Mass Combat from the 2007 IG

[Greg Coffman]

The mass combat Sunday morning at the International Gathering was very entertaining but left me a bit frustrated. Afterwards, John C. showed us a few things to keep in mind when fighting in groups. What stuck in my mind was that he would be thinking "one against many" while was outnumbered whereas the others would generally be fighting "one on one" even though they would outnumber him. And so, John showed us different ways to tie up multiple opponents and remove their advantages.

Looking back, the whole time we were fighting it seemed like just about everyone was fighting one on one. Some succeded by being better fighters. Some were able to employ "one against many" techniques. But I did not see anyone fighting as a group.

The one against many should not have the advantage. The group should have the advantage. Instead of "one on one" or "one against many" we should have been thinking "many against one" or "many against many." We need to learn how to fight as a group.

John showed us an example of how he might fight a group of three my rotating around their flank. Essentially, he only fight the one guy on the end as the rest of them have to walk or run to swing around to join the fight. This makes sense and is fairly intuitive. It works well as long as the three are fighting "one on one." But what should they do instead? When the lone fighter engages the person on the end and starts to move around the flank, let the end fighter rotate back. The middle fighter becomes the fixed point which the other two can move around. This should continually present a line formation to the individual fighter. If the individual fighter is too fast and has already stacked the three, let the engaged fighter become the new center and the other two take up positions on his or her flank. This was, the three fighters work as a cohesive group instead of as individuals trying to take out a lone person.

[Jason Taylor]

The mass combat Sunday morning at the International Gathering was very entertaining but left me a bit frustrated. Afterwards, John C. showed us a few things to keep in mind when fighting in groups. What stuck in my mind was that he would be thinking "one against many" while was outnumbered whereas the others would generally be fighting "one on one" even though they would outnumber him. And so, John showed us different ways to tie up multiple opponents and remove their advantages.

Looking back, the whole time we were fighting it seemed like just about everyone was fighting one on one. Some succeded by being better fighters. Some were able to employ "one against many" techniques. But I did not see anyone fighting as a group.

The one against many should not have the advantage. The group should have the advantage. Instead of "one on one" or "one against many" we should have been thinking "many against one" or "many against many." We need to learn how to fight as a group.

John showed us an example of how he might fight a group of three my rotating around their flank. Essentially, he only fight the one guy on the end as the rest of them have to walk or run to swing around to join the fight. This makes sense and is fairly intuitive. It works well as long as the three are fighting "one on one." But what should they do instead? When the lone fighter engages the person on the end and starts to move around the flank, let the end fighter rotate back. The middle fighter becomes the fixed point which the other two can move around. This should continually present a line formation to the individual fighter. If the individual fighter is too fast and has already stacked the three, let the engaged fighter become the new center and the other two take up positions on his or her flank. This was, the three fighters work as a cohesive group instead of as individuals trying to take out a lone person.

Actually, those of us from the Tustin group made an effort to fight as a group. Usually, I flanked my pikeman and tried to keep the opposition from passing his point (alive, at least).

The best example, and most successful, was a two -man grou ptwo of my other members fought in. One of them was big, obvious, and had been getting a lot of kills. The other one just followed him around, because he'd been much less conspicuous so far. Everyone was gunning for the first guy, and he beat all the ones that cam at him face to face. The ones that tried to backstab him, the other guy hit first while they were focused on him. They had the one-on-one mentality, and he had the many-on-,any. It worked out well--I think they got 7 kills that round.

However, that one shining success aside, our group tactics usually fell apart after the first contact with enemy forces. As things are wont to do in battle. So learning to fight in battles is a priority for me, too. In fact, we've been thinking about hosting a 1.0/mass combat weekend out here at some point in the next year, if we can get enough participation. Will keep working on the plans.

Jason

[Mike Cartier]

my problem was getting so worked up to attack i would cut through a few guys then go charging through and get whacked by my own guys because i went too far ahead. i did manage to stall a few flank attempts though

did anyone take any videos of this , i would love to see myself getting stabbed by 3 polearms at once

[Shane Smith]

did anyone take any videos of this , i would love to see myself getting stabbed by 3 polearms at once

Hi Mike! My wife video taped this and I will watch for the blue hair getting skewered by three polearms simultaneously tonight with great anticipation.

I should be able to get some copies made onto low-tech VHS and get you one within a week or so.

[Keith Culbertson]

I did enjoy the mass combat salleys (although I really tried to get in as many individual bouts as possible), but as mentioned only a few times would any part of a plan come together with so many variables. I tried to outflank with speed/mobility a few times, but never really kept from being killed in the end. Also, I think people expect a glancing strike from a padded to count, but I never accept less than a solid hit from padded, which might frustrate others (need to agree beforehand what is solid)...But then when Ernie and JC gave a mini class some of my thinking was reinforced, although we had little time left to put it to work....still, look forward to more such exercises

[Greg Coffman]

It sounds like we all probably have good ideas in our heads as to how this group combat thing should work. But we didn't really know each other, hadn't fought besides each other before, and hadn't drilled or practiced with each other any of the group combat before. There were times when I wanted to call out to the guy next to me to close ranks, but even if I had met whomever that person was, I usually couldn't tell who it was underneath the mask. And then it would be somebody else next time. And then we were getting switched around on teams pretty frequently as well.

But while we each know something about group combat, we were running around with different game plans in our head. Two people run off to this corner and three people run to that corner. It sounds like the two person team worked pretty well. Only two people have to be in on it.

John hinted at one point that he could take have of the poeple there, train them for ten minutes, and then in the subsequent fight his team would not only win but take only a few casualties. This should be our goal. We shouldn't be out there for our team to win or to win most frequently. I think it would be preferrable for both sides to close, fight for a bit, and then break off with as few lost as possible. Instead, it felt like a computer game death match. People would sacrifice themselves by charging in and dropping a few opponents for the win. At some point this has to be an art of defense. We have to be able to step on the battlefield confident that we will be able to also step off the battlefield.

So in the interest of getting on the same page with each other, let's discuss our ideas, compare notes, and try to think of ways that will work so that next time we come together to fight in any size group we can do better than confusion and chaos.

---------------------------------------------

This two man team sounds interesting. How would it work on a larger level. Everybody grabs a buddy. That sounds pretty good. Everyone has someone they are responsible for and everybody has someone watching their own back. Everybody fights in pairs. If two pairs are put together with one person in charge then you get a functional unit not too large for one person to control. I think this "buddy system" brings an important part of group fighting to light. You must watch out for the guy (or gal) on either side of you. Their life is your life. Protecting them and trusting them to protect you is more important than taking down the person across from you.

What else?