View Full Version : Sword vs. Spear
Hello: I remember seeing a bonus of sword vs. spear. For example, a hastati gets a bonus fighting barbarian warband in a melee. Can anybody kindly point out how much (if any) this bonus is and better - where to look for such information? Thank you very much.
Hello: I remember seeing a bonus of sword vs. spear. For example, a hastati gets a bonus fighting barbarian warband in a melee. Can anybody kindly point out how much (if any) this bonus is and better - where to look for such information? Thank you very much.
The big difference is the time to swing the weapon -- the warband spear is slower than the Hastati. Look in the export_desc_unit text file in the data directory.
Are knives faster?
Don't know about the knives but the peasants carrying them are ~D
The info on the size of bonuses is not accessible. We don't know if CA will make this info known.
Are knives faster?
Knives and swords are the same speed. Warband spears and axes are slower swings.
So this means, say, that Hastati get off more hits than Spear Warband in the same time frame?
So this means, say, that Hastati get off more hits than Spear Warband in the same time frame?
How bout Maces, Axes, or Double Handed Axes??
Don't know about the knives but the peasants carrying them are ~D
LOL ~D You're not wrong there!
FURRY_BOOTS
12-14-2004, 16:55
in the real world the point always beats the blade :charge:
anti_strunt
12-14-2004, 18:21
in the real world the point always beats the blade :charge:
In the real world, horsies can't (or won't) jump over spearpoints when charging the front of a phalanx...
:charge: :charge: :charge: :dizzy2:
Are you sure, anti_strunt? A horse isn't dumb. It can realize that it doesn't have enough space to stop and/or that there are a pack of horses behind it that will shove it forward if it does try to stop. The angled spears are angled vs arrows, not flying horses, thus there is a gap between the horizontal spears and the angled ones that might look a lot less hazardous than the spearpoints. We know that horses can jump (isn't there an entire sport based on horses jumping high obstacles?).
In addition, a cavalry unit might train horses to jump in that situation precisely to disrupt formations. After all, if a few horses can crash into the top of the horizontal spears and then into the formation, it would really mess up the spear's defence of subsequent inbound horses.
The appropriate counter for such tactics, of course, is if the Phalanx lowers the angled spears to intercept jumping horses. However, geometry might prevent that (the spears would need to be driven into the ground on the backside to be able to take the weight of the horse, making it difficult to lower the point due to the guy in front). Even if it were possible, if the horse did jump anyway, it would land on the front spears, nullifying their capability on that section.
If I'm not wrong, there was this famous battle where the severely-outnumbered English, led by King Henry, fought and routed a French army. I don't recall specific details, but I remember the English longbowmen driving pointed stakes into the ground as a precaution against the French heavy calvary. I was wondering, why doesn't RTW model this?
FURRY_BOOTS
12-14-2004, 19:15
In the real world, horsies can't (or won't) jump over spearpoints when charging the front of a phalanx...
:charge: :charge: :charge: :dizzy2:
in the real world a general with half a brain cell wouldnt charge a row of pikes :dizzy2: ~:eek:
anyway i was talking about hand to hand combat :duel: if i had to choose, then give me the rapier every time :bow:
Not necessarily, furry_boots. It would depend on the situation.
Say a phalanx army was set up in a pass and thus unflankable, or was in a ring (I've seen pictures of RTW players doing just that). Say also a general had few missile troops, but had many cavalrymen, with some "throw-away" cavalry. I could easily see a general deliberatly charging some cavalry at a point in order to disrupt that point, so he could force his men through that gap and attack the phalanxes from behind. A cavalry charge is much more likely to carve a gap in a phalanx line than an infantry charge, if for nothing else than a wall of spears impaled on horses can't really do much damage to subsequent attackers, where a foot-soldier attack could be held off for quite a while by a spear wall.
Such a tactic was used by the Germans in WW2 to break through the French defenses. In this case, the role of the phalanx was the Maginot line and the Ardennes Forest (apologies if I misspelled either).
Red Harvest
12-14-2004, 19:59
If they were all formed up in pass, then it might make more sense to send your cav to round up some local cattle. Herd the cattle together at the back of the pass, scare the heck out of them and drive 'em at full tilt towards the phalanx with your cav charging behind. Alas, I've never seen any herds of cattle on the battlefield.
Back on topic:
I haven't tested the impact of the different speed factor for spear vs. sword. On the surface it looks like one will be about 1/3rd quicker at killing than the other, about 2 attack points for base level units.
I know some folks have substituted a javelin for the hoplite spears to model overhand thrusts vs. underhand. However, this really reduced the kill rate because the "hit box" is smaller.
anti_strunt
12-14-2004, 22:56
Not necessarily, furry_boots. It would depend on the situation.
Say a phalanx army was set up in a pass and thus unflankable, or was in a ring (I've seen pictures of RTW players doing just that). Say also a general had few missile troops, but had many cavalrymen, with some "throw-away" cavalry. I could easily see a general deliberatly charging some cavalry at a point in order to disrupt that point, so he could force his men through that gap and attack the phalanxes from behind. A cavalry charge is much more likely to carve a gap in a phalanx line than an infantry charge, if for nothing else than a wall of spears impaled on horses can't really do much damage to subsequent attackers, where a foot-soldier attack could be held off for quite a while by a spear wall.
Was this tactic ever used by any ancient army? I believe that is what's relevant, not just what might have happened... Also, if we are going to discuss theoretics, how many horsemen would be willing to randomly throw themselves at a wall of pikes just to give their comrades a tactical advantage anyway? Also remember that the cavalry was the elite (or at least the minority) in just about all non-steppe-nomad armies, an elite/minority they would hardly want to throw away in such a wasteful fashion.
Such a tactic was used by the Germans in WW2 to break through the French defenses. In this case, the role of the phalanx was the Maginot line and the Ardennes Forest (apologies if I misspelled either).
Never heard this interpretation of the German invasion of France before. Are you saying that the Germans frontally attacked the Maginot Line with their cavalry in order to disorder it's formation? ~;)
Watchman
12-15-2004, 00:35
The Germans went through the Ardennes because A) they could B) the French didn't know they could (I've read the Americans actually made a mistake along the same lines later on, before the Battle of the Bulge, but I'm not very convinced of that one) C) because of that, and some other reasons, the French defenses at Sedan behind the mountains were very light.
Once the German victories to the north (Dunkirk et all) forced the French to pull the infantry regiments from around the Maginot Line forts for their last desperate attemp at halting the drive to Paris, the Germans could pass between the major fortifications and on the side invest the small bunkers between them. They also tried to reduce the big forts - but that turned out to be an exercise in frustration, as the damn things shrugged off everything thrown at them and cheerfully shot to bits everything that came close. Once France capitulated so did many of the forts - but some refused to believe the news (dismissing them as "German tricks", undoubtly), and as they had ammo and food aplenty they were in no hurry to give up. The Germans eventually had to bring in ranking French officials to convince the garrisons.
Pretty bad comparision to phalanxes, IMHO.
Anyway, if cavalry have to attack pikemen from the front they might as well not bother - even if they're Renaissance knights in some of the most hardcore armor the world has ever seen, odds are they'll just die plain and simple. It's actually more effective to dismount the men and send them in as infantry.
At Thermopylae the Persians settled down to wearing the Greeks down by sheer attrition and simply fed their disposable crap-quality infantry into hoplite spears - every now and then one of the poor bastards got through and killed a hoplite or two before perishing. I've read somewhere they also tried sending in Bactrian armored cavalry at one point, but that turned out not to work too well. If the horsemen managed to get past the spears they could cause more damage before dying than the crap infantry, but it was obviously not a very cost-effective equation and the cavalry were among the actually effective parts of the army (others included the Immortals and similar regular troops, plus assorted merenaries - it has been said the Persians could just as well have campaigned with these guys and left the great mass of conscripted peasants home) - they were far better used elsewhere.
Horse vs. pike is pretty much a recipe for dead horses. 'Nuff said. If the cavalry can maneuver around the pikemen it's a little better, especially if they have ranged weaponry, but even then it's chancy. Depends on the pikemen too, of course - I understand the Antiquity pikemen hadn't yet figured out the comparatively unassailable hollow-square formation, and duly had vulnerable flanks.
The comparison for the Ardennes can be seen as a bad example or an excellent one, depending on your point of view. The point was to force a hole in the defences, then send the bulk of your forces through that hole to take advantage of an enemy who set their defences up as a single directional line.
The French (incorrectly) assumed that the Ardennes were impassable, or at least very difficult to send an army through, thus they considered it part of their defence. They also assumed that the Belgians would help defend that part of the border between Germany and France/Belgium. There was no need for fortifications in the forest because a) fortifications would be of limited use without the sightlines (hard to see troops through a mile of tree trunks and leaves), and b) defence in forests is much easier than in the open, thus far fewer regular troops would be needed, and c) any army moving through the forest would take a long time to move through (so they thought), thus allowing time for reaction. And of course, the Belgian might have a problem with the French putting up massive construction works in their territory!
The French did understand the danger of the Germans attacking through Belgium, and worried about it once it became clear that Belgium might not fight the Germans if they came through. They had begin a project to expand the Maginot line along the Belgium/France border, but were not far along when the offensive began.
Interestingly enough, the Germans did attack a part of the Maginot line head-on during the offensive, much like the US attacked the defences on the Saudi-Kuwaiti border in '91 (IIRC). In both cases they were diversions, and in both cased the diversion actually made it through.
I have no idea if any general send horsemen in to disrupt a Phalanx/Spearwall line in a suicide run. I do know that suicide waves have been used in history before. In the Korean War, the Chinese/North Koreans did use wave attacks to attack the Americans. The first waves were literally equipped with sticks (obviously not meant to fight if they survived). Subsequent waves were equipped with better and better equipment. The idea was to overwhelm the defences and quite literally run them out of ammo leaving them defenceless when the "real" troops attacked. I think some of the battles around Pusan were like that. I'm not as good on the specifics of the Korean War as I am in WW2 history, so I apologize if some of the facts are wrong. However, there are many examples throughout history (not just the Korean war) where a leader threw a unit against a fortified position in an apparent suicide attack as part of a larger battle plan.
I was merely attempting to point out that there is a tactical use for charging horsemen directly into a spearwall under certain circumstances, despite the horrible results for the horsemen.
However, the conditions would have to be just right for this to be a "good" choice. First, there would have to be a lack of missile troops. Second, there would have to be an overriding need to defeat the spearwall at that time, instead of later. Third, you would need expendable highly motivated troops (motivated by fear, patriotism, incentive, whatever). If you have a choice between sending in your best cavalry vs some slave cavalry who will die the next day anyway (but can choose to die in combat instead), obviously pick the latter. Basically you would need an urgent need to defeat the enemy, a lack of alternative choices, and troops who are willing or can be made to sacrifice themselves to make it work.
Another possibility why such cavalry/mass charge tactics weren't used in history: the depth of formations. A suicide cavalry charge, even with heavy horses, won't break a hole through a phalanx formation if the phalanx formation is, say, 20 men deep.
A 5/6 man deep RTW-style formation can suffer because of three factors:
1) the formation is so shallow that there aren't enough men behind the disrupted section to maintain the line,
2) all units in a formation tend to collapse to the zone of combat (at least when "Guard" mode is off),
3) the entire formation often draws swords and disintegrates as a cohesive body (fortunately issuing "Halt" orders often returns them to spear duty at the attacker's detriment, although they often reform facing the wrong way).
Fortunatly RTW is much better about solving the second problem than MTW was (and is probably why Phalanx units start out with Guard mode on), but still, I suspect that having more ranks would make a formation much more effective vs suicide charges.
acheronsbane
12-15-2004, 03:26
cavalry charging against phalanx pikemen, not a very healthy proposition. why would someone do it? it would be some glorious and heroic sight to behold, heroic defeat at that. can't be done if you had some sensible plan to conquer the world, but hey it would be fun if your cavalry is led by one of the generals with "the Mad" as his appelation. he might just survive and have his head straight after the experience.
Why would someone do it? Why would someone charge a machinegun nest? Why would soldiers in WW2 go over the top into certain death? Why would Japanese pilots fly their planes into aircraft carriers? Why would B17 crews fly into Berlin in 1944? Why would Viet-Cong attack US soldiers in Viet-Nam (IIRC, we won decisively virtually all large scale battles during that conflict) Why would people attack the US army in Iraq? Why did the Japanese soldiers continue fighting to the last man on Iwo Jima and Okinawa late in WW2?
There are numerous reasons why people would go into a hopeless fight or go into a charge knowing they would die. It can happen and did happen. However, as I outlined in my post above, the circumstances have to be right for it to even be considered a possibility.
There are numerous reasons why people would go into a hopeless fight or go into a charge knowing they would die. It can happen and did happen.
Yeah, but how do you persuade a horse to do it?
Watchman
12-15-2004, 12:49
Er...hoof ? The examples you cite are from the period after nationalism and patriotism in the modern sense developed. Around that time soldiers were also supposed to stoically and fatalistically accept the prospect of death and injury and "soldier on" nonetheless, which in many ways was their primary difference to the warriors of earlier ages. A very few conditional exceptions aside, those ideas simply weren't around before about 17th or 18th century or thereabouts, at least not in Western Eurasia. Warriors were into it for the money/loot, the glory, their legal obligations to their superiors, because they had no choice, or any combination thereof; "for the Fatherland" mentality was conspicuously absent in almost all cases (save the few conditional exceptions; the Romans were one).
Mounted warriors, if not actually the elite (as in Rome and Greece, the advocates of massed heavy infantry; they might be noblemen, but their military importance and thus real influence was limited), were in any case highly trained and expensive specialists who filled certain vital roles in armies. Only very foolish commanders would waste them in useless suicide attacks against steady phalanxes.
Incidentally, the Korean War human-wave attacks were borne out out stark practical necessity - the Chinese and the North Koreans quite simply didn't have the tanks and artillery required to smash through the Allied fortifications, and had to make do with manpower and will instead. I sincerely doubt about the "first waves with sticks" part, incidentally - even if the first assaults faltered (as was almost certain) the survivors, who'd then spend their time huddling in craters, ditches etc., could make themselves comparatively useful by trading fire with the defenders.
I've also read the Chinese at least made heavy use of stormtrooper-style infiltration tactics to support the main assaults - sending in small units of picked men to sneak into the trenches and spread chaos among the defenders.
Chimpyang
12-15-2004, 18:12
If I'm not wrong, there was this famous battle where the severely-outnumbered English, led by King Henry, fought and routed a French army.
Battle of Againcourt (sp?)
The battlefield suited the english army better on that day.
Watchman
12-15-2004, 23:36
:laugh4:
Agincourt. But "Againcourt" is a pretty neat way to misspell it. :2thumbsup:
Yeah, but how do you persuade a horse to do it?
Warhorses will follow their masters to whatever end. It's what they're trained to do. Ofcourse, not all animals can overcome instinct with training alone. So asking if a warhorse will carry on the charge or not, would be something akin to asking whether a soldier will go on a suicide mission or not.
It's all about motivation. A wall of bayonets, zounds of artillery fire, gunshots, explosions, etc. certainly didn't stop the English Light Brigade, or their horses, from charging the guns. The result was a disaster ofcourse, but motivated men, and horses, will charge. Just like the soldiers from the trenches in the Great War would charge, to their certain deaths.
Watchman
12-16-2004, 00:42
Alas, dead horsies tend to get in the way of the live ones (and the latter tend to get a little nervous by the screams of the former). Especially if you concentrate the assault too much - cavalry can't add "mass" to the charge by actual physical pushing anyway.
And any horse tries to back off when it actually hits the spear-points.
A wall of bayonets, zounds of artillery fire, gunshots, explosions, etc. certainly didn't stop the English Light Brigade, or their horses, from charging the guns. The result was a disaster ofcourse...The popular perception of the charge of the light brigade owes a lot to the 1968 film of the same name. In fact its interpretation of events has been quite coherently challenged.
The LB were not supposed to charge the Russian guns head on - they were ordered to flank them. The brigade suffered heavy casualties but did in fact capture the position. There was no guarantee they would have been more successful following their original instructions. I've heard it argued that the incident was actually a great success - though expensive and accidental.
Hmm. Can't edit posts. But I found my source - "Hell Riders: The Truth About the Charge of the Light Brigade" by Terry Brighton.
Interesting article about it here... http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1344535,00.html with some interesting titbits for all you hippophiles and a big sideways dig at Gulf War II: Attack of the Clones.
Anyhow... miles off topic. Back to the fascinating software development debate on another hijacked thread.
Why should sword armed troops get any bonus at all against spear armed troops? Granted, a sword might be a tad handier at arms length but getting past the spear point is hardly automatic.
And please, I'm open to any reasonable explanation EXCEPT the old worn out and overused rock, paper, scissors analogy which I reject as being over simplified and gamey.
Watchman
12-16-2004, 23:22
Well, most pike-carrying phalangites are pretty much crap with their backup sword attack, at least compared to any halfway decent "specialist" swordsmen... but I don't think that counts. ~;)
Anyway, I read somewhere spears were supposed to give a small bonus against cavalry and a small penalty against infantry.
Alas, dead horsies tend to get in the way of the live ones (and the latter tend to get a little nervous by the screams of the former). Especially if you concentrate the assault too much - cavalry can't add "mass" to the charge by actual physical pushing anyway.
And any horse tries to back off when it actually hits the spear-points.
Dead horses also tend to fall down with spectacular thud, and sling around people with force powerful enough to push neckbones inside the skull. When a horse row intentionally charges a spear row with full force, virtually all of the people mounted or standing, can be considred "dead". The first row of both sides will die.
So, unless you have some really great braking system that can stop a 600kg object travelling at 38mph within 10 yards of distance, a trained warhorse ordered for a charge will not stop. That's a fact.
The problem with traditional anti-cavalry spear rows is that when people are packed close together to form a wall, once a foreign object enters inside the ranks the people in contact with that object cannot move around and wield weapons aggressively due to insufficient maneuvering space. So typically, if for some reason a suicidal cavalry force charges a spear wall, it will break inside the ranks like a nail hammered to a wood block (with humongous casulaties, ofcourse). Only when the position of the spear ranks shifts around and gains enough room to actively skewer the cavalrymen that successfully entered a spear row alive, will they be able to stop the cavalry.
This was possible in the ancient times where soldiers were highly motivated citizens, trained regularly, and had enough wealth to equip themselves with expensive pieces of armour and weaponery. The spear formations were in very deep ranks, and despite the initial drive, eventually spears will do away with cavalry. However, when such high quality of infantry seized to exist, heavy cavalry had no problems disrupting spear-armed infantry lines whatsoever.
Tactical avoidance of charging a spearwall with cavalry, is not a problem of will, it's a problem of efficiency and attrition. Generals refrained from ordering their cavalry to go become shish-kebab not because it was impossible, but because it was stupid.
lol an interesting viewpoint - i agree!
dedmoroz
12-17-2004, 11:11
In the real world, horsies can't (or won't) jump over spearpoints when charging the front of a phalanx...
:charge: :charge: :charge: :dizzy2:
Catafracts were used exactly for that: front charge against infantry.
they had full armor for both rider and the horse, the pike arround 4.5-5 meters long were tied with rope to the horse neck, so the rider needed only to point the pike in the right direction.
some history sources show that they were able to make terrible wounds to the infantry by charging this way, sometimes they were impailing 2 men at once within the initial charge.
it was a shock front charge cavalry and it happened in the real world m8 ~:cheers:
anti_strunt
12-17-2004, 15:52
Catafracts were used exactly for that: front charge against infantry.
they had full armor for both rider and the horse, the pike arround 4.5-5 meters long were tied with rope to the horse neck, so the rider needed only to point the pike in the right direction.
some history sources show that they were able to make terrible wounds to the infantry by charging this way, sometimes they were impailing 2 men at once within the initial charge.
it was a shock front charge cavalry and it happened in the real world m8 ~:cheers:
Dude, I was speaking about the hilarious way in which RTW cavalry charging the front of a phalanx would jump over all the spear points, breaking up formation of the pikemen and then slaughtering them. This particular feature was without a doubt introduced to save RTS kiddies the tedium of using some sort of tactics other than a head-on frontal charge, not to pay homage to some oddball military theory about horses willingly impaling themselves on pikes.
There's a fix for the jumping horsies problem. Vercingetorix (I'm assuming not the original) has just disabled the animation routine of jumping horses, bye bye problem. The patch can be downloaded from this site...
Dude, I was speaking about the hilarious way in which RTW cavalry charging the front of a phalanx would jump over all the spear points, breaking up formation of the pikemen and then slaughtering them. This particular feature was without a doubt introduced to save RTS kiddies the tedium of using some sort of tactics other than a head-on frontal charge, not to pay homage to some oddball military theory about horses willingly impaling themselves on pikes.
No.
That particular feature is introduced to give more diversity in tactical situations , than the boring "Rock-Scissors-Paper" game we used to see in MTW. "Spearmen" aren't automatic cavalry busters. Being armed with spears or standing in a neat looking phalanx formation means nothing. Absolutely nothing. The weapon, or the formation has no meaning when taken out of the context on how those weapons and formations can be used to full efficiency.
The only heavy cavalry that has a regular chance in breaking up a medium-grade phalanx unit by a head-on charge are the cataphtacts. The cataphracts are an elite group of well trained, heavily armed cavalry that comes from the cream of the proud and stubborn aristocracy.
Line up a human-sized, human-weight dummy and crash its ranks with a 600kg horse-sized dummy at 40mph speed, and the "horse-dummy" will crash through 16 ranks of "human-dummies" before coming to a halt. This is assuming the "horse-dummy" isn't self propelled at all, like a real horse.(Ofcourse, it is also assuming the "human-dummies" don't fight back at all). At anyrate, it gives a limited, but interesting comparison on just how strong a horse will crash into something.
Compared to that, how thick do we line up our phalanxes in the game? Rarely more than 6 ranks deep. Also, the phalanxes have only about 2 to 1, or 3 to 1 numbers advantage over a cavalry unit. At "large" sized game a typical phalangite has 80 men, as opposed to 40 cavalry. Not to mention not all of the 80 engage the 40 cavalry at the same time. The thinner the phalanx stands and the higher quality a cavalry boasts, the better the chance of significant number of cavalry penetrating the ranks alive.
Line up the phalanxes deep and back it up with more units and no cavalry is going through that alive, because the attirtion rate is much too high for the horsemen. Everything depends on the condition and situation of the battle. Lining up a certain unit type any place, any style, and expecting it to be "great against cavalry" just because it says so in the unit description, is as stupid as stupid does.
There is no such thing as "rock-scissors-paper" in a real fight. The more numerous factors exist, the more complicated things become. Every military leader studies battles before him, and if things were as simple and clear cut with the cavalry and the spears you suggest, there won't be such thing as a "good general" and a "bad general" in the first place. Everybody in charge of the army reads history. (At least, in the ancient times).
Julius Caesar specifically mentions. "you can't win battles by following texts". In the battle of pharsalus he stopped Pompeius' 7,000 cavalry with brilliant use of his 1,000 cavalry and a handful of veteran soldiers. He woudln't have bothered to come up with such a brilliant plan, if he could just arm the soldiers with long spears and expect them to hold off all the cavalry, would he?
Paul Peru
12-27-2004, 14:16
how thick do we line up our phalanxes in the game?
3 ranks, possibly 2 and a half. That's because we don't get proper bonii for having them in deep formations. So we keep them shallow to avoid getting flanked. 2 ranks is all you need + a few guys to replenish them when the dying starts.
There is no such thing as "rock-scissors-paper" in a real fight. There's such a thing as "rock-bigger rock", however. That's a fitting analogy as far as cav vs inf is concerned. The sharpness of pointy things is not as essential as the length thereof. As dedmoroz said, some cataphracts "developed" pointy things of amazing length. Not many cav units in RTW show signs of being that well endowed, though. The pikes of a well-formed phalanx should be quite a charge-deterrent for horse and rider alike, even if they do have a round shield as well as a cutting implement.
The cataphracts are an elite group of well trained, heavily armed cavalry that comes from the cream of the proud and stubborn aristocracy.
It's a shame aristocrats today are far less prone to stubbornly impale themselves on the spears of enemy soldiers, isn't it? ~;) Nowadays it's more like
You less privileged guys go get impaled, I'll be in the Caribbean or something
It has also been proven that the losses to the Light Brigade were grossly exaggerated and that in fact the vast majority survived mainly because the majority of the Russian guns were firing en-enfilade and the light brigades formation was moving too fast to be targetted effectively.
It's a shame aristocrats today are far less prone to stubbornly impale themselves on the spears of enemy soldiers, isn't it? ~;)
Yep! I'd pay good money to see Tony BLair impale himself on a rusty spearpoint, preferrably blunt and smeared in dog-shit. ~:cheers:
King_Etzel
12-27-2004, 16:31
Looks like another thread slipping off topic...
Anyway, if i had a real army, i wouldnt send suicide calvary to charge a bunch of spear points. I have this notion that infantry would work much better against spears. At least, better than in RTW. If i were an infantry facing a phalanx, i would want to use my sword to chop of the heads of their nice long pikes. Then i'll be fighting with a bunch of guys with long not so pointy anymore sticks instead. If they tried thrusting their spear/pike at me (which i imagine is rather difficult, given the length of those things), I'd want to bury their pike head in my shield and then hack it off. If all of my friends were doing the same, the spearmen would be effectively disarmed. But I suppose it isnt that easy and would get more complicated if they were walking forward. I dont really recall why the phalanx was so powerful during greek times (before alexander) but i do recall that those hoplite battles were a trial of brute strength and discipline in maintaining formation, and not many actually got themselves killed, but the losers tend to run away. And in those days, most of the Greek cities didnt have much in the way of calvary to chase the routers.
LordKhaine
12-28-2004, 00:15
One problem is that in real life... your phalanx guys would no doubt outnumber the heavy cavalry by a huge degree. There's no way you'd send your elite charging into pikes. Sure they'd break through the front line but the cost far outweights the gains. In RTW cavalry units are often about half the size, and cost about the same to maintain per man. If phalanxes were larger, and cavalry more expensive and harder to recruit, you'd be seeing far less people charging headlong into pikes.
Cavalry should be your elite shock troops, while in RTW it's perfectly affordable to have large amounts of cavalry in all the nations. Only a faction like Parthia should be able to field such amounts of cavalry without sucking their bank balance dry.
Alphidius
12-28-2004, 07:50
Ok I don't where this topic is heading to, but back to the title.
If I understand correctly, Roman Legions (Hestati etc.) use short swords known as Gladius so that the ranks may fight closely, supporting one another as opposed to axes, broad swords the Gauls, Germania used. So in terms of speed the short sword should get an advantage.
As for spears, they are best used at a range apart. They are anti-cavalry, negating Cavalry's first strike since they COULD strike from a distance.
I did pit one of my Roman Principles against Germania's Spearband. The result is unless their spears are raised up, or attacked from the flanks or back, there is no way my troops could even get close enough to inflict any damage. Which brings us back to sword vs spear topic. Conclusion spear is effective against distant, frontal attacks but non-existant in close-ranged, flanked ones.
Somebody Else
12-28-2004, 09:20
It's all to do with space really - a weapon needs some swinging distance to build up impetus - a spear will need a lot, a polearm also a lot, a longsword will need a fair bit and a short sword not so much at all. A dagger needs barely anything. The Romans favoured the gladius because it was short, and suited their compact formations. But try swinging a broadsword whilst shoulder to shoulder with a whole load of other people doing the same - not much is going to work very well.
Thinking about it, an ideal situation would have the front couple of ranks with short stabbing swords, and the next couple of ranks with spears, stabbing over the top.
There is no way in real life that you would get a horse to charge into a row of spear points. Horses just wouldn't do it.
There is no way in real life that you would get a horse to charge into a row of spear points. Horses just wouldn't do it.
Yes but there is alot you can do in the way of training and conditional reinforcement to make a horse to think that such an endeavor is not nearly as hazardous as it seems.
Bey Osman
12-28-2004, 19:27
Yes but there is alot you can do in the way of training and conditional reinforcement to make a horse to think that such an endeavor is not nearly as hazardous as it seems.
Yes but during the Napoleanic wars if even some of the best Cavalry in Europe couldn't break a Square formation because of the Bayoneted Muskets creating this heghe that unless they had a Lance they couldn't reach the Musket Men in this Formation because a Horse is too smart to charge into a wall of sharp spears or bayonets. :charge:
Yes but during the Napoleanic wars if even some of the best Cavalry in Europe couldn't break a Square formation because of the Bayoneted Muskets creating this heghe that unless they had a Lance they couldn't reach the Musket Men in this Formation because a Horse is too smart to charge into a wall of sharp spears or bayonets. :charge:
Don't forget that cavalries at this time were not all that great compared to other times. These were the guys that simply couldn't understand that anybody could ever have ridden without saddles or stirrups and thus must not have been good at charging (but there are quite a few examples or just such cavalries).
A horse has very bad eyesight to the front, chances are that it won't see the spearpoints (they are after all rather small), what it will see is the mass of men. "That is not nice," it thinks, "I can't run through such a dense mass." So it will stop. But it can be trained to believe that the rider knows better than it does, horses are not the brightest animals on our planet. So training it to run into such dense groups is not impossible, it would demand time and effort, but if you continually sent it at similar masses of dummies and open a lane for the horse in front where it can't see, it will believe the rider knows what he is doing. It will get used to accepting that a dense mass of men only looks dense, but are very run-throughable. It doesn't know it will die horribly.
The Hussaria of Poland could and did break pikeformations head on by the use of longer lances. Somehow they managed to break the lances on some poor pikeman and still leave the charge alive... How I don't know, but apparently horses could and would charge at pikes if the right people trained and led them.
Why didn't it happen more, in the middle ages for instance?
Well, cavalry as mentioned were very very expensive, and often if they were to have a chance against pikes they would be even more expensive, and worst yet they were also nobles. Nobles who considered their own life rather important, not something to throw away.
In the Middle Ages the knights were even more hampered. Why should a knight risk his precious life killing a few pikemen which were very far below his standing, when other noble knights roamed the field or some archers looked very juicy at one side. No the knights simply wouldn't do it even if they could (which they quite possibly could).
So in all, technically cavalry could have ridden down pikemen, but realistically they couldn't.
The problem with the jumping horses is rather bad, other horses than Cataphracts can beat phalanxes, they just can't beat top-pikes, but more normal hoplites and levy pikemen can be broken by lesser cavalry. And don't forget Companions, they too can dish out damage in the extreme.
It is too easy to rupture phalanxes head on with cavalry... It shouldn't be worth the attempt, cavalry should be used as they were, for flanking mainly.
I believe the jumping horses were added as eyecandy more than anything. I don't think it was added to make it easier to manage cavalry.
Hellboy909
01-02-2005, 10:01
3 ranks, possibly 2 and a half. That's because we don't get proper bonii for having them in deep formations.
Heh-heh. You said "bonii". Heh.
Simetrical
01-02-2005, 21:00
Should've at least been "boni." If you're going to use pretentious non-English plurals, at least use them correctly.
-Simetrical
3 ranks, possibly 2 and a half. That's because we don't get proper bonii for having them in deep formations. So we keep them shallow to avoid getting flanked. 2 ranks is all you need + a few guys to replenish them when the dying starts.
You don't need a separate bonus in RTW. The game has internal mechanics which handle the physical force of charge, unlike flat-2D STW/MTW where physics had to be calculated through numbers provided by theoretical bonuses. In RTW, if the formation is deep, it already has the desired effect needed.
It's a shame aristocrats today are far less prone to stubbornly impale themselves on the spears of enemy soldiers, isn't it? Nowadays it's more like
It's quite no wonder. Noble aristocracy of the old earned their supremacy over the lesser people through duties to bear arms and fight against the enemy if war should happen. A noble who would not fight, who cannot protect the people, had no right to rule. The modern-day equivalent would be the Congressmen, Senators, and rest of the D.C. tophats bearing arms and being the first ones to charge into Iraq.
Wouldn't that be a sight for my sore eyes!
Red Harvest
01-03-2005, 06:22
You don't need a separate bonus in RTW. The game has internal mechanics which handle the physical force of charge, unlike flat-2D STW/MTW where physics had to be calculated through numbers provided by theoretical bonuses. In RTW, if the formation is deep, it already has the desired effect needed.
Not a bad theory but it does not appear to be entirely accurate based on many of the tests that have been done. Animations are central, so if you have a jumping cav as part of the animation it sometimes leaps over the pike formation. There is a mod to remove the jumping cav animation. While the 3D animations and hit zones are used as part of the determination of a hit, they are only part of the equation. There are mount effect bonuses, charge bonuses, terrain bonus/penalties, elevation effects, and various morale bonuses/penalties (most of the morale effects being undocumented at the moment.) So having some artificial physics clearly does not eliminate the need for morale and other effects to be considered. Otherwise, charge bonuses would not be necessary, they would come about naturally from the momentum and normal attack/defense calcs. Rank bonuses were there for more reasons than just 2D vs. 3D effects.
I've seen some odd things that I suspect are related to "momentum" calcs. For example, in testing some elephant mods I found heavy cav were stopping reduced size elephant unit charges cold. I suspect that the relative momentum values were the cause. The elephants should easily cause a hole through the skittish horses as the equines veer to avoid the widely spaced beasts, but the physics/animations don't "know" that. (I'm not saying the elephants wouldn't take casualties, etc, just that they should make the cavalry formation "porous.") I need to test my theory some more for confirmation as to the exact nature.
Another area that show problems when a pure game physics approach is used is unit stacking. Often you can get many more weapons massed vs. and enemy by stacking units. This should have a very negative impact, but instead it appears to be rather positive. STW/MTW seemed to have handled this situation better than RTW.
Proletariat
01-03-2005, 07:19
And please, I'm open to any reasonable explanation EXCEPT the old worn out and overused rock, paper, scissors analogy which I reject as being over simplified and gamey.
I await your own computer game's release. It will be very 'realistic' and fun, I'm sure. Have at it.
I await your own computer game's release. It will be very 'realistic' and fun, I'm sure. Have at it.
Ho ho! Now we should we restrict discussion to developers only, heh?
I asked a simple question, chief.
Why should sword armed troops get any bonus at all against spear armed troops?
Do you have a sensible explanation? Can you contribute anything at all here?
Have at it.
Paul Peru
01-03-2005, 17:30
Heh-heh. You said "bonii". Heh.
That's right, Hellboy! My little joke. You'll humour a dying man.
Should've at least been "boni." If you're going to use pretentious non-English plurals, at least use them correctly.
-Simetrical:dizzy2:
Actually I just forgot to add the smilii. ~;) ~;) ~;)
Pretensious, moi?
Hey! It's my post number 100!! :charge:
Red Harvest
01-03-2005, 18:59
Nelson,
If you say, "hey they are both 7 attack and 7 defense, they should kill at the same rate" it still won't work out right if one can be wielded twice as rapidly, or one has twice the reach, or one of the two is tremendously effective vs. cavalry, etc. There is also a match up factor, where does each weapons strike fall in the opponent's "hit box?" If one has a weapon strike that will land in the box 25% of the time while the other will land 50% of the time I expect a considerable change in kill rate.
Some of this can be accounted for in the 3d animations, some cannot, particularly morale effects. Pikes vs. swords and spears is interesting because of the reach effect. And animations could lead to some interesting effects such as if I have a 4 frame animation for one unit's attack, and 5 for another, then the hits are probably going to score differently. And what if there are some jumping animations thrown in? There might be no hits vs. the jumper, and the jumper might end up on a flank/rear.
The "gamey" rock-paper-scissors looks attactive compared to what we have at the moment. Right now it's more like rock-rock-scissors. Some counters are not countering properly. Afterall, specific weapons are meant as counters to various unit types. In MTW there were *degrees* of effectiveness of one unit type vs. another. It wasn't all rock paper scissors. A general chasing arbalesters with halbardiers deserved what he got (shot to pieces.) Same for cav charging spears frontally. Same for heavy armoured units in the desert. Same for cavalry attacking camels. Simple archers shooting at armour had little effect unless on high ground, just as expected.
Red Harvest
01-03-2005, 19:27
I tested changing the elephant mass vs. heavy cav. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like I expected. I moved the forest elephant mass from 10 all the way up to 50 without breaking through legionary cav in a frontal charge. This looks like more of a formation density problem at the moment. The legionary cav formation is tight so the elephant charge stops when it hits the wall of cav. Based on historical info I would expect the cav formation to break down from an elephant charge, but this does not seem to be modeled as such. I'm surprised that the elephant mass doesn't result in them punching through.
I did find a way to deal with the power of heavy cav. vs. elephants though. I changed the cav unit's "mount effect" to the negative sum of its primary melee and charge bonus. A fixed value for all cav makes little sense, because the real issue is the horse. High end troops should still have major trouble with their mount not letting them near the pachyderm. Even with the adjustment, heavy cav still hang in there too long vs. elephants, so the morale effect is very subdued--probably another flat value that works well vs. light cav, poorly against heavy cav.
KyodaiSteeleye
01-03-2005, 20:41
yeah baby, contentious thread!
Time i ploughed in with my swinging sword of rightousness and my trusty spear thrust of truth. Or not.
Etzel, the reason you and your mates couldn't make pointy things less pointy is that they would most likely have some armouring back from the point to stop just this. Also, if you're charging into combat, i doubt you have time to accurately hack off the spear point in front of you as you stumble onto it. Also, there's probably another two pointy things behind the first one. And yes, they probably are thrusting them into your chest.
Jumping animations - yes, a bit silly - i can cope with them for light cav maybe, but not for cataphracts. Yes, I think Cataphracts probably could punch a hole through most infrantry, even spear formations - although i'd think they'd still bear some bruising casualties - even just from riders being unhorsed from the force of contact with a spear (even if it didn't penetrate their armour). I've noticed that Desert cavalry units ALWAYS penetrate my Seleucid phalanxes - and usually after the charge has stopped - they kinda just push through the formation, then turn around and murder them from behind - ridiculous, although quite useful if you work for Egypt!
Back to the topic - no, swordsmen should not have any bonuses vs spearmen - a group of swordsmen charging a disciplined phalanx from the front should get murdered - especially in the initial contact of the charge, after that, gaps may well appear in the phalanx spearpoint formation that can be exploited, as pikes get embedded in shields/bodies etc...
The advantage of sword-armed troops on the battlefield should be more related to their vastly increased manouverability, (speed of movement and turning) - allowing them to exploit gaps and flanks more quickly, and increased kill rates when they get close and personal (as opposed to the slow grinding of phalanxes). I always thought that the paper(swords)-rock (spears) part of MTW (specifically) was a bit silly and egged on by peoples' love affair with swords and with images of broad-sword wielding conan's smiting all before them (I smite thee with my F'ing big broad sword!)
PS:- re: roman cohorts (specifically) against phalanxes - a frontal assault by a cohort on a phalanx would, i would have thought, be aided by a pila shower immediately prior to the charge, as this would disrupt the formation to an extent. Maybe this is not modelled at present in RTW. Not sure if this would be enough to allow them to punch into the formation though..
I think we get too wrapped around the axle about weapons. Weapons are cool and I like to study them as much as any other wargamer. But they are incidental to the fight compared to leadership, training and morale.
My issue is with the whole “counter unit” concept based on weapons. Spears can sometimes have an advantage vs cav for good reason IMO. The fact that spear armed units can have a bonus vs cav should not compel every unit type to have a special bonus of it’s own against something else just so all units get a bonus. The question should not be “Well, if spears get a bonus vs cavalry, what bonus do swords get?”. (I don’t suggest that this is what you advocate, Red :grin:)
Not every unit needs to be a specific counter to something else. Any unit can succeed against any other if the tactical situation allows. Creating that situation should not be so simple as hitting scissors with rocks and covering stones with paper to achieve an edge. Caesar and Hannibal never had it so easy. As I see it, if swords had it all over spears then why didn’t the Romans completely mop the floor with Pyrrhus?
Pyrrhus killed a lot of gladius armed Romans with spears. Not once but three times. Where’s the basis for a sword vs spear bonus I ask, beyond the “They gotta have SOME kinda bonus for the RPS paradigm” rationale? The debate over melee advantage based upon weapons is not answered by history in this regard. Maniples were more maneuverable than rigid phalanxes. Bingo on the movement point, Kyodai. Anybody hitting a phalanx flank will hurt it badly, whatever they fight with. Hitting the phalanx in its’ front was bad news, whatever weapon you held. Only rarely do weapons afford an advantage to one side or the other. Some combination of leadership, tactics, numbers or morale won the day. Oh, and let's not forget dumb luck.
Each unit type is different for sure. But this is based on how it fights, not who it fights. Missile units strike from a distance. That’s their advantage. Cavalry is fast and hard hitting and that’s its’ advantage. Two handed weapons get an anti armor plus. Swords are an all around kind of unit, decent at offense and defense and probably better at fighting on walls than others and not so slow as a phalanx. So sword armed troops have plenty going for them already. I don’t think they need a bonus vs spears.
I expect that the animations are not considered in the combat math. Are they indeed? I should add that I have removed the cavalry leaping from my game. Phalanxes are much tougher on cav now.
And yes, there are several issues with elephants.
Red Harvest
01-03-2005, 22:01
Nelson,
You've got me marked wrong. I've actually been a strong proponent of spear formations vs. swords in head-to-head. In the demo the phalangites were getting waxed in melee and the sword infantry pushed past the "spear wall" like it wasn't even there. Spear formations should suffer from disorder, terrain, and flanking/mobility issues. I'm not really in favor of the kind of rock-paper-scissors you seem to fear (cav/swords/spears). I see most counters as being fairly specific. But specific counters aren't really working that well. Mount effects and terrain effects are muted. Balance issues are numerous and in many instance turned on their ears (archers/slingers/peltasts.)
I've read some discussion and seen in melee a number of things that suggest the animations are indeed used for actual combat calcs in some fashion. Individual soldiers die rapidly when on the corner and the enemy raps around. Certainly angle of attack is important--flank/rear/shield. Some folks tested overhand spear thrusts for hoplites and saw much reduced melee kill rate vs. underhand, for the same stats. The conclusion they seemed to reach was that the head/shoulders was a smaller kill zone than the central mass stabbing action. This would make the animation central to combat calcs. Animations control movement speed and they control attack speed.
Unfortunately, I've not heard of any thread where CA really explained how the combat engine works. So for all of us out here trying to understand it, this is like the proverbial group of blind men touching different parts of a beast and trying to describe it.
Paul Peru
01-07-2005, 11:58
this is like the proverbial group of blind men touching different parts of a beast and trying to describe it.
I recently tried touching a few elephants again, and there were several dangly bits.
Other than that, I got myself a group of McPhalanx Pikemen, gave the comp 1 round shield cav, beefed up to cost 100d more than my unit, and tried different depths/ranks for my unit. Luckily the comp obligingly charged me from the front, or near enough for me to be able to realign.
Short story short: 4 ranks ruled. I only tried a couple of times, but the tendency was clear. At 4 ranks, my unit was wider than theirs, while I had enough depth to make sure the jumpers were surrounded. Was left with ~110 men, while default and 3 ranks both yeilded 92-96 survivors. At least the phalanx proved itself able to withstand a frontal charge from light cavalry :dizzy2:
This was all vanilla, apart from added ^^^ +W+S for the RSC, btw.
Back to the topic - no, swordsmen should not have any bonuses vs spearmen - a group of swordsmen charging a disciplined phalanx from the front should get murdered - especially in the initial contact of the charge, after that, gaps may well appear in the phalanx spearpoint formation that can be exploited, as pikes get embedded in shields/bodies etc...
The advantage of sword-armed troops on the battlefield should be more related to their vastly increased manouverability, (speed of movement and turning) - allowing them to exploit gaps and flanks more quickly, and increased kill rates when they get close and personal (as opposed to the slow grinding of phalanxes). I always thought that the paper(swords)-rock (spears) part of MTW (specifically) was a bit silly and egged on by peoples' love affair with swords and with images of broad-sword wielding conan's smiting all before them (I smite thee with my F'ing big broad sword!)
Well, you have Creativew Assembly to convince. Remember this thread? https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=23924&page=1&pp=10
Longjohn saw that thread, and next thing you know swords got a hidden attack bonus vs spears. LongJohn even posted to that thread announcing the bonus. Apparently, CA thinks swords are supposed to beat spears in frontal assault. That idea goes back to the original STW game where no-dachi and warrior monks beat yari samurai. At least the ND and WM base cost was higher than the YS. The entire rock, paper, scissors in STW is established with the single bonus of spear vs cav. There are no other bonuses due to unit type, and the game plays fine. Problems arise in multiplayer with playbalance and RPS because CA insists on bringing the upgrade system into multiplayer.
Simetrical
01-07-2005, 19:20
Why should sword armed troops get any bonus at all against spear armed troops?In up-close-and-personal combat, the length of spears is a large disadvantage. They're rather cumbersome, so it's harder to get past the enemy's defenses. This is why most (although not all) historical spear troops had a secondary weapon for use if the enemy closed in. If the swordsman can be kept at spear's length, however, the spearman obviously has the advantage—the swordsman can't hurt the spearman from that distance. Thus, a frontal attack by swordsmen on a spear phalanx should usually fail miserably. Once the swordsmen close, however, the spearmen will have to switch weapons.
What I want to know is, why are spears more effective against cavalry? Is it because horses have more trouble maneuvering around the spear, so the rider can be kept at a distance?
-Simetrical
Red Harvest
01-07-2005, 19:47
What I want to know is, why are spears more effective against cavalry? Is it because horses have more trouble maneuvering around the spear, so the rider can be kept at a distance?
Formation and stand off distance. A horse can barge into swordsmen and push them aside with its mass, because they can't really threaten it until the horse is in contact with them. For the spear a horse is a large target, and is held back from the formation. If it charges in frontally it will be impaled, probably by multiple spears. Even 1 vs. 1, the spear would be a better choice vs. a mounted man. It can be used to keep the horseman at the end of his weapon's reach, and to keep the horse at bay. A swordsman by contrast would be quite vulnerable to a lance that could strike him down without ever closing into sword range.
That's my take on it.
Watchman
01-07-2005, 21:13
That, and spearmen can fight effectively in denser formations. Swords need a bit of "elbow room" to be swung, spears a lot less. And the rear ranks can reach past the front ranks. This creates a nice, immobile hedge of spear-points for the cavalrýman to impale himself and/or his mount.
Spears (and pikes, for that matter) can also be "braced" to receive the charge. This is usually done by placing the butt-end on the ground and standing on it with one leg, holding the point at suitable height to impale the mount or the rider (usually the former). The impact power is about the same, or greater, than what the horseman could get with a couched lance...
For a neat demonstration on how spears work against cavalry, I'd suggest watching Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai (not that it weren't a good movie to see in any case). A handful of footmen poking and shoving with long pointy things keeps horsemen - and, for that matter, footmen, although those are more agile - at bay quite well. Even if they don't penetrate armor or cause notable wounds to the horse, the sheer physical presence of the spears is an obstacle to the foeman and prevents him from easily closing in past them.
AFAIK spears work right fine in mano y mano fights too; in trained hands they're not half as clumsy as one might initially assume, even if used one-handed (so far as I know the fancy moves Achilleus and Hector pull with theirs in Troy aren't particularly "cinematical").
That, and spearmen can fight effectively in denser formations. Swords need a bit of "elbow room" to be swung, spears a lot less. And the rear ranks can reach past the front ranks. This creates a nice, immobile hedge of spear-points for the cavalrýman to impale himself and/or his mount.
Depends. If a foreign object manages to penetrate the ranks of spears from bypassing the spearpoints and entering from some other direction, then the dense formation will work against them, because spears are much more difficult to redeploy inside the formation. Imagine trying to swing a broom inside a crowded bus or subway cars - exactly the same thing.
AFAIK spears work right fine in mano y mano fights too; in trained hands they're not half as clumsy as one might initially assume, even if used one-handed (so far as I know the fancy moves Achilleus and Hector pull with theirs in Troy aren't particularly "cinematical").
Not clumsy at all. In reality, spears and polearms are vastly superior to swords even in 1vs1 combat. When two people of same skill level meet, the one trained in kendo(swordsmanship) will be smacked around senselessly by another trained in spears or nahinata(Japanese polearm). I've seen videos of Japanese kendo champions beaten senselessly by highschool girls practicing spears or naginata.
Some people think evading the spear-point and closing in will ensure victory for the sword, but in reality this is incredibly difficult and scary. The longer your weapon is, usually the higher your chance of victory.
Not clumsy at all. In reality, spears and polearms are vastly superior to swords even in 1vs1 combat. When two people of same skill level meet, the one trained in kendo(swordsmanship) will be smacked around senselessly by another trained in spears or nahinata(Japanese polearm). I've seen videos of Japanese kendo champions beaten senselessly by highschool girls practicing spears or naginata.
Some people think evading the spear-point and closing in will ensure victory for the sword, but in reality this is incredibly difficult and scary. The longer your weapon is, usually the higher your chance of victory.
Vastly superior? I think not. Different yes, vastly superior, no. A spear has a single killing point. Miss, or the swordsman has a shield with which to simply knock your blow aside to move inside your guard, and you're up shit creek with nary a paddle in sight. I wouldn't favour a spear against a well armoured bloke in straight 1vs1 either, because your single killing point suddenly has a great deal fewer places in which to actually kill.
I mean, way to go with the cherry picking of examples there. Lets put a completely unarmoured swordsman up against a spearman, in a situation fully favouring the spearman (plenty of room to move and keep the swordsman at the end of the spear, with no shield and no armour with which to close the distance and utilise the vastly superior versatility of the sword). Not to mention the ritualised and codified forms of Eastern combat tend to have an unhealthy disdain for the idea of smashing the spear aside with your sword and holding it so they can't pull it back in time, stepping in, punching the spearman square in the face and then gutting him like a dog.
Spears are a great formation weapon, and easily utilised with little training. Their length allows an amateur a bit of a chance to defend himself and works psychologically to provide courage...a battlefield newbie is going to be happier knowing all his fighting should happen a couple meters away at the end of his pointy stick. In formation, tightly packed with all the guys behind as well viciously stabbing forward to splat anything trying to get close...spears are great. But you're backing a losing horse if you're trying to use a spear for 'standard' melee combat.
How can you both have a shield and sword and at the same time grab the spear? And trust me eastern troops did what they could to survive. They wouldn't just accept that they would be impaled in spearpoints. They would swirl and deflect to get within the spear (I take it you mean Japanese samurai when you say easterners, and in that case the weapon would be the long yari). But in that case grabbing the spear won't help you much as the spearman holds it with two hands and you only hold it with one. Who do you think is stronger and can control the next round of action? Also the yari was also used for slashing and grappling (ever wondered what those cross points were for?).
The yari was considered a prime 1v1 weapon by the swordloving Japanese. That says more than just a bit.
If both spearman and swordsman are armoured (now we are back to a more generic situation) the spearman still gets the advantage as his weapon has a smaller frontage, thus is more likely to punch through the armour, while the sword if it is used to cut and slash is likely to 'only' cause nasty bruises. Thus the swordsman has to play the spearman's game with an inferior weapon. And why can't the spearman have a shield as well that he can use to bash the swordsman around with?
Say the swordsman knocks the spear out of the way by swinging the shield out to the side and steps forwards. At that very moment he is very vulnerable to a shieldbash from the spearman, which would send him reeling back or sprawling on the ground. Two situations he most certainly wouldn't like.
Use the sword instead to deflect the spear and he loses his aggresive advantage and the spearman can recover and grip the spear in a fashion that gives him better close quarter control (gripping higher up the shaft). He could even swing around the butt and strike with it at the legs. Even if that not likely to cayse much damage it would be quite disruptive.
By holding it I meant keeping the sword pushing the spear to the side, it means a far larger and longer movement for him to pull it back in order to retaliate. And since he has both hands on his weapon, he is now effectively defenceless. This is something you'll do when you just have a sword, with a shield its just hilariously easy to push through a single spear, something I've not only seen done but done myself (well, halberd in my case, he didn't seem to realise the blade is there for a reason though), and using the speed of your sword to negate the spear for a moment does not lose you the aggressive advantage, because as I said, the spearman is now open to anything you wish to do to him with your spare hand. Be that punching, kicking, pushing, etc. I pointed this out with the Eastern styles you used as an example, they are simply not the same kind of total bastard brutal tactics I'm going to use when ditching a spearman. And the Japanese were not quite so swordloving. The Samurai put a lot of stock in their swords, and invested them with a 'spirit' and other such things, but they would always have their hands on a bow or a polearm before having to resort to pure swordwork.
In armour, yes the spear has a smaller frontage, and it also requires a VERY direct hit, as that point with no kind of edge like a sword can and will glance off of armour and slide across it. Not only does the wielder require more force behind his blow, he now has even fewer options against a more agile opponent who can move with the blow for only glancing hits. Give the spearman a shield and he has even less agility. The sheer length of the spear works against him as he tries to control it with one hand, and the swordsman is not very inconvenienced because a spear in one hand cannot be pulled back to a more useful grip once the swordsman is within his guard (even easier of course, because of the one handed lack of agility and speed), so the spearman is now essentially one armed and has a shield for offensive weaponry.
A spear of any significant length is just plain and simple too unwieldy. A short spear just doesn't offer the same versatility as a sword.
Khorak, three words:
"Try it yourself"
In the far east where I live, there is a saying, that goes "the spear is the king of all weaponery". Push a spear aside with a shield? That sounds really easy, right?
Wrong. When I was learning kendo, the students would use to have mock duels all the time(which by the way, was forbidden...so we had to do it when the teacher was not around) with one person with a short wooden sword the size of a wakizashi, and the other guy with a plain wooden sword the size of a katana. The difference between the length of these swords are merely about the size of two palms spread apart, and yet "blocking the initial blow" and then "closing in the distance for a stab" was something even a well-trained student could never do.
Things got even worse when the opposition held a broomstick in his hand to simulate a 'spear'. Block a spearhead? Push aside a spear? You wish. As much as you can cast the spear aside with a blow of a sword, the opponent quickly pushes it back - stabbing with the head is only a small part of spear mastery. These guys can hit you senseless just with sides of the spears and that would knock a man out.
The saying would go, "you need to be 3 dans superior to beat a man with a sword barehanded, and 3 dans superior to beat a spear with a sword" The Roman 'standard' method of shield block, step ahead, stab abdomen is in reality an incredible testament of veterancy the soldiers were in, because anyone with even a simple practice in the real thing knows that its a really, really difficult thing to do.
Just want to point out I only used the eastern example in the first part of my argument. The second part is of a more general way.
To say that a spear needs more force to penetrate armour than a sword is about the most wrong statement ever. To penetrate the same armour who do you think will need the most force, a small chiselpoint or a long edged surface? Simple physics will always end up with the opposite result of you. Why do you think the medieval warriors carried a dagger around? It wasn't really a weapon you could use in a straight up fight, so it wasn't there as a backup. It was used to dispatch downed armoured enemies. Mailed opponents with a thrust to the heart and plated opponents with a strike at the armpit or throat (which were still armoured with mail).
If we are talking about a plated warrior scenario then the spear is not great, granted, but then the sword isn't of much use either unless you intend to stab the spearman, and then we are back to the issue of which weapon is better at that.
A spear need not be 4 meters long, a mere 2.5 meters is enough when the spearman has a shield. He will be attacking from varying angles, be it from above or below or even the sides. He won't have the perfect control of the twohanded style but he will have speed and versatility, and he most certainly can attack if you close in on him, his attacks would be down at your back and legs from above while you try and get around his shield. So of course attacking his speararm would be nice, but by doing that you grant him the respite to change his grip and attackstyle.
As said before, the Hector/Achilleus fight isn't that far off the mark (if you exclude all the jumping and odd behind the back active wielding).
And the bows of Japan were very much antiquated by the time of the Sengoku Jidai where the sword rose to its prominence (it was revered before but only as an equal of the bow). The Naginata was indeed a serious weapon as it was more or less a sword on a staff granting both length and freedom at the same time as well as the defensive strength of the staff itself. But it wasn't the Naginata that got the loving attention of the whole society.
Centurion Simmo
01-09-2005, 00:48
The Roman 'standard' method of shield block, step ahead, stab abdomen is in reality an incredible testament of veterancy the soldiers.
More a testament to the size of the shield they used I’d say, blocking with one of them is a simple as keeping it between you and the business end of the spear - this isn’t that hard in a big formation.
Still I'd vote for spear, there is just no substitution for reach in a fight!
The_Emperor
01-09-2005, 01:00
More a testament to the size of the shield they used I’d say, blocking with one of them is a simple as keeping it between you and the business end of the spear - this isn’t that hard in a big formation.
Still I'd vote for spear, there is just no substitution for reach in a fight!
I'd just like to add though that for the most part the Romans did not limit their shields to being used for blocking... Offensive shield-bashing was a regular tactic for the Romans, forget parry, dodge, spin and all that nonsense... With the Romans it is more like bash, stab & crush!
Reach is good, but as we can see by looking at the Hoplites, once the fight gets very up-close in a tight space you are best switching to a short sword. The length of the spear could work against you in some situations.
Can you imagine the moments on a pike with a heavy spearhead? Could really do you some damage...
Watchman
01-09-2005, 01:29
If someone gets inside the spearman formation, they're well advised to straight out forget their spears and go for their backup weapons posthaste. It might not be enough, but even a knife is better than a lenght of wood you can at best ineffectually club the other guy with...
As for "sword vs. polearm" combat, I'd suggest not looking too closely at what most modern practicioners get as results (particularly any is Japanese styles ending with -do; that signifies literally "sport" or "art", and they're to real combat training about what Olympic fencing is to Renaissance rapier combat...). Look at what history says instead.
What it says is that in one-to-one it's all really up to the individuals concerned, insofar as one doesn't possess sunbstantial superiority in equipement (particularly in armor). In mass combat the exact choice of weapons is generally not as important as the discipline, cohesion and teamwork of the groups using them, although there are exceptions.
However, even groups and peoples famed for their skill with other weapons - axes, swords, whatever - more often than not preferred to take a spear along as the initial weapon for combat. The long reach, fair armor-piercing ability and excellent killing power (it's pretty much the same if it's an arrow, spear or sword that goes through you; odds are all of them take you out of combat, piercing wounds are deadly...) combined with low cost and easy handling - AFAIK the easiest in comparision to reach and power of all melee weapons ever - make it a very attractive choice.
(As for armor penetration, it's easier to punch through things with a narrow point than to cut through them with a wide cutting surface; this maxim of concentrating force behind a point can be witnessed even in the kinetic-penetrator munitions of modern tank guns.)
For infantrymen they're good at keeping cavalrymen (and enemy in general) at an arm's lenght, and for cavalrymen they provide a means of reaching well past the horse's head, the ability to concentrate the momentum of the charge behind a single killing point (doable both one- and two-handed, with or without stirrups) and the ability to at least partially counter the reach advantage infantry get from theirs.
Frankly, the only kinds of troops that did not commonly make use of spears were those that needed their hands for other things, like missile weapons, for whom hauling around over two meters of wood would have been highly inconvenient, or who had less rational reasons influencing their choices of armament (such as "looking good").
Spears and knives are just about the first weapons humans manufactured; and of all the melee weapons developed over many millenia, they're the only ones modern gun-toting armies commonly retain "just to be sure" in the form of the bayonet. That ought to be saying something.
Simetrical
01-09-2005, 02:16
In reality, spears and polearms are vastly superior to swords even in 1vs1 combat.Then why did so many spear-armed soldiers carry swords for backup?
When I was learning kendo, the students would use to have mock duels all the time . . . Things got even worse when the opposition held a broomstick in his hand to simulate a 'spear'. Block a spearhead? Push aside a spear? You wish. As much as you can cast the spear aside with a blow of a sword, the opponent quickly pushes it back - stabbing with the head is only a small part of spear mastery.If I understand correctly, kendo doesn't involve a shield, which would doubtless be a great help. Furthermore, by all accounts, sword-fighting takes much more skill than spear-fighting. Finally, kendo trains you only to fight against other kendo practitioners, doesn't it? You weren't trained on how to counter spears, and neither was that kendo champion beat by a schoolgirl.
These guys can hit you senseless just with sides of the spears and that would knock a man out.Not if you're wearing proper metal armor and padding.
-Simetrical
Then why did so many spear-armed soldiers carry swords for backup?
Because it is the perfect backup weapon. It is easily carried (try carrying an extra spear or halbard and you will understand) and it grants you the ability fight in conditions where a bigger weapon can't be used (imagine taking your halbard into the small hallways of a castle). But axes were also popular secondary weapons, depending on culture (which adds a bit to the point that swords were perhaps also chosen out of cultural preferances).
If I understand correctly, kendo doesn't involve a shield, which would doubtless be a great help. Furthermore, by all accounts, sword-fighting takes much more skill than spear-fighting. Finally, kendo trains you only to fight against other kendo practitioners, doesn't it? You weren't trained on how to counter spears, and neither was that kendo champion beat by a schoolgirl.
Indeed -do is sports, but -jutsu is the actual thing (based on the real manuals and old master to student way of learning). So if anyone have any real experience in that department then we might get a good reference.
But while the kendo people weren't trianed in fighting spearfighters, the opposite is true as well. They wouldn't be trained in deflecting a swordstrike that is feinted. So both parties would fight an opponent they wouldn't know how to fight really, but their training would certainly give them the ability to use their equipment quite well. So such a matchup wouldn't be too far from a matchup between two unproven warriors on a battlefield.
That spearfighting requires less skill than swordfighting only adds to the argument that spears are better/equal to swords.
Not if you're wearing proper metal armor and padding.
-Simetrical
Since you actually wear a metal helmet with good padding in kendo, does indicate that those spearshafts can hit very hard. The difference wouldn't be that big from a real fight. I don't hope that you thought kendo was done unarmoured... Those bokkens can break your skull and bones easily, in fact Miyamoto Musashi's most famous victory was made with a bokkenstrike to the head of his opponent. Dead on impact.
Khorak, three words:
"Try it yourself"
I have, which is why I rate a spear lower than a sword in a one-on-one situation. You have to be a very good shot to fatally hit a dodging, armoured man who is only concerned with you when you're using a spear.
As I have been saying, a spear makes for an excellent battlefield formation weapon. A guy isn't likely to move out the way of your attack when all his sword armed mates are in the way, it allows you a far superior chance against cavalry, and stuff like the phalanx shows that with proper drill and training you can do some horrible things with it. It's a good primary weapon for all such reasons and I'd take one onto the field myself. But I harbour no delusions of thinking that if I end up playing a personal game of tag with a man-at-arms I'm going to have anything but a bad time of it.
As for the 'difficult to penetrate armour' comment, I was assuming that the guy taking the spear hit knows what he's doing. Move with the hit so a penetrating blow becomes a glancing one. Armour isn't supposed to simply be a case of standing there and laughing as your enemies weapons bounce straight off of you, you should still be working to protect yourself, if not, don't harbour aspirations of surviving the fight or climb into a tank. A spear is a very specific, and much more predictable weapon what with having a single killing point.
Watchman
01-09-2005, 16:50
A spear is a very specific, and much more predictable weapon what with having a single killing point....and this differs from a sword thrust exactly how...? Remember, especially against armor thrusts tend to be the more lethal attacks. Depends on the blade, naturally - "slashers" like scimitars and katanas and other sabers by all accounts aren't at their best for that stuff.
But then, by all accounts they're none too hot against good armor in general. Around the Crusades Turkish nomads often carried two swords - their trusty saber, and a straight thrusting sword for dealing with armor. Armored samurai usually had to go for each others' joints, and references to High Medieval training manuals I've seen suggest using the edge of the sword mainly to set up an armored opponent for a killing thrust.
Incidentally, don't underestimate the versatility of spears. Many spearheads are quite long - easily as long as a man's forearm, more like short swords stuck atop a shaft. They could slash quite well if needed.
KyodaiSteeleye
01-09-2005, 18:35
Khorak - I tend to agree with the others on this. I think that the perceptions people have of spears as second-rate weapons is borne out of hollywood, but also the fact that spears are cheap weapons. Therefore you can equip many men, with limited training with a spear and shield for not much. Therefore, on a lot of battlefields (medieval period i'm thinking) your spear armed troops are also your worst-trained troops, with the least motivation - and the only way to make them half effective is to give them some drilling in formation fighting. However, your sword-armed troops are generally your wealthy, armoured elite, who have been trained in using it effectively since an early age.
John Clements is one of the world's leading authorities on use of medieval weaponry. This is what he has to say on long-sword vs. pole arm combat in his book 'Medieval swordsmanship' :-
'the 'fight' of the 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 tremendous advantage in reach and can be very quick.' and '....the brutal speed of a pole-arms thrust and its formidable ability to feint and disengage are often under-estimated'.
He gives various techniques for engaging the spear, grapples etc... - but a large slice of what it comes down to at the end of the day with any weapon is the skill of person wielding it vs the person opposing it. Two opponents, one sword-armed, one spear armed, equal ability, room to manouver, i'm going with the spear.
Simetrical
01-09-2005, 20:40
But while the kendo people weren't trianed in fighting spearfighters, the opposite is true as well. They wouldn't be trained in deflecting a swordstrike that is feinted. So both parties would fight an opponent they wouldn't know how to fight really . . .
No, because actual warriors were trained to fight against various types of weapons. An actual spearman would've been trained to fight against swordsmen, and vice versa. Unskilled vs. unskilled is not the same.
That spearfighting requires less skill than swordfighting only adds to the argument that spears are better/equal to swords.
You neglect the possibility that while an unskilled spearman might be able to beat an unskilled swordsman every time, a skilled swordsman might be able to beat a skilled spearman handily. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems possible to me.
Since you actually wear a metal helmet with good padding in kendo, does indicate that those spearshafts can hit very hard. The difference wouldn't be that big from a real fight.
I'll concede that that might be possible. It seems unlikely that a helmet would provide such poor protection that you can actually be knocked out just by being hit by a stick, but I'm not what you might call an expert on the matter.
I think that the perceptions people have of spears as second-rate weapons . . .
Hold on. Nobody said that spears are second-rate weapons, just different. For some uses they're clearly very effective; the question is only one-on-one battles, which hardly constitute the alpha and omega of a weapon's usefulness.
John Clements is one of the world's leading authorities on use of medieval weaponry. This is what he has to say on long-sword vs. pole arm combat in his book 'Medieval swordsmanship' . . .
I don't have the book, so—no offense—for all I know that may be taken out of context. I would be interested in hearing the opinions of people who have fought a great deal with spears against swords or vice versa, perhaps in the SCA or LARP. Watchman may have been trained in kendo, but that doesn't prepare you to fight spears, and the equipment used is also very different from ancient European equipment. Khorak says he's fought against spears, but he doesn't say how extensive and varied his experience in sword-fighting is.
I believe the SCA has martial competitions of some sort, to determine who gets to be king or something? Perhaps an SCA monarch or former monarch would be a good person to ask, as one who's clearly an expert fighter. I'm pretty sure you're allowed to use a polearm in SCA fights.
-Simetrical
No, because actual warriors were trained to fight against various types of weapons. An actual spearman would've been trained to fight against swordsmen, and vice versa. Unskilled vs. unskilled is not the same.
I think you are overrating the warriors here. Most warriors were not all that welltrained. Of course they would have trained with each other, but like it is now soldiers have a tendency to goof off when they can, even if it cuts into their ability to survive a battle. Strange huh...
But the case presented was two oponents with skills with their weapons, just not trianed skills against the particular enemy, meaning an equal standing. Both parties would have to adapt and be inventive to win, and I don't expect the spearmen to be inherently more adaptable or more inventive. But I do expect the two foes to know the limits of their weapons as well as their capabilities, thus making the fight rather acceptable to us.
You neglect the possibility that while an unskilled spearman might be able to beat an unskilled swordsman every time, a skilled swordsman might be able to beat a skilled spearman handily. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems possible to me.
Indeed he could do that. I'm not so much for spear superiority as I'm against sword superiority. I rather think that while the novices will go to the spear that the experts will end up tied.
We must remember that even individual fights were not as aggresive as we sometimes believe they were. The two warriors would mostly just sit behind their weapons or shields waiting for an opening (going at it in Hollywood style would tire out the two fighters far too fast), and the slower the fight the more I tend to believe the spearman will win.
I'll concede that that might be possible. It seems unlikely that a helmet would provide such poor protection that you can actually be knocked out just by being hit by a stick, but I'm not what you might call an expert on the matter.
A helmet saves your life, but it can't save you from getting dazed and confused everytime an enemy strikes you on it, nor remove any pain such a bang on the head might induce. Ever tried the childrens game of putting a metal bin over the head of one person and then bang it real hard? The poor fellow (well not so poor since they go willingly) is completely off his feet afterwards. Not a perfect example but the physics involved are much the same.
Watchman
01-10-2005, 00:29
I've never even seen kendo IRL. Though I did a little bit of training with late-medieval longswords (aka "bastard swords"), based on contemporary teachings, a while back. And I've been taught to do fancy things with a staff.
By what little that's worth, and based on everything I've read and heard on the topic, I'd say there's no hard and fast "which is better" division as far as weapons go; different weapons and different ways of using them suit different people and different situations, and when two people fight their choice of weapons is largely secondary to their ability to wield them (with the ever-present caveats regarding armor).
However, it would seem to me that a spear, or similar light and agile polearm (the difference between a more sophisticated fighting-spear and a light halberd/glaive/whatever is often rather fuzzy), wielded with comparatively equivalent skill, has to be among the more difficult weapons for a swordsman to face. Unless one goes to the huge greatswords of Renaissance, approaching two meters in lenght, the advantage in reach is almost certainly on the spearman. Regardless of the sword, a well-made spear or polearm is at least its equivalent in killing power, although many of them can't chop off limbs quite nearly as well.
And everything I've been told and taught, be it by a fencing instructor, a written tratise on such subjects, or an unarmed-combat teacher, tells me the control of distance is very very important in combat.
Quite simply, if the spearman knows his stuff the swordsman is going to have some difficulty even getting his weapon into effective range. As a tactical situation this isn't overly different from facing a sword with a dagger or a rapier with a shortsword, or a rather longer-armed fellow in the boxing ring - rather uncomfortable...
May I make a suggestion ? People truly interested in the issue should, instead of debating conjecturals with only laymen's knowledge on the topic (as we all have), go ask people who actually study this sort of thing in practice. I'd guess the folks at ARMA (http://www.thearma.org/forum/) could be helpful.
Adding another layman observation: using a spear two-handed gives you all the flexibility of a quarterstaff with the added bonus of a sharp pointy bit. Held in both hands, your swordsman opponent needs to worry about two weapons in effect, since you can attack with either end, aiming to cut/stab with one or club with the other.
KyodaiSteeleye
01-10-2005, 14:36
plus that the spearman probably does have a 'side-arm', such as a falchion or sword that he can draw should he not have room to use his pole-arm adequately or the swordsman cut inside his spear's 'kill zone'.
Watchman - agreed, none of us are experienced with hand to hand weapons of the period, so all of what we say is opinion, some of it based on conjecture.
Its still quite fun to have those sorts of conversations though... ~;)
Centurion Simmo
01-10-2005, 17:17
You have to be a very good shot to fatally hit a dodging, armoured man who is only concerned with you when you're using a spear.
Yes and no, you have to be very good to kill someone in one stab yes but then killing isn’t what your aiming for in a fight
Sound odd?
Well think disable, you miss with the thrust of your spear then whip it away and crack your friendly sword wielder in the legs. Watch as he tumbles about at your feet, swing spear around and stab while on floor.
To be fair spears are a real pain to deal with but yes it can be done, the Scot Highlanders were still fighting with broadsword & buckler when we English were filling them with lead - they were very skilled at deflecting the bayonet and finishing the soldier behind it, but this was more due to the way the Redcoats fought than any failure of their weapon. After the English army changed bayonet tactics the Scots were decimated.
So I would say in battle conditions it depends on training and discipline and an understanding of your enemy - which is what the legions had in abundance and their common foes lacked.
Watchman
01-10-2005, 20:50
The issue wasn't really the skill of the British troops - the rank and file of the mass armies always tended to be pretty crappily trained, but they could still roll over much more skilled enemies - but the beyonets themselves; namely, if it's the battle I'm thinking about, the Brits were still using plug bayonets.
Those are essentially knives or short swords unceremoniously plugged into the barrel by their hilt; the deficencies should be rather readily apparent. Socket bayonets, attached to the outside of the barrel by something more than just friction, were a considerable improvement.
Having watched their troopers' asses get kicked by the Scots in hand-to-hand was what prompted the British army brass to upgrade equipement to socket bayonets soon after the incident.
The Stranger
01-14-2005, 16:59
In the real world, horsies can't (or won't) jump over spearpoints when charging the front of a phalanx...
:charge: :charge: :charge: :dizzy2:
yes a horse isnt a cow that will run over everything in its way
i wont trample a living creature thats also wy they call it a noble animal
The issue wasn't really the skill of the British troops - the rank and file of the mass armies always tended to be pretty crappily trained, but they could still roll over much more skilled enemies - but the beyonets themselves; namely, if it's the battle I'm thinking about, the Brits were still using plug bayonets.
Yes and no. By the time of the '45 the British armies were using socket bayonets and still didn't achieve a decisive victory until Culloden, where they used the infmaous and highly debated 'strike right' tactic, although the socket bayonet was much more effective than it's predecessor.
I don't really think the highland/redcoat analogy is useful, after all even a hoplite's spear was much longer than a rifle with a bayonet, to say nothing of phalangites.
MoROmeTe
01-14-2005, 19:21
Usually horses don't charge spears. I seem to recall a tect about a polish brigade charging pikes in the late Muddle Ages, I think. But it didn't happen in the time RTW is set in.
A blade, up close and personal, against a warband is a great asset. Not so great if you are up against a phalanx. Chance are you are not going to make it to the point where you can use your blade.
It seems normal that blades can be used faster than spears. :duel:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.