Small Teams part 2. 6v7

 If you haven't read the previous post, please do so, as that shows a nice tactical progression from 1v1 all the way up through 3v4 and 4v3.

By the time I had finished that blog, it was time for the next regional melee practice.  We did this one at a local renaissance faire and were able to draw a nice crowd watching us on the hillside, which was very nice.  On the day we did some singles, some 2v2 fights, and some drills, but I think the highlight of the day were several 6v7 single death field battles (I believe we had some 7v7, and 7v8, but to keep things a little simple, I'll focus mostly on the 6v7 for this post).

The Setup

Two teams with a defined field that was maybe proportionally a little bigger than what you see below.  The field was wide enough that it wasn't a bridge, wide enough that either side could break up into two separate units, but narrow enough that fighters couldn't really just run away from the fight and sneak around into the backfield.  

The green team (actually we were purple) consisted of three shields, a medium pole, a long pole (6'8"), and a 9 foot spear.  The red (yellow) team had four shields, a shorter axe, a medium pole, and a two sword fighter.  Sizes, speeds, and ability levels were varied across the field.

Some General Principles

This follows pretty well from the last blog post on smaller teams.

To quote from that post:

"Best Decisions (each one is a unique tactic):

     -Surrounding the enemy with all fighters engaged
     -Sticking together and amassing the unit around one flank
     -Spreading out and finding opportunities for mismatch kills (shield charges spear, 2v1, etc.)
     -Denying one flank while attacking the other"

"Worst Decisions

     -Turtling up and taking it
     -Fighters not staying engaged
     -Spreading out with no ability to stay engaged (a disorganized mess)"

Below are some hypothetical examples of how these battles often play out with my assessment of whether or not the team is applying a good tactic or a bad one.

Keep in mind, as I said in the previous post, that some tactics are usually bad, while the remaining "good" ones often only work if you can properly predict a bad response from your opponent.  For example, sending a mass of fighters around the right flank definitely works if the opposing team's left flank doesn't respond.  If they do respond with an envelopment, then it really comes down to which team executes better.  If both teams use sound tactics, then it becomes a chess match of figuring out what will work out best for you against your opponent.

Considering Weapons Mix

Let's revisit the setup picture.  Which team has the advantage with range weapons?

The green team has three long weapons compared to red's two long weapons.  Additionally, green's long weapons were longer (green had the only spear on the field plus the longest pole).  

Often times these fights will break down into some long weapons' dueling on either team, with the shields serving more of a support role.  Red had made the decision to push for an in your face engagement in order to neutralize the green team's long weapons, which I believe was the right decision and one that worked out well for them.  

Tactics Employed that Day

In every scenario, red was pretty aggressive at lay on.  They mostly attempted to either send all of the troops to the right, perform an attack right - deny left, or split up into two units on the edges of the field.

Green tried to get off ranged shots before the shields got into range.  If red went all in on their right, green would try to envelop.  If red left smaller numbers of fighters on their left, green would try to beat them quickly and then quickly rejoin the rest of its unit.  

Notes on Denying a Flank

Green struggled to secure the left flank.  Later in the day Sir Galvin helped with the flank and got them to do a nice retreat which allowed the right enough time to win its flank and then join up with the left.

Remember, denying the flank doesn't mean that you need to win the flank, only that you need to keep the flank from getting around you and into the backfield, and if you do lose, that you lose slowly.  A slow retreat can accomplish the same goal.  You'll note in the picture below that though red has pushed the flank back, it never really got around it.

Spear Movement

A question came up yesterday about spearing in this situation.  The bottom line is the spear needs to be very mobile and always have a good idea where the enemy is coming from.  It's a bad idea to let the enemy out of your sight for too long.  

As the swirling tidy bowl often forms, you end up with this kind of S shape on the field (if you aren't familiar, a lot of battles end up with a counter clockwise rotation on the field, has both teams tend to be stronger on their right flank, and weaker on their left flank due to the right handed nature of most shield fighters).  The spear needs to be careful not to get caught with the enemy coming behind and from the left.  Often the spear needs to move either to its right or left to prevent this from happening.

Notes on Center Position

When talking about the "center" position, I'm really talking about fighting in the eventual gap that forms once the units break.  I had a discussion last night with a veteran melee shieldman (Arundoor) and we both talked about how we prefer this position as it allows us to better influence the outcome of the battle.

Having said that, it is probably a position for a fighter of a certain level of experience/prowess.  Most fighters would likely feel more comfortable fighting within a smaller defined group of people (like a triad, or the center of a small group of 4 or 5 fighting on a flank).  Fighting the gap requires good field awareness and mobility.  


Observed Trends

One thing I've noticed over the last 7 years since I've really started paying attention to tactics is provided that both teams have at least one experienced competent melee fighter and have the flexibility to make adjustments (ie they were not instructed by someone to use a specific tactic), these battles almost always end up with each side splitting into a left unit and a right unit on both sides.

Many years ago, as I said in my last post, we were taught that the flanking maneuver was "the way" to win these battles.  Again, I agree that that is an effective tactic provided that the opponent doesn't know how to counter, and often times they don't.  Especially if you are at a big war and your opponents are a collection of fighters who don't usually fight together, and half of them haven't put on a helmet in months.

But when you have a group full of active fighters who are motivated, it doesn't usually take long for one side to figure out how to counter.  If you bunch up and charge right, we're going to see that and should be able to get behind you pretty easily ("should" is the operative word).

Side note to this:  There was a point in time when I thought that a collection of fighters should be able to figure this out on the fly.  Over the years, I've been in situations where the best tactic really was to put them together in a block and point them at something, as the average fighter on the field just did not have the experience to move and adapt well on the fly.

Some Notes on 2v2

We did some 2v2s yesterday and discussed some of our tactics afterward.  I believe everyone realized that ultimately the 2v2s were going to break down into two 1v1s.  One of the teams said that when they fought, they focused on how they wanted to match their fighters up against their opponents to give them the best odds of winning one of the 1v1 fights quickly.

Another tactic that was pointed out to me was since I was fighting with a pole and like to thrust on the oblique a lot, one of my opponents made it his job to pull me away from his teammate so that I would not be within thrusting range.

There are lots of little nuances like this that are endless, which is part of what makes this game so fun.


Thank You

Special thanks to Myq and the Barony of Carilion for organizing and hosting us, to Sir Ryu for marshaling, providing feedback, and keeping the crowd engaged, and to Sir Galvin for leading and motivating the melee fighters throughout the day.  And, of course, to everyone else who keeps coming to these practices to make them happen.  Right now this is, IMO, the best game in town!


THL Bari of Anglesey
East Kingdom

Small Teams Melee Decisions.

Unfortunately I showed up late to the last Southern Army regional melee practice, but I got a little feedback regarding the small teams work that some of the fighters were doing and wanted to outline here the decisions that the fighters should be, in my opinion, making on the field.

Executive Summary (TLDR)



Below I include a lot of details and diagrams building up from a 1v1 to 3v4.  Each case has some nuances, but I think there are some general themes that carry through each one and it would be helpful to read through each example.

Having said that, I think I can summarize some general principles up front.


Best Decisions (each one is a unique tactic):

     -Surrounding the enemy with all fighters engaged
     -Sticking together and amassing the unit around one flank
     -Spreading out and finding opportunities for mismatch kills (shield charges spear, 2v1, etc.)
     -Denying one flank while attacking the other

Which tactical decision you make depends entirely on making an educated guess at what mistakes your opponents may make.  For example, running at a flank may be a bad decision if the opponent counters with an envelopment plan and can prevent the flanking maneuver.  On the other hand, spreading out and finding mismatches won't work if the opponent is better at finding mismatches than you are.


Worst Decisions

     -Turtling up and taking it
     -Fighters not staying engaged
     -Spreading out with no ability to stay engaged (a disorganized mess)


No Single Tactic is Best

There is more than one right way to do something, but there are even more wrong ways.  What this means is to not get bogged down with the idea that there is a single right way to do something, yet each tactic is going to depend on both the capabilities of your team, and a good estimation of what the opposing team will do.  Understanding this will help you pick a good tactic.

Part of the motivation of this post dates back to a regional melee practice in 2015.   We were being taught "the way for smaller teams to engage larger teams."  The method was for the smaller team to stick together and charge at a flank in order to get a numbers advantage on the flank of the larger team.

This worked very well, but only because the larger team was taught to "stick together."  

To be clear, this is a very effective tactic IF the opposing team sticks together and isn't very mobile.  It's actually even more effective if the opposing team doesn't stick together, yet still isn't very mobile, both scenarios being very common.

So on that day two tactics were taught.  The first was for the larger team to avoid the disorganized mess shown above, which is an important lesson to learn as a lot of fighters at these practices mostly fight singles and are prone to wander the field waiting for a single fighter to approach them.

The second was, as I said above, for a group of fighters to charge at a flank.

What I was initially doing that day was a little more dynamic than what they were working on, and something that I had been doing with a fair amount of success for about a decade.  When ever a team sticks together, there is a strictly defined finite space that an opponent will be.  Knowing that, I can position myself anywhere on the field that is not in their kill zone.  So the tactic I was using could be loosely described as an envelopment.  (note, I was fighting with a spear, so a spear is pictured below)

The downside to this tactic is the the spear can be run down on the flank (but not if the other team is forced to stick together).  In the second diagram, sometimes the shields get confused because they aren't used to a pear in front of them, or the spear can get run down if he doesn't know how to quickly get behind his shields when the charge comes.

Risk vs Reward

The risk of teaching any of these alternative tactics is that a team of low level fighters won't know what to do.  The simplest tactic to learn is "always do this."  The more complicated tactics are when decisions have to be made on the fly.  

The reward is facilitating learning, creating more advanced fighters, increasing the overall average experience of the fighters on your team, and at a minimum, understanding what your opponent is doing if they are applying these different tactics even if you've opted not to.

In my opinion, the fighters who show up to practice are motivated fighters.  These are your future leaders.  My suggestion is to help them learn as much as they can.


Best Way to Learn

 Fight a lot.  Give them the opportunity to make decisions on their own.  Certainly teach them tactics, but I much prefer that this happens after they've been given ample opportunity to figure them out on their own.  

This is certainly nothing I'd ever done as a basketball coach, but in those days I had the same 12 team members practicing 2 hours a day.  I really believe that the circumstances of our sport lends itself to different methods of learning how people fight and what they are capable of.  You never know who's going to be on the field on a given day, so a certain degree of flexibility and improvisation is going to be needed.

The Worst Tactic

Or at least one of the worst.  I see this a lot.  Please, please, please stop doing this:

Read through the scenarios below to figure out what better options are, but turning your backs to each other really puts you into a bad position, yet it is so common (often pictured in movies, in fact).


Specific Nuances of Each Scenario

Below I'll be covering in a little more detail the following scenarios:

1v1
2v1
1v2
2v2
3v2
2v3
3v3
4v3
3v4

This progression is intended to show you how we can take basic concepts from any small team matchup and build on them toward the next team matchup.


1v1 - Best to Avoid

More often than not, you should avoid a 1v1 fight in a melee.  All things being equal, you have a 50% chance of winning this fight, and I truly believe that everyone who's cares enough to show up to melee practices and/or read this blog has more potential than looking for 50/50 odds. 

There are exceptions to this rule when:  

-  You are MUCH better than the person you are fighting and can kill them quickly with little risk
-  You have a weapons mismatch:
         You have a shield and they have a spear or bow and you can easily run them down
         You have a spear or bow and they have a shield or pole and you can take low risk shots
-  Your options are getting much worse as the battle progresses (ie 50/50 might be the best odds you'll see in the scenario)

2v1 - Forty Fives

The general tactic for a 2v1 is for one fighter to break slightly left of the opponent, and the other to break slightly right.  The biggest mistakes I've seen in a 2v1 is either one of the fighters stepping in front of his teammate, or one of the fighters not engaging, but rather just watching the fight.

1v2 - Line Them Up

Only fight a 1v2 as a last resort.  You should normally be looking for numbers advantages, not fighting when you are at a disadvantage.  

If you find yourself in a 2v1, try to get one of your opponents in the way of his teammate.  It's normally better to move to your right, especially if you have a shield, as you're moving away from right handed attacks, and in a direction that your shield can protect you.  However, the better maneuver is to figure out which opponent has the worse field awareness, and try to either get him in the way of his teammate, or move away from him hoping that he'll disengage from the fight.

2v2 - Forty Fives

Hopefully by now you're recognizing a pattern.  Surrounding your enemy is good.  Getting surrounded is bad.  This is especially important with a 2v2 as both opponents become a target once they're surrounded.  

This is also the most common problem I see with a 2v2.  So many lower level melee fighters are taught to "stick together" that they immediately put themselves into a very bad position when fighting a 2v2.  While sticking together is great to avoid the "Drag Out a 1v1" shown above, it's not always the most effective tactic.  Breaking off into two 1v1s is better than getting surrounded.

3v2 - Keep Them Surrounded

Same as above.  When you have more people, you normally want to surround your enemy if you can.  Once the units start to get bigger, the keys are to make sure that you avoid 1v1 fights and take advantage of 2v1 opportunities.  Don't let your opponent get around either flank, and make sure that all of your fighters are engaged.

2v3 - Hit a Flank, or Spread Out & Find the Mismatches

In the 1v2 fight, you had two choices;  move to attack one flank and hope that you can get one of the opponents in the way of the other opponent, or that the other opponent would be slow to stay engaged.  The other choice was to try to draw out one one of the opponents into a 1v1 fight while, again, the other would be slow to stay engaged.  

In many of these smaller team versus larger team fights, you have the choice between sticking together and moving at one flank, or spreading out and trying to find mismatches and fights with better odds.  The better tactic is often going to depend on what you think your opponent is going to do.  

To visualize this, look at the diagram above and imagine yourself fighting on the red team.  Here your goal is to try to get the green team to use a bad tactics.  Can you surround them because they are focussing on sticking together without moving?  Can you get around one of their flanks?  Can you draw out a 1v1 while stalling for time in your 1v2?  Or on your 1v2 side, can you employ the 1v2 tactics shown higher in this post?  (line them up, or drag out a 1v1).


3v3 - Hit a Flank, Spread Out & Find the Mismatches, Envelop

As the numbers get bigger and bigger on each side, weapons styles, unit type, etc. become more and more important when determining what tactics to use.  Who has the spears?  Where's the archers?  Are you big and strong, or small and fast?  Do you have a mix of uber veterans and newbs, or all mid level fighters?

Nevertheless, better tactics tend to be to either move quickly as a unit to one flank, spread out and see if you can find some mismatches to take advantage of (your shield versus their spear?  Your veteran versus their newb?  Two of you versus one of them?), or to envelop the other side if they turtle up and take it.

The worst thing you can do is to turtle up and take it, which unfortunately one of the most common tactics used.

Here's an example of an actual 3v3 that I fought once.  Both teams had two shields and a spear.  The opposing team did exactly what you'd see in a movie, and what is often used in the SCA.  They formed a tight little shield wall in the front and put their spear behind it.  Our team surrounded them and picked them off fairly easily (this ALWAYS happens).  Eventually in the following battles, their team spread out to match our team, and both teams began using the "spread out and find the mismatches" tactic.

4v3 - Keep them Surrounded

Tactically this isn't much different than a 3v2.  Again, keep in mind that the larger these fights get, the more other factors come into play.  One of the big things I've been addressing lately is the idea that most small engagements come down to quick decision making regarding which side has the range advantage.  I've not really been addressing that in these examples, other than to point out clear mismatches.

Look at the 3v2 diagrams and employ all of the same principles.  Try to keep them surrounded.  Don't let anyone get around your flank.  Make sure all fighters stay engaged in the fight.  If things get spread out, look for the mismatches (shield vs spear.  2v1.  Veteran vs newb.  etc.).

3v4 - Denying a Flank as an Option

Once you've reached this size I believe the smaller team now has the numbers to deal with both flanks.  The same options as before are still available:

- Surround the enemy if it looks like they are going to stand in a tight group without moving
- Spread out and find mismatches if you see opportunities
- Go hard at one flank if it looks like they'll let you get around it without staying engaged on the opposite flank

Additionally you can peal off smaller numbers of fighters (in this case, a single fighter) to attempt to deny to opposite flank from enveloping your fighters.

Note, in this case the loan denier's job is to prevent the flank from enveloping.  He or she does not need to fight a 2v1, but rather keep them from wanting to turn the corner and exposing their flanks to this loan fighter.  If they do, then go ahead and kill them (it happens way more often than you'd expect).

Final Thoughts

This covers most of what I wanted to cover.  One last thought to keep in mind is that it is generally better to form an arc than a bulge.  Be the team that is surrounding the fight, not the one that is being surrounded.  If you decided to spread out and find the mismatches, make sure you can see all of the other fighters on the field, and place their backs to the fighting.

Hope you enjoyed!  Have fun.  Fight safe.