Shieldwalls

[pcelella]

I saw a quick note from someone on another thread, but it got me thinking. Why not rules for shieldwalls? Wouldn't that be something that would make migration era Germanics and Dark Age armies a bit more attractive to play? At least to the point where they might make an occasional occurrence at a tournament?

Maybe have warbands (you know, your typical Average, Protected, Impact Foot, Swordsmen Battlegroups) have to pass a CMT to enter shieldwall, but they would then gain an appropriate POA in impact and melee? And once in shieldwall, a battlegroup would not have to test to charge, but would need to pass another POA to exit shieldwall. This could be something like orb ability for impact foot.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[jlopez]

I saw a quick note from someone on another thread, but it got me thinking. Why not rules for shieldwalls? Wouldn't that be something that would make migration era Germanics and Dark Age armies a bit more attractive to play? At least to the point where they might make an occasional occurrence at a tournament?

Maybe have warbands (you know, your typical Average, Protected, Impact Foot, Swordsmen Battlegroups) have to pass a CMT to enter shieldwall, but they would then gain an appropriate POA in impact and melee? And once in shieldwall, a battlegroup would not have to test to charge, but would need to pass another POA to exit shieldwall. This could be something like orb ability for impact foot.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

I think this is sort of subsumed into the offensive spear POAs, especially in that it cancels the swordsmen POA in melee as long as they remain steady (ie the shieldwall's integrity has been preserved). Impact foot/swordsmen are assumed not to be fighting in a proper shieldwall or at least that's how I understand it.

[Lamachus435]

I think this is sort of subsumed into the offensive spear POAs, especially in that it cancels the swordsmen POA in melee as long as they remain steady (ie the shieldwall's integrity has been preserved). Impact foot/swordsmen are assumed not to be fighting in a proper shieldwall or at least that's how I understand it.

Yes, there is no significant difference between barbarian shieldwall and Greek/Macedonian "synaspismos" or, indeed, late Roman "fulcum".

[hammy]

I think this is sort of subsumed into the offensive spear POAs, especially in that it cancels the swordsmen POA in melee as long as they remain steady (ie the shieldwall's integrity has been preserved). Impact foot/swordsmen are assumed not to be fighting in a proper shieldwall or at least that's how I understand it.

Yes, there is no significant difference between barbarian shieldwall and Greek/Macedonian "synaspismos" or, indeed, late Roman "fulcum".

What should a shieldwall do then?

While I agree that dark age shieldwall armies are not dynamic to play they do at least function rather like I imagine a shieldwall would do.

[pcelella]

But for the kind of armies that I understand used shield walls (Visigoths, Saxons, Vikings, etc.) they come only as impact foot, and do not have any abilities or characteristics allowing for a shield wall tactic. I would see these type of armies charging as impact foot, but I would see them forming a shield wall if they were behaving defensively, receiving significant missile fire, or facing mounted opponents.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[hammy]

But for the kind of armies that I understand used shield walls (Visigoths, Saxons, Vikings, etc.) they come only as impact foot, and do not have any abilities or characteristics allowing for a shield wall tactic. I would see these type of armies charging as impact foot, but I would see them forming a shield wall if they were behaving defensively, receiving significant missile fire, or facing mounted opponents.

I am not sure that impact foot is correct for Saxons, even if you are looking at impact foot / spearmen.

The difference between offensive spear and impact foot is that impact foot are better against foot but not so hot against lancers. Were Saxon and Viking shieldwalls particularly vulnerable to Norman knights?

Offensive spear are equal against other offensive spear at impact, much the same as impact foot would be against other impact foot.

As things stand offensive spear are troops who want to get stuck in to combat (like impact foot) and who benefit from a solid formation more than most. How is this not a shieldwall?

[jlopez]

But for the kind of armies that I understand used shield walls (Visigoths, Saxons, Vikings, etc.) they come only as impact foot, and do not have any abilities or characteristics allowing for a shield wall tactic. I would see these type of armies charging as impact foot, but I would see them forming a shield wall if they were behaving defensively, receiving significant missile fire, or facing mounted opponents.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

It works out quite well at the moment and I think a lot of the armies you mention actually field the infantry as spearmen rather than impact foot, at least after a certain date.

Impact foot don't have to charge mounted so don't have to expose themselves to flank charges following compulsory charges and are evens against lancer cavalry at impact for around half the cost. That makes them reasonably resilient.

As for protection from missile fire, deploy them in line (as in a shieldwall) so your opponent can't concentrate fire and preferably in three ranks and it's quite hard to get the necessary hits to make protected foot test.

[guthroth]

I've often felt that the Viking and Early Saxon armies are underrated compared with how they performed in history and Impact Foot might indeed be a better classification for them.

Both armies showed an ability to overcome their enemies very quickly if teh initial clash went well for them, while both were at some disadvantage against cavalry. Whether 'Arthur' was real or not, his historical inspiration certainly had the early Saxons beat on a regular basis.

Likewise, there is evidence that Viking raiders in France were in some awe of Frankish cavalry. So much so that the Vikings who did settle in France converted to outstanding cavalry within a generation or two.

Maybe it would also put an end to the nonsense of Viking Armies with large bodies of Superior Cavalry as well ...

[zocco]

If anyones interested I wrote this a while back;

The Shieldwall rule:

a) In the melee phase: Foot deemed to be in a 'Shieldwall' may add a + POA if after applying all other POA's the enemy has a higher net POA.

b) For foot to be deemed in a 'Shieldwall' they must be: STEADY drilled Heavy or Medium Foot that are also either impact foot/swordsmen or Light spear/swordsmen foot.

Note that the rule can only give a defensive benefit (ie it cannot improve an already net positive POA).


Basically its meant to address some problems with the imbalance of impact foot and light spear/swordsmen - which currently are often one hit wonders - ie if they don't win in impact they are down in the following melee phases etc. I specifically wrote it for the Dom and Later Principate Roms but it would have a wider application I think. The historical evidence for Doms etc I summarised in the orignal posting which is currently located on pg 7 of the Fog v2 sticky.

cheers
zocco

[jlopez]

Basically its meant to address some problems with the imbalance of impact foot and light spear/swordsmen - which currently are often one hit wonders - ie if they don't win in impact they are down in the following melee phases etc.
cheers
zocco

Funny, that's almost exactly what Polybius wrote:

"For they had observed from former battles that Gauls in general are most formidable and spirited in their first onslaught, while still fresh..."

and Appian about the Germans vs Caesar:

"He also overcame the Germans under Ariovistus, a people who excelled all others, even the largest men, in size; savage, the bravest of the brave, despising death because they believe they shall live hereafter, bearing heat and cold with equal patience, living on herbs in time of scarcity, and their horses browsing on trees. It seems that they were without patient endurance in their battles, and did not fight in a scientific way or in any regular order, but with a sort of high spirit simply made an onset like wild beasts, for which reason they were overcome by Roman science and endurance. For, although the Germans made a tremendous rush and pushed the legions back a short distance, the Romans kept their ranks unbroken, and outmaneuvered them, and eventually slew 800000 of them."

I'm sure there are other references like these that back up how impact foot works in FOG if you have a look.

[zocco]

You'll notice the shieldwall rule is for drilled foot.

Regarding impact foot the current rules may work for barbarian foot but Romans (for example) used shieldwall tactics and were known for their capacity to sustain pressure in a combat - which is difficult currently when they are graded as impact foot or light spear/swordsmen etc. you can check out my rationale on the sticy etc.

cheers

zocco

[jlopez]

You'll notice the shieldwall rule is for drilled foot.

Regarding impact foot the current rules may work for barbarian foot but Romans (for example) used shieldwall tactics and were known for their capacity to sustain pressure in a combat - which is difficult currently when they are graded as impact foot or light spear/swordsmen etc. you can check out my rationale on the sticy etc.

cheers

zocco

Responding to this: "c) It would also help to even up the balance between drilled impact foot/swordsmen and Light spear/swordsmen foot in combat when compared to Spearmen (especially Offensive Spearmen). Currently Offensive spearmen are often the foot of choice as they must lose cohesion before the swordsmen POA can be used. "

This would mean that Impact foot would be equal to OS in melee against Cataphracts. For me that would give me almost no incentive to field OS.

To be honest, I've never had much of an issue facing off cataphracts with impact foot. The points difference, break-off rule, overlaps and proper support make it a reasonably even fight in my experience.

[hammy]

If anyones interested I wrote this a while back;

The Shieldwall rule:

a) In the melee phase: Foot deemed to be in a 'Shieldwall' may add a + POA if after applying all other POA's the enemy has a higher net POA.

b) For foot to be deemed in a 'Shieldwall' they must be: STEADY drilled Heavy or Medium Foot that are also either impact foot/swordsmen or Light spear/swordsmen foot.

Note that the rule can only give a defensive benefit (ie it cannot improve an already net positive POA).

This is not going to help the armies that are mormally considered to have been those that actually used shieldwalls such as Vikings and Saxons is it.

Romans already have skilled swordsmen and superior. What more do they need?

[zocco]

ok - just a quicky.

the shieldwall rule is not for spearmen as the shieldwall effects for these are already included in their basic POA etc. Regarding SSw it doesn't count as better than Sw in many circumstances. Also - as I've just posted elsewhere (and before I read Hammy's post - honest). I think the shieldwall rule could modified to allow it for undrilled impact and light spear/swordsmen that are in 2 or perhaps 3 ranks (to be determined) - this would give them a mitigating POA against legionaries (including those with SSw) - ie the legionaries would likely be at only +POA rather than ++ POA.

cheers

zocco

[zocco]

You'll notice the shieldwall rule is for drilled foot.

Regarding impact foot the current rules may work for barbarian foot but Romans (for example) used shieldwall tactics and were known for their capacity to sustain pressure in a combat - which is difficult currently when they are graded as impact foot or light spear/swordsmen etc. you can check out my rationale on the sticy etc.

cheers

zocco

Responding to this: "c) It would also help to even up the balance between drilled impact foot/swordsmen and Light spear/swordsmen foot in combat when compared to Spearmen (especially Offensive Spearmen). Currently Offensive spearmen are often the foot of choice as they must lose cohesion before the swordsmen POA can be used. "

This would mean that Impact foot would be equal to OS in melee against Cataphracts. For me that would give me almost no incentive to field OS.

To be honest, I've never had much of an issue facing off cataphracts with impact foot. The points difference, break-off rule, overlaps and proper support make it a reasonably even fight in my experience.

in melee they would be equal provided the impact foot are steady - but they have less chance of this than Off Spear when facing cataphracts as the cataphracts don't count lance vs off spear but do vs impact foot in the impact phase so off spear are still a bit better here. I actuallly think this proposal is quite good as the choice for example between off spear and impact foot then is a set of subtle trade-offs.