Sword/Spear Leathality

[artavazd]

Now leathality for swords and spears differ according to the skill of the units, and the type of sword or spear it is. The question I want to ask is for the swords that have a leathality of 0.1 and the spears that have a leathality of 0.125 wont the spear armed unit be stronger? (even though they suffer a -4 defensive or was it offensive? penalty against a sword armed unit)

[mcantu]

yes, the spear unit will have a 2.5% greater chance that a hit results in a kill.

[Rilder]

I dunno about you but if I were to get stabbed by a spear or a sword, I'd probably die without the proper medical care.

[artavazd]

so given that two units one a sword the other a spear unit have similar stats, would the spear unit come out the winner even though it suffers a penalty against the sword unit but has a higher leathality? (0.1 for sword, 0.13 for spear)

[Ludens]

Slight correction: in the EB stat system lethality is only determined by the weapon, not the skill of the user. Also remember that spear units get a -4 attack penalty against infantry. Assuming that is taken into account, in your example the spearman would have a 30% higher chance of killing his opponent when he struck a successful blow. However, it's a chance process and there are other factors such as attack delay and knock-downs: because his strikes are less lethal, the swordsmen will knock-down his opponent more often and prevent him from delivering attacks for a few seconds.

[seienchin]

I do remember that long swords have lethality 0.25, so only the short ones arent lethal, which Im still not satisfied with... But I dunno why the system in EB works. Sword units arent weaker than spearmen:book:

[Aper]

Also remember that spear units get a -4 attack penalty against infantry.

This seems to be the Eternal Bug of EB : according to the EDU guide by Aradan, only the "spear" attribute EB team used in older releases get a -4 to attack ; the current "light_spear" attribute gives a -4 to DEFENSE, so currently the EB spearmen have a higher attack and a lower defense than they should have.

Anyway, if balance is saved, who cares about this... but I'm surprised to see you and MAA reporting this apparently incorrect information ; this means the EB team don't trust an important resource like the EDU guide?

I'll be more clear : who should I follow when I mod by myself?

Thanks in advance

[mcantu]

Slight correction: in the EB stat system lethality is only determined by the weapon, not the skill of the user. Also remember that spear units get a -4 attack penalty against infantry. Assuming that is taken into account, in your example the spearman would have a 30% higher chance of killing his opponent when he struck a successful blow. However, it's a chance process and there are other factors such as attack delay and knock-downs: because his strikes are less lethal, the swordsmen will knock-down his opponent more often and prevent him from delivering attacks for a few seconds.

back in earlier versions of EB, the spear attribute was used. this gave the -4 attack penalty you are talking about. all spear units at this time were given +4 to their attack score to cancel out that penalty. however, starting at EB 1.0 the spear attribute was changed to light_spear. this does not give -4 to attack. for whatever reason, the EB team decided to leave the +4 attack for spear units.

also, i dont see how the OP's example results in a spearman having a 30% greater chance of a kill. the sword has 0.1 lethality (10%) and the spear has 0.125 lethality (12.5%)

[Slaists]

back in earlier versions of EB, the spear attribute was used. this gave the -4 attack penalty you are talking about. all spear units at this time were given +4 to their attack score to cancel out that penalty. however, starting at EB 1.0 the spear attribute was changed to light_spear. this does not give -4 to attack. for whatever reason, the EB team decided to leave the +4 attack for spear units.

also, i dont see how the OP's example results in a spearman having a 30% greater chance of a kill. the sword has 0.1 lethality (10%) and the spear has 0.125 lethality (12.5%)

yes, i was wondering about the same thing. why do spear units have such ridiculously high attack values in EB 1.2? they are supposed to be weaker relative to sword units...

[Ludens]

back in earlier versions of EB, the spear attribute was used. this gave the -4 attack penalty you are talking about. all spear units at this time were given +4 to their attack score to cancel out that penalty. however, starting at EB 1.0 the spear attribute was changed to light_spear. this does not give -4 to attack. for whatever reason, the EB team decided to leave the +4 attack for spear units.

Yes, I've read that before. I have not experimented with the stats, so I cannot confirm or deny it. Could the EB team comment on this?


also, i dont see how the OP's example results in a spearman having a 30% greater chance of a kill. the sword has 0.1 lethality (10%) and the spear has 0.125 lethality (12.5%)

My apologies for being unclear: I meant relatively to the sword. The post to which I responded asked for the difference between a 0.1 lethality sword and a 0.13 lethality spear. This means that, if a strike is successful, the kill chances are 10% and 13% respectively. That is a 30% increase for the spear-man.

[mcantu]

Yes, I've read that before. I have not experimented with the stats, so I cannot confirm or deny it. Could the EB team comment on this?



My apologies for being unclear: I meant relatively to the sword. The post to which I responded asked for the difference between a 0.1 lethality sword and a 0.13 lethality spear. This means that, if a strike is successful, the kill chances are 10% and 13% respectively. That is a 30% increase for the spear-man.

does that work like that if the values are already percentages? if i have 10 apples and i am given 3 more, its a 30% increase...but if something is 10% and it increase to 13%, it increased by 3%

[A Very Super Market]

It is increased by 30% of 10%, which is very roughly equal to 3%

[antisocialmunky]

... its 25%.

.125/.1 = 1.25 = 125%

25% increase.

[A Very Super Market]

What are we even talking about right now?

[antisocialmunky]

You're responding to Ludens. I'm responding to the figures Ludens quoted.

[artavazd]

back in earlier versions of EB, the spear attribute was used. this gave the -4 attack penalty you are talking about. all spear units at this time were given +4 to their attack score to cancel out that penalty. however, starting at EB 1.0 the spear attribute was changed to light_spear. this does not give -4 to attack. for whatever reason, the EB team decided to leave the +4 attack for spear units.

also, i dont see how the OP's example results in a spearman having a 30% greater chance of a kill. the sword has 0.1 lethality (10%) and the spear has 0.125 lethality (12.5%)

So the spear attribute gives a -4 to defence? and is that the case when a spear unit ONLY faces a sword unit? If thats so Im going to edit their attack values down 4 points. It justs gets frustrating sometimes, when you have a medium sword unit either get beat, or have a very hard time with rag tag spear levies. Considering that the initial cost, and upkeep of the medium sword unit is more than the basic spear unit.

[Ludens]

does that work like that if the values are already percentages? if i have 10 apples and i am given 3 more, its a 30% increase...but if something is 10% and it increase to 13%, it increased by 3%

Yes, and upon a successful strike a spearman has a 30% higher chance of getting a kill than a swordsmen.


... its 25%.

.125/.1 = 1.25 = 125%

25% increase.

Except that the post I was replying to specified a .13 lethality for the spear:

so given that two units one a sword the other a spear unit have similar stats, would the spear unit come out the winner even though it suffers a penalty against the sword unit but has a higher leathality? (0.1 for sword, 0.13 for spear)


So the spear attribute gives a -4 to defence? and is that the case when a spear unit ONLY faces a sword unit? If thats so Im going to edit their attack values down 4 points. It justs gets frustrating sometimes, when you have a medium sword unit either get beat, or have a very hard time with rag tag spear levies. Considering that the initial cost, and upkeep of the medium sword unit is more than the basic spear unit.

The -4 attack or defence is against infantry, not sword units in specific.

[antisocialmunky]

also, i dont see how the OP's example results in a spearman having a 30% greater chance of a kill. the sword has 0.1 lethality (10%) and the spear has 0.125 lethality (12.5%)


Saw this before the other.

[Aper]

mcantu and me are speaking of this

The Complete EDU Guide (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88859&highlight=edu+guide)

here there are tons of useful infos about EDU, including the boni/mali of various spears.

[antisocialmunky]

So here's a question: Does -4 defense offset +4 attack?

[artavazd]

So here's a question: Does -4 defense offset +4 attack?

Its not just the +4 attack. The leathality of those low level spearmen, is higher than most medium swordsmen. Now when we take the higher leathality plus the +4 attack, that is a lot of attack power. Personaly Im going to edit the EDU, and take away 4 points from the attack value of spearmen who have the "light spear" attribute. In this case when a spear unit fights another spear unit it wont make a difference, because both units will have a -4 on defence. Now when a spear unit fights a swordunit, the sword unit will have the advantage.


My question is for those elite units who both carry a spear and a sword do they get a -4 on defence when you switch their weapon to a sword?

[Drewski]

back in earlier versions of EB, the spear attribute was used. this gave the -4 attack penalty you are talking about. all spear units at this time were given +4 to their attack score to cancel out that penalty. however, starting at EB 1.0 the spear attribute was changed to light_spear. this does not give -4 to attack. for whatever reason, the EB team decided to leave the +4 attack for spear units.

also, i dont see how the OP's example results in a spearman having a 30% greater chance of a kill. the sword has 0.1 lethality (10%) and the spear has 0.125 lethality (12.5%)

Wow , this is really important. Can someone on the team please explain why this was left in. Because on principle, It seems silly to have Swords less effective than Spears. I was always surprised that Hoplites and the like have a much higher attack than Axemen and Swordsmen. Now I know why.

But before I go through that huge file, and change all Light Spear by -4, could someone be so good as to explain the reasoning to leave the bonus in?

[Aper]

@ artavazd : no, its all about the weapon they are actually using

@ antisocialmunky : I don't understand what do you mean (english not my primary language) but technically, AFAWK, the bonus of +4 to attack of the "light_spear" is a bug, because its purpouse was to balance the -4 to attack of the old "spear" attribute, and now that this attribute is gone it has no reason to be kept ; all spearmen should have a +4 to defence instead

In my EDU I've replaced the +4 to attack with the proper +4 to defence; sadly I've done a lot of other changes according to my taste, that alter considerably the gameplay, so I never posted the file in the past: this is a zombie horse that sometimes rise from the grave you know...

Anyway, from my little experience as modder I think: if overall balance is saved, nobody should care, the EB team have more important things to worry about (EBII... and sometimes RL I suppose...)

[Drewski]

I agree with above posters. I've spent all evening looking through the Unit files, and have to agree it should really be classed as a Bug. Take the Ambusher unit (Luso Skirmisher). I was wondering why on earth they were doing so much damage against my Principes in several battles. Well its because they have a higher attack, with better lethality! (2nd weapon, spear) And they are Skirmishers!!

I also realised that all The Phalanx units too have +4 to attack (they are class long_pike AND light_spear), where they shouldn't. It makes some of the higher Phalanx units quite crazy (19 base attack in one case, 19!!!)

So I manually went through the whole Edu (twice to be sure) and took 4 attack away from all Spear units, Pikes included. The units look at lot more sensible now, and swords and axes vs spears seems now balanced. With the base EB 1.2 values, its like every Spear unit starts out with a Silver Chevron in attack :dizzy2:

If anyone wants the file with these modifications, just ask and I'll post it, cos it takes hrs to do it yourself manually.

[antisocialmunky]

@Aper: +4 defense and +8 against horses might not make Horses as ridiculous as they are now.

[mcantu]

@ artavazd : no, its all about the weapon they are actually using

@ antisocialmunky : I don't understand what do you mean (english not my primary language) but technically, AFAWK, the bonus of +4 to attack of the "light_spear" is a bug, because its purpouse was to balance the -4 to attack of the old "spear" attribute, and now that this attribute is gone it has no reason to be kept ; all spearmen should have a +4 to defence instead

In my EDU I've replaced the +4 to attack with the proper +4 to defence; sadly I've done a lot of other changes according to my taste, that alter considerably the gameplay, so I never posted the file in the past: this is a zombie horse that sometimes rise from the grave you know...

Anyway, from my little experience as modder I think: if overall balance is saved, nobody should care, the EB team have more important things to worry about (EBII... and sometimes RL I suppose...)

i suggest not cancelling out the defense skill penalty by adding +4. that is a proper distinction that it is harder to parry with a spear than with a sword...

[Drewski]

i suggest not cancelling out the defense skill penalty by adding +4. that is a proper distinction that it is harder to parry with a spear than with a sword...

I agree totally. Spears and Pikes even with the "phantom" +4 attack removed, are still quite tough enough. They get a bonus vs Cavalry, and most Elite Spears/Pikes still have higher attack than Elite Sword units (even with 4 attack removed).

[Aurgelmir]

I agree with above posters. I've spent all evening looking through the Unit files, and have to agree it should really be classed as a Bug. Take the Ambusher unit (Luso Skirmisher). I was wondering why on earth they were doing so much damage against my Principes in several battles. Well its because they have a higher attack, with better lethality! (2nd weapon, spear) And they are Skirmishers!!

I also realised that all The Phalanx units too have +4 to attack (they are class long_pike AND light_spear), where they shouldn't. It makes some of the higher Phalanx units quite crazy (19 base attack in one case, 19!!!)

So I manually went through the whole Edu (twice to be sure) and took 4 attack away from all Spear units, Pikes included. The units look at lot more sensible now, and swords and axes vs spears seems now balanced. With the base EB 1.2 values, its like every Spear unit starts out with a Silver Chevron in attack :dizzy2:

If anyone wants the file with these modifications, just ask and I'll post it, cos it takes hrs to do it yourself manually.


Could tou PLS post your EDU?
I started myself..:sweatdrop::dizzy2:

Yesterday,playing pontus i made an army only using axeman/hillmann/scythian mercs(i really like there looks)

So i had a full-stack axearmy...composed with 4 different units...
In my opninon the best looking army in EB.
Butchering the romani,that part goes well,but then i turned to carthago....there libian spearman pawned me?? i still won,but it took alot of casulties even when i was flanking there side's

I only used to have 2 or 3 units of axe/swordman.Now i used a whole army of them,i came to the conclusion...Never doing such thing again lol Despite how cool they look

[McHrozni]

I dunno about you but if I were to get stabbed by a spear or a sword, I'd probably die without the proper medical care.

This is actually far from certain. If you wouldn't suffer damage to any major blood vessels or organs and didn't suffer from a severe infection afterward, you could very well live to fight another day.
A human body can be surprisingly resilient. Of course you'd likely suffer some consequences to your overall health, and the scar would be pretty visible, but a battlefield wound wasn't necessarily an automatic death sentence.

McHrozni

[Aper]

i suggest not cancelling out the defense skill penalty by adding +4. that is a proper distinction that it is harder to parry with a spear than with a sword...

... well, I think you have a point.
Anyway, this malus will nicely portrait the vulnerability of phalanxes on the right side. :idea2:

[antisocialmunky]

I'd still take about 2 off the attack. :-\

[Drewski]

Could tou PLS post your EDU?


A pleasure its here :- 59

Btw, to make it work for your current game, you must overwrite the EDU in C:\....\EB\sp game edu backup. If you overwrite The EDU in EB\DATA, the game just reads from the backup, and the changes won't work.

[artavazd]

I have taken 4 off of the attack, but have not added 4 to the defence. In my opinion the units marked with "light_spear" already have a +8 defence against Cavalry (which I think is their primary job as anit-cav units) and if they go against other units marked with the "light_spear" their penalties with cancel eachother out. Only elite spearmen should out do a sword unit, because for all others if the sword unit gets in close, the advantage of the spear is taken away. In many description of sword units it states that historicaly they were the anti-spear (phalanx included) units. Therefore I did not give the units marked "light_spear" +4 defence I only took away 4 from their attack.

[Zett]

Will this change destroy the balance? I don't want a über-Roman/Celtic Empire, because they have the most sword units and would have the biggest profite from this change. And what about the factions that have only spearunits and no phalanx ability (like KH), they will have a huge disatvantage, because the engine can not represent their Hoplitephalanx. Perhaps you should give all Hoplites a +4 defence to reprersent their way of fighting and make their disatvantage smaller.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Aurgelmir]

A pleasure its here :- 59

Btw, to make it work for your current game, you must overwrite the EDU in C:\....\EB\sp game edu backup. If you overwrite The EDU in EB\DATA, the game just reads from the backup, and the changes won't work.

thx....

What exactly did you change?
Only the attack,or also the defance stat?

[Drewski]

Will this change destroy the balance? I don't want a über-Roman/Celtic Empire, because they have the most sword units and would have the biggest profite from this change. And what about the factions that have only spearunits and no phalanx ability (like KH), they will have a huge disatvantage, because the engine can not represent their Hoplitephalanx. Perhaps you should give all Hoplites a +4 defence to reprersent their way of fighting and make their disatvantage smaller.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

The Celts mostly have very low Def though, and the Romans have pretty low attacks. Greece should really be using mostly H & A tactics anyways. I've just played 10 hrs straight, and didn't see any noticable change in the "Spear Heavy" nations performance on the Campaign Map. The Celts are actually mostly spear units with a few elite swords, if you look at the units they have. I think maybe, people were finding it (falsely) easy to play Epiros, Greece and Macedon (for example)in the first place....

thx....

What exactly did you change?
Only the attack,or also the defance stat?
Just -4 to attack for all Spear and Pikes. Didn't touch defence at all.

See here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2183743&postcount=6) for some reasoning.

And no-one has to go with the changes anyway, its purely up to the individual :)

[Aper]

I'd still take about 2 off the attack. :-\

... :tumbleweed:

I'm beginning to worry... I NEVER understand what are you trying to say!!! :huh2: :laugh4:

this is really odd...:confused:

[Aurgelmir]

The Celts mostly have very low Def though, and the Romans have pretty low attacks. Greece should really be using mostly H & A tactics anyways. I've just played 10 hrs straight, and didn't see any noticable change in the "Spear Heavy" nations performance on the Campaign Map. The Celts are actually mostly spear units with a few elite swords, if you look at the units they have. I think maybe, people were finding it (falsely) easy to play Epiros, Greece and Macedon (for example)in the first place....

Just -4 to attack for all Spear and Pikes. Didn't touch defence at all.

See here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2183743&postcount=6) for some reasoning.

And no-one has to go with the changes anyway, its purely up to the individual :)

Thank you for clearing me up.:balloon2:

Finally my pontus hillmen can start slaughtering....without to much casulties

hm...but now i have to use other troops in my sweboz campaign:sweatdrop:
no more frigge spam

[Drewski]

Thank you for clearing me up.:balloon2:

Finally my pontus hillmen can start slaughtering....without to much casulties

hm...but now i have to use other troops in my sweboz campaign:sweatdrop:
no more frigge spam

Slightly off Topic, but just had a really nasty battle as Rome (late Polybian Era) vs Epiros. My Army was an all Roman balanced 20 unit stack. Epiros was mostly Spear Units (with my changes), only 2 Phalanx just general for Cavalry, and some Galatian Swords to flank. I absolutely couldn't get any units to rout, my Cavalry getting decimated from Charge after Charge into Epirian backs.

Then some of my Hastati start to rout, then The Principes. Some of his rout, but then gain their composure and charge back in to the midst. I'm down to the Triarii and The Elite Infantry, and finally start getting the upper hand, Then the Triarii rout. All Ive got left is 2 almost dead Cavalry Units, and 2 Half dead Elites, all looks lost.

Then suddenly 5 Makedonian allied Army units appear quite literally over the brow of the hill, and rip into The Epiros General, who is instantly dispached to meet his maker. The Epiros Army start to waver, and my Cavalry make one last desperate charge. The entire Epiros Army decide "enough is enough" and flee in panic for their homelands.

The most Pyrrhic victory I've ever had. I lost 75% of my Army, but held the mountain pass long enough for a reinforcing Army to reach the City......................good fun though :)

===================================

So no, the changes don't really imbalance spears ;)

[artavazd]

What are H & A tactics? This was mentioned in the above posts.

[Raygereio]

Hammer & Anvil, I guess?
(Pin units down with phalanx units, then charge repeatedly with heavy cavalry)

[Drewski]

Hammer & Anvil, I guess?
(Pin units down with phalanx units, then charge repeatedly with heavy cavalry)

Yeah exactly, thanks,

Except the pinning units don't have to be Phalanx, it works with most (in RTW).

[Zett]

The problem is, that KH didn't have a good anvil like the other Hellenic factions, atleast not before the MoT has happened. Thats why I think that they should get a +4 defece bonus, to represent their Hoplitephalanx. The Makedonian Phalanx didn't need this bonus, because they are often not in direct contact with the enemy (pikes keeps them away). But thats of course only my opinion.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Aurgelmir]

Slightly off Topic, but just had a really nasty battle as Rome (late Polybian Era) vs Epiros. My Army was an all Roman balanced 20 unit stack. Epiros was mostly Spear Units (with my changes), only 2 Phalanx just general for Cavalry, and some Galatian Swords to flank. I absolutely couldn't get any units to rout, my Cavalry getting decimated from Charge after Charge into Epirian backs.

Then some of my Hastati start to rout, then The Principes. Some of his rout, but then gain their composure and charge back in to the midst. I'm down to the Triarii and The Elite Infantry, and finally start getting the upper hand, Then the Triarii rout. All Ive got left is 2 almost dead Cavalry Units, and 2 Half dead Elites, all looks lost.

Then suddenly 5 Makedonian allied Army units appear quite literally over the brow of the hill, and rip into The Epiros General, who is instantly dispached to meet his maker. The Epiros Army start to waver, and my Cavalry make one last desperate charge. The entire Epiros Army decide "enough is enough" and flee in panic for their homelands.

The most Pyrrhic victory I've ever had. I lost 75% of my Army, but held the mountain pass long enough for a reinforcing Army to reach the City......................good fun though :)

===================================

So no, the changes don't really imbalance spears ;)

Do you use the formation minimod?

And who thinks it is good and why....hm i should post a new thread

[Raygereio]

The problem is, that KH didn't have a good anvil like the other Hellenic factions, atleast not before the MoT has happened.

Shield wall if you use BI, or the 0.2 density mod (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=113564) makes hoplites pretty good anvils. Hell, even placing them in guard mode works pretty well.
Though I'm not sure who the hammer is going to be, KH doesn't have heavy cavalry that preforms well, as far as I know.

In my last KH campaign I won battles by manouvering around, breaking up the enemy's lines with skirmishers and taking down isolated units.

Edit; (hrm, kinda off topic, sorry).

[Drewski]

Do you use the formation minimod?

And who thinks it is good and why....hm i should post a new thread

Yep, I use Sinhuet's for Ai, and Marcus's when playing as Rome-even though I generally set up manually as Rome (depending upon Army composition). Sinhuet's is very good for the ai, as long as they have a pretty full stack. They are little so and so's for trying to get around the right flank. :creep: , and with a full stack, they can properly attack the middle too.

Btw I normally count a battle a loss if I lose > 20% of my troops and win..

[Aurgelmir]

Yep, I use Sinhuet's for Ai, and Marcus's when playing as Rome-even though I generally set up manually as Rome (depending upon Army composition). Sinhuet's is very good for the ai, as long as they have a pretty full stack. They are little so and so's for trying to get around the right flank. :creep: , and with a full stack, they can properly attack the middle too.

Btw I normally count a battle a loss if I lose > 20% of my troops and win..


I ask because i used a formation mod(it wasn't Sinhuet's)
And it did not,what it suppossed to do :no:....always a few units of the Ai where to far behind when he attacked

Can i find it in the minimod section(Sinhuet's formation mod)?

[Drewski]

I ask because i used a formation mod(it wasn't Sinhuet's)
And it did not,what it suppossed to do :no:....always a few units of the Ai where to far behind when he attacked

Can i find it in the minimod section(Sinhuet's formation mod)?

Its here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=90313) the installation instructions are in the first post of the thread.

[antisocialmunky]

The problem is, that KH didn't have a good anvil like the other Hellenic factions, atleast not before the MoT has happened. Thats why I think that they should get a +4 defece bonus, to represent their Hoplitephalanx. The Makedonian Phalanx didn't need this bonus, because they are often not in direct contact with the enemy (pikes keeps them away). But thats of course only my opinion.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

I've seen a line of hoplites in defense mode flanked by good heavy infantry beat Marian legionaires head on. I wouldn't sell the KH short.

[Twigvest]

A pleasure its here :- 59

Btw, to make it work for your current game, you must overwrite the EDU in C:\....\EB\sp game edu backup. If you overwrite The EDU in EB\DATA, the game just reads from the backup, and the changes won't work.



Link Broken, can someone re-upload this please?

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I've manually lowered light-spears attack value by 4, except for cavalries

[Celtic_Punk]

I dunno about you but if I were to get stabbed by a spear or a sword, I'd probably die without the proper medical care.

bah! thats because you're not a real man!

I think swords are more lethal in the hands of a skilled swordsman than a spear in the hands of an equally skilled spearman. This should be reflected in the lethality values.

A spear inorder to kill you needs to hit a vital area, or create enough damage and make a gaping wound that will make you bleed to death. A sword does not need to be so accurate. it merely needs to hack off a limb or make a good strike into your body to make it a lethal hit (provided it is not a glancing blow, defeated by armour, or just a mere slice) A sword makes a terrible gaping cut, and unlike an axe, can cut a head clean off with ease. A spear's energy is focused into a single point on the target mass. while slashing with a sword can create much more damage in a close combat situation, in haste, than you can with a spear in the same circumstances.

[Watchman]

Please note that cuts at (unarmoured) legs in practice tended to have either of two results - catastrophic fight-stopping damage, up to and including wholesale amputation, or a relatively irrelevant flesh wound... long swords and such *can* lop off sundry body parts, but that doesn't mean they *will*.

OTOH, deep stabs in the body are rather quickly incapaciating and without rather advanced medical attention, usually lethal...

This should be reflected in the lethality values.:dizzy2: It *is*.

I think swords are more lethal in the hands of a skilled swordsman than a spear in the hands of an equally skilled spearman.*Your* thinking is fairly unimportant, though. However, allow me to quote John Clements' Medieval Swordsmanship (bold added): "--- The "fight" of pole-arm against the single sword is very probably the most challenging that any swordsman can face. Even in the hands of a novice such weapons can have a tremendous advantage in reach and can be very quick. No swordsman can hope to be fully versed in the long-sword without training against pole-arms. As covered previously with regard to the sword & shield, there is a reason long-shafted weapons were so common in popular: they were deadly instruments that were relatively easy to use (especially in groups). Spears of all types were extremely common, and even a long lance could easily be cut down for easier use on foot or a wooden staff employed as a pole-arm. Still, if the pole-arm fighter is not trained well or is himself ignorant of the sword, he will lose to a skilled swordsman.
---
Because pole-arms can have such tremendous advantages over single swords, there is not much that can be said of fighting them except practice (and perhaps consider using a shield). ---"

Now granted, he's talking about the Late Medieval/Renaissance two-handed longsword and the two-handed polearms here (sadly, the earlier chapter discussing the use of sword & shield against other weapons doesn't include the spear & shield scenario), but you get the general idea. There was a reason the Medieval Masters of Defence taught both swords and shafted weapons as part of their standard curriculum.

[mountaingoat]

are we talking sword vs spear with shield or without ? spear without shield can be used like a bo staff with a nice pointy blade on the ends.

[option]

This is pretty off-topic, but I was thinking about the Diadochi wars and the symmetry of the armies involved, and trying to think of a way in which one might break that symmetry, when I had the idea of adding another 2-3 feet to the sarissa. Now, I have only limited knowledge of the factors involved, but it doesn't seem like something that would be too hard to accomplish - just add some mass to the counterweight to balance it. Another couple feet on an already 20-foot pike is hardly going to make it more unwieldly, either. Would this have been plausible?

[Watchman]

They tried that, actually. At some point 21' (7m) sarissae were experimented with, but these were found to be both structurally unviable (due to the shafts sagging too much under their own weight) and unacceptably cumbersome, unwieldy and generally pain in the ass even compared to the "regular" six-meter or so pike.
Ergo the experiment was swiftly abandoned in favour of the "universal standard maximum" of about six meters or bit more.

[antisocialmunky]

In every age where people used pikes made out of wood, the max has always been around ~6m.

Oda Nobunaga's Nagae Yari troops who employed the longest pikes in Medieval Japan maxed at a little under 6m. Pikemen in the west maxed at about 6m. The Polish Winged Hussars used lances in the ~5m range only because it was constructed hollow.

So by trial and error, ~6m is the upper bound of an effective pike.