War Wagons!

[big_steveo]

I heard somewhere there was going to be war wagons. Is that true?!?!

If so, will they act like chariots except with defense? Having a unit of 20 war wagons is inaccurate isn't it?

[Prince of the Poodles]

Man, I thought you were posting screenshots....

Ya, I think they are in.

[anders]

from what Ive read about the hussite use of war wagons, and later east and central european use was inspired by or copied from them, they will not be anything like RTW chariots, but be more like mobile field fortifcations where several wagons are chain-linked together to form a "wagenlaager" which protect sfrom missile and meelee attacks, and from where the defenders can fire their missile weapons from a relatively safe position, and sally out to do meelle once the attackers are ufficoiently softened up.

so, nothing like the charging heavy chariots of RTW.

[Orda Khan]

They should have been introduced in BI. It will be interesting to see how efficient they are

......Orda

[Furious Mental]

I'm wondering if they might have the arquebus-a-croc

[Kourutsu]

They should have been introduced in BI. It will be interesting to see how efficient they are

......Orda

Well they had the chariot with the ballista turret on the back.

[Faenaris]

Well they had the chariot with the ballista turret on the back.

A war wagon isn't the same thing as the ballista chariot. See this link:

http://www.hotelpraguecity.com/fotky/husiti.html

Basicly, a war wagon is just a wagon filled with arquebusiers and crossbowmen. It isn't used for moving around and firing. Infantry and cavalry alike would hide behind the carts, allowing the enemy hurl themselves on the defenses. Once the attack had failed, the infantry behind the carts would counter-charge.

So, you see, I don't think the War Wagon will be used like the Chariot Balista simply because of the fact that the War Wagon didn't move. I don't know how CA has implemented it, but we shall see in 2 weeks. :)

[Temujin]

So, you see, I don't think the War Wagon will be used like the Chariot Balista simply because of the fact that the War Wagon didn't move.

I don't know about that. During Zizka's breakout from Kutna Hora his wagons were definitely moving and fighting, and I vaguely recall a hungarian formation using wagons in a flank attack as well.

I've seen pictures of war wagons with extended sides giving cover to the draft horses, and why would they build that if they didn't intend to have the horses drawing the wagon in battle?

Building a wagon fortress may have been the most common use, but they could be used offensively as well, I believe.

[Faenaris]

Ah, I thought that it was more a defensive formation (Tabor). I stand corrected then. :) I'm curious how CA will impliment them.

[Husar]

Maybe cantabrian circle special ability?

[Azog 150]

i thought they would be immobile and would be deployed like stakes, but now people say the can move and im pretty clueless.

[Furious Mental]

Supposedly the Russian "Gulay Gorod" will carry crossbowmen and can be formed into a circle.

[AliAS]

war vagons is most popular husits "weapon"
bohemia has this vagons in chivalry total war

[Watchman]

War wagons fought stationary just about all of the time, but once the Hussites figured out the drill they got pretty good at maneuvering them between good positions in very short time - and obviously also at getting them out of and back into "marching order" right quick. By some accounts at least on a few occasions they were actually able to deploy around and even amongst the enemy army to such a degree the oppositions found itself stumbling through a seemingly endless maze of virtually invulnerable wooden bunkers... Or something along those lines.

Anyway, as they also made a point of bringing along enough artillery to keep enemy cannon from turning their carts into kindling their tactics were for quite a while pretty much invincible against "normal" armies of the time. Tore themselves apart in some sort of domestic sectarian dispute eventually though.

Now, more static "wagon fortresses" are a different thing and were pretty much the normal way of forming up the baggage train on the steppes, particularly when up against them pesky nomads. Being quite simple to form and effective enough as field fortifications not a few armies employed them in one form or another throughout history (if only as an obstacle for flanking maneuvers, and a secure fallback point), and not a few were able to move them to at least a limited degree even in combat. I've read a large contignent of intact Russian troops holed up in one after the Mongols wiped out their main army at the whatwasitnow, Khalka river debacle, and made a quite spirited attempt at conducting a fighting retreat homewards. The Mongols worked their asses off for a few days trying to breach the fort for fairly little gain, and eventually managed to convince the obstinate (and not a little desperate) Russians to surrender on terms which they then promptly reneged upon (the whole "sat on until suffocated" story). Suitable excuses being dug up as usual in such occasions.

Anyway, goes to show how troublesome such waggon laagers could get. The Ottomans also used wagon forts - including purpose-built war wagons with artillery and whatnot - as "portable fortifications" for march camps and to cover their rear in battle; whether they copied this from the Hussites or invented themselves (steppe nomads used wagons too, and naturally formed them into laagers if necessary so the Ottomans ought to have been familiar with the idea from the beginning) I've no idea.

[Bob the Insane]

A war wagon isn't the same thing as the ballista chariot.

The worry here is that the Ballista Chariot (high powered version of a horse archer) in game had little to do with the historical Ballista Chariot (a method to rapidly redeploy ballista to new static firing positions).

So even if the historical version of a war wagon was suppose the be used stationary (or not depending on the discussion above) the question is how will in work in the game?

[Kavhan Isbul]

From what I read about the battle of Khalka, after it became obvious that the battle was lost, the Kiev prince built a war wagon and under its cover started moving at a crawling speed back in an attempt to retreat. The Mongols were unable to break it apart, but the Russians surrendered when they ran out of water in a few days. While no speed records were broken, I do not consider this particular war wagon use as stationary, in the strict sense of thw word, and for battles' purposes then these wagons should be allowed to move, even if extremely slowly.

[anders]

there is nothing wrong wih the wagons moving as such, but their prime tactical use should be as a moving fortication, and their movement should be to change stationary positions, not charge into enemy formations or, as someone wrote, operate like some kind of gargantuan horse archer.

simple physics will tell you that a big,armored wagon drawn by four or more horses cannot possibly act like some kind of horse archer. mobile firingplatforms are what they are, if they fight on the move at all, it should be like some kind of medieval infantry fighting vehicle, slowly trudging along while the crew fires from safe positions inside the hull.

[Watchman]

Well, they could be driven relatively fast by what I understand. But they were essentially redeployable wooden bunkers, not mobile fighting platforms. By what I know of their size, construction and fighting complement, on the move it must have been pretty cramped in there especially for the weapons the soldiers mostly used (ie. crossbows, firearms, and assorted two-handed ironmongery; the Hussites were notably particular to two-handed flails).

If you need an RTW concept to think of them with think phalanxes or the BI schiltroms, not horse-archers.

[anders]

no doubt they can move pretty fast if pilled by enough horses, but their agility in turning, stopping etc. must be well below vhat is necessary to function properly as horse archers, not to mention as heavy chariots/shock cavalry charging and disengaging without getting bogged down.

otherwise I agree to the last post.