"Firing from a chariot" Topic

This topic begins with a specific rule set (Field of Glory) but the penalty described is not unique to these rules.

-1 for firing a bow from the rear of a chariot (ditto for a horse archer but I don't have any of those).

This seems wrong. I would think that the ability to fire at any viable target in a 360 degree radius is what a weapon's platform like a NKE light chariot is supposed to do. This seems especially true because an Egyptian chariot has a crew of two: a driver who should worry about the direction he wants to take the vehicle and an archer whose only concern must be to pepper the enemy with arrows.

I aim to take this as a rule amendment to my gaming pals so I welcome any comment, even that which points out flaws in my no doubt flawed reasoning.

Fire away (though -1 if you shoot at me whilst retreating).

As original post

Why a -1 – is the chariot moving at the same time ?

Having never shot a bow from a chariot, my opinion is useless. However, I once saw one of those History Channel shows where an ex Navy Seal wearing robes found a moving chariot a rather stable platform, surprisingly to him and to me. He was impressed.
It does seem, though, that giving penalties for firing from the rear of a chariot is getting too far into the deep weeds of gaming rules. Do we need factors for EVERYTHING?

Good point Winston. Lets not head back to the 70's rules.

I would have thought that it was easier shooting out the back than the front. No horses in the way, are there…

..and it was possible to stop the chariot, fire, and then move away again ?

I suppose that it all depends on the scale at which we are playing.

In FoG, when a unit of chariots moves up to shoot at an enemy, on the table the unit moves within range and firing is carried out in the shooting phase. In reality, the chariots are probably constantly moving, with the chariots driving up and back again to within range of the enemy so that the archer can fire. The scale of the game we are playing means that we don't have to do this on the table – we just move the unit within range and adjudicate firing with the factors representing sustained fire at the enemy.

Firing to the rear is usually because you are retreating. In which case getting away is probably more important than maintaining fire on the enemy, so the firing is less sustained. This is represented by a -1 on firing.

I am not an archer, but isn't it generally much easier to aim at and hit a target when the range is closing (decreasing) in real time than when it is opening (increasing)? Thus, for firing at targets that the chariot is headed away from, there is a -1 penalty.
Now if the bow were shooting at a pursuing target of similar or greater speed, then this situation would probably not apply, but David Taylor's reason given above certainly would.

If you haven't seen this NOVA video about reconstructing and field testing a NK Egyptian Chariot, it is well worth the view:

YouTube link

Peter

Here are my guesses:

1. Depending on the design of the chariot, there may not be a rear rail for the archer to lean on and brace himself against; and

2. In facing towards the rear, the archer may not be able to anticipate jolts as the chariot rolls over bumps.

Some solid arguments advanced on both sides. I'm still leaning towards no penalty. One reason is that NKE chariots are rated as "drilled". Surely, if you'd spent time practicing, a rear bowshot would be one of the things you'd practice?

The real unknowable is Egyptian tactics. Clearly the "Parthian shot" was a recognised tactic of the Parthians. But did the Egyptian repertoire of tactics include charging the chariots forward whilst firing, then wheeling away, whilst continuing to fire?

AFAIK there's no extant NKE military handbooks.

Isn't the archer also the driver, don't most illustrations show the archer with the reins wrapped around his waist, accompanied by a shield bearer. I doubt there was any loosing to the rear.

Nope. In the NKE the driver & the archer were different.

Wouldn't most of the firing happen while traveling parallel to the enemy battle line?

I incline to that view too Hafen. Chariots did not have a reverse gear and operated together (squadrons) so to keep formation raking fire parallel to the enemy allows them to wheel back into line for the next go while their pals do the same. Repeat until enemy begin to break up.

What is the game scale? Surely the space occupied by say 100 foot would contain fewer than 100 chariot archers and therefore a lower volume of fire from the charioteers.

Now if one figure equals one man that its a different story altogether.

Bob

The Nova video is excellent… watched it again :)

If you follow the logic on how the Chariot was used in that video, shooting at individual targets would not even look like ranged combat on the table. Also, they are starting to get close to thrown weapon range even.

Why? because they are targeting specific enemy troops. So this is quite a bit different from massed archers firing volley after volley down range at an area target.

Perhaps that is why FOG tries to model it as "less effective"… it's not that the chariot was a bad platform, it is that the use of the bow was different, you were not darkening the skies with masses of arrows, you were riding in close and shooting them at near point blank range then riding away before they could do anything about it…

Obviously it has other impacts as well that archers down range do not… Chariots charging at you and veering away while firing arrows is going to be pretty scary.

So I think the question of scale is relevant.

I thank Gonsalvo for his link to the video.

It is good though like most documentaries, better TV than it is history. Ignoring the Hyksos for probably bringing the chariot to Egypt is one flaw.

I watched the building of the chariots with great interest. As "best guesses" it may be close to the reality. Equally, the field testing was suggestive. The manoeuvreability & stability of their experimental chariots was impressive.

The show backed the idea of a 360 field of fire. At this stage, I feel I should pursue the idea of dropping the -1 for shooting rearwards. IMO it may not be proven that there is no dfference but it the concept is not disproven if you can groke that.

I would think that the ability to fire at any viable target in a 360 degree radius is what a weapon's platform like a NKE light chariot is supposed to do.

In the context of 1 chariot, sure.

In the context of many chariots driving side-by-side then probably, no. The crews to your left and right would have a problem with you shooting past their noses while bouncing along on the chariot.

It's hard enough for a modern AFV platoon of 3-4 vehicles to coordinate their movement to avoid fratricide while traveling in a wedge formation.

If each model represents dozens of chariots I would limit arc of fire to straight ahead or straight back.

If each model represents one chariot then go for it and shoot in any direction.

There is evidence that Egyptian charioteers practiced shooting at various ranges and 'all round' (Yadin). There is no evidence (of which I am aware) that shooting to the rear was less effective.

There is no evidence of the shooting practice to be to ride parallel … and indeed the NKE chariot has a very wide wheel base which seems to confirm riding up to the enemy (whilst shooting), then swerving and retiring (whilst shooting) …

Egyptian art is very stylised, of course, and almost exclusively shows chariots side-on and shooting to their front.

Phil