Swordsmen vs Spearmen imbalanced?

[Cronopio]

I did a bit of testing with single formation custom battles last night of Swordsmen vs Spearmen (by spearmen I'm referring to both spearmen and pikemen) in all time periods with some interesting results.

When I used a single formation of swordsmen near or slightly less than the cost of a single formation of spearmen and met them head-on without any attempt to flank I lost the battle 50% of the time whether I charged or stood my ground. The odds increased "slightly" in my favor if I increased the facing of my unit and wrapped around the flanks of the spearmen.
This is the ideal tactic obviously. Charging in a wedge formation is suicide - the results being similar to using cavalry against spearmen.

Note that these are stock units with no increase of valor being given. Perhaps increasing the valor on both sides will result in head-on battles favoring swordsmen more often but more testing will be required.

I understand that from a tactical standpoint a head-on battle is sort of a last resort when all attempts to flank an opponent have failed. However, the swordsmen are supposed to beat the spearmen in a head-on fight just as cavalry beat swordsmen and spearmen beat cavalry (all costs being equal).

From the many tests I ran it seems possible that replacing spearmen for your swordsmen will make a stronger formation against any threat. I will be conducting more tests (this time keeping track of the specific unit names and results) of course, but I am wondering if anyone else has noticed this possible imbalance.

[Soapyfrog]

Swordsmen are supposed to beat spearmen head on?

I did not know that...

[de la Valette]

Yep, have had many a unit of men at arms (both types) crumble under a unit of spearmen/ sar infantry.

The only way to effectively use MAA is in flanking attacks and even then they seem to suffer loses equal to clansmen.

This doesn't make sense as MAA rather than spearmen were the core of most medieval armies, yet in MTW i tend to use it the other way round (2 units of spears for every one of sword).

[Cronopio]

Well, that's what the strategy guide says anyway. Similar to rock - paper - scissors. I admit that I don't expect swordsmen to beat spearmen all the time, but it should be better than a 54% chance all things being equal. I think the problem has to do with the fact that most expensive swordsmen units are 40 or 60 men and most spearmen and pike units are 80 or 100 men. The difference in manpower between 40 and 80 men is just too great. Sure swordsmen can defeat spearmen in equal numbers, but then the costs for the swordsmen are twice as much. It just doesn't seem right. I'm going to start playing with only spearmen, cavalry and ranged in my campaign to see how well I fare.

If this imbalance does exist to some extent, it could be very annoying in multiplayer.



[This message has been edited by Cronopio (edited 09-19-2002).]

[Vanya]

GAH!

Vanya sez to His soldiers...

Take spear and tie sword to its tip. That way, when he go into battle he wields BOTH a spear and a sword! And, through dedicated meditation, he can reap both the defensive benefits of the spear AND the offensive prowess of the sword.

Vanya sez to His peasantry...

Get your pitchforks and hoes and climb onto that catapult... but, first, have some beans and milk. Want a smoke?

GAH!

[Cheetah]

Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
Swordsmen are supposed to beat spearmen head on?

I did not know that...[/QUOTE]

According to the rock-paper-scissors game they should. Of course, we can start endless debates about historic events and historic unit types but what matters IMHO is the supposed rock-paper-scissors logic of the game.

oh, nearly forgot to mention, visit the following thread http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001538.html

[This message has been edited by Cheetah (edited 09-19-2002).]

[Nelson]

I have noticed that MAA don't fare well against spears too. I believe the problem is that the early, cheap spear armed troops are too disciplined and effective. They were armed with spears because spears were cheap. The fact that they have shields means they must use a short spear with one hand which is not nearly so dangerous as the two handed pike of later years. Still, in the game they fight like 15th century Swiss pikemen when in fact hastily raised12th century one handed spearmen should not be as good as professional men at arms. Training and experience was far more important than weapons and equipment.

Any spear or pike phalanx style formation was tough from the front if the men were disciplined enough, versus cavalry OR infantry. The spearman and feudal sergeants in the game should NOT be these types of soldiers. Phalanx type units were harder to maneuver though and thus could be easier to outflank with more nimble troops in smaller groups armed with what ever, mounted or not. It's would be a gross oversimplification to say that swords should ALWAYS beat spears, spears should ALWAYS beat cav and cav should ALWAYS beat swords and that everyone should ALWAYS beat missile troops. Too many other factors are involved for the rock, paper, scissors paradigm to be relied upon as anything other than the most basic and crudest of tactical guides.



------------------
COGITOERGOVINCO

[Stu35]

meh... the trouble is we are presented with stats, and the knowlege we have, so we can complain about them giving us 100 unit types and only 3 or 4 being any use whatsoever,

but historically they prefered to have valourous men with swords and armour, over peasants with pikes... despite the fact that no swordsmen could get passed a well diciplined pike wall (as was proved in the Civil War when every highland charge was massacred on pike and later bayonett points)...

of course later they combined the 2 - rugged bayonett drill and the highland charge, the result is the British army kicking arse from here to asia and back again.


Anyway, my point is that i try not to use spears and pikes whenever possible... of course this makes no sense from those of you who want nothing but the perfect strategy with 100% victory rating, but frankly i like to experiment (have not actually looked at the stats properly yet, but i have discovered that clansmen make a half-way decente substitute for light cavalry early in the campaign game, and they *would* be in single battles if you could pick them (grrrrr)).


------------------
Stu35s MTW Site - Hints,Lists,Facts,And Porn (http://www.angelfire.com/games4/mtw) (one of those is a lie)

http://www.geocities.com/wolflord_uk/stu35

Alba Gu Bragh

[Tachikaze]

Quote They were armed with spears because spears were cheap. The fact that they have shields means they must use a short spear with one hand which is not nearly so dangerous as the two handed pike of later years. Still, in the game they fight like 15th century Swiss pikemen when in fact hastily raised12th century one handed spearmen should not be as good as professional men at arms.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Hellenistic Hoplites notwithstanding, one-handed spears were generally only a little taller than a man. The way I see it, that leaves 3-4 feet (1-1.3 meters) in front of the user's hand. You have to be pretty chummy with the guy in the rank in front of you for that spearpoint to extend much beyond him. I don't think one-handed spears should award any bonuses for overlapping.

Quote Training and experience was far more important than weapons and equipment.[/QUOTE]

This has always been my stand in these discussions. Young men love machines, tools, and weapons, so they always argue over the best fighter plane and the best swords. Hogwash. If I were armed with a katana, and I met Yojimbo with a steak knife, I'd be hamburger.

------------------
http://members.cox.net/ramen/icon09.gif

Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.