How to Practice with Four Fighters for a Four Fighter Team?

 A friend reached out recently for some thoughts on this as he has a very similar goal in mind.  Really the question was more like, how can we teach four new-ish fighters how to fight if they intend to be part of a four fighter team.

So, the first thing you do, IMO, is you completely ignore standard SCA kingdom conventions.

I'm not saying that to be mean, or to suggest that they don't know what they are doing.  What I'm saying is that a four man team is a "wolf pack," and it's not something that kingdoms train for.  When you join a karate class, you go in with the goal of earning a black belt, and they run you through training built on a philosophy that gets you there.  They aren't there to teach you how to box nor how to wrestle.  

Likewise, most SCA kingdom training conventions teach infantry fighting, or occasional medium sized cavalry fighting, which are both very valuable, but they don't teach wolf pack fighting.  

The conventions that they teach are essentially A) listen to the leader, B) stick together.  Both, IMO, are big hinderances for a four fighter wolf pack.

Generally speaking, they teach to either bunch together, pick a target, and charge at it, or if one of the fighters is a highly skilled knight, to follow him around assuming that he'll know where to go and will likely do all of the killing, and the rest of his team just needs to keep people off of his back.  

(side note:  Anglesey has done the latter when we've had large numbers of new fighters combined with small numbers of veterans, so I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's not the end goal).

Look at the diagram below:

The general idea of the "stick together" method, is that you are hoping that if the other side does not stick together, you can move your four fighters to engage with 1 or 2 of their fighters, while the remaining fighters stand around and watch.

This is not a bad starting point, but it only works against low level melee fighters.  The counter to this approach is diagramed below:

In this case, green "sticks together" and charges to the right.  The red wolf pack responds.  The two red fighters on the right (their left) see a unit of four charging at them and, knowing that they'll get run over if they stand there, they move away from the chargers.  The two red fighters on the left see the green unit charging away from them exposing their sides, and they move in to attack the flank.

In this picture, red is in a very superior position.

(side note:  I once got killed by the world's suckiest fighter with this tactic.  My team even had a numbers advantage.  We "stuck together" and charged right.  He stepped left and hit me in the back.  It really isn't that hard to do).

Basic Fundamentals

I've been using this mnemonic device for a while:  FLANKS

F - Secure your flanks
L - Leg 'em an leave 'em
A - Assess who has the range advantage and either fight at range or in their faces
N - Never fight a fair fight
K - Know who are your killers and who are your supporters
S - Spread out your talent

F:  You always want to be getting into their back field, and keeping them out of yours.  The easiest thing to remember is that you want your side to be wider than theirs, and make sure you put your best defensive fighters (usually shields) on the flanks.  In the picture above, red is doing a better job than green in this respect.

L:  Once a fighter has been hit in the leg, leave him and go help your friends fight other people.

A:  If they have spears and archers, you need to charge immediately, and take those guys out.  If your side has a really good spear fighter, let him do the killing while the rest of you keep people off of him.

N:  If you have a 2v1 fight (you have two, they have one), fight that fight and win it quickly.  If they have a 2v1, avoid that fight.  Try to survive long enough to let your other teammates win their fights.  Play defense.  Run away.  Do whatever you can to slow these guys up.  If it's a 1v1, only fight it if that's the best option on the field.

K - If you have a spear and they don't, he's probably your killer and he needs to be killing, and the rest of you need to support him.  If you have a really good sword and shieldman who's running into the fray, he's your killer, and the rest of you need to keep people off of his back.

S - This doesn't really apply to a 4 fighter team, but on larger teams you don't want to have holes in your line filled with either spears or all new fighters.  You want to make sure that your weapon types and your different levels of fighters are spread out fairly evenly.

How Does This Apply to a 4v4 Battle?

There are a handful of ways a 4v4 battle will be set up.  Either both teams will bunch up together and slam into each other, or one team will bunch up together and try to charge a smaller number of fighters on the other side (shown in the diagrams above).

If we're talking about newer fighters, sometimes one team will bunch up and then just stand there.  In that case, you can try to pick them apart with a longer weapon if you have one.  Whether you do or not, you still want to try to surround your opponents, and hit them on the flanks while avoiding the battle where you may be outnumbered.

More often than not, if both sides have a little bit of experience, the fight will spread out and turn into fours pairs of 1v1.

When this happens, there are four key things to remember:

1)  Try to identify who has the best chance of winning their fight, and let that guy fight while the rest of you bide your time.

2)  If you find yourself against two opponents, DON'T fight them.  Defend yourself and try to avoid them.  Dying quickly is the worst thing you can do for your team.

3)  If you kill someone, go find someone else to kill as quickly as possible.  You might be able to get a 2v1 opportunity.

4)  Avoid turning your back to your team.  Notice the green guy on the right pictured above?  That is not a good position as he can't see what the rest of his team is doing.

Don't Forget About Range!

If one team has a range weapon, like a spear, and the other doesn't, this should drive your strategy.  If they have the range weapon, you need to focus on running it down and taking it out.  If your team has it, then that guy needs to stab quickly and try to get off a quick kill before the opponent figures out what is happening.

Side note:  you need to work together.  I once fought a 5v5 battle with 4 new guys.  The other team had two of the best fighters at the practice, and three average guys,  We expected to get destroyed.  We ended up winning the fight, and it was the new guys that got all of the kills.  What happened?  I had a spear, and our opponents immediately charged at me, so I ran away.  As I ran away, the new guys were able to kill the guys chasing me.  The lesson here is that if you send someone to run down the spear, the rest of your team needs to protect that guy!  All they needed to do was engage in four 1v1s, but play defense, and let the one guy run me down.

How to Train

 Everything I wrote above might be interesting, but it really isn't going to make you any better.  It's like trying to learn how to play the bass by reading about it.  You need to practice.

So ideally you'd do a lot of 4v4 fights.  But what if you don't have 8 fighters?  What if it's just the 4 of you?

Well, what most people do is they only practice singles, or they will fight 2v2.  The first will certainly help you get that first kill when the two sides in the 4v4 break up into four 1v1s, but the 2v2 is kind of a waste of time.  Instead, try the following:

2v1:  This helps the two fighters learn how to get a quick kill, and the single fighter learn how to defend against two fighters at once.  I have other blog posts that talk about how to fight these, but in a nut shell, the single fighter wants to try to move to get one of his opponents in the way of the other.  The two fighters want to learn how to work together, not to get into each other's way, and how to surround their opponent.  Usually the guy on the right wants to throw a lot of shots high and to the right, and the guy on the left wants to throw low and to the left.

2v1 with boundaries and a time limit:  Make some sort of "ring" that the fighters have to stay inside, maybe 20ft x 20ft.  Have the fighter sitting out count to 15.  If the single fighter is still alive with no wounds, he wins.

2v2 resurrection battle:  You have a resurrection point for each side.  As soon as someone dies, they have to go back and touch that point before they can come back into the battle.  So essentially, the fight will likely break up into two 1v1s.  You want to keep an eye on your partner and not turn your back to him.  As soon as you die, you need to run back to the resurrection point as quickly as possible so that you can get back into the fight.  If you kill someone, you need to run over and help your partner kill his opponent before the dead guy gets back into the fight.  If your partner dies, you need to avoid fighting the two opponents until your partner rejoins you.

One time we did this scenario with myself and three new fighters.  I remember my partner died, and the two opponents turned to face me and gave that "on guard" look.  I looked at them, and then casually walked backward toward the resurrection point until my partner came back to rejoin.  One opponent said, "Hmmmm, it never occurred to me that you would just walk away."

Ultimately what these scenarios are teaching are some basic fundamentals and training you to think fast on your feet.  In terms of specific techniques you should be using, you'll figure out what works for you on your own.

End Notes

Ultimately, if you take this team into a large battle like Pennsic, you're too small to really fight on your own, so you'll be looking for opportunities to go and join the flanks of bigger units.  Ultimately you'll want to hang back and wait for the bigger units to engage, and then jump into action once you see an opportunity.  Maybe you'll find some stragglers on the flanks that you can disrupt.

A Short Drill on Training Up Your Spears (with video)

 Hey all,

Here's a short video on a 3V3 spear practice that we did twice recently.  I'll keep my comments here short, but in a nutshell, units with well trained spears tend to be very deadly units in most scenarios.  Any chance you get to fight 3v3 with only spears is a great opportunity to improve your game.  The biggest complaint I have with spear fighters is that the vast majority of them only fight with a spear at war.

Anyway, enjoy!

P.S.  If interested in doing more with a spear, see my SCA Spear Tutorial playlist on Youtube LINK

Fighting When You've Lost a Limb

Hey all,

It's been a while.  I've been working out and doing my pell work, but no practices nor melees during the pandemic, so not much to blog about.  However, I recently read a few melee documents from various sources and one thing jumped out at me that I wanted to comment on.

I recently read a suggestion that said if you lose your sword arm to attempt to block shots for other fighters.

Okay.......where to begin?  This is kind of a complicated topic because it isn't so much about what the correct strategy is, but rather about a larger philosophy about what it means to be a melee fighter.

If you view fighters, in general.......no, strike that.  If you view fighters, even the ones who have taken the time to read large text documents and watch videos on how to fight in a melee as nothing more than fodder for commanders to push in a given direction while keeping them motivated enough to pass their morale check, then sure, tell them that they can still be useful fighters once they've lost an arm by blocking shots targeted at other fighters.  That will keep them in the front line a little bit longer, and then once they die they'll feel like they were useful in some manner.

It's my opinion, however, that if a fighter is taking the time to read a document about melee fighting, then they are actually looking for information that will help them graduate past the fodder stage (at least that's always been the intention of my blog posts).

With that said, if I have people in the back ranks with swords, the last thing I want is a weaponless fighter hogging a spot on the front line (exceptions, of course, given to fighters that are so good that they are more useful without a weapon than your typical non-wounded fighter is with a weapon).

So what should you do if you lose an arm?

- Get out of the way of someone who is more useful than you.  If you are in a spot where a killer can kill, then let the killer have your spot.

- You can stay in the back and stay alive.  Large units are intimidating.  The enemy doesn't need to know that you can't kill them.  Be another body on the field.  Who knows, you might be the last person alive at the end of the fight.  Or maybe you were just one person too many for the other team to decide to charge at the flag.

- Be a distraction.  If there is some space in an open field, make yourself bait.  Make people think about coming after you to attack instead of killing your archers or spears.

- Be an extra pair of eyes and a voice on the flanks or in the back.  Watch and make sure the enemy isn't getting into your backfield.  If they are, announce it to your troops and your commanders.  Worst case scenario, you get some useful experience learning how troops move and what constitutes a weakness.

- Be an obstacle or a body shield provided you aren't getting into an ally's way.  Don't try to "block a shot" aimed at your friend.  Slam into the person who is throwing the shot and knock them off balance.

- Lead a charge.  Most charges result in lots of chargers dying.  Volunteer to be in the front of this charge.  You may not be able to swing a weapon, but you can throw your body at the enemy, and if the enemy is going to respond by hacking apart all of the people deep in their ranks, better they attack you than an un-wounded friend.

- Sacrifice yourself by throwing your body at another fighter, making both of you fly over a straw bale and off the side of a bridge.

One of my most useful moments after losing an arm was in a fight in a corn maze.  We were getting picked apart by archers and spears.  I lost an arm as did my buddy.  We looked at each other and said, "are you ready?  Lets do this."  We both yelled, "Charge!!!" and the two of us were the first people into the fray.  He threw his body into two shieldmen and pushed them into the corn.  I cut off two spears and held one in the corn.  We both died, but our un-wounded fighters wiped out the rest of the enemy.

All of those options are better than "blocking shots aimed at a friend."  More often than not, you are just getting in their way.  Yes, there are times when this works, but those tend to be rare.

Hey, I get it, sometimes the best strategy is to just send a large mass of untrained troops at the enemy, and everyone needs to do their job.  But lets be honest and tell the adults that have signed up to fight with you that that is what they are doing to help our side win, while also giving them the tools to graduate toward more effective roles in the army.

My two cents, your milage may vary.  Can't wait to hit someone soon!!!





Bari of Anglesey is a tool who only craves attention, but he doesn't take himself too seriously and sometimes has something useful to say, so he's not so bad.

Estrella Bridge Battle - Integrating Different Weapon Types into a Static Line

Hi all,

I came across a video that I thought was the perfect illustration of what is commonly seen in static line battles.  I'm going under the assumption that it would be okay to use this video as it was made public on social media, and my apologies if I assumed incorrectly.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=300333730939038

Note:  sometimes parts of this video get fuzzy when I watch it, but usually the entire video is pretty clear.

What Can You Learn From a Video of a Battle You Didn't Witness?

Not a whole lot, actually. 

There are a lot of things that can happen in a battle that determine how the tactics play out.  Is the commander dead or alive?  What is the objective?  Are you there merely to serve as a distraction?  Are you taking it easy on the other side because they haven't won a battle yet?  Are you letting ineffective fighters on the front line because they need to have fun as well?  Is it hot?  Are you using a cohesive unit of well trained fighters, or is it the rabble that was left over from the attrition?  Etc.


Then Why Talk About the Video?

Even though we don't really know what is going on, we can still use the video to illustrate some hypotheticals.  Use it as a thought experiment for what you would do in similar situations and what kinds of decisions you would make.  You might even draw different conclusions than I would, and that's perfectly okay.  No one has all of the answers, but we can all work toward more informed decision making.


Initial Impressions

Let's begin with a screen shot.

So there are a few things I noticed, not just from this screenshot, but from the footage of the video. 

- People seem to care about winning the battle based on the yelling I hear and the intensity of the fighting

- It appears to be a single death battle based on the fact that the lines look like they are thinned out and the fact that calibration seems to be above average.  There are also a lot of people standing around on the perimeter who are not fighting, so I assume they have been killed.

- It appears to be late in the battle as the lines look thin, there are lots of dead people on the sides, and there seems to be a below average level of unit cohesion.


Weapons Mix

The front line of the unit on the left appears to have 7 spears, 2 shields, and one pole axe.  It looks like at this point in the battle that they have thinned out enough that they don't have much choice in what they are fighting with as the second rank looks fairly sparse.  If they wanted to, for example, set up a shield wall on the front line, I don't think they'd have enough shields to do so.

The unit on the right appears to have a couple more shields in the front line and maybe one or two fewer spears.  They also seem to have enough fighters in the second and third ranks to fight with whatever they'd like.

There does not appear to be any archery, throwing weapons, or artillery.


Do You Want More or Less Shields on the Front Line?

Answer:  That entirely depends....

So in a nutshell, all else being equal, the more spears you have on the front line, the better you are going to fight a static battle.  The more shields you have on the front line, the more prepared you will be at executing a charge and repelling a charge.  A line with more shields will also be better at a slow advance as a line with more spears needs to maintain a gap of 10-11 feet, so every step forward from the former results in a step back from the latter.

In this example, it actually looks like the unit on the right is more interested in taking ground than killing, so they have a few more shields in the mix and are pushing toward the end of the bridge.  If they can break through the end of the bridge, they can possibly wipe out this thin line with their higher numbers and get into the backfield of another bridge, giving their side a big advantage on that bridge.

The unit on the left, by contrast, has little choice but to try to kill more fighters on the opposing side to try to nullify the numbers advantage. 

In battles like these, I used to be a huge advocate for having only spears on the front line.  A few things have happened in the last decade or so in the East and Atlantian kingdoms that has changed my mind.  One is that they have moved away from a front of mostly shields to more of a mix, which gives them a good balance of charging power while also fending off spears.  The other is that a lot of the bridge battles have moved toward timed control point battles rather than attrition battles, which takes some of the advantages away of a front line full of spears.  The reason being that a line full of spears may kill more, especially if adept in collapsing into a kill pocket when absorbing a charge, but they are not very good at holding or gaining ground.


Weaknesses in the Line

Another screen shot later in the battle:




At this point in the battle, it appears the left unit had realized that they were not strong enough to hold their position on the bridge, so they pulled back off the end of the bridge.  This is often what we call "capping the bridge."  Essentially that means to create an arc from one corner to the other on the end of the bridge, forcing the other side to fight in a kill pocket where the left unit can get more spears into the fight with better angles of attack. 

This is not the prettiest of kill pockets, again probably because it is a collection of whatever fighters were still alive near the end of this battle, but they do appear to have the most critical pieces covered.

The blue arrow at the top points to the most critical potential weakness in a capped bridge.  The smallest of gaps in that position can allow a line of right handed shields push through the gap and into the back field.  Placing a shieldman in this spot (like they have) shores up that critical corner.  A spear or a pole can also stand in that position, giving them a good angle to stab into the open side of a charging shield, but they must be backed up by a strong shieldman so that they don't get run over.

The blue arrow on the bottom of the picture shows the next most critical weakness.  In this case they have a spearman in that position, which can be dangerous if the right team wishes to punch through, but the left team has that spot solidly backed up by at least two shields.

The middle blue arrow shows the third most critical spot, which is a potential weakness in the middle of the line.  The key here is to make sure that after you've shored up both corners, that you don't leave the middle so thin and without shields and poles backing it up, that a group of shields can punch right through it and into the backfield.


Why Were There No Shield Charges?

From the perspective of the unit on the left, they didn't really have the shields to spare.  Keep in mind, a charge doesn't win the engagement, rather it resolves the engagement more quickly.  Sometimes the resolution is to the advantage of the unit that initiates the charge, but sometimes it isn't.  It is possible that the unit on the left could have quickly brought all of its shields to the front and mounted a charge.  It's even possible that due to the greater proportion of spears in the front rank of the unit on the right (once the left brings its shields up) that the left would have killed more fighters than they would have taken in casualties, but it is my belief that the casualties that they would have taken would have left them with too few fighters to hold the bridge, thereby leading to a fallen bridge more quickly.

From the perspective of the unit on the right, they may have been able to mount a charge and might even have been in a good position to do so.  There are a few factors that may have prevented it:

- No single coordinated unit to pull it off
- They are tired
- There is a risk that it won't work
- They look to be winning the bridge anyway, so why take a risk
- No one thought it was a good enough idea to take the initiative to call the charge knowing that they could be responsible for a failed charge and the loss of the bridge
- A lack of leadership (maybe the commanders were dead)


Final Thoughts

The whole goal of this post was not to give tactical answers to a situation on a bridge, but rather to understand why bridge battles often play out the way that they do.  I find that often times commanders and tacticians in the SCA view fighters like they view miniatures in a table top game.  By that I mean that they imagine that they can send a command down to the fighters, and that the fighters will all implement the command as intended. 

In reality, fighters are going to have natural tendencies that they'll follow, and as a commander one needs to understand what those tendencies are and how much those tendencies can be overcome.  Truth be told, a lot of what I wrote above only applied to a portion of the fighters in the video.  There were likely a number of fighters who did what they did purely because they wanted to fight and managed to work their way to the front line, regardless of whether or not taking a spot on that line was to the benefit of their side.

Black Lance Melee Practice - Some Thoughts...

We had a great melee practice in NJ this weekend hosted by Sir Klaus and his house, Carpathia.  We did a lot of drills on the day that helped build aggression and quick decision making on the field, which I'll list below, but I wanted to speak specifically to how the tactics played out in out 10v10 field battles and some of the benefits of the scattered fighters battles.

Drills/Scenarios on the Day

- Marching in a block and following basic commands
- 10v10 single death field battles
- 5v5 single death field battles with pairs of units joining into the fights at random times
- Hold the objective unlimited rez battle (warnings called at 30s and at 5s)
- Single death field battles with scattered fighters

Field Battles

We split up into our normal units and fought five 10v10 (plus or minus) single death field battles.  One side contained a more typical mix of fighters which was, I believe, fairly shield heavy, while our side contained four shields, four spears, and two poles.  We won all five battles pretty decisively.  (Note, I got my butt kicked a lot that day, but we did well in these battles).

I had asked all of the knights who watched the battles what they thought the deciding factors were, and their answers bogged down to simply our side had more experience and were more decisive in our movements.

So what does that mean?

Well, for starters, I would never want to go into a field battle of this size with only four shields.  In general, the smaller the battle and the more quickly it resolves, the more and more shields have an advantage.  The larger the battle and the longer it takes to resolve, the more and more spears have an advantage.  Spears also tend to have an advantage in static battles, where shields have the advantage in mobile battles.  Now this doesn't mean that you should ever have only shields in one situation and only spears in another, but that the mix of weapons will move in one direction or another.  So having said that, I think we won the battles despite having what would generally be considered an inferior weapons mix.

What did the spear team do?

Fan out, move quickly, and attack with ferocity.  A team full of shields in this context is a hammer looking for a nail to hit.  A unit full of spears isn't even a nail.  Its a grape, easily splattered by a hammer of just about any ability level.  So the spear team needs to move fast and lose, and use their feet to avoid getting run over by shields.  The battle can only be won if multiple fighters team up on smaller groups of fighters, get a quick kill, and then move on to the next fighter.

The best play that the shield team probably had would have been to pick a collection of fighters and commit to running right through them.  I believe they did this on the fifth battle, and it was their best showing.  Its certainly not the only way to win with shields, but given the experience levels of both sides, it would likely give them their best chance.

On an interesting note, 6 of us on the winning team were in very similar situations just a few years ago where we were on the losing team and lost in similar fashion.  The biggest piece, in my opinion, is less tactical and more about gaining good experience to be able to make decisions quickly on the field.

Scattered Fighters Battles

This was a drill that was put together by Sir Ryu of Ironskies.  These were fun, and I think an excellent way to train fighters to win battles like shown above.  We had two teams and were individually scattered around the field in a giant circle facing outward.  When lay on was called, we had to figure out how to join up with our teammates and win the battle.





The key to these battles was finding teammates quickly, finding advantages quickly, finding people to hit quickly, and getting out of bad situations quickly.  I really liked this drill and I think it teaches all of the right melee instincts that I think get lost in a lot of kingdom practices.

I do want to incorporate this into some of the practices that we run.  However, I think we accomplish a lot of the same goals with two other scenarios that we consistently run:

Limited rez broken field battles - this allows people to make the same kinds of decisions, but at a slower pace which allows some of the newer fighters to wrap their heads around the kinds of tactical decisions that they are making.

2v2 endless rez battle - We do these when we have 5-6 fighters.  We begin with a 2v2 and a person waiting at the rez point.  As soon as someone dies, they go to the rez point and form a new team of 2 and immediately enter the battle.  This continues continuously until people are too tired to fight.  It teaches you to work with another person, think quickly, and fight tired.

Anyway, that's all.  Looking forward to the next fight!

A Unique Victory Condition - 100 Minutes War

Last weekend I fought at the East Kingdom's Southern Region 100 Minutes War.  This war had a bit of a unique victory condition compared with most fights, combined with some terrain features that made this a very interesting battle, one which has caused me to reflect on it all week.

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.

This year we fought in the woods which presented some interesting obstacles that could be utilized to gain an advantage.  A rough diagram of the fighting is shown below:



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)

Dissecting a Skirmish in a Melee at River War

Hello all,

This is just a quick analysis of one of the battles we fought this weekend.  I'm really just writing this post for the handful of friends that I have who were there.  There aren't really any cool gifs or videos in the one.

The scenario was a 10v11 single death field battle.  This was the third time through, and the best showing of the red team.  In the first two battles, red did a deny left, attack right, and the green team responded (blue tape, actually) by fanning out and getting cross kills.  Truth be told, the red team were at a disadvantage from the start being down a fighter, and having a coordinated unit as well as two very experienced melee knights on the opposing team.




In this third battle, Red opted to deny on their right while attacking left.  It appears that they set up a shield wall on their left flank.  In all three battles green decided to skirmish with Anglesey being mostly on the left flank, and the rest on the right.

At lay on, Red pressed to their left with their shield wall.  Their pole dropped back to support, and they flanked the wall with a spear on each end hoping to support the charging wall (I assume as I wasn't on their team to hear the plans).

Green responded by moving hard right.  Two shields moved to the outside planning to go right into the backfield while letting the shield wall come through.  One of the knights pressed forward and set himself up as bait for the wall.  The middle spears and pole hovered in support, while the left flank curled around the deniers creating a kill pocket.

Before the first swing is landed, Green is in the superior position, IMO.  For red to capitalize, they need to find unsupported fighters to run their shiled wall toward.  One of the beauties of experienced skirmish fighting is that it has a way of drawing opponents into disadvantageous positions while surrounding them.



At this point the green flankers went around the wall, driving the spear into the backfield.  It appears that the shieldwall wasn't certain where to charge.  One fighter went straight for the bait, and found himself surrounded by four fighters.  He did manage to get a kill before dying while also tying up a few fighters.  Unfortunately only one wingman followed, and he ended up being outnumbered and dying in a two on 1.  The third member of the wall decided to try to run down a lone spear, which is not a bad idea, but he would need to keep track of the rest of the battle while doing so.  The 4th shieldman split off to his left to try to catch a quick kill.



The two Green flankers end up getting two kills in the backfield.  One of them pulls the center spear off to chase him.  The center Green spear runs away from the charging Red shieldman, who then turns toward a second lone spear and chases him down.  Meanwhile the first green spear immediately returns to the fight to assist the spearman being run down.

Several people are killed in this series of fights, with green coming out slightly ahead.  The battle began with 11 Green on 10 Red.  At this point it is 9 on 6.




The Red spear kills the flanker and the Red shield kills the green spear but immediately dies to the spear following, making the sides 7 to 5.

Ultimately at this point Green has a really good outside position looking in, while Red finds itself with their backs turned to a lot of Green fighters.  Red earns two more kills while Green finishes off the remaining Red.


Final Thoughts

As I said in the beginning, the outcome in a lot of these fights comes down to numbers, experience, skill level, familiarity with your teammates, and certainly a bit of luck.  Having said all of that, the way Green executed the tactics in this battle is exactly how I prefer to see skirmish units fight.  I typically adhere to the FLANKS philosophy:

F - secure the flanks both with positioning and a strong weapons combination
L - Leg 'em and leave 'em (though in this case we did get a quick kill on a legged fighter.  Nevertheless, you should never be preoccupied with one for too long.
A - Assess who has the range advantage.  Units that are heavier with spears want to draw the enemy into kill pockets, while units that are heavier on shields want to press the attack and run the spears down.
N - Never fight a fair fight.  You should always be looking for advantages before pressing an attack.
K - Know who your killers are and who your supporters are in any given situation.  Everyone has a job to perform.
S - Spread out your talent. Don't get caught bunching all of your new fighters into one spot.  Also don't bunch up similar weapon types together that might create weaknesses in your lines (ie 4 spear in the middle of a line is a great target for the other side to charge).

Hope you enjoyed!