Brother Training

So, more brother training, and the postmortem

We worked on ranging- short vs long, long vs short, charging a red with a blue. I think he got that pretty good. Which is good.

We also explicitly worked to reduce his flinching reflex- he was blocking alright, but every time a shot was coming towards him, he'd flinch as it came. Being that open to feints would just get him killed. So we explicitly worked on reducing that, which was good.

Then we worked on his denial guard and a frame block. It's amazing how much you can get away with with just a excellent a frame block.


Now for the postmortem- was the training worthwhile? Did it allow him to work well at saltwars?

So first off- overall impressions- He fought well. I think he did quite well for about two weeks of training. Definitely still at the popcorn level, but definitely chewy popcorn.

Now, some things I noticed, that I would work on with him if we were together.

1) His movement/ranging kept him alive longer than he otherwise should have. Part of this was just plain good- he was working the strategic level, which is nice. However, Amtgard as a whole doesn't.

It seems to be a cultural thing. This criticism can be leveled equally at me too- so I flanked in the ditches there. I didn't flank hard or anything- no real tricks, no real changing of strategy between rounds. I didn't even especially try to curl the line. Mostly what I did was go to the end/outside. Kill or bypass(leg, etc...) my opponent. Then work my way down the line, killing people from their flank. And that really was too much for them. They had so much trouble stopping it. And after a while, I felt ire over it, despite it being the LEAST of my flanking game. Course on my end, I actually felt really crappy because they were REALLY open, and I wasn't taking advantage of them as much as I could/should have.

So my brother, who was babysitting, and maneuvering for 1-1s was also too much for them. I think he would have been acceptable in a Bel context, but towing the line. Not because either of those things are bad, but because he's just learning them. So for instance, he'd take longer to maneuver for a 1 on 1, than an experienced fighter (also, people give experienced fighters more slack, as they have a greater chance of plowing through more people with correct maneuver).

The other thing, is that while he was babysitting mostly correctly, there was a point that I forgot to teach him about it. First off- let's define terms- babysitting is the art of tying people up on the battlefield. It happens like this- you are against a superior fighter, or many inferior fighters in good formation. Rather than engage and most likely die, or flee, and let your opponent turn and attack the rest of your forces, you babysit. This is where you are engaging at maximum range. When they come after you, you back off. When they turn their attention, you move forward and harass them. Done correctly this nullifies them- as they can't get you, but they can't direct their attention elsewhere.

So babysitting has a natural end- two actually(assuming you don't screw up and get hit).

The one you want, which is the other end of the field resolves, with your side winning, and they help you take out your man. This is more likely than not, as assuming the battlefield is roughly equal, you have tied up a person or people who collectively are worth more than you. Therefore, the odds are that the other side of the field are tilted in your side's favor. Which really is the whole point of babysitting. He handled that case correctly

The other one, which you don't want, is the other side of the field resolves with your side losing.
Leaving you the last one, or near to the last one alive on your side. This one he handled decently- he maneuvered till he could get as close to a 1 on 1 confrontation as he could manage, then took it, and died with honor. Which is decent. But that's not how it's optimally done.

The point I didn't think to communicate with him was that if you get into that situation, you've acted too late. You need to keep aware of the battle field, and if your side is starting to crumble on the other flank, it's time to engage. Why? Because first of all, if you don't act, the battle is probably lost, following the pattern in the above paragraph. At this point, while it's low probability, you have the chance to change things- if you manage to catch the person you are babysitting off guard, and kill or leg them, then you can run to reinforce the other side of your line, which is currently failing (the best way at this point is usually a back attack on the engaged enemy, but not always), and turn the tide of battle. And if you don't, you've lost anyway. So, engage if your line is failing.

PS- another way to look at is, at this point, if your line fails, you are going to end up maneuvering for 1 on 1s, and if you start a bit early, you have an easy to isolate 1 on 1- the guy you are babysitting. Given that you were babysitting him, it's probably a tough one- however, with your team dying, odds are, in order to win, you'll have to face him sooner or later. Best to do it one on one, when he doesn't really think you'll engage him.

2) His shots reverted to monkey arms, especially around a tower shield. I'm ok with this. I'd rather he have a good defence, than a good offense, and I didn't have time to teach him both.

3) He managed to understand charging polearms in the field, which is good.

So that sums up saltwars, and training my brother for it. I've learned a lot about how to teach- what should be taught, and I've learned some of the holes which I have in my explanations. Totally a good experience!