A Note on Fairness

I should really make it a point to state that when something requires a change in either an army list or a rule, it is not to make a particular army 'better' or 'weaker', it is to make the rules replicate the vagaries of warfare better. Some armies may seen inordinately weak compared to their opponents; i.e. the Welsh or Irish vrs. Anglo-Normans/Feudal English. But who won historically? Obviously the English.

Why? Better generalship? Doubtful, as recent scholarship (Prestwich) arguably shows that Edward I, not to mention his inept son, was not such a military genius as conventional wisdom has let it seem. The ability of the English to put larger numbers of knights, archers and better armed and armored foot into the field was the determinant of victory.

Balancing all of this out in a set of rules makes it necessary to have a points system. Some armies also need some help in other ways, but the idea is not to make any killer armies...those powerful armies are very expensive and have limited numbers of figures compared to our Welsh/Scots example above. Weight of numbers is one thing, but weight of arms is yet another. Once our Cold Wars games are concluded, Paul Dobbins is taking a very close look at this aspect of warfare (Weight of Arms article earlier) and we may come up with a different way to balance out inequities on the battlefield. In the meantime, we continue to strive to bring you the best game we can.

Axe Effectiveness in Close Combat

from Alex Aimette

A quick review of the factors on the QRS reveals the following (known to most, but not in my frontal lobe every day). The majority of the factors for a successful melee are from factors OTHER than the weapons values. So if you've two identical units of 'huscarls' or 'Thegns', one with axes and the other with spears, the advantage lies entirely with the unit that has spears, and it is up to them to lose with the dice.

EXAMPLE: Two units of four stands (16 figures) close-order HI in two ranks, both irregular veterans, are armed with axes and spears respectively. Both roll for frenzied and charge to contact, successfully. Without the random factor and assuming a +2 charge bonus each, the total casualty number is 7 for the huscarls x2 front rank stands (total 14 or 1.4 casualties) vs. 6 for the spears x4 for both front and back rank stands (Total 24 or 2.4 casualties).

Therefore there is no way for the axes to win even if they make their 0.4 (total two casualties) and the spears miss their 0.4 roll (total two casualties). So from the get-go the best the axes can hope for is a lock. Even if they get the dreaded 6-1 split on the random roll (only a 1 in 32 chance, I think, and assuming their opponent doesn't re-roll it with a priest), they get the exact same casualty result of 2.4, and can only win if they make their ‘0.4’ roll and the spear miss theirs. But the chances for that are maybe 1 in 50 or so. Clearly, that battle is for the spears to win or lock (not even lose). However, the cost for the two units is identical.

Unfair? Maybe, but if the spears are disordered then their factor drops to 1.2 for just one rank and the axes go up one for being in better order for a 1.6 - the axes are now fighting even. So spears are a better weapon overall in the first round unless they are disordered. This is the round in which you must win in MW - and if you don't win, you HAVE to at least lock. So the spears will win and the axes get pushed back disordered. Second round will also be ugly for the axes as they will be caught by the way the numbers work on the melee tables. The spears will continue to be frenzied, pushing back, etc. Bye-bye axemen.

In the second round if the two units lock (against the odds for the huscarls, but possible), things stay against the axemen. With an even random factor, it will be a 0.6 or 1.2 total for the axes and a 0.8 or 2.4 for the spears.

Now, let's take a more common example. I match up a ‘huscarl-style’ axe unit against a UI warrior spear 'fyrd-style' unit that is in a defensive posture on a hill in shieldwall. The random factor being even and assuming a +2 for the frenzied charge of the huscarls the numbers break down to 12 or 1.2 for the huscarls, and a morale check for being charged by armored troops for the spears, followed by a factor of only '1' for the spears x4 is a '4'. Now the situation has been reversed, but largely due to the failure of the warriors to charge off the hill and gain between 3 and 5 plus factors for a frenzied charge. This is a tough situation as the warrior spearmen have only a 70% chance of making the frenzied charge and then a second check (between 70 and 90% if they’ve a general and/or on a hill) for the armor difference. The Huscarls only have to make the straight 80% chance to make a frenzied charge and then they are in melee. The advantage is now to the huscarls and it is theirs to only 'lock' and not win by missing their random and only getting one casualty as the spears make theirs and get one also.

The spears can also try and go frenzied and charge, miss, become disordered and then get slaughtered with a factor of only '2' (the minimum) while the huscarls increase to 1.6 for the spear’s disorder (though if they make the 0.2 and if the huscarls miss their 0.6, they lock!). The cost of the two units is 28 for the huscarls vs. 16 for the fyrd-type spears. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the spear is still the better buy at just over half the cost. I'd purchase almost two of them or simply add a few stands to get deeper and wider.

Clearly, the spear is the better overall weapon. The use and game results can certainly match history when properly used in mixed units of axes and spear/javelin/various. I do not see that the axe is worth as much as the spear, however. An increase in the factor is only +2 (one for each front rank stand in the above examples) per each +1 in the chart. So even doubling it to 4 or even 5 only give us a factor of 2.2 or 2.4 (or parity) with the spears.

What's the solution? If we say that a rule change is in order, this can go two ways. First way is we 'assume' that axes are always backed up by various weapons in an efficient way for the formation (we are assuming these guys know their job when they fight) and permit them to melee 1.5 ranks deep, which makes them nearly on par with spear (2.1 vs. 2.4 in the above first example). This assumes they need to be in an orderly formation, etc, like any other troop type, and with guys behind supporting with weight, javelins, axes, spears, rocks, whatever. I think I favor this one.

Second choice, we increase the factor to 5, which is the only way to make them as good as spears. This leaves them less vulnerable when they are disordered under the assumption that the very nature of the axe swing assumes greater space and 'disorder' are normal with that weapon. I'm certain a valid argument can be made for this theory. But it seems out of step with the chart in general.

My gut says that axes are devastating, even against armor and shields, if they can get the swing in without being killed first. Also, an orderly group of spears should always be a tough opponent. Unless the axes break into the shieldwall, they should lose as they get stabbed by spearpoints while swinging. But I think that most armies would use a mix of spears, axes, etc, and therefore the 'axe' category reflects a unit that has a mix of axes in the front backed up by shields and spears. So I favor proposition #1 above.

However, if we say that the rules are finished and no rules changes ought to be made, then the solution is to change the List Rules to permit more mixing of troops. In home scenarios, there is no issue here, as I do as I please. In a tournament, I would pick a list that permitted mixed units of spears and axes over one that did not. So really, this is a tournament issue, primarily. It would not be complicated to say in a tournament that any army with Axe-armed troops may also be armed with spears in the second rank (or javelin or various). In the end, it depends on what parameters we are talking about.

Letting Axes melee at 1.5 ranks seems best if there is to be a rule change, encouraging a little depth to the formation and letting them stand almost even against ordered spears, which I believe are a better weapon/formation anyway, and should have an advantage. I think a lot of the advantage of the axe is against armor. In the hands of first-rate troops, the combination of axes that split shields and high morale should be tough. I could even see a small increase in the factor (+3 maybe) with a 1.5 rank bonus also. But then, these are rules changes. The rule as it stands now, is probably flawed, as Terry says. But there are doubtless other small flaws (like lack of support fire from regular bows) that can be corrected with special home and tournament rules. As long as this is done, I have no problem with Terry's 'Rules are Finished' attitude. From the standpoint of perfection, the rules are never finished, which is why addendum and updated QRS's will always be needed. Actually, if I had my druthers, I'd say axes don't count shielded in the first round, either, but that's another can of worms!

Editor comments:

We have been having a very good discussion on the rules group about axemen, specifically, how to improve their effectiveness. We have come up with a couple of solutions that seem to work. First of all, axes have been raised from a +2/+2 weapon in the first round of a close combat to a +3/+3 modifier.

Secondly, we allow axes to fight in 1 1/2 ranks, not the single rank as previously allowed. After some playtesting, I have some breakdowns on the effectiveness of the 'new' axe factors in combat situations (+3/+3 fighting in 1 1/2 ranks). The axemen are all assumed to be close order, veteran heavy infantrymen unless stated otherwise.

These are as follows:

1. Charging axemen vrs. charging close order UI spearmen - Assuming both units are frenzied, the axemen have a very minor advantage. This would basically be a lock under average die roll conditions. The axemen do have a slight advantage, but not much. If the spearmen were LAI or HI, the advantage would go to them.

2. Charging axemen vrs. defending close order UI spearmen in shieldwall - The frenzied axemen win easily, inflicting at least two and probably three hits, while only suffering one of their own. Even if the spearmen were LAI or HI, the axemen still have the advantage. Here is where a Battle of Maldon tactical situation can be replicated with historical results.

3. Charging axemen vrs. charging close order UI long spearmen in a 3-deep formation - The added numbers available to the long spearmen will defeat the axemen, so long as they spears are frenzied (and yes, they can charge frenzied, look at the Battle of Bannockburn on the second day when the Scots charged downhill into the English in a highly agitated state). The axemen must be careful when confronted with long spears, avoiding a head on fight, as they did historically.

4. Vrs. charging loose order long spearmen (Welsh) - The axemen will still lose or at best tie loose order long spearmen in a 3-deep formation. Avoid them!

5. Vrs. charging Javelin or Various armed loose order UI - There is little contest here, the axemen have a distinct advantage over troops armed with these weapons. The javelin/various armed should plan on retreating whenever they are threatened with attack, using their own weapons to harass (shoot) the axemen if they can get close enough. Weight of armor makes no difference, the javelin/various armed units will lose.

6. Defending vrs. HC Veteran in conrois with Lance & Shield - The axemen have the advantage when defending in shieldwall (they count as shielded in the first round of their close combat, but will lose this in subsequent rounds) and will defeat or lock against the cavalry. Shades of Hastings vrs. French/Breton cavalry.

7. Defending vrs. HC Veteran in wedge with Lance & Shield - This is an equal contest, with both sides having the same chance for victory. If the axeman are uphill, as at Hastings, they will usually win, if in the open, as at Civitate, it will be a very close run thing. If the axemen are not defending in shieldwall, the wedging cavalry will beat then as at Durazzo. Thus far, the above replication of close combat gives historical results, the thing I wanted when this first came up. It looks like we have developed a workable and realistic tactical factor for axes.

Pavises

We had a situation arise in a game where a unit with pavises advanced (they did not charge) into a longbow unit. The longbow unit fired as the unit advanced into them. The pavise-armed unit was allowed to count as using their pavises up to the point of contact, therefore counting as shielded, in cover and charging to the chagrin of the longbows. We then discussed whether a pavise-armed unit could Charge and use their pavises as protection while charging in. I ruled that no, a unit charging would leave their pavises behind. A unit advancing would continue to carry them, but if contacting/contacted by an enemy unit, they would then drop the pavises for the resulting close action.

Rationale:

1. A pavise being carried during an Advance is a normal occurrence.

2. Charging units, however, would have to drop their pavises in order to facilitate a running attack. They could not continue carrying them and charging, as this would in the least cause a massive disorder as the bulky pavises were tripped over or stumbled past.

3. The Charge move has certain advantages...getting the Charge bonus close combat morale modifier of 1/2 d6 roll, possibly being frenzied, etc.

4. The Advancing unit gets none of these charge advantages, but does protect itself better.

Just as units may not be frenzied and charge using Shieldwall formations, units with pavises will not be able to use them as protection against missile weapons when Charging, but they will still be able to use them as missile protection when Advancing into contact.