Scythed Chariot Question

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?

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

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.)

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

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

WOW, it's MeinPanzer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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 ?

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)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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?

...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)(...)"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

there will be more chariots in EB II than in EB I

---

As long as that's historically accurate, YAY!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Why are the chariot companies based off elephant models instead of horse cavalry models?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

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.