Review: Clash of Spears- Fighting Hedgehog

[Easy E]

Clash of Spears is a Skirmish game for Ancients.  Many Ancients rule set focus on the "Big Battles" like Plateae, Cannae, Zama, etc.  However, these take a very different approach since instead they are looking at the smaller scale skirmishes between soldiers.  I can understand why the gaming world would focus on these larger scale battles as that is where most of the sources are, and where the scholarship is!  There is very little actual historical detail about skirmish combat, even though we can be confident that small scale engagements between individual and small units must have occurred.

This level of gaming has always appealed to me for a simple reason.  I can not typically see myself or imaging myself as one of the "Great Men of History" to use an out-of-favor term.  I can see myself as a poor, confused, scared, grunt on the front lines trying desperately not to get killed!  Therefore, smaller scale model-vs-model and small unit-vs-small unit type skirmishing appeals.

Thankfully, Clash of Spears begins with a high level overview of the designers intent.  The idea is to have short, violent bouts of violent action.  Then both sides need to withdraw and regain their strength and courage.  The game is also intended on how leaders of such smaller units must maintain focus on keeping their units battle ready, even when faced with fatigue.  This can be mental and physical fatigue.  Finally, the game is intended to keep both players engaged through out the battle. 

That all sounds dandy to me, but can the rules actually pull off what it says on the tin?  Time to form ranks and march in to find out.


https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2020/10/review-clash-of-spears-fighting-hedgehog.html

[DivisMal]

Well written and very informative. I can understand your points of criticism very well.

[WuZhuiQiu]

Thank you for that informative review. Is there an index? Also, do the rules encourage relatively historically plausible skirmish force compositions? By comparison, SAGA looks skirmishy, yet would there often have been a contubernium of hastatii, half a contubernium of triarii and, oh, an elephant, all led by a tribune, in a skirmish?

[Easy E]

There is a table of contents and a QRS but no Index. 

There is list building of historically accurate troops for the Republican Roman period.  We get very little detail about skirmish level warfare in the primary sources, so what is and is not "historically" accurate is a matter of taste. 

That said, you are getting small units of Hastati, Principes, Triarri, Velites, etc.  I believe Victrix sells some starter sets to help you judge force structures.  I do not think I am qualified to answer the second part of your question.   

[folnjir]

Thanks for your review, I have been thinking of picking this up but now I'm not so sure.

Do you plan to play it? I'd be interested if your thoughts change after actually playing it.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Thanks for the review.
I was excited about the rules and backed the Kickstarter.  I have read through them and did a mini-skirmish with 3 units per side to see how the mechanics work.  There certainly are a lot of decisions to make and while I could appreciate how it might be fun for a group of players, it didn't really work for solo play - which is mostly what I do these days.

Mortal Gods looks like it covers much the same subject.  Have you played this and, if so, how does it compare?

[Easy E]

I have not played Mortal Gods, but it is on my list.  Gangs of Rome is also on my list.....   

I do plan on getting this on table as I have a Hoplite army that will work great, and am working on a Republican Roman force.  I find it typically takes me about a year to go from review to actually table time, so don't hold your breath you will see it anytime soon. 

[Mad Doc Morris]

Thanks a lot for your review. It ticks all the boxes for me, if perhaps not for the designers; I just put the book off my shopping list.
I was really intrigued by the rules' apparent focus on morale. But I certainly don't need another take bloated with 'period flavour' minutiae, heroic C&C, and a lot of markers and dice rolling. A pity, and so the quest continues.

[pallard]

Ethelred
I have played both sets of rules and can speak in some ways about them, while not being yet accustomed to the full capacities of each maybe.
I do play solo as yourself and both sets are fully satisfying to my taste.
They are both also very accurate and this has surprised me particularly concerning MG, because it is more openly the concern of Clash's authors.
By accurate I mean of course close to the few objective elements we have regarding the small scale warfare in the Greek world.
Mortal Gods is enhancing the spiritual factor: these men believed in supernatural elements not far away in everyday life, and it shows in the rules, without sliding into fantasy. And the acme of warfare was enacting the Hero type, which you find also and maybe mostly at this level and is well represented by the roles of lochagoi and promachoi.
For me MG does a wonderful job of simulating small scale hoplite combat in a classical Greek atmosphere with the Illiad in everybody's mind.
In comparison, I would say that Clash of spears is larger in scope ( and slightly in level of simulation), being focused on the Hellenistic period in the western Mediterranean area.
It is a study about ancient men fighting at the small level: what could they do, what would small unit leaders would ask them to do, but this contemplated from above. That means it is more objective, more detailed, more external. And therefor you can use these rules for other periods as well: I did with third century Romans against Germans and it was great. On the internet you get optional rules that are opening widely the original possibilities: more armor, more types of cavalry, more tactical options and behavior, and lists for Byzantines, Vikings and largely Dark Ages forces.
I would say that Mortal Gods is very immersive, and that Clash of spears is intellectually captivating. Both will stand in my practice at the very first place for, hopefully, a long time.
Philippe

[Easy E]

As you read my review, bear in mind I always have three elements to every review:

1. Things I Like
2. Things I Do Not Like
3. Meh and Other Uncertainties- I.e. all the other stuff that is there, but not really that exciting to me

Every ruleset has these elements, and there is no such thing as a "perfect" ruleset.  There are things I enjoy that others hate, and vice versa.  Therefore, I try to be upfront and clear about my preferences and biases while I write a review.  I am sure you and I do not like the same thing, but I try to explain my thoughts and reasons so you can decide if it is YOUR thing.

[Arrigo]

As the leaders importance. An USMC Lt once complained that in training he had to literally kick his men to perform actions. Okay it was a reserve platoon doing pre-deployment training, but they were all people who were supposed to know what to do, and they were just fired upon by blanks.

It was not an isolate case.

At this specific level I think leaders are indeed essential and must roam the battlefield. The trick here is not go forward, throw pila, pull back. It is doing it when you want them do to it.

Of course each of us has its own benchmarks.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Thanks for your reply, Philippe. 
I found Clash quite demanding to play as a solo game (although I might try to convince a friend to give it a go).  Mortal Gods sounds like it might be what I am after.