Why are chariots so effective in killing cavalry? ( Is it historically correct?)

[athanaric]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have noticed that a gallic chariots take a very little time to slaughter an enemy cavalry with a little loss, so I am just wondering how it can be possible when it only involves some outdated chariot with about 1-2 skirmisher upon it and really nothing very striking about it?

I remember reading about it History that the Egyptians employed very much of a chariots but with coming of the Assyrians and their improved warfare then it was emphasised more upon a cavalry. So if historically speaking the chariots were replaced by a more mobile cavalry and chariots were only used on some special occasions as some superflous show, then how could such chariots be so much superior when fighting cavalry like the RTW vanilla and EB show.

Like if one were seeing a real historical battle and would notice a chariots attacking a cavalry then how would they manage to achieve a victory through their equipment and tactical formation?

Cavalry is cheaper and more cost-efficient than chariots; a horde of 100 HAs can shoot twice as many arrows as their equivalent in chariots (100 horses = 50 chariots at most). Cavalry is also more versatile regarding terrain. Riders can fight while standing still.
Those advantages are serious enough to outweigh drawbacks compared to chariots. So far for reasons why cavalry replaced chariots. They weren't better in every role, they were just far more efficient.

As to direct combat, spinning blades are not good for horsies' legs. Nor are wheels or other mechanical contraptions moving at high speed. When combating chariots, the best thing to do for a cavalry force is to try to gun them down with javelins and arrows, or to dismount and form a phalanx of some sorts.

[VikingPower]

Well in regard to cavalry attack then would it not have been just best to attack the chariots from each flanks instead of making a frontal charge against them, to negate the effects from the spinning blades and other mechanical contraptions?

However I forgot to remember the problem of the cavalry before the invention of the stirrup, so I was first thinking that the cavalry would employ a long spears against such chariots but it must have been limited to some degree or impractical.

[Arjos]

About the stirrup, I've started to believe that our modern way of riding has spoiled us XD
The cavalry charges are renowned for their powerful striking power, and also broken lances are attested, seems reasonable to me that if these episodes were possible the rider must have had a pretty firm hold on both horse and lance...
My personal view is that horsemanship was far better in ancient times...

[vartan]

Chariot melee attack lethality = 1. Nuff said.

Can't somebody make that less? I mean, they're moving around and the guy next to the driver is spearing the guys to the side that he comes across. Does it HAVE to be lethality 1? I know if you get hit by a really fast chariot you're bound to get KILLED but can't it be like 0.5 or something? 1 is like MASSACRE lethality.

[Apázlinemjó]

Chariot melee attack lethality = 1. Nuff said.

Can't somebody make that less? I mean, they're moving around and the guy next to the driver is spearing the guys to the side that he comes across. Does it HAVE to be lethality 1? I know if you get hit by a really fast chariot you're bound to get KILLED but can't it be like 0.5 or something? 1 is like MASSACRE lethality.

Actually, Cidainh doesn't have scythed blades at the wheels nor anything which could do damage except the skirmisher, so it shouldn't have 1 lethality. However scythed ones are a different story and they are already nerfed (morale 6, running amok (btw the latter is missing from the Cidainh's attributes)).

[vartan]

Actually, Cidainh doesn't have scythed blades at the wheels nor anything which could do damage except the skirmisher, so it shouldn't have 1 lethality. However scythed ones are a different story and they are already nerfed (morale 6, running amok (btw the latter is missing from the Cidainh's attributes)).

1) I haven't seen a chariot on the battlefield.

2) Forget the model, whether you see blades or not. That's not important. Look at the stats. The actual damage inflicted. Let's assume the unit doesn't have spears, scythes, whatnot. It still has an attack (that's what the computer knows, no more no less). Apparently, that attack is 100 percent lethal. Simple as that. Who can explain the reasoning behind the lethality?

[Brennus]

Celtic Might!

Possibly the weight of the chariot itself? Although that's unlikely since Celtic chariots were renowned for being of light build.

Do they inflict damage whilst stationary or walking, as opposed to being at full gallop?

[MechWarrior]

Chariot melee attack lethality = 1. Nuff said.

Can't somebody make that less? I mean, they're moving around and the guy next to the driver is spearing the guys to the side that he comes across. Does it HAVE to be lethality 1? I know if you get hit by a really fast chariot you're bound to get KILLED but can't it be like 0.5 or something? 1 is like MASSACRE lethality.

1 is like MASSACRE lethality.

...MASSACRE...

I'm sorry, but I laughed. Hard.

On-topic, though, chariots WITH scythed wheels
should absolutely be bad for horses legs.

Chariots without scythes, though, I agree with
their lethality being lowered, as the guy next to the driver
has what, a longsword at best, right?

[Brennus]

Something tells me vartan has had a few bad encounters with chariots.

I say keep the lethality at its current level, remember the lethality also represents the passenger when he is dismounted. Due to the limitations of the RTW engine you can't have nobelmen dismount from their chariots.

[Brennus]

Cavalry is cheaper and more cost-efficient than chariots; a horde of 100 HAs can shoot twice as many arrows as their equivalent in chariots (100 horses = 50 chariots at most). Cavalry is also more versatile regarding terrain. Riders can fight while standing still.
Those advantages are serious enough to outweigh drawbacks compared to chariots. So far for reasons why cavalry replaced chariots. They weren't better in every role, they were just far more efficient.

As to direct combat, spinning blades are not good for horsies' legs. Nor are wheels or other mechanical contraptions moving at high speed. When combating chariots, the best thing to do for a cavalry force is to try to gun them down with javelins and arrows, or to dismount and form a phalanx of some sorts.

I don't agree with the idea of cavalry being more efficient, I would suggest instead that cavalry replaced chariots on account of improved breeding stocks. You can't ride ponies for a very long period of time but you can yoke them with little difficulty.