Hussites

[Victor]

I was thinking of trying out Hussites, and found some opinions on the resources page about them being tough - but these seemed to be based on DBA1.1 where they had a different army composition and war wagons had higher CF's. They now seem to be a lot weaker under 2.2. What is the current consensus on them?

Thanks in advance,

[David Kuijt]

The WWg rules are broken.

And the Hussites don't work well on the 24" board -- it is sometimes impossible to even deploy your army legally.

The army isn't the killer that it was under 1.1 -- still respectable, but not killer. But the WWg rules are broken.

[Stephen Webb]

WWgs should be banned, especially if Victor is going to use them...

[John Loy]

DK:

At the risk of starting a "war"; what's wrong with the rules. Given that I have rarely played with WWg's (or Lit)?

John

[David Kuijt]

At the risk of starting a "war"; what's wrong with the rules. Given that I have rarely played with WWg's (or Lit)?


WWg shouldn't exert ZOC. It makes no sense -- the ZOC is an area where the threat of a charge creates restrictions on enemy movement. WWg cannot move into contact -- how can they threaten to charge? And don't say "their missile fire creates the ZOC" -- WWg have a 360" missile fire, but don't create ZOC except forward.

WWg shouldn't be able to move while in enemy ZOC. Historically, all WWg types were pulled by draft animals. These were unhitched when the enemy got close enough to be dangerous, which being in ZOC certainly represents.

There are a couple of other, minor issues (like how do you handle overlaps when in contact with the side edge, since WWg don't turn to face) but just using the two rules changes above and a 30" board (so the WWg player can deploy, which is sometimes impossible for Hussites on a 24" board) fixes the major problems.

[El' Jocko]

WWg shouldn't exert ZOC. It makes no sense -- the ZOC is an area where the threat of a charge creates restrictions on enemy movement. WWg cannot move into contact -- how can they threaten to charge? And don't say "their missile fire creates the ZOC" -- WWg have a 360" missile fire, but don't create ZOC except forward.

WWg shouldn't be able to move while in enemy ZOC. Historically, all WWg types were pulled by draft animals. These were unhitched when the enemy got close enough to be dangerous, which being in ZOC certainly represents.

Those aren't the reasons why war wagons are broken (at least by my definition of broken). They're good changes, but they just change the rules so that war wagons behave in a more historic manner.

There are a couple of other, minor issues (like how do you handle overlaps when in contact with the side edge, since WWg don't turn to face) but just using the two rules changes above and a 30" board (so the WWg player can deploy, which is sometimes impossible for Hussites on a 24" board) fixes the major problems.

Now you're getting at it. The main breakage is that when there are two elements in contact with the side edge, only one of those elements is allowed to attack. The second element doesn't even count as an overlap. In my mind, that's broken. There are other wierdnesses, mostly around determining which edge is the front, but that's the major problem.

On the other hand, I've brought war wagons to tournaments and played them without these situations coming up. So the rules aren't so broken as to render war wagons unusable.

- Jack

[David Kuijt]

Those aren't the reasons why war wagons are broken (at least by my definition of broken). They're good changes, but they just change the rules so that war wagons behave in a more historic manner.


I've got several definitions of broken; I don't keep to a single use. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

As a game designer with no regard for what the game purports to represent, you're correct, the only thing that is broken is what happens when a 40mm front edge contacts an 80mm side edge.

As an historical enthusiast, the fact that WWg exert ZOC and can move within ZOC is also broken. Nanee-nanee-booboo.

[JamesLDIII]

As a game designer with no regard for what the game purports to represent, you're correct, the only thing that is broken is what happens when a 40mm front edge contacts an 80mm side edge.


Which is why I would advocate for a 40mm x 40mm sized WWg.

But that won't happen because...many reasons...hmmm

Playing 6mm figures makes it easy. I just use 40x40 WWg bases, and if I were to go to a tournament, I could stick two of my 40x40 elements together.

[Bryanmd]

Gotta say David, when my Gauls were plowed by those warwagons, it seemed kind of weird to me as well...
Granted, I had never faced WWGs before, but they seemed to perform in a non-historical fashion (no fault of yours, of course). I agree that a ZOC from these guys makes no real sense, and it seemd hard to slam into 80mm frontages to generate overlaps etc (But hey, I can live with the rules as written).

Bryan

[Victor]

I suppose if I run Hussites then I can try to win games based on the "exotic" factor, i.e. opponents may think the war wagons are capable of more things than they actually are.

Just a question on how they work, if one enemy element attacks the long side of the warwagon (not two), does the unengaged half of the warwagon count as an overlap to that enemy element?

[Macbeth]

Victor,

my Sung Chinese eagerly await the chance to take on your WWg. The makeup of last years armies at MOAB might suggest that Hussites would not do well - Art is their mortal enemy and there was a lot of that at MOAB. :D

Cheers

[Victor]

Victor,

my Sung Chinese eagerly await the chance to take on your WWg. The makeup of last years armies at MOAB might suggest that Hussites would not do well - Art is their mortal enemy and there was a lot of that at MOAB. :D

Cheers

I don't think I'd risk them in an open comp, I was thinking more for social games. I feel that competitions tend to favour foot armies - particularly those with low aggression who can set terrain or with dismounters, and these armies would give the Hussites no end of trouble.

[Stephen Webb]

I was thinking more for social games.

Bring em on...

But do you have a historical opponent?

[Bob. (and his dog)]

snip

Just a question on how they work, if one enemy element attacks the long side of the warwagon (not two), does the unengaged half of the warwagon count as an overlap to that enemy element?

No, this is part of the broken bit. Front of WWg is to left, YY faces up
XXXX
YY
YY makes a legal contact on the flank of WWg. The right half of the WWg is ignored.

YY and ZZ are in contact with the full side of the WWg
XXXX
YYZZ

In this, the right half of WWg is ignored and ZZ is ignored. Moreover, if YY recoils, ZZ is still not involved because has its front corner in contact with the WWg rear corner. Not a legal contact for combat.

"It (combat) occurs when elements move into, or remain in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element or front edge contact with a camp or BUA."

While having a WWg twice as deep as it is wide makes it compatible with DBM, I believe that this is the source of much of the WWg problem. All sorts of orientation situations can occur that need to be sorted out. Better to assume that 1/2 of the WWg is the draft animals and are not involved in the game. Even though a WWg model represents up to 50 wagons, they can still be on a square base, assuming the draft animals are removed for combat. Artillery needs transportation to get to the front, but this is not accounted for in the game.

Did the Hussites have 250 wagons in their army?

[Victor]

Bring em on...

But do you have a historical opponent?

IV/66 Poles - who have no artillery or elephants....

[Victor]

In this, the right half of WWg is ignored and ZZ is ignored. Moreover, if YY recoils, ZZ is still not involved because has its front corner in contact with the WWg rear corner. Not a legal contact for combat.


Thanks Bob, I've never considered that the second element (ZZ) in contact would not recoil. It seems that WWg should either be 40mm x 40mm as suggested, or allow the second half to count as an "element" for combat purposes.

[David Kuijt]

Gotta say David, when my Gauls were plowed by those warwagons, it seemed kind of weird to me as well...
Granted, I had never faced WWGs before, but they seemed to perform in a non-historical fashion (no fault of yours, of course).

Actually, our game wasn't too non-historical -- I sent the WWg zooming down a road on one flank, and eventually into your backfield. Jan Zizka did similar things, although I forget which battle right now.

The question of whether or not a WWg should move, for Hussites, is pretty clearly "yes". I just think they shouldn't be able to move when in ZOC, and they shouldn't exert a ZOC.

[Bryanmd]

agreed, they should move
agreed, they should not ZOC

The ZOCing really gave me fits in that game.....I would think folks could just swarm around their defensive posturing in real life (and get shot at, of course).

[Stephen Webb]

IV/66 Poles - who have no artillery or elephants....

I might just choose the Hussites then...

But I would use either, just to see how they went.

[Victor]

Oh well my 1st war wagon experiment failed. Running the IV/66 Poles (with one war wagon) vs 100YW english, only to see the wwg get doubled by a couple of bow.

[Steve Schifani]

I love Hussite history and have a 28mm BBDBA Hussite army, though I altered the force composition to 12 wagons. It's not like there are any 25mm tournaments on the horizon, and I'd bring a more traditional army to something like that anyway.

With regard to numbers. A Zizka-led army of 3,000 Hussites had 120 wagons with it, and there were certainly much larger (and smaller) armies. At Sandomer 400 men had 12 wagons. 6,000 and 9,000 (and presumably 240ish and 360ish wagons) are estimates from other campaigns. The largest I know of offhand was 18,000 Orphans/Taborites fighting the less radical faction/alliance at Lipany, supposedly 25,000. How many of these were true war wagons vs. baggage wagons, I've no idea, but the DBA concept of 250 wagons isn't outlandish.

Wagons had some offensive capability, though how that exactly worked isn't known. At Kutna Hora, Zizka's soldiers and wagons attacked and broke through the Catholic crusader lines to escape. This could have been through concentrated shooting, a straightforward assault, or both. It doesn't particularly bother me that war wagons can move somewhat with enemy in close proximity. Not only did they break out at Kutna Hora, but Hungarian battle plans in the time of Janos Hunyadi called for his Bohemian crewed war wagons to accompany the cavalry on the wings like the pincers of a scorpion.
Wish there were battle accounts of this plan actually being used, none come to mind.

A war wagon crew was approx. 18-20 strong, with 2 drivers, 2 pavisiers, and the rest somewhat evenly divided between marksmen and troops with heavy melee weapons. DBA seems to use blades as representing the bulk of the hand-to-hand guys, though Hussite numbers appear to have more men than just those allotted to crew the wagons.

At Lipany, the radicals were enticed to leave their wagon fortifications. They pursued the fleeing enemy into a cavalry ambush and were beaten. This is the only example of wagon crews leaving their vehicles to attack that I know of.

Overall, DBA has allowed me some good games with Hussites. I've altered the composition a bit, and I've tried some different combinations for a Catholic crusader opponent. Great fun if you balance it a bit.

Steve