Throughout the day there were discussions on some of the kingdom objective this year, some specifics on different weapon types, followed by a bunch of fighting. The battles began with several capture the flag resurrection (on a timer) field battles, single death bridge battles, and then a lot of small team fights (3v3 up to 5v5).
For the most part I'll give my perspective on the fighting.
Notes on General Tactical Philosophy
If you follow military history and/or watch sports, you'll notice that there's many different ways to be effective in a team competition, though there are even more ineffective ways. There is no single best method, but there are methods that work better given a scenario or given the way your unit is built (ie Experienced? New? Big and heavy? Small and fast? Barn door shields? Spears and archers? Weekly localized practice? Spread out and only get together at the big events?)
I like to put the general flow of a unit and how it determines to follow through on tactical decisions into two camps; the "Organized American Football Offense" camp and the "Pickup Ice Hockey" camp. Now I have learned the hard way that sports analogies are not the best to use with fighters, but the examples do serve as a good model for how two completely different systems can both be successful.
Generally speaking, American Football Offensives use "plays." They come up with a plan before the action begins, everyone gets into their position, and when they "hike" the ball (call lay on) everyone executes the plan, often with a quarterback (the commander) giving directions, the offensive line (shield wall) pushing people around the middle of the field, and a few wide receivers (flankers) running around the outside. When the play is over they get in a huddle (call a reform) and run the next play.
In order to do this, everyone needs to know the plays and work on them together in practice. The more consistently a group practices together, the more complicated the plays can be, and the more effectively the plays will be run. The less consistent they are, the simpler the plays must be.
Pick Up Ice Hockey, on the other hand, does not use plays at all. A player shows up during the open ice time, pays his $15, puts his pads and skates on, and then joins a bench with 10-12 strangers also in pads and skates. Each player is expected to know the fundamentals of the game. Big guys who are good at skating backwards play defense and stay in the back on offense. They keep the puck in the offensive zone, pass, and take slap shots when the goalie is screened. Keep the shots low so that they bounce off the pads if the goalie blocks the shot. Offensive players need to go to the net to get a rebound shot. If the other team's defense gets the puck, they need to focus on clearing the zone. Always pass along the boards and never across the middle. Dump and chase. Stay spread out. Keep your head up. Dump behind the net. Etc. etc.
Likewise a group of fighters who don't know each other or don't get to practice together very often can fight well together provided that they share the same understanding of fundamentals.
Ultimately having a plan that can be effectively executed is best, but there becomes a level of complexity, inexperience, and lack of time practicing together that can make a plan fall apart, at which point having sound fundamentals serve as a really good safety net.
My Fundamental Cheat Sheet for Celt Style Skirmish
When I say "Celts" I'm specifically referring to the Bog Celts that occupy much of Northern Atlantia and the Southern Region of the East Kingdom (D.C. and Philly to be specific) including Anglesey, Galatia, The Concusare, and a handful of other friends of ours.
The fundamentals can be remembered through the following mnemonic:
F.L.A.N.K.S.
Flanks; secure them
Leg 'em and leave 'em
Assess which side has more range weapons
Never fight a fair fight
Know who are your killers and who are your supporters
Spread out your weapons and your talent (ie don't bunch your new guys or all of your spears in one spot)
I'll reference elements from this list below.
I find that the flow of rez battles lend themselves more toward fundamental fighting and less toward play maker fighting just given the nature of a slower pace, a longer format, and the constant changing of players on the field.
Overall I was impressed with how people were fighting fundamentally, especially compared to previous years. The mid-XP and low-XP fighters, in particular, were doing especially well. I saw no easy kills at all, and that's pretty rare.
At least by the time the field was full of fighters, I found the flanks to be well secured and no one was wasting time with legged fighters. People also weren't getting sucked into 1v1 or 1v2 fights, but were rather trying to play the "chess match" of trying to find advantages and exploiting them. All of that was good.
Some areas that could use improvement; In one battle in particular we had 80% of our shields on our right and 80% of our poles and spears on our left. This leaves our left side very vulnerable to a charge. In fact, something similar happened in the Allied Champions battle last Pennsic, and ONE shield on our right flank was able to run into a cluster of 5 spears, disrupting their flank and leading us to our first flag.....and then to our second flag before our opponent made an adjustment and put some shields over there. They failed F. (Flanks, secure them) and S. (Spread out your weapons and talent) from the cheat sheet listed above.
Anyway, the only reason why we survived the imbalance on our side yesterday was because our opponent never exploited our weakness by mounting a charge. Bad on us, but also bad on them.
Now you might be wondering, "If you are fighting off of fundamentals instead of plays, how do you charge?" Either someone needs to vocalize the call to charge, or someone needs to take the initiative to lead the charge and everyone else needs to know to follow suit. This is exactly how it happened at the Allied Champions battle, but I've also seen fights where a lone man charges and no one responds. Experience reduces the odds of that happening.
The other big area of needed improvement is that more communication is needed on the field. If a battle like this is to be taken more seriously (we used it as a warmup), there needs to be a small number of "safeties" guarding the flag, and maybe a commander or two near the middle of the field.
Bridge Battles
For a while I've been saying that bridges are won with a combination of basic fundamentals and good unit organization. The biggest problems I've seen with single death bridge battles is the bunching of the wrong weapons in the wrong positions, not having enough spears on the front, having too many spears on the front, not charging at the proper moments, general over crowding, and hogging the front line. Also critical is being able to execute full charges, column charges, and pulse charges quickly and effectively.
Back in the 90s it was a staple tactic to place a tight shield wall in the front rank with spears in the second rank firing over the shield wall. The idea was to combine the ranges to have double the attacks on the front line. The bog celts were ahead of the game at this point, largely because we were used to face thrusting from another organization, while the mainstream SCA groups had only recently adopted it. We would fight with all of our spears a few feet out in front of the rest of our unit, able to attack the enemy shields in front of us and step in and out of their spear range at will. At the time, charges took such a long time to organize that we could always prepare a retreat before they came.
Over the next two decades much of the rest of the SCA had brought their spears out in front. In recent years I've begun to notice a new dimension of the fight, which is to say that people are beginning to organize their charges much more quickly. In addition, where as in the 90s "to the last fighter" attrition bridge battles have been partially replaced with control point bridge battles, its become too much of a risk to have an entire front rank filled with spears (even if they can retreat and survive, their side will lose ground in the process). I now believe that a hybrid front rank is usually more effective. Place enough spears on the front rank to maximize your killing, but mixed in with shields to more quickly execute charges, or repel charges. If the other side has fewer spears, kill away but prepare for a charge. If they have more, then its time for your side to charge.
Spear Columns
One of the things I saw in yesterday's bridge battles on our side was an organization for how to feed spears into the front line. I believe it was Galvin who recommended this, but we had a column of spears on the far right flank and one on the far left flank. Everything in the middle was shields and poles. On the front line we would have three spears. The left and right spears would feed in from the line as the ones on the front line would die off. The middle position would be fed from either line as the spearman would just weave through a couple of fighters to get to his position. I really liked the way this flowed and kept spears from clogging up the middle. It also created a nice queue to get into and patiently wait your turn, rather than to try and cut in line and get to the front fearing that you may not get your chance to fight if you don't.
Communication. Charging a Mob of Spears.
Our opponent's bridge appeared to be fairly well organized throughout most of the battles, but not so much in the first battle. At one point I noticed that they had three spears bunched up in the front rank on their left flank. I pointed it out to our commander and told him that that was a charge opportunity. He disagreed so we waited. The group of three became a group of five, and I communicated it again. This time he called for a charge, we charged, and I believe were successful. In this case, the opponent was violating my F. and S. fundamentals and we followed the A. fundamental capitalizing on a weakness. Specifically, they had a weak (F)lank (yes, a bridge has a flank, too) because of the bunching of the spears as a result of not (S)preading out their weapon types. We (A)ssessed the range advantage that our opponent had, and charged to negate it.
Some other key takeaways from this battle are the ideas of communicating to the commander and following command. While I don't believe that every fighter needs to be micromanaged at all times on the battle field, bridge battles do require a lot of coordination. A couple of us thought we needed to charge and told the commander. He said no, so we listened. Once he did call a charge, a few of us echoed loudly, "Charge! Go! Go! Go! Go!". A nudge in the back is also a helpful tool.
Finally, there was a point toward the end of one of the battles where the opponent appeared to be whittled down pretty far. Through experience I've learned that when I see that to take a quick look at our side, estimate the numbers of poles and shields we have, and if we outnumber them by 25% or more (depending on talent), to call a charge. I've gotten better at assessing this. I've called a few in the past only to realize later that we were charging with mostly spearmen. Oops. Anyway, this time it worked out.
Spear Communication
One point that I wanted to cover yesterday that we didn't have time for was for how spears should be communicating with the shieldmen who are in the position that they wish to occupy. Ideally a spear should be able to recognize a spot on the line where a spear could be effective. Even if someone says, "let the spears up," a shieldman on the front line can't see what's going on behind him, so he is hesitant to give up his position until he's certain that the line integrity won't be compromised.
It's the spear's job to communicate to the shielman that he or she would like to take his position. To do that, walk up behind the shieldman and place the spear tip past his helmet so that he can see that a spear is coming up. Then simply say, "Shieldman, can I trade places with you. I have a spear." I've never had a shieldman refuse because, truth be told, standing there waiting for a face thrust is not a very fun job for a shieldman. They are more than happy to step out and take a break.
Pulse Charges
I'll admit I don't know much about these so I picked some brains at the end of the day. We attempted some pulse charges in two of the later bridge battles, and neither were especially pretty, so we talked a lot about how to improve.
One thing I do know about charges is that everyone has to go at the same time. Yelling "Charge!" out of nowhere is too much of a surprise. Yelling, "Hey everyone, we are going to charge. Get ready. Are you ready? Okay, on my count. Three. Two. One. Charge!" gives the enemy way too much time to adjust (remember what I said about the 90s?). For full charges, I find it to be effective that once you make the decision to charge, you tell people close to you, "Okay, I'm going to call a charge," giving them a chance to warn you not to do it, or to prepare to echo your commands and nudge the fighters in front of them. That's followed by a loud, "Everyone, we're going to charge. Ready? Charge! Go! Go! Go! Go!" That seems to give just enough time to get your unit to commit to charging together, but not so much time that the other side gets a chance to react. It won't surprise them, but it will catch them before they can reorganize, and ideally you are charging because you are in a better position than them to do so.
Now, ideally if your unit trains together often, you can come up with secret commands, and codes, etc. to pull these off in quicker fashion. But we don't always find ourselves in ideal situations.
Now the pulse charge is a little trickier. The fighters need a clear understanding that its a pulse charge, what that means, how long to attack, who is going to charge and who isn't, and when to pull back after charging. So the first key is coming up with the command. If it is called from a commander in the back, there needs to be some kind of clear communication to everyone what the command will be. Much like the charge command, there must be the right amount of pause to allow all involved in the charge a chance to get ready in order to execute together (on three or after three?). There also needs to be an understanding of how long the charge will last. Three swings and out? Or fight until someone calls "Back out! Back out!"
Another way to approach this is to have a pole pair up with two shields to call it. A commander can send a message up to him if necessary, but this would be an easier way to execute the charge without having to worry about the rest of the unit getting confused by the commands. Sir Ryu had suggested a "three swings and out" (or the time it takes for three swings) while the pole takes two swings. I've also had another knight tell me that you can stack two shields in a column. The back one points out the target to the front one and then calls the charge. Again, three swings and out.
Pulse charges should likely target spears in the front rank. I've heard some say that they should always be done on angles.
A final thought on this is that if you have too many ranks involved in a pulse charge, then the back ranks will probably get in the way and prevent the front ranks from being able to pull back out.
Sometimes I've seen full units do "pulse charges" in mass, but I believe this is really a different kind of charge. I'd call these full charges with commands to back out, followed by full charges. These would follow the same rules as the full charge, followed by commands to "Get back! Get back! Get back!"
Small Team Tactics
This is an area where the celt approach and the kingdom approach probably differs most. The kingdom prefers to use the classic shield wall where everyone sticks together, picks a focus point, and charges hard, hoping to get momentum as well as a small numbers advantage at one point on the field.
The celt approach is generally to spread out wider than the opponent, put all of the fighters on the front line, exploit small advantages, and avoid fights where we are at a disadvantage. Again, this is the difference between thinking of it like an American football offense, or a pickup hockey game.
The advantages to the kingdom approach is that it can be learned much more quickly, its better at capturing an objective, and really well suited for big shieldmen who are good at killing what is directly in front of them. The advantages of the celt approach is that it is better suited for smaller, faster fighters with fewer shields, most kingdom units are not used to fighting against it, and if well practiced, it will ultimately beat the shield wall charge simply because it is designed to do so, but I've found that it takes at least 20 events or practices to get someone well integrated into the system.
Kingdom Approach: Red Shield Wall Charge
Celt Approach: Green Skirmish Line
Our 5 Man Team
We actually used a hybrid of the kingdom and celt approach in our battles and did quite well with it. We had three shields and two poles, with Vashir (Colin) being the other pole. Though Vashir is a solid kingdom fighter and can follow the kingdom tactics, he is very mobile, has a ton of melee experience, and excellent at floating on a flank. We decided to let the shields pick their plan, and instead of supporting them from behind, I floated wide right and Vashir floated wide left.
Sir William gave us some feedback and thought that we had floated too far and left our shields exposed, and commented on particularly how we left our knight (Sir Harold) in a 1v1 fight against another knight (Sir Arn) who has currently been fighting better at tourneys and ultimately killed Sir Harold in the engagement.
Ironically, Sir Arn got feedback that he shouldn't have let Sir Harold drag him away from the rest of the fight to fight a 1v1.
What answer is correct? I think it all depends on who the players are on the field. This goes to fundamental K. (K)now who are your killers and who are your supporters. In a field battle like this, Vashir and I are almost always "killers" because our our mobility and experience. Having said that, if I am with a shield of equal or better mobility and experience, I will switch roles and let him take the lead while I follow in support.
In this battle, Sir Arn won the engagement with Sir Harold, but then he turned and had to face a 1v3.
Again, there's no one right answer, but I do think there is a lot of value in understanding the pros and cons of any tactical decision or team strategy. I think Vashit and I did the right thing, but had we lost, maybe I would have had a different opinion.
I hope you enjoyed reading. Until next time.......
