Later Crusaders and no WWg?

[Darren Buxbaum]

I had a question that got me thinking dealing with the Later Crusaders and the True Cross lost at Hattin. The True Cross was mounted on a wagon (another carroccio) and guarded by priests and military elite. In other lists, Anglo-Normans and Communal Italians, a carroccio is treated as a WWg, but why was the holiest of holies neglected from the the Later Crusader list? In the Later Crusader example, I would assume that the True Cross carroccio is treated as a camp. So this still brings up the interpetation of the WWg especially for the Communal Italian list (in the Anglo-Norman the WWg is optional so it is not relevant). The Communal Italians WWg (mandatory) is most likely a carroccio or it can be Sienna's crossbow mantles with scythes (which can be represented as 8Bw). Should the Communal Italians have their WWg as an option (like the Anglo-Normans) or treat it as a camp or should the Later Crusaders have a WWg in their list?

[ October 15, 2005, 10:55: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[John Meunier]

Darren,

It seems to me the question is whether the WWg in these cases functioned as a battlefield platform or not.

It sounds like that was not really the point of the vehicles in either the Communal Italian or your crusader examples.

[Darren Buxbaum]

John,
I agree with you. I feel that a carroccio is in fact a camp. First of all, a camp carries much weight for victory conditions in a battle and this is reflected by demoralization of a general losing his. Second, if elite troops are to protect the sacred wagon full of religious goodies, a player can opt to place one of his infantry stands in the camp to recieve the camp modifier (+2). Also it should be mentioned, that a carroccio's main funtion other than a morale rallying point for the army is that it is a place to hold communion before the battle commences (to cleanse the soldiers souls before they might die on the battlefield; again more of a camp funtion). So for the Communial Italian list, the WWg should be either removed or be an option. Conversely, the Later Crusader should remain as is. I guess my real aim is to point out an inconsistency in WWg's definition in the army lists.

[ October 15, 2005, 14:13: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[Plainsman]

From what I read in this thread, we are referring to a single WWG. On page 2 of V2.2 it states that a single warwagon represents 50 warwagons. Could this be the reason it is not allowed as an option in the list?

[Darren Buxbaum]

I agree, but the Anglo-Normans are excepted to have one such wagon at the Battle of Lincoln and the Communal Italians each have their own city carroccio. In all cases they usually had one such wagon and not 50, but those lists both get the WWg. To add to further inconsistency, the Khazar general and Early Achaemenid Persians get one (the Persian model has been mentioned that it was an observation perch for the general) and I doubt they had 50 either. I am not trying to rehatch the legitimacy of the WWg element, but to get consistency on its tactical purpose and description. In this case dealing with sacred relics/artifacts brought to a battlefield, the effect of the carroccio is not the same (camp or WWg) or one was overlooked (the True Cross).

[ October 16, 2005, 14:51: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[Stelzone]

The Ark is left out for the Hebrews as well. There are some glaring inconsistancies with the Wwg in the lists, as with dismounters and option verses required units. Been hashed around before and no settlement reached, don't expect one now.

[aubry d'anjou]

To continue: Why don't the Early Mycenaeans have a Wooden Horse (or the SRBs a Wooden Rabbit?) Then the opposition (Trojans or uppity French Personsza) must role a 4 or higher or it then is brought into their camp. The French get a second role and on a 6 the Rabbit becomes artillery for one turn.
Sorry, the point that is this game is marvelous for all its needed/desired/potential modifications. And, if we get really frustrated with omissions/inclusions etc., we can play a new army for a bit, get local approval for some personal wish/need/fantasy and drive on.
"You ever seen anything like this before?"
"Chappy I never have."

[Stelzone]

Your right and I probably have more armies than most. But the inconsistancy of the translation of armies from DBM to DBA has always bugged me. And IMHO should be stated occasionally.

And in my case its not a strong hate of the lists or anything like that. It is the nagging feeling that it wasn't done right. And it isn't all that many lists that are messed up. And don't confuse fiction with what we do know, the horse and the rabbit were seige pieces not Wwgs. :D

Mike S.

[aubry d'anjou]

Not siege pieces, rather the opposite. The seige was a flop so they had to get tricksy. The point I was addressing is that on a given
day(s)/ hour etc. or at a particular battle/event there are recorded historically, or in the stuff of legend, many options for many things that I/we would like to see.
But for most days/years of the campaign/Trojan War, the Mycenaeans were just slugging it out (how about +3 for the Myrmidons?) and the Horse was not even a gleam in Odysseus' eye.
It's like 5-10 Oriflammes, or multiple upper right first molars of saint so and so.

I wasn't trying to be contrary, I am sensitive to the omissions as well. Just intended to say I really like the game anyway and don't see the author(s) as very receptive to change and I'm not going to let it get to me. It (DBA) is a little mini-culture/ritual my sons and collegues have. That's its greatest value, it's fun and very easy to share.

But, you are most correct in asking how someone/a group (= the authors) so intimately involved and knowledgeable (I am hopeing) re: military history/ historical wargamming would not address these well documented options for List Specific Elements.

What happened to the Buckeyes?

[John Meunier]

EVERYONE knows that the Rabbit is part of a HOTT army, anyway. :D

I assume someone has done a Monty Python and the Holy Grail HOTT army at some point.

Trojan Rabbit (and its successor the Badger)
Holy Handgrenade
Knights who say Ni
Castle Anthrax
Vorpal Bunny
Tim the Sorcerer

Think of the possibilities!

[Timurilank]

Darren wrote: The True Cross was mounted on a wagon (another carroccio) and guarded by priests and military elite. In other lists, Anglo-Normans and Communal Italians, a carroccio is treated as a WWg, but why was the holiest of holies neglected from the the Later Crusader list? In the Later Crusader example, I would assume that the True Cross carroccio is treated as a camp. Darren,
I suspect it was the frequency which these objects were used that determines their being listed. The Communal Italians did use their carrocios and fought fiercly defending them. The True Cross has only been mentioned lost at Hattin. Anyone remember its presence at other battlefields? Most likely their was strong resistance to it being taken out of the Holy City as with the other sacred objects.

cheers,

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Timurilank:
I suspect it was the frequency which these objects were used that determines their being listed. The Communal Italians did use their carrocios and fought fiercly defending them. The True Cross has only been mentioned lost at Hattin. Anyone remember its presence at other battlefields? The other factor to consider is where the relic or object was in relation to the army's camp. I don't know about the True Cross at Hattin, but I am pretty sure that the Khazar Khagan's wagon, the Anglo Norman Standard of Ss Peter and Cuthbert of York, and most every Carrocio were deployed well in advance of where the army took its rest, even if they weren't right in the front line.

I worry about these WWg arguments, they may well force a change and it seems that DBM3 and DBMM have taken this up. The abovementioned colourful elements are being relegated to the baggage and so in DBM become camp followers. Soon WWg on a whole will be gone with one exception

When WWg are outlawed, only Hussites will have WWg. :D ;)

The next step is to prove that the encounters with Hussites were actually small scale sieges, not really battles, and we can do away with this troublesome army.

Done - Now what element do we hate the most :D ;)

Cheers

[Timurilank]

Macbeth wrote: The next step is to prove that the encounters with Hussites were actually small scale sieges, not really battles, and we can do away with this troublesome army. So what will you use for Sung gunnery practice? :D

cheers,

[Stelzone]

Originally posted by Timurilank:
[
I suspect it was the frequency which these objects were used that determines their being listed. The Communal Italians did use their carrocios and fought fiercly defending them. The True Cross has only been mentioned lost at Hattin. Anyone remember its presence at other battlefields? Most likely their was strong resistance to it being taken out of the Holy City as with the other sacred objects.

cheers, [/QB]Argument falls apart wih the Anglo-Norman Wwg then since is used in only one battle. It was not frequently used on the battlefield. Yet the Ark which was used a good deal is left out. It is problems like that, which drive me nuts. And all Wwg and Art in DBA should be optional in all lists. Most were used in sieges (Art) or as camps Wwg. It is a problem that I hope is worked out. But outlawing any unit takes away from the game, so I'm not for that either.

[Timurilank]

Stelzone wrote: Argument falls apart wih the Anglo-Norman Wwg then since is used in only one battle. It was not frequently used on the battlefield. Yet the Ark which was used a good deal is left out. Under the DBM reference books there are items which have sacred objects characteristics and yet others have been omitted such as the Kaviani standard of the Sassanids and the Byzantine holy relics.

For our BBDBA games we field such sacred objects and their function is to bolster morale. Demoralization of a command can be altered by increasing the number of elements needed by one, or if already demoralized can add an additional pip to hold units. The Holy relic must be with the central command and unlike WWg can be carried to higher ground. Of course this does have a cost so we deduct one element from the army total.

cheers,

[Sarduri II]

Stelzone said,

"...the inconsistancy of the translation of armies from DBM to DBA has always bugged me. And IMHO should be stated occasionally.
... It is the nagging feeling that it wasn't done right. And it isn't all that many lists that are messed up..."

I can only agree completely. There appears to be a terrible lack of consistancy in the translation of some lists, especially where options are concerned.

In addition to WarWagons and Artillery, the treatment of Hordes (as a compulsory element) varies widly from list to list, especially in cases where they seem to have been added to the DBM lists as a speculative possibility, rather than reflecting any recorded use of such troops in the field.

[Chris Brantley]

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Phil Barker is reclassifying litters, carroccio and other religious wagons, etc. as Baggage Superior in his DBMM rules. DBMM provides for four types of baggage, each with different characteristics and game effects. Here are some clips from the applicable text:



BAGGAGE, representing the army’s logistic support, including all personnel, supplies and equipment that increase the physical or mental welfare of troops or generals. Its function is to increase staying power (since ill-fed or dispirited troops rarely fight well).

Baggage. Superior (S): Litter carrying a general or inspirational sacred object (such as an Inca general or the Ark of the Covenant) or a standard wagon, (such as the Khazar royal wagon, that of St. Peter and St. Cuthbert at Northallerton, or an Italian City State carroccio), each guarded by picked foot.

Ordinary (O): Static, such as tented camps or draft animals tethered in the centre of a wagon lager. It can include sutlers, soldiers’ wives, drabs, slatterns or doxies, sacrificial altars and officiating priests, bodies of praying monks, a portable minaret and muezzin, or even a traveling seraglio.

Inferior (I): Baggage loaded ready to move in wagons or carts or by porters or donkeys, and flocks of sheep and/or goats, or other animals that are difficult to hurry. It is difficult to defend.

Fast (F): Baggage loaded on mules, horses, camels, elephants, yaks, reindeer, llamas or similar fast-moving pack animals, and herds of cattle, spare horses, ponies or camels.

It will be interesting to see if any of this migrates into a future edition of DBA. DBA combines DBM baggage and fortications into the single, simple mechanism of a camp. One option would be to get rid of litters (religious wagons, etc) altogether as fighting elements, which would allow DBAers to use them as camp subjects. Another route would be to make the DBA rules more complex, perhaps adding simplifed baggage rules and redefining the concept of BUAs to include field fortifications.

[John Meunier]

One vote against making DBA more complex.

I'd be in favor of future army lists being modified to drop "inspirational" WWg, perhaps with a note in the army list preface saying such things belong in the camp.

Mobile wagon laggers, Hussites, and such seem to be another matter. I don't know what tweaking they need, but they seem to have actually exsited as battlefield elements.

The Ach. Persian list is a gadget army anyway, so no harm there.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Chris Brantley:
As an aside, it is interesting to note that Phil Barker is reclassifying litters, carroccio and other religious wagons, etc. as Baggage Superior in his DBMM rules. DBMM provides for four types of baggage, each with different characteristics and game effects. Here are some clips from the applicable text:This really cracks me up. I know that Phil has said that DBMM is an attempt to clean DBM up, but then he goes and divides baggage into four classes. Every increase in complexity means a drop in playbility.

At least there isn't a Baggage(X). Yet. :rolleyes:

- Jack

[Chris Brantley]

Baggage (X) -- consisting of brothels/harems, piles of coin, and other goods representing lightly defended spoils of war, which are likely to disorder an attacking fomation and reduce it to pilferage, requiring its removal (although not counted as a lost element until the command breaks) smile.gif

[ October 18, 2005, 15:01: Message edited by: Chris Brantley ]

[E_A_Lindberg]

If I recall correctly, both carroccios were trotted around the battlefield at Monteaperti (1260). Though this was not so much because they were military weapons themselves, but just as a means of exhorting the troops. (And after the Florentine carrocio was captured by the Sienese, as a way of taunting the Florentines.)

Originally posted by Chris Brantley:
(although not counted as a lost element until the command breaks) smile.gif . . . Or at the end of the battle if the owning command is predominantly pike-based. :rolleyes: (Eumenes after Gabiene, or perhaps Ludovico Sforza in 1500?)

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Chris Brantley:
Baggage (X) -- consisting of brothels/harems, piles of coin, and other goods representing lightly defended spoils of war, which are likely to disorder an attacking fomation and reduce it to pilferage, requiring its removalThis is what I would like to see happen with Camps in general. I tried to write a house rule for warrior to this effect. As a wide sweeping element/unit/group/command comes around a flank and finds itself poised between the enemy and the loot I think they would choose the loot - thus off the board they go until the appropriate command conditions are met, further to that any subsequent element/unit/group/command that comes around would be in the same position.

I always find it funny that as the main force comes around they are forced to regret that the entire enemy camp has been looted by the scouts and all the lucre has already been carted off. graemlins/huh.gif

Cheers

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Timurilank:
So what will you use for Sung gunnery practice? :D
Pikes always make good target practice, and there are always Elephants. ;)

Cheers

[Ed Dillon]

Originally posted by Chris Brantley:
Baggage (X) -- consisting of brothels/harems, piles of coin, and other goods representing lightly defended spoils of war, which are likely to disorder an attacking fomation and reduce it to pilferage, requiring its removal (although not counted as a lost element until the command breaks) smile.gif Chris, on the plus side your rule IS only one sentence, albeit long and containing several commas which serve to allow run-on length, delimt various points within the aforementioned sentence, and redirect the attention of the gamer to tricky, even confusing grammatical structure, but only within the context of explaining the rule in terms which can be understood by drunks, eight year-olds, and etc..., who might be so inclined to play the game. However you did omit mention of both alcoholic beverages and dicey, foreign foods. Both of these COULD destroy a unit's "cohesion".

Darren, you have been fixating on WWgs for several years now, haven't you? ;) This is not really a bad thing, as the one's that you have done are beautiful beyond words. When are you going to do an Anglo-Norman WWg for me to drool over?

[ October 20, 2005, 01:46: Message edited by: Ed Dillon ]

[Terry37]

I agree, keep it simple! I remmebr the old WRG rules games in the '70s where huge bolcks of troops moved an inch an hour and then everyone had to look up 20 pages of modifiers to see if they were allowed to (yes an exaggeration I know).

I also will be gald when they realize that the carroccico was not a war wagon in Italian Communal armies, but a rallying point and inspirational sacred point only. It was heavily defended, by a well armed and probably elite guard, but a war wagon - NEVER! OK, my two cents, Terry

[Darren Buxbaum]

Darren, you have been fixating on WWgs for several years now, haven't you? I know, but hey are so cool and I can't give them up. I guess it is just that I am really inspired by the whole Zizka/Hunyadi approach for peasant grunt underdogs to take on their mounted foes. I appreciated the Swiss halberdiers and English longbowmen for the same reason. One of these days I will do some carrocios for my Angevin Kings of Hungary (Charles Robert and Louis the Great), and those for the Geulph and Ghillibiene Wars (inspired by Dante), but all as camps. With Stelzer's work on the Anglo-Norman version (thanks Mike), I will have to make one of those too.

Cheers