War Waggons

[NikephorosIIPhokas]

I played FoG I back in the day and they had war waggons in the army lists. For example the earliest Achaemenid, the Cyrus army list, had the war towers in it, from Xenophon's Cyropaedia. While I never got Immortal Glory for FoG I Eternal Empire I think the Hussites had war waggons. My question is what reason if any was their for FoG II to not have war wagons? Also if Eternal Empire is planned as a future expansion how will the Hussites be modeled?

[rbodleyscott]

The short answer is that rating war wagons as tactically mobile units in the original FOG was probably a mistake. In the vast majority of accounts they remained static throughout the battle, so are better represented as field fortifications.

That does leave a few accounts where they supposedly advanced during a battle, but allowing them to always do so, as the original rules did, vastly over-represents this.

[Cunningcairn]

The short answer is that rating war wagons as tactically mobile units in the original FOG was probably a mistake. In the vast majority of accounts they remained static throughout the battle, so are better represented as field fortifications.

That does leave a few accounts where they supposedly advanced during a battle, but allowing them to always do so, as the original rules did, vastly over-represents this.

Would they not be better modeled as an immobile unit with appropriate shooting and melee capability? Much like heavy artillery.

[rbodleyscott]

The short answer is that rating war wagons as tactically mobile units in the original FOG was probably a mistake. In the vast majority of accounts they remained static throughout the battle, so are better represented as field fortifications.

That does leave a few accounts where they supposedly advanced during a battle, but allowing them to always do so, as the original rules did, vastly over-represents this.

Would they not be better modeled as an immobile unit with appropriate shooting and melee capability? Much like heavy artillery.

They could be, but as the crews were not physically attached to the wagons, they need to be able to sally forth when required. Which being the case, there does not seem to be any particular advantage in representing the wagons as units.

[TheGrayMouser]

The short answer is that rating war wagons as tactically mobile units in the original FOG was probably a mistake. In the vast majority of accounts they remained static throughout the battle, so are better represented as field fortifications.

That does leave a few accounts where they supposedly advanced during a battle, but allowing them to always do so, as the original rules did, vastly over-represents this.

Would they not be better modeled as an immobile unit with appropriate shooting and melee capability? Much like heavy artillery.

They could be, but as the crews were not physically attached to the wagons, they need to be able to sally forth when required. Which being the case, there does not seem to be any particular advantage in representing the wagons as units.

I personally would rather have war wagons have a questionable ability to move ( perhaps with a cohesion test to do so like the tabletop? ) vs just field fortifications. What troops would be allowed to sit in/behind such fortifications? Any units or special wagon berg crew units? Although wagon fort armies never won any tournaments in Fog 1, they offered pretty interesting battles both as and against. Regardless of how they might be represented though, all things medieval are eagerly awaited.

[antiochosvii]

If this engine gets to and can replicate the slaughter of the Hussite wars I will be impressed

[melm]

The best way I'd like to see is that the wagon can be depicted as movable obstacle or fortification. When moving, they need to be hauled on the horses for one turn then start moving, which prevents it too maneuverable. However, I suspect the engine can't make any obstacle or fortification move. If we make wagon as a unit, which can shoot and melee, I am afraid that unit is hard to price. If price is too low, camping would be a good choice; if too high, no one would want to deploy any of them.

[MVP7]

If something like war wagons were included I would like to see them have very limited movement like the baggage train unit. The wagon could then be permanently deployed at convenient place (which could take several turns to complete). This would allow a bit more mobility than deploying it just inside the deployment zone (which would also promote turtling) but prevent it from being a truly mobile unit.

Similar system would also be nice compromise for the heavy artillery. Currently it's often hard to find a good spot in the deployment zone and the artillery often won't have range to shoot at the enemy unless you sit back and wait for them to come to you. If both armies have heavy artillery then both are discouraged from approaching the other.

[AlexDetrojan]

Make the proposed War Wagons just like medium/heavy artillery. Limber and unlimber, and one hex movement. That should manage the limited move ability issue nicely. I would love to see the Devs. do this, as there are quite a few medieval armies that used them. Please consider this.

[TheGrayMouser]

Upon further reflection I really think warwagons (if and when implemented) should be able to move. I know it’s not historical but whose going to want to use ( or fight) armies that can’t really move out of their deployment zone.

And I will use RBS’s own argument back from a thread about the skirmisher battles... in that thread RBS stated that it was within reason that open skirmish battles encompass operational maneuvering of armies to get to favorable terrain on the map.. ergo, warwagon armies should be allowed the same ( albeit slow) capability

[Cunningcairn]

Upon further reflection I really think warwagons (if and when implemented) should be able to move. I know it’s not historical but whose going to want to use ( or fight) armies that can’t really move out of their deployment zone.

And I will use RBS’s own argument back from a thread about the skirmisher battles... in that thread RBS stated that it was within reason that open skirmish battles encompass operational maneuvering of armies to get to favorable terrain on the map.. ergo, warwagon armies should be allowed the same ( albeit slow) capability

I agree with you. Is it possible to allow the wagons to move until they are in close proximity to enemy units? This would replicate the ability to deploy and also their behaviour once battle commences. Maybe a rule that says a war wagon cannot move if there are enemy units within x squares. This could also be used for heavy artillery.

[MVP7]

As long as tethering and setting up a wagon or heavy artillery takes a few full turns I don't think any extra mechanics for limiting deployment near enemy are really needed. If it takes 3 turns to set up you naturally don't want to risk setting up in place where you aren't sure that it won't be attacked as I imagine any wagons would be completely defenseless (like the artillery) when not set up.

[TheGrayMouser]

As long as tethering and setting up a wagon or heavy artillery takes a few full turns I don't think any extra mechanics for limiting deployment near enemy are really needed. If it takes 3 turns to set up you naturally don't want to risk setting up in place where you aren't sure that it won't be attacked as I imagine any wagons would be completely defenseless (like the artillery) when not set up.

If you saddle them so heavily you might as well have them be field fortifications.... I would think a 1 grid move rate, and the inability to initiate impact should suffice.

[Mairtin]

For me, I think war wagons should maybe move like light artillery; rather than baggage train, which would better suit the heavy artillery (if they were to be given movement). They were after all designed to be mobile, at least until the fighting was to start. Maybe a mechanism similar to forming square could be used to actually deploy them. If they aren't allowed to move you have the same problem as with heavy artillery at the moment being confined to the deployment zone.

I'm not sure if the bow/crossbow/handgun armed crew should be able to shoot before deployment, and if not if they could shoot on the turn they are deployed. The light artillery versions I don't think should be able to shoot until properly deployed.
There are accounts of Jan Zizka using the wagons offensively, and even breaking through the weak point of a surrounding army in 1421 near Kutna Hora allowing his own army to escape. So whether they should be weak in combat before deployment, I'm not sure. They should be better when deployed though.

Would the scale of the game allow for gaps between the wagons to be filled with chains presenting an obstacle; or would it be better to represent it by allowing some troops, like the bill and flailmen of the hussites, to pass through deployed wagons? Such units should probably be small (240 men?) heavy foot, or would it be best to just represent them as light foot who can charge enemy?

[klayeckles]

The reason war wagons existed was to provide a STRATEGICALLY mobile defensive position (no doubt they started out as just plain baggage transports and eventually were hyped up) Strategic movement is much different than what this game presents...we are engaging in tactical battles. Yes they had movement, but the movement by and large BETWEEN the battle fields,not in them. Imagine the train of oxen or horses needed to drag them about...gigantic vulnerable targets...and STRATEGIC assets a General would want to get out of harms way when the arrows started flying. Sure they were moved about a bit--but very very seldom when the battle was engaged except maybe to get out of Dodge, or maybe trundle over to a flank to prevent a possible cav maneuver. FOG 1 they were interesting, not particularly lethal, way too manouverable (even at 2 hexes with no turning/turn) and expensive. I.E. a great item to add to the mix to represent some battles of history, but not something you'd rush out to add to your Super-Army. So they are a fun item...but to RBS's point, representing them as a TACTICALLY mobile unit is a huge stretch if you are going for historically accurate (so a great item to use against the zombies! )

[Cunningcairn]

The reason war wagons existed was to provide a STRATEGICALLY mobile defensive position (no doubt they started out as just plain baggage transports and eventually were hyped up) Strategic movement is much different than what this game presents...we are engaging in tactical battles. Yes they had movement, but the movement by and large BETWEEN the battle fields,not in them. Imagine the train of oxen or horses needed to drag them about...gigantic vulnerable targets...and STRATEGIC assets a General would want to get out of harms way when the arrows started flying. Sure they were moved about a bit--but very very seldom when the battle was engaged except maybe to get out of Dodge, or maybe trundle over to a flank to prevent a possible cav maneuver. FOG 1 they were interesting, not particularly lethal, way too manouverable (even at 2 hexes with no turning/turn) and expensive. I.E. a great item to add to the mix to represent some battles of history, but not something you'd rush out to add to your Super-Army. So they are a fun item...but to RBS's point, representing them as a TACTICALLY mobile unit is a huge stretch if you are going for historically accurate (so a great item to use against the zombies! )

Yes you are correct but if they don't move they probably won't be used unless they are chosen by a "corner sitter" and then in a serious game won't be attacked. How often are heavy artillery currently used in competitive games? Very, very seldom. Although I agree with your STRATEGIC VS TACTICAL analogy it is not that clear cut. At the beginning of most games there is a lot of movement before the actual "battlefield" is agreed. Do you remember the time when rules allowed your troops to move faster until you got closer to enemy? Obviously this wasn't historically correct but was justifiable and made for a more enjoyable game experience. I think it will be more satisfying if heavy artillery, war wagons and even naval vessels could take a more active part in the game and not just be an unused option. The suggestions to allow some mobility to war wagons and heavy artillery in this thread are not historically unjustifiable and will add richness to the game if these troop types were used more frequently.

[klayeckles]

The reason war wagons existed was to provide a STRATEGICALLY mobile defensive position (no doubt they started out as just plain baggage transports and eventually were hyped up) Strategic movement is much different than what this game presents...we are engaging in tactical battles. Yes they had movement, but the movement by and large BETWEEN the battle fields,not in them. Imagine the train of oxen or horses needed to drag them about...gigantic vulnerable targets...and STRATEGIC assets a General would want to get out of harms way when the arrows started flying. Sure they were moved about a bit--but very very seldom when the battle was engaged except maybe to get out of Dodge, or maybe trundle over to a flank to prevent a possible cav maneuver. FOG 1 they were interesting, not particularly lethal, way too manouverable (even at 2 hexes with no turning/turn) and expensive. I.E. a great item to add to the mix to represent some battles of history, but not something you'd rush out to add to your Super-Army. So they are a fun item...but to RBS's point, representing them as a TACTICALLY mobile unit is a huge stretch if you are going for historically accurate (so a great item to use against the zombies! )

Yes you are correct but if they don't move they probably won't be used unless they are chosen by a "corner sitter" and then in a serious game won't be attacked. How often are heavy artillery currently used in competitive games? Very, very seldom. Although I agree with your STRATEGIC VS TACTICAL analogy it is not that clear cut. At the beginning of most games there is a lot of movement before the actual "battlefield" is agreed. Do you remember the time when rules allowed your troops to move faster until you got closer to enemy? Obviously this wasn't historically correct but was justifiable and made for a more enjoyable game experience. I think it will be more satisfying if heavy artillery, war wagons and even naval vessels could take a more active part in the game and not just be an unused option. The suggestions to allow some mobility to war wagons and heavy artillery in this thread are not historically unjustifiable and will add richness to the game if these troop types were used more frequently.

no argument there... it comes down to are we going for historically accurate mechanics, or are we going for a fun game. and yes i agree that in a skirmish type game...essentially always a meeting engagement, HA and WW don't make much sense if they can't move. most historical battles weren't meeting engagements...someone was there first and got to pick terrain, set up Arty, etc...There is a whole other argument that will come up next...how much should they cost in a skirmish??? if they are buffed up with movement like in FOG 1 then they ought to be expensive...but then nobody will choose em. I'm fine with them in the game and some movement...i think fun is the most important aspect...i don't think anyone wants to see them become the Abrams Tank of the battle field...the thing tht gets picked every time, or becomes a game spoiler.