Warwagons in DBA 2.1

[Temujin]

The DBA 2.1 emendaments says that warwagons count the first side being attacked by enemy elements as "frontage".Since the flanks of a warwagons are two times longer than the frontage of a element,does this means that the warwagons,like the BUAs,can be attacked by more than one enemy elements in the same bound?

[Paul A. Hannah]

Originally posted by Temujin:
Since the flanks of a warwagons are two times longer than the frontage of a element,does this means that the warwagons,like the BUAs,can be attacked by more than one enemy elements in the same bound? Actually, no.

Bob Beattie's "Commentaries" has full details on this. Briefly, if I recall correctly, if one had 4 elements in a line and in front-edge contact with the long side of a WWg or Lit, one element could be in close-combat and two could count as overlaps. The other element that is in front-edge contact with it would, in effect, just be along for the ride. It could, however, carry on the fight in a subsequent bound if its buddies were destroyed or recoiled.

[ May 26, 2004, 10:10: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

[xeswop]

Paul mentions my commentary on the rules. Find it here.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html

I write this because I am the DBA Umpire for the North American Ancients and Medieval Wargamers Association.

This is what I write about the WW flank issue
8. The 2.1 Amendments gave War Wagons an exemption from turning to face a legal contact. Instead, the WWg "counts" the first edge legally contacted as the front edge for close combat. The first contact must be a legal contact such as attacker front to WWg flank and both front corners touching. Once the first legal contact has been made, then that side counts (acts as) the front and other elements can contact at the corners to be legal overlappers. An element can even then contact with its front corner touching the WWg rear corner as the flank is now counting as a front.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04_files/image018.jpg


While not explicitly in the rules nor excluded, I would allow B in the diagram above, to count as an attacker in a bound after C were forced away from contact as a combat result. So, while B cannot be an initial legal contactor, I would allow it to be such if an original legal attacker were removed from contact. It can be considered to be in contact with an edge counting as the front.

I added the paragraph above when Terry Griner, one of the country's leading DBA theorists, questioned allowing the left contact element to count in combat. It just seems too strange to leave that element hanging on in contact with no function.

[Bill Hawkes]

Very interesting, Bob. I have been wondering about this. In the same situation I might have considered element B to count as an overlap under the theory that, if the WWg had turned to face, B would be in normal overlap position.

If there was no element A in the group, would the attacker not get both overlaps then?! That is, if only elements B,C and D moved into contact (normally getting overlaps on both flanks) would the defender only count as overlapped once (by element D)?

Bill

[xeswop]

Taking the strict reading of the rules, B cannot be an overlapper as it is in neither corner nor edge contact with the WWg. We must assume that the side edge is the length that it is and not actually as wide as the front. The side edge "counts" as a front but does not become a front. Thus we must apply the overlap rules to the full length of the side and deal with corner to corner or side edge to ( was front or rear) side edge contact. Thus yes to your question about no A being there. Only D is then in a legal overlap.

Only my interpretation to give one possible way to deal with the situation, as consistent with the other rules as I can do it.

This rule is an ill-thought out one in response to someone complaining about WWgs being too flexible and causing problems with lines when it turned to face. Likewise the WWg flip problem. If the WWgs are to be included they need a special set of rules that are well thought out and all the potential consequences considered and explicit rules given.

[ May 27, 2004, 16:15: Message edited by: Bob. ]

[orca]

My WWG are based (on 25mm bases) 60mm deep. In fact, I never bought into having any elements based deeper than they are wide. I belive that it creates arttfical situations to be exploited by rules lawyers. Heresy, I know, but so be it.

[Bill Hawkes]

Bob - would you be able to propose a working set of rules for WWg (BEFORE I start painting my OG 25mm Hussites and mounting them on 60 X 120mm bases)?

Thanks!

Bill H

[xeswop]

Before doing anything with Hussites get this
The Hussite Wars: 1419-36
Men-at-Arms series
by Stephen Trunbull, illustrated by Angus McBride
pub 2004

I have only read snippets and looked at the pics but seems like a great source on Hussites. Pics I have never seen before, diagrams and models of WWg. Some great stories of WWg tactics and battles.

It shows WWg with a raised fighing side with troops shooting through loop holes. All of my models have have the crews with top body half exposed.

No one should discuss the Hussites with out reading this smile.gif

I would not propose any rules to conflict with those written, for trournament play.

For friendly games one option is to have your WWg on a square base and your team on another. Then play with just the Wagon when in combat. I did this for 1.1 so the wagons looked better on the table. If I were doing a scenario game with Hussites, I might make some special rules for managing the wagons. Not until I finish reading the new Osprey book.

Once our group applied DBR rules to a big Hussite game ( I have a DBM size army in 15mm) One in 25mm would be really great to see! That game was more fun than DBA because the WWg rules are better thought out. Take a look at those, and DBM too if you want something better than DBA.

[Bill Hawkes]

Thanks Bob! I am anxiously awaiting the Turnbull book too. I want to have my warwagons flexibly based so I can play different rules sets with them.

BTW - this will be a BBDBA army so it will have 15 (!) wagons in it.

Bill H

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Bill Hawkes:

BTW - this will be a BBDBA army so it will have 15 (!) wagons in it.
That is so cool!

[xeswop]

Special rules for WWg?

I now have a suggestion for Hussites in DBA. Eliminate them. One army in all the time from 3000bc to 1500ad was like this. there must be a half page in the rules devoted to their WarWagon. So much extra text to allow just one army. Why clutter up a game at this level of abstraction with the WWg.

Keep Hussites and war wagons in DBM where there can be more specific rules. If in DBA add a special section to cover the WWg and allow Hussites to play only historical enemies.

The tail is wagging the proverbial dog now.

Keep the Litter but as a square element, likewise the mobile baggage wagon. Square, low fighing, not in bad going, 2 PIPs to move, but it allows the "camp" to keep up with the army.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Bob.:
I now have a suggestion for Hussites in DBA. Eliminate them. One army in all the time from 3000bc to 1500ad was like this.I have to agree with your reasoning entirely on this one. However, rather than just eliminating WWg, can we trade them for all the different types of expendibles in DBM? That would add flavor to quite a number of armies with no additional rules, they're all the same as SCh.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Bob.:

I now have a suggestion for Hussites in DBA. Eliminate them. One army in all the time from 3000bc to 1500ad was like this. there must be a half page in the rules devoted to their WarWagon. So much extra text to allow just one army. Why clutter up a game at this level of abstraction with the WWg.
A very valid argument, but it rests on the premise that all of the other pseudo WWg elements be removed from other lists either because they represent too few troops to warrant inclusion at the scale, or because they don't match the Hussite WWg in effect.

However, in a game which makes Roman Legionaries, Japanese Samurai, Aztec Jaguar Knights and dismounted European Knights effectively identical at its level of abstraction it is difficult to argue that the Khazar Khagan's command wagon or the (possibly mythical) Persian Towers should be done away with because they are not the same as a Hussite WWg is more than a little harsh.

Originally posted by Bob.:

Keep the Litter but as a square element, likewise the mobile baggage wagon. Square, low fighing, not in bad going, 2 PIPs to move, but it allows the "camp" to keep up with the army. I agree that these should stay, and a square base is a better idea, but in most cases I would disagree with the idea of low fighting. These Litters and Ceremonial Wagons carried some form of important personage or relic and were defended fanatically. I think the V2.0 rules covered them best as Litters:

+4/+4 can't move into contact, don't shoot and don't recoil.

I think this simulates a steady determined defence.

Cheers

[DBAse]

Bob: I now have a suggestion for Hussites in DBA. Eliminate them. An epihpany! I agree entirely!

DBAse

[Macbeth]

Bob, DBAbase,

what a harsh pair you are. Remind me not to cross you ;)

The Hussites were a unique army and so they don't fit well into the DBA framework. But when they exploded onto the scene in 15th Century Europe, they didn't fit well into the framework of real warfare and carried all before them as a consequence. I think you would find Sisigmund of Hungary and Fredrick of Brandenburg would have seconded your call to have them banned from the field if they were given the chance.

So long as we are going to allow some armies with far less in the way of primary source material (Polynesian, Melanesian, Maori and other numerous shadowy tribal enemies of the Big American Empires) we shouldn't be crossing out armies that have primary sources and were important opponents of other major powers.

In a similar vein, the Parthians can now defeat the Romans simply by lining up and charging through with their 5 x 4Kn, rather than wearing them down with LH skirmishing.

Do all the Roman fans out there agree to remove the Parthians because they do not fit into Roman period wargaming in the correct fashion?

Finally Bob, you correctly point out that camps are out of scale to their real effect within the historical framework of DBA but add an element of interest "like castling in Chess!". Couldn't we all agree that WWg provide the same? Just a thought.

[ June 11, 2004, 03:21: Message edited by: Macbeth ]

[Redwilde]

Here's a thought I don't recall being discussed yet on the new WWG whackiness. While this sounds completely non-intuitive, I think it actually ameliorates the current technical problem of the double-wide base:

While pondering the scenario of the 15WWG BB army (definitely way cool looking, especially with big figs), I was picturing the lunacy of a wall of all 15 in broadside line, and the fact that 30 enemy could be in contact, but only every other one allowed to fight the wagons. Then it dawned on me:

"An element not in close combat to its front but in mutual r-r or l-l corner contact with an enemy element overlaps it."

So out of 30 elements in contact with a line of warwagons, 15 are in close combat and fight *and* the other 15 elements provide overlap diagonally
:D :eek: tongue.gif redface.gif :cool:

[Darren Buxbaum]

"But when they exploded onto the scene in 15th Century Europe, they didn't fit well into the framework of real warfare and carried all before them as a consequence. I think you would find Sisigmund of Hungary and Fredrick of Brandenburg would have seconded your call to have them banned from the field if they were given the chance."

I agree with you and I would also add Murad II and Mehemmed II to your list as well.

We all agree that the Hussites and the WWg is unique, but should it be included in medieval history? I say yes. If the use of wagonberg/tabor tactics weren't significant to warfare then why whould so many military leaders try to adopt or mimic their use? The Hungarians, Germans and eventually the Ottomans began either using Hussite soldiers as mercenaries or creating their own wagons. Also many historians mention their usefulness (Delbruck comes to mind). So I feel they are significant.

In a game such as DBA, the WWg is a pain, especailly for tournament play. But when pitted against historical opponents (like many other armies), they play with a "historical feel". WWg's are unique and attribute to Zizka's genius and resourcefulness so I would hate to eliminate them from DBA altogether. I do not like the WWg being only +3 vs foot, but can I understand the reason due to tournament play. Anyway that is my rant.

Cheers,
Darren

[Bill Hawkes]

Yes, let's NOT simply eliminate them; I just paid a mint for all these wagons after all! :)

The Old Glory wagons do not seem to fit on a square 60mm base, that is why I am so keenly interested in how the 60mm X 120mm bases actually work in practice.

I DO plan to run them against historical opponents, starting with the Late Hungarians. I think they will be a great challenge for the Hungarian army to defeat!

Bill H

[DBAse]

So long as we are going to allow some armies with far less in the way of primary source material (Polynesian, Melanesian, Maori and other numerous shadowy tribal enemies of the Big American Empires) we shouldn't be crossing out armies that have primary sources and were important opponents of other major powers. Its no much crossing out the Hussites as crossing out the warwagons. As it is, warwagons fail to represent wht the hussites had as well as being a pain in the butt. They move during combat unlike history, they occupy a huge board area unlike history. I'd like to see the hussites buit the warwagon isn't them.

DBAse

PS: I think the data on Maori armies is probably pretty good (later period and society persisted after colonization). The others not so. I'd like to see an example of where more than 500 Melanesians or Polynesians ever attacked anything.

[ June 13, 2004, 23:43: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Movement of the Hussite wagon laager during a battle is cited in historical sources....hence the need for war wagons in the Hussite list....I will get my source material out later to tell you times that the wagons moved.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Two good examples are Domazlice in 1431 and Lipany in 1434...both involved the maneuver of the war wagons...

[Darren Buxbaum]

I think that it should also be noted that the Hussite wagon was used offensively not defensively as a fortified camp. The wagons were to recieve the brunt of the attack.

Obviously the 40 x80mm (in 15mm) base is the problem with this element. The greater problem is that players would be tempted to use the 80mm edge as the front which in my opinion is wrong for the interpetation of a game that uses 40mm (in 15mm) as the uniform base width. Historically, the Hussite draft team would have been placed behind the wagon while the wagons were chained together. If the 360 firing radius is to be used, then the element should be reverted to 40x40mm. Sadly, a Hussite wagon clearly has a front and the rules should treat it as any other firing element. I feel that the additional rules exacerbate the problem as well as the deeper base. I will add though for a modelling aspect, that the 80mm depth base looks cool, but that is it. Sorry for the rant.

Cheers,
Darren

[ June 14, 2004, 18:36: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by DBAse:

Its no much crossing out the Hussites as crossing out the warwagons. As it is, warwagons fail to represent wht the hussites had as well as being a pain in the butt. They move during combat unlike history, they occupy a huge board area unlike history. I'd like to see the hussites buit the warwagon isn't them.
I have to agree with Hannibal about the Hussite WWg being moved in battle, although I can't cite my sources.

But to add further complications to this point. I can't see that the instances of battles where a Waggon Fortress took prominence (Adrianople and Varna for example) being easily simulated without WWg elements.

I am not convinced that the waggons in these cases (especially at Varna) were a fortified camp, they were a strategically fortified position. At Adrianople it drew in more and more of the enemy until the Cavalry could fall upon the attackers. At Varna it held out long after the external mounted element of the army was wiped out, falling to an all out assualt.

In a standard DBA battle the camp cannot be used to represent this kind of element. It has to be depolyed on the baseline and if it is held by an element type that can't be budged by the attackers(lets say Bd) then throwing more and more of the army can't help since there is no overlap allowed.

I think that WWg as they stand but on square bases is the way to go.

[El' Jocko]

This might be a good time to mention the WADBAG house rule for warwagons. I think they do a good job of making the warwagon a very special kind of element with unique strengths and weaknesses. Here's a quick summary of the changes:

WWg do NOT turn to face when hit in the flank.

WWg can shoot from every side.

WWg do NOT exert a ZOC.

WWg cannot move while in enemy ZOC.

More details at WADBAG War Wagons (http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/variants/warwagon.html).

- Jack

[DBAse]

I think that it should also be noted that the Hussite wagon was used offensively not defensively as a fortified camp. The wagons were to recieve the brunt of the attack. This appears oxymoronic. Offensively - Recieve? The Hussites were

I think there is a time scale issue. Warwagons moved - sure. They took up a defensively position prior to the battle. But this is generally n ot what a DBA battle represents. DBA is not strageategic movement prior to conflict, its basiaclly the last clash.

During the 2hours of real time? (8 bounds) or so of a DBA game, warwagons would have been a defensive positions.

Domazlice in 1431 is an excellent example. From what I understand there was bascially no conflict. The Hussites approached the battlefield and their opponents routed. You couldn't simulate this in DBA. How can this be an example of warwagon maneuvering? NOTHING happened!?

DBAse

[DBAse]

Lipany in 1434 And isn't this another example of warwagons not maneuvering. From memory, (books not in office) the Hussites began in a defensive "tabor" or "tabour". Defensive being the operative word. The attackers feigned a retreat. The Hussites made a classic mistake of forgetting they were defending, pursued from their defensive position and were defeated by a cavalry charge.

Returning to DBA language.

When the hussites moved they had left the warwagons? The warwagons didn't move?

DBAse

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by DBAse:
I think there is a time scale issue. Warwagons moved - sure. They took up a defensively position prior to the battle. But this is generally n ot what a DBA battle represents. DBA is not strageategic movement prior to conflict, its basiaclly the last clash.

During the 2hours of real time? (8 bounds) or so of a DBA game, warwagons would have been a defensive positions.
Which leaves us with the problem of how to simulate WWg maneuvering into a defesnive, dominating position before the game commences. I am passionately opposed to making WWg represented by the camp and add to this my objection to the ceremonial transport WWg being treated this way.

Maybe change it so that WWgs cannot move but must be deployed in a block before sides are diced for in fashion identical to BUAs - ie within 900paces of two edges. If the WWg are part of the invading army the invader must choose one of the sides closest to the WWg as their preferred side. If the WWg belong to the defender then the attacker may not choose the sides closest to the WWg as a preferred side. And if both sides have WWg? Arrghh....... <sounds of Big Mac beating his head against the DBA board>

Personally I'm not advocating this as a house rule or a change to be put before the great god Phil. I have no doubt of his response, but I'm mindful of the fact that if there is an arguement against WWgs being immobile fixed positions then this has to be simulated, rather than having the army that used them Liquidated.

Cheers

[Darren Buxbaum]

Originally posted by DBAse:
[QB] [QUOTE] I think that it should also be noted that the Hussite wagon was used offensively not defensively as a fortified camp. The wagons were to recieve the brunt of the attack. This appears oxymoronic. Offensively - Recieve?

I understand that my statement sounded odd. I guess what I was trying to get at was that Hussite tactics regarding wagons was different than previous armies (namely Hungarians at Mohi or Pechnegs). This was a frontline element not a rear based fortified camp. DBA does simulate a defensive nature of the WWg since it cannot close (come into contact during melee) with it's opponents. Do you think that a suggestion for Hussite WWg (and armies containing Hussite mercenaries) that the wagons should be immobile or recieve one move in the players first bound for 2 PIPs (if he rolls a 1 they don't move)? This might deal with the time frame issues that you mentioned and of course moot unrealistic WWg manueverability. There are plenty of other elements that could move or fall back to the safety of the tabor. This the case in most of Hunyadi's battles (Hermannstadt, Varna & Kossovo) and Hussites at Lipany. The Hussite army is tactically defensive in nature and would make the player chose his ground wisely. Eventually this army would lose it's popularity at tournaments due to it's predictability. Personally, I would also do away with the 360 firing. This would force players to face opponents with the 40mm edge instead of using the 80mm loophole. I would also restore the WWg to +4 vs foot as a trade off for immobility. This is not only a tough obstacle, but it's combatants have the advantage of height vs infantry. Just some thoughts.

Cheers,
Darren

[ June 18, 2004, 00:41: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[DBAse]

A set up move, like the Psiloi sprint is an interesting one.

I've wondered whether Warwagons would not be better simulated by being considered an extra-tough, DBm-like TF (temporrary fortification)? Then the Hussites could deploy it, it couldn't move, but the units behind it could.

DBAse

[Darren Buxbaum]

I think that it could use some playtesting. The Hussite army has plenty of other elements (1x3Kn or 4Bd-Gen, 1xArt, 1x2Lh, 4x4Bd), so the whole army wouldn't be immobile. Hussite players will have to take chances (ie. neutralize enemy Art or El, use Bd vs Bw or go into BG, Art vs BUA, etc...). I don't think that making the WWg immobile will totally hamper this army and will possibly add to the historical use of the WWg. I also feel that giving the player chance of 1 movement of the WWg will allow him a little more room from his base edge rather than a max of 6 inches (although it will only be 8 with the additional move). The Hussite player will have a long march away from his safe wagenburg if his opponent doesn't approach him. Although the Art will extend his reach another 5 inches (Art may play a skirmishing role, let alone an expendable one). These are just some additional thoughts towards this type of rule.

Cheers,
Darren

[xeswop]

Lots of great discussion about the WWg and Hussites. I am motivated to have a Hussite based game in my Duplicate Tournament at H'Con in July. Since players play both sides, no one is disadvantaged by either army.

I like the idea of deploying in first bound or allowing only a first bound move forward and then deploy them, with no movement if any enemy is within 6 inches.

Any suggestions on this general idea?

[Darren Buxbaum]

Bob,
this is what I would like to try with the WWg:

1) WWg are immobile and only move in the player's first bound once at a cost of 2 PIPs.

2) The 40mm edge representing the mantled front, is the only direction the WWg can fire (doing away with the 360 firing).

3) Combat factor is back to +4 vs foot and mounted.

All other previous rules apply (such as QK's, non-recoils, do not turn when contacted in flank and not allowing troops to push back or to pass through them except Ps). I would also keep the 40x80mm base as well.

What do you think? Will these ideas make a better bridge between game-ability and historical tactics dealing with Hussites and their warwagons?

Cheers,
Darren

[ June 18, 2004, 16:36: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[Roland Fricke]

I against only allowing them one move. I have not played a Hussite army under 2.0 or later but having played Ancient Indians a lot, I think the 2 pIps per move is pretty restrictive. I don't believe all the doomsday scenarios of how unrealistically mobile the WWg are in a DBA game. Personally I've seen my grandfather hitch a wagon on the farm when I was a kid and it couldn't have taken him but a few minutes hitching two horse - and doing it alone. Between not being able to make contact, having 80mm deep bases and two PIPs per move makes them very hard to manuever already I would think.

So my opinion is that immobilizing them for the game might seem more realistic but makes for a poor game. I would prefer if the WADBAG rules were put in place sicne they make sense AND make for a playable game.

Maybe we could get some people who've played the Hussites under 2.0 or later to comment from actual experience.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Why all the panic about hamstringing WWg?? I haven't seen a Hussite army in a DBA tourney yet. I think the deep bases more than adequately hamper their maneuverability and utility. Just make sure to have an elephant or artillery element on hand to blow the WWg away in your games!!

I do like the idea of making them 40mm square elements though....maybe you could have the wagons hitched at the beginning (2 x 40mm square bases) and then for a PIP move you could unhitch them (maybe allow them to move and unhitch for 2 PIP's in the same bound)?? Once unhitched, they are immobile for the rest of the game....and the horse team is simply out of play and removed from the table. As unwieldy/unrealistic as it sounds....make the front of the wagon (or wagon team if hitched) the front of the element and have shooting come off the front with the same firing arc as bows or artillery...no 360 degree shooting.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Lots of great discussion about the WWg and Hussites. I am motivated to have a Hussite based game in my Duplicate Tournament at H'Con in July. Since players play both sides, no one is disadvantaged by either army.

I like the idea of deploying in first bound or allowing only a first bound move forward and then deploy them, with no movement if any enemy is within 6 inches.

Any suggestions on this general idea? No matter which rules you use, Bob, I strongly recommend that you play Hussites on a 32" board. From playing against a Hussite army on a 24" board in Midnight Madness at Cold Wars 2003, the double-sized bases make it pretty silly and very crowded on a 24" board.

Independent of the board size, I'd second Roland's recommendation that you try the WADBAG rules. Although a number of people have spoken up against WWg movement, I don't think their case is proved -- in some cases, Hussite WWg clearly DID move. Sure, if they could get their enemies to attack them they stopped and defended -- that's what WWg do best. But if you pretend that WWg cannot move, then Hussites could never have fought Hussites. And since Hussites DID fight Hussites (many times -- that's the only way they were defeated, strategically) preventing them from moving at all (or just one move, as you propose) does not give them their historical capabilities. The WADBAG WWg rules give a very historical feel.

[Paul A. Hannah]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Lots of great discussion about the WWg...Well, until now it has been. This may send things swiftly downhill. :D

Having read Turnbull's new Hussite book and the many good ideas here on the wacky wagons, I see how different nations' war wagons functioned so differently from one other; yet, the rules try to make them all the same. As such, the rules fall short.

Here's an unrefined overview of how I would envision the WWg and Lit in my perfect world. smile.gif

I would lock Bob, DK and 3-4 others of a self-appointed WWg/Lit cognoscenti into a room at H'con (with a pitcher of beer, or other beverage of choice) for no more than 2 hours. Their charter would be to draft WWg/Lit special-rules for each of the handful of armies that can have them. This WWg/Lit module could fill no more than one of the 3 remaining blank pages in DBA 2.2.

Each WWg and Lit would have comparative strengths and weaknesses. Here a few very rough examples: Cyrus' EAP WWg could shoot like Bows in a 360 arc, but they might be deemed weak in close combat and its team vulnerable to shooting. In contrast, the Anglo-Norman WWg "Standard" and Inca Lit(Gen) would have no shooting abilities, but be Bd-like in close combat, and less vulnerable to shooting.

Demetrios' Helepolis might be able to shoot like Art, but forward only, and also be less vulnerable to shooting.

The Hussite "Wagonburg" might allow for detaching the teams. While they would have good, Art-like shooting, they would be vulnerable on their non-mantled, non-shooting sides.

Similarly for the Khazar and Pecheneg WWgs, etc.

You get the idea: Strengths and weaknesses would roughly balance out, and could really bring out all the quirkiness that those of us who are WWg fans love about them.

This "cognoscenti" would work out the details of base-sizes, turning-to-flank, overlaps, wagon-teams, etc. Three or four sentences and a few basic factors for each type of WWg or Lit might do it. And, when they're done, they'd get another pitcher. :D

--I know this is all a pipe dream. To do this, most WWg/Lit references in the 2.2 text would need to be deleted or changed. And, any major changes to War Wagons might have to be applied in DBM. (Oh, and then we'd have to sell Phil on the idea of printing on one of those 3 blank pages. :( ) But, as I said, this is just how I'd like to see them in my perfect world.

[ June 19, 2004, 19:50: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Paul A. Hannah:

The Hussite "Wagonburg" might allow for detaching the teams. While they would have good, Art-like shooting, they would be vulnerable on their non-mantled, non-shooting sides.
Please don't lock me in with a pitcher of beer. That may work for Bob, but I hate the stuff!

Earlier Darren advocated WWg shooting forward only. That doesn't seem to make sense -- "forward" for a WWg is always the direction that they can't fire, not the one they can. A single WWg element represents about 50 of the suckers (page 2, half-way up). They shoot to the side (individually) like Napoleonic Frigates. If you want them to not block each other's fire, they would move in column (or perhaps two or more columns) so they were easy to set into their defensive posture (where they put chains in the gaps, unhook the horses, etc.) So you might let them shoot only to the sides, but letting them shoot only forward doesn't seem to make sense.

But I think letting them shoot 360 is perfectly reasonable -- if they take a static defensive position (on a local scale), surely that static defensive position would have WWg pointing out every which way, not just fronting two sides (or worse still, just one) of their nominal location.

[John Meunier]

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
Why all the panic about hamstringing WWg?? I haven't seen a Hussite army in a DBA tourney yet. I think the deep bases more than adequately hamper their maneuverability and utility. Just make sure to have an elephant or artillery element on hand to blow the WWg away in your games!!

Wait, wait. Let me tell my Gauls how to solve their WWg problem. Go get an elephant!

No thanks, they say. Bad experience with elephants before.

smile.gif

I've seen both WWg and Elephants in DBA tournaments. My Gauls are not in favor of elephants.

[Roland Fricke]

Bob,
I think a duplicate with the Hussites using the rules "as is" would be a good thing. Maybe even have two of the duplicates be Hussite battles. Good way to get lots of playtesting in short time. Maybe even during the "Dr is In" session if there's free time and some experiences players are free. It would allow at least part of the community to get actual competitive experience using the WWg.

[xeswop]

Roland, that is perhaps best.

I can field 4 WWg armies so all 16 players get a chance to fight with and against them with one of the enemies. Not other Hussites!!

Which enemy would be the most intereting matchup

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

John Meunierwrote: Wait, wait. Let me tell my Gauls how to solve their WWg problem. Go get an elephant!

No thanks, they say. Bad experience with elephants before.

I've seen both WWg and Elephants in DBA tournaments. My Gauls are not in favor of elephants. This is a great treatise on the pitfalls of using ahistorical opponents in tourneys, but not an example of the problems with war wagons. Heck, your Gallic warbands should be equally fearful of knights and they will face them more often! Rough terrain might help you there, but your aggression rating will prevent that from happening too often!

[DBAse]

DK: And since Hussites DID fight Hussites (many times But are there any examples of duelling war wagons? Sure hussites fought each other, but did they tactically charge warwagons toward each other? Within the scope of what a DBA battle simulates did warwagons really tactically maneuver very much? I doubt it.

DBAse

[DBAse]

I have another test for the warwagon. Why, if the warwagon element is as useful as it appears in DBA, was the warwagon not more widely immitated in history?

I'd suggest that history is the better judge of the warwagon. And history appears to suggest that other than those who were tactically and strategically almost always on the defensive, very few thought the warwagon was worth immitating. Suggesting perhaps DBA is doing something wrong.

DBAse

[ June 20, 2004, 21:55: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by DBAse:
But are there any examples of duelling war wagons? Sure hussites fought each other, but did they tactically charge warwagons toward each other? Both armies had WWg -- are you suggesting that they didn't fight? Or that one army decided to leave its WWg? It is possible, I suppose -- I haven't bought the new Osprey on Hussites, so I hesitate to prejudge -- but it sounds silly to me.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by DBAse:
I have another test for the warwagon. Why, if the warwagon element is as useful as it appears in DBA, was the warwagon not more widely immitated in history?

I'd suggest that history is the better judge of the warwagon. So you're saying that the best evidence of whether the Hussite warwagon was useful or not would be whether other armies that came in contact with it ever picked up the new technology and adopted it? That sounds reasonable. What, like the armies of the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Germans? In other words, every single army that fought against or near the Hussites? They all picked up the Hussite warwagons -- every single one. So your method shows that perhaps they should be MORE effective in DBA than they are.

The warwagon didn't make it far into the pike-and-shot era because it was so vulnerable to artillery, which every army had in large numbers by 1500. But until common artillery made it obsolescent, every army in Eastern Europe picked up the Hussite innovation. In fact, I think Darren mentioned that the Ottomans adopted the warwagon from the Hungarians (who adopted it from the Hussites), although that would be probably after the DBA period.

[Darren Buxbaum]

Originally posted by DBAse:
I have another test for the warwagon. Why, if the warwagon element is as useful as it appears in DBA, was the warwagon not more widely immitated in history?

DBAse During the Late Medieval and Early Reniassance period, infantry was becoming more important to warfare. Infantry was slowly beating the armored knight. There are different reactions through Europe. In England massed archery was key. In the Low Countries and Swiss Alps, the pikeman dominated. In Bohemia, the war-wagon had it's success. Since it was still the Age of Chivalry, those feudal nations that either resisted change or had much invested in the armored knight suffered many setbacks at the hands of these foes. Eventually some did adapt and mimic warwagon tactics in their armies. The Germans at Domazlice 1431 actually created their own wagons imitating those of the Hussites. In Hungary, Janos Hunyadi (as well as his son Matthias)employed the use of Hussite mercenaries in his campaigns against the Ottomans. The Ottomans and Poles eventually adopted warwagons into their armies during the Reniassance. During the German peasant wars in the 1500's, the peasant armies utilized a inferior form of wagenburg. Why do the Hussites fade from history? Essentially, when the Hussite brotherhoods fought a common foe, they were united. When this foe wasn't present, the radicals fought the moderate factions (Malesov 1424 & Lipany 1434). In the end, many Hussite soldiers found them selves as mercenaries in Hungarian and Polish armies. One could say why the warwagon eventually disappeared was due to use of artillery in later periods. Artillery was usually reserved for sieges and not used very often on the battlefield during the medieval period. Had Sigismund realized this, the Hussites story and Zizka's success would have been different. The wagenburg in Sigismund's time wasn't treated as a fortress, but as peasants in farm carts to be destroyed by mounted knights. So my answer would be yes that they were adapted by other people's armies as a growing trend of useful infantry. As to why they were phased out, another form of warfare (artillery) was showing it's importance. This is my opinion for your question even though I could be way off base.

Cheers,
Darren

[Darren Buxbaum]

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DBAse:
But are there any examples of duelling war wagons? Sure hussites fought each other, but did they tactically charge warwagons toward each other? Both armies had WWg -- are you suggesting that they didn't fight? Or that one army decided to leave its WWg? It is possible, I suppose -- I haven't bought the new Osprey on Hussites, so I hesitate to prejudge -- but it sounds silly to me. </font>[/QUOTE]I did some research on Hussite Wagons and their tactics. Using Delbruck, Oman, Heath, Newark and Trunbul these are some of the conclusions that I have come to. Actually when the Hussite brotherhoods fought each other, the foot soldiers left the safety of there wagenburg. At Malesov, Zizka caught the puruing Praguer army on the march (they were chasing him). In this battle, he assembled his wagon fortress upon a hill. In his camp he assembled baggage wagons full of stone to roll down the hill upon approaching infantry. When the enemy was dispersed, he send a group of Oberites to mop up the suvivors. At Lipany, both armies left their wagons. One performed a fiegned retreat which drew the other out. This was common against their German foe to draw them into attacking the wagon fortress. Unfortunately, the same happened to Prokop's army and they were butchered by a cavalry attack. In both cases, when the Hussites were drawn from the safety of the wagenburg, they met with disasterous results.

On another note, when dealing with Hussite warwagons and movement, I have found that those sources disagree that the warwagon moved while fighting. The only author that suggests that this was a Hussite tactic is Trunbul. He quotes Aeneas Silvianus Piccolomini (later as Pope Pius II). Although Pius was a contempary at the time, There was an error found in research dealing with a Bohemian historian Palacky basing his research upon another (Jahns) that misquoted a 17th century Jesuit as being Pius's. This is all unravelled in Delbruck's book. Also Delbruck points out a good argument dealing with warwagons attacking in motion. What if a draft horse or a driver was killed? Looking at the reconstructed wagons, there aren't any provisions to defend the driver or horse. This is another reason why the horses and non-combatants were placed behind the wagons. So the wagon would be static. Oman also mentions the difficulty it would be to load fire arms in wagons while on the move. He further says that such encumbered wagons would move too slow to encircle a foe or create complicated formations to be formed by an enemy. Delbruck continues to prove that the letter formations (V, C, E and Q) are false. The only example that I found of war wagons on the move were either on the march and one battle, Kutna Hora 1421. At Kutna Hora, Zizka was trapped between Sigismund's army and what he thougt was a friendly city to his rear. He realized his desparate situation and chose to attack Sigismund's army and move to another location suitable for his tactics. How did he do this? There are three ways this could have happened. One source mentions his use of artillery upon enemy infantry. Another mentions that he used "picked men" to lead the attack. Delbruck describes picked men as those that would recieve armor from booty to ride horses. So these improvised knights might have lead the attack. Lastly, fear could have paved the way as another mentioned. The Hussites had already achieved a few successes and they felt invincible (because God was on their side). It was winter and many of the German noble's obligations were near the end for that year. Coupled with the fact that many mercenaries were present, the crusaders fled when the Hussites approached allowing a hole for the army (including the entire wagenburg) to pass through. Newark oversimplifies the battle in his book.

It seems as though on the battlefield the wagon fortress is static. It strength lies within the unity of the wagons being linked together and drawing an enemy into the range of it's missiles. This is further increased when positioned on a hill, since a mounted knight will lose it's impetus going uphill. In DBA, it can be argued that the game during the deployment phase is stategic, while the rest of the game is at a tactical level. At a strategic level the WWg moves to enter the battlefield, but it is not part of it's tactics. This is why I feel that the Hussite WWg should not be able to move. Strategy also involves the time scale issue that DBAse mentions (this is how the gameboard battlefield was chosen).

I also mentioned "front" for the Hussite wagon. I did not make myself clear and I appologize. In DBA terms in 15mm scale, all of the elements are 40mm wide. This represents the front and rear edge. What has initially caused discussion was the fact that the double-based WWg element can be turned sideways (80mm side) and still recieve contact, firing capabilities and constrict the battlefield with it's enormous size. My reaction is that one of the 40mm edges is the front edge and the new rule in 2.2 allows for cheesy tactics. Because of this loophole some players feel that WWg should be done away with. I disagree. Also, the WWg has been scaled down in each new edition. With the 2.2 version, the WWg is becoming the BUA in 2.0 as a result of rule vagueness. Reasons for the the toning down of the WWg? Some feel it is due to tournament play and that the element is too strong. I agree with Hannibal that there are countermeasures to deal with the WWg (El, Art and as of late heavy foot Bd).

In modelling the Hussite WWg, David you are right that the side of the wagon is fired from not the front (over the driver's seat). All of the reconstructed Hussite warwagons chose the left side in which the bolts and bullets are released. When looking at the reconstructions, only one side of the wagon used a drawbridge. I was hoping that both sides had the entry hole so the wagon could face either direction (planks would cover the hole on one side and the drawbridge would be used on the other). This wasn't the case, since ther is a box for stones attached on the left side interior. So when modelling the wagon do you want to represent the wagon on the march or the attack? My models are made for the attack with the draft team placed in the rear and the defensive planks (on the left side of the wagon) to the fore. So my wagons fire from the left side with the horses unhitched and behind. They retain the 40mm front edge. Since the Hussite warwagon did not fire on the move and had a designated side in which to fire from, firing from both sides or 360 isn't realistic.

I would like to try the WADBAG rules, but I was trying to think of other interpetations as well. As I mentioned earlier, those ideas I was thinking of trying needed some playtesting, but I wanted to see others reactions or see if I was heading down he right path.

Paul I will have a Newcastle and I will shut up now.

Cheers,
Darren

[ June 21, 2004, 16:27: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[DBAse]

Wow, lots of details from Darren. For those of us short on attention span (including me) I think I can paraphrase the first 3 or 4 paragraphs with: there is little or no evidence to suggest that warwagons moved tactically in the way DBA simulates.

Therefore why do they move in DBA at all?

DK: In other words, every single army that fought against or near the Hussites? To suggest that every single army near saw the Hussite warwagon as a stunning innovation, picked it up and used it widely throughout Europe is a large exaggeration.

Secondly, the point about the judegment of history was made to highlight the differences between the historical warwagon and whatever it is that the DBA-thing represents NOT to suggest that the portable pillbox didn't have its applications.

But that application wasn't movement. And for most armies, in most periods, most of the time, movement and the ability to project force is an essential prerequisite.

DBAse

[ June 21, 2004, 05:31: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by DBAse:
Wow, lots of details from Darren. For those of us short on attention span (including me) I think I can paraphrase the first 3 or 4 paragraphs with: there is little or no evidence to suggest that warwagons moved tactically in the way DBA simulates.

Therefore why do they move in DBA at all?
You overstate the case. By my reading, Kutna Hora is a case of movement by WWg while under direct threat (tactical movement in DBA). The fact that WWg didn't want to move while under direct threat if they could possibly avoid it is also clear, but that is also true of lots of other missile-fire-based defensive armies (HYW English is one example from the exact same time frame: Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt are essentially devoid of army movement by the English).


Originally posted by DBAse:

To suggest that every single army near saw the Hussite warwagon as a stunning innovation, picked it up and used it widely throughout Europe is a large exaggeration.
I was responding to your statement that we should judge the success of the war wagon by whether armies picked it up (with the implication that none did). Since every DBA army around Bohemia picked it up (those being the Later Polish IV/66, Later Hungarian IV/43(c), and Medieval German IV/13 (c) and (d)), I think that shows sufficient evidence to believe that the Hussite warwagon was a successful military innovation. It certainly took Rome a lot longer to adopt Cataphracts after their battles against the Parthians.

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
The fact that WWg didn't want to move while under direct threat if they could possibly avoid it is also clear, but that is also true of lots of other missile-fire-based defensive armies (HYW English is one example from the exact same time frame: Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt are essentially devoid of army movement by the English).
Come now David, you ought to be above making such comparisons on the basis of skewed and invalid samples. That's the kind of thing we arts graduates do.

That isn't really true of Poitiers or Agincourt (although you could make the case for Crecy being without significant movement by the English once deployed). Even if it were, Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt are not really a valid sample of late Medieval English battles and you'd find a wider range of tactics if you looked at a wider range of battles.

Shame on you!

Andrew

[ June 21, 2004, 10:58: Message edited by: adsarf ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by adsarf:
Come now David, you ought to be above making such comparisons on the basis of skewed and invalid samples. That's the kind of thing we arts graduates do.

That isn't really true of Poitiers or Agincourt (although you could make the case for Crecy being without significant movement by the English once deployed). Even if it were, Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt are not really a valid sample of late Medieval English battles and you'd find a wider range of tactics if you looked at a wider range of battles.

Shame on you!
I'm shameless, and clearly I'm an Arts graduate under the skin smile.gif and I wasn't saying that the HYW English were as immobile as the Hussites -- read what I wrote again, more carefully. I wasn't pretending to pick a "valid sample" of Late Medieval English Battles -- what I said was that the HYW English took a static position if they could, and didn't want to move if they could avoid it. I'm not sure how you could disagree with that statement.

The English flanking attack into the mass of stalled French dismounted dudes at Poitiers was by a bunch of mounted (remounted) men. The Archers didn't maneuver. The comparison to Hussites is fair for that battle -- the Hussites also sometimes used a small mounted contingent. As for Agincourt, the only significant English movement occurred before the battle was joined -- before the first French charge. The English waited in their first position, the French didn't charge, so after a while they moved their line forward to a new static position, and then the French charged. But they had a static position that was fully deployed long before the French arrived. Comparisons with a variety of Wagonburg tactics are both reasonable and fair.

To reiterate -- you are reading far too much into the single sentence I wrote, which was (paraphrased):
[WWg took static positions if they could], but that is also true of lots of other missile-fire-based defensive armies (HYW English is one example from the exact same time frame: Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt are essentially devoid of army movement by the English).
The greatest criticism of English HYW tactics was their dependence upon the stupidity of the French charging them. Similarities to the Hussites (who relied upon the stupidity of the Germans charging them) are quite fair. When the French got wise (under Joan and others) and decided that maybe they shouldn't charge straight at English archers, they started winning battles. Similarly, if the German princes fighting the Hussites had been able to avoid the social pressure to just "charge those peasants down" they might have won some battles against the Hussites. In both cases the Knight-heavy enemy thought the static infantry facing them was beneath contempt; in both cases the knight-heavy enemy was stupid (not using artillery, which are very effective against massed bowmen as well as against a Wagonburg) and charged prepared defensive positions with physical barriers (stakes/wagons) and lots of enemy missile fire. So?

[ June 21, 2004, 12:41: Message edited by: David Kuijt ]

[Darren Buxbaum]

There was one other mention of how the Hussites escaped from Kutna Hora.

"Zizka took the the Sacred Host and replaced it with a staff bearing a large chocolate doughnut. When this pastry approached his enemy, many soldiers stood with glazed eyes, dropped jaws and drool issuing from the corner of their mouths. They began to follow the doughnut in awe of it's beauty. This created a large hole in Sigismund's line and Zizka snuck through with his entire army. The German King exclaimed " I need to get one of those chocolate doughnut thingies!" From then on, this was known as the very secret chocolate doughnut tactic." H. Simpson

Cheers,
Darren

[ June 22, 2004, 07:32: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[DBAse]

DK: You overstate the case. Yes, I am. Shamelessly. I admit it. I don't like warwagons, never have. (Much as you did in the counter.)

I think you could also take up the movement argument against DBA artillery. But I think the evidence against DBA-style WWg movement is more compelling.

Why not replace WWgs with extra tough TFs, in a similar vein to stakes and archers or pallisades.

DBAse

[ June 22, 2004, 00:40: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[Sarduri II]

This exchange is a bit outside my own period knowledge, but there seems to be some concensus that there is only one valid, documented, historical example of these things (War wagons) moving DURING battle (Kutna Hora?), which if I have read you correctly was more of a desperate escape attempt, than a planned attack?

Stepping away from our period entirely for a moment, consider the well recorded incident at Funtes de Onora (1813?) during the Peninsular war. There was a well recorded "attack" made by the British horse artilery, who, cut off from their lines, and in a desperate situation, limbered up and charged through the French lines to get away.

Now I'm well aware that there are situational differences here (apart from the time period), my point however is that no sane set of Napoleonic RULES would allow limbered artillery to move into , what would in game terms be, hand to hand combat (and win!).

That the event took place is beyond doubt, but it's occurance on one single occasion, hardly sets a precedent for a rule which could be applied at any time.

In short, as a relative outsider following this discussion, I find I myself in agreement with the idea that Warwagon tactical movement would be better only as a special scenario rule.

[nick hux]

This is an intereseting discussion, but isn't there a danger of being overwhelmed by the details? This is DBA after all ;) . What we need is the "flavour" of War Wagon behaviour, not the details of any particular one. After all, do Alexander's Companions, Parthian cataphracts, Vandal horsemen and late Hungarian knights really all move and fight in exactly the same way?!

It seems that some changes might be good, although maybe mainly to the army lists, but lets not fail to see the wood for the trees!

Nick

[xeswop]

Is not the fact that War Wagons cannot move into contact with an enemy element the DBA equivalent of them being defensive only. They can move toward to the enemy. The Osprey book notes occurrences of the WWg moving up to or around enemy.

The comment by Darren that it was difficult to have shooting from the WWg suggests they, like artillery, should not shoot if they move. Otherwise the DBA rules capture the flavor of the WWg.
>Move slowly ( 200p and 2 pips)
>Shoot 360d, not really true for one, but if we think of an element representing an number of wagons, then there could be shooting more all around than from a single wagon.
>No moving into combat, this seems to fit the history. I would like rule that says they cannot move if any element other than LH or Ps is within a move distance from them. They would lagger up if enemy were around.
>Extra deep base, an artifact to represent the cumbersome aspect of them and the physical size 50 of them represent, with teams and crews, compared to 1000 men in ranks.
>no need for camp if army has more than 1. What's the history on this, did the Hussites not have camps like other armies? Did they carry everything with them at all times, even in battle

Horses were dear to the farmers so another reason not to have the pulled wagons moving into the enemy who will kill the horses to stop the wagon.

[Roland Fricke]

I am still unconvinced of the case for not allowing WWg to move.

1. WWg did move on the battlefield - how else did they get there. Was Napoleonic artillery immobile the day the battle started? As noted by Bob, the inability to move to contact represents their inability to get very close or come to grips. I know that Kutna Hora is being dismissed by the opponents of moving WWg's but Kutna Hora is an uncomfortable fact.

2. If WWg cannot move at all in a DBA battle then you better not allow Artillery to move. At least WWg's come with wheels. And what about road moves? I think the problem is that you can look at the game as a very tactical game where arty, WWg and road moves should not be allowed - OR- look on a slightly larger scale where these more operational moves are allowed. I think Phil does not view this game at the same scale as the "No WWg move" proponents do but instead is looking at a larger scale.

3. Making WWg immobile will make the game unplayable. If WWg are immobile then plan on very long games where players simply move around the sides until they can get their Knight on the Hussite blade or take out one WWg at a time with their Arty/Elephant or even heavy foot.

4. I still have not heard from any players who've played Hussites in DBA 2.0+. So as far as this discussion is concerned the conjecture as to whether WWg are too powerful is pure theory and not based on any competitive experiences shared here. I believe that in a tournament environment there will be some armies against which the Hussites will do well (those without Arty or heavy foot like - guess who - the Later Hungarians and Poles) and some they will do very poorly against (the later medieval western armies with lots of heavy foot and arty - maybe that's why it didn't take in Western Europe). In that respect DBA portrays WWg accurately. WWg will do well against their historical opponents - as they did in history. Against non historical foes it will depend on the make up of the army but the Hussites are certainly not the all powerful "uber" army. Moreover, it they are such a great army why don't we see them more often? I've played against a few WWg twice in in 20+ BBDBA games BBDBA, once they never came into combat because it took too long to move and the second time we put our blade on them and wore them down.

So given a combined arms army, I not afraid of playing against WWg armies under 2.0. But if you bring an all mounted army and have to fight WWg - well serves you right for bringing only rocks to rock/paper/scissors fight.

[Macbeth]

I think I have to agree with Roland. Especially on the subject of artillery. Even one artillery piece is likely to blow away two WWgs before the lines get into contact.

One of my players is vowing to build up a Hussite army. I doubt that he'll have it operational by Landwaster in November, but maybe by our yet to be named May 2005 tournament we might see a Hussite flying column on the tables. After that we'll be able to report on their effectiveness.

Of course my own opinion of some of the reasoning behind the 'Hussites as an Uber Army Methodology' fall into the category of "Don't give them any ideas". Turning my WWg to the side ASAP had never occurred to me before this. I just hope that the guy playing the Hungarians in my 1400 AD campaign isn't a Fanataci.

Cheers

Cheers

[DBAse]

Roland: 1. WWg did move on the battlefield - how else did they get there. I know that Kutna Hora is being dismissed by the opponents of moving WWg's but Kutna Hora is an uncomfortable fact. Its irrelevant that Warwagons moved to the battlefield. Once on the battlefield they didn't move. They were unlimbered - chained together - temporary fortifications. A warwagon is not a tank which is simply stationary because the engine is idling. Its not very realistic that a group of DBA warwagons in a ZOC are allowed to move.

Kutna Hora was hardly an advance it was more like fleeing.

Roland: 2. If WWg cannot move at all in a DBA battle then you better not allow Artillery to move. Yep, I'd agree. It doesn't have wheels, its not limberable. It can't move. DBA artillery does not appear to behave like real artillery.

3. Making WWg immobile will make the game unplayable. Yes. Attacking a tabor of warwagons is a bit like a siege or assaulting fortifications. DBA has never been very good at this simulation. BUAs being a good example of what DBA is NOT good at.

DBAse

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by DBAse:
Its irrelevant that Warwagons moved to the battlefield. Once on the battlefield they didn't move. They were unlimbered - chained together - temporary fortifications. A warwagon is not a tank which is simply stationary because the engine is idling. Its not very realistic that a group of DBA warwagons in a ZOC are allowed to move.
Question DBAse,

is the entire 2' x 2' board the battlefield, and is any of the movement within that space somewhat strategic rather than tactical?

For WWg and other slow moving foot deployed at the maximum forward level (600p) they are still 1200p from the nearest enemy when the battle starts, thats close to 1 kilometer (I think) and if both sides move towards each other they would take 6 bounds (1.5 hours) to reach each contact.

What it might be harder to glean from the contemporary accounts is when the WWg stopped moving relative to the start of the battle proper. Did the day dawn and the two sides array for battle with the WWg already in their prime position, or did the Hussites (and their later imitators) move their wagons up while the opposition were still forming a battle line and starting to advance.

I have no doubt that they were stopped still when the attack came, but I doubt that they always stopped 1200p from the enemy line.

Since the only legal moves when in a ZOC are to move into contact (which a WWg cannot do) or to move directly to the rear (maybe like Kunta Hora??) then you won't see many WWg move while within a ZOC.

I would see Art coming under this category as well. They were hard to move, harder than a WWg, but if at daybreak they were sited with no enemy in range or in sight, you might see them packed up and moved to a better vantage point. Once the enemy was close by its a different story. Most DBA players treat Art this way anyway.

Maybe for Art and WWg the ZOC that influences them should be the move distance of the enemy element? Its worth a try as a house rule, but otherwise I can't see why WWg or Art should be hamstrung any more than they currently are.

Cheers

[ June 22, 2004, 21:21: Message edited by: Macbeth ]

[Roland Fricke]

Originally posted by DBAse:
[ Its not very realistic that a group of DBA warwagons in a ZOC are allowed to move.
This I can agree with and thats one reason to like the WADBAG rules which prohibit WWg from moving in a ZOC or exerting a ZOC. This is significantly different than stopping them from moving the entire game. Nice if this would apply to arty as well but to me its not worth the effort (which will be large) trying to get these changes made official just so I can use them in tournaments.

[ June 23, 2004, 07:41: Message edited by: Roland Fricke ]

[xeswop]

[just a quick diversion from the main topic to help clarify a matter]

Macbeth asks
"is the entire 2' x 2' board the battlefield, and is any of the movement within that space somewhat strategic rather than tactical?"

You need to check the vocabulary of the game. Phil seldom uses the term "board" mostly he refers to the "battlefield." To him it is a 2' by 2' Battlefield.

I did a quick check. The only paragraph with term "board" is
"The battlefield is usually produced by placing separate terrain features on a flat board or cloth representing flat good going such as pasture, open arable fields, steppe grassland or smooth desert. Alternatively, the player can provide permanent terrain boards or blocks incorporating equivalent features. The battlefield is now notionally bisected twice at right angles to its edge to produce 4 equal quarters."

From here on he used only the term "battlefield." Thus all movement in the game is Battlefield Movement.

This is one reason for the BUA complaint, how many battlefields had BUA's on them? They were often near but not on, but that's a whole nother topic smile.gif

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Thus all movement in the game is Battlefield Movement.
Thanks Bob, I stand corrected.

However there is Battlefield Tactical movment and Battlefield Strategic movement in DBA (LH multiple moves and road moves) just as there is in DBM and Warrior/WRG7 (march moves).

These cover the theory that troops move differently when there is no enemy nearby and both sides are jockeying for position. I think that WWg movement would come under this theory as well.

Cheers ;)

[DBAse]

For WWg ... deployed at the maximum forward level (600p) they are still 1200p from the nearest enemy when the battle starts, thats close to 1 kilometer... when the WWg stopped moving relative to the start of the battle proper. Did the day dawn and the two sides array for battle with the WWg already in their prime position, or did the Hussites (and their later imitators) move their wagons up while the opposition were still forming a battle line and starting to advance.This is a very interesting post. A board is certainly 60cm square or 2400 paces square - about 2km square. So yep they're 1 km apart at the warwagons are 1km away.

I'd have to say that some warwagon movement at that distance sounds reasonable.

(At this point I start wandering off topic and wondering whether DBA armies really should have frontages of 1.6km!!)

Since the only legal moves when in a ZOC are to move into contact (which a WWg cannot do) or to move directly to the rear (maybe like Kunta Hora??) then you won't see many WWg move while within a ZOC. However a ZOC is only about 120m in length a distance closable in less than 30 seconds at a jog, a minute for the most heavily laden individual. I would have thought that deconstructing a tabor, limbering it and removing it would take a good deal longer. Being caught like that would be a "pants round the ankles" moment for a warwagon, I would have thought?

But having flogged this horse, I am interested in hearing any opinions on other aspects of Macbeth's post - Should DBA armies have 1.6km frontages? and is 120m and appropriate ZOC distance?

DBAse

[ June 23, 2004, 20:49: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by DBAse:
So yep they're 1 km apart at the warwagons are 1km away.

I'd have to say that some warwagon movement at that distance sounds reasonable.
If you get the chance, DBAse, I'd like it if you could try out the WADBAG rules for WWg. The most relevant parts for this discussion (as Roland points out) are that WWg don't exert a ZOC on enemy (because they are absolutely no threat for a sudden charge) and that WWg can't move when in enemy ZOC (because of their vulnerability when moving, they wouldn't have horses attached to the wagons when enemy are within charge-threat-range, which is what ZOC is all about). Most of the other stuff isn't changed (+1 pip to move, etc.). When taken all together, and using 32" boards (so the large size of WWg don't totally crowd the space) these rules really give a historical feel to battles with WWg. But if you could try them out, I'd be interested in any feedback you could give us on them.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by DBAse:
But having flogged this horse, I am interested in hearing any opinions on other aspects of Macbeth's post - Should DBA armies have 1.6km frontages?
DBAse Interestinly enough one of my freinds set up a fantasy roleplaying universe that was heavily rooted in the Classical Greek model. I'm pretty sure his texts on the frontage of troops in a phalanx was based on contemporary sources. We finished up calculating some pretty long battle lines based on the frontage and depth of a hoplite phalanx and I'm sure we didn't make our FRP armies significantly larger than historical ones.

Cheers

[Darren Buxbaum]

A warwagon is like a mobile home; a person doesn't live in it while it is moving, but it has the ability to change locations (unless a tornado has done that already). Having said that, we all know that the wagons moved and when in battle they formed an immobile fortress. The argument is wether the movement is at a strategic or tactical level when dealing with DBA. Macbeth brings up a good point in dealing with scale of distance. I first felt that deployment only represents the strategic level of the game. In most cases it probably does. Another wrench is added. With 1 Km or more between the armies at deployment, some armies will still be in a strategic phase and others can immediately enter a tactical phase (especially Lh heavy armies). Due to the distance between the two armies when they start the battle, I will conceed on the argument dealing with immobilizing the WWg. It will make for a better game if they continue to move. Since they cannot close with enemy elements, I don't think that they make any "historical violations" dealing with Hussite tactics.

Roland has asked if anyone has used a Hussite army let alone WWg. I have never used a Hussite army, though I have used Later Poles and Hungarians which has options for WWg. I have used them in combo for BBDBA (a total of 5WWg) and both in regular tourneys. I favor the Hungarian list since I can use 2 and disregard a camp. Also with 2WWg I can cover my 6Kn with their deep bases. I will admit that I haven't played 2.2 for very long and haven't utilized the 360 firing. I still use the WWg with a 40mm front and fire forward. My gripe in using them now is that they are only +3 vs foot. It is for this reason that I think that opponents of Hussite armies in tournaments feel that the WWg was too powerful at +4. As Hanibal and Roland has mentioned, there are counter-measures to deal with WWg (El and Art) rather than weakening the element. In the Nashville area there is a player that fields a Hussite army quite often at tournaments. In the past, I liked the WWg mostly because it was present in armies that I like (namely the Hungarians). Another thing that was cool about the WWg was the psychological effect it had on opponents. They either freaked out and balked the movement of their army or concentrated so many elements to is destuction. This was when I fielded Later Poles that has only one. In all of my battles, the WWgs move straight forward to get in range to shoot things (mostly Bw) or goad an attack. The presence of the WWg in an army can make a player play defensively since the WWg cannot move into contact. So usually you move forward enough for a mounted enemy to attack you. Conversely, you anchor your troops with the WWg and try to win position with Lh against a Bd or Sp army.

With my experience with WWg though I have developed a couple of gripes with 2.2.

First, as I already mentioned, the lower factor of +3 vs foot. WWg is now no longer a match for Art, Bd or double ranked Pk. A WWg crew has the advantage of higher ground vs a foot opponent plus is fighting from behind a large immovable object. Why should it be rated the same as Wb or Ax? Also in the carroccio examples, these soldiers are described as hand picked for their fierce fighting in defense of a relic. A carroccio is now better depicted as a camp since a player can place a Bd in it for +7 vs foot/+5 vs mounted rather than +3/+4 as a WWg. But a carroccio camp can't be placed in the front line for those Anglo-Norman fans.

The latest is the combo of double based WWg and 360 firing. I do see the importance of the double base for movement, but it also creates a couple of other problems. If the 360 firing is to be applied to the double based WWg and the WWg is turned to create a 80mm (using 15mm scale) front, this creates a 17 BW Hussite army. 10 BW will be WWg alone which is larger than a legal BUA (9 BW). The 360 firing allows this to happen. If firing was regulated to the front 40mm edge, then the manipulation would block firing. This would dicourage a cheesy tactic. I think that 360 firing would work alright with an army list with less WWg (Later Poles, Post Mongol Russian, Pechnegs, etc...), but not one that has so many that would dominate the field (such as the Hussites). If 360 firing is to be used, then use 40x40mm bases. The other headache of course deals with melee, but Bob has done a nice job of clarifying that mess. Maybe the old 40x40mm base is the way to go and keep the 2PIP movement requirement to hinder movement.

Another thing to think about is firing and movement of WWg. If setting up the wagenburg is a major ordeal (unhitching horses, digging ditches, covering the wheels, throwing down the drawbridge, loading weapons, etc...), why can a player move the WWg and fire in the same bound? Maybe a WWg can move and not fire in the player's bound, but fire in the next (since these are handguns and crossbows being loaded) rather than a turn like Art.

I would be against Art being immobile, since there is such a great range of Art. If it isn't the highly mobile like wagon mounted ballistae, Chinese wheelbarrow rocketeers, Indian rocketeers, there are wheeled catapults or other Art rolled on logs or transported on carts. I would agree that large bombards would be immobile though.

Bob, I would say that the Hussites had baggage wagons. The Malesov account shows that they were present. The word tabor is supposed to mean "camp" (not only as a reference to Mt Tabor). Using that, I am assuming that the camp is included in the WWg tabor. Also there is always supply mentioned within Zizka's army when dealing with sieges. I imagine that foraging was important to his army, but realistically he needs a logistical element to carry out his campaigns. It would seem odd if he had an encirclement of wagons that he would place his supplies outside of it.

I would also agree with David that the board size does need to be increased. It not only hinders opponents of the Hussites, but restricts the movements of Lh heavy armies.

I will end on a few notes. I am a propponent of the chocolate doughnut theory. When playing Hussites in a tournament, the player should be blindfolded. In a doubles tournament, players should be dressed as Steve Martin & Dan Aykroyd from their old SNL days as the two Czech brothers looking for "foxy American babes to swing with".

Cheers,
Darren

[ June 25, 2004, 08:31: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[DBAse]

Macbeth: I'm pretty sure his texts on the frontage of troops in a phalanx was based on contemporary sources. We finished up calculating some pretty long battle lines based on the frontage and depth of a hoplite phalanx and I'm sure we didn't make our FRP armies significantly larger than historical ones. Sounds interesting. Don't have any numbers do you?

DBAse

[Macbeth]

I'll ask the other players and the GM and see what they can dig up, unfortunately it was a long time ago

Cheers

[Darren Buxbaum]

I have a few questions dealing with WWg when turned to have a 80mm front (15mm scale). Two problems have been addressed; deployment and melee. I have 4 more situations and problems that occur mostly with the Hussite army and the 80mm front with 360 firing.


Target selection and supporting fire by WWg
With all of elements in 15mm scale having a 40mm front, target selection by a single firing element was a base width (40mm) on either side of the element to the front. This currently gives a 40mm element 120mm width to fire forward given that the target is still in range. Using the 80mm front, where does the 40mm front begin and end? I would not hope that there is 80mm forward firing with an additional 40mm tacked on to either side. This will also affect firing support. If 40mm is the norm, then where is it placed on a 80mm front? In the middle or one of the front corners?

Targeting WWg by opponents
One way to counter the WWg is with Art. The problem now is that the Art cannot target as many WWg as in the past if a 80mm frontage is used. If the Art has a 40mm front plus 40 on either side for targeting, it can only fir upon 2-1 WWg with a 80mm front. If I was a Hussite player, I would alternate Bd with WWg so I could protect my WWg from Art (since he can only fire at one). So the big frontage may seem like a big target, really hinders it's opponents even further.

Shooting in the rear
The Hussite army can be deployed with 17 (40mm) base widths. An average army has 12 (unless it contains WWg). Not only will the Hussites be difficult to flank on a 2'x2' board, it would be difficult to match element to element (like with a Bd army). As a results gaps or an over-extended line is created. Using the 360 firing, a WWg can advance through the line and fire at recoiled elements in the back quite easily for a QK. This is not very historical.

Closing the door with Bd
Another tactic that will be made easier with the 80mm wide WWg, is closing the door. Once again, dealing with 17 BW, Hussites will have the luxury of exploiting gaps or additional frontage. This can be done by using Bd, Lh or Kn to close the door on an engaged opponent.

All of these tactics will greatly give the advantage to a Hussite player utilizing a 80mm front that uses 360 firing. I only pick on the Hussites since they have the most WWg. What are your thoughts on this?

Cheers,
Darren

[David Kuijt]

Hi Darren;

Please excuse my brevity; no insult is intended, but I wanted to respond in the few moments I have free this weekend.

Originally posted by Darren Buxbaum:

Target selection and supporting fire by WWg:
WWg can fire from any edge. Two edges are 80mm, but so what? It would be wierd to fire from only 40mm of the 80mm edge, and it would create more wierd situations than it solves.



Targeting WWg by opponents
Yes, alternating Bd with WWg will make it easy to protect your WWg. But that tactic is a very, very bad plan. For one thing, if your Bd is recoiled by the Art into the WWg, it will die. For another, the alternation you describe means that the WWg are not pointed (their "moving" front) in the same was as the Bd -- that means they will never be a group until the WWg rotates around. In other words, with +1 pip to move the WWg, a line of 5 WWg width-wise and 4 Bds between them would take 14 pips to move.



Shooting in the rearIt is true that the WWg player can block a 2x2 board -- that's a big issue.

But there is no way that the enemy will spread out to match the width of the Hussites in play -- as noted above, the WWg 80mm side isn't the direction it moves, so the line you describe is totally (TOTALLY) immobile. Presented with this in play, an enemy will just concentrate his formation on a few elements, lead with a Bd or Sp or doubled-pike against one WWg and get an overlap on it with the second element on the 80mm, and kill it. Once one is dead, the wide hole and immobility of the rest of the army makes it trivial to bust through the line and flank or overlap elements on both ends, and getting three more kills will be easy.

The chance of a WWg moving through a gap and firing at enemies from behind is laughably small -- in my experience it nearly never happens. Too many pips to get there; too easy to ZOC it into helplessness.


Closing the door with Bd

In this section you assume that the enemy would spread its 12-BW army to match the 17-BW Hussites. Doesn't happen -- the Hussites are only 17 BW if their WWg are side-on to the enemy, which makes them impossible to move (sideways is individual movement only, never in ZOC, and takes 2 pips per WWg). The 12-BW enemy would just concentrate on the most vulnerable section and bust it, long before the movement-disabled Hussites (disabled because of the formation you are talking about) coudl react.

[ June 26, 2004, 17:27: Message edited by: David Kuijt ]

[Darren Buxbaum]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Kuijt:

Please excuse my brevity; no insult is intended, but I wanted to respond in the few moments I have free this weekend.

David,
I am glad you did and I always look forward to your insight. You bring up some great points. I guess what I was trying to get at was there is some additional "cheese" added to WWg if they are turned to have a 80mm front. If the Hussites are used this way and block most of the board, I don't think movement would be an issue. All the cards are held from this position, why would they want to move? Some of the ideas were based on individual moves (shot in the back) whereas the WWg can move forward as an 80mm front with the DBA rules as written. As an opponent, I guess I would choose a great deal of BG so they can't deploy this way. That Prussian list is looking better.

Cheers,
Darren

[DBAse]

Warwagons might not be able to block the whole board but they can do some other cheesy stuff.

My favourite is to have my 4 warwagons in echelon, such that... (a WW is a warwagon).

W
WW
_WW
__W

Each step in the echelon is 39mm deep so that you can't get a legal front-flank corner contact. (You obviously can't get a rear-flank corner contact because of the next warwagon.)

Now rotate the warwagons 1 degree from parallel to the adjacent wargon. You now can't get a legal front edge to edge contact either except on the lead warwagon.

Now anchor one end of the echelon against a BUA.

You get 155mm of impassable warwagon, excluding the BUA, you can still move and of course shoot.

DBAse

[ June 28, 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: DBAse ]

[xeswop]

I played with a Hussite army at the Origins open tournament. 4 games, in period. I faced two late Western Euro armies both of which had artillery. If you want to win, you must attack. If you just sit still, the artillery will shoot at you at +3 to +4 and every so often will destroy by beating a wagon, and if you wait, you will eventually lose 4. If you try to counter attack the artillery with your mobile force (General Kn and LH) the opponent will bring out larger numbers of Knights and bows. If you try to attack with the Bds, then he brings out the Kn. So you form head on and move forward. If you bring along your artillery, the enemy will focus on it so you need to either leave it behind or protect in your line. It becomes a weak defender at +2 in close combat and can put a hole in your line. I won vs an army with lots of Bw by just outshooting it at various +3 to 0 places before his Art destroyed too many wagons. He was aggressive and attacked instead of sitting back and shooting me to pieces with the Art.

In the other two games I faced Indian/Malay armies with Elephants. In the first I was Invader (bringing the Chalice to the Heathens) and faced max terrain. I tried to divide the wagons and was always Pip starved. The El cam around one flank and picked off a couple WWg - my +4 to his +5 with general = +6.) With overlappers. I was usually at +3 even +2. When I was defender vs El, (with very little terrain)I was able to get my artillery to bear on the El and shoot others away with concentrated Wagon shooting +4 to his +4 minus 2.

All of these game were played to the full time allowed. They were slow. I was 2 and 2, beating one of each type (Art or El).

I had not practiced any tricks prior to the event having just decided to bring the Hussites the day before the event. I did not really have much time to learn cheesy tactics so had to do slow movment or get pinned. The army is not a killer army, in period (and/or Bob is not a killer general smile.gif ). Maybe versus a warband, cavalry, or blade/spear army it would do much damage. 5 +3 shooters can have some effect, even just shooting out the front. If it had a couple of Knights or some light troops -- Ps or Ax to flank and otherwise harrass the enemy it would be much stronger. The +3 vs foot is not so great once there are overlaps in close combat against the WWg.

All in all I do not think the Hussite DBA army one that needs to be feared when it plays in period. In an open event, the organizer might do well to follow Mike Demana's format of putting the the entries into a timeline and dividing in the center for quasi-historical matchups. Then the Hussites do not fight the Greeks and Romans.

[ June 28, 2004, 15:47: Message edited by: Bob. ]

[Andrechin]

Just two questions on the discussion here

Originally posted by Bob.:
I The El cam around one flank and picked off a couple WWg - my +4 to his +5 with general = +6.)El shouldn't be +4 against WWg, +5 if general

Originally posted by David Kuijt.:

WWg can fire from any edge. Two edges are 80mm, but so what? It would be wierd to fire from only 40mm of the 80mm edge

From the rules I read that WWG use the first contacted edge as front edge in close combat, but in distant combat they do not shoot from an "edge", but at 360 degrees exactly as elements in camps or BUAs.

So I think one should treat shooting from a WWg as shooting from a 40 mm x 80 mm camp. How do you shoot from such a camp? Do you draw lines from the corners of a camp edge to the target?

Thanks,
Attilio

[ July 04, 2004, 17:46: Message edited by: Andrechin ]

[xeswop]

yes, my sloppy. And indeed the WWg shoots 200p from any point 360 degrees around it.