Chariots

[Kevin Boylan]

Since there's nothing to the contrary in any of the 2.2+ stuff, I assume that Heavy Chariots are still Knights, and Light Chariots are still Cavalry. If the purpose of 2.2+ is to "fix" troop types, then these very much need fixing. Folks with long memories may recall a Spearpoint article years back that argued quite conclusively that both types of chariots were really used almost exclusively as mobile missile-firing "platforms" because of the (obvious) impossibility of charging them into the enemy. That being the case, Heavy Chariots should be Cavalry and Light Chariots should be Light Horse.

Since both types of chariots necessarily carried both a driver and a "warrior" who often dismounted to fight, both should be dismountable, with the dismount troop type determined by whatever is appropriate for the army in question (most commonly warband but also possibly blade). Given numerous historical accounts of chariot riders re-mounting and riding off when pressed, the possiblity of allowing chariot dismounts to re-mount during play might be considered. After all, the knight's horse is held by his page when he dismounts -- and is thus far in the rear -- while the chariot warrior's chariot usually remained close by with the driver ever-ready to swoop in and rescue his "boss" if need be.

[Rich Gause]

This is a change that is most probably outside the scope of 2.2+. If you want to try getting it incorporated in 3.0 you might give Phil a suggestion on the DBA Yahoogroup.

[pozanias]

Kevin,

1. very interesting idea. I'm not sure I know enough about Chariot warfare to agree or disagree with you before hearing other arguments, but certainly interesting.

2. the purpose of DBA 2.2+ was to improve 2.2, but keep the same basic feel. Part of that process was to look at element types. So yes, I think this kind of thinking fits in with the idea of 2.2+.

3. I don't want to speak for WADBAG, but I think they are not really looking for a bunch of new ideas at this point in the process. I believe they are looking more for playtesting of 2.2+ and feedback (such as "this new rule doesn't work because...." or "this new rule is excellent"). Introducing new ideas now requires going back to the drawing board, arguing about the validity, playtesting pre-beta, playtesting post-beta, etc. So, I won't say that new ideas will not be considered, but I think only those with a hugely compelling argument will be considered. The rest will be put on hold for future consideration.

In other words, its good that you brought this up -- but don't hold your breath for its inclusion in this version of 2.2+.

[Kevin Boylan]

3.0 !!! Perish the thought.

But, as for being outside the scope of 2.2+, could you clarify your logic? 2.2+ is giving us all sorts of new troop types that will necessarily dictate changes to the army lists. Since reclasifying chariots would merely require changes to the army lists, how can it be too big of an issue for 2.2+ to address?

This is a change that is most probably outside the scope of 2.2+. If you want to try getting it incorporated in 3.0 you might give Phil a suggestion on the DBA Yahoogroup.

[Kevin Boylan]

I know the WADBAG folks pretty well, and doubt that they are close-minded about this as you may think. If 2.2+ is about making necessary fixes, then -- if one agrees that chariots are wrongly classified -- this is a necessary fix.


3. I don't want to speak for WADBAG, but I think they are not really looking for a bunch of new ideas at this point in the process. I believe they are looking more for playtesting of 2.2+ and feedback (such as "this new rule doesn't work because...." or "this new rule is excellent"). Introducing new ideas now requires going back to the drawing board, arguing about the validity, playtesting pre-beta, playtesting post-beta, etc. So, I won't say that new ideas will not be considered, but I think only those with a hugely compelling argument will be considered. The rest will be put on hold for future consideration.

In other words, its good that you brought this up -- but don't hold your breath for its inclusion in this version of 2.2+.

[ferrency]

The possibility of "fixing" chariots did come up briefly, when I asked whehter HCh would be better represented as Kn or Cat now that Cat is an option.

The answer I received was that a proper fix for chariots is outside the scope of 2.2+. However, I do expect it to be addressed eventually.

Alan

[pozanias]

I don't believe the members of WADBAG are closed-minded and I never stated as much. My point was that the phase of development we are now in is more about testing ideas that are already on the table. I think most non-critical new ideas will be put off for future consideration. And I don't happen to think this is a critical issue.

[David Schlanger]

I know the WADBAG folks pretty well, and doubt that they are close-minded about this as you may think. If 2.2+ is about making necessary fixes, then -- if one agrees that chariots are wrongly classified -- this is a necessary fix.


Thanks for bringing up chariots Kevin. I will speak for WADBAG and say that we have discussed fixing chariots, and agree that their current representation is DBA is not ideal.

When we came up with the initial list of conceptual changes for 2.2+ we decided that chariots would be outside the scope. This was at least partially because we didn't have a clear vision of an appropriate conceptual change that would fit easily into the game.

We would be happy to discuss it with you if you have some suggestions!

Thanks,
DS

[Cromwell]

I have never been happy about LCH being cavalry.

All records of the celtic use of them suggests they were a hit and run type, which also dismounted and fought on foot with the chariots in the rear ready for a get away.

I agree perhaps they should be classed as LH not CV, but not have the movement of LH.

[Redwilde]

I often use the houserule of LCh=LH and HCh=Cv.
That does seem to fit better with the accounts that I'm familiar with.

[winterbadger]

I have never been happy about LCH being cavalry.

All records of the celtic use of them suggests they were a hit and run type, which also dismounted and fought on foot with the chariots in the rear ready for a get away.

I agree perhaps they should be classed as LH not CV, but not have the movement of LH.

Yes, what little I've read about the European (Celtic and Greek) use of chariots seems very unlike their use by Middle Eastern and Chinese peoples. Celtic chariots in particular would seem more to be a sort of mounted infantry rather than a fighting platform. Early Greek/Trojan use seems to have been a combination of the two.

[david kuijt]

When we came up with the initial list of conceptual changes for 2.2+ we decided that chariots would be outside the scope. This was at least partially because we didn't have a clear vision of an appropriate conceptual change that would fit easily into the game.


Another major issue is playtesting. Any time a new type is added or an old one changed, there needs to be a lot of playtesting to determine the usual issues -- what historical matchups are impacted and how, what troop type matchups are impacted and how, etc. etc.

Every other troop type added (Raiders, LSp, Pav, Cat) is a less frequent element type in the army list than LCh and HCh. Raiders/LSp/Pav have been playtested in their historical context in multiple campaigns and tournaments over the last several years. Cat hasn't been tested as much, but it has seen a lot of playtesting.

If we were to do any changes to LCh and HCh, we would need EXTENSIVE playtesting to test the design. And if the first design wasn't perfect, if we made any changes we'd need MORE extensive playtesting. And maybe more still.

So we're talking six months, a year, or eighteen months here.

We are not going to delay v2.2+ by a year or so for a single change that hasn't even been discussed yet. Especially as we might not even be able to find a solution that is better than the current one -- it has been several years since I read the article you are referring to. I'm open-minded about the idea -- but I am also not convinced at the moment that there is strong merit to the change. I'm not convinced that the change NEEDS to happen.

So what DS and others have said is true. But it isn't just that, because you have heard Xavi and Prich and others express what many of us have seen -- hanging fire, waiting on 3.0, has been very frustrating for DBA players. We (the v2.2+ effort) want to get a good game out in a reasonable time, not get a perfect game out three years from now. Especially since perfection is never achievable.

So yes, I'd love to hear what you have in mind about Chariots, and what you think the problems are with the current representation. But I have to warn you, even if the ideas are good, they might be tabled for future discussion. Because few of us are willing to put out an untested idea, and many of us are unwilling to delay another four or six months to do the necessary testing (and then another four or six months for more testing, if the idea isn't right yet).

Is that fair enough?

[david kuijt]

All records of the celtic use of them suggests they were a hit and run type, which also dismounted and fought on foot with the chariots in the rear ready for a get away.


Yes, I think that's what Caesar had to say about them.

[snowcat]

Sort of a slow Cv/LH, dismounting as Wb for the Celts (and certain others) vs a slow Cv/Kn for the heavier Chinese or Assyrian types. Maybe.

[Cromwell]

David,

I think your comments are very fair and thank you for taking the time to detail your thoughts.

I tend to forget that DBA is very finally balanced with its combat factors and they are designed to give an historical outcome to groups of small metal/plastic men fighting each other!

But I feel that chariots, especially those described by Caesar, are not properly represented. However I am also aware that within the confines of the game, that maybe they can only be portrayed the way they currently are.

Other than treating LCH as LH I cannot think of any other way to depict them.

There was a thread/article that argued LCH should have a distant combat ability but this I feel would be totally out of context as then LH and PS would have to have a ranged attack ability which I feel really would not fit into DBA at all.

[Pavane]

Sort of a slow Cv/LH, dismounting as Wb for the Celts (and certain others) vs a slow Cv/Kn for the heavier Chinese or Assyrian types. Maybe.
I certainly hope that we don't have to start dismounting them into another element. Perhaps use the same element, but it moves as mounted (terrain penalties) and fights as foot.

[snowcat]

I certainly hope that we don't have to start dismounting them into another element. Perhaps use the same element, but it moves as mounted (terrain penalties) and fights as foot.

Yup, that would be better for the Celtic ones (and their equivalents) - and fights as mounted for the others.

[pozanias]

So yes, I'd love to hear what you have in mind about Chariots, and what you think the problems are with the current representation. But I have to warn you, even if the ideas are good, they might be tabled for future discussion. Because few of us are willing to put out an untested idea, and many of us are unwilling to delay another four or six months to do the necessary testing (and then another four or six months for more testing, if the idea isn't right yet).



This is what I was trying to say. Its good to bring up ideas, but I wanted to set the proper expectations. Lots of people have things they would like to include in 2.2+ and just because they aren't included doesn't mean they were ignored or aren't good ideas.

[Redwilde]

Well, I'll certainly go back through my stack of books on chariot warfare and start pondering if there are reasonably simple approaches to suggest down the road for 2.2++ the better convey chariot flavour :E