what's the point of chariots

[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.

[Sava]

Re: what's the point of chariots

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.

[Urban Ranger]

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

[Barshy]

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.

[albiedamned]

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!

[Pseud0nym]

I've been pondering the same question meself.

[Blaupanzer]

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.

[Wexu]

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.

[Haphazard]

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.

[Wexu]

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.

[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.

[DaveV]

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).

[Taylost]

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.

[Jason Beaudoin]

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.

[Haphazard]

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"