Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

I might be missing something, but how do War Wagons interact with armoured opponents in melee?

The wording on page 17 implies that a units 'armour' classification is a result of ..."Some troops are better protected by metal armour and/or a large shield". The implication being that it is not just the physical armour that matters (e.g. the large shield).

Page 14 describes them as "well protected, tough ..." and WWgs have a protection from shooting of +2 (except against Artillery & Incendiary) - but there seems to be no reference to what their protection is in combat.
Do we just assume that they count the same as any other 'heavy' foot unit - so an enemy unit with Armour or Heavy Armour will always gain a +1 if losing in melee against a WWg?

Just thought I'd clarify this as P67, which covers War Wagons in combat very thoroughly, doesn't make reference to their 'armour' status at all.

Thanks
Mark
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[KevinD]

Interesting. I’d guess they don’t count as armored then….

[Mark G Fry]

[SteveR]

I use WWg fairly often and am brokenhearted that they dont count as having armor.

Especially when their opponents do

[Mark G Fry]

[Dickstick]

Much like a pavise , the armour is not on the man.
In melee it can be avoided.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Hazelbark]

The superior ability to avoid damage is in the protection factor of warwagons.

Giving them armor would increase the cost by 2 points (at least).

I don't know whether that would make them more or less common. Should all have it? does it imply the troops with them armored or just hiding in the wagon? Is there any other effect for the lack of formation density the defenders may have? Or should the armor only take effect when the Wagon is prepared?

[SteveR]

[KevinD]

So, in close combat they do not count as armored when the enemy rolls better and they take a -1 when they roll better than armored or fully armored opponents in close combat, right?

(By rolls I mean the die score plus or minus any tactical factors like disordered, battle ready, etc.)

[Hazelbark]

[SteveR]

[Mike Bennett]

[SteveR]

Well Mike I had written "they are essentially invulnerable to anything on horse or camel" earlier you may recall.

However the optimal opponents issue is not as clear as you say - they are a 0 to 1 against any foot other than LI or LMI. I would argue that HI Sword, HI Spear, MI Sword, MI Spear and of course foot knights are far more ubiquitous than javelinmen. In other words, unless you are facing Mongols, it's pretty certain you will have lots of troops that work very well against you out there.

And if you do face Mongols they can dismount anyway.

They exert no ZOC, cannot move 3 UD in the operational zone, and are pretty easily avoided even by knights or HCh. Because of the lack of ZOC even if you get close to them the mounted can just move away. They cannot initiate combat against mounted so the only way you get that lovely factors up situation you mention is if the mounted, for some unfathomable reason, elect to charge them.

But the bottom line is what I wrote earlier. When I start seeing them at any tournament with any frequency I will acknowledge they are fairly costed.

[Mark G Fry]

To add to their list of 'disabilities' Steve - there is the fact that they cannot disperse enemy LI in the open, as they cannot move into contact with them.
So a line of static enemy LI bows (for example) in front of a line of WWgs will force the WWgs to stop and the only way they can remove the LI is to either try and shoot them down, and admittedly the WWg are ok at shooting, but it's still a long struggle, or ensure that the WWgs have supporting HF units that can charge through the wagons to disperse the LI. Not a great solution and costly, even if those units are Levy impetuous.

On Dan's point about density etc. When you read about Hussite, Hungarian or Muscovite wagon laagers (or see drawings of Chinese ones) they appear to have been deployed in multiple ranks quite often, and with a lot of attached infantry (with xbows, handguns, spears, halberds and war flails in and around the wagon). So I suspect that they were probably reasonably comparable with their foot enemies as far as density goes (with the exception of a pike keil). I also suspect that C14-early C15th dismounted knights were probably not fighting in a particularly dense formation either.

I shall be taking up Dan's competition challenge, at Beachhead in Bournemouth in the UK in February, assuming I can get all the rebasing done in time.
However, with my recent appalling run of luck over the last few months - my Khmer elephants did more damage to my opponents by routing at Lisbon, than they actually managed in combat I wouldn't count my potential result at Bournemouth as any real test of a WWgs abilities!

RBS's comments about WWgs are fair enough (& as Dan states he is renowned for his 'choice' use of words) and there are sets of rules that treat WWgs as purchasable 'difficult' terrain that must be deployed at the start of the game, and which remain static throughout the game (but provide a combat and protection advantage). Having them trundling about like armoured cars on the battlefield/playmat is not that realistic, but at least it does allow they to participate in the game

However, having a prepared WWg offer no advantage of protection in melee does seem a bit harsh IMHO.
Cheers
Mark
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[madaxeman]

Fighting against an opponent with better armour makes it harder for you to defeat them in hand to hand combat.  It doesn’t make it any easier for them to defeat you. 

Given the likely historical (and tabletop) role of war wagons is to be an “obstacle” that delays the enemy, it would seem an odd development were they to become better at actually defeating armoured foot in combat (by matching their armour), as well as the effect of making it even harder for unarmoured foot to successfully assault them in the course of a normal 7-turn game 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com