light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2

[PraetorFigus]

you made all spear units have 11 attack? what the hell is the point of that?

with no distinction for skill or training or anything, you've taken out much of the diversity between units. am i missing something?

Yes, I was testing unit recruitment to see how much the AI values attack rating and how much influence armor, shields and defense affects spearmen.

I understood that -4 would put weak levees at a huge disadvantage against other units and I have found that most phalanxes are still very effective with 11 attack, (not enough time for me to test everything right now).

There are also factors of lethality, overall defense rating (and the three individual ones), moral and training and then number of officers and units 162 versus 160 versus 200 or 202 as a few examples. Also spear heavy factions such as the Lusotannan are not as such a disadvantage.

In my tests I only altered units classified as spearmen with the light_spear attribute. what I want to see is how to better control for the other factors to eventually test with an adjusted radius.

I guess I should have explained more in my earlier post.

Just have to keep plugging away

I hope this provides better insight into what I am testing with the 11 attack rating.

[PraetorFigus]

The only thing I changed was removing 4 attack from all Light_Spear Units, which also includes all Phalanx units. I didn't alter the radaii at all (assuming you were addressing me that is ;))

Sorry, but I don't like the idea of making ALL light_spear 11 attack. Why bother recruting the better units if you do this? If you just take 4 attack away, then spear units go from (I think) 8-16 basic attack, which still makes sense.

I found it tough at the start in a KH campaign, but then Levy Hoplites really shouldn't be anything but emergency battlefield troops. Vanilla EB 1.2 gives them 12 attack, which is to my mind quite ridiculous, when taken into account that's more than a pretty decent sword or axe unit.

As I said above, I personally find battles a lot more realistic. Spear on spear is exactly the same balance as before, high lvl sword/axe units perform better vs mid/low spears, but then they should.

With the attack rating, no prob, I'm still testing other things out as well. When I made the changes I was also intrested in seeing how early ai progression goes and ai army compositions.

Better units also have other things going for them with there other attributes. What I'm not clear on is how some attributes like AP could be reassigned and on what basis, since experience also influences attack rating and defense skill.

But I agree that there is an unnecessary bonus of +4 for spearmen because of the previous use of the spear attribute in vanilla EB.

[Drewski]

With the attack rating, no prob, I'm still testing other things out as well. When I made the changes I was also intrested in seeing how early ai progression goes and ai army compositions.

Better units also have other things going for them with there other attributes. What I'm not clear on is how some attributes like AP could be reassigned and on what basis, since experience also influences attack rating and defense skill.

But I agree that there is an unnecessary bonus of +4 for spearmen because of the previous use of the spear attribute in vanilla EB.

Glad we agree on the last point

All I can really add, is good luck with the rest of your testing.

drewski how would i be able to find out if i have got it working ok?? where would i be able to see the changes made? also, how do you get your units to use their secondery weapon,ie swords instead of the spear/ or do they just do it automaticly?? cheers

Easiest way to check, is just look at any spear unit card within the game itself...(Hoplitai, Triarii, Celtic Spearman, any will do).. If it's attack is 4 less than you are used to, then it's working.

To get them to use their secondary weapon, just hold ALT + Right Click on the enemy. Also, some units will switch weapons automatically in certain circumstances.

[seienchin]

A very long time ago I asked for help trying to switch spear as primary and sword as secondary for those elites: sadly people answered that the only way to do this is to change the model of the unit with 3D Max or similar......

No... you can make even Roman phalangitai with just the exp descr unit

[Woreczko]

You can switch sword and spear in the EDU, but the unit would still look like using swords, even if these swords have all properties of a spear.

[Aurgelmir]

Yeah why does a unit have probs with the second weapon and others not?
I always asked myself...

[mcantu]

You can switch sword and spear in the EDU, but the unit would still look like using swords, even if these swords have all properties of a spear.

you have to change the animation used in the DMB

[mcantu]

Yeah why does a unit have probs with the second weapon and others not?
I always asked myself...

there are only problems when the unit uses an overhand spear animation

[Aper]

you have to change the animation used in the DMB

I did, but it was not enough: there's a problem of model/skin/dunno...

No... you can make even Roman phalangitai with just the exp descr unit

From Eastern Auxilia, sure; from other units, how? thx
BTW I was speaking about Soldurii/Hypaspistai-like units, and about how to make the spear their primary and the sword their secondary: I don't see how phalangitai entered in the discussion...

there are only problems when the unit uses an overhand spear animation

but WHAT exactly are these problems? It seems that nobody can/want to aswer this question...

[Watchman]

Regarding the original topic of the thread, while I'm not entirely familiar with the original testing that was done to determine it the consensus among the folks who've SRSLY investigated the murky inner workings of the EDU and the battle engine seems to be that there's a 4-point penalty on something for units unig the "spear" and "light_spear" weapon attributes.

And I know that when I rather extensively tested the two - to see which one would work better as the standard spear-unit attribute - there was a clear difference (all other things being equal, natch) between how those two behaved.

Anyways, in general "light_spear" with the +4 compensation seems to work well enough overall.

As for the "swords beat spears", bollocks. They don't. Except maybe at point-blank quarters where a shorter weapon has an advantage, but in general there's some *very* good reasons why the spear has been the primary infantry weapon par excellence the world over and throughout the ages - among other things it's *very* effective in massed formations, and even in individual combat easily rivals a sword in properly trained hands.
Usually, the fighting-spear was the primary initial weapon; the sword or whatever was drawn once the combat moved into close quarters, or the spear-shaft broke.

[Drewski]

Regarding the original topic of the thread, while I'm not entirely familiar with the original testing that was done to determine it the consensus among the folks who've SRSLY investigated the murky inner workings of the EDU and the battle engine seems to be that there's a 4-point penalty on something for units unig the "spear" and "light_spear" weapon attributes.

Yes its been documented in this thread and otherwise.

And I know that when I rather extensively tested the two - to see which one would work better as the standard spear-unit attribute - there was a clear difference (all other things being equal, natch) between how those two behaved.

Anyways, in general "light_spear" with the +4 compensation seems to work well enough overall.

Why compensate something that absolutely doesn't need or warrant it? To make levy spears killing machines?

As for the "swords beat spears", bollocks. They don't. Except maybe at point-blank quarters where a shorter weapon has an advantage, but in general there's some *very* good reasons why the spear has been the primary infantry weapon par excellence the world over and throughout the ages - among other things it's *very* effective in massed formations, and even in individual combat easily rivals a sword in properly trained hands.
Usually, the fighting-spear was the primary initial weapon; the sword or whatever was drawn once the combat moved into close quarters, or the spear-shaft broke.

The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear. A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with. Its also far more lethal than a spear.

[PraetorFigus]

The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear. A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with. Its also far more lethal than a spear.

Well in terms of manufacturing arms, I can understand how there is more work in swords then spears, but axes could be considered easier then the other two.

The Sarissa and Xyston (hope I spelled them right ) are not that easy to make though, but I have no idea about spears from other peoples though.

What I wonder is about phalangites, now were they really skewering machines as they are with the high attack values they have in the RTW engine or were they more pinning forces for flanking with assault forces, cavalry and heavy infantry for example?

I've played as Macedon, KH and Seleucids with the -4 attack and seemed fine with fighting battles. Phalangites still get lots of chevrons! I've done different tests with the attack rating for spearmen with the light_spear attribute and I certainly like what I see.

For pseudo-phalanx units I can see keeping their attack values as is in vanilla EB because of how other changes like adjusting unit radius affects other things as well. Watchman, what do you think?

Cheers

[Drewski]

Well in terms of manufacturing arms, I can understand how there is more work in swords then spears, but axes could be considered easier then the other two.......

Your right, I was thinking more of the "falx" type axe. Should have said so ;)

On a side note, I've been reliably informed, that all phalanx units have their base shield value doubled
. Since all phalanx units in EB have 5 base shield, that gives them 10 shield plus their armor. No wonder they are missile proof!

On this basis, I edited all phalanx units to give them 2 shield for basic phalanx and 3 shield for elites (4 and 6 in actual play). The phalanxes are still pretty bullet proof, but they occasionally take the odd missile hit pre melee. In about 75 + hours of play testing, I'm liking the results better..

[Watchman]

Why compensate something that absolutely doesn't need or warrant it? To make levy spears killing machines?

I fail to see where levy spears are killing machines. Though you may want to be careful with cavalry around even such low-end spearmen, which is quite realistic.

The compensation is there to make spears appropriately lethal in infantry-to-infantry combat, more on which below.

The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear.

Yeah well, obviously. A spear is pretty much a knife on a stick. Plus, in many societies they had ready use as hunting tools (much like axes had any number of utility functions)...

Feel free to try to explain why also wealthy, well-equipped warriors such as Greek Hoplites, "barbarian" warrior elites, Persian warrior-nobles etc. then were such universal afficiandos of long pointy sticks and carried swords, axes etc. primarily as backup sidearms and for combat at ranges too short for a spear ?

A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with.

An axe, hardly. There's not much more metalwork involved, actually, and great many of the people who carried one as a weapon were practised in wielding it as an everyday tool.

A sword, conditionally. Short swords - the line between one of those and a large knife or dagger is often blurry indeed - weren't too difficult to make and hence were cheap and common enough. The larger kinds of spearheads tended to readily rival them in size, actually. Longer blades get exponentially more difficult to make, however, and were duly that much more expensive and prestigious weapons; I've occasionally seen it suggested that the same is true for concave-curved "sabres" like the falcata/kopis/machaira family, too.

Beats me what you base the argument about difficulty on; becoming a genuinely effective fighter with any weapon demands skill and hence, training, but spears have the real advantage they're incredibly well suited for close-order massed infantry formations - a good instructor can turn complete novices into a credible if not very reliable battlefield presence in a matter of days.

Should tell something that even elite warriors tended to have them as their primary weapons, though.

Its also far more lethal than a spear.

Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.

I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...

Your right, I was thinking more of the "falx" type axe. Should have said so ;)

The falx isn't an axe. Not even close. It's really more or less a cheaper "staff-weapon" version of the Thracian rhomphaia, which was very much a kind of sword.

[Drewski]

I fail to see where levy spears are killing machines. Though you may want to be careful with cavalry around even such low-end spearmen, which is quite realistic.

The compensation is there to make spears appropriately lethal in infantry-to-infantry combat, more on which below.

Yeah well, obviously. A spear is pretty much a knife on a stick. Plus, in many societies they had ready use as hunting tools (much like axes had any number of utility functions)...

Feel free to try to explain why also wealthy, well-equipped warriors such as Greek Hoplites, "barbarian" warrior elites, Persian warrior-nobles etc. then were such universal afficiandos of long pointy sticks and carried swords, axes etc. primarily as backup sidearms and for combat at ranges too short for a spear ?

An axe, hardly. There's not much more metalwork involved, actually, and great many of the people who carried one as a weapon were practised in wielding it as an everyday tool.

A sword, conditionally. Short swords - the line between one of those and a large knife or dagger is often blurry indeed - weren't too difficult to make and hence were cheap and common enough. The larger kinds of spearheads tended to readily rival them in size, actually. Longer blades get exponentially more difficult to make, however, and were duly that much more expensive and prestigious weapons; I've occasionally seen it suggested that the same is true for concave-curved "sabres" like the falcata/kopis/machaira family, too.

Beats me what you base the argument about difficulty on; becoming a genuinely effective fighter with any weapon demands skill and hence, training, but spears have the real advantage they're incredibly well suited for close-order massed infantry formations - a good instructor can turn complete novices into a credible if not very reliable battlefield presence in a matter of days.

Should tell something that even elite warriors tended to have them as their primary weapons, though.

Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.

I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...

The falx isn't an axe. Not even close. It's really more or less a cheaper "staff-weapon" version of the Thracian rhomphaia, which was very much a kind of sword.

There's a lot here. Some true, a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed. I don't want another complicated internet arguement, just haven't the time or inclination ;)

At least I/We know where the +4 phantom attack comes from. Its just your opinion, mine differs. Let's leave it at that.

[Watchman]

"Some true, a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed" aren't exactly the words to amiably part ways from a discussion with, you know.

The last two, in particular, sit firmly in the "back up or get out" category.

[Drewski]

Sigh:- ok

Falx, I don't know why I said were axes, they were the first two handed "chopping" weapon that came to mind (had a long few days). They are not axes, but then they are not really swords either. More a spear/sword amalgam. I was wrong.

I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...

Well there's no big secret here. Its because 1) again ease of manufacture and in the greater part 2) So that said hunting can be done from a distance of (relative) safety. To get close enough to kill a bear with a sword, means that the bear is close enough to also dismember the wielder with a huge paw swipe.

Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.

Nonesense? Learn to reply politely if you will..;)

Yes of course having a spear thrust into the abdomen can be lethal, but then so can having a steak knife. The point was about general lethality in battle of a weapon. In Greek "hoplite type" fighting, many, many battles resulted in tiny amounts of casualties, often less than 5% for the losing side. A spear can only generally be used to thrust (hoplite type spears). In close combat, a sword (lets say Gladius), despite being designed for thrusting at the enemy from behind the protection of the shield, all types of gladius appear to have been suitable for slashing and chopping motions. Also, a sword is more effective in parrying or deflecting blows. A 2m long spear is great at a distance, and in a tight formation, but the tight formation and the relative unwieldyness of the spear are telling in close combat.

Stabbing was a very efficient technique, as stabbing wounds, especially in the abdominal area, were almost always deadly. However, the gladius in some circumstances was used for cutting or slashing, as is indicated by Livy's account of the Macedonian Wars, wherein the Macedonian soldiers were horrified to see dismembered bodies.

Though the primary infantry attack was thrusting at stomach height, they were trained to take any advantage, such as slashing at kneecaps beneath the shield wall.

Yes, there can be really only one form of "lethal", as a fatal car crash is only as fatal as a fatal plane crash. General versatality, in causing fatalities is what Im really referring too, and for that I still insist the sword wins out over the spear.

Nobles and Elites carrying spears? I won't deny that they did. Why? Can't honestly say I'm sure. Partly tradition, partly because it was easier to fight an enemy similarly equipped in a "mutually assured minimal casualties way" (see hoplites comment), partly through a lack of high quality swords (speculation on my part).

Spears then in general for the same reason as killing a bear. Because it can be done at greater range and more safely, plus totally agreed, they work excellently well in a close tight formation. But then why should anyone attack from the front, as the Romans proved. Just go around the sides, engage in close range sword combat and negate the spear wall. Then the sword wins out. THAT's why CA put the spear / light_spear penalties vs Infantry in the first place.

So, ok let's not get off on a bad footing then Watchman, and agree to politely differ

[Watchman]

Much better.

Well there's no big secret here. Its because 1) again ease of manufacture and in the greater part 2) So that said hunting can be done from a distance of (relative) safety. To get close enough to kill a bear with a sword, means that the bear is close enough to also dismember the wielder with a huge paw swipe.

For the record, hunting large game was long also the favourite pasttime of the aristocracy who, obviously, had no particular money problems.

You are correct on the distance thing, obviously. Which should also tell you rather a bit of why spears were so popular for killing humans too - as infantry close-combat weapons go, their killing reach is flat out unmatched. (That many types can also be thrown if necessary, hopefully killing the foeman that much further away or at least encumbering his shield with a spear now transfixed in it, didn't hurt...)

Another factor, which you either ignore or are ignorant of, is the actual ability to *kill* said animals, which have thick hides, strong bones and lots of muscle over their internal organs (which you need to reach to take the critter down). Trying to cut through such a barrier is, obviously, not a very sensible proposition; driving a sharp point through works much better. A somewhat extreme version would be the massive all-metal harpoons whalers used to punch through the thick hide and deep layer of blubber of their prey...

Humans, being rather more fragile and less well-protected organisms, obviously go down rather easier.
Oh, and as you may already have deduced from the above, spears, like dedicated thrusting swords, are pretty good at going through armour too. Force concentrated behind a narrow point and all that.

Nonesense? Learn to reply politely if you will..;)

"Nonsense" is my polite reply when confronted with obvious nonsense. The impolite ones tend to net me warnings from moderators for excessive causticity...

Yes of course having a spear thrust into the abdomen can be lethal, but then so can having a steak knife. The point was about general lethality in battle of a weapon.

Just FYI, but daggers were what in many contexts often actually killed the heavier armoured warriors... it's comparatively easy to shove them through visors and other gaps at grappling ranges. Obviously daggers lack reach, which as mentioned before ceases being a problem when you stick it atop several meters of stout wood...
'Course, then you'll lose the pinpoint-accuracy benefit but, well, can't have everything. (Which is why daggers or fighting-knives were a pretty universal warrior accessory, whatever the primary weapons load was. It's not like they cost or weighed much, anyway.)

In Greek "hoplite type" fighting, many, many battles resulted in tiny amounts of casualties, often less than 5% for the losing side.

That's because the hoplites sucked at pursuit of broken enemies, which was ever the primary source of battle casualties - it being somewhat difficult to kill someone armed who's actively resisting, period. The aim of the actual combat was putting the enemy decisively to flight; his wholesale destruction, if it was to be achieved, had to happen through the ensuing pursuit, or trapping the enemy force so that it could not escape.

This has crap all to do with weapons - plus hoplites tended to find themselves resorting to their swords sooner or later anyway, on account of broken spear-shafts and/or formations or simply too close quarters for the doru to be effective; this did not meaningfully affect the casualty rates.

A spear can only generally be used to thrust (hoplite type spears).

No, really ?

In close combat, a sword (lets say Gladius), despite being designed for thrusting at the enemy from behind the protection of the shield, all types of gladius appear to have been suitable for slashing and chopping motions. Also, a sword is more effective in parrying or deflecting blows.

This is true, but rather irrelevant - as it is really just explaining why swords have been so popular overall. They're versatile, fairly agile, and - an important enough consideration - easy to carry around.

A 2m long spear is great at a distance, and in a tight formation, but the tight formation and the relative unwieldyness of the spear are telling in close combat.

...which is, obviously, why people switched to shorter weapons if the foeman got past the spear - or spears, since in close order at least the first two ranks could engage thanks to the sheer lenght and reach of the things.

'Course, there's nothing in particular keeping you from simply making a very short spear, in effect a poor man's stabbing sword, if you're so inclined... the Zulu iklwa being probably the major example. Very effective too, by all accounts.

Yes, there can be really only one form of "lethal", as a fatal car crash is only as fatal as a fatal plane crash. General versatality, in causing fatalities is what Im really referring too, and for that I still insist the sword wins out over the spear.

Dead is dead. (Well, in most cases the stricken foeman would actually only be incapaciated or unconscious and die of his wounds later, but this difference is obviously irrelevant insofar as his further contribution to fighting goes...) And while the sword may well indeed be more versatile as such, OTOH it simply cannot match the sheer killing reach of a thrust from a long spear.

And getting poked with either kills you dead just the same; your organs certainly don't particularly care whether the pointy thing perforating them is mounted on a grip or a stick, they stop working anyway...

Nobles and Elites carrying spears? I won't deny that they did. Why? Can't honestly say I'm sure. Partly tradition, partly because it was easier to fight an enemy similarly equipped in a "mutually assured minimal casualties way" (see hoplites comment), partly through a lack of high quality swords (speculation on my part).
---
Spears then in general for the same reason as killing a bear. Because it can be done at greater range and more safely, plus totally agreed, they work excellently well in a close tight formation.

Entering Dissonance City, population one here...
And you had the gall to call "a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed" on me ?

Dude, you've yourself already repeatedly admitted to the tactical usefulness of the spear particularly in close-order mass combat. It really should not require any further elaboration as to why even senior warriors who had no trouble at all affording literally cutting-edge war gear so commonly elected to carry a spear as their primary weapon... theirs just duly tended to be of extremely high quality and pimped out six ways to Sunday with whatever motifs the culture's weaponsmiths now liked to decorate spearheads with.

And as already mentioned the relatively low casualties of hoplite warfare came from their lousy pursuit abilities, not from any details of armament or for that matter any particular "gentlemanly" attempts to avoid casualties. When more mobile troops were involved, or a losing phalanx became trapped (for example, by having its flanks turned), the carnage was duly ghastly.
The warfare between the Greek city-states merely for a fair while was somewhat ritualistic in nature, more a method of sorting out the respective communities' pecking order in one issue or another, so just defeating the opposing force sufficed to meet their strategic goals. Once wars became more serious, ambitious and "total" in aims and character the troop rosters were duly diversified and the concrete destruction of the enemy became more important.

But then why should anyone attack from the front, as the Romans proved. Just go around the sides, engage in close range sword combat and negate the spear wall. Then the sword wins out.

You're talking about the six-meter pikes of the phalangites here, you know. Not quite the same thing tactically as what's normally referred to as "spear". And they always were in serious trouble anyway if they got flanked, be it by shortsword-wielding Romans, spear-wielding hoplites, axe-toting Iranians or longsword-waving screaming Celts.
Not that anyone ever liked getting hit in the flank, mind you, but the pike phalangites were frontal-combat specialists through and through.
And, of course, the phalangites would then defend themselves with their sidearms (typically mid-sized or short swords)...

Moot.

THAT's why CA put the spear / light_spear penalties vs Infantry in the first place.

Well, no. Not really. They put it in because they were stuck in the RTS rock-paper-scissors mentality RE unit roles. Which has crap all to do with realism or historical accuracy; if you've ever taken a look at vanilla RTW, you should know well enough they weren't terribly concerned with those...

[Drewski]

Very thorough reply :)

Been up for far, far too long now so I'll keep mine short.

Have to agree with most of it, even though in the hunting analogy, you were mostly talking about a thrown spear (e.g. a pila type weapon from the EB period).

Hoplite casualties, well no-one even knows for sure if they fought over or underhanded.

The strength of hoplites was shock combat. The two phalanxes would smash into each other in hopes of breaking or encircling the enemy force's line. Failing that, a battle degenerated into a pushing match, with the men in the rear trying to force the front lines through those of the enemy. This maneuver was known as the othismos. Battles rarely lasted more than an hour. Once one of the lines broke, the troops would generally flee from the field, sometimes chased by peltasts or light cavalry. If a hoplite escaped, he would sometimes be forced to drop his cumbersome aspis, thereby disgracing himself to his friends and family. Casualties were slight compared to later battles, rarely amounting to more than 5% of the losing side, but the slain often included the most prominent citizens and generals who led from the front. Thus, the whole war could be decided by a single field battle; victory was enforced by ransoming the fallen back to the defeated, called the "Custom of The Greeks".

A lot of casualties must have come from blood loss. I don't see all that much evidence for super armor piercing spears here, otherwise you'd see a lot more fatalities.

Hoplites also carried a short sword called a xiphos. The short sword was a secondary weapon, used if and when spears broke, or if the phalanx broke rank. When the enemy retreated, hoplites might drop their shield and spear, and pursue the enemy with their swords. A disadvantage to the xiphos though was that it was extremely heavy and did not provide as much reach as most swords from that period.

In other words, it was a bit crap ;) Maybe the best money could buy in Greece, but still a bit crap..

There seems to be a disparity in quality of swords over different cultures, at that period of time. A well made sword can dismember, which will render an opponent well, lets say he's at very least no longer a factor in the battle.

While I was mainly talking about the sarissa and its counterparts, hoplitai type spearmen also relied on their formation and shield wall. And on the sarissa (which in EB also has the light_spear attribute as well as Long_pike, hence they were given 4 attack they shouldn't have had-which is kinda the point of this thread ;))

The sarissa was gradually replaced by variations of the gladius as the weapon of choice. Only Pyrrhus of Epirus was able to maintain a high standard of tactical handling with armies based around the sarissa, but with the dawn of the manipular system, even he struggled for his victories.

The spear has 2 inherent advantages- its reach, and its cheap. A good sword or axe is just more versatile in close combat (and isn't that the definition of melee?).

And the very last point, back on the topic thread, in early EB all pointy stick weapons were classed as "spear" which has -4 attack vs infantry (which to my mind is unfair) and 4 attack was added to all of these units. Then all pointy sticks were changed to classification "light_spear" to aid the units cohesiveness in formation, but even though "light_spear" doesn't get an attack penalty vs infantry (they get a -4 defence penalty), the +4 attack was left. Isn't this correct?

If you take away the phantom +4 attack, then you'll find swords/axes and spears have virtually the same attack value as each other, in relative terms for a unit's cost/level. In most cases, the corresponding spear will still have a higher attack. Maybe a +4 defence modifier (to defence skill) might be in order, but why possibly to the attack stat which isn't any longer compromised in any way?

Anyways, enough from me, I need sleep...

[mcantu]

i recall a post from CA which stated that the spear attribute was intended only for very long spears (like the sarissa). the unwieldiness of a spear like this and the standoff it allows makes the -4 attack vs infantry and the +8 vs cav understandable.

[Watchman]

All I know is, when I tested rather extensively the effects of both "spear" and "light_spear", the latter performed much more sanely all other things being equal. Seriously, crap levies with the "spear" attribute were pushing freakin' cataphracts and heavily armoured elite infantry all over the place...

I've no idea what the exact mechanical effects of "light_spear" actually are; what I found out is that in practice compared to their equals with "spear", the test units with it both died and killed their enemies at a slower rate.

Put short - the +4 compensation bonus on "light_spear" works. I'm not sure how or why exactly, but it does.

[mcantu]

oh i dont deny that light_spear makes much more sense for most spear units. in the stats for RTR, i use light_spear for all spearmen except for phalanx units; those get spear (but only after reducing the unit radius to 0.3). i do, however think that CA got the modifiers for these attributes right (IMO) so i base the attack stats on unit abilty and training

[Woreczko]

@Watchman
If you claim, that spears are by long shot no different than other weapons, than why use spear attribute at all? My gripe with spear is not so much it`s performance vs infantry but it`s "Conan mode" vs horses, which with a +4 to attack becomes quite ridiculous.

As you said, spear is very effective in a close formation. At the same time it was very rarely used as a personal weapon, to be carried along for self-defence. First it`s too unwieldly and it`s not particularly good in 1v1 combat.
So... in the end I, too, lowered attack of spears by 4 points, while increasing their lethality. Guard mode offsets their malus to defence, while they killing power stays more or less the same, as it was. But they are no longer so effective vs. heavily armoured foes (lower attack), while somewhat better vs unarmoured ones (higher lethality). THEY NO LONGER SLAUGHTER HEAVY CAVALRY SO MUCH. Going out of guard mode carries a risk though, as their defense skill still gets -4 penalty.

[Watchman]

If you claim, that spears are by long shot no different than other weapons, than why use spear attribute at all?

Because spears are uniquely well suited for anti-cavalry work, and the effects of the attributes reflect that ?

My gripe with spear is not so much it`s performance vs infantry but it`s "Conan mode" vs horses, which with a +4 to attack becomes quite ridiculous.

*shrug* Spearmen that failed to run away were grossly dangerous to cavalry. Fact of the world, even if their spears were just bayonets atop a musket (which it should be noted was not a very optimal configuration as a spear...).

Although I think you rather exaggerate the in-game effect, it teaches players to respect that.

Also, without the compensation bonus units with either of the spear attributes grossly underperform against infantry - to recognise how grossly nonsensical this is, look no further than the Greek hoplites who for most of their history chiefly fought each other...

At the same time it was very rarely used as a personal weapon, to be carried along for self-defence.

Gee, no duh. Might have something to do with the fact that the usual lenght of a fighting-spear was 2-2.5 meters, which is obviously something you're not going to lug around unless you know you're going to need it.
Which rather obviously disqualifies it as an everyday self-protection tool in most contexts, though I'd point out over here long a popular peasant version was a skiing pole with a spearhead on top - I've heard such called "wolf-spears".

Worth noting, though, that foot travelers pretty universally had a fairly robust staff as a walking stick; the techniques used to fight with one are virtually identical to those used when wielding spears two-handed, and it is further worth mentioning that several accredited masters-at-arms such as George Silver thought very highly of it as a tool of "civilian" personal combat...

...it`s not particularly good in 1v1 combat.

And you base this claim on what exactly ? Pikes, perhaps ?
From what I understand for example Homer has his heroes engage in their duels primarily with their spears, only resorting to swords when those are lost. Similarly, take the diverse highly warlike inhabitants of northern Europe in Ye Olden Times; while due to economic reasons proper swords were quite rare axes and war-clubs (which some Germanic warriors around Roman times at least seem to have been rather fond of) were ubiquitous enough. Yet despite that, and the fact the heavily forested and generally uncooperative terrain and small "skirmish" scale of most engagements commonly forced the warriors fight a whirling melee in open order (essentially a series of more-or-less duels en masse), spears were the favourite primary weapons by far...

[Woreczko]

Because spears are uniquely well suited for anti-cavalry work, and the effects of the attributes reflect that ?
*shrug* Spearmen that failed to run away were grossly dangerous to cavalry. Fact of the world, even if their spears were just bayonets atop a musket (which it should be noted was not a very optimal configuration as a spear...).

Of course! But then, how often enemy infantry IN EB runs away BEFORE cavalry charge hits them? Not very often, eh? Such is the engine of RTW. With current state of affairs, it means, that you can stop enemy hetairoi with most feeble pantodapoi, beacause they will not run away in fear of being trampled. And in melee they have a good chance to prevail, due to spear bonuses combined with innate high attack value. The latter would be ok, if the former actually took place. Hell, in RL any stationary cavalry is as good as dead if mobbed by infantry, spears or not.

But in EB infantry won`t run before the charge and cavalry will fight it stationary. I`m just trying to do something about it :)

Also, without the compensation bonus units with either of the spear attributes grossly underperform against infantry - to recognise how grossly nonsensical this is, look no further than the Greek hoplites who for most of their history chiefly fought each other...

You are right. I`m not advocating spears to be made weaker (in fact I don`t expect EB team to work on EB I at all - better speed up the release of the second incarnation :) ). I just don`t like this attack bonus. It skewers autocalc and makes them unusually good vs units with high defense. Better increase thier lethality and, in case of hoplites, reduce radius (slightly, so they still need guard mode to fight in a "shieldwall") :)

Gee, no duh. Might have something to do with the fact that the usual lenght of a fighting-spear was 2-2.5 meters, which is obviously something you're not going to lug around unless you know you're going to need it.
Which rather obviously disqualifies it as an everyday self-protection tool in most contexts, though I'd point out over here long a popular peasant version was a skiing pole with a spearhead on top - I've heard such called "wolf-spears".

Worth noting, though, that foot travelers pretty universally had a fairly robust staff as a walking stick; the techniques used to fight with one are virtually identical to those used when wielding spears two-handed, and it is further worth mentioning that several accredited masters-at-arms such as George Silver thought very highly of it as a tool of "civilian" personal combat...
And you base this claim on what exactly ? Pikes, perhaps ?
From what I understand for example Homer has his heroes engage in their duels primarily with their spears, only resorting to swords when those are lost. Similarly, take the diverse highly warlike inhabitants of northern Europe in Ye Olden Times; while due to economic reasons proper swords were quite rare axes and war-clubs (which some Germanic warriors around Roman times at least seem to have been rather fond of) were ubiquitous enough. Yet despite that, and the fact the heavily forested and generally uncooperative terrain and small "skirmish" scale of most engagements commonly forced the warriors fight a whirling melee in open order (essentially a series of more-or-less duels en masse), spears were the favourite primary weapons by far...

But even Homer`s heroes carry swords into the duel! Because spears are to be thrown or broken or made useless by the closeness of the opponent. It`s not safe to rely on spear alone. That = malus to defense if unit is armed with spear only. Or is not really trained to use it`s secondary arm.

Howgh!

[Watchman]

Dude. Everybody carried backup sidearms. You can see them included in the skins of many EB units, too. Spears are very good primary weapons, but as mentioned have a bad habit of getting their shafts broken sooner or later (or getting stuck in someone's innards and/or shield more than can be dealt with in the middle of a fight) and like all weapons with good reach run into severe troubles should the combat move to "close in" distances.

Anyone who tried to use a single weapon alone as an all-purpose panacea Darwinised out of the competition right fast.

[PraetorFigus]

Watchman, I have an idea, what if attack rating is lowered -4 for all spearmen that are not the pseudo-phalanxes.

So that Mori Gaesum, Iphikates, Alpine, Helvetii, Dacian, thorakitai hopitai, speutagardaz and any other pseudo-phalanx would have a slight advantage in terms of having the higher attack value without having the phalanx formation.

conversely the pseudo-phalanxes could be given a higher attack rating like the high attack rating of the Carthaginian elite spearmen units (don't remember there names).

Separately,

I also think a radius of 0.3 would be good for the all spearmen. units classified as light stay as default and heavy maybe something between 0.4 and 0.3 so they do not spread out as far when engaging in melee and leaving other stats alone.

Cheers

[Watchman]

...and screw, say, the Classical Hoplites' ability to fight other infantry, something they were noticeably rather good at...?

Though, I do intend to continue looking into the radius thingy and how it could be used, picking up from where I was before going AWOL for three months. The infantry vs. infantry tests I did back then looked quite promising (and made the individual soldiers' behaviour in the line of battle rather interesting), but I never got around to seeing what the effects would be for foot versus horse match-ups (and if it would be a good idea to shrink the horses' radii as well)...

[PraetorFigus]

conversely the pseudo-phalanxes could be given a higher attack rating like the high attack rating of the Carthaginian elite spearmen units (don't remember there names).

What about this option? In a KH campaign, Carthage is spamming these two units, the armies are getting lots of chevrons so the attack is unusually high on top of their default value.

Ekdromoi, Akontistai, Sphendonetai, Toxotai and Haploi are not enough to keep Emporion and Massalia that rebelled to me after Carthage took spain and parts of gaul!

...and screw, say, the Classical Hoplites' ability to fight other infantry, something they were noticeably rather good at...?

Though, I do intend to continue looking into the radius thingy and how it could be used, picking up from where I was before going AWOL for three months. The infantry vs. infantry tests I did back then looked quite promising (and made the individual soldiers' behaviour in the line of battle rather interesting), but I never got around to seeing what the effects would be for foot versus horse match-ups (and if it would be a good idea to shrink the horses' radii as well)...

I understand the concern with lowering the attack for hoplites, I was under the impression that Classical Hoplites were on the decline through the EB period so it could have been historically feasible to have them slightly less effective, I've been playing KH and Seleukids most recently and the units still earn significant experience points.

If not then maybe for the pseudo-phalanxes with 0.3 radius and higher attack value then they would be more effective.

As for cavalry, they should also benefit from a lower radius.

When spearmen have the -4 attack, cavalry last a little longer in melee, but still need to be managed in battle, the AI seemed to better manage them because I've noticed that the cavalry stay engaged in melee until the charge bonus ends and they disengage and recharge! so with vanilla EB stats, cavalry gets chewed up faster then with the -4 attack, which was another reason I proposed a -4 for spearmen.

light_spear still gives +8 defense, so cavalry still takes losses either way, just the AI seems to do better with cavalry.

I forgot to include cavalry when I was bringing up adjusting radius in the other post.

Cheers

[mcantu]

i'd like to suggest this simple solution:

1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they are