Swords,swords,swords....and,you guessed it! more swords!!

[Del]

Please allow me, gentlemen, to lodge my strong disagreement with your anti-polearm grumbling. I am not sure what the source of it is. Polearms (in this case spears/pikes)were historically a rather cost-effective way to arm your troops. Cheap to arm, perhaps more difficult to train.. but they were useable, if not dominant, in just about any situation.

Perhaps some of you are remembering the good 'ol days of Shogun in which spears were little willy-lillies that died easily when faced by anything other than cavalry. That was very unrealistic. I do not own MTW, but listening to your talk, and viewing Yuuki's tests, it would appear to me that spears are realistically weak but an appropriately prominent choice for your army.

By the way-- I do have the demo, and have seen the "one-handed" spearmen of which you speak. They are not one-handed. They most definitely wield their spear with two hands. The famed Macedonian phalanxes, perhaps history's most famous and most singularly effective pikemen, carried shields in addition to their 12-ft (two-handed) pikes.

Del

[This message has been edited by Del (edited 09-22-2002).]

[Puzz3D]

Action,

Ok I see your point. I tried the Chiv MAA (275 florins) against the Chiv Sergeant (250 florins). The Chiv MAA did win in my test, but not by much 60 kills vs 40 losses. It could easily have lost. The Order Foot (350 florins) easily beat the Chiv MAA (275 florins) and also easily beat the Feudal Foot Knight (250 florins). So, none of those sword units are a match for the Order Foot in a frontal assault. You have to flank.

One problem in my test is that I use the general's unit for both. That unit gets +2 morale which partially removes the morale penalty the Chic Sergeant and the Order Foot have relative to the Chiv MAA. You could actually be loosing and still win if the spear unit routs.

When you go online and make use of that upgrade system you introduce additional imbalance mostly because when you upgrade valor the morale goes up +2 for every +1 valor. Once you get above a certain threshold, you basically eliminate the morale disadvantage. Order Foot have a relatively low morale of 2. Chiv Sergeants are even lower at 0. If you are playing the game at 10K florins the possible valor upgrade pretty much eliminates the morale penalty on those units.

Cav already has trouble with sword units online because the cav that is effective against swords is very expensive, so the swords generally get a bigger upgrade. If you make swords better relative to spears and cav, then swords will dominate. You can start going around in circles here. Take spear and pike units as your basic frontline infantry, and use sword units for flanking. The same goes for cav. You really have to flank with it to be effective.

[Puzz3D]

Michael the Great and Del,

One thing I failed to mention in my Feudal MAA test vs the basic spear and pikeman was that the swordsmen were always loosing at first in the frontal assault. It wasn't until they killed about 20 men that they broke up the spear and pike formations enough to start "winning" or "winning easily". At least with those 3 units the battle system works rather nicely. Going up against the Order Foot the swordsmen are not able to get enough kills to break down the spear formation.

I ran another test on Order Foot and Chiv MAA. With the Order Foot I approached the AI's Chiv MAA. The AI moved to flank me because it knows the Order Foot is stronger in frontal confrontation. Now I turned the Order Foot around and faced away. Immediately, the AI charged into the back of the Order Foot inflicted 16 casualties and routed the Order Foot in less than 2 seconds. It's a dramatic difference from the frontal fighting to say the least.

[Soapyfrog]

Personally, I think the only thing that should be able to oppose an ordered formation of pikeman frontally is another ordered formation of pikemen... or a rain of arrows.

Pikemen DOMINATED the battlefield before the introduction of the musket. Swordsmen were used as light infantry for flanking or for taking advantage of gaps in the enemy line.

And there is no way you could induce a horse to charge into a line of pikes (you could not even induce a horse to charge into a line of bayonets, and that's just a short, pointy stick).

[Puzz3D]

It seems to me archers need more arrows if they are to effectivly damage a 100 man unit. I don't want to see the kill rate increased to the extent that your unit gets decimated by arrows before you can react to the attack.

[Jaret]

I haven´t said anything about changes in Game ballance. I simply haven´t made any tests or anything. I like the Game as it is atm ... tho I haven´t been playing it for long.

All I said was that ... after my own experience (in about 2 dozent LARP-Cons) it is my opinion that a Sword is superior to a Spear (not a Pike).

J.

[This message has been edited by Jaret (edited 09-22-2002).]

[anymapkoku]

I wasn't saying spears beat swords or vice versa. I was saying that what happens at a mock fight or final fantasy battle reenactment doesn't necesarily prove anything.
Michael, how do you actually know that engage at will is bad for Chiv sergeants etc? You seem like you just post whatever you heard or read somewhere else and add a little bit of history to it and post it on this forum.
Puzz, no offense or anything, but you're making a classic newbie mistake by comparing units at different costs to eachother. 150 maa vs 350 order? This is the same thing Kraxis did with with aums and guards. You're not going to give the other guy more florins are you?
And both units have to have the same front/rank length, otherwise the results are skewed.
--reaverlisk

[Kraxis]

Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:

Puzz, no offense or anything, but you're making a classic newbie mistake by comparing units at different costs to eachother. 150 maa vs 350 order? This is the same thing Kraxis did with with aums and guards. You're not going to give the other guy more florins are you?[/QUOTE]

Did you not notice he used Chiv MAA 275 florins????
That is certainly not newbie'ish, and I don't like that attitude of yours. I used my experience ok... that might be what you did, but I had used the Guards to great success agaimst AUMs. And I did make comparisons later that proved your point, I was never a fanatic about them.
BTW the AP will be upped in the patch so that the Guards are not unlikely to win now, we will see I guess.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[This message has been edited by Kraxis (edited 09-22-2002).]

[anymapkoku]

All I'm saying is you can't compare a 10 florin unit to a 432423423 florin unit. You can't say "this chiv maa for 275 loses to the order for 350 so the order must be better." You could give some other reason but based on that it's totally newbish. And your experience with aums vs guards was wrong as you later found out based on your own research. Don't take this personally though.

[Kraxis]

Ok, I won't take it personal now. But it was not very pleasant getting the word 'Newbie' thrown in my way, I have been here (not posting here all the time though) and the com (posting there all the time) since sep 2000.

Of course Puzz should never have used Chivs, he should have tested using Feudal MAA V1 or V2, they would possibly have won against the Order Foot.
But pitting the 'best' infantry against the 'best' spear is not that bad a comparison, and I'm quite sure V1 Chivs would have won (still I'll go for V2 Feudal MAA).

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Hakonarson]

Spear and sword perform different functions - spears (and pikes, which are nothing more than long spears!!) are cheap and easy to use.

However their main function is defensive, and they are only effective in close formations, preferably with large shields if used 1-handed. They present a "hedge" of points that is threatening and chellenging to get past. Even a well equipped and motivated swordsman needs to think twice facing them - Roman legionaries were recorded as having up to 6 pikes embedded in their shields, and being pushed backwards by the weilders of those pikes!!

Single-handed spearmen can be packed side-by side in a shield wall, which adds considerably to the defensive array, but not all did so. 2-handed spearmen usually arrayed themselves in deep formations to

Swordsmen on the other hand, are individual fighters, needing considerable room if they are to fence, otherwise being limited to stabbing.

One on one there's no great fight - the swordsman will easily get past the point of a spear - it is easy to knock away with a shield and one that's done the spearmen has to run away or drop the weapon and revert ot his sword (I've been on both sides of this equation - mind you there wasn't the fear of actually getting killed involved!!).

However a shorter "pike" weilded 2-handed is anotehr matter - it's like a quarterstaff, and is quite dangerous if used well (and yes I've done that too - it's great fun and can be a great surprise to a swordsman!! lol)

As for "pike" vs Spear - of course they're the same - both are just a long stick with a pointy end!

Many nations have historically used quite short "spears" (say 9-12 feet)in 2 hands - Welsh, Picts, Hittites, almughvars spring to mind immediately. Sometimes they had shields straped to their arms, sometimes not.

Other nations have used rather long spears (12 ft plus) single handedly - Early Scots and Flemish "pike" for example.

"Single handed" spears could be braced against the ground to receive cavalry.

[Puzz3D]

anymapkoku,

I not talking about multiplayer with upgrades. I'm talking about units that are all at the same upgrade level which is how you should compare them. How units at varying valor level compare is something entirely different. I didn't post the numbers, but the Order Foot blew away the Chiv MAA. The Strategy Guide says that swords are supposed to beat spears. There would have to be a sword unit that beats the Order Foot without any upgrades for that statement to be correct. Of course, it would be more expensive than 350 florins. I'm not saying the Chiv MAA should beat the Order Foot. I don't see any problem with the units performance relative to their basic cost except possibly the knights. Those 40 man knight units are very expensive given their basic stats, but you can get a lot out of them if you use them as a reserve unit and look for flanking opportunities. In general, the cost structure should be spear low, swords and ranged middle, and cav high. You can have a lot of individual variation in cost when you bring in differences in morale, armor and speed. The trick that makes the whole thing work is that low cost spears beat cav. That stops cav from being the dominant unit.

The problem is with the upgrade system if, when upgraded to equal cost, inexpensive units start beating units they are supposed to loose to. The upgrade system is much better than WE/MI, but it's still not right. Most online players are playing at 10K florins. That throws the unit balance out the window, and LongJohn agrees.


[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 09-22-2002).]

[Action]

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001998.html

[This message has been edited by Action (edited 09-23-2002).]

[anymapkoku]

Puzz, I think you're making a mistake here. Swords beat spears is not saying that all swords beat all spears. You're expecting any sword unit to beat any spear unit just because the manual says so? So a 324234 florin spear is suppossed to die to a 125 sword? I think it means that swords counter spears in the way that spears counter cav: Cost effectiveness-wise swords are superior to spears. A Fmaa will beat an order(I think) at equal florin. They meant "all things being equal" when they said swords beat spears. Would it be wrong to say that a 125 spearmen is inferior to a 1100 lancer just because the lancer beats the spearmen with 1/20 guys left? They are talking about cost effectiveness. That's why you have to compare units at equal florins. I'm not saying that you'll hve a 350 fmaa or 350 cmaa vs an order in a real battle. But for the purposes of comparing cost effectiveness, if you're not comparing them at equal florins, you're making a serious mistake.
--reaverlisk

[Michael the Great]

Anymapkoku,just that i don't have too many posts on this forum that doesn't mean that i'm a newbie,or that i haven't done my own series of battle tests.
Now,pikes aren't quite pole-axes,pole axes are more offensive(just noticed in a few battles that SAP,i think,were slaughtered by Chivalric Foot Knights),Haldberdiers,Chiv Foot Knoghts,Billmen have pole-axes and not spearmen/pikemen.
There are many cases in history that swords beat pikes,but a swordsman with light armor and no shield isn't going to beat spearmen/pikemen.
Hey,and btw,i didn't say anything(yet) about Chiv MAA or something,so I don't know why were you refering to me anymapkoku.
If spearmen/pikemen engage,they lose their rank bonus,so they get to an individual melee in wich they'll be massacred,coz their melee isn't that good.
(oh,and why don't Feudal Foot Knights don't carry any weapons??? i mean they should have swords but it's if they fight with their fists!! I've even paused the game,and zoomed in,no swords!!!!!!!!!!)

[Puzz3D]

anymapkoku,

I'm not making a serious mistake. Will you please read my post. I said, the sword would be more expensive than the spear it beats. I said, I don't see a problem with the units relative to their base cost. I don't think all swords should beat all spears. I just think there should be "a" sword unit that can beat the best spear unit. Upon re-reading the strategy guide, it's full of hedges on this issue.

The Strategy Guide says, "In terms of combat factor per florin, sword-armed infantry are probably the best value in the game. They will defeat most other infantry of similar price.", and this about spears, "Although spear units are likely to be defeated 'eventually' by sword-armed infantry of similar cost, their tenacious defense means they can resist for a long time."

There is no sword armed infantry of similar cost to the Order Foot.

I tested a V2 Feudal MAA (337 florins) vs V0 Order Foot (350 florins). It was close, but the Feudal MAA lost suffering losses of 48 to the 84 kills they got on the Order Foot before they routed. The Feudal MAA is 13 florins (3.7%) cheaper. You'll have to make another upgrade on the Feudal MAA making it more expensive than the Order Foot for it to decisively win.

There is another way of looking at cost parity. I can buy two Feudal MAA for 300 florins which is 50 florins less than the Order Foot. I frontally charged the Order Foot with both units simultaneously. The Feudal MAA lost loosing 86 men and killing 71.

It seems to me that this frontal matchup of 100 man spears and 60 man swords is following unit cost. Swords definitely do not counter spears in the way that spears counter cav. Spears get a +5 combat bonus when facing cav. Swords do not get a bonus when facing spears.

I ran a quick check on the 100 man Byz Inf swordsman vs Order Foot, and even that unit performs as it's cost would indicate in frontal assault. The Byz Inf has to get to V2 (394 florins) before it wins. The V0 Byz Inf is clobbered by the Order Foot.

What you have to do with the swords is attack the spear formations from the side or rear. The answer to unflankable camping spears is to shoot them. Arrows won't do here. You need the Arbalasters. The answer to spears that rush you is to flank them. CA was supposed to reduce the effectiveness of long thin lines in hold formation, and I hope they have because it makes flanking tactics very difficult to carry out.

[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 09-23-2002).]

[Kraxis]

Well Puzz long thin lines of spears are weak, they don't get the supporting lines which add +1 to attack and +2 to defence where there are 2 lines supporting. That means a spear unit will have to be in four lines to be most effective. Thin lines should be easy to defeat with the swords as they will break the lines and engage the spearmen in the flank.
But in all I agree with you, it is strange.

Perhaps swords should get a +1 to attack against spears. Not more as that would make spears too weak. That should make up for a lot of weaknesses of the swords.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Puzz3D]

Michael the Great,

If you look at the feudal foot knights closely they have swords, but they are not very obvious. In most of the views, they are holding the sword behind the shield.

[Puzz3D]

Kraxis,

Right about the loss of rank support bonuses. That should shift the advantage back to the swordmen enough.

I actually like the way you have to flank spearmen with swordmen. It creates a game where maneuvering is important. If the all spear rush is a problem in multiplayer, you could slow them down a bit. Loss of speed is a big disadvantage in multiplayer battles.

[Kraxis]

Dropping the speed would have to go for turning speed as well, or else the spears would just be the same as before just slower. Granted any archers would take a bigger chunk out of them, but we all know that archers are not very costeffective right now.

It is a good way to correct this, cav might get a chance again.
But it has the prospects of being too much or too little, while I feel +1 in attack to swords fighting spears would be fitting. Only the right swords would win, if at all, and not easily.
The most important aspect would be that players would now think once more before taking so many spears onto the field.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[hoof]

I find it interesting that the spear vs sword debate mirrors the debate of WW2 fighter aircraft. To sum up, before WW2 there were those advocating the tight turning maneuverable planes (like the Japanese Zero), and those advocating the fast heavy powerful, but not very well turning planes (like the American P47 Thunderbolt).

In 1vs1, a more maneuverable plane will have the edge and usually win, if both start on equal footing (co-altitude, co-speed). This would imply the maneuverable plane like the Zero would be better. However, in many vs many, the maneuverable planes cannot easily support each other (maneuver fights tend to degenerate quickly into 1 vs 1 fights). The fast/powerful planes *could* support each other, and in a many-vs-many fight they tend to defeat equal numbers of more maneuverable but slower planes.

Why do I bring this up? Because the sword is a great 1 vs 1 weapon, while the spear/polearm is a better weapon used in numbers. Swords are excellent 1 vs 1 weapons, which is why people have such respect for them (in peacetime, most fights are 1 vs 1, as in duels or other personal fights). However, when a unit of swordsmen engage the enemy, they inevitably engage in 1 vs 1 or 1 vs several fights each, and it's rather difficult to support each other. With spears/polearms, however, their effectiveness goes up dramatically with numbers and formations, to the level where a unit of spearmen can take on a unit of swordsmen very well, despite the fact that 1 vs 1, each spearman might not do so hot vs each swordsman.

I find it fascinating that two so very different military genres end up with very similar debates. In both of the very different cases, the weapon/vehicle that is best in 1 vs 1 is not necessarily the best in many vs many.

[Beeblebrox]

The key to all the rock-paper-scissors arguments in MTW that is often missed and only sporadically hinted at in this thread is TACTICS.

Polearms were weapons designed for defense in formation. Charging straight into a wall of pikeheads is not a wise battle tactic, and no matter what weapon you're wielding, you're likely to get hurt in the attempt.

Skirmishing with such a force, on the other hand, will get their attention and often get them to chase you. And if you can skirmish with them and hold their attention while your buddes get into position on their sides and rear (especially if they can move quickly like cavalry can), then your buddies' swords will make that pike formation look like, well, swiss cheese.

Even if they have really cheap K-Mart swords against gold-plated Rollex pikes.

[Puzz3D]

From my post above in this thread:

"What you have to do with the swords is attack the spear formations from the side or rear. The answer to unflankable camping spears is to shoot them. Arrows won't do here. You need the Arbalasters. The answer to spears that rush you is to flank them."

[BlackWatch McKenna]

I tend to use my spear units as the Anvil; and I generally use my sword units as the Hammer.

[CeeBod]

It'd be nice if Spear/Pike units took longer to turn, form and re-form - What I really hate is a unit of unprotected spears in the enemy's reserves turning to meet my flanking cavalry with ease, and facing it head on.

"How the **** did they all spin those long pikes around so quickly? -
Oh no, it's the Swiss synchronised Pike twirling team, run away!!!"

[Michael the Great]

Puzz3d is right on this one.
But swords shouldn't have a +1 attack vs spears or whatever advantage of this kind,because,in reality,they didn't have it.What they should really do,is to lower the melee factor(and lower the speed of SAP's!!!) for spears and raise their defence rating,so spears/pikes do what they normally do vs swords-last a looong way.
And as for swords,if the swordsmen aren't heavily armoured,they should give them more speed,so to flank better;and as for heavy swordsmen,they should never get past pikemen without proper armor and a SHIELD(maybe a bonus for units with shields-to add even more defence vs pikes).
And also INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ARROWS ARCHERS HAVE!!-they fave much to fewer arrows,in reality,the number was much greater.
Hmmmm,what i haven't tried,and I'm asking you is somebody tried swordsmen vs pole-axes---how do they match up????

"I,Michael-voyvod,from the mercy of God, rightfull ruler of Walachia,Carpathia and all of Moldavia!!"

[Del]

If I correctly understand what everyone here is saying, the balance currently sounds to be totally correct as far as spears vs. swords are concerned. It gives me some hopeful anticipation for a year from now when I might possibly get this game.

Additionally, I do not share Caebod's concerns about the turning speed of spears. When I played the demo, it seemed to be indeed appropriately slow, to where knights could end around and take advantage of it-- which was an enormous improvement over STW. IMO all of the turning rates and levels of disorder in ALL of the units of ALL types is wayyy too low to be realistic-- spears seem to fit nicely into the general paradigm. Remember-- keeping good order in a real situation is durned hard whether you've all got penknives or a ridiculous 29-ft pikes.

To respond to the Great Michael,Poleaxes and other similar short pole arms should defeat similarly armoured and equipped swordsmen, without any question. Perhaps legion-style swordsmen would plow through billmen, but men-at-arms with halberds should tear up them all.

Del

[Puzz3D]

Turning speed of the units seems fairly slow to me. If the unit is going to about face, all the individual men have to do is turn in place.

Axes and poleaxes are armor piercing weapons, but they have less effectiveness than intended because Activision had LongJohn tone them down before release, and, on top of that, he found a bug which eliminated the armor piercing effect on anything below 5 armor. He has fixed that bug, and it seems he's leaning to putting those units back up to their original effectiveness. I can say that halberdiers and billmen fell a little short of expectations in my multiplayer games.

[Kraxis]

Michael, this has nothing to do with historical facts anymore. It has something to do with gamebalance.
I know that swords did not have a destinct advantage, but to keep the game playable with other units than spears something has to be done.

Slowing the spears down is a possible solution, but it is far harder to balance. I don't want to see 4-5 patches before they finally have found the correct values.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Ligur]

Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:
Jaret wins the stupid award for this thread, live action roleplaying convention? Atleast you're anonymous on the internet. This isn't OgreTactics, just because you've used a double edged 2 handed sword of +4 lightning at your little convention there, doesn't mean you know anything about swords vs spears.
And Todorp, this isn't japan, these aren't master swordsmen. And in fact, have you ever really even seen any master swordsmen? I mean, an army in the mtw period probably saw a lot more action than any swordsmen you've watched has.
Newbies think MTW should be this way or that way just because in some movie they saw this ninja beat that samurai with this weapon and that somehow makes them an expert on how a video game should be balanced?
--reaverlisk[/QUOTE]

Hello,

you win the award of not contributing anything in your post, how ever inane the the ones you commented were. Say something that proves you are Mr. MacSmartypants. It only takes any monkey with a keyboard to throw insults online.