Slitherine

Alright so I'm starting this thread to map out what I think a Hussite army list could look like in FoGM. It won't be completed all in one go, but that's probably fine since the Hussites are from a time period not currently covered by FoGM.

-------------

First, the basics: The Hussites in the simplest sense were a proto-Protestant Christian religious movement in Bohemia in the early 1400s. They are most famous for the Hussite Wars fought from 1420-1434 during which their army fought off the combined forces of the Holy Roman Empire under Sigismund and multiple Crusades called by the Pope in Rome. Their foremost military leader was Jan Zizka, who was undefeated in battle despite being one-eyed for most of those engagements, and fully blind for the last few.

While the threat of Catholic invasion served to unite the Hussites under one banner, during periods of peace the movement could split apart into distinct factions. The largest faction was the Utraquist moderates who just wanted some minor religious concessions, and who were drawn mostly from the landed nobility. The other major moderate faction consisted of the residents of the city of Prague who outfitted their own military contingent. On the other end of the spectrum were the radical Hussites who wanted more extreme concessions from the Catholic church (and more than a little social/political upheaval). The major radical Hussite group was the Taborite faction imaginatively named after it's base of operations, the town of Tabor where Jan Zizka won an important battle in 1420 against a numerically superior Catholic army. There were also small regional radical factions like the Orebites and the Adamites. And finally, while not necessarily a sizable faction within the Hussite movement, they did receive periodic assistance from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as part of a pseudo-pan Slavic resistance to "German" imperialism. More likely was that it was simple politics where the Poles helped the Hussites to undermine the HRE on the commonwealth's border.

Update: after thinking things over a bit, I felt it was important to mention the existence of The Orphans as another minor faction. Doctrinally, they were identical to the Orebites, but politically and militarily, they were distinct in that they evolved directly from Jan Zizka's army after his death in 1424. Personally, I view them as the elite branch of the Taborite army, but the historical reality was obviously very complicated.

So what this means is that in FoGM terms, there is a basis for 5 distinct army lists:

1) Bohemia before 1420
2) The Utraquist Moderates 1420-1434
3) The Praguer Hussites 1420-1434
4) The Taborites 1420-1434*
5) Bohemia after 1435 when the Utraquist Moderates defeated the remaining Taborites and gained some religious concessions from the HRE

*(My view is that the Radical Hussite factions should be rolled into one army within FoGM because to me, they all have very similar demographic and military characteristics. They're all predominantly draw from the poorer classes and lesser nobility, and thus they would all have basically the same selection of units.)

I'm going to focus mostly on the 3 Hussite factions during the 1420-1434 period using current FoGM units as my starting point (and updating once I know more about what later period FoGM units will look like).

Utraquist Moderates - In general terms, this army list would be the most similar to other Central European or HRE feudal army lists. In FoGM terms, this would mean access to some number of 74 point Knights and Sargeants and 36 point defensive spears, representing the nobility and their feudal levies. They would combine these and other common feudal units with some of the unique Hussite units that I will talk about shortly.

Praguer Hussites - Since they are a relatively wealthy city militia, this army list would be more of a combination of urban and Hussite unique units. From current FoGM, this would be something like the 66(?) point City Knights and the Bohemian version of the Low Country Spearmen (or whatever urban militia units look like in 1400).

The Taborites - This would be the most unique of the three, as it would have the largest offering of the unique Hussite units.

(Update) The Orphans - This would be essentially the Taborite list, except that the proportion of superior quality Veteran units would be higher.

The next few posts will talk about what the unique Hussite units could look like.

Cheers.

The Hussite Army

The People and Their Weapons

As was alluded to in the previous post, the Hussite army was drawn from a cross section of Bohemian society, but in three different ways.

1) There were prominent Bohemian nobles who supported the Hussite movement, and who would join the army in the same fashion that powerful nobles would join the army of any other European state at the time. In other words, they would bring a feudal levy. Personally, they and their retainers would be equipped with the best heavy cavalry arms and armor available at the time. Their less well off subjects called to arms would join with whatever they had available. Some subjects would have the time and resources to equip themselves with proper military equipment; spear/shield/armor for the heavy infantry, or crossbow/sword/armor for others. The least well off subjects would show up as a peasant mob bearing hunting bows, knives, and farming implements.

2) From the city of Prague would come wealthy merchants and their organized militias, similar to what you would see from major cities in other parts of Europe. Such forces would have less emphasis on outfitting heavy cavalry, and more emphasis on well-equipped infantry forces trained by the local guilds.

3) The most interesting aspect to the Hussite army would of course be the addition of religiously motivated commoners joining the army independent of the feudal system. While initially these recruits would have been limited to the same peasant equipment described in the feudal levy section, over time the cumulative effect of successive Hussite victories in battle over Catholic forces would have provided numerous looting opportunities and the acquisition of discarded Catholic equipment. It stands to reason that veterans of Jan Zizka's army, the most prominent and well regarded force due to his many victories, would have had easy and regular access to looted weapons and armor.

3a) Should be no surprise that a religious movement upending parts of the social order drew in elements........not traditionally found in feudal armies of the time. Records from the time indicate that women, sometimes disguised as men, could be found fighting in the Hussite army in the thick of battle. Fun fact!

So that's who fought in the army. Now on to what they used.

1) To reiterate, the feudal levy portion of the Hussite army would be equipped like any other force in Central Europe: lances, swords, heavy armor and barding for the knights / spears, shields, lighter armor, crossbows, hunting bows, and farm tools for the infantry.

2) Similarly, the urban militia portion of the Hussite army would look a lot like that fielded by other cities in Europe: knightly equipment for a small amount of heavy cavalry / good armor, shields, spears/halberds, and large amounts of crossbows.

But the Hussite army is unique in that it made extensive use of some weapon types that weren't used as much traditional armies in the rest of Europe at that time. These key tools to the success of the Hussite armies were:

- Handheld firearms aka handgonnes
- The spiked flail
- The Wagenberg
- Cannons, in particular the houfnice, Europe's first mobile artillery piece, from which the English word howitzer comes from. Hat tip to user Veles for originally highlighting this weapon system, and for being a general expert on Eastern European military history.

I think there is a lot to dig into with how to implement these unique weapon systems in game, so I'm going to use dedicated posts for each.

The Flail
The spiked flail is without a doubt one of the most iconic weapons of the Hussite army. The flail itself is quintessential peasant equipment in its basic form; peasants used them to literally beat harvested grain and slowly separate the edible parts from the straw. A decent weapon in and of itself, the Hussite variant was clearly upgraded by a mad blacksmith to feature bands of iron and spikes wrapped around the flail head. Descriptions of Hussite battles indicate that the flail armed infantry sheltered within the wagenberg until the enemy lost cohesion during the attack, at which point they would charge forth and thresh the life out of the tired Catholics. A solid tactic, it could be overcome by using feigned attacks/retreats to draw out the flail infantry from the protection of the wagenberg, and then freely counterattacked by infantry and/or cavalry. This was what happened at the Battle of Lipany in 1434 when the Utraquists and Praguers defeated the recalcitrant Taborites under Prokop the Great.

So what are the key aspects of Hussite Flail Infantry?

- armor piercing weaponry
- vulnerability in open terrain necessitating wagenberg protection
- ubiquitous use by a wide range of "soldiers" within the Hussite army

So how could this be modelled in FoGM?

- Heavy Weapon trait providing their primary impact and melee POA
- Medium foot representing their lack of organization and resilience in open ground (as opposed to heavy infantry)
- A variety of armor options representing the idea that fresh recruits had little armor, but veterans would have had plenty of loot opportunities
- A variety of morale values representing a combination of religious zeal and battle experience for an army that was rarely defeated and continually at war

That leaves us with some options utilizing existing FoGM unit types.

1) Basic Hussite Flail Infantry - 33 points, HW POA, unarmored, medium foot........functionally identical to Irish Foot. These units represent Bohemian peasants motivated by religious zeal, but with relatively little military training. They have average morale instead of raw to reflect their religious zeal tempered by lack of experience. They are a solid step above peasant mobs, but rather vulnerable to knightly charges in the open.

2) Taborite Flail Infantry - ? points, HW POA, protected or some armor, medium foot, Superior........a beefed up version of Picked Irish Foot. The most common images of Hussite infantry feature fellows armed with xbow/handgonne/flail and clad in the German kettle helmet and brigantine jacket. Logically, these units would be veterans of multiple battles and thus have more experience, more confidence in their odds of victory, and plenty of scavenged equipment from the battlefield. A bit less vulnerable to arrows compared to PIF, these guys would definitely be what you'd send in to eat alive anything in rough ground, or lead an assault against disrupted knights. Still vulnerable to heavy units in the open.

3) "The Orphans" - so one option for the veterans of Jan Zizka's army after his death would be to represent them as a super unit of Flail Infantry; ? points, HW POA, some armor, medium foot, and Elite. The Taborites could get maybe one or two of these beasties. Obviously a bit of a meme unit, but also an opportunity to see just how ridiculous a HW unit could be if you give them massive morale. Update: I am currently reconsidering, based on evolving thought regarding war wagons, the idea of the Orphans as a unit, and instead making them one of 4 Hussite army lists (Utraquists/Praguers/Taborites/Orphans).

My one concern with these units is that HW units don't naturally pursue, which limits their ability to recklessly pursue out of a wagenberg. Would giving them the warrior trait make them more likely to stick and/or pursue? Or does HW completely override that? Anyway, not the biggest issue.

Black Powder Units
As best I can tell, the Hussites made use of three forms of gunpowder weapons:

1) the handgonne or hand cannon........essentially a metal tube on a stick with a little hole where you use a match to ignite the black power (and then pray).

2) the bombard.......essentially a BIG metal tube on a wooden base that used more powder, larger balls, and more prayer.

3) the houfnice........a medium sized metal tube and wooden base that had the amazing innovation of wheels.

Since I am not yet sure how FoGM will handle gunpowder weapons, I will do my best to triangulate between Pike and Shot, Sengoku Jidai, and FoGM.

The Bombard - ? points, heavy artillery, cannot shoot over friendly units (unlike trebuchets), adjusted ranged POA, -2 to cohesion checks(???) or longer range than the Trebuchet. Presumably this would work similar to the existing Trebuchet in that it would be mobile until deployed. If it exchanged the arching shot of the trebuchet for longer range.......or if it had a higher chance to cause units to fail cohesion checks........you'd have a unit designed to make the enemy not want to sit calmly at a distance, and instead they would need to actively find a way to penetrate the wagenberg protecting the Doom Cannon. Visually and practically, these would be a lot like the heavy Ming artillery you see in SJ. Interestingly enough, the Hussites are recorded as having regularly captured Catholic bombards after multiple battles. So some were clearly forged in Bohemia (probably Prague), but they probably obtained plenty just by being victorious in battle......which they were a lot.

The Houfnice - ? points, light artillery, adjusted ranged POA, -1 to cohesion checks. So a unit a lot like the light artillery found in some Roman lists in FoG2. Shorter range than the Bombard, but a lot more mobile. The arcing shot of the houfnice would make them a little easier to orient within a wagenberg. The main use of this unit would be fire support while moving the wagenberg aggressively toward the enemy. Unlike the bombard, this unit could provide decent ranged poking ability while able to reposition when the enemy relocates.

Handgonnes - currently I have two options in mind for representing this in FoGM:

1) Massed Handgonners - functionally similar to massed xbows, except with a shorter range and a much more damaging ranged shot against infantry and cavalry and a -1 to cohesion checks (or whatever is in line with how FoGM handles gunpowder weapons). I've seen pictures of them using a Pavise, so maybe them and later xbows would have extra ranged protection and/or impact POA? My main concern here is that I'm not 100% sure that the Hussites used massed gunners as an infantry unit in the open.

2) Crew of the Wagenberg - by which I mean, they are represented BY the animated figures in the war wagon unit (handled in the next post). The mobile fortifications provided by the war wagon seem a natural fit for the handgunner. You have a steady place to aim and rest your handgun, and you're protected from enemies and arrows. Makes more sense to me than having them engaging in ranked fire out in the open. But hopefully other experts on this time period can shed additional light.

The War Wagon
The War Wagon is easily the most important and iconic weapon system in the Hussite army. To actually make the Hussite list work in FoGM, we need to figure out how to effectively implement it in game. No war wagon, no Hussite army. Not only was it present in every battle, but it was used both offensively and defensively (though mostly defensively). So let's walk through the primary strengths, weaknesses, and uses of the war wagon in the Hussite army. Shoutout to forum member Veles for his insights on wagenberg tactics in Eastern European warfare.

Use in Battle

At its most basic, the war wagon was used to create field fortifications behind which infantry could be protected from cavalry attack. The wagons would form a circle, heavy chains would link them together, and wooden panels would be added for extra cover. The solid weight of the wagon made them practically impervious to cavalry charge and difficult (though not impossible) for infantry to assault. And to compound the resilience of the wagon, they would be filled with handgunners, crossbows, and flail-bearers. The handgunners in particular would make the wagon dangerous to approach as they could kill or wound noble and commoner alike at range. And the stout sides of the wagon removed the major weakness of the handgunner, insulating them from counterattack. Most often, enemies would desperately attack the war wagon, get repulsed by gunfire and their inability to do anything to the wooden monstrosity, and then fall victim to a counterattack from the religious flail zealots sheltering behind the wagon.

The wagons also had some success going on the offense. During battle, Zizka was able to use them while moving to break through a Catholic line and escape to safety. The exact mechanism for how they worked on offense is not entirely clear to me, but my personal interpretation is that the handgunners inside the wagons would provide most of their actual offensive potential. As the wagon got close to the enemy line, the gunners inside would just start blasting away, and the enemy would either retreat or attempt to attack the wagon.

The wagenberg was not 100% invincible, however. The main way to defeat the wagenberg was to lure out the infantry and cavalry within and defeat them in detail, before assaulting the remaining defenders. During one battle, Catholic forces attempted to use dismounted knights armed with axes and other heavy weapons to breach the Hussite wagenberg. A Hussite counterattack defeated this attempt, but there was clearly some sensible logic behind the approach. Other determined attacks were able to breach the wagenberg wall.......only to be dealt with by the Hussites arrayed for battle within the wagenberg itself. Reinforcing the idea that luring out the defenders was a key component to victory over the wagenberg. And presumably, like most fortifications, artillery was another means of breaching the wooden walls.

Use in FoGM

Let's start with the basics. In terms of unit models, the Standard Wagon works pretty well as a foundation for the war wagon. Remove the giant cross, switch the spearmen for some handgunners, or crossbowmen at the very least, and you'd have a pretty solid in game visual representation. So how should it work? There are quite a few layers to that:

- How costly should it be and how many should you be able to get?
- Is it individually powerful, or cost effective en masse?
- How do you balance POA and ranged values to reach the above end states?

So let's run through the characteristics of the war wagon again:

- Highly resistant to cavalry attack, moderately resistant to infantry attack
- Highly resistant to arrow attack, less so to cannon attack
- Ideal defense is when stationary, but can move offensively if necessary
- Ideal platform for ranged attack by handgunners
- Individually vulnerable to heavy weapon attack

Option 1

I shall start with movement and move on to other traits:

- Currently, the movement allotment for the standard wagon makes sense. Move 2 spaces forward only with limited rotating ability.
- Deployment button similar to the square ability for deep pikes. This is needed for the unit to switch from mobile mode, to fortified mode and the chaining together of the wagons to each other.
- Unique wagon unit designation/trait perhaps, providing the +1 to cohesion of heavy infantry with an inability to be pushed back. This would represent the "solidness" of the wagon in combat.
- Range attack of 2 spaces with unique handgun POA. High damage, -1 to cohesion checks.
- Two forms of Impact POA: 1) base impact POA used by the unit when mobile and fortified, and 2) additional impact POA used only when fortified.
- Melee POA of 50% HW representing flail infantry defenders in the wagon.
- The rest of their melee POA comes from a substantial armor value? This would lessen the effect of archers, but not gunpowder. Crossbows would be less effective as they are not classed as cavalry? Guess that depends on the unit size. HW units would thus become an important means of overcoming the wagon in melee.
- To help keep cost down, I think Average morale is fine unless we want some Veteran War Wagons for some reason.
- Need to think a bit about how vulnerable to flanking they should be, if at all. They're a big wagon, after all. But at least when deployed, they're shown as having most of the defense aimed in one direction.
- Update: Forgot to mention that war wagons should treat rough and forest terrain much like heavy infantry/cavalry/elephants aka they don't like it. I'd argue that such terrain would also prevent deployment if that's possible. This applies to both current options whether we're talking pure wagon or Flail Infantry + Wagon. Either interpretation of the unit should struggle with bad terrain. This would make it very clear where the medium foot options would shine.

How It Should Work

Hopefully, if all those things are possible to fit in one unit, you have a situation where the Hussite player can afford enough war wagons to form a protective screen for the rest of their army. An effective ZOC screen needs at least 1 defensive unit every 3 spaces. The unit zoc locks units that occupy the 3 spaces in front of it, meaning that an even line of 1 defensive unit every 3 spaces covers the open 2 spaces in between the defensive units, protecting any units in the spaces behind the defensive units. Units behind the defensive unit can fire through the open spaces, however, if melee combat is forced with the defending unit, the zoc lock goes away.

D _ _ D _ _ D _ _ D ........etc

A stronger line would be 1 defensive unit every other space, but at the expense of spending more on those defensive units.

D _ D _ D _ D .....etc

The tricky part comes when you try to envision a full 360 degree wagenberg. That's quite a lot of wagons......but that also results in relatively few points left to purchase units inside the wagenberg, so perhaps it works out after all? Lot of testing would be needed to see how all of these play out.

Cost

My instinct for this is that something in the 50-60 range would find a sweet spot between being too expensive to field in enough numbers for a wagenberg, but not cheap enough to make them OP (hopefully). Individually, they'd be highly cost effective vs. 74 point Knights, but still vulnerable to foot knights.

Stay tuned for more permutations as this is quite the tricky unit.

Option 2

War wagons are not units in and of themselves, but rather an upgrade to the existing Flail Infantry. For an additional cost, you get a Flail Infantry that loses some movement, making it similar to the Standard Wagon, but gains a deploy ability. When deployed, the unit becomes stationary (can't be pushed or forced to turn facing by attacks from another angle), gains a ranged handgun attack, gains massive impact POA vs. cavalry and some vs. infantry, and gains additional armor. Now, if you want to pursue disrupted units or engage in offensive actions, you and undo the deploy and switch back to Flail Infantry mode. However, doing so makes the unit more vulnerable to attack from cavalry and most other units. It would also open up gaps in the existing wagenberg.

Wagenberg formation: (W = Flail Infantry deployed in Wagon mode)

W W W W W
W _ _ _ _ W
W _ _ _ _ W
W W W W W

Wagenberg when one side gets ambitious in pursuit: (M = Flail Infantry in Mobile mode)
_ _ M _ M
_ _ _ M
W _ _ _ W W
W _ _ _ _ W
W _ _ _ _ W
W W W W W

Thanks Geffalrus. I look forward to you fleshing this out.

Reserved

I think one key question on the war wagons will be whether you envision a unit representing one war wagon or multiple war wagons. I would think multiple war wagons would make more sense.

If a unit represents multiple war wagons, you need to think about whether a Hussite army should be able move through a war wagon unit (like light archers/crossbowmen do) - particularly since Hussite troops striking (or being enticed) out of the war wagon wall seems like an integral part of their battles.

bk917 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:46 pm I think one key question on the war wagons will be whether you envision a unit representing one war wagon or multiple war wagons. I would think multiple war wagons would make more sense.

If a unit represents multiple war wagons, you need to think about whether a Hussite army should be able move through a war wagon unit (like light archers/crossbowmen do) - particularly since Hussite troops striking (or being enticed) out of the war wagon wall seems like an integral part of their battles.

That's a very good point. In my head, I've been thinking of them like heavy artillery and elephants where a single model indicates a larger number actual pieces. Elephants in Hellenistic battles were often used as a screen for lighter troops, which you can sort of replicate by having a FoG2 elephant sit between ranged units and zoc lock things that come to attack.

It is trickier with the war wagons because the wagenberg itself was fairly solid - almost literally a wall of wood. Theoretically, the war wagon unit represents a group of wagons organized together, and the zone of control they exert replicates the wall they make. Making wagons that were strong enough to resist cavalry, but cheap enough to form a literal 360 degree wall seems like it would be a little unbalanced. Hmmmmmmm. Obviously, field fortifications already exist in Pike and Shock and work pretty well there........but there's no mobility possible with them. And being able to move and reform the wagenberg was a key part of Hussite battle tactics.

Update Perhaps one solution would be to think of the war wagon as an upgrade of the flail infantry instead of a distinct unit? In other words the unit is Flail Infantry + War Wagons. They keep most of the stats and capabilities of the base Flail Infantry, lose some mobility (same movement pattern as the Standard Wagon currently), keep their ability to attack while in mobile mode, but when deployed into fortification mode, they gain massive impact POA to defend against cavalry, increased armor, and the handgunner ranged attack, but are now stationary. Similar to pikes deploying into square, in a way. With this dynamic, if you want to pursue disrupted enemies, you switch to mobile mode and engage normally.........but now you're vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. That could replicate the reckless pursuit dynamic of the wagenberg.

War Wagons

My current thinking is as follows:

1) A war wagon is essentially an infantry unit with its own movable field fortifications. So it should be possible to treat them as an infantry unit that permanently has field fortifications - unless they leave their wagons. In keeping with the top down design principle the unit can be a normal infantry unit of 480 men (which, as each wagon ideally had a crew of 20 men, would actually represent 24 wagons, which would be a tight squeeze in a square when lined up, but we won't worry too much about that because of the top down design, and it being a necessary compromise to fit the mechanics of the game map).

2) Composition of crew:

• a) The Hodětín Ordinance specifies a crew of 20 men, consisting of 2 armed drivers, 2 handgunners, 6 crossbowmen, 4 flailmen, 4 halberdiers and 2 pavisiers.

• b) The Nuremberg Entwurfen of 1428 and 1439 lists only 2 flailmen, 2 halberdiers and 2 or 4 crossbowmen.

• c) An Austrian Ordinance of 1431 (which was an attempt to copy the Hussite war wagons) specifies a crew of 20 men, consisting of 1 driver, 3 handgunners, 8 crossbowmen, 4 flailmen and 4 halberdiers.

Note that handgunners only formed a minority of the missile-armed part of the crew, the majority of whom were crossbowmen.

So I was looking at 50% Heavy Weapon, 38% crossbowmen and 12% handgunners. (Approximately). The game would be coded so that the handgunners do give the -1 CT modifier effect - at least at 1 square range. (Normal handgun units will only have a range of 1 square).

I was planning on treated detached crew as Unmanoeuvrable Heavy Foot, but your idea of treating them as Medium Foot has merit. I was planning as treating them as Protected, as at least the flail have decent pavise-type shields.

3) I was planning to give them a move of 1 square, but that isn't very logical when Standard Wagons can move 2. The idea of allowing them to move 2 squares until deployed and then being immovable for the rest of the game (because the horses have been taken to the rear) has merit. The problem with it is how much protection the unit should get until deployed - maybe they could use the ditch line in the FF code until deployed, and the FF line afterwards. Deployment could include a 90 degree turn to get them into "broadside" position.

4) Should they be allowed to charge when not deployed? Perhaps, to achieve the (rare) breaking the line effect.

5) Arcs of fire. I was planning on allowing them to shoot all round, but count shooting forward or backwards as half arc. That would certainly prevent them from "breaking the line" by sheer missile power, hence the need to allow them to charge when not "Deployed".

6) The crew should be allowed to "disembark" and move off as an infantry unit, at any stage of the game. I think players will find the need to do this voluntarily given the right circumstances - there may be no need to make them sometimes pursue. I am sure they would not always pursue, and having it a random chance might annoy some players. Also it would cause various issues if the War Wagons were not removed from the map when the crew leave them. Removing them will cause less issues if leaving them is always voluntary.

7) We could have Veteran War Wagons units for Orphans etc. These would be the same, but Superior, and maybe "Some Armour".

8 ) I was also planning on having Artillery Wagons carrying a light artillery (gun) piece.

9) War wagons won't be pushed back, won't pursue, and won't turn to face enemy units.

10) Currently I am thinking of costing them as the equivalent infantry unit but adding double the usual cost for field fortifications. That would make them:

• 55 points for the Average Protected version.

• 76 points for the Superior Some Armour version.

• 42 points for the Light Artillery version. (Assuming it does not get armed crew in addition to the Artillery crew, which perhaps it should)

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:42 am War Wagons

3) I was planning to give them a move of 1 square, but that isn't very logical when Standard Wagons can move 2. The idea of allowing them to move 2 squares until deployed and then being immovable for the rest of the game (because the horses have been taken to the rear) has merit. The problem with it is how much protection the unit should get until deployed - maybe they could use the ditch line in the FF code until deployed, and the FF line afterwards. Deployment could include a 90 degree turn to get them into "broadside" position.

So what would be the benefit to "Deploying"? Just the increased protection? Maybe their firepower should be decreased when not deployed?

I think there needs to be a strong incentive to using the wagons defensively, as they seem to have been used offensively on very rare occasions (probably only once?).

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:42 am War Wagons

6) The crew should be allowed to "disembark" and move off as an infantry unit, at any stage of the game. I think players will find the need to do this voluntarily given the right circumstances - there may be no need to make them sometimes pursue. I am sure they would not always pursue, and having it a random chance might annoy some players. Also it would cause various issues if the War Wagons were not removed from the map when the crew leave them. Removing them will cause less issues if leaving them is always voluntary.

So if the infantry disembark, the wagons are permanently removed from the game? That seems a bit odd, but giving the infantry the ability to "reembark" later when they have moved a good distance across the battlefield would be even stranger.

Could the wagons not be left behind where the infantry disembarked as a purely FF object (with no firepower of it's own?)?


Paul

Paul59 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:06 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:42 am War Wagons

3) I was planning to give them a move of 1 square, but that isn't very logical when Standard Wagons can move 2. The idea of allowing them to move 2 squares until deployed and then being immovable for the rest of the game (because the horses have been taken to the rear) has merit. The problem with it is how much protection the unit should get until deployed - maybe they could use the ditch line in the FF code until deployed, and the FF line afterwards. Deployment could include a 90 degree turn to get them into "broadside" position.

So what would be the benefit to "Deploying"? Just the increased protection?

Cover: 34% reduction in effect of enemy shooting.
+an extra 75 POA in close combat. (They get +100 POA when deployed, but only +25 when not deployed)

Maybe their firepower should be decreased when not deployed?

Effectively it will be if they only get half arc when firing forwards. The Deploy move will include a 90 degree turn if required.

I think there needs to be a strong incentive to using the wagons defensively, as they seem to have been used offensively on very rare occasions (probably only once?).

Agreed, but there is also the issue of moving them into a better defensive position in the early manoeuvre stages of a battle.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:42 am War Wagons

6) The crew should be allowed to "disembark" and move off as an infantry unit, at any stage of the game. I think players will find the need to do this voluntarily given the right circumstances - there may be no need to make them sometimes pursue. I am sure they would not always pursue, and having it a random chance might annoy some players. Also it would cause various issues if the War Wagons were not removed from the map when the crew leave them. Removing them will cause less issues if leaving them is always voluntary.

So if the infantry disembark, the wagons are permanently removed from the game? That seems a bit odd, but giving the infantry the ability to "reembark" later when they have moved a good distance across the battlefield would be even stranger.

Could the wagons not be left behind where the infantry disembarked as a purely FF object (with no firepower of it's own?)?

That could be possible, but it would significantly complicate the coding. It may not be worth it. Some simplifications do need to be made in consideration of game design.

Sounds very nice !

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:19 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:42 am War Wagons

6) The crew should be allowed to "disembark" and move off as an infantry unit, at any stage of the game. I think players will find the need to do this voluntarily given the right circumstances - there may be no need to make them sometimes pursue. I am sure they would not always pursue, and having it a random chance might annoy some players. Also it would cause various issues if the War Wagons were not removed from the map when the crew leave them. Removing them will cause less issues if leaving them is always voluntary.

So if the infantry disembark, the wagons are permanently removed from the game? That seems a bit odd, but giving the infantry the ability to "reembark" later when they have moved a good distance across the battlefield would be even stranger.

Could the wagons not be left behind where the infantry disembarked as a purely FF object (with no firepower of it's own?)?

That could be possible, but it would significantly complicate the coding. It may not be worth it. Some simplifications do need to be made in consideration of game design.

How about allowing embark and disembark on the very square where the disembarked infantry/wagon is ?

Rationale (tell me if I am wrong) : when the infantry disembarks, the horses are taken to the front and harnessed so that the wagons can follow the infantry near of it (in game : on the same square but invisible as a general (1)). During a melee involving the disembarked infantry, the unprotected wagons can be scattered, taken, damaged, destroyed or the horses and the cabmen can be killed or wounded or can flee out of fear. Same rng mechanic as a fallen general (with or without CT ?) : when it happens, the infantry can't re-embark anymore.

I guess it too would significantly complicate the coding (but maybe it could be re-used for other units that split into a fighting unit and its vulnerable mean of transport ?).

PS : I do like your current straight idea.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:42 am The game would be coded so that the handgunners do give the -1 CT modifier effect - at least at 1 square range. (Normal handgun units will only have a range of 1 square).

Out of pure curiosity, those normal handgun units will be LF, won’t they ?


_________
(1) The two 3D models are switched one with the other when one clicks on 'Embark/disembark'.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:19 pmOut of pure curiosity, those normal handgun units will be LF, won’t they ?

Yes

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:19 pm How about allowing embark and disembark on the very square where the disembarked infantry/wagon is ?

Rationale (tell me if I am wrong) : when the infantry disembarks, the horses are taken to the front and harnessed so that the wagons can follow the infantry near of it (in game : on the same square but invisible as a general).

I think it is highly improbable that Hussite Wagon Soldiers would advance out of the wagon berg, and take their wagons with them to allow them to re-embark on them somewhere else.

It sounds so unlikely that I would need to see hard specific historical evidence of them doing so to even contemplate this.

Thank you for the replies.

(Sorry. I'd better discuss about something I know )

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:19 pm Sounds very nice !

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:19 am

So if the infantry disembark, the wagons are permanently removed from the game? That seems a bit odd, but giving the infantry the ability to "reembark" later when they have moved a good distance across the battlefield would be even stranger.

Could the wagons not be left behind where the infantry disembarked as a purely FF object (with no firepower of it's own?)?

That could be possible, but it would significantly complicate the coding. It may not be worth it. Some simplifications do need to be made in consideration of game design.

How about allowing embark and disembark on the very square where the disembarked infantry/wagon is ?

Rationale (tell me if I am wrong) : when the infantry disembarks, the horses are taken to the front and harnessed so that the wagons can follow the infantry near of it (in game : on the same square but invisible as a general).

I think it won't happen in the game because it can't simulate the historical effects.One representative battle of the Hussites soldiers won't take wagons with them when leave it to attack was Lipany,1434 AD,but between the Taborite and Calixtines.The Calixtines pretended to flee at first,that was a trick to lure the Taborites to get out of the wagons.Prokop the Great,successor of the Zizka and commander of the Taborites,been tricked by that then ordered the soldiers to leave the wagons and pursuit the enemy,but when they chased to the open grounds,the Calixtines' heavy cavalry attacked them then broke into the open wagons,caused the Taborites collapsed and Prokop killed in the battle.

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:36 am The War Wagon

hussite-war-wagons-and-hand-canoneers..jpg

I see you have Osprey books on the Hussites. Do you do any miniatures painting? Hussites are a beautiful table top army, especially in 28mm. I didn't know much about the history until I played Kingdomcome Deliverance (RPG) set in 1403 Bohemia.


All this later period history for FOGM is very exciting. Looking forward to it.

edb1815 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:16 pm

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:36 am The War Wagon

hussite-war-wagons-and-hand-canoneers..jpg

I see you have Osprey books on the Hussites. Do you do any miniatures painting? Hussites are a beautiful table top army, especially in 28mm. I didn't know much about the history until I played Kingdomcome Deliverance (RPG) set in 1403 Bohemia.


All this later period history for FOGM is very exciting. Looking forward to it.

I do love Osprey. In this case, it was via a book from when I was a kid on great commanders of history (in this case Jan Zizka). The artwork was so very good. Alas, I did not have the spending money as a child or beyond to afford a table-top army. I respect those with the dedication to do all that painting, but I don't know if I have the attention span for that. Amateur modding and board game design are more my speed.

At the moment I'm a bit stuck on how to portray the darn wagons. Crucial piece of equipment, but hell to balance in the game. Taking a break to focus on adapting Game of Thrones instead.

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:26 am

edb1815 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:16 pm

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:36 am The War Wagon

hussite-war-wagons-and-hand-canoneers..jpg

I see you have Osprey books on the Hussites. Do you do any miniatures painting? Hussites are a beautiful table top army, especially in 28mm. I didn't know much about the history until I played Kingdomcome Deliverance (RPG) set in 1403 Bohemia.


All this later period history for FOGM is very exciting. Looking forward to it.

I do love Osprey. In this case, it was via a book from when I was a kid on great commanders of history (in this case Jan Zizka). The artwork was so very good. Alas, I did not have the spending money as a child or beyond to afford a table-top army. I respect those with the dedication to do all that painting, but I don't know if I have the attention span for that. Amateur modding and board game design are more my speed.

At the moment I'm a bit stuck on how to portray the darn wagons. Crucial piece of equipment, but hell to balance in the game. Taking a break to focus on adapting Game of Thrones instead.

No worries the GoT mod is a lot of work. Plus the Hussites are going to be for a future DLC so you have time.