Vikings Finally Get A Win!

[Vis Bellica]

Those of you who play To The Strongest will know that although the points system is supposed to make all armies equal, some armies are less equal than others.

One such are the Vikings: large numbers of unmanouverable shieldwall units lacking any cavalry and with only a smattering of lights in support. Head on it can pack a punch, but its opponents generally dance around its flanks leaving its brave warriors to be surrounded and cut down one by one.

After much thought, however, I have finally worked out a way to make sure the Vikings win...

https://www.vislardica.com/blog/2022/12/20/tts-aar-vikings-win

[Pan Marek]

I've never played To the Strongest, but given the general success of the Vikings in their hey day, I wonder if there's something "off" about the rules.

[Highlandbevan]

Historically they probably weren’t playing equal points battles though.

[FierceKitty]

My Vikings also almost always lose (I use home brew rules). On the one occasion they bucked the trend, they were invading the so-called "Umayyad Caliphate" of Andalusia and heavy rain muddied the field and severely hindered the Muslim cavalry. Against Normans and Byzantines, they have never managed to avoid an eventual turned flank.
Historically, their advantages against their more dangerous foes may have been strategic rather than tactical. With their naval mobility, they must have been able to ensure a great many battles with the odds in their favour. Annoying; I like the look of the army.

[Vis Bellica]

I've never played To the Strongest, but given the general success of the Vikings in their hey day, I wonder if there's something "off" about the rules.

Nothing off about the rules: it's more the fact that they don't often get to fight contemporaneous opponents.

If all I used my Vikings for was to fight Dark Ages battles in correct terrain, then I'm sure they would do very well. In common with many Ancients gamers, however, I use them to fight everyone and everywhere from the entire "Ancients and Medieval" period. Thus they fight horse archer style armies on the steppe; chariot armies in the desert; full-plate knights; Alexander's pikemen; Caesar's Romans etc.

The Vikings are also most definitely not a combined arms force, so coming up against a combined arms force they tend to lose tactically...especially against cavalry armies. Think Carrhae if you want a historical equivalent. And points systems can only help so much to balance things: as Mr Clarke has said many times, why are anti-tank guns worth the same number of points whether my opponent has any tanks or not?

So, no, TTS is a great set of rules, it's the nature of the beast that's the problem!

[SJWi]

I would agree with Vis Bellica, TTS normally gives a good game.  I've used for Egyptians vs Hittites through to Wars of the Roses and never had a particular problem. However I can see why certain armies may not be .that interesting

[Harry Faversham]

How have I missed this?
Just read the AAR, looks like you two Jarls had an epic!

 

[Pan Marek]

Everyone makes good points on this issue.  Viking mobility by boat definitely was their big advantage.  Particularly against the Saxons, who had little or no cavalry, and hence moved slowly.

And even if one keeps to historical opponents, I suppose lots of cavalry would pose a problem.   But I seem to recall that the Vikings had some luck against the Byzantines... or am I wrong?

[SJWi]

Pan Marek, you raise a good point and one which bedevils all wargames rules. What level of game are you playing? Yes Vikings may have had "large skirmish" success vs the Byzantines but IMHO could never actually field a force big enough to take on the field army . Yet most sets of rules pose this is a possibility.  I don't think this is a problem with the rules, more the players not understanding the limitations of the ruleset in question.   

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Nothing off about the rules: it's more the fact that they don't often get to fight contemporaneous opponents.

If all I used my Vikings for was to fight Dark Ages battles in correct terrain, then I'm sure they would do very well. In common with many Ancients gamers, however, I use them to fight everyone and everywhere from the entire "Ancients and Medieval" period. Thus they fight horse archer style armies on the steppe; chariot armies in the desert; full-plate knights; Alexander's pikemen; Caesar's Romans etc.

The Vikings are also most definitely not a combined arms force, so coming up against a combined arms force they tend to lose tactically...especially against cavalry armies. Think Carrhae if you want a historical equivalent. And points systems can only help so much to balance things: as Mr Clarke has said many times, why are anti-tank guns worth the same number of points whether my opponent has any tanks or not?

So, no, TTS is a great set of rules, it's the nature of the beast that's the problem!

This.  The historical advantages of a dark age northernEuropean force is not reflected in battles with Romans, Mongols, Scythians or  Samurais. if you pit them against ahistorical foes, in terrain they would never venture into, into head to head fights of equal size, Vikings, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon armies do poorly, no matter what rules you use unless you nerf their opponent or make the them into supermen.