View Full Version : Query - How Good Do You Think 2-Handers Should Be?
Similar to my Spearmen one. I want your opinions.
Personally I like how they turn out in my bug fixer. ABkle to wipe out any non-pike/other 2-Hander with only moderate losses, but very vulnrable to Cav charges and missile fire.
Others (Jambo for example), feel that any infantry unit of similar Price should beat them.
I don't agree with that largely due to the fact that many S&S units of similar price are a lot more resistant to both Cav charges and missile fire. To mention nothing of the fact that for their price, most 2-Handers come along much later in the tech tree than comparable price S&S infantry, (english bills being an obvious exception).
SO what do you think?
Von Nanega
01-22-2007, 14:28
Good enough to crush S&S on the offensive. Hurtin for certain in a defensive posture. I like to imagine screaming axemen hurtling through terrified S&S and militias as they charge. But if they stand still, they should get cut up.
It really depends on the unit in question and its role. For instance the english bill comes at a cost: the complete absence of pikes. So I'd think that billmen should have some pretty serious staying power at the level they come into existence at.
The Dismounted 2h Knights should all be roughly on par I think, capable of thrashing lower quality units pretty handily, but much more easily torn apart by cav/archers.
One line: strong enough to compete, weak enough to require combined arms
pevergreen
01-22-2007, 14:49
Are they weilding two-hander Chickens? If they are, they should have upwards for 50 hp and 9 billion attack.
As Stlaind said. And using zxiangs does that. Billmen can snap infantry but get hurted a lot by missiles and cav.
One line: strong enough to compete, weak enough to require combined arms
Couldn't agree more. This is where Pikes, Cav, and Missile units come in. If fixed 2-Handers where the new cav it would be stupid.
Allthough I would add that for the same cost any 2 diffrent units of 2-handers should have similar abilities vs both the enemy and each other. So JHI at their price really should be beating DEK/DPK/DNK, even though these units really are a bit underpriced ATM, (IMHO).
I'll also add that there are some S+S infantry that should be a decent fight as some faction get high end S+S instead of 2H.
Most factions get some sort of halberd/2hander for their 'top tier' infantry, so they really need to be able to clean house against older infantry (especially sword and board, which they historically replaced).
I think their armor is too low, actually, or the swordsmen's defense is too high. A swordsman can exceed 20 defense, with a whopping 8 defense skill plus a shield bonus of 6 added to his base 7 for heavy mail. And he can usually get further upgrades to his armor while retaining all those bonuses intact. A 2hander in advanced plate (no more upgrades for him) is lucky to get 14, with around 4 defense skill. His advanced armor only gives him 3 extra armor over what swordsmen start with, slows him down by four or more points of defense skill, and makes him pigheaded enough to do without 6 points of shield. Given how many AP missiles and melee troops are flying/running around in M2TW, 2handers tend to die rather easily. Plate armor made shields unnecessary, but you hardly see that in the game atm.
Swordsmen also have ridiculously high defense skills just by virtue of carrying swords: 8 or 9 compared to 4 or 5 for most infantry (and 1 or 3 for anyone carrying a spear). All this generally means that earlier units are better protected in melee than later, more heavily armored units, by an enormous margin, great enough that even when the AP is factored in, DFK are actually still slightly better protected than DGK (and actually, vanilla DGK don't have AP at all). So far the shield bug has kept sword and board men from showing their true potential, which leads me to wonder if they were given such high defense skill to compensate. Perhaps it's not necessary any more with the shield fix in place and they should be dropped back to 5 defense or something.
LordKhaine
01-22-2007, 15:55
It's all relative to the unit itself. There shouldn't be clear cut stone-scissors-paper. Some of the decent 2 handers (like dismounted english knights) should be able to crush most infantry. While some should get torn up by decent swords.
I think most people view double handers as higher attack, lower defence. Something to smash through infantry quickly, yet lack the staying power of more armoured units. Though you also have to remember that a lot of the double handed units are so armoured they don't *need* a shield, so being a double hander doesn't necessarily have to mean a unit is vunerable. If I recall, towards the end of the medieval period knights stopped using shields because plate armour had become so effective it wasn't needed.
Again, I would start from the history. What were 2-handers used for? That will tell you how to model them in the game.
The basic Medieval two-handed weapon was a kind of polearm - the halberd, bill, poleaxe etc. These had a number of advantages compared to swords:
(1) better at penetrating armour (or concussing the armoured opponent)
(2) more reach, so functions almost like a spear against cavalry.
There are some differences between these 2-H weapons - the halberd and poleaxe are heavier and more AP than the bill; the halberd has more reach than the poleaxe etc. But these are nuances.
The primary disadvantage was that you don't get to use a shield, at least in melee (you could sling one on your back, I guess, and use it versus missiles like the MTW Varangians), although this was less of an issue when you have plate armour to fall back on.
I think MTW did a fair job of modelling these kind of weapons: higher base attack stat, AP, +3 attack/+1 defence vs horses, and (for non-two handers) a shield bonus that disappeared as the base armour got more advanced.
I think they should start to replace sword and shield men towards the middle of the game. The S&S should become obsolete. Early two handers - like halberd militia - should suffer a little due to their lack of armour. I'd see them as "flankers" or cav killers (not cav stoppers). But the later two handers, like DEK, should basically replace the armoured swordsman type as they did historically.
Having dealt with pole-arms and the standard S&S unit, there are a few more "novelty" units to consider - specifically, the two-handed sword (Zweihander etc) and the sword/buckler men.
The 2-H sword probably should be AP, just to reflect is weight and bludgeoning power, but unlike a polearm has no particular advantage against cavalry. It should have a high attack, but low defence - making it the archetypal flanker sort of unit. Again, I think MTW did a good job modelling this. It should be lethal against the flanks of pikes etc, but I would not see it necessarily besting comparable S&S units. I'd see that more as a fair match-up: high offence vs high defence. The 2-H sword was a bit of a rarity, mainly introduced as a novelty to counter pikes.
The sword/buckler were another counter-pike novelty. I don't see them doing well against plate armoured men-at-arms (no AP). Historically, they were not a sure kill against pikes either. I'd probably let the outcome be decided by troop quality. I suspect the best pikemen (the Swiss) beat sword and buckler men more often than they lost, but I'll leave that to the historians to confirm or refute.
But 2-H swords and sword/buckler were much more niche weapons than polearms, which had become the man-at-arms weapon of choice for fighting on foot by the end of the period.
Though you also have to remember that a lot of the double handed units are so armoured they don't *need* a shield, so being a double hander doesn't necessarily have to mean a unit is vunerable. If I recall, towards the end of the medieval period knights stopped using shields because plate armour had become so effective it wasn't needed.
See my post above about how much defense 'advanced plate' units get over swordsmen in heavy mail in the game atm. This was one of the shockers for me. Same problem with some of the light cavalry types actually being better in melee than the knights due to through-the-roof defense skill (Vards with 9 defense skill spring to mind here).
Sword-and-buckler men seemed to have enjoyed some success in close fights (more as a 'surprise factor' than anything else) between opposing formations of pikemen, but their rapid disappearance from the Tercio (along with halberds, incidentally) suggests that they were ultimately displaced in favor of more pikes. Like in most cases, the best and easiest 'counter' for a particular weapon or troop type was itself, and thus pikemen opposed other pikemen.
I see the halberds as being bargain pikes as you get them one barracks level before you get pikes (I know pikes are cheaper, but they are a little strange right now). They will be the first units that can stop cavalry cold while in spear wall (at least those that can form spear wall) and they will definitely chop them up in melee. Once pikes appear on the scene, halberds should then become good flankers along with 2handers, while the pikemen form the main line.
One of the problems ingame is that all these weapons are separated into different units when they were often used as combined arms forces. For example, halberdiers and swordsmen were included in the Tercio, especially as officers, to be used when the push of pike became too awkward for the longer weapons, rather than as separate formations.
Edit again: I see that econ21 has made most of my points for me, except that I think polearms (halberds and most 2handers) should be capable of forming the main battleline for those factions who don't get pikemen (or who only get militia pikemen), rather than be specialized flankers. If their plate armor would compensate for the loss of the shield like it's supposed to, they would actually be spearmen with AP and high attack.
I'll agree with that, but there does need to be some balance.
Perhaps that S+S infantry should be cheaper/more available (numbers wise) than 2H?
Also, I do think that 2H could stand to have more Def skill, there seems to be this misconception that plate made the wearer unwieldy. However I've seen a video of a person wearing field plate and doing cartwheels (I'll have to see if I can find that later).
I do think 2HSword should be capable against cavalry, just perhaps not as much so as pike/polearms. I'm pretty sure that the claymore had it's origin in taking down riders on horseback, but I could be wrong.
I'll also add that there are some S+S infantry that should be a decent fight as some faction get high end S+S instead of 2H.
And High End Sword and Sheilds will beat low end 2-Handers, Also, those that don't get 2-Handers tend to get Good cav, Pikes, Insane Foot Archers, or HA. Everybody gets some sort of counter to them.
I think their armor is too low, actually, or the swordsmen's defense is too high. A swordsman can exceed 20 defense, with a whopping 8 defense skill plus a shield bonus of 6 added to his base 7 for heavy mail. And he can usually get further upgrades to his armor while retaining all those bonuses intact. A 2hander in advanced plate (no more upgrades for him) is lucky to get 14, with around 4 defense skill. His advanced armor only gives him 3 extra armor over what swordsmen start with, slows him down by four or more points of defense skill, and makes him pigheaded enough to do without 6 points of shield. Given how many AP missiles and melee troops are flying/running around in M2TW, 2handers tend to die rather easily. Plate armor made shields unnecessary, but you hardly see that in the game atm.
The thing is Dopp. Even non-Ap missile where meant to present a serious threat to 2-Handers, it's one of the mechanisems by which they've been made balanced in spite of their insane melee skills vs. other infantry. Also, Sword and Sheild units get such high defence to help them at least do some damage vs. 2-handers. 2-handers are supposed to hurt, but not have a free lunch. I find the best S&S units can inflict about 25-30% losses on 2-Handers before dying.
Swordsmen also have ridiculously high defense skills just by virtue of carrying swords: 8 or 9 compared to 4 or 5 for most infantry (and 1 or 3 for anyone carrying a spear). All this generally means that earlier units are better protected in melee than later, more heavily armored units, by an enormous margin, great enough that even when the AP is factored in, DFK are actually still slightly better protected than DGK (and actually, vanilla DGK don't have AP at all). So far the shield bug has kept sword and board men from showing their true potential, which leads me to wonder if they were given such high defense skill to compensate. Perhaps it's not necessary any more with the shield fix in place and they should be dropped back to 5 defense or something.
Perhaps. However I think a lot of the bugs got introduced between the two demos TBH. When they changed some of the 2-Hander animations around I think they rebalanced all 2-Handers on the spot, which explains why Halberds and SHS are so weak compared to fixed 2-Handers. (Intresting question, did the stats of 2-Handers go up at all between the 1st and 2nd Demo?). If the Sheild Bug crept in around this point or not would tell us how they might have intended S&S to perform. But to me, seeing DEK rip through Dismounted Christian Guard with about 30% losses is OK. Any better and I feel 2-Handers would risk become the new cav. Somthing that only Pikes can stop.
It's all relative to the unit itself. There shouldn't be clear cut stone-scissors-paper. Some of the decent 2 handers (like dismounted english knights) should be able to crush most infantry. While some should get torn up by decent swords.
Indeed, in fact thats exactly what happens, the best swords can beat the weaker 2-handers whilst the best 2-Handers only get beaten by Pikes, but can be made to take modorate, (25-30%), losses in the process of winning.
I think most people view double handers as higher attack, lower defence. Something to smash through infantry quickly, yet lack the staying power of more armoured units.
Thats an OK description of them, they can and will beat any non-pike infantry who attacks them, but without getting the charge they suffer much heavier losses.
zverzver
01-22-2007, 16:35
My 2 cents.
1. All 2 handers should be AP (I think they are)
2. VS Hevay Infantry. From what i read on military history 2- handed fighting is a representative of individualistic warior cultures (e.g. Gaul in Cesars time). 2 - handers were usually the elite, fierce, brave and individualistic warriors. Thay won most of their fights against other infantrybecause their enemy would simply run away rather than face elite of the enemy forces. Unless they were highly disciplined (e.g. Cesars legions in Gaul) and would be ready to slug it out with stroung and terrefying but undisciplined and individualistic enemy. So my proposal is to raise 2H charge value to somethink like 5 or 6 (cavalry charge is much stronger because of the weight of the horse) and give them a morale penalty to nearby enemies, but slower and smaller attack values than heavy infantry and much smaller defence values. The outcome of 2H Vs HI engagement should depend on morale more than anythink else. If heavy infantry can stand the poverfull charge and morale penalty it should then slowly but without much further loss cut down the 2Hs. If HI has low morale it should rout right after the 2H charge, if there is no proper charge or 2H are charged themselves they are quickly cut down. Not all 2H should have high morale themselvs, so if bill milita performs a charge but is not able to break the enemy it should rout almost imediatly.
3. VS Horses. Cavalry charge is much stronger than 2H charge due to the weight of their horse (+ horse armour) so a cav charge should inflict heavy loss on any 2H although smaller loss than shild and sword unit would sustain. After the charge is over or if their was no charge all benefits should be on the side of 2H as they have higher reach, AP, better balance and leverage than a horsman with a sword and shield. Plus a knight on his horse presents a bigger target. So in case of 2H Vs Cavalry the situation is reverced, if 2H can survive a charge it should overcome cavalry with no big problem but the cances of surviving a charge should be low.
4. So this would be my example of Dismonted feodal knight and a comparable 2H unit.
DFK 2H
Attack 13 8
Charge 3 6
Defence A/D/S 7/8/6 6/6/0
Morale: 9 6
Tranining: trained trained
Discipline: disciplined undisciplined
Bonuses: - AP, Bonus VS Cav +8, weak vs Arrows, Cause fear morale -2
Cost/Upkeep 570/225 480/150
Well this is my 2 cents.
@zervrzer: This was true in Roman Times, but not late Medievil Times. 2-Handers won then through sheer discapline, better equipment, and better training. A Halberd/Bill/Polearm in general could be used to entangle a sword or sheild and shove the swordsman off balance, leaving them open to a killing blow.
For me History dosen't really matter. Thats why I have few issues with such well defended S&S units, it might not be 100% realistic, but it does create a use for the Late era S&S units, (better against Missiles, Pikes and Light/Medium Cav).
I was talking about DFK, an Early Era sword and board unit. 21 defense vs 14 defense of an advanced plate wearer in the late period. DCK get 22 defense because they wear partial plate. Upgrade them to full plate and they get 23 defense. Their armor is now only 1 less than advanced plate, but they get the full shield bonus and have defense skill 8. And are a High Era unit. I cry foul.
I was talking about DFK, an Early Era sword and board unit. 21 defense vs 14 defense of an advanced plate wearer in the late period. DCK get 22 defense because they wear partial plate. Upgrade them to full plate and they get 23 defense. Their armor is now only 1 less than advanced plate, but they get the full shield bonus and have defense skill 8. And are a High Era unit. I cry foul. The 2handers may still rip them apart with their insane attack, but the armor disparity is huge. Tone down the 2hander attack and give them some more armor is my proposal.
Just had a jam on the forums Dopp? I did too just after my last post.
Let me look at DFK stats and get back to you as i agree somthing about their stats looks a littile screwy to me if they are the same as late era units, thought the distribution changed with late era units.
Allthough like I said Dopp. We CAN'T, (from a balance point of veiw), give 2-Handers better defence IMHO. Or REDUCE the defence of S&S units, it would kill the missile balance between the two. Even early era S&S are supposed to be somewhat more missile resistant than the best 2-Handers. Lets not forget it would also turn 2-Handers into unstobable killing machines that can devestate multipiule S&S units. That one of the bighgest issues with cav pre-sheild fix. The can rip through multipiule units with few losses.
With your proposal I would expect to see 2-Handers rip through 3 units of S&S units with baerly moderate losses. As it is now they'd actually get beaten with heavy losses to the enemy. Also, Defence sems to effect charge resistance so cav would be much less effective.
Basssiclly your propsed 2-handers would become near unstopable death machines that even missle and heavy cav would struggle to counter, that sounds a lot like cav pre-sheild fix. And thus rings a lot of alarm bells for me.
Or am I not understanding what you saying, (you are a touch confusing, are you crying foul about DFK being so similar to DCK, or about DCK having such a high defence? I've tried to cover both in my post but i'm ot sure which you mean. I agree that DFK are a bit high on the defence though ATM as they are much furthar ahead of DFK in the tech tree).
The missile balance is actually the point I'm trying to make. The only Late sword and board unit I can think of atm is Sword and Buckler Men. In almost all other cases polearms and pikes are what you get with the higher-level barracks or military academies, or at least some form of AP troops. It really does look like polearms are supposed to replace sword and board units, but their missile and charge resistance is much lower. In essence, the general missile and charge resistance of armies drops drastically once you get to the Late Era, an era where you get the heaviest cavalry and the meanest missile weapons. Both my sense of history and of game balance are offended at this. We're not talking a few points here and there, it's a full 9 points between DGK and DCK.
I agree that most 2handers don't actually need more armor to massacre sword and board atm because of their completely insane AP attack. One handed AP weapons generally have significantly lower attack than swords to compensate for the AP, yet 2handers have AP and about twice as much charge bonus and attack as swords. However, the suspicion is that this is because of the bugged animations and that the attack values need tweaking once the animations are fixed. Since they need adjusting anyway, why not tone them down significantly while increasing their armor (or decreasing the swordsmen's defense, I prefer the latter really)?
It seems to me that removing some Def Skill rather than armor/shield would work best perhaps.
The missile balance is actually the point I'm trying to make. The only Late sword and board unit I can think of atm is Sword and Buckler Men.
While not *Sword and board* Venetian heavy infantry probably qualify.
@Dopp: thats the problem here, your assumming that just because the 2-Handers/Pikes are later on that they TOTTALLY replace S&S infantry. That isn't really how it works. S&S infantry are no longer the primiary Infantry killiers anymore, true, (thats what the 2-Handers replace), but nor are they usless units thrown by the wayside. Even early era armies are combined arms armies. the same holds true into the late era as well. Thats what I want to see. i don't want to see the game become a "spam 2-Handers/Pikes Win" kind of game. But if S&S units are effectivly made usless because their littile they can do that 2-Handers can't then thats whats going to happen.
If you want your armies to have charge resistance and missile resistance you have to start including Spear/Pikes, (depending on which you get, but most don't get Pikes AND 2-Handers), and S&S units.
When I say Later era 2-Handers should beat Late Era S&S I mean Late era as in late within the sub sections of the tech tree. 2-Handers built at a higher Barracks might be later era in terms of Build postion. But that dosen't mean they are later era than the S&S unit in question. Chivalric Knights are at the very end of the S&S tech tree, but some 2-Handers, (like eastern Halberd Militia and ordinary Billmen), are not as far along the 2-Hander tech-tree as Chivalric Knights are along the S&S tech tree.
In general armies will should IMHO somthing like this, (melee infantry only):
Early: Spears, Town Militia, (they fill in for S&S at this stage)
Mid: Better Spears, early S&S infantry
High: Early Pikes/Best Spears, late S&S infantry, with some S&S infantry replaced by early 2-Handers, some Spear remain to aid in Flank Rear defence of Pikes and defence for S&S/2-Handers vs. cav.
Late: Late Pikes, Late S&S Infatry, Late 2-Handers, Spears.
Of course no army has every single element listed, but many have some. England for example replaces Pikes with Stakes, and reduces it's reliance on S&S infantry vis AP missile which are nearly as deadly to S&S units as 2-Handers. Likewise, Spain lacks the 2-Handers, (as do many with Pikes TBH), but makes up for it with good gunpowder missile fire, the excellent power of pikes and the ability of Sword and Bukler men+Spears+Dismounted Conquistidors.
Let me also add that another late S&S unit is Noble Swordsmen, (same time as Noble Pikemen, i.e. last barracks), and they have the same stats as Dismounted Chivalrics, so that is a pretty important clue that Chivalrics and co where meant to be useful late on IMHO.
FrauGloer
01-22-2007, 18:21
I don't know how this would work out, but here goes:
How about lowering 2h swords' melee damage by 2 or 3, but increasing their charge bonus to 8? In theory, this should make their charge devastating, but lower their power in prolonged melees against "sword and board" soldiers where their huge swords would be rather cumbersome. Because of this, I wouldn't give them a general AP bonus. I'd like to be able to give them an AP bonus on the charge only.
What do you think? Just an idea... :idea2:
You can't give them an AP bonus on the charge only i'm afraid.
Not a bad idea, but Charge 8 vs Charge 6, (what the best 2-Hander have), is only a minor buff. It helps, but if they would allready do well on the charge it only helps if faced with somone with a lower charge than them, (if a unit has a higher charge it seems to do the charge attack animation faster and get the first blow in). This only matters vs. other 2-Handers.
It's not a bad idea, but I suspect wouldn't work in practise. Bsides, with the way Halberds and Bills where used, it wouldn't be cumbersome at all in melee.
FrauGloer
01-22-2007, 18:44
You can't give them an AP bonus on the charge only i'm afraid..
Yes, I know, but I'd like to... :yes:
Not a bad idea, but Charge 8 vs Charge 6, (what the best 2-Hander have), is only a minor buff. It helps, but if they would allready do well on the charge it only helps if faced with somone with a lower charge than them, (if a unit has a higher charge it seems to do the charge attack animation faster and get the first blow in). This only matters vs. other 2-Handers..
Hang on, I thought the charge bonus was added to the normal melee damage to determine the actual damage of the attack. Isn't it? The way I understand what you're saying, the charge bonus only applies to determine who gets to strike first.
melee dmg + charge bonus = actual damage on the charge - or not? :dizzy2:
Is it possible for the charge bonus to be higher than 8? If you're correct and charge bonus only deterimines wo attacks first, it wouldn't matter, of course...
It's not a bad idea, but I suspect wouldn't work in practise. Bsides, with the way Halberds and Bills where used, it wouldn't be cumbersome at all in melee.
Yeah, as I said, I'd apply this only to 2h-swords, not to polearms.
Hang on, I thought the charge bonus was added to the normal melee damage to determine the actual damage of the attack. Isn't it?
It does, but the problem is that 2-Handers on the charge have such a high, (and AP), attack anyway that they rarerly fail to kill, so appart from the strikes first bit, (and I havn't done any testing on it, it's just random things i've noticed), it has no noticiable effect.
Yeah, as I said, I'd apply this only to 2h-swords, not to polearms.
Sorry, misunderstanding.
Yes, I know, but I'd like to...
Just wanted to make sure you knew, thats all.
Personally I think all high tier elite faction special infantry should have a decent chance against each other.
Swords and warhammer 2H (I include DEK/DNK this way) would benefit from a lower attack (perhaps 10-12?) and a largish charge rating.
This might emphasize(good lord I can't spell today, hope that's right) counter charging/charging them into a flank.
Swords (1H or 2H) are extremely good defensive (parrying) weapons and therefore I'd expect their defence skill to be higher than axe, spear or polearm troops.
Doesn't the fact that DFKs can upgrade their mail armour symbolise their transition through the eras? The one thing I find strange is the fact that Armoured Swordsmen, Noble Swordsmen and DCKs only have 1 more armour point than DFKs, whom they theoretically replace... Why? It's hardly enough to make an worthwhile difference.
Sword and shield shouldn't be replaced. It's just that other infantry types develop, i.e. pikes and polearms. 2-handers tended to be rarer simply because their weapons were less common, more expensive and much harder to wield.
@Jambo: I find DFK to be somthing of an anomolly. Compare them to the progression of every other sword and sheild unit and they look out of place. They should eithier be higher up the tech tree, or at their current level but with lower stats IMHO as they are too good for their tech level ATM.
It's also intresting to note that all the other Dismounted S&S infantry have the same attack as their mounted counterparts with the sole exception of DFK, (as far as i know). Me thinks they changed Fuedal Knight stats at the last minute and forgot to do the same to the Dismounted ones.
Yeah, given that Chivalric Knights are so much better than Feudals, I'm rather amazed that there's not a greater difference between the dismounted versions. 1 armour point seems hardly worth the hassle to be honest.
I know what you mean, the Chivalrics DO have better morale, but only by 2 points and are Impetuous~:(, (blessing and curse really, more Morale Shock resistant, but if they charge at the wrong moment...).
I honestly thing the DFK are a bug. Like I said, the dismounted and mounted version of two units are ushually similar in terms of attack if the Dismounted ones don't switch to a 2-Handed weapon. This isn't the case for DFK and looks suspicious to me.
It's hard to know for certain, because unlike in MTW, actual medieval battles rarely saw fights between homogenous sword and shield units against homogenous 2h weapon units (excluding pikes and such).
The 'men at arms' melee fighters used a variety of different weapons.
I think they should rock the world of any other infantry (Within reason... cheap peasant axemen should probably lose to DCK ;) ) but die horribly under a cavalry charge.
We agree for once:laugh4:.
I would say that pikes should beat them head on, but thats because Pikes are what some armies get instead of 2-Handers and because Pikes sacrafice even more missile resistant, mobility and flank/rear resistance for their massivlly better frontal power and cav resistance.
How good you think Pikes should be is for another thread though once this one dies down LOL:smash:.
No, I agree pikes should be all but invincible from the front (Particularly armored elites). A good charge of high end two handers should be able to put a hurt on them though, and a flank charge should just sweep them aside like chaff...
The ideal tactic, of course, should be pinning them frontally with sword and board infantry, and then flanking with two handers.
And it works a treat "when" you can pull it off...
2h weapons are longer and so have 'range'. So They should have higher defense skill. their defense in melee should therefore be equal to that of a S&S of the same cost/era. But because all their defense is in skill, they are very vunerable to missles, whereas a S&S unit is not as they have Shield defense.
2H weapons are heavier thus have AP. So generally, they should beat any S&S unit by a small margin due to this.
p.s this is my ideal situation... which meant that the shield bug does not exist.
The ability to defend against cavalry charges, is primarily based on morale and formation. A tight formation, regardless of weapon, which does not break as cavalry approaches will usually stop a cavalry charge.
Cavalry was successful when an enemy unit broke formation. If a unit is disordered, retreating, in disorderly pursuit or which runs upon the approach of cavalry, then a cavalry charge could be devastating. Or if cavalry attacked from the flank or rear, again it could destroy a unit.
IMO, the weapon, whether sword or spear, is less important than morale in stopping a cavalry charge. A unit simply needs to hold formation and be relatively safe. A higher morale unit is more likely to maintain formation.
Although I think the spear/pike is better than a sword as an anti-cavalry weapon for low morale troops because very little training is required and the spears/pikes provided a morale boast to low morale troops.
Any unit moving with any disruption of formation would be at risk from a cavalry attack.
I don't really agree with that; standing in nice formation doesn't prevent their lances from killing your first couple ranks, and a sword sucks to keep you from getting trampled. Grew up around horses... hooves are weapons.
I do think lance charges should be devastating against anything but pikes and route units like gunpowder... the catch should be though that a cav unit can only do ONE lance charge. It destroyed the lance.
pike master
01-23-2007, 05:46
halberdiers and great sword units are performing as one would expect but the other kind of two handed units such as dismounted knights with war picks and hammers, billmen and axemen are in need of fixing to make them about as good as a great sword unit. but halberd units should still have some advantage by having a long versatile weapon. is that what most are seeing? two types of two handed units one thats working and the other thats bugged?
I don't really agree with that; standing in nice formation doesn't prevent their lances from killing your first couple ranks, and a sword sucks to keep you from getting trampled. Grew up around horses... hooves are weapons.
I do think lance charges should be devastating against anything but pikes and route units like gunpowder... the catch should be though that a cav unit can only do ONE lance charge. It destroyed the lance.
In most cases, I don't think so against a steady unit. One, horses will not run into a wall, they will slow and turn away or stop. Lances are long but on a stationary horse, they can only poke at an enemy. I don't think you can get a lot of power into a lance poke and thus little damage.
I know the Norman cavalry were unable to break the Saxons at Hastings. They were very steady shield infantry.
Horses don't normally dive, or jump fences while ridden readily... or do a lot of things people train them to. They are quite trainable, and war horses were trained almost as much as their rider. That's why they were so valuable.
Horses don't normally dive, or jump fences while ridden readily... or do a lot of things people train them to. They are quite trainable, and war horses were trained almost as much as their rider. That's why they were so valuable.
I agree entirely. Although I doubt you can train them to run into a wall or tree at full speed. Similarly, I just don't see them charging full speed into a steady wall of men in ranks regardless of the weapon held by the men.
Although, it only takes a few men to back away, to flinch, to turn their backs to give the knights an opportunity to break into and disrupt a formation.
Horses don't normally dive, or jump fences while ridden readily... or do a lot of things people train them to. They are quite trainable, and war horses were trained almost as much as their rider. That's why they were so valuable.
I agree, warhorses are different from carthorses and are specially trained to charge home and to trample infantry. Experience with police horses and crowds tells us that enraged horses can literally batter their way though pretty solid crowds of people and cause immense havoc, knocking entire lines of men to the ground (including sometimes armored riot police with shields and clubs, not just panicked protesters). But the argument against the 'myth' of the cavalry charge revolves on a lot more than just that.
First of all, although a horse may trample a man flat in a violent collision, that's by accident, not by design. A unit of men is a far greater and thicker obstacle than a hedge or fence. That's a tremendous obstacle for the horse to tackle, especially since it cannot see any way over, through or around it.
Secondly, experience with accidents and pileups leads historians to the conclusion that most charges were much slower and more deliberate affairs than mad rushes at each other. A wall of horses charging a wall of men, with both sides determined to hold course like lemmings, will invariably result in a massive pile of dead bodies when the front ranks collide, blocking the rear ranks from reaching the fight at all. In any case, most battle accounts are quite clear that no pileups occurred. Either one side broke off the charge, one side ran and got run down, or the horses slowed as they came into contact with the infantry to avoid getting skewered and a bloody melee began.
Thirdly, the moral effect. Infantry that began to back away or run off at the approach of cavalry would encourage the horsemen to put spurs to horseflesh and charge in (the 'run down those dogs' effect). Cuirassiers (the last heavy cavalry) mentioned visible shivers of uncertainty running through infantry at their approach, followed by panic as the emboldened horsemen accelerated over the last few dozen yards. Conversely, infantry that saw cavalry begin to slow down or peel off to the sides as they approached would feel encouraged to stand firm, further disheartening the horsemen until they eventually gave it up several yards before contact. Many charges were often decided even before the horses contacted the front ranks of infantry.
I agree, warhorses are different from carthorses and are specially trained to charge home and to trample infantry. Experience with police horses and crowds tells us that enraged horses can literally batter their way though pretty solid crowds of people and cause immense havoc, knocking entire lines of men to the ground (including sometimes armored riot police with shields and clubs, not just panicked protesters). But the argument against the 'myth' of the cavalry charge revolves on a lot more than just that.
First of all, although a horse may trample a man flat in a violent collision, that's by accident, not by design. A unit of men is a far greater and thicker obstacle than a hedge or fence. That's a tremendous obstacle for the horse to tackle, especially since it cannot see any way over, through or around it.
Secondly, experience with accidents and pileups leads historians to the conclusion that most charges were much slower and more deliberate affairs than mad rushes at each other. A wall of horses charging a wall of men, with both sides determined to hold course like lemmings, will invariably result in a massive pile of dead bodies when the front ranks collide, blocking the rear ranks from reaching the fight at all. In any case, most battle accounts are quite clear that no pileups occurred. Either one side broke off the charge, one side ran and got run down, or the horses slowed as they came into contact with the infantry to avoid getting skewered and a bloody melee began.
Thirdly, the moral effect. Infantry that began to back away or run off at the approach of cavalry would encourage the horsemen to put spurs to horseflesh and charge in (the 'run down those dogs' effect). Cuirassiers (the last heavy cavalry) mentioned visible shivers of uncertainty running through infantry at their approach, followed by panic as the emboldened horsemen accelerated over the last few dozen yards. Conversely, infantry that saw cavalry begin to slow down or peel off to the sides as they approached would feel encouraged to stand firm, further disheartening the horsemen until they eventually gave it up several yards before contact. Many charges were often decided even before the horses contacted the front ranks of infantry.
Very well written and agree completely. Holding formation was vital for the infantry. Morale was of utmost importance whether infantry had shield and sword or spear.
At the same time, any infantry moving, whether retreating, pursuing, or just advancing, was at risk from a cavalry charge as the ability to quickly form solid steady ranks was more of a challenge.
I agree, warhorses are different from carthorses and are specially trained to charge home and to trample infantry. Experience with police horses and crowds tells us that enraged horses can literally batter their way though pretty solid crowds of people and cause immense havoc, knocking entire lines of men to the ground (including sometimes armored riot police with shields and clubs, not just panicked protesters). But the argument against the 'myth' of the cavalry charge revolves on a lot more than just that.
First of all, although a horse may trample a man flat in a violent collision, that's by accident, not by design. A unit of men is a far greater and thicker obstacle than a hedge or fence. That's a tremendous obstacle for the horse to tackle, especially since it cannot see any way over, through or around it.
Secondly, experience with accidents and pileups leads historians to the conclusion that most charges were much slower and more deliberate affairs than mad rushes at each other. A wall of horses charging a wall of men, with both sides determined to hold course like lemmings, will invariably result in a massive pile of dead bodies when the front ranks collide, blocking the rear ranks from reaching the fight at all. In any case, most battle accounts are quite clear that no pileups occurred. Either one side broke off the charge, one side ran and got run down, or the horses slowed as they came into contact with the infantry to avoid getting skewered and a bloody melee began.
Thirdly, the moral effect. Infantry that began to back away or run off at the approach of cavalry would encourage the horsemen to put spurs to horseflesh and charge in (the 'run down those dogs' effect). Cuirassiers (the last heavy cavalry) mentioned visible shivers of uncertainty running through infantry at their approach, followed by panic as the emboldened horsemen accelerated over the last few dozen yards. Conversely, infantry that saw cavalry begin to slow down or peel off to the sides as they approached would feel encouraged to stand firm, further disheartening the horsemen until they eventually gave it up several yards before contact. Many charges were often decided even before the horses contacted the front ranks of infantry.
Very well written and agree completely. Holding formation was vital for the infantry. Morale was of utmost importance whether infantry had shield and sword or spear.
At the same time, any infantry moving, whether retreating, pursuing, or just advancing, was at risk from a cavalry charge as the ability to quickly form solid steady ranks was more of a challenge.
Others (Jambo for example), feel that any infantry unit of similar Price should beat them.
I didn't actually say that and you must have misinterpreted something I've said. I believe that 2-handed should be beating S&S but where you might have misunderstood me is I think the margin of victory should be closer than some here, i.e. something like just under half of the 2-handed unit remaining.
This is more complicated because the DFKs are really good for their time period and continue to be decent for the entire game. They aren't much different from the later S&S infantry that essentially replace them, and I think the later S&S infantry should be closer to the 2-handed.
I don't really agree with that; standing in nice formation doesn't prevent their lances from killing your first couple ranks, and a sword sucks to keep you from getting trampled. Grew up around horses... hooves are weapons.
I do think lance charges should be devastating against anything but pikes and route units like gunpowder... the catch should be though that a cav unit can only do ONE lance charge. It destroyed the lance.
historically would they not be able to return to the back of the field of battle to collect a new lance from their retainers? i am prety sure for example that the polish winged hussars could so i imagine the same would be the case with medieval knights.
historically would they not be able to return to the back of the field of battle to collect a new lance from their retainers? i am prety sure for example that the polish winged hussars could so i imagine the same would be the case with medieval knights.
Likely, IF you sent them to the rear lines. But just like archers should have available in a battle more arrows than they are now given by the game, via carriers etc, so too should cav only get once lance.
One nice trick would be to create a "supply position" for the TW series. A place you can send various units to to reload their ammo. This could also refill a cav unit's lances. You could also have runners for supplies though that might complicate it. But it could be nice in battle to have to withdraw a unit to re-equip, rather than send them from the field completely... without really making the units any more powerful. Re-equipping could also take a certain amount of time once they got there.
Well, I also wouldn't want to suggest that all it took to stop a full cavalry charge was a bunch of guys standing shoulder to shoulder and covering their vulnerables, like a modern football team in front of a goalpost. In Napoleonic battles the square was the only formation more or less guaranteed to hold against cavalry if the men were determined enough. Firing lines of two or three men thick and infantry columns would be swept away almost instantly. Still, in most of these cases the infantry would already have started running off before the cavalry charge hit. And if the infantry was caught moving or changing formation in any fashion, the cavalry would easily saber them all to death.
Incidentally, cavalry could beat resolute and steady infantry standing in formation, but they had to 'cheat' to do it. Horse artillery was designed specifically to accompany the cavalry forward and tear huge gaps in the infantry formations for the horses to penetrate and finish off the stunned survivors. As the target infantry had to form solid ranks in anticipation of the cavalry charge, they would present easy targets for the artillery. A similar tactic was supposed to have been used against the Varangian Guard by the Normans (?), with the knights pinning the infantry in place by threatening to charge and the archers then softening them up until the knights could charge in anyway. I never get mad at the 'passive AI' refusing to charge my superior battleline and then dying under my arrow storm, because I figure that's what often happened in history anyway. The AI knows it's going to lose if it charges its Town Militia against my DEKs, what with my Demi-Lancers waiting in the wings to deliver the killing blow, so it sits there while the longbows rain death on it.
Swords (1H or 2H) are extremely good defensive (parrying) weapons and therefore I'd expect their defence skill to be higher than axe, spear or polearm troops.
Agreed.
The one thing I find strange is the fact that Armoured Swordsmen, Noble Swordsmen and DCKs only have 1 more armour point than DFKs, whom they theoretically replace... Why? It's hardly enough to make an worthwhile difference.
Redundancy. Units in fact don't get "replaced," but continue to be available for recruitment. In each case the unit is almost a clone of a different one, just with a slightly higher defense, but I think the real point is that it gives the faction access to multiple units that fill a given role. Presumably this is to make up for some other weakness the devs perceived in said faction's arsenal (possibly just to fill out the unit roster at a given tech level) . Armored Swordsmen, for instance, seem to somewhat compensate for the fact that England must do without any decent spears or pikes. It's also noteworthy that instead of the 225 upkeep of DFK, they have a 150 upkeep and are therefore superior in that regard in addition to their 1 extra base armor. Noble Swordsmen are similarly only 175 upkeep, again a far better bargain. DCK have only the added 1 defense, which while it is probably the least different from DFK, still does give you more access to sword and shield ground troops... plus it's nice to have 2 different models to look at on the battlefield instead of endless amounts of DFKs! :smile:
didn't actually say that and you must have misinterpreted something I've said. I believe that 2-handed should be beating S&S but where you might have misunderstood me is I think the margin of victory should be closer than some here, i.e. something like just under half of the 2-handed unit remaining.
This is more complicated because the DFKs are really good for their time period and continue to be decent for the entire game. They aren't much different from the later S&S infantry that essentially replace them, and I think the later S&S infantry should be closer to the 2-handed.
I've been thinking the exact same thing Jambo: 2-to-1 is approximately the correct kill ratio for that engagement. Less makes the engagement lack inevitability (i.e. allows the chance that S&S unit can win in straight up frontal combat) and more just makes the unit ridiculously overpowered like some kind of freakish 2-legged cavalry.
Weird... I didn't expect to be only replying to Jambo's thoughts when I started reading this thread. Guess you've just been very thought-provoking. Good job! :beam:
Also, whilst not well documented, DFK DO get beaten by Noble Swordsmen and the equivelent, even when the player controls the DFK (which gives them a bigish advantage). So somthing is obviouslly a lot weaker than the mere 1 defence implies.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.