The Most pointless type of warfare!

Chariot warfare is the most pointless type of warfare. Oneday while playing as the Casse I notice the rebel briton tribe moving their heavy chariot general out of their gates, and directly toward the flank of my army. "Hey", I think to my self " Finally a chance to use my usless, now terribly weakened, Briton general, mounted on big wooden frames probably weighing about 500 ibs or more, with his awsome defence of 3, in battle"
I charge both of my 2 generals chariot units into battle against the enemies one unit of heavy chariots, and watch as they massacre eachother and I end losing one of my generals and 90% of both chariot units, until i finally rout the other chariot general. Why were the Chraiots weakened downso bad. I know ure supposed to charge them through a unit but i stil end up losing half or more of my chariots doing this. Would not a big wodden vehicle be a bit harder to bring down????

These questions plague my mind.........................:book:

I would think a well placed spear could disable one. If you figure 12 chariots going into a unit of 80 spearmen, its not hard to imagine losing a buncha chariots....

....but, chariot vs chariot battles? i dunno.
Actually i was under the impression that they(them celts on that island) mainly used chariots as a way of transporting troops to the front.

Because chariots were pretty much a one-trick-pony at this time. Most people had figured out how to beat them, and heck - even if it is a massive wooden vehicle, it still has two horses at the front. Take out one and you've made the vehicle useless. They're still handy - breaking up formations and such - but are generally inferior to heavy cavalry.

So yes, chariots are (were) basically the most pointless form of warfare.

I thought most chariots (not the scythed kind) were essentially missile platforms - get close to enemy formations, shoot at them with arrows and javelins. Get out if they come to close. I don't think it was pointless as I think it lasted a long time (the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians etc did it long before RTWs time frame, as did the ancient Britons in that time period). The Egyptian archer chariots in vanilla RTW seemed to capture this skirmish style of chariot combat reasonably well (even if they are rather unrealistically fast and long ranged).

I am not terribly convinced by the other style of chariot combat modelled in RTW - the crashing into massed infantry and milling around style. The poll in this forum for scythed chariots seemed to suggest that even for that variety of chariot, using chariots for shock was rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheexsta

even if it is a massive wooden vehicle, it still has two horses at the front. Take out one and you've made the vehicle useless. ..

---

I see what your saying but the same applys to a horseman, think about it all you have to do is give one good slash to the horses leg and it will go down. I think Chariot armor should be raised, or EB switch the generals chariot units to spear throwers which would be more logical. If you look in EB's animation pack they have skirmisher charioteers!!:2thumbsup:

Bear in mind that historically chariots in Egypt, Assyria and even Britain were pulled by small horses not suitable for any kind of cavalry- some Egyptian chariots were even pulled by donkeys. The big horses used by modern cavalry up to WWI are pretty recent (as is the stirrup). Even the Huns and Mongols used lots of ponies. Also, a chariot was a mark of nobility and thus an element of battlefield command, and damned expensive to build and maintain, thus a status symbol.
The Casse in the 3rd century BCE could not have trained the heavy cavalry available to the Macedonians: they just didn't have the horses for it. The kind of armies people fought with were a result of the resources they had available to them.

Didn't Assyrian, some Indian and some Chinese chariots have both missile-armed crew and spear-armed crew? I know that, at some point in time, these people used chariots for their shock of impact value as well as their mobility - although I suspect this would pre-date the use of drilled pike-armed infantry formations who are less likely to scatter and are more likely to drive charging chariots off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom

I see what your saying but the same applys to a horseman, think about it all you have to do is give one good slash to the horses leg and it will go down.

---

Except:
1. Singular horsemen are much more manouverable than a chariot. Having to try and co-ordinate two animals would do that.
2. Since there's two horses, you just need to take one down to make the whole thing ineffective. You could therefore assume that a chariot would be roughly twice as vulnerable as an ordinary cavalrymen.

Taking both of these points into account makes chariots seem very fragile, to me. I can see chariots being capable of taking down most enemy cavalry (horses being less agile than a human, thus making it harder to avoid the blades) and being good at disrupting a formation, but beyond that, I wouldn't expect them to inflict massive casualties.

IMHO, the proper way to use a unit of chariots would require careful timing, using them in tandem with other units. Chariots can charge into an enemy formation, followed by cavalry or infantry moments later. This may even work to a small extent against phalanxes; you may lose a fair few chariots, but they will open up gaps through which your troops/cavalry can engage the men themselves, rather than the end of dozens of spears.

Just my 2c.

Haven't read the whole thread, so I may be rehashing things, but since I'm a bronze age historian primarily, I'll give it a go.

Chariots are pre-cavalry, for the most part. Their use is depracated, in the sense that they lasted longer than they were entirely useful. There is a substantial chariot culture, and in places like britain, they are used because no extremely good cavalry has displaced them.

In the beginning of chariot usage, the chariot came from the steppe. The newly domesticated horse could not yet be ridden from the forward control position, and as such was not a particularly reliable battle platform.

Using the available materials, attaching a sort of lightweight wagon to the horse was a good way to make a mobile missile platform, from which an archer or javelineer could ride circles round his opponents and also deliver melee troops (nobles, generally) to key points on the battlefield.

Also remember that pre-Greek and pre-Celtic warfare was largely not fought in a 'face-to-face' manner. They didn't charge at each other and hack away with reckless abandon, they generally formed up, exchanged insults and missiles, then one side ran away.

So, in that sense, you have to understand the environment into which the chariot was arriving. Also, once again, remember that it took thousands of years of breeding since the chariot arrived to make the horse suitable for use as a directly mountable vehicle.

More in a bit.

good info, was always curious about the origins of the chariot

The Briton chariots will have javelins (quite a few in fact) once we replace the vanilla unit with out own.

That's good cos my casse generals are a bit of an embarassment at the moment, hiding at the back of the battle and running away from everything.

nb Probably the same in vanilla but did you know the game locks up completely if you lose all your family members in one battle :wall:

Casse general's chariots seem to have an enormous charge impact, in my experience, moreso than most cavalry. People go flying almost like they were hit by elephants. I tend to use chariots totally in the charge and retreat immediately tactic. They do seem completely useless in "holding the line" or when charging well-organized lines of heavy infantry or cavalry. I guess their role is like light cavalry with more weight in their charge.

Celtic chariots had a few purposes. One was to simply appear unnerving. The sound of a Celtic chariot was enhanced by various accoutrements, and the sound had a tendency to madden horses unaccustomed to it and make them bolt, and Romans often record being taken with fear to hear them approach just because it was so unnatural (mind you, it'd be mixed with the sound of singing Celtic soldiers and music as they approached).

The chariot in Celtic warfare survives in Britain, as Urnamma mentions, because no cavalry was present that could effectively supplant them (there was cavalry, but none that made the chariot totally uneffective). The chariot was used to dismantle a formation, in tandem with infantry; that is, you don't just use them to cut up a formation, you need the infantry there to rush into the breech you make right after, and it shouldn't be against light infantry (which could swarm over the chariots). Chariots can also be used for missile war, and the chariots will eventually have many javelins to use (javelins will be fairly nice in this respect; it'll keep them close to the melee without needing to engage directly unless wanted).

That said, the Casse aren't in their best position currently, unit wise. They're heavily reliant on morale modifiers, due to lower than normal morale; chariots are part of the army that raises allied morale; keeping them close to the melee has the value of both lowering enemy morale, and keeping allied morale up, which can give even poorly armored and armed units (of which the Casse have a multitude of) a substantial advantage over vastly superior units (like Roman legions or heavier Gallic infantry). However, the Casse will have more units that modify things; currently they already have Calawre, Rycalawre, and Cwmyr, which raise allied morale when near them, but they will also have naked spearmen (lower enemy infantry morale) and another heavy infantry or two depending on the region they control, which will also raise allied morale. Chariots may still need tweaked a bit to fight heavy infantry, but that's part of their purpose, and they may be tweaked to make them more useful there (and weaker against light troops if necessary).

I played a quick casse game in 0.72 or 0.73 and they did seem to make a good mess of enemy lines but yesterday in 0.74 they couldn't kill anything at all. maybe just because the rebel general had so many stars. dunno


read ranika's point after my second post.

the casse are fun, and having to organise the army to get max morale boosts makes it different and interesting (i've been using a second line for warcry cheerleading etc).

But the chariots seem differnt...

The more i think of it though the more i think my experiences yesterday were maybe due to the enemy general. I read a CA post once that said the command stars give attack and defense boosts and I'm thinking that if the battles are tested in custom battle situations the stats may not reflect the influence of the general. so maybe in some situations if a unit is getting +9 defense from a general it can create situations where another unit can't kill a single soldier. hard to say for sure but i rear-charged already engaged caledonians a bunch of times yesterday (re-fighting same battle where my family members kept both dying) and the chariots didn't kill a single one in the charge. Their charge is 10 now. don't know if it changed from 0.73 as i deleted that folder. all i know is they definitely felt much weaker in that battle. maybe just the reb general.

if it's true that generals do have that effect (never actually tested it) then maybe the combat stats need to be bigger for all units across the board to make a potential +10 from a a general a smaller proportion, if you see what i mean.

Or maybe i just suck with chariots :)

The only post I've read from CA was JeromeGrasdyke's, that command stars give a bonus to attack for all his soldiers, and morale for only those units within his command radius, that radius being a function of the number of stars.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=44549

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malrubius

The only post I've read from CA was JeromeGrasdyke's, that command stars give a bonus to attack for all his soldiers, and morale for only those units within his command radius, that radius being a function of the number of stars.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=44549

---

That was probably what i was remembering.

Oh well. Me sucking at chariots is quite a plausible explanation :)

Some times ago there was a poll about scythed chariots, so finally will there be still in EB or not ?

While i'm in a spamming mood i thought i'd mention two things i noticed yesterday.

1) Barb warcry seems to effect nearby units i.e if you have a second line unit using the warcry ability then the warcry icon of a unit fighting in the first line lights up. Something I spotted as i desperately tried to win an "even" battle on the 6th try.

2) Something i never noticed before. On the pre-battle screen the red/blue marker for showing the relative strangth of the two armies was pretty much 50/50. However when i entered the battle the red/blue marker was 3/4 red. The second marker was a far more accurate indication of what was about to happen :sweatdrop:

I only noticed this the 3rd or 4th time and i guess it was the influence of the enemy general being calculated more accurately or something. If I'd spotted it sooner maybe i wouldn't have got so cranky at my useless chariots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

they generally formed up, exchanged insults and missiles, then one side ran away.

---

sounds exciting....

Some good points so far

If you study Assyrian warfare you will notice the steady shift to cavalry starting from 900-850 BC. Constant warfare with Urartu - a mighty kingdom in the mountains near Lake Van - initiated the change. They were in close contact with the Cimmerians and Iranian horsetribes in the north and east, and were famous in Assur for their horses.

A Cimmerian (or Scythian?) army showed the King from Urartu clearly just how brutal masses of highly mobile horsearchers are against the fewer, less mobile missileplatforms of old, inflicting them a massive crushing defeat, which was reported by spies back to the assyrian King. So they and the Assyrians tried all they could to get good cavalry horses which could carry a men. After a hundred years armored horsemen with long spears sitting on good horses with armor started to show up...


One could also talk about chinese chariot warfare, however my time is running out...

The most pointless type of warfare is engaging the enemy in a formation that is specifically designed to resemble the shape of an errect penis.

Which I have never tried by the way.

No, I think that would be pointed, not pointless.

Check this out. Its a book about the rise and fall of chariot warfare.