25-10-2001 20:56									#1
	what's the point of chariots Enter the AD-FREE zone

FOrgive me for reserrecting an old debate, but can ANYONE honestly see anyone actually using chariots in the ancient era?

They might be cheaper than horsemen, but they require horses, AND now we know they can't traverse mountain ranges unless roads exist.

Anyway if anyone has thoughts it'd be great.

	25-10-2001 21:04									#2
	Re: what's the point of chariots Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Barshy FOrgive me for reserrecting an old debate, but can ANYONE honestly see anyone actually using chariots in the ancient era? They might be cheaper than horsemen, but they require horses, AND now we know they can't traverse mountain ranges unless roads exist. Anyway if anyone has thoughts it'd be great.

I think they are more powerful than horsemen. Also, they are mobile units so you can retreat if you are getting your butt kicked, a feature unavailable to units with movements of 1. I actually plan, in my first Civ III game, on mass producing chariots and wreaking havoc. Plus, as mobile units they can capture catapults easier than non-mobile units.

	25-10-2001 21:41									#3
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Supposedly in Civ 3 movement is a factor in combat resolution. In other words, a faster unit is better at fighting.

	25-10-2001 21:46									#4
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Chariots (according to Egyptian civ of the week) are 1/1/2 and horseman are 2/1/2 (according to Iroquois civ of the week).

Chariots need wheel and horsemen need horseback riding (the tech right after the wheel).

I guess for me, the biggest difference is the mountain ranges thing... Also, maybe horsemen require twice as many shields or something.

In my opinion, chariots should be insanely cheap, maybe one step higher than a warrior.

	25-10-2001 22:21									#5
	Tired of ads?

I agree that unless chariots are extremely cheap, there would be no point to ever building them. They are less powerful than horseman but require the same resource (horses). And if you just want a mobile unit for exploration, there is also the scout unit (0/0/2). It can't fight so it would be in trouble if it ran into barbarians. So maybe that's the point of chariots - they can fight off barbarians, and they can explore. But I doubt I'll ever build them. If I have horses, I'll just wait for horsemen, and if I don't, then I can't build either anyway.

By the way, has anyone noticed a little inconsistency in the tech tree? The Wheel, which enables chariots, is a prerequisite of Horseback Riding. But chariots use horses, right? I think it would have made more sense the other way around - make Horseback Riding the entry level tech, make Horsemen the weaker (1/1/2) unit, make the Wheel dependent on Horseback Riding, and make the chariot the stronger (2/1/2) unit.

But in the grand scheme of things, I can live with it. Civ3 is still gonna be an awesome game!

	25-10-2001 22:23									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I've been pondering the same question meself.

	25-10-2001 22:35									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by albiedamned By the way, has anyone noticed a little inconsistency in the tech tree? The Wheel, which enables chariots, is a prerequisite of Horseback Riding. But chariots use horses, right? I think it would have made more sense the other way around - make Horseback Riding the entry level tech, make Horsemen the weaker (1/1/2) unit, make the Wheel dependent on Horseback Riding, and make the chariot the stronger (2/1/2) unit.

In history, men fighting from platforms pulled by horses were devastatingly more effective than horsemen in the early days. Gripping methods (saddles, cinches, eventually stirrups) put horsemen in the advantage and ended chariot use. So their order is correct from an historical perspective as is their relative combat power.

	25-10-2001 22:37									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think chariots doesn't need horses to be build, at least Civ of the week doesn't say anything about needing horses when you look Egyptian chariots. But if you look Iroquios' Mounted Warrior it says "Like the horseman, it requires horses to build.."

So I think chariots are quite good, they can be built early, you don't need any resource. They move fast so you can quickly explore the unknown and they can retreat from battle if fought against slower units, because they move 2.

	25-10-2001 22:38									#9
	Got spare money?

Using chariots to batter cities is a foolhardy idea, but they could be used in a superb harrassement role due to movement 2.

Examples:
Caputring enemy workers/settlers or slowing/limiting movement.
Ripping up roads/colonies/mines to disrupt production.
Scouting/making contact with other civs/capturing undefended cities (until they learn!)

More if I think of them.

	25-10-2001 22:40									#10
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Haphazard Caputring enemy workers/settlers or slowing/limiting movement.

They can be really good at that by the way! I didn't thought that myself. Free labor force easily! You'll have to really guard your workers against chariots.

	25-10-2001 23:03									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Or you could just do what I'm planning..... swap horesback riding and the wheel in the tech tree and cut the chariot out the game.

As far as I'm concerned the Chariot is an excellent choice for a UU as, like the elephant par example, it is something which is only used in one part of the world ( europe / the middle east ) AKAIK it was never used in Asia, Africa or either of the Americas ( no horses so....... )

Much more sensible is merely to use horsemen ( horses were used by pretty much all cultures at one time or another ) and just keep the Chariot as a UU for the Egyptians.

Besides..... WAR Chariot. What other type of Chariot you gonna have? PEACE AND LOVE Chariot? HOPE, FAITH AND Chariot?

And for the advance swapping, I quite agree with albiedamned, it seems somewhat ridiculous the idea that you can only properly domesticate horses enough to sit on them, after you have trained them well enough to work in tandem and bull a large wood platform. Horses don't have wheels. Ergo it takes less ingenuity to jump on a horse and ride around than it does to strap a giant soap box racer on the back of a pair of them and procliam it a WAR Chariot.

	25-10-2001 23:24									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

People seem to be missing the fact that the retreat ability makes combat a whole new ballgame for fast units. If a gang of three chariots finds a warrior, they should be able to take turns pounding on him until he's dead. Your chariots will be damaged, but will survive (unlike the poor guy they bushwhacked).

	25-10-2001 23:29									#13
	Put an end to popups!

Chariots may not need horses to build in the game as I've seen nothing nothing to indicate they need them. Of course, i've been known to miss the obvious.

Historically, other animals besides horses have been used to pull chariots such as mules and oxen, so it make sense that chariots wouldn't need horses.

This would make an O.K. replacement for horseman if you came into the world in an area without horses. They wouldn't have as high an attack, but they still would have the same mobility, meaning you could raid enemy territory to pillage and steal workers.

	25-10-2001 23:33									#14
	Suffering from ads?

I think chariots do need horses. It would be really anoying if they didn't as the lack of any logic to that fact would kill me.

I'm not sure I'd use them myself, as I'd probably wait for the horseman before doing so. I don't remember what the tech tree looks like, but if it isn't far from the wheel, I'd probably wait.

	25-10-2001 23:43									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Taylost Historically, other animals besides horses have been used to pull chariots such as mules and oxen, so it make sense that chariots wouldn't need horses.

I believe you, but "MULE DRIVEN CHARIOTS TO THE EAST COMING UP ANY TIME NOW.... Well soon!... Okay, after tea"

	25-10-2001 23:53									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I believe you, but "MULE DRIVEN CHARIOTS TO THE EAST COMING UP ANY TIME NOW.... Well soon!... Okay, after tea"

I admit, the idea of mules pulling a chariot does seem kind of silly, but...

- The Assrians (spelling?) did use them to good effect and

- This may be one of those "game play balance over historical accuracy" things so that a player starting in an area without horses has a fast attack unit.

	26-10-2001 00:09									#17
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Faboba Or you could just do what I'm planning..... swap horesback riding and the wheel in the tech tree and cut the chariot out the game. As far as I'm concerned the Chariot is an excellent choice for a UU as, like the elephant par example, it is something which is only used in one part of the world ( europe / the middle east ) AKAIK it was never used in Asia, Africa or either of the Americas ( no horses so....... ) Much more sensible is merely to use horsemen ( horses were used by pretty much all cultures at one time or another ) and just keep the Chariot as a UU for the Egyptians. Besides..... WAR Chariot. What other type of Chariot you gonna have? PEACE AND LOVE Chariot? HOPE, FAITH AND Chariot? And for the advance swapping, I quite agree with albiedamned, it seems somewhat ridiculous the idea that you can only properly domesticate horses enough to sit on them, after you have trained them well enough to work in tandem and bull a large wood platform. Horses don't have wheels. Ergo it takes less ingenuity to jump on a horse and ride around than it does to strap a giant soap box racer on the back of a pair of them and procliam it a WAR Chariot.

Maybe a war chariot has spikes on the wheels or something? I dunno.

Anyway, using horses for battle historically happened after chariots. You can ride a horse before you can build a chariot, but you cannot fight on that horse before you can fight on the chariot. It is easy enough to attach the chariot to the horses, and then you have a stable platform to shoot your arrows from. If you try to just jump on a horse, however, try to fight and you will fall off. Once stirrups were invented, it became possible to fight on horseback. At this point one man on a horse was almost as powerful as a chariot, which required two men, two horses and a lot of wood at least. Thus it was more efficient to make large units of cavalry and the chariot was made obsolete.

	26-10-2001 00:19									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

But the play balance is just..... NOT.

It's a totally unecessary unit.

* It only was used by selecte civilizations ( a somewhat limit number )
* The use of the without horses was purely tradeing and commerce as oxen are slow and useless in battle.
* The idea of having them BEFORE Horsemen is demeted. HORSEDRAWN equpiment BEFORE the domestication of horses makes no sense.
* The movement advantage in reality was garnered by horses. And before you give me the nonsense of 'some people won't have horses' well in reality some people didn't have horses. The people tended to live near forests, cold climates, desserts or mountains where the movement costs of such terrains in the game make horses realisticly useless anyway.
* Just.... CAUSE!

	26-10-2001 00:40									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Faboba But the play balance is just..... NOT. It's a totally unecessary unit. * It only was used by selecte civilizations ( a somewhat limit number ) * The use of the without horses was purely tradeing and commerce as oxen are slow and useless in battle. * The idea of having them BEFORE Horsemen is demeted. HORSEDRAWN equpiment BEFORE the domestication of horses makes no sense. * The movement advantage in reality was garnered by horses. And before you give me the nonsense of 'some people won't have horses' well in reality some people didn't have horses. The people tended to live near forests, cold climates, desserts or mountains where the movement costs of such terrains in the game make horses realisticly useless anyway. * Just.... CAUSE!

For the third time, fighting from horses was developed after fighting from a chariot, this is why the wheel comes before horseback riding. Have you ever ridden a horse bare-back? and had to fight with anything less than a re-curve bow or rifle of some kind?

It was much easier to fight from a chariot than it was to fight from a horse without a saddle and stirrup, that's a historical and modern day fact. A little study of history would help alleviate some of the obvious mis-conceptions stated and show you how things reall are and were and why they make perfect sense from a historical point of view.

BTW, most of the civilizations of the Med area used the chariot in some sense or another. Sure some civilizations didn't have them but some civilizations also didn't have the phalanax or the battleship or mechanized infantry yet most all Civ's had access to these units in the game, why should the chariot be any different just because you *think* it doesn't belong?

	26-10-2001 00:50									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ozymandous,

Good post!

	26-10-2001 01:15									#21
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

As has been said, warfare works on a different basis. If a chariot is getting beaten to death when attacked, it can just retreat and let the next fella go in to the attack, as someone or other has already stated in this thread...

	26-10-2001 01:54									#22
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Faboba Besides..... WAR Chariot. What other type of Chariot you gonna have? PEACE AND LOVE Chariot? HOPE, FAITH AND Chariot?

Passenger chariot. Yes, they existed (not sure about the name, but they did).

	26-10-2001 01:59									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well since you get Chariots BEFORE Horsemen in Civ III I think that would be a pretty good reason to use them.

	26-10-2001 02:18									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Hmmm. I don't know, but I would speculate that before someone figured out how to ride a horse, he would first figured out how to have one pull a sled or wagon. There is more practical reasons to have a wagon than a single rider on a horse. From wagons came chariots, and from chariots came war chariots. So from this train of thought, I could agree that the wheel was invented before horseback riding became practical.

	26-10-2001 02:46									#25
	Put an end to popups!

Yeah, keep in mind the advance is Horseback Riding, not Horse Domestication. Besides, I know that at least on my computer, chariots won't require horses, just for gameplay purposes. So I don't mind their inclusion.

	26-10-2001 03:50									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ozymandous For the third time, fighting from horses was developed after fighting from a chariot, this is why the wheel comes before horseback riding. Have you ever ridden a horse bare-back? and had to fight with anything less than a re-curve bow or rifle of some kind? It was much easier to fight from a chariot than it was to fight from a horse without a saddle and stirrup, that's a historical and modern day fact.

Well, the plains Amerinds, when they finally got horses, became masters of horseback warfare without using saddle or stirrups. Nor did they have wagons to pull (they did have sledges though).

But Horseback Riding and The Wheel/The Chariot should not be on the same tech path in either order. Neither is a prereq for the other.

The tech tree could run like this:

Pottery -> The Wheel -> The Plough, Engineering
Warrior Code -> Horseback Riding -> Chivalry

Two separate paths, but still both Chariots and Horsemen could have horses as input in the game.