their mass, speed and strenght is not that big (IMO)

No, no, no, obviously the scythed chariots will be pulled by elephants so that they can go through walls. Incidentally, they'll also be amphibious.


Scythed Charioteer reenactor, someone?

I've always wanted to do this. Finding people to reenact the guys getting charged by the chariot might be a bit difficult though.

[Apázlinemjó]

I've always wanted to do this. Finding people to reenact the guys getting charged by the chariot might be a bit difficult though.

Oh man, I will be one... and before you would butcher me with the chariot's blades you could ask me that: "IS THIS ISSUS?" and before I die I would yell at you that: "NO, THIS IS GAUGAMELA!"

[JMRC]

Wow, so much confusion about the chariots...

The EBII chariots are based on Bwian's work on model and animations, which led to the first chariot in MTW2. The 2 reasons why Bwian used the elephants as base were:
- they were the closest type of mount that could handle more than 1 rider (as you know, horses in MTW2 can only have 1 rider, while elephants can have a variable number of riders)
- the animations of the elephant could be adapted for the chariot

So, Bwian changed the skeleton to allow the bones for the chariot itself as well as for the 2 horses. Bwian also made extensive changes to the animations (awesome work, btw) so the horses could move in synchronized behavior. The only animation problem is when the chariot is in melee and the animation for the elephant's trunk attack kicks in... the effect is that the pair of horses are literally launched into the hair and then crash into the enemy formation... We will try to change that particular animation, so the horses will rear up and not the "elephant's trunk", but for now it's not a priority thing.

The side effect of using an elephant is obvious: the engine is made to launch the elephants into the melee and not to use them as skirmishers. We have tried several things to make them skirmishers only but they always end up crashing into the enemy formations.

Someone asked if it's possible to define the area of influence of the chariot/elephant: yes it is possible. This is specially visible when the unit is moving in a forested area. We gave a large area to the chariots, so they deal very badly with forested areas, since they have to make a lot of maneuvers to avoid the trees.

Many of the things that have been said in this thread take into account the unit mass used in vanilla MTW2. However, we have changed those values - the elephants now have between 15 and 20 of mass, while in vanilla they had 40 - so those conclusions may not apply in EB2. The elephants can pass through most units, but they are specially vulnerable against phalanxes because these also have a large bounding sphere, so the elephants may crash only a few lines before getting tangled and then the massive anti-cavalry bonus of the phalanx kills them with some ease. We still have to do some extensive testing to see if those masses are ok (horses have between 3 and 3.5, while chariots have 10 to 14) but our initial testing showed these values are very good already.

[vartan]

Thanks JMRC. That clears up all confusion in my mind.

[oudysseos]

More good news is that I have been playtesting a new chariot unit, and although they still don't skirmish, in terms of moving out of range when an enemy unit advances, they do stop short of the enemy formations so long as they have javelins to throw. So that's something.