Gulf Wars 25 - Lessons Learned

Hey all,

I just got back from Gulf Wars and had several learning moments I wanted to share.  All were related to fighting with a spear, but I think are good concepts to think about regardless of the weapon type.


Pacing During a Resurrection Battle

My fitness was higher this year than its been in a long time.  I was working out ~10 hours a week for the two months leading up to Gulf Wars, including a large amount of cardio.  I still got exhausted during the town battle on Tuesday.  Why?  Because no matter how good my fitness is, I can always push the red line for too long.  Its not a fitness issue, but rather a pacing issue.

After wearing myself out in the first 45 minutes, I had a brief conversation with Atlantian Crown Prince Sir Dietrich.  His recommendation was to treat it like an interval workout.  Go hard for 10-20 seconds, and then stand and recover for 1-2 minutes.  By doing this, I can still be aggressive, get lots of kills, and keep the enemy in check while still lasting the entire battle.  Taking this approach, I performed much better in the second half of the battle.


Avoiding Archers - Never Light 3 Cigarettes with One Match

Some people refer to this as Archer Wars.  Archers are absolutely everywhere!  My previous approach to archery was simply to go to the front and try to get as many kills as possible before getting shot.  Historically I'd get about 2 kills before getting shot when there is this level of archery on the field.  

This time I took a different approach which seemed to be much more successful.  There's an old superstition believed to have come from World War One;  never light 3 cigarettes with one match.  The first lit cigarette grabs the sniper's attention.  The second allows him to take aim, and the third gets shot.  Likewise, if you stand in the front and take too many shots with your spear, its not long before the archers spot you, take aim, and fire.

In this year's ravine battle, I made sure that I never spent too much time in the front line.  I'd sit back well behind the front rank and rest on my knees, watching the battle.  If I saw an opportunity for some action, I'd low walk up to the front line and take a handful of shots with my spear.  I never fired more than 3-5 times, killing 1-3 fighters, before I'd head back behind the ranks and take a knee again.

I probably had about the highest kill ration I'd ever had before in a battle with a lot of combat archery.


Finding Effective Positions in the Line Based on the way the Battle Plays Out

The job of a good spearman is not simply to get kills, or to stand there and wait for opportunities to present themselves.  A good spearman always needs to read the battlefield and determine the best way he or she can effect the battle.  The following is an example of what I did during the second field battle in an attempt to make myself as effective as I could:

I began the battle supporting Atlantia on the far right flank.  As Atlantia engaged, they began to push and roll the flank.  As this occurred, I sat in the second rank and looked for opportunities to open up in the gaps between the shields.  At one point, however, the flank started to fold so fast that I found that my help really wasn't necessary anymore.  I looked to my left and noticed a big kill pocket forming, so I moved over into the kill pocket in order to help whittle down the part of the line that had not yet collapsed.

As the battle progressed, however, the opponents sent in reinforcements to attempt to take back the right flank.  Recognizing that they likely had the numbers to now roll our flank back onto us, I repositioned myself again, this time back to the flank in order to help reinforce our flank against the new threat.

The bottom line really is simply to always be thinking about ways to position yourself to have to most positive impact on the battle.

Press or Deny? Engage or stall? 3 on 2 fighting.

To quote Sir Thorson (who was quoting someone else), "don't fight if you can't win."  I can also quote Anglesey Kensman Arundoor, "Never fight a fair fight."

This concept is, I think, one of the hardest to get across for individuals within a melee scenario.  Aggressiveness is a good thing, but you need to be smart about it.  "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," is something I've been saying a lot, lately.  Floating like a butterfly is another way of me saying that sometimes you need to stall the engagement.

I can explain below with the 3 on 2 fight as an example.


How to Engage when Outnumbered

We did several 3 on 2 engagements last Sunday.  One of the things we've been working on at the Southern Army practice is how to engage when you are outnumbered.  In short, you press the attack to one side.

I'd like to add a few more levels to this.  In my opinion, the first thing you do is you asses which side has the range weapon superiority.  If you have a spear, and they don't, then you actually don't want to press at all, but rather, lull them into a static fight, if possible.

The other option is not to engage at all.  If the odds are against you, it is often in your side's best interest to have a small number of fighters stall the engagement of a larger number of fighters.

Having said that, it is certainly worthwhile to practice taking a smaller unit and pressing the flank of a larger unit.  For example, maybe your small unit has all of your best fighters, and the larger unit isn't very good.  In this case, you'd want to quickly win the engagement so that your best fighters can move on to other parts of the fight.  Its also possible that you might be the last fighters left on the field, or maybe all of your units are outnumbered and you have no choice but to try to take a gamble in hopes to regain the numbers advantage.

More importantly than anything, practicing these engagements teaches tactical thinking and working as a unit.


3 on 2

The 3 on 2 is an interesting combination, and one that I've been putting a lot more thought into recently.  I've noticed that this, more often than not, turns into a 2 on 1 and a 1 on 1.  I've been on 3 man teams where its been done by design, but even if not planned, they almost always seem to break down into this configuration.

Now the question is, once we end up in this almost inevitable situation, what should both sides do.  In this example, lets assume that all fighters are of equal abilities.  Provided that all 5 fighters are relatively competent in melee fighting, the green pair against the single red fighter has a significant advantage while the singles facing each other have even odds of winning their engagement.

Green's best strategy:  The pair should engage with the intent to win quickly, while the single green fighter should try to stall until his two teammates win and can come to his aid.

Red's best strategy:  The fighter with a single opponent should press to win the engagement quickly.  Even though the odds are even, and this would violate Arundoor's "never fight a fair fight" rule, it is the best chance of success for red.  The red fighter facing the pair should, of course, stall the engagement.


Example from Sunday

A handful of times I faced off against Adam Greatsword on the flank in a 3 on 2 situation in which I was on the team with 3.  I stalled the engagement, and he pressed.  Since I was fighting with a 7.5' polearm, and he was fighting with a 4.5' greatsword, once he was inside on me, the odds of me winning the engagement dropped to well below 50%.  What did I do?  I went into full defense and tied him up since that was my greatest chance of surviving and prolonging the fight.

Had we switched teams, I would have had no choice but to change my tactics.  I would have thrusted more aggressively from the outside, and if he closed on me, I would have been left no choice but to fight.  Though the odds would have been against me, they would still have been greater than for my teammate who'd have been fighting 2 opponents.


Failed Attempt at a 3 on 1

To mix things up, Sir Thorson suggested that our team of 3 try to gang up on a single fighter in a 3 on 2 engagement.  We pressed hard to the right.  I was on our far left, so it was my job to deny the fighter on their left.  I failed my job and exposed my back to Wulf as I attempted to join the others in an attack on Magnus.  Magnus did his job of stalling the engagement by circling back behind Wulf, allowing Wulf to get a second kill as the pair moved past him.

I think its for this reason that these often break into a 2 on 1 and a 1 on 1.  You simply can't leave an opponent unthreatened

Final Thoughts

A lot of this is very dependent on the space in which you are fighting.  Sunday was on an open field, while Tuesday was in a much more confined space, so there was little room to really stall any engagements since there was nowhere to disengage to.

Philadelphia Regional Practice - A Few Thoughts on Small Tactics Melees

We had a great practice with 17 fighters showing up, plus some youth fighters.  We did several rounds of singles, and then did a few rounds of melees.


5 on 5

The melees were 5 on 5 in a relatively confined space.  One side had 2 shields and 3 polearms while the other side had 4 shields and 1 polearm.  We decided not to use spears because of the tight space.  We also didn't balance the sides because we wanted to see how the tactics would pan out.

The biggest difference between the two sides, tactically, was that the side that was pole heavy went with a traditional shield wall, while the side that was shield heavy set up one rank deep, and spread wider.  This is actually kind of unusual because normally you'd want the tactics to be reversed with this set up.

The other piece that was interesting was that the side with only two shields always initiated the charge.  It was actually relatively successful at first because they were able to penetrate and get into our backfield, and with the small space they were able to pin us against the walls.  Having said that, I am generally a fan of the idea of letting the range weapons work when you have a range advantage.


Leading with the Range Weapon

I am a big fan of this tactic, and we employed it on the very last 5 on 5 engagement.  This accomplishes two things.  First, it allows the range weapon to get at least one free shot on its opponent before engagement, but it also baits in the charge.  In other words, the charge has to start out away from the shield wall far enough that it gives you time to read where the point of impact will be and to make adjustments.

This last engagement was our most successful one, allowing us to ultimately surround and kill the other side.  I believe we were left with 3-4 alive after the engagement.

The counter tactic that was discussed was for red to present 3 poles forward to counter the one green pole (me).  We then said that in this game of rock, paper, scissors, green would have to respond with a charge.

In my opinion, whenever playing these tactical games, you have to set up the best tactic given your circumstances, and then be aware of what the obvious counter is for that tactics and be prepared for it.

Anglesey (the mercenary group that I'm the warlord of) and the Bog Troopers (our alliance with Galatia and The Concusare) would typically have spread wide with the shields protecting the flanks if we were the red team.  The obvious counter to that would be for green to charge.  Red would then have to pinch hard on the flanks, and the poles would have to give in the middle.

Ultimately the tactic that is the best is the one that the players on the field can pull off successfully.  There is never a single tactic that beats all other tactics.  The reason why green was effective in the above scenario was largely due to the level of fighters present on green's team, and the ability to follow through on the plan.


3 on 3

We did several 3 on 3s at the end of the night.  Again, I lead with the pole out in front on our team.

I think this is a great example of employing tactics that work to the strengths of the members on your team.  I have a good range game/thrust and am mobile, so I work well in the front.  Red really only has two choices.  Their pole (Colin) can come out and meet me, and make this a static fight, or he can stay in the back.  If he's in the back, then red has to charge.  Because I'm more experienced with the pole at range, the odds are not in favor for Colin to meet me out front.  Also, the red team had Sterling, who was the best shieldman of the 6 of us, so it was to red's advantage to charge and engage in close range.

If I remember correctly, the results were fairly even in these fights.  With regard to the green team fighting with the pole out in front, in ~25-30% of the engagements, I scored a kill before red was able to charge.


Charging through the Spears

Sir Thorson showed us a tactic to charging through your own spear line.  Too often when charges get organized, the play is given away to the opposition by making it painfully obvious that the charge is coming.  I can't remember the last time I was ever killed in a charge as I generally knew it was coming 10 seconds before it happens.

In this tactic, the shields stay in the second rank and find the gaps between the spears.  As the press through, they lead with their shield sideways, and stick the inside of the shield right in the face of the spear in front, and to the right of them.  As a shieldman in these drills, it was instantly clear to me that the guy behind me was coming through the line as soon as I saw that shield.

The charge finishes up with the poles following the shields to fill the second rank, and then the spears fill in the third rank.

What we didn't discuss was how the charge is supposed to end.  Push until you die?  Retreat and let spears come to the front? At what point?  Etc.

More to discuss on this later.


Hope you enjoyed reading!