How do you use chariots?

[Sp4]

I'm gonna try and see if I can make them work. The Iceni ones.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Here's a few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythed_chariot

At a time when cavalry were without stirrups, and probably had neither spurs nor an effective saddle, though they certainly had saddle blankets, scythed chariots added weight to a cavalry attack on infantry.

There was one occasion when Pharnabazus, with 2 scythed chariots and about 400 cavalry, came on them when they were scattered all over the plain. When the Greeks saw him bearing down on them, they ran to join up with each other, about 700 altogether; but Pharnabazus did not waste time. Putting the chariots in front, and following behind them himself with the cavalry, he ordered a charge. The chariots dashing into the Greek ranks, broke up their close formation, and the cavalry soon cut down about a hundred men.

Seems R1 wasn't that bad of a battle sim afterall

Another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_tactics

And a rather lengthy, but interesting discussion:

http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=2664

[Zarobien]

I've played a little bit of an Egyptian campaign, and I'm now playing Iceni. In both, I've had some opportunity to use chariots, and I haven't figured out yet what to do with them. Any tips?

I play Iceni; I still havent tested Egypt.

Tip 1: You shouldnt take chariots into your army unless Andraste has blessed you with wisdom to see their benefits. So either take chariots or take cavarly instead.

Tip 2: Holding ALT and clicking left mouse button orders an attack with secondary weapon. Use that to charge enemy ranged units.

Tip 3: Charriots are like cavarly and should whitdraw after charge. But they have wide turning range. Whitdraw trought the charged unit by charging another unit behind it.

Tip 4: If you are engaged in melee, activate the skrimish and attack with normal javelin attacks instead. You may also use the javellins to soften heavy spear infantry.

Tip 5: Spearmen have shields and spears pointed forward; Their backside is the same as any others; Charge that backside if they are engaged on the front fight.

Tip 6: My charriots get around 200 kills each but I never keep more than 3 because they are time consuming to use.

May the goddess bless you with lots of kills.

[Bramborough]

Here's a few links: (etc etc)

Great stuff, and very interesting. That last link in particular was indeed lengthy, but fascinating. I started just by scanning the intro just to get the idea without trudging through it, but wound up reading every word.

Even after reading all that, however, I'm still not clear on why chariots developed, rather than horse archers, in so many of these cultures. It would seem that any society sufficiently advanced to develop chariotry (domesticated & war-trained horses, chariot construction, effective arms & armor) should have been equally capable of achieving same or similar tactical effect, with much more efficiency, by simply mounting the archer on a single horse instead of dragging him in a cart behind multiple horses.

Maybe the underlying reason isn't really technological but rather biogenetic? Perhaps horses in the Bronze Age Mideast and Eastern Med were not yet large and strong enough to carry, and provide a stable firing platform for, a sufficiently-armored rider/archer, and it took many centuries of breeding to eventually achieve the warhorses of late antiquity and the medieval period?

[Grin]

Breeding might have been part of it, but half remembering something I read once, the saddle and stirrup weren't invented until the just before classical antiquity, and many Mediterranean people didn't even adopt the stirrup until the migration period. Without a saddle ridding a horse for long periods is extremely taxing on both the horse and rider and without stirrups it's difficult for a rider to maintain balance on horse back in combat. Horses were originally domesticated as beast of burden, odd as it seems pulling a wheeled vehicle might have just seemed a more natural use for them to the ancients than using them as proper mounts.

[BroskiDerpman]

As of now the chariots are bugged out just like the phalanx sitting there and shuffling around (Aggony Prussian Prince video) while the downhill bonus applies to the people fighting uphill.

Wait for patches... Sadly.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Maybe the underlying reason isn't really technological but rather biogenetic? Perhaps horses in the Bronze Age Mideast and Eastern Med were not yet large and strong enough to carry, and provide a stable firing platform for, a sufficiently-armored rider/archer, and it took many centuries of breeding to eventually achieve the warhorses of late antiquity and the medieval period?

From what I can tell, this is part of the reason. From an article called Turkish and Persian Mounted Archery:

The domestication of horse, riding and selective breeding appeared by 4000-2000 BC, in the steppe between today’s Ukraine and Russia. Horses were initially herded for meat, milk, hair and other animal products. Horse breeding has been practised from very early in the history of horse domestication. Breeding for type would continue unabated as long as the horse was needed for specific tasks, and Iranian-speaking peoples are known to have breed as early as 1000 BC, as well as for size, big enough to carry a warrior to battle. By the time of Parthians, the region around the river Amu Darya in Central Asia was well known for horse breeding. Breeders were mixing the blood of the wider steppe horse with taller and faster horses of the oasis and desert fringe, such as the Karabair and the Akhal-Teke, the latter having been used as a fast cavalry horse for the last 3000 years.

The most important developments in the time of Scythian were the ones that made the rider become more effective in a military sense: composite bow, the small and tough Przhewalski horses. Unlike the taller horses that could carry armored men but were unable to survive without stables and sufficient food, this breed could survive under the hard conditions of steppes. Especially Mongols who invaded all the Asia and a large part of the world under the reign of Genghis Khan rode these steppe ponnies whereas there is strong evidence that archaic Turks rode horses of different breed that was taller, had thinner legs and longer neck.

Full article is here:

http://www.tirendaz.com/en/?page_id=84

It appears that two things had to come together...well three actually if you count the horsemanship, the composite bow and the right kind of horse suited for this type of warfare. The composite bow had been around since the second millenium BCE, but it took the development of the asymmetrical recurve bow to make horse archery as we've come to know it in this time period a threat.

From the Wiki article:

A reflex bow is a bow that has curved or curled arms which turn away from the archer throughout their length. When unstrung, the entire length of the bow curves forward from the belly (away from the archer), resembling a "C", Look like this Korean bow ; this differentiates a reflex bow from a recurve bow in which only the outer parts of the limbs turn away from the archer. The curves put the materials of the bow under greater stress, allowing a fairly short bow to have a high draw weight and a long draw length. This allows a bow that is 1:2 the length of a recurve or 1:3 the length of a long bow to fire at the same or greater velocity and stopping power. The materials and workmanship must be of high quality. Highly-reflexed bows are more difficult to string and may reverse themselves suddenly; they have seldom been used for hunting. However, they were the main armament of the Mongol armies that conquered much of Asia and Europe; their short profile compared to longer bows made them ideal for horseback use.

The full article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurve_bow

[Cyclades]

I find using chariots to trash through enemy lines is pretty effective and they also seem to last a reasonable amount of times in melee which is not the case with cavalry.