Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

I like these rules a lot

I think they work well and play fast and fair

There will always be oversights or specific situations that occur, especially around difficult troop types - War Wagons being a case in point
They don't work particularly well in any sets of rules I've played - even in Armati they were dropped from v.2 as they were so contentious.
In the end we turned them into static 'terrain' features (so a whole laager) that were bought and could be placed within a deployment area. Troops could be deployed inside of them and they counted as a breakpoint if they were captured by an enemy. That worked well and avoided the issue of them moving around a lot on the table top. Single or small groups of WWgs could be bought but they were always static.

Personally I'd suggest that neither WWgs or Artillery should be allowed to Pursue.
With WWg the issue is that it could potentially allow them to in-effect initiate combat (see below)

-EE
-WW turn one 2 WWgs fight 2 enemy

--E
-WW turn two one of the enemy is destroyed & this is the WWg player phase, so 1 WWg pursues

-WE
--W turn three the WWg in combat gets an overlap from the WWg that pursued

-WE
--W turn four it is the WWg players phase so he elects to fight the remaining enemy to it's flank* with the WWg that has pursued

* does the enemy now drop a cohesion level and fight on a '0' - or is it deemed that this is the flanking WWg initiating combat (so anything but it being an overlap is prohibited)


Likewise I am (personally) against WWg, Artillery, and troops behind FF or deployed Stakes being forced to conform, as I believe (regardless of whether it might or might not happen in a game) it is historically unrepresentative and brings the rules into disrepute.

I look forward to your siege set - this is something greatly lacking in table top rules.

Best regards
Mark

[Hazelbark]

Ah I don't have my rules but in this specific scenario I don't think the WWG can pursue as it is still engaged in melee.

It is functionally the situation a unit routs the unit to its front but has an enemy front edge in its flank. It is not permitted to pursue.

But I am sure we could find the situation where something could happen.

Bringing in a prohibition would be ideal

[Mark G Fry]

I have not made my example clear enough

Version 2:
There are 3 enemy units fighting 2 WWgs - like so:

-EEE
-WW
This means that one WWg is fighting 1 enemy and the other is fighting 2.

If the WWg that is fighting 1 enemy destroys it, in its own phase, it can pursue (as it has no enemy to its front now).

--EE
-WW

ending up as

-WEE
--W
This would count as an overlap in the next (enemy players phase)
But in the following WWg players phase, as the rules state that the WWg player can choose which enemy is attacked (on any edge), he chooses to fight with the flank side of the WWg that has pursued. As the enemy unit is now fighting in 2 directions and has been flanked by a heavy unit, my question is does that enemy unit loose a cohesion point and fight to its front on a '0' factor?
Or does the flanking WWg simply continue to behave like an overlap to the other WWg that is in melee?

It's an oddity, as the WWg that has pursued does not have to turn to flank to fight to the flank.
However, does just choosing to fight from a flank constitute "initiating combat" - if yes, then that resolves the problem

One other final question (hopefully) do troops with HCW get the +1 if they win against WWG? From the rules it appears that they do, although other bonuses, such as Javelin and Impact are negated.

Many thanks

Mark

[fdunadan]

since WWg cannot contact an ennemy unit, they will not be able to make a flank attack, so no cohesion loss for the ennemy. The overlaping WWg will only be that, an overlaping WWg, as it was before pursuing... rending the pursue useless for WWg...
_________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat.

[Mark G Fry]

Clevedon 28mm 225pt High Medieval – War Wagon Play Test

So – the reasons for all my questions around War Wagons was that on 19th and 20th May I was going to field them as a play-test using my Hussite army at the Clevedon 28mm High Medieval competition in Bristol, UK. I have had this army for near 25 years and it gets very little play-time, as most rule-sets do not deal with WWgs adequately (in my opinion).

The Hussite army was composed of the following:
4 x WWg crossbow
2 x WWg Light Artillery
8 x HF swordsmen HCW
3 x LF sling/bow
2 x LC crossbow
4 x Heavy Knights elite
And 3 Competent Commanders

We fought 4 games over the 2 days and the results were as follows:

Game 1: verses Medieval Spanish (Aragonese) – result - decisive win to the Hussites.
The Aragonese force consisted of a lot of Heavy Knights, elite Ginetes LC, MF spear Almogavars, a few LF xbows and some HF spear mediocre (compulsory troops).
This was not really a good test of the WWgs as the Spanish general did not dismount his knights, was rightly cautious about getting anywhere near the WWgs with them or his LC – on a table laden with heavy terrain and in the end it was the Bohemian Knights and LC crossbows that accounted for a 28-5 victory by destroying all the enemy foot and looting the Spanish camp. The WWgs didn’t fire a shot or swing a war-flail in anger.

Game 2: verses a Tuareg – result – significant loss for the Hussites.
This was a much better test as the Tuareg dismounted 50% of his camels, as MF impetuous swordsmen and in a scene reminiscent of an old Colonial Film (Zulu or Omdurman) they charged the WWg’s head on after only a brief missile duel and went straight over the top of them like speed bumps. A concentration of force destroyed an entire Hussite division of 4 HF swordsmen and 3 WWgs in a couple of moves of fighting. The mounted Medium Camels elite impetuous also made short work of the Bohemian knights and LC crossbows.
Observations: With a melee factor of ‘0’ the WWgs are very vulnerable to infantry (even MF) in combat, despite the fact that the WWgs negate the effect of impetuous (from the MF).
I also tried a tactic of deploying the WWgs 1 UD apart with the HF flail-men in the gaps (a historical deployment). This worked reasonably well, as the WWgs could support the HF and vice-versa. But as the flail-men threw really poor dice in the impact phase against the dismounted Tuaregs, it did not save them or the WWgs from destruction. The fact that friendly mounted troop cannot interpenetrate their own WWgs cost me a LC crossbow – which had to stand rather than evade – but that was a lesson well learnt.

Game 3: verses a Late Medieval German – result – significant loss for the Hussites.
An interesting game, as the German had 6 Pikemen medicocre, 6 Hvy Knights impact (that did not dismount), 3 MC handgunners that did dismount (as Crossbows); 2 mtd Hungarian LC bow and 12 LF with a mix of bow, handgun, crossbow (some were dismounted LC).
This game was a more interesting play-test as we had lots of terrain (wooded hills, woods and a village) and lots of shooting against the WWgs, as well as combats.
Observations – out of the casualties that lost the game for the Hussites – only 2 WWgs were destroyed. One of these was lost to an attack on a front (short) edge by a unit of Pikemen mediocre – but the WWg had suffered 3 hits already from missiles. The other was shot down by a combination of massed LF and Crossbows.
What was very clear was that the WWgs – despite being Protection 2 - if faced with a lot of LF with missiles are very vulnerable (which I am not sure is a good ‘historical’ outcome). Also they do not shoot back very well, as they can only shoot at 1 target unit to their long-side (when an enemy will automatically get 1 shooter + 1 support) and unlike in combat the WWg appears not to be self-supporting whilst shooting (?). Also the WWg also does not get the +1 for shooting Crossbows at mounted (unlike Bowmen or Crossbow or Mixed Units).
Generally the melee’s worked well and the ability to rally off missile casualties greatly aided the longevity of the other WWgs. The idea of internal self-supporting in melee also worked well. But a factor of ‘0’ against HF or MF is a significant disadvantage.

Game 4: verses a (mostly mounted) Medieval Hungarian – with its own WWg (which is where I wished I’d brought my own dismounts) – this was a winning draw to the Hussites – in a very low scoring game.
There was a lot of manoeuvring for position by both the Hungarian and the Hussites, with the Hussite wagon line moving to cover the Bohemian Knights, who were faced at deployment by the Hungarian Hvy Knights impact elite.
The game was slow as both sides tried to get into position to get the maximum shooting casualties ahead of combat. When combat did finally occur it was when 3 Dismounted Hungarian Hvy Knights charged into a WWg. The melee/combat worked better (for the Hussites) this time as the WWgs had suffered no casualties – however it did raise a couple of questions:

Q1). If a WWg is in combat with a single enemy on a long side, can it choose not to self-support against that enemy, but allow a unit of friendly HF to interpenetrate through it?
A1). Our view was that this was not allowable as the WWg unit (as a whole) was in combat

Q2). If the WWg is shooting at an enemy but only half of its long base can see the enemy, is it still able to shoot?
A2). In the end we agreed that it could because it could shoot 1 UD to the side.

There was also general agreement among a majority of players that WWgs (& Artillery) should not be able to Pursue.
Also that it was inappropriate to make WWgs, Artillery, troops defending Field Fortification or deployed Stakes conform, regardless of the reason.

So – overall it was a reasonable test of the WWg rules. It was also my first serious attempt to play with my WWgs under L’art de l’Guerre and whilst I would have liked more wins, I was broadly happy with the way that the rules worked. I will play with the army again but might alter its composition.

My only big issue being that I think the vulnerability to massed LF shooting needs to be addressed.

Thanks
Mark

[Hazelbark]

[Mark G Fry]

In my second game against the Tuareg - I did deploy the Bohemian knights in the center, with divisions of WWgs and HF on either side.
However. my Tuareg opponent deployed his mounted, Camels, impetuous, elite against the Knights - outnumbering them 6 to 4 - so even with reasonably even dice throws the Knights were beaten (as whilst they were elite, their heavier armour did not count in the initial round of melee as the camels were impetuous so when the Camels won they automatically inflicted at least 2 cohesion losses).
Medium Camels impetuous are a very powerful troop type

But it was a good game.

Thank you for the clarification on LF shooting against WWgs.

As the WWgs are shooting with Crossbows the LF have a protection of +1 and a +1 for enemy shooting at LF - so they have an equal protection to the WWgs (which are also on +2). But the LF had 3 supporting LF shooting (the maximum) so started on a '0' + 1 (for the initial 2 LF) and another +1 for the third LF - this took them to +2 so they were equal to the WWgs protection.

But I did throw a series of bad shooting save dice as well

But I will continue with my experiments

You are right that 4 x WWgs are the minimum you should deploy, but if I look at the Hussite list, you can only buy 8 HF and 4 Hvy Knights (+ the 2 LC and 4 LF) so the only other additional troops you can buy, if you do not buy more WWgs are Levy impetuous (which are not a good choice) or Heavy Artillery and Field Fortifications, which makes the army even more static.
Or I could have a Medieval Polish allie - which is an interesting option to consider

[Black Prince]

Mark did you dismount Bohemian Knights?

[Mark G Fry]

Against the Tuareg no - as there is no Foot Knight option in the Hussite list, so I can only dismount them if my enemy fields Elephants, FF, Stakes or WWgs.
Camels are not included in the dismount criteria.P.72

It would have allowed me to dismount my LC Xbows as well - which would also have been helpful.

I could have dismounted against the Medieval Hungarian - as he fielded a WWg of his own - but I chose not to, as I needed the mobility.

[Black Prince]

That is want I thought then your knights armour bonus is still effective and you do not drop an extra level if you lose the first round. Also the die modifies are even at +2 each.

[Hazelbark]

[Dickstick]

[quote="Mark G Fry"]

Thank you for the clarification on LF shooting against WWgs.

As the WWgs are shooting with Crossbows the LF have a protection of +1 and a +1 for enemy shooting at LF - so they have an equal protection to the WWgs (which are also on +2). But the LF had 3 supporting LF shooting (the maximum) so started on a '0' + 1 (for the initial 2 LF) and another +1 for the third LF - this took them to +2 so they were equal to the WWgs protection.
:D[/quote]

This is not right.
Crossbow fire giving protection to targets of 1 means LI protection does not change from 1, not an extra +1.
LI shooting start on a -1 and add up to +3 for supports (at +0.5 per LI) so to equal the WWgs protection of 2 requires six LI all at 2ud from only the one WWg. Tough to fit. (For reference 3 LMI CB equal the WWgs 2 protection )
So normally 2 LI shoot one WWG at 0 v 2.
Return fire at 0 v 1

LH staying mounted in two ranks shoot you better than dismounting as LI.

Unless you give away magical extras?
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Mark G Fry]

Yes - I had forgotten about impetuous not applying in mtd v mtd combat, but to be honest it would have all made no difference in the end, as the camels overlapped the knights at either end of the battle-line (giving an extra +1 in the initial impact in the 2 end melees) and I also threw such bad dice in the initial combats, whereas my enemy threw very high dice, that neither my elite status or my armour would have saved me in the end

On the LI shooting - I agree that you need a lot of LI shooting to equal the WWg +2 protection, but my opponent had c. 12 LI (after dismounting some of his LC bow) and was able to ring an end of the WWg line.

However, I think you only need 5 additional LI shooting to equal the WWgs +2 protection.

LI shoots at WWg @ 0 | -1 for LI | +1 for 1st supporting LI | nothing for 2nd LI | +1 for 3rd | nothing for 4th | +1 for 5th
But I agree - you do need a lot and only the fact that I had an exposed end of a WWg line allowed this to happen.

However, it was all an interesting experiment - which I will continue

[Hazelbark]

[Dickstick]

Shooter plus 5 additional LI equals 6 in my book.
Costing 24 points
V
WWg CB at 10 points
Or
WWG artillery at 12 points

So that's a good pay off for equality from the WWg point of view
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo