View Full Version : Swords,swords,swords....and,you guessed it! more swords!!
Michael the Great
09-21-2002, 03:44
Why are sword units so week against pikemen? i mean this game definetly isn't based on a simple rock/paper/scissors element,coz here you have it-spearmen beat cav head-on,cav(medium and mostly heavy) beat spearmen from the flanks and rear,and also,spearmen/pikemen are beaten by arrow fire-and there it is for u,quite more complex than that!
Hevay armoured infantry with swords should beat spearmen/pikemen,tough i'm not sure if they really do...
What are really the best sword units in the game?(HEY I CAN'T SEE ANY SWORD IN THE FEUDAL FOOT KNIGHT'S HAND!just pause and take a look-it's just like they're fighting with their fists!!)
Cheers(hmmm..first post from me..)
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
well, I know this should be true. but if i had a 7 foot staff with a big nasty ass sharp spade on the end of it, and you had a measly sword, who would win?
------------------
What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.
GAH!
Have problems with pikes? Try Vanya's solution! It's the amazing PikeGlo! Just rub this powerful solution all over the troublesome pikes and watch them just disappear right before your eyes! Peansant pikes, no problem! Professional pikes, no problem! Swiss armored uber pikes, no problem! Plus, you'll also get a handy spray nozzle and a wiping towel... FREE! And, with this one time offer, you get... not one, not two... but ten bottles of PikeGlo when you place your order. Normally, this goes for as much as $299.99, but you can get it now for just $19.99! Here's how to order...
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
Really though, you see a pike, take a gun. A bullet cares not what weapon you wield.
GAH!
Michael the Great
09-21-2002, 04:07
Nice....
Narf : if you fail to stab him as he charges you, and he gets beyond the point of the spear (by deflecting it with shield/sword), you're dead meat http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
That's why I think sword units should butcher spears...well, they should take heavy losses during the initial impact, but when they're looking at pikemen in the white of their eyes, they should totally wipe them out...
------------------
All is fair in love and war.
Well, maybe not in love.
[This message has been edited by Kobal2 (edited 09-20-2002).]
MajorPain
09-21-2002, 04:44
kobal 2, its the first 5 rows (i think) in a pike unit that fights so when they get past the first row of pikes they have a next row to get by and a next and a next...
cant be many swords fighter left after the impact and then when they fight only the first row of the swordsmen that can fight cause they dont have so long swords but still the first 5 rows of the pikemen.
Yes, there are several rows of pikemen/spearmen who can point their pikes/spears at any swordsmen trying to get to the guys in the first line. But I can't help to think that the farther back you stand the harder it will be for you to actually aim and use that long stick of yours with any accuracy because of all the guys standing in line in front of you. The area where you can effectively use your pike/spear without fear of hitting or tripping up your buddies can't be very big and a welltrained swordsman probably knows this and how to avoid getting spitted. Besides, why do you think many pike and spearmen also carried a shortsword or their pike/spear had a sharp end in the back too? To fight enemies who got past the pointy end of their sticks and to use the other end of what was left of that pointy stick as a last ditch weapon when it was broken, be it by sword, axe or dead horse.
It should be hard to get past a wall of pikes/spears but once you're up close and personal with a guy holding a pike/spear the business end of his weapon is somewhere behind you while the business end of yours is way to close to him for comfort.
I think in reality swords are far superrior to spears. The reason for ussing spears so much was because they were so cheap and easy to make. think about a spear can be made whithout iron, just plain wood. Clubs and spears were (except when used in special units like swiss pikemen against cavalry) weapons of the poor people.
Only the rich can afford a sword in the medieval time. Also i think that while spears are good for defence, in attack were week. i think it was realy hard to run whith a huge stick in hand.
well... perhaps pikemen should get a -ve for melee
The way I see it is that the makers of MTW simply take their stats from history. If you read up on the battles of the period pikes were supposedly a great weapon of that era.
The soldiers with spears AND shields are not using two handed pikes. A rather short one handed spear isn't nearly as effective as a long pike. In fact it is rather clumsy because it must be held near it's center to be used thus wasting half of its' length for balance. MAA should do well against these guys and cavalry should have an easier time with them than they do.
The genuine pikemen were tough cookies.
------------------
COGITOERGOVINCO
The Illustrated Man
09-21-2002, 13:58
Don't forget that pike units first two or three ranks can get into the fray and stick you with a variety of pointy bits... even if you get past the first rank, the guy in the second and third ranks are going to be looking to take you out or even pull you to the ground.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers, for he today that sheds his blood with me, shall be my brother be he ne're so vile, this day shall gentle his condition. And Gentlemen in England, now a bed,
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here and hold their Manhoods cheap, whilst any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispines day.
William Shakespeare - Henry V
I simply modded it myself.
The number of ranks that can effect the spearman's or pikeman's attack and defence are currently 2 and 4 respectively.
This imho is too many. Spearmen with one-handed spears should only really be able to get help from the immediate rank behind and 2-handed pikeman maybe 3 ranks.
So that's what i did. Spearman now only have 1 effective rank behind the first and pikemen 3!
It works a treat. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
=MizuDoc=
Hang on guys, let's get one thing straight here. People seem to be talking about Pikemen and Spearmen here as if their effect in battle is one and the same or almost identical.
I for one can accept Pikemen being lethal to Swordsman, but Spearmen? That's a whole different issue. From both a gameplay (ie. rock, paper, scissors) and historical perspective this is wrong.
Head to head Spearmen shouldn't be beating Swordsmen, and Swordsmen shouldn't have to overlap Spearmen to be competitive.
Austaro
Doc,
According to the Strategy Guide, spearmen only get bonuses for 2 supporting ranks and pikemen get bonuses for 4 supporting ranks because their weapon is longer. Is this not the case in the stat file?
Oh! I see, it is the case and you reduced them both by one rank.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 09-22-2002).]
Michael the Great
09-21-2002, 18:51
aaaaa....maan there you go with that rock/paper/scissors thing! forget it! it's not the case in this game!
Now,i tought at it and finally got the answer...speramen,if attacked frontally,they would use their shields at first and then stab the attacker with thy spear(this is because their spears are too short and they really need their shields to defend themselves before they can stab the enemy-remember than peasants too have spears but get NO BONUS vs cav),and the second rank would get their spears between those of the first rank,thus creating a wall of spears,very hard to get through( pikes get 4 ranks fighting,and the secret lies in that wall of spears/pikes i was saying about).
So,after the fron rank of spearmen is engaged the second will support it,but the problem is this-after the first ranks are dead,could the remaining ranks point their spears\pikes at the enemy and start again to support eachother?
When the swordsmen engage,it's a matter of time,if the swordsmen have good armor,shields,discipline-altough takeing casualties-their protective armor/shields will give them the time needed to get close enough.
As you see,there are many variables,one of them is the number of spearmen/pikemen and the number of swordsmen.
If equal numbers,and the swordsmen are heavy armoured,they get enough time to close up to spearmen and cut the apart.
Spearmen DO get beaten by byzaantine infantry ,i had about 120 spearmen vs about 60 byz infantry-the result-19 byz inf and about 30 spearmen routing,yeah but we all know that byz inf. are one of the best early infantry in the game...
So,this is the way it SHOULD go-if spearmen,in the back ranks ,after the first two ranks are dead ,DO manage to point their spears at the enemy than they can hold the back again and provoke heavy casualties(that is if their fighting against not to heavily armoured swordsmen)-BUT,if,for example,Heavy infantry meets pikemen,they come up close to them and charge in to that wall/barage of pikes in front of them,that barage is made from the spears from 4 ranks,so if the heavy infantry GET PAST THAT BARAGE,they can easily chop down the pikemen who's pikes are ussles after that.
Generally,Swordsmen(light) should have lower charges,but higher melee,while spearmen/pikemen,should have better charge,but a poorer melee.
Shouldn't be this way?
Michael the Great
09-21-2002, 23:54
Hope I haven't over-done it...
anymapkoku
09-22-2002, 04:15
Michael you sound like a real newbie at first impression. 120 spearmen vs 60 byz inf?
Quote while spearmen/pikemen,should have better charge,but a poorer melee.
Shouldn't be this way? [/QUOTE]
no... the swordsman is the man who charges, the blokes forming the Highland Charge would have small shields and whatever light-yet-very-pointy-object they had, while the men forming the tight shiltrons (and the infinetly more successful in a melle) were armed with 7-8 metre pieces of wood with very sharp points.
------------------
Stu35s MTW Site - Hints,Lists,Facts,And Porn (http://www.angelfire.com/games4/mtw) (one of those is a lie)
http://www.geocities.com/wolflord_uk/stu35
Alba Gu Bragh
I played at a lot of Live Action RolePlaying Conventions. I actualy have fought with a Sword and a Spear. They almost have the same efficiency. Pikes would do very well while the enemy is kept at range, but when the swordsman get into close quaters with them, the pikeman go down.
The Weapon to defeat Spears/Pikes is the two handed sword which was originaly designed to cut their heads off, rendering the weapon useless. Gallowglass-Warriors should preform quite well vs. Spears/Pikes. (haven´t tested it tho)
But the main weapon vs. Spear-/Pike-man stays the Bow. The lenght of the weapon usualy slows them down so they should be an easy target for bowmen or even better mounted bowmen. For armoured spear-/pike-man use arbalests. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
[This message has been edited by Jaret (edited 09-22-2002).]
I had played some Iai do, the real Japanese sword art, not Kendo, which is with a bamboo sword. I have seen masters of both sword and spear. Master swordsman against master spearman is damn difficult. The swordsman is more on the defense. In formation the spears clearly have the upper hand. I tend to agree with the power of the spears in MTW.
anymapkoku
09-22-2002, 12:01
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
Spearmen and pikemen changed to walk slower than swordsmen and missile units made more powerful might work.
Papewaio
09-22-2002, 15:43
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]
1) Cut the attitude and don't go name calling.
2) If you don't wish to believe other patrons use facts to make your point not belligerence.
3) Romans used spears. Get in close they switched to thrusting swords. As did the samurai often. Historically naginata often out did katana in one on one fights... once you get past the blade you still have to cope with the shaft and that can be formidable... likewise billmen. You can compare samurai and romans with medieval infantry, although it does help to consider armour as well when doing so.
4) If you don't believe me, take a look at the many prints of the Samurai and you will see spear/naginata armed warriors fending off others... naturally in warfare one uses the best weapon for the situation at hand. Likewise check out the art work of various periods and the literature and you find it wasn't just sword sword sword that ruled any encounter.
5) Swords were a weapon in the arsenal of a medieval warrior not the only one. Knights used lances (spears) as did many sword equipped foot soldiers. The main claim to fame swords had was as a mark of station due to expense, duels and as an effective weapon against lightly armoured opponents (I'm a rich noble and you are a peasant with a turnip en garde). So in short even if you had a sword when you turned up for a battle you normally where smart enough to bring a long pointy stick.
Michael the Great
09-22-2002, 16:18
This is geting very interesting,and we could give countless historical examples based on this,but it only works how i told you before:
Remember this isn't cav vs spearmen! and there are a few more variables that can affect the final outcome in swords vs spears/pikes.
Now,spearmen/pikemen are supposed to do well against enemyes attacking frontally(multiple rank bonus),so-light swordsmen attacking a spearmen/pikemen formation should lose,but they are lighter so should be able to flank them more easily.
-Heavy swordsmen(with shields,and heavy armor,and also good close range fighting),would trash the spearmen,but when it comes to the pikemen(ESPECIALLY Swiss Armoured Pikemen),it takes the most heavily armoured sword infantry to break in to their formation(Also consider that these relationships appear when the spearmen/pikemen and swordsmen are in equal numbers);a good thing the devs should take note is that,when in equal numbers,heavily armoured swordsmen should really break IN TO THE pike formation(like cav breaks archers).Yes,indeed,pike formations are not breakable by cav,BUT THEY SHOULD BE BY HEAVY SWORDSMEN,I hope the creators take note for the expansion.
So, this is the way it really works(swords vs spears),and just think of it this way,and not about some silly rock/paper/scissors game.
Hope i've cleared it up for those who wanted to know.
(Oh,and btw,I forgot that byz infantry come in groups of 100...sorry,but really 60 byz infantry will eat 120 spearmen ALIVE!).
"I Michael-voyvod,from the mercy of God,ruler of Walachia,Carpathia and all of Moldavia!!"
[This message has been edited by Michael the Great (edited 09-22-2002).]
Michael the Great,
I have a flat map. I tested Feudal MAA vs spearmen and pikemen in custom game on normal difficulty which should be balanced. The Feudal MAA are 15 wide by 4 deep engage at will. The spearmen and pikemen are 20 wide by 5 deep hold formantion. I think Feudal MAA are the weakest swordsman unit in the French and English armies which are the factions I used. The Feudal MAA were French in each test. The Feudal MAA won each time.
Human vs AI losses:
Feudal MAA vs Spearmen: 13 vs 38
Spearmen vs Feudal MAA: 81 vs 25
Feudal MAA vs Pikemen: 20 vs 44
Pikemen vs Feudal MAA: 78 vs 35
The Feudal MAA kill spearmen at a rate of about 3 to 1, and they kill pikemen at a rate of about 2 to 1. I don't see any problem here. The 60 swords beat the 100 spears and pikes in frontal assault without wrapping around. This is the most favorable situation for the spears and pikes. A clue that the spears and pikes are inferior to the Feudal MAA is that the AI hesitates to frontally assault the Feudal MAA. The AI does not hesitate to frontally assault the spear or pike with the Feudal MAA.
Incidentally, the replays show full details of each unit on both sides. So, you can see the morale, fatigue and if the units are winning or not. That's a great addition to the replay feature, and I thank LongJohn or is it Target for including it.
Puzz3D, they will however generally lose against equal florin chivalric sergeants or order foot, which is what they are likely to face online.
Emp. Conralius
09-22-2002, 21:09
I think it goes like this. If you were a swordwmen and you fought 1-on-1 with a man armed with a pike, you would probably win. But if a unit of swordsmen charge into a wall of gleaming pikes, well that's a different story...
Michael the Great
09-22-2002, 22:14
Interesting tests there Puzz3D!
I've done quite a few of my own.Hey,also remember that spearmen/pikemen DO get the rank bonus,regardless of hold formation(but this works better on hold formation).
But remember that if spearmen/pikemen will ENGAGE the swordsmen or both units(let's say of equal number of men each) engage each other,the chances that spearmen/pikmen will lose raise(coz their formation gets broken up when they engage,also lose their extra rank bonus,so they'll get butchered by the superior melee fighting swordsmen-in most cases i believe).
One of the most interesting tests i,ve fone was Janissary Heavy Infantry vs Swiss Armoured Pikemen,in wich,after heavy fighting,the JHI managed to rout the pikemen; the problem is that one time,it happened that the SAP managed to rout the Janissaryes.
Hmmmmm....I wonder if anybody has tried this test,so he could give me his results....
"Asta-i Pohta ce am puhtit eu!!"
Krasturak
09-22-2002, 22:32
Quote Originally posted by Jaret:
The Weapon to defeat Spears/Pikes is the two handed sword which was originaly designed to cut their heads off, rendering the weapon useless.[/QUOTE]
Gah! Cut heads off! Gah!
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).]
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.
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
09-22-2002, 22:58
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).
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.
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
09-23-2002, 01:37
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
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
09-23-2002, 04:47
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.
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
09-23-2002, 05:25
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.
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).]
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001998.html
[This message has been edited by Action (edited 09-23-2002).]
anymapkoku
09-23-2002, 09:05
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
09-23-2002, 16:54
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!!!!!!!!!!)
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).]
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
09-23-2002, 22:10
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.
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
09-23-2002, 22:55
I tend to use my spear units as the Anvil; and I generally use my sword units as the Hammer.
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
09-24-2002, 00:23
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!!"
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
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.
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!
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.
Red Inquisition
09-24-2002, 20:11
What the game needs is a unit that was historicaly used to combat pikes and polearms. The Swiss and Germans use the Zweihander sword to cut the pikeheads off. The swords were up to 6ft. and could have a Flameberge blade which was believed to cut the shaft of the pike better. Here is a pic of one without the flameberge blade. http://ageofchivalry.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&DID=46&Product_ID=631&CATID=37
Here is a pic of one with a flameberge blade. http://ageofchivalry.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&DID=46&Product_ID=1558&CATID=37
------------------
***Metalpriest***
"Bringing the Faith of Metal to the boyband Heathins"
[This message has been edited by Red Inquisition (edited 09-24-2002).]
Michael the Great
09-24-2002, 20:30
Quote Originally posted by 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.
[/QUOTE]
Ahem,well...NO.Why not increase the number of arrows of archers and the turning and regrouping time for pikemen?
I know balance has to exist in the game.....but why not make it more like it actually was,i also think,for game balance reasons,that spearmen/pikemen(depending on the type of unit that charges them),should particullary get some kind of penalty when hit from the flanks or from the rear.
Remember,swordsmen don't need to get any kind of bonuses vs spearmen/pikemen,they just need to have a (clearly) bigger melee than spears/pikes.
Michael the Great,
They do. The swordsmen have the best combat/cost ratio. Once they get past the rank bonuses of the spears and pikes they have the upper hand.
I'm not saying that perhaps a bit of rebalancing isn't necessary. But if spears and polearms are somewhat dominant now, that is where they should stay. They were dominant historically.
I can hear a legitimate issue with the arrow count gripe.. but if Kraxis will for a moment allow me to pass a small judgement.. his comments seem to come more from having played STW, in which spears were a nothing but an anti-cav tool in MP, and disliking the new feel of MTW.
As long as the head-on effectiveness of swords and spears is relatively close (which it definitely is now), swords will always have a niche no matter which is the more dominant. Swords and spears each have a number of divergent properties which put them into roles which sometimes overlap but oftentimes are quite different.
Del
Del, it is more than STW-feel, it is simply that spears are less fun because of their need to be in Hold. I don't want that to be too strong.
It is not because I want swords to be stronger, but I want balance between swords and spears.
And spears were much more than anti-cav in STW, they were the mainstay of any army, basically up to 50%, and in some cases more (not counting gunarmies).
If the supporting ranks were removed from pikes and spears they might become too weak, and personally I feel that it is a very unique and interesting aspect. So I would never think that should happen.
What we have left is upping the swords or directly weakening the spears. Which do you want?
And spears were certainly not that strong in those times, it wasn't until the Swiss reinvented the mobile phalanx that pikes got the upper hand. Spears, such as those we see now, were never that strong.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Michael the Great
09-24-2002, 23:04
Righ on this one.....but this confrontation swords vs spears/pikes is much more variable than,let's say pikes vs cav,where you know who'll win.
Puzz said that Byz Inf needed to be valour 3 to beat the Order Foot(Have to test this my self too),i personally like this,coz swordsmen needed to have good morale and individual skills to face a spear/pike formation head-on.
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Quote Originally posted by Michael the Great:
Why are sword units so week against pikemen
[/QUOTE]
Bit of a stupid question.
A bloody great pike or spear against a bloke with a sword and who do you expect to win?
The counter-unit for spears and pikes must be missile troops surely.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Jaret:
I played at a lot of Live Action RolePlaying Conventions. I actualy have fought with a Sword and a Spear. They almost have the same efficiency. Pikes would do very well while the enemy is kept at range, but when the swordsman get into close quaters with them, the pikeman go down.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm! I think the point you have overlooked here Jaret is that, whilst on a 1 to 1 basis, slipping past the point might work. When up against the a formed unit of spear or pike armed troops there is no point to slip past.
The men in the front rank and covered by the points of the men in the second and those in turn by the points of the men in the third and so on.
So each point is covered by the point of the weapon behind him. Slip past one and the next will gut you.
I have heard of troops ducking under the points but that would leave you terribly vulnerable.
The best tactic would be to use the pikemans weakness against him. He can't carry a shield so shoot him. Also he can't protect his left flank because his weapons are locked by the men in front of him so turn his flank.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Michael the Great
09-25-2002, 00:04
But what about two-handed swordsmen-these must of been used against other-non spear troops,coz they have no shield....
How were these actually used??
Red Inquisition
09-25-2002, 00:18
Large two-handed swords were used against pike formations. See my links above for examples. I'll see if I can find any specific battles where this is documented.
------------------
***Metalpriest***
"Bringing the Faith of Metal to the boyband Heathins"
Michael the Great
09-25-2002, 00:28
Quote Originally posted by Red Inquisition:
Large two-handed swords were used against pike formations. See my links above for examples. I'll see if I can find any specific battles where this is documented.
[/QUOTE]
AGAINST PIKE??????? WITH NO SHIELD???????????????
I guess not.........
Red Inquisition
09-25-2002, 00:29
The large swords were use to cut the heads off of the pikes. A pike with no head is just a stick. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I'm still looking for some hard facts. Give me some time to see what I can find.
------------------
***Metalpriest***
"Bringing the Faith of Metal to the boyband Heathins"
[This message has been edited by Red Inquisition (edited 09-24-2002).]
Red Inquisition
09-25-2002, 00:44
Ok here is a quote for you. This is not from a battle but from a Medieval swordsmanship web site.
"Technically, true two-handed swords (epee’s a deux main) were actually Renaissance, not Medieval weapons. They are really those specialized forms of the later 1500-1600's, such as the Swiss/German dopplehänder/bidenhänder (zweihander is actually a fairly modern term), used for fighting against pike-squares (they would hack paths through lobbing the tips off the poles). English ones were sometimes referred to as slaughterswords (after the German schlachterschwerter). Two-handed swords are not wielded in the same manner as a long-sword or even a great-sword. Their size and weight demand a variety of different movements and actions. In Germany, England, and elsewhere schools of defence taught their use even for single-combat. Typically their blades could range over six feet long but only weigh 4-6 pounds. They were well-balanced for wide, sweeping blows and could also employ spear-like moves. They had extra-long handles, enlarged pommels, and often had large ring-hilts and pointed lugs or flanges on the extended ricasso. A common technique was to grab the ricasso in the other hand to quickly shorten the blade’s length and increase its maneuverability."
Here is a link to the site. http://www.thearma.org/medsword2.htm
I'm still looking for some more stuff. I'll update you as I find some.
------------------
***Metalpriest***
"Bringing the Faith of Metal to the boyband Heathins"
Michael the Great
09-25-2002, 01:04
Thanks there,Red http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
anymapkoku
09-25-2002, 01:29
If I recall, Order and fmaa were about even. I don't know how much more balanced you can get than that. But Chiv Sergeants beat order, and Fmaa beat chiv sergeants.
Puzz, if you admit swordsmen are more cost effective, why are you so worried about spears?
And what contributions have you made with your post, Ligur?
--reaverlisk
anymapkoku...
V1 chivs have these stats 5/0/4/3/2 (charge/melee/defence/armour/morale) for 375 florins
V0 Order Foot 5/0/3/3/2 for 350 florins. That is basically the same for the same money. Chivs will win no doubt but not as surely as you seem to think. So the line you talk about is not as linear.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
anymapkoku,
Why do you think I'm worried about spears? As far as I know, I'm not worried about them, and I never made any statement to that effect. In any case, LongJohn has increased the cost of spears and pikes in the patch which will help them relative to swords.
anymapkoku
09-25-2002, 09:28
Kraxis, what point are you making about order and chiv sergeants? Chiv sergs have better defense and are more cost effective, but orders are good for their morale in that they exude a +4 morale bonus if I'm not mistaken. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. So the best combination would be chiv sergeants/orders in front, for a high defense/high morale combo holding the line while you put your real money into flankers(swordsmen.) So what if chiv sergs only slightly beat orders? Chiv sergs are good for what spearmen are suppossed to be used for, holding the center while youre flankers go around the side. Order don't do this as well and make poor flankers.
fmaa= flankers
cs= defense
order = morale bonus
All three units have their strengths and weaknesses, I like to get both order and chiv ser.
--reaverlisk
check out the history forum.
There's a debate there between swords and spears and they examples like the romans(swords) vs. macedonians(spears) along with a few others.
------------------
"samishika wa nai shitte irukara saigo wa itsumo hitori to"
"I'm not lonely Because I know I'll be Alone at the end"
email me at: Luftwaffle@mad.scientist.com
Michael the Great
09-25-2002, 17:18
Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
anymapkoku,
Why do you think I'm worried about spears? As far as I know, I'm not worried about them, and I never made any statement to that effect. In any case, LongJohn has increased the cost of spears and pikes in the patch which will help them relative to swords.[/QUOTE]
Ooops...not such a good idea.Spears(and even pikes) were much cheaper than swords.
Ohh maaan,just tried those Janissary Heavy Inf,pretty good in both defence AND attack.
Oh,and btw,will the devs fix that bug in any of the next games of the series(maybe even the add-on) where the back ranks of a unit just sit there doing nothing,instead of trying more to get in to direct combat??
Michael the Great,
I believe that each man can only engage up to 2 other men. That's why you see many men in a larger unit standing still when it's fighting a smaller unit.
Cost is a balancing mechanism. It has a big effect in multiplayer. You can get smaller adjustments by changing cost because the minimum change you can make by adjusting the hth combat stats is 20%.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 09-25-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 09-25-2002).]
Pigwilliam
09-25-2002, 21:02
Pikes and spears were historically vulnerable to:
(A)missile weapons, due to the men in the unit being packed tightly together, and the unit being slow-moving to keep in formation.
(B)swords, due to the fact that once a unit of swordsmen penetrates a pike/spear formation they are past the points of their opponents' weapons and get stuck in (literally) at close range.
The is proved by:
(A)every medieval english victory using longbows against the spear/pike-armed scots
(B)the Romans vs Greeks and others using spears. And in late medieval/renaissance times the Spanish sword-and-buckler men designed and effective at destroying pike columns.
Pigwilliam
09-25-2002, 21:18
I should have said/added:
"This is proved by:
(A)every medieval english victory using longbows against the spear/pike-armed scots. Bannockburn illustrates the point as outnumbered scots spearmen were able to defeat the english cavalry as the english archers were unable to get into a position to shoot the scots."
A point missed.....Pike blocks depended on their unit integrity ie a massed close ranked wall of points coming towards the enemy. Hence their vulnerability to bows.
They were always therefore most at risk when they lost integrity because of terrain or being hit in flank or rear etc.
To use a sword you need room to swing it, therefore such troops must be in loser formation.
Seems to me that the pikes (and to a lessor extent spears) should be better than swords provided they hit them frontally and in good fromation.
Swords should be better when the pike block/spears are disrupted.
Exception, double handed cutting weapon which can chop off pike/spear head, making it only a long stick.
Red Inquisition
09-25-2002, 21:31
Short swords don't need to be swung they can be used to trust also. Thrusting swords became very popular as plate became more popular. You cannopt slash through plate very well but you can thrust through it.
------------------
***Metalpriest***
"Bringing the Faith of Metal to the boyband Heathins"
Michael the Great
09-26-2002, 00:20
Swordsmen armed with large shields should be able to break spear formations(not sure about pikes..),but the question is,can the back ranks get sufficient space to point their spears at the enemy(but enough space-without disrupting their formation)??
Soapyfrog
09-26-2002, 00:28
The counter to pikemen are pikemen or missile units.
Only one exception... armored troops with long two-handed swords. No shield, since it would just get in the way.
They would chop the heads off the pikes.
Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't (i.e. a pike unit advancing at the double is really tough to stop in this way)
anymapkoku
09-26-2002, 01:39
You guys are missing the point of this thread, it's to discuss multiplayer and why people use the same unit and what to do about it.
Everyone already knows all of the history of swords and spears and it's amazing how many people think they're actually being informative by posting commonly known trivia.
Red Inquisition
09-26-2002, 01:52
2+2=4
Is that informative enough for you? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
Actualy, the thread was about how swords should beat pikes in multi-player. We are giving facts (read not flamming insults) on why it should or should not be this way.
------------------
***Metalpriest***
"Bringing the Faith of Metal to the boyband Heathins"
[This message has been edited by Red Inquisition (edited 09-25-2002).]
anymapkoku
09-26-2002, 02:10
Isn't that what I said? "use the same unit" ie "swords" or "spears."
Nothing you've said has been informative even if I were attending a history lesson.
Michael the Great
09-26-2002, 22:45
Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:
Isn't that what I said? "use the same unit" ie "swords" or "spears."
Nothing you've said has been informative even if I were attending a history lesson.[/QUOTE]
If you don't like this topic...then just leave people alone to post...stop bothering plz.
Some sword units beat spears(like byz inf beating spearmen),but pretty few beat pikemen(swords can't bit SAP's i think).
Long swords were good if combined with strong armor...but NOT to cut of pikes or something..just to dig deep in the pike formation.
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
AnyMap.... go out into life and get some real enemies. Fast...
Michael the Great
10-05-2002, 23:08
Hi guys,i'm back from a little period i couldn't join this topic.
K,now,WHY IF I CHARGE SPERAMEN FROM THY REAR OR FLANK,WHY DO I ONLY BREAK THEIR FORMATION BUT CAN'T GET IN TO IT(LIKE I DO WHEN CHARGING CAV INTO ARCHERS)?????
NOW,THAT'S A QUESTION!!!!
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but the answer seems somewhat obvious:
Spears shouldn't be able to CHARGE and still maintain their rank/formation bonuses after the charge. In other words, a charging spear unit becomes a one shot weapon. If they dont break the enemy on the impact, they should lose HARD. A charging spear unit gives up its defensive enhancenments for the duration of the melee.
There should be some exceptions, obviously, for the well disciplined Pike formations and whatnot, but your run of the mill Spear infantry (the ones that every says are cheaper than swords to produced) should NOT have the discipline to charge and still maintain defensive bonuses vs swordsmen.
If this is done, the 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' formula is completed:
Spears can defend, but lose most of the 'spear bonuses' if they initiate the charge.
Swords can attack, but will have a hard time dislodging good ordered spearmen.
Cav can ride through Swords, or hit Spears in the flank when they are 'held' by frontal units. The can also run off archers and hit disordered spears who have charged.
Archers prevent the whole thing from being stagnant. If someone only has Spears, archers can eventually whittle them away because the spears should have a hard decision as to whether to break formation and charge the archers, which would leave them VERY vulnerable to opposing swords. Ammo limits on Archers might have to be adjusted upwards a tad to keep it all nice and neat.
Thoughts?
Talenn
Michael the Great
10-06-2002, 00:28
Quote Originally posted by Talenn:
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but the answer seems somewhat obvious:
Spears shouldn't be able to CHARGE and still maintain their rank/formation bonuses after the charge. In other words, a charging spear unit becomes a one shot weapon. If they dont break the enemy on the impact, they should lose HARD. A charging spear unit gives up its defensive enhancenments for the duration of the melee.
There should be some exceptions, obviously, for the well disciplined Pike formations and whatnot, but your run of the mill Spear infantry (the ones that every says are cheaper than swords to produced) should NOT have the discipline to charge and still maintain defensive bonuses vs swordsmen.
If this is done, the 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' formula is completed:
Spears can defend, but lose most of the 'spear bonuses' if they initiate the charge.
Swords can attack, but will have a hard time dislodging good ordered spearmen.
Cav can ride through Swords, or hit Spears in the flank when they are 'held' by frontal units. The can also run off archers and hit disordered spears who have charged.
Archers prevent the whole thing from being stagnant. If someone only has Spears, archers can eventually whittle them away because the spears should have a hard decision as to whether to break formation and charge the archers, which would leave them VERY vulnerable to opposing swords. Ammo limits on Archers might have to be adjusted upwards a tad to keep it all nice and neat.
Thoughts?
Talenn[/QUOTE]
Thoughts,yes.
Just charge cav in to thy rear or flank of spearmen/pikemen and they only break their formation,but don't go through it!
Am I missing something,or does this only happen.(Btw,heavy cav goes in to thy archer formation with no prob).
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Lord Romulous
10-06-2002, 09:52
i have a question on the use of spears.
if i order my line of spears(sergants or the like) to charge a unit of swords head on (with hold formaiton on), and just let them attack each other is that the best way to get maximum effectivness from my spears.
or should i
leave the spears in hold formation standing still and let the sword unit attack them front on. i just do nothing and let the spears defend them selves. is this the best way to employ spears? (by employ i mean max causulties to enemy, min to my spears)
or should i be doing a combination of the above if so please explain how.
thanks. im really after a definitive answer if their is one.
btw im talking about the game as it currently stands not improved versions of it that are being discussed here. (actually come to think of it im not in the right topic but oh well. id apreciate an answer nevertheless.)
thanks guys and girls
(is their actually any girls on this board???)
[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 10-06-2002).]
Michael the Great
10-06-2002, 17:44
Just as GilJay once posted-the rank bonus applyes for spearmen fighting in multiple ranks..they don't have to fight in hold-however,if the formation is broken,no rank bonus,so in hold formation,the rank bonus works better.
Oh,and things like charge cav in wedge then switch to close are crap.
This is happening because the charge are not truly realistic.
They should make thy charges last longer and have a REAL effect.So,while the charge happens(and it lasts much longer) you'll get that -3 to defence,and after they get in to thy mellee,it should sitch automatically back to the normal attack and defence or something like that,coz wedge is usseles after the charge,and it's not realistic switching back all the time to close...there is no more close or wedge after they get in to the mellee.
Now,that IS THE WAY IT SHOUL BE DONE,and I really hope we'll see it in thy expansion.
Btw,will they reconsider the swordsmen Vs spermen/pikemen in thy patch????
Cyricist
10-06-2002, 18:14
Quote Originally posted by andrewt:
Spearmen and pikemen changed to walk slower than swordsmen and missile units made more powerful might work. [/QUOTE]
The game is good the way it is. If you cannot beat an adversary, 99% of the time it will not be because of 'historical inaccuracy', but because you as a player don't understand what your facing.
This reminds me of the Almohad Urban Militia discussion (which is, imho, one of the few units that is REALLY a bit too strong, though if you develope quick enough they are easily overcome).
ravenking
10-06-2002, 19:16
Okay, maybe I am missing something. This is a long thread, but no one yet has mentioned the size difference between MAA and spear. This game takes numbers into account, and 60 vs. 100 isn't exactly a fair balance. Spearmen have a number advantage over MAA and this contributes to thier dominance.
------------------
"You there, knight!" "Yes, sir?" "We just lost that battle. Why did you order your men to charge that unit of enemy sergeants?" "Uh, I was impetuous, sir" "'IMPETUOUS!? Impetuous!? Men! Kill him, I want his head!"
CA said that they will be boosting swordsmen a bit in the patch.
Grifman
Which will destroy any chance of Muslim armies being balanced with them in MP.
Isn't it bad enough now with mass MAA-types "rushing" in online games?
Michael the Great
10-08-2002, 03:13
Yes,but CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW will it be fixed it thy patch???
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Well I'm puzzled by all this Spear v Sword talk.
Personally, if I was ask to bet on the outcome of such a fight then all other things being equal I would put my money on the spear unit every time.
Having said that my Almohad army has only one spear unit in it which I obtained from a bribed rebellion. The vast majority of my infantry are AUM's that are sword armed and I trust them to deal with any spear unit the enemy throws at me so I don't know what everyone's getting in such a stress about.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Michael the Great
10-08-2002, 22:47
Yes,yes,yes...but I think that makeing spearmen cost more is a bad ideea.
Pikemen SHOULD cost more...but spearmen...no.
Am I right that every time u hit a spearmen/pikemen unit from thy flank or rear,it only breaks it up but u can't go through it like through archers.
Is defence still appiled when flanked?It should be cut in half,coz u can't defend well when you're hit from thy flank.
Also,when hit in thy rear,the attacker's melle should be left in place(with no bonuses) but the defender's defence should be removed.
Remember,you can't defend at all when hit from thy back!!!
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Michael, haven't you noticed that the spearmen simply turn around and face the oncomers...
They even take a good bit out of knights if they are hit in the flank.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Michael the Great
10-09-2002, 16:48
Yeah,I've noticed that,and it can be devastating when up against pikemen.
Why not slow down pikemen as they turn(I believe there IS a characteristic about how does turning affect the speed of a unit),and give archers a bigger number of arrows.
Oh,and btw,how will the swordsmen be tuned up in thy patch?
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Michael the Great
10-10-2002, 15:59
I mean,shouldn't piemen be breaked much more easily when outflanked??
Pikes are good defensive weapons but swords beat them...or they should when they flank them...
Pikemen were hard to train but very effective
And longswordsmen with no shield had no chance gong thorugh....they just could't take off the head of thy pike,what if the pike was made of iron???
Michael the Great
10-11-2002, 16:06
Hey you people,why aren't thou interested in thy topic??
I thought swordsmen vs spearmen is an interesting duel...
My current question is:how will be swordsmen tuned up in the patch???
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
On balance, I dislike the whole "swordsman vs spearman" distinction. I suspect it is rather artificial e.g. the Byzantine and Roman foot used both weapons as need be; I suspect Medieval men-at-arms on foot also had very mixed weaponry. I guess it is supposed to give a "rock-scissors-paste" aspect to the combat but generally it doesn't ring true.
When you talk about phalanxes and pikemen, then I can see the distinction. I have read of Spanish sword and buckler men trying to break the Swiss; of Roman swordsmen tackling Macedonian phalanxes etc. But a sword vs spear distinction seems artificial and I hope they drop it in the Ancient Total War, CA hopefully do next.
There might be a case for modelling two-handed swords and halberds separately, e.g. especially good for flanking pikes. However, even there, I suspect it is a bit of a grey area.
In general, I would think well-formed pikes should normally beat other infantry face-to-face, but be very vulnerable on the flanks. I also think pikes should be slower to move and maneouvre than common or garden infantry unless very well trained (eg Macedonians or Swiss).
Bottomline: I am not convinced about the "spear vs sword vs axe vs polearm" distinctions in the game. They seem to be tacked on to wider qualitative differences between troops (men-at-arms vs militia) and probably would prefer the weapons to be more generic, unless clear historical roots could be shown.
All this does not detract from my enjoyment of the game, though. Disbelief is still suspended!
Protoman
10-11-2002, 19:03
Quote "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."[/QUOTE]
While you went on to make a valid point, this is not correct.
It wasn't that turn fighters couldn't support themselfs, it was simply that the zero pilots were never TRAINED to support each other. They were taught to lone wolf it and go for personal glory.
On the other hand, the American planes were outclassed in 1vs1 and had to develop the squad system out of nessesity.
Accually, in that respect you analogy IS correct...
Medival swordsmen were only TRAINED for 1 vs 1 or large melee duels.
The pikemen, on the other hand, were TRAINED to fight well as a team to offset their 1vs1 weakness.
Protoman
10-11-2002, 19:12
Quote
To use a sword you need room to swing it, therefore such troops must be in loser formation.
[/QUOTE]
It's called a stab and was the dominate attack method for sword wielding infantry.
Forget all that fancy fencing and slashing crap. Much like martial arts, when you accually get into a real fight all that frill and techique goes right out the window in favor of what accually is practical.
Slashing was almost useless against armored foes and tightly packed areas, leaving little opportunies for what is seen as traditional swordfighting.
Michael the Great
10-11-2002, 21:04
Quote Originally posted by Simon Appleton:
On balance, I dislike the whole "swordsman vs spearman" distinction. I suspect it is rather artificial e.g. the Byzantine and Roman foot used both weapons as need be; I suspect Medieval men-at-arms on foot also had very mixed weaponry. I guess it is supposed to give a "rock-scissors-paste" aspect to the combat but generally it doesn't ring true.
When you talk about phalanxes and pikemen, then I can see the distinction. I have read of Spanish sword and buckler men trying to break the Swiss; of Roman swordsmen tackling Macedonian phalanxes etc. But a sword vs spear distinction seems artificial and I hope they drop it in the Ancient Total War, CA hopefully do next.
There might be a case for modelling two-handed swords and halberds separately, e.g. especially good for flanking pikes. However, even there, I suspect it is a bit of a grey area.
In general, I would think well-formed pikes should normally beat other infantry face-to-face, but be very vulnerable on the flanks. I also think pikes should be slower to move and maneouvre than common or garden infantry unless very well trained (eg Macedonians or Swiss).
Bottomline: I am not convinced about the "spear vs sword vs axe vs polearm" distinctions in the game. They seem to be tacked on to wider qualitative differences between troops (men-at-arms vs militia) and probably would prefer the weapons to be more generic, unless clear historical roots could be shown.
All this does not detract from my enjoyment of the game, though. Disbelief is still suspended![/QUOTE]
I respect your point of view.But it seems that you treat it with ignorance.
Swords vs Spears IS important....
Proffesional swordsmen will beat poorly trained spearmen,but the number favors the spearmen who come in 100 man piles,this is a very important advantage-coz u ain't gonna get elite swordsmen in more than 60 man units.
Spears/pikes r cheap,pikes needing more training than spears.
Remember,only a small spear isn't enuf.Peasants have spears,so what?do they get advantage vs cav..NOoOoOooooo..
That's why spearmen have a shield as well.
Also,short spears r piece o cake for MAA and other good swordsmen.
But pikemen r just too powerfull to be dealt with.
Why don't they reform,regroup,turn.move,more slower than other infantry?
Why do they turn to face ur flank attack?
Why can't u go in to their formation like through archers when hit hard by cav?
So,how will they fix swordsmen in thy patch?
Unitll teh patch....I'll stcik to Byz Inf for faceing spearmen...
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Soapyfrog
10-11-2002, 21:24
Protoman... the thrust was not the dominant attack method. A thrust will simply not penetrate plate armor very well, if at all.
The slash was the primary attack. Medieval boradswords had poor thrusting points, and were primarily designed to deliver a slash that could cleave straight through the strongest plate protection.
A successful thrust is very difficult, since you must hit a relatively unarmored location, and hit it with a great deal of power, the slash generates power with the weight of the weapon and the leverage of the swing.
It is the THRUST in fact that is a fencing maneuver, suitable for use against unarmored targets. Fencing is ALL about thrusting, not slashing, because the thrust is much harder to defend against.
Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
Protoman... the thrust was not the dominant attack method. A thrust will simply not penetrate plate armor very well, if at all.
The slash was the primary attack. Medieval boradswords had poor thrusting points, and were primarily designed to deliver a slash that could cleave straight through the strongest plate protection.
A successful thrust is very difficult, since you must hit a relatively unarmored location, and hit it with a great deal of power, the slash generates power with the weight of the weapon and the leverage of the swing.
It is the THRUST in fact that is a fencing maneuver, suitable for use against unarmored targets. Fencing is ALL about thrusting, not slashing, because the thrust is much harder to defend against.[/QUOTE]
Protoman is right in what concerns the late period. Thrusting swords could exploit the holes between the pieces of plate armour.
But in the early period, I think slash was dominant, as a powerful slash even if not able to cut through the mail, could force its way into the body with mail and everything. Hence the use of padding to absorb the impact.
Anyway, my point was that swordsmen in general need more space and the proof is that the roman leguionaries (who used mainly thrusting stabbing techniques) presented a larger frontage per man than the macedonian or carthaginian pikemen.
Someone has also pointed that in MTW the distinction between spermen, swordsmen, etc. is somewhat artificial as weapons were often mixed in the same formation. That is correct. For example dismounted knights (at least in late periods) used to cut their lances to the length of spears so that they could use them effectively in melee. Another example, at Courtrai spearmen and polearmed men were mixed in the Flemish line.
Anyway I don't know how this could be modelled in MTW without adding too much complexity (e.g. instead of having units of a defined troop type, there could be units of mixed troop types in variable proportions. With 40 knights and 80 spearmen the player would be allowed to build 2 units of 20 dismounted knights with sword+shield, plus 40 spearmen each).
Cheers,
Antonio
Michael the Great
10-12-2002, 17:07
Well,elite swordsmen will beat spearmen/pikemen...but they won't beat Janissary HI!!!!!!!
These guys r too good!
Hey,anybody tested Chivalric Foot Knights Vs Feudal Foot Knights...?
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Hi, im a newbie here. Been playing Shogun for years, butr my system isnt up to MTW yet. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif But this discussion has made me think of the Battle of Flodden as an illustration of the problem with pikes on the attack.
Contrary to Braveheart the shiltrom of pikes was the standard way for scottish armies to fight, and suffered badly from English archaers during the wars of Independance. It was, as youll know, superb against english cavalry, hence its use into the fifteen hundreds.
Interestingly at the battle of Flodden (1513) the scots, under James the IVth (?) outnumbered the English 2:1 and were spurred on by this knowledge into a screaming attack from the high ground they held, thinking their long spears and numbers would easily defeat the English. However it seems they hadnt counted on the new technology ie. the English Halberdiers.
So down come the Scots, screaming like banshees, get to the bottom of the slope having lost cohesion and becoming tired, and they engage the tight English ranks. Whereupon the English Halberds chop the heads of the Scots pikes and procede to kill the Scots eith the blades of the Halberds. In the ensuing rout a sizable portion of the Scots nobility are killed, including James, and the English smugly wander home.
Ok, so its not swords vs pikes exactly, and tactically the Scots were, well, dumb but it does show the shortcomings of pike formations on the attack and the massacre that occurs should footmen with bladed weapons close upon the ranks of men armed only with long spikes.
Just my two pennorth
Michael the Great
10-12-2002, 22:34
Quote Originally posted by Ginger:
Hi, im a newbie here. Been playing Shogun for years, butr my system isnt up to MTW yet. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif But this discussion has made me think of the Battle of Flodden as an illustration of the problem with pikes on the attack.
Contrary to Braveheart the shiltrom of pikes was the standard way for scottish armies to fight, and suffered badly from English archaers during the wars of Independance. It was, as youll know, superb against english cavalry, hence its use into the fifteen hundreds.
Interestingly at the battle of Flodden (1513) the scots, under James the IVth (?) outnumbered the English 2:1 and were spurred on by this knowledge into a screaming attack from the high ground they held, thinking their long spears and numbers would easily defeat the English. However it seems they hadnt counted on the new technology ie. the English Halberdiers.
So down come the Scots, screaming like banshees, get to the bottom of the slope having lost cohesion and becoming tired, and they engage the tight English ranks. Whereupon the English Halberds chop the heads of the Scots pikes and procede to kill the Scots eith the blades of the Halberds. In the ensuing rout a sizable portion of the Scots nobility are killed, including James, and the English smugly wander home.
Ok, so its not swords vs pikes exactly, and tactically the Scots were, well, dumb but it does show the shortcomings of pike formations on the attack and the massacre that occurs should footmen with bladed weapons close upon the ranks of men armed only with long spikes.
Just my two pennorth[/QUOTE]
Yeah,I get youre "point"...... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
But really,I'm disscusing swords vs pikes from the games's perspective,and I think somethin needs 2 be done 'bout it...
Remember my test..Chiv Foot vs Feudal Foot
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Michael the Great
10-14-2002, 00:10
What do u think's the best sword unit in thy game???
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
FacelessClock
10-18-2002, 10:17
Cheetah is a moron.
Best sword unit is either Byz Inf or Vangarian Guards.
AgentBif
10-18-2002, 10:33
Quote Originally posted by Protoman:
Slashing was almost useless against armored foes and tightly packed areas, leaving little opportunies for what is seen as traditional swordfighting.[/QUOTE]
Against plate mail a human can't generate enough power with a thrust... A thrust will almost definitely deflect off some curved/beveled surface. Slashing can achieve much higher weapon velocity and momentum which enables a sharp blade to overcome plate. Even if the cut doesn't penetrate mail underneath it can still crush bones.
Generally a thrust would only work against plate if you got your opponent momentarily disabled and could carefully place the point into a crevace somewhere.
Against plate, axes and hammers (with backspikes) would be the best kinds of weapons. I suppose spikey maces might be good too.
Thrusting swords didn't mutate into thrusting weapons until the heavy armor went away.
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-18-2002).]
Lord Romulous
10-18-2002, 11:13
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Cheetah is a moron.
Best sword unit is either Byz Inf or Vangarian Guards.[/QUOTE]
i dont usually engage in this sort of behaviour
but i really object to you calling a moron one of the most hard working people here at the org.
they have to Pre archive threads otherwise the hosting company will get rid of the .org its already 2000 posts over the limit. in any case this thread is kept in the TC.
somebody ban this buffoon already. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/mad.gif
[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 10-18-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-18-2002, 13:36
Actually thrusting swords as thrusting weapons (whatever that emans!! lol) existed in parallel to thte traditional long sword throughout most of medieval history.
At least one battle (in 1266) is recording as being won/lost because French knights with short swords were able to thrust into the armpits of German knights wearing coat of plates.
Slahing weapons have little or no chance of penetrating decent meta larmour because their force is typically disipated over a long strike zone, whether that armour is mail, solid plate or coat of plate.
The effect is almost always crushing, and that only against flexible armouir - which is one reason why they wore padding under mail!!
Penetrating heavy armour required high velocity, mass and minimal contact area - hence axes, maces, hammers and spikes.
I have an illustration of a pole axe in the hands of an English man at arms from the 100 yrs war - it LOOKS like something you'd use to commit murder http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
AgentBif
10-18-2002, 15:08
Short swords (gladius, etc) are dual mode weapons... both cut and thrust. But, of course, they have a much lower momentum capacity than something longer like a broadsword, so the stab attack is what will usually deliver the kill. I'm not aware of any pure thrust blades until things like rapiers, etc started showing up.
(Yes, rapiers have an edge, but it's more of a tool for annoyance rather than an actually lethal feature.)
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-18-2002).]
Soapyfrog
10-18-2002, 19:35
The only real difference between a short sword and a long sword when thrusting is reach.
Medieval broadswords typically wielded by knights were not very good thrusting weapons, though they could cut handedly through most armor types... with plate armor the key was to hack at a joint, crushing the armor or cutting straight through previously weakened areas.
Thrusting (at unarmored points like armpits) certainly existed as a tactic, however it's not so simple to accomplish such a maneuver since if you miss you may be quite screwed.
Pole-axes, hammers, maces, flails, and to a lesser degree hand axes were indeed the optimal anti-armor weapons becuase of their penetrating power, the only trouble being that these weapons were TERRIBLE in defence against a sword armed opponent.
The sword at can be employed as a defensive barrier, something that those other weapons are not well suited to, and the sword can disable those other weapons by hacking at the haft.
Papewaio
10-18-2002, 19:43
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Cheetah is a moron.
Best sword unit is either Byz Inf or Vangarian Guards.[/QUOTE]
Faceless Clock PAF means pre-archive forum.
It means that Cheetah will format the discussion so that the information gets archived.
So who is feeling a tad moronic now?
Being rude to patrons was never acceptable. I have been away for only two months to come back to see patrons such as yourself.
You can either change your ways or leave the Org.
FacelessClock
10-18-2002, 21:09
Woops. I Figured he was postcount ++ in all the threads.
I consider myself owned.
Papewaio
10-18-2002, 21:13
LOL
BTW
TLAs
&
ETLAs
can get the best of us.
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Woops. I Figured he was postcount ++ in all the threads.
I consider myself owned.[/QUOTE]
lol, no problem. I should have explained what does "PAF" mean. Thx Pape doing it.
AgentBif
10-18-2002, 21:34
Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
Medieval broadswords typically wielded by knights were not very good thrusting weapons, though they could cut handedly through most armor types... with plate armor the key was to hack at a joint, crushing the armor or cutting straight through previously weakened areas.
[/QUOTE]
Against plate, a broadsword should work just fine against a limb. Hark's point about the long impact region on a sword blade impeding it from penetrating plate lethally is entirely valid; But if you catch your opponent in the arm correctly, penetration dynamics will be similar to that of an axe. That should be good for a disablement. An axe of similar mass to the sword would still have the advantage of better momentum though, since much of the weight is at the end.
BTW, I've seen lots of replicas of axes and hammers with either steel hafts or steel-reenforcement along the hafts. This should have dramatically improved the number of times they could be used to parry http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-18-2002).]
FacelessClock
10-18-2002, 22:36
A sword can be a good thrusting weapon, if built correctly. Swords evolved over time. They started out as a slashping weapon first and a thrusting weapon second. However, as both plate and mail became more popular, slashing with a sword became less effective, so swords became weapons that could do both, and perhaps even had a leaning towards thrusting.
Early swords were wide, later swords were thin and tapred to a very sharp point.
Neither was likely to be as effective against plate as a axe or hammer, although the pointed swords were far far superior at penatrating plate and were effective in their own right.The axe had great ability to cut do to the fact a axe often had a large chunck of metal behind the blade. Single edged, wedged swords were often considered better for slashing, and the axe is really just the same concept....the difference is, the axe often times has alot more force behind it, due to the way it is swung and the amount of metal behind the blade.
Hammers could just knock the enemy down if they didn't do actual bone crushing damage. Alot of hammers had a pointy end and a blunt end, the idea being to knock the enemy around and then penatrate the plate with the pointy end when the enemy was down.
I think M:TW does a good job of representing all this. Sword units that did not use a tapred, pointed sword do not get bonus to armour, while units which do use a a tapered sword do, like Gallowglasses.
[This message has been edited by FacelessClock (edited 10-18-2002).]
AgentBif
10-19-2002, 14:55
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
However, as both plate and mail became more popular, slashing with a sword became less effective, so swords became weapons that could do both, and perhaps even had a leaning towards thrusting.
[/QUOTE]
Just in front of this post you'd see that we've established that the heavy slashing swords were motivated by armor, not the other way around. As the armor went away, swords mutated into lighter, faster, thrusting weapons. Moreover, a thrusting attack will not likely be effective against plate, even with a pointed heavy blade. A human being just can't generate the kind of thrusting velocity necessary to overcome the plate deflection. Slashing attacks, OTH have lots of velocity...
Quote
the difference is, the axe often times has alot more force behind it, due to the way it is swung and the amount of metal behind the blade.
[/QUOTE]
What would give an axe it's armor defeating capabilities is the fact that the cutting edge is short, thereby achieving much higher pressure for a given amount of total momentum. Also, because the axe concentrates it's mass at the end, it can achieve a higher momentum for a given mass. The "way it is swung" and the total mass are not what make the axe advantageous over a sword for defeating armor. In fact, axe blades usually contain less steel than broadswords.
Quote
Hammers could just knock the enemy down if they didn't do actual bone crushing damage.
[/QUOTE]
A 3-5 pound hammer is not going to knock over a 200 pound man. Perhaps some kind of massive 2-handed maul could knock someone over if he pulled a Barry Bonds act, but that sort of impact will likely just kill the guy anyway. I'm personally not aware of any maul type weapons actually used in combat, though I imagine they existed... can someone elucidate? Anyway, like axes, hammers would defeat armor by focussing a lot of momentum on a small area. But according to others in this thread, underpadding was apparently sufficient to resist crushing damage.
Quote
Alot of hammers had a pointy end and a blunt end, the idea being to knock the enemy around and then penatrate the plate with the pointy end when the enemy was down.
[/QUOTE]
I suspect that anyone going up against a heavy armor opponent would prolly start with the spike to begin with and not bother risking his life "knocking him around" first... Although there is the issue of getting that spike lodged in one guy while his buddy get's pissed at you.
Now, in terms of hammers in general, I wonder who used them? I know that knights would often pack several weapons to serve in a variety of situations, so perhaps a hammer would be a popular choice if he expected to see combat against armored opponents. But I don't think your average merc or man-at-arms would have the luxury of being able to afford multiple weapons themselves. Perhaps, if infantry ever used hammers they were typically scavenged?
bif
Hakonarson
10-19-2002, 15:41
goody - lots more good historical stuff!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Points I can answer -
Yes - hitting an arm helps, because of the smaller diameter of hte armour (means less area to be penetrated), and also because the armour is thinner.
Metal hafts -absolutely - one picture I have of a pole axe has it entirely metal, about 4-5 ft long, absolutely murderous lookign thing - it really sends a shiver down my spine!!
I think the spikes (either on the top or reverse of a hammer or axe) were "coup-de-grace" weapons - as someone pointed out the last thing you wanted was to get a spike caught in armour while your victims' comrades were still around!!
A 5 lb weapon is actually VERY heavy, and quite cap[able of knocking someone over if they're hit hard with it. 2 handed weapons like swords and axes only weighed in at similar amounts.
Lastly yes Mauls were used - famously by English archers to knock in stakes and then afterwards to knock out Frenchmen who were already partially immobilised buy the crush.
Veiny Eyeball
10-19-2002, 17:24
Guys, no such thing as a medieval broadsword sorry.
Broadswords were 17th century short cutlasses popular with the English nobility (with a variety of styles and forms of course, such as the 18th C Scottish claymore).
Yes there was no Broardsword, but there were broard swords and that is what you should think of when people use that term.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Veiny Eyeball
10-19-2002, 19:44
I understand what you are saying but it is still misleading.
Medieval swords came in many forms but for the most part they were long and slender. Referring to them as 'broad' either in a generic sense for all medieval swords or when concentrating on a particular kind of medieval sword is a gross fallacy. You can use 'broad' as an adjective (as you could with long, sharp, etc) but that's not what most people are thinking when they use the term. The impression is that broadsword is a fine catagorical term for all medieval swords. It is not.
Trust me, this is something sword "experts" get extremely frustrated over! :0
[This message has been edited by Veiny Eyeball (edited 10-19-2002).]
FacelessClock
10-19-2002, 20:31
Quote Just in front of this post you'd see that we've established that the heavy slashing swords were motivated by armor, not the other way around. As the armor went away, swords mutated into lighter, faster, thrusting weapons. Moreover, a thrusting attack will not likely be effective against plate, even with a pointed heavy blade. A human being just can't generate the kind of thrusting velocity necessary to overcome the plate deflection. Slashing attacks, OTH have lots of velocity...[/QUOTE]
Heavy slashing swords were NOT used to go against plate and mail. That makes no sense at all. Look at http://www.historicalweapons.com/swordstypology.html You will notice that weapons became pointy and tapered in responce to plate reinforced mail. Clearly they, not heavy slashing swords, were the preferred and more effective.
Quote I suspect that anyone going up against a heavy armor opponent would prolly start with the spike to begin with and not bother risking his life "knocking him around" first... Although there is the issue of getting that spike lodged in one guy while his buddy get's pissed at you.[/QUOTE]
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer
Knocking a enemy around would be very useful. What do you think happens when you get a swing from 5 pounds of metal which has been focused into a small point? That is alot of force, in many cases, and if we're talking pole-arm hammer, yea, you're going to get knocked around. A enemy that just had his arm crushed or is trying to keep his balance from the last blow inflicted it going to have a hard time fighting.
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 01:01
Quote
Heavy slashing swords were NOT used to go against plate and mail. That makes no sense at all.
[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen anyone here advocating the use of swords against plate in particular. The issue here has not been that swords are a good choice against plate, but whether or not swords are feasible at all against plate or other heavy armors. Swords were used, and as armor became heavier (not just plate) and more prevalent, swords had to become heavier and longer to improve their ability to defeat the armor. Note that it doesn't take penetration for a sword to deliver damage... A high velocity slash will crush bones nicely against a chainmailed opponent, for example.
Quote
You will notice that weapons became pointy and tapered in responce to plate reinforced mail. Clearly they, not heavy slashing swords, were the preferred and more effective.
[/QUOTE]
Not so clearly, I'm afraid. The source you cite here does not attempt to delineate the evolution of swords.
The point on the end of the sword will not be handy in a dynamic fight against a platemailed opponent, IMO, because I don't believe a human CAN penetrate the armor with a thrust if the target doesn't want him to. Once you have your opponent immobilized somehow, you could carefully place the point in a seam or crack and finish him off by putting all your weight behind a two-hand thrust. This is how I think sword-armed MAA would defeat an unmounted knight... surround him, get him on the ground, then drive the sword in. But getting him on the ground would involve lots of vigorous cutting, not silly jabs.
BTW, just about all of the blades on this particular page that you mention are what I'd classify as good slashing weapons and if the wielder were unfortunate enough to have to face a plate-armored foe without a better weapon, I'm sure he'd be slashing away quite feverishly...
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-19-2002).]
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 01:13
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
A 5 lb weapon is actually VERY heavy, and quite cap[able of knocking someone over if they're hit hard with it.
[/QUOTE]
I think it has been well observed that dead people often fall over...
But it's just not possible, in general, for a human to topple someone by force alone with a one-handed swing. Any force behind a 3-5lb weapon capable of knocking over a full sized adult would just kill the person first, I think. It's a simple matter of collision dynamics: 3 pounds vs 200 pounds. If the weapon doesn't penetrate, it will cause a severe dent and then bounce back.
Although people do fall over a lot in melee, it is usually their own damn fault for getting themselves in an off-balance position and not the fault of their opponent http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif Traction would also be the more likely culprit.
bif
FacelessClock
10-20-2002, 02:47
http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001658.html
http://www.vikingsword.com/glossary.html
see the bit about "point"
http://www.vikingsword.com/vmframe.html http://www.vikingsword.com/vmuseum/index.html
see the bit about medieval swords.
The historical evolution of swords disagrees with you, bif. Pointed swords could penatrate plate better then slash, otherwise, I doubt everyone would be running around with them. There were even pointed swords that were virtually made entirely for piercing, just so they could get through plate. And in any case, even Plate was not immune to any type of damage.
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 03:14
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
[B] http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001658.html
http://www.vikingsword.com/glossary.html
see the bit about "point"
http://www.vikingsword.com/vmframe.html http://www.vikingsword.com/vmuseum/index.html
see the bit about medieval swords.
The historical evolution of swords disagrees with you, bif.
[/QUOTE]
Posting a block of sites does not constitute a counter-argument. I don't think you are understanding what I have said thus far. If you want to post a rebuttal, use well formed arguments and make specific points adressing what I have posted.
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-19-2002).]
Michael the Great
10-22-2002, 00:56
Hi guys!!!
I was away for a while(battling with thy Turks).
Yes,some long swords were armor pierceing but few.
Can someone say who is better in a melle:a sword or a pole-axe type weapon?
Why does it say that Janissary HI get an advantage in melle coz they got polearms?
Oh,and a sword and a shield with a good trained man,can be a VERY balanced force...unlike a spearman/pikeman....
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Jannisary HI have AP and anti-cav, that is what the text refers too.
If we take a Naginata vs a Katana, the Naginata was considered a superior weapon due the the reach and better handling (if your hands are widely spread you can better control the weapon). So a short polearm is perhaps a better weapon, but only if it can recieve a swordblow to the pole, so it need to be of considerable quality.
The main downside with a polearm is you can't use a shield, and that might shift the balance back to the sword.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Nial Black Knee
10-22-2002, 23:53
The fact is that as Plate became prevalent swords got heavier but tapered more to a point. Sword-fighting consisted of battering your opponent(slash-style) until you could
get a good thrust into a joint area. Plate mail was very ridgid, therefore it had many joint areas where a good thrust could penetrate. eg-armpit,knee(back),elbow,and neck. In fact many Knights in plate mail were killed buy coup-de-grace with long daggers that were carried just for that purpose.
FacelessClock
10-23-2002, 01:04
Hah, bif. You have no evidence to back up your claim that swords couldn't do anything to plate.
Yea, you know. Swords got tapered cause it looked cool, and knights carried them around because they were horrible and had no chance of going through anything.
Don't talk to me about how to make an arguement until you bring evidence to the table.
querulously
10-23-2002, 01:42
At the more famous English/French battles it is widely reported that the archers were able to slay knights in large numbers. Not because they were stuck in mud but because the movement penalty and specialisation of the weapons the knights used were worse equipment than very little armour and a dagger.So if a dagger can kill a knight, so can all of these big juicy weapons.
Most of the weapons are effective if used properly and most have dual purpose, at the least.
AgentBif
10-23-2002, 01:47
Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Hah, bif. You have no evidence to back up your claim that swords couldn't do anything to plate.
[/QUOTE]
You have yet to post evidence that one COULD defeat plate with a melee thrust. I don't believe it could happen. We are at an impasse then.
Quote
Yea, you know. Swords got tapered cause it looked cool, and knights carried them around because they were horrible and had no chance of going through anything.
[/QUOTE]
Adding tapering, point, etc to a broadsword class weapon makes sense if sword armed MAA were to face plate armored foes more often, I have already acknowledged this. But I do not concede that such an attack mode would work well in melee; I believe that the opponent would have to first be immobilized temporarily in order to find a weak spot for the point.
And as far as why knights carried swords? Swords were not the weapon a knight chose against an armored opponent. That's why axes, hammers, maces, etc were so popular. The sword is for use against lighter armed foes. Knights carried multiple weapons into battle, not just swords.
bif
Yagyu Jubei
10-23-2002, 01:49
I love these threads where people are arguing back and forth like real experts in the field....LOL
I really don't have much information about the subject of European arms and all...but it seems to me that yes you could indeed penetrate the joints in the armor with a well timed strike...either thrust or slash...and that yes most battles would end in one combatant on the ground due to loss of blood or broken bones or plain exhaustion....wherein the fatal dagger thrust could be administered....
I love swords...Have studied the use of the Katana and Naginata for years as well as had some great training in Japan.....
But this is just my opinion....
Hey,,,I was just reminded of a great movie!!!! Ever see "the Lion in Winter"......great movie about the period and I believe it may be where I get my opinion from! LOL
------------------
Watashiwa Yagyu Jubei desu! Ganbate!
Hakonarson
10-23-2002, 02:30
All troops carried swords because most actions were not major battles involving fully plate armoured knights!!
Many actions were ambushes, or raids on villages or similar.
These actions would probably be carried out by the "lesser" soldiery with less armour than full plate, and a sword remains a very effective weapon against them.
the inability of swords to penetrate plate IS precisely why they weer supplemented by weapons with greater armour piercing capability such as hammers, axes and maces.
To say we know nothing about European weaponry shows a degree of ignorance in itself - we know a gret deal about it - how and why it was used, who used it, how it was built, etc - all this is actuall yrecorded by the people who used it and is avaiable to those who are willing to read.
Cyricist
10-23-2002, 02:51
May I note that SOME swords WERE actually used AGAINST heavier armors.. The claymore for instance was developed just for that purpose, as was the 'German Longsword' or sword-and-a-half (bastard sword). These weapons were used up into the Rennaissance Period, when Heavy Armor reached it's (Gothic) highest point. The introduction of crossbows and firearms slightly diminished the need for these weapons, but they were still quite popular even in late medieval times.
The plate armor (especially breastplates and full Gothic plate) were worn well into the 17th century and became 'ceremonial wear' in certain countries like Germany and Britain, where certain special guard units (lancers on horseback mostly) still wear them today.
Even Napoleon's armies still had active lancers in them with breastplates: the Cuirrassiers a cheval.
Hakonarson
10-23-2002, 03:28
Napoleonic Cuirassiers did not carrly lances, and yes, 2-handed swords were used but I think the discussion here is about single handed swords mainly - the 2-handers are essentially another attempt to produce better armour piercing performance than single handed swords.
there were single-handed swords optimised for armour piercing in the later period - I for get teh name of them - I think they weer German or Polish, but they never seemed to catch on all that much anywhere else - possibly because as swords they were not much use against lesser armoured opponents - they were rather heavy with chisel blade type points but no edge.
muffinman14
10-23-2002, 04:35
well the last battle i fought my pikemen got killed agianst some rebel highlanders.
pressure
10-23-2002, 21:51
"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"
Isn,t this allowed for already by the higher melee value of sword units, which presumably applies when/if the spear wall is broken?
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS THREAD ISN'T CLOSED.
This has been beat to death so many times, why continue this useless blather?
No pressure, the swordunits have better melee stats overall, but they are weaker in numbers. The Spears getting broken up does not incur any penalty to them.
But the patch will do something to balance this. We will just have to see if it is enough, or if it too much. Time will tell.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
AgentBif
10-24-2002, 01:02
Quote Originally posted by Mary, Queen of Scots:
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS THREAD ISN'T CLOSED.
[/QUOTE]
Why are you reading it if you don't want to read it?
There are lots of interesting details about blade vs armor dynamics coming out here. If you're not interested, read something else. Please don't go calling for someone else's discussion to be shut down.
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-23-2002).]
AgentBif
10-24-2002, 07:15
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
there were single-handed swords optimised for armour piercing in the later period - I for get teh name of them - I think they weer German or Polish, but they never seemed to catch on all that much anywhere else - possibly because as swords they were not much use against lesser armoured opponents - they were rather heavy with chisel blade type points but no edge.[/QUOTE]
Yes, a very curious experiement, it's no wonder they aren't that well known. Why in the world would they make up such a weapon? If they wanted their men-at-arms to have better capabilities against plate, why not just issue an axe with a back-spike?
bif
Michael the Great
10-26-2002, 02:31
Hey,but why does the rank bonus apply when spearmen r broken...this ain't right...
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Quote Originally posted by Michael the Great:
Hey,but why does the rank bonus apply when spearmen r broken...this ain't right...
[/QUOTE]
Well it applies even if there is only one file of soldiers four ranks deep... You can create this if you mod a little.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Michael the Great
10-26-2002, 15:10
Ya know...I think the greatest improvement they can(oh God and I hope they will..)do is to simulate the mechanics of long spears polearms,so that they can engage BEFORE the swordsmen,for example,can engage,that way they'll have to close in on the spearmen/pikemen and take extra losses before they do.
What do u think,can this be programmed in the add-on or in the next TW?
I've never seen a game using the system,altough this is how it is in real life.
Right?
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Michael the Great
10-27-2002, 20:40
Yeah,well at least huge two-handed swords certainlt were armor-pierceing.
Btw,what's your opinion on the best sword unit in teh game?
P.S.Byz Inf migh look like roman legions,but they're not.Roman Legions had a much smaller sword.
------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Michael the Great
10-29-2002, 00:47
But it seems that the numbers of swordsmen(in a unit) is a great disadvantage 2 them..
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.