After Action Reports; Solo games using Sword and Spear rules 1 March 2016

Following the game against Ian using my Romans and Germans, I decided to try the rules with my remaining armies that had not been used with the Sword and Spear rules.

First, I tried my Early Assyrians versus Sea Peoples (Assyrians on left-hand side of photos). The Sea Peoples are a fairly standard barbarian force relying on large numbers of warriors (discipline 4) with the Impact characteristic. They were supplemented with a few light chariots and some migrant families in ox carts. In contrast, the Assyrians are a smaller more balanced army with a mix of heavy and light chariots backed by spear and bow armed infantry.

The Sea Peoples tactics are straight forward; charge the enemy with as many warriors as possible, whilst protecting the flanks with the mobile light chariots. The Assyrian strength resides in their chariot forces, particularly the heavies who are heavily armoured and are therefore very hard but slower than the lighter chariots. All chariots have the bow(R) characteristic, but this was rarely used. I was surprised how poor the Assyrian infantry were rated; the Ashashattu had a discipline of 4 and Hupshu had discipline 5. This made them difficult the manoeuvre and rather fragile, but the bow(R) characteristic was useful to soften the oncoming Sea People warriors. Unsurprisingly the Assyrian chariots smashed the enemy, which broke up their charge, and resulted in a comfortable Assyrian win. The Sea Peoples did knock out some Assyrian infantry but they had no answer to the chariot threat. Still the game was enjoyable, and with more experience I think the Sea Peoples could pose more of a challenge.

The next game I trialled was Feudal English versus Feudal Scots (Scots on right-hand side of photos).

 A closely fought affair that resulted in an English win. In my opinion, this was the first Sword and Spear game that failed to reflect the period and disappointed me. The English army was fine; a mix of knights, low discipline spearmen and longbow archers. The Scots army was the problem; the large number of poorly armoured spearmen should have fought in close packed schiltrons which, when halted, should be capable of repelling mounted foes even if attacked from the flanks. Instead the Scots army more closely resembled an unarmoured Greek hoplite force. The large number of cheap Scots spearmen effectively formed a solid front across the deployment area, with some units in reserve, and dwarfed the smaller English army. From my reading of history, the Scots schiltrons were compact, deep formations rather than the linear, shieldwall type of formation represented via the Sword and Spear listing. It is tempting to devise unique ‘house’ rules to better reflect the schiltron, but before attempting such drastic changes I think a change to the army listing may work better. In the next game using the Scots I intend altering the spearmen profile from that given on the Sword & Spear website:

Name	Type	Disc	Strength	Protect	Missile	Melee	Other	Points	Value
Std Spears	H-F	4	3	LP	-	Spear	Undrill	16*	3
Imp Spears	H-F	4	3	LP	SW	Spear	Undrill	24*	3
	Note: By my calculation the point values are incorrect and should be 24 & 28 respectively.

To:

Name	Type	Disc	Strength	Protect	Missile	Melee	Other	Points	Value
Std Spears	H-F	4	3	LP	-	Spear	Large	40	3
Imp Spears	H-F	4	3	LP	SW	Spear	Large	44	3

 

I will report on how these changes work out at a later date. Also, as noted above I think the points values given on the Sword & Spear website army lists for the Scots are incorrect. Am I mistaken? Comments welcome.