If you aren't familiar with the event, it's an annual fight in November that draws a pretty good crowd. I'm sure there are some real numbers out there, but it feels like there are 60-100 fighters per side. The day begins with an unbelt tourney that is used to pick the team captains who then pick the sides. Once the sides are picked, an unlimited resurrection battle takes place over the next hour and forty minutes.
Victory Conditions
What makes this battle a little unique is that normally in this type of battle, there is a control point that determines the winning side. Often times this will be a flag that is equidistant between the two resurrection points. Though one side could adopt a clever strategy that could change the odds of victory, generally speaking the stronger side (the side with more fighters, better fighters, and/or more tactically sound fighters) will push the weaker side closer to their resurrection point, allowing them to control the flag.
What makes the 100 Minutes War a bit unique is that instead of holding a control point, deaths are counted. The team with the most kills, wins. What makes that especially interesting is that the nature of an unlimited resurrection battle is that the stronger side pushes the weaker side closer to their resurrection point such that an equilibrium in killing can be achieved (more or less). This happens because the dead fighters from the weaker team end up having a shorter walk to and from the resurrection point.
To be honest, I'm not certain that a complete equilibrium would ever be achieved in terms of number of kills per side, but it does help strengthen the front line of the weaker team.
This Year's Terrain Features
This year offered some very interesting terrain. The two times I fought before, we more or less fought in a big open field. The tactics were pretty simple. Bring lots of spears and archers, don't do anything stupid, and get lots of kills.
The roads, trails, and flat, open terrain are outlined with a building and a Porta John also shown in the upper left quadrant. The fighting mainly took place in the lightly shaded areas with a significant woods skirmish in the middle of the diagram and a very sparse skirmish in the upper left. It appeared that very little fighting took place anywhere else due mostly to terrain features and proximity to the resurrection points.
What Made this Unique?
Well, as I said earlier, normally the winning conditions in an unlimited resurrection require one to hold ground beyond the half way point. In this scenario, victory was determined by counting the number of kills. In other words, the fighting could have literally taken place anywhere between the two resurrection points. In fact, drawing the fight closer to your own resurrection point would have given your side a pretty big advantage. As it stood, a death where the fighting took place would remove someone from the fight for about 2 minutes, while a death near a resurrection point could remove them for as long as 4 minutes while your own fighters respawn immediately.
The Challenge
Why not just wait at your own resurrection point and make the other side come and fight you there? I believe there are two main reasons. The first being that people WANT to fight. Yes, winning is nice, and we generally do our best to try and beat the other team within the parameters of the game, but very few people drove hours to the last melee they will see for months and months just to stand around holding a tactical position on the field. The other reason is that it is doubtful that the opposing side would be willing to meet you at your resurrection point. You end up in a standoff that has, as I've mentioned in previous blogs, historically lead to some of the worst fighting the SCA has ever seen (anyone remember the town battle at Pennsic in the 90s where neither side engaged for over an hour?).
So with that in mind, the challenge of every fighter on the field is to try to place him or herself in a position that gives them the best advantage possible that the other fighters are willing to accept.
The fighting near the buildings was certainly interesting. You might notice that the shaded region is, on average, closer to the yellow rez point than it is to the blue. This was a natural feature that made the blue team much more willing to press toward the yellow rez point while the yellow team would never push past the road. In a nutshell, neither side wanted to fight on a trail (note, the teams swapped sides in the middle of the battle, so this feature was used by both teams).
The Instinct to Take Ground
If you have any experience fighting in melees at all, which the vast majority of the people there did, the instinct is to press when the other side retreats. Often times the other side is retreating because they have been weakened, so the more you pursue them, the more kills you will get. You are often pursuing them around a flank, placing yourself in a better position to roll it and finish off the main units in the center, or if anything, you are creating a buffer between your extended front line and the center objective that you are trying to defend.
The more experience one has, the more those instincts are ingrained. I believe that those very instincts were often a disadvantage in this scenario. Retreating units were actually moving back toward better defensive positions closer to their rez points and there really wasn't any advantage pursuing them.
I like to think of it like Muhammad Ali's "Rope a Dope" tactic against George Foreman. The two start in the middle of the ring. Foreman says, "I want to hit you." Ali says, "I don't want any part of that," and backs away onto the ropes. Foreman says, "When you back away, it's time to attack!" Ali says, "Ah ha! I wanted to get you fighting me on the ropes the whole time! Now I will win!"
The same applied here. Two units meet on neutral terrain. One starts to lose the engagement and backs away. The winning unit thinks, "They are retreating. We must press! We'll push them past the banner, or we'll roll their flank, or we'll finish them off now that they are weak!" Instead, the losing unit is just pulling back into a defensive position closer to their rez point, which is a great place for them to fight, and a terrible place for the other team to fight.
I really do think that the key to winning the battle last weekend was being able to exercise some patience and resist the urge to pursue retreating units.
Personal Thoughts on my Fighting
Ultimately I enjoyed the fighting as it was interesting and challenging. I will admit that on the ride home I didn't feel so great about my performance. Upon reflection, my performance was fine, though it was below my "expectations."
Again, under normal circumstances, there's not a whole lot to be done tactically. I get to stand across from a bunch of fighters in a battle of skill. If I'm across from a bunch of level 1 fighters, I might get 10 kills in a certain amount of time. If they are level 2 fighters, I'll get 5. If they are level 3, I'll get 2-3 kills. Etc.
The terrain features set up the scenario such that, as I said above, people only have to fight the fight that they want. I could tell what level most fighters were in the battle, and I've been around long enough that most of them know what level I am. As an example, the level 1 fighters would often avoid me until they got themselves into a position that gave them an advantage. Etc. Under normal circumstances, I can win a fight against a weaker opponent. Under these circumstances, the weaker opponent could avoid the fight if they were smart enough to do so, and this weekend seemed to contain a larger contingent of smarter fighters, IMO.
So the fight was less about who had the better skill, and more about who was cockier about accepting the conditions of the fight, and who was more patient. A friend of mine told me that he only died 8 times. I estimated my deaths to be closer to 20. He said that he was smart about picking his fights, while I was definitely putting myself in risky situations.
Levels of Risk/Aggression in Unlimited Resurrection Battles
On that last note, I've been wrestling with how aggressive one should be in an unlimited resurrection battle. If a fighter is very aggressive, he might die 30 times. If his kill ratio is 2:1, then that nets him 60 kills. A less aggressive fighter might die 10 times. As a result, he might be in the battle for an additional 40 minutes. Will he also net 60 kills due to being in the fray longer? Will he get fewer kills, but have more positive effect in holding a position by having more face time with the enemy (something that is of great importance if defending a banner)?
I don't think there's anyway to calculate this, and without any real video evidence, I don't think there's even a way to evaluate it.
Anyway, its just something I've been thinking about for a while.
Why Do We Do This?
I often joke that this is my priority level of any battle:
1 - Be safe
2 - Make sure everyone around me is having fun (including myself)
3 - Kick ass
4 - Look good in pictures
5 - Win the scenario
Though winning is ranked last in this list, it does have a large effect on 2 & 3. I like winning, and people generally have more fun if everyone on the field is being relatively competitive. And, of course, the relationship between kicking ass and winning should be obvious.
I'm bringing this up because of some self reflection on the last few points I made. If I could do the fight all over again, would I have been more patient and less risky? I don't think so. I want to fight. And truth be told, even if I'm dying more often, I think pushing people back into a kill pocket and forcing me to fight them on their terms counts as "kicking ass." I didn't get hurt and didn't hurt anyone, and lots of fun was had. So check, check, and check.
We didn't win, but it was one of the more competitive wars they've had, so I'll give that half a check.
Did I look cool? You be the judge:
photo credit: Steve JM (Luther)
No comments:
Post a Comment