Combat in EB?

A question; how is combat going to be split in EB. Classic Total war games had it; sword inf beat spear inf, ranged inf beat sword inf, cal beat ranged inf, spear inf beat cal, cal beat sword inf. Thats were I think the main problem is RTW they have split combat very badly. Light Cal way too powerful in especially in the charge. In RTW there is also no real medium cal/inf were they should be.

it's more like this

sword inf beat spear inf
ranged beat inf
cav beat ranged
cav vs sword inf is a tie
cav loses vs spear inf
and HA beats all hahahahaha

My question is how will it work in EB? Will you use the old TW system?

Since when has sword infantry (apart from legionaries and the like, which are more like big shield infantry than sword infrantry) been able to consistantly beat spear infantry? The spear is the superior weapon, and the sword is supposed to be for backup.

Indeed, in a duel with equally skilled fighters, one with sword and the other with spear, the spearman will win more often.

It seems to me that there should be no "sword infantry;" I can't think of many times when soldiers were equipped with swords as their primary weapon. Again, I make an exception for legionaries, because while their swords are arguably their primary weapons, it is their shields that makes the soldiers so effective and are almost really their primary weapons, if not offensive ones. In fact, if I were to be placed into a battle and was given the choice of either a scutum or a gladius, I'd take the shield!

The shield was the prirmary Legionary weapon. The boss was thick, hard, heavy and created alot of blunt force trauma, even through armor.

there are numerous cases of infantry armed mainly with swords.

the celts were famous for it, at the time of hannibal many of them still fought naked with nothing but shield and sword.

some iberians also fought with shield and sword only.

some landsnechkts (sp) regiments also used troops with very large swords to break through the pikes of the enemy.

the main thing is that a spear is much cheaper, so they were used extensively in the dark ages as all the european economies collapsed.

that said the shield of the legionary was used in an offensive manner to knock his opponent over, before dispatching him.

Actually, few Celts fought naked at the time of Hannibal; mainly the cultic mercenaries called the 'Gaesatae'; they carried javelins and a sword and shield (they were highly favored for their fanatic nature, ignorance of pain, and fearlessness, attributed to a PCP-like drug they imbibed before battle). Naked warriors had fallen out of any major favor around the turn of the century, in Gaul. However, the Galatians, during their migration, had missed that cultural shift, and did have large numbers of naked warriors (but it still didn't form a bulk of their military by any means, but they weren't so rare it'd be surprising to see one). Anyway, I should point out though, the sword was the main melee weapon of many Celtic and other cultures warriors. A sword is light, a glancing blow with it can still some one, it can be manuevered in different ways than a spear, it's accurate, easy to get the basics of (but can take years to master the usage of it), and resilient. Spears broke all the time (as did many shortswords, which were often little more than very long hunting and skinning knives); a sword could, if properly cared for, last generations, and was an investment. A spear can also be awkward in many situations, they require the body to move in sometimes unusual ways. Swinging a sword is a very natural series of motions. They both have their uses, and advantages, but not everyone used the sword as a back up. For instance, like later sword and buckler troops, some Celts used a small round shield and a short stabbing sword; they were anti-phalanx light infantry. They'd knock the spears up, roll underneath, and stab the spear/pikemen; the Pergamons started kneeling a few rows of their pikemen to stop this (sadly, we can't actually do either of these things in game). The Galatians were huge on using this tactic, because, of course, they were mostly fighting troops from Sucessor states, and an anti-phalanx troop was highly valued. Anyway, the sword was their main weapon. Also, Romans shifted to somewhat hardier, slightly reinforced shields, because the veteran Gallic soldiers had well made longswords (as their main weapon, at that), which could often break their shields (similar to the Dacian falx causing a complete adaptation of Roman arms and armor). Romans mention Celtic swords that bent and broke easily, but many times they're talking about shortswords, which aren't really made for combat much of the time, but were used by younger warriors who needed a weapon. Many Celtic swordsmen (most, even) carried javelins, but their main melee weapon was still a sword.