Shield Wall Fighting - how would you model it?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

There are four main ways to gain an advantage over a shield wall:

Break up the formation with missile weapons.
Give the men in your shield wall spears that are longer than theirs.
Outflank them
Attack them with something so scary that some in the line will turn and flee (heavy cavalry, scythed chariots, elephants, etc)

The problem is that in current GURPS rules, a shield wall grants no advantages at all. There's no need to break up the formation because there are no rules that make it better to be in formation.

The OP is looking for rules that do make a formation superior to not being in formation, probably preferably accompanied by rules which cover the limitations of being in formation. Rules covering shoving and the press of multiple men against each other would also be favourities.

None of these exist. The current GURPS Mass Combat rules abstract such concerns away and the rules in the Basic Set are meant for individual combat or small squads of irregular combatants (i.e. adventuring bands). Shield walls, phalanxes, pikes and suchlike may be mentioned, but there are no solid rules for how they affect combat. That will have to await a happy time when someone is willing to write a book on military matters, warfare or something similar.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The problem is that in current GURPS rules, a shield wall grants no advantages at all. There's no need to break up the formation because there are no rules that make it better to be in formation.

The Teamwork and Shield Wall Training perks clearly make it better to be in formation than not - and making it a perk or SOMETHING vs something that happens automatically when you get some dudes standing in a line seems appropriate to me, because it does require training to create a shield wall (or a phalanx). It doesn't happen automatically by lining people up.

[Ulzgoroth]

One thing that seems to be missing is rules about using long weapons in confined spaces. My understanding is that long swords (that is, non-shortswords) pose problems in close-order fighting because you don't have clearance to use them properly. Not because the enemy is too close (though they might be) but because your friends are too close.

Is there anything for that? I imagine such rules would also work for dense woods and narrow passageways.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

One thing that seems to be missing is rules about using long weapons in confined spaces. My understanding is that long swords (that is, non-shortswords) pose problems in close-order fighting because you don't have clearance to use them properly. Not because the enemy is too close (though they might be) but because your friends are too close.

Is there anything for that? I imagine such rules would also work for dense woods and narrow passageways.

Having a buddy in your space counts as Close Combat, just as having a foe in your space does. There's the same number of limbs and same amount of bodies in the way, and while your buddy doesn't want to mess with your aim, you don't want to whack him in the nose either.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The problem is that in current GURPS rules, a shield wall grants no advantages at all. There's no need to break up the formation because there are no rules that make it better to be in formation.

The OP is looking for rules that do make a formation superior to not being in formation, probably preferably accompanied by rules which cover the limitations of being in formation. Rules covering shoving and the press of multiple men against each other would also be favourities.

None of these exist. The current GURPS Mass Combat rules abstract such concerns away and the rules in the Basic Set are meant for individual combat or small squads of irregular combatants (i.e. adventuring bands). Shield walls, phalanxes, pikes and suchlike may be mentioned, but there are no solid rules for how they affect combat. That will have to await a happy time when someone is willing to write a book on military matters, warfare or something similar.

Just remember that the OP asked about fights with a few dozen people on each side. So formations will probably be fairly loose, and only two or three men deep. I think GURPS already has most of the rules for what he needs (eg. being in a shield wall means its hard for enemies to reach your rear where you have defense penalties, and makes it hard for several enemies to gang up on you). I wonder if GURPS Tactical Shooting will have rules for situational awareness and tunnel vision which could be adapted to a gritty game?

Rules for individuals in mass combat would make an interesting PDF.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

The perks for Teamwork and Shieldwall Training gives fairly significant advantages for fighting in formation.

My current fantasy campaign, at its peak, had the PC party making a formation with just five people (Well, four actually in a Teamwork formation, and one supporting outsider). So long as they could keep formation, it was devastating. The melee fighters had massive defenses and protected the mage, who used simple magic to control the battlefield terrain more than directly attacking the enemy, and occasionally would all-out stab someone past his buddies. Enemies that used formation fighting and other methods of teamwork have proven to be much more dangerous, as well.

As for specific questions:
Disadvantages of a shield wall? Limited mobility, for one. It's too packed to do any retreating defense, obviously. Unless the formation is moving straight forward, it's ponderously slow. Turning means moving at the pace of the outermost people, which in a wide formation can mean many seconds to turn just 90 degrees. The faster you move, the more spread out the formation gets. In general, the whole shield wall formation will move at no more than a slow walking pace, to make sure people can keep in place or hurry to catch up. The need to keep in formation means less adapting to irregularities in the enemy formation. Individuals can not rush out from the shield wall to attack people just a yard or two out of reach, or they risk causing a complete breakdown of the shield wall and a penetration of their formation. So in RPG terms, the inability to make a full attack each turn is likely to be considered a very real disadvantage (Few PCs seem willing to wait just a couple seconds). While the actual mechanical disadvantages to a single individual is relatively slight, there's some pretty good disadvantages in restrictions as to what you can do if you're wanting to maintain the shield wall. A large part of the drilling for such a formation is simply in keeping that formation during a fight.

For actions, the front line in the fight is likely to be doing defensive attacks, giving the defense bonus to their shield, and either attacking with their weapon or shoving with their shield, or All-Out Defense (Plus to block) if they're concerned about defense. Ranks behind them usually would be doing All-Out Attack with long weapons, and being ready to file forward to replace fallen first-rank soldiers. While advancing, the first row is likely to move in a slow AoD, one yard a second. A "turtle" formation would probably be all ranks moving AoD, resulting in a very slow approach, but the best defense against arrows plunging into their formation. Then there's the charge. A full-on charge is likely to be the entire front row using Move-and-Attack to shield-rush the enemy formation, gaining the teamwork bonus for slam damage. This is very risky against another shield wall, as Move-and-Attack means they get turn when they can't use their shield defense, and has the front lines pressed into close combat. If the ranks further back are unable to inflict enough casualties on the enemy with the charge (And the Move and Attack penalties mean there's likely a good number of defenders up), it's likely to turn into some nasty carnage on both sides. It's risky, but it can work. The safer way would be to simply advance into contact, maintaining improved defenses the whole way.

For fighting against a shield wall, DanHoward already covered it quite well. It's a slow, tightly-packed formation, so missile weapons are certain to find a target, and while their defenses are likely to be high, no defense is perfect. With their slow movement, they're attractive archery targets, giving you plenty of time to fire into them and whittle down their numbers. Or you could go the roman way, and have your formation throw missiles into the enemy shortly before making contact. Injuries and deaths may disrupt the formation, especially in a poorly-drilled force, and that destroys the advantage of the shield wall. That's pretty much the main point to fighting them, disrupt the formation, and take advantage of its reduced mobility. From my understanding of it (Which is not perfect, for sure), a big reason for the dying out of the classic phalanx formation during the medieval era was the severe lack of mobility compared to looser formations and, especially, the rise of heavy cavalry. Though I suspect that the general reduction in army quality and training (Going from professional armies to mainly conscripted levies backed by a much smaller "elite" professional force) also made phalanx-style fighting less attractive.

And massed slams are covered by the Teamwork perk, which any soldiery-style that fights in a close formation should include in its perk list. Teamworked allies get to add a portion of their ST or HP to resist knockback, resists a slam (And I would certainly allow it for initiating one, as well), or executes a shove.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I wonder if GURPS Tactical Shooting will have rules for situational awareness and tunnel vision which could be adapted to a gritty game?

Certainly, it will.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Rules for individuals in mass combat would make an interesting PDF.

Such rules, while interesting, would not fill a whole e23 product on their own. What do you reckon the minimum size for one of those is?

[Polydamas]

Collegio Januari is only 13 pages including the title page, ToC, and index. I think a product on PCs in low-tech armies could be that long easily. More, if you include some historical material to help GMs imagine plausible armies for their campaigns.

In my current campaign, the heroes are barbarian skirmishers in King Tagi's army, so the regular rules are sufficient. Even if they got into a large battle, they aren't powerful enough to take on a whole phalanx of decadent lowlanders by themselves!

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Collegio Januari is only 13 pages including the title page, ToC, and index. I think a product on PCs in low-tech armies could be that long easily. More, if you include some historical material to help GMs imagine plausible armies for their campaigns.

What would one call such a product?

Originally Posted by Polydamas

In my current campaign, the heroes are barbarian skirmishers in King Tagi's army, so the regular rules are sufficient. Even if they got into a large battle, they aren't powerful enough to take on a whole phalanx of decadent lowlanders by themselves!

My bunch both employ thousands of troops (most of them mercenaries) and are personally powerful enough to break a shield wall of orcs. So I often have to run encounters where they fight enemies who use the tactics of large battles and not typical small unit tactics.

Shield wall against shield wall seems to be largely about shoving until one formation breaks. The current rules don't support that*. And the lack of rules for using long weapons in enclosed spaces and the press of bodies is also annoying. Not to mention that a closely packed shield wall doesn't really allow for Blocks, it mostly creates a cover that benefits all the men in it while somewhat restricting their own offensive options.

Ideally, swings should be penalised, while those with the right training should be able to poke long weapons over their comrades and use short stabbing swords from the front lines. Locking the shields together should give a cover bonus while preventing their use for Blocks. And, of course, it ought to be possible to add ST and HP of many men together for making and resisting shoves and slams.

*The Teamwork Perk only works for tiny forces like adventuring parties. For one thing, a line two deep is enough to gain the maximum benefit from bracing.

[Jabani]

What would one call such a product?

GURPS Tactical Combat? Less than mass, greater than half-squads.

Shield wall against shield wall seems to be largely about shoving until one formation breaks.

What sources suggest that? I haven't read anything specifically on shield wall combat, but I've been poring over [IThe Face of Battle[/I] again and am once again struck by John Keegan's suggestion that physical "shock" (in the sense of collision of cavalry, heavy infantry, etc. into defending troops) is an extremely uncommon occurrence, and that true "shock" expresses itself primarily psychologically (in the sense that infantry sees huge horses bearing down on them and thus break and run or whatever).

From a GURPSian standpoint, that book is particularly notable since it analyzes battles from three distinct time periods (Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme, of which the lack of physical shock theory is applied to the first two), and because trying to visualize very small portions of those battles in GURPS terms is difficult. Which is to say, yes, I agree: if you want to get into it under the resolution of Mass Combat but above the resolution of groups of 10 or 15, you're stuck ruleswise.

Instead of further derailing this thread, I'll start a new one to see if we can't at least start building an approach to cover these situations.