Rules recommendation for Shieldwall vs shieldwall armies

[Tonhel]

Swordpoint would work well with this.

He explains Swordpoint well.

[LouieN]

Just to confirm I did find my copies of the WAB supplements "Shieidwall" and "Beyond the Golden Gate".  Hurrah!

to Athelstane57...

I would be interested in seeing a separate thread on your game idea.  It is a fascinating challenge to make a "low" movement game interesting. 

[Athelstane57]

Hello to LouieN and Atheling and those that PM'ed me;

I've just got a couple of things to edit and then I'll send a PM to each of you with links to the rules.

Stephen Patten

[Atheling]

Hello to LouieN and Atheling and those that PM'ed me;

I've just got a couple of things to edit and then I'll send a PM to each of you with links to the rules.

Stephen Patten

Thanks Stephen, that's exceptionally good of you 

[DivisMal]

Hello to LouieN and Atheling and those that PM'ed me;

I've just got a couple of things to edit and then I'll send a PM to each of you with links to the rules.

Stephen Patten

Thanks, Stephen. Much appreciated.

[rumacara]

Just for the fun and keeping the debate.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Making a game about two shieldwalls fighting each other interesting seemed, initially,a huge challenge. Where is the skill to come in when it is chiefly about melee, which, as per almost wargame rules, is settled by both sides rolling a lot of dice? 

The other day I was reading a really good blog site by one of the Osprey authors

http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2022/11/

who raised the same general point about melee in any period in wargames.   So the challenge is not as unique as I first thought, though it is still a challenge.

After re-reading the Battle of Maldon poem, I realised that it was my perception of a dark age melee that was wrong.  There’s an awful LOT going on in a clash of shieldwalls, maybe not a huge amount of battlefield manoeuvre, but still a lot nonetheless. 

The leader of a shieldwall would be:

trying to keep his shieldwall unbroken;
issuing  orders to his trusted lieutenants;
trying to rally his men;
urging his warriors to press forward against the enemy;
wading in himself;
taunting his opposite number;
trying to rescue fallen comrades;
dealing with a dented sword, broken spear, a smashed shield or wounds etc.

All of the above are competing for his limited time and energy.  And therein lies, what I think is, the nub of a ‘realistic’ game about Dark Age warfare -making the heroic leader and his decision making the focus. 

I've been working on such game for a while. The first iteration used cards, was too abstract and was poorly written.  The second iteration is one I am much happier with. Battles take between 45 minutes to an hour to finish and yet there is plenty of decision making about what your Dark Age hero will (would) do; rather than about which card play!

Feel free to pm me or carry on this thread if you want to hear more of my waffling!

Stephen Patten

I think this is the right approach, and is probably not too dissimilar to a purely hoplite vs hoplite battle as well.   I will also pm you, thanks.