Weapon Reach?

I often see talk of Unit such-and-such, Attack(x), Def(y) and so forth but I can't see any data relating to 'weapon reach' for the various unit types. Or I may be looking in the wrong place.

Would I be right in guessing that this factor isn't modelled in the game?

The nearest we get to it is things like spears getting a defence bonus against cavalry, which reflects their ability to hold horses at a distance and out of reach of a sword but, in practice, they still take losses anyway.

I hear much talk of 'swords beat spears every time' but, thinking about it, if spears can hold horsemen at bay, what chances does an attacking swordsman have? Surely they're going to get a speartip thrust through their chest before they can get within sword-striking distance?

I'm not arguing that the spears can actually kill all the swords in a straight fight though. The swordsmen can easily stand back and dodge side to side to avoid the odd thrust, or parry with a shield. In short, it should be a stalemate situation until something else comes in to flank the spears.

This, of course is the whole point of the 'shield wall'. If the line can be made long enough, it's unflankable. Or at least the detour to a flank which is a great distance away will divide an attackers force in the centre, risking local outnumbering should the defenders use this opportunity to charge en masse.

Then there's the pike and musket era, when 'push of pikes' was a central part of ECW battles. Basically a prolonged scrum where you attempt to gain ground by sheer muscle power but would it be correct to say that relatively few casualties resulted from pike stab injuries and it was the musketry which did most of the killing?

Btw, I've seen enough TV programmes featuring Mike Loades' words of wisdom to know that reach isn't everything. The Greek/Roman short sword could be concealed behind the shield until the last split second, so the defender doesn't know whether to parry high/low, left/right and, if they should strike first, the attacker parries with shield, closes in and gets a free strike. A stabbing action rather than slash.

Aside from varying ranges for missiles, I've never heard of this being factored in, except for one point: Some units (usually, but I think not always, spearmen) have the rule that the front TWO lines may fight in a melee, not just the front line (which is the case for the majority of units). How this works when units are out of formation, I'm not sure - but in units that try to hold formation, such as the bulk of spears, it gives you twice as many attacks as you would otherwise get.

In the matter of a sword against a spear (or, considering the above, two spears), I think a sword would have the edge - a spear is less wieldy than a sword, and attackers can step inside it's reach, maybe even grab it to stop it being used to effect. True, there's still the spear of the man in the row behind to deal with, but it shouldn't be much of an issue to parry it and attack the front row. Of course, this requires some discipline and teamwork - and the hope that your comrades are occupying the men on either side of your target!

I think this also explains some of the odd-looking weaponary created during medieval times - spears with axes or other side-facings blades, so that it could be used to slash as well as thrust, and even some where am additional spike faces towards the holder, I imagine so that they can yank the weapon back and impale anyone who is too close in the back...

One assumes that a sword-armed man is better at dodgy spears than an unarmed horse that is being told where to go... Though I do wonder if the spear defence is better against charging cavalry?

Weapon length is only a factor for gaining rank bonuses. Spearmen have 2 supporting ranks and pikes 4 meaning that the front rank gets a bonus from the 2/4 ranks behind them. The supporting ranks give the following bonuses to the frontrank:

# supporting rank: bonus
1: +1 def
2: +1 att, +1 def
3: +1 def
4: +1 att, +1 def

So a spearman gets a total of +1 att and +2 def from the 2 ranks behind him and a pikeman +2 att and +4 def.

During a battle you can see how the supporting ranks are fighting too. In woods they lose the ability to have supporting ranks and when swordsmen use the Wedge formation they also lose it.

A spear is a lethal weapon and its really only for gameplay that swords have an advantage against spearmen. For a pike yes its possible to get in close and make life difficult for the pikemen but a standard spear of 8-9 feet length is a versatile weapon.

The "push of the pike" is not to be taken literally. Some ECW reenactors are elevating their pikes so they can go in close and do that mythical pushing. I have never read how pikemen back then had a gentlemens agreements of elevating pikes to do such a thing nor why they didnt grab their swords to actually try and kill some enemies instead ~:) Pike fighting was considered an art and pikes was even an accepted weapon for duelling.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zild

I think this also explains some of the odd-looking weaponary created during medieval times - spears with axes or other side-facings blades, so that it could be used to slash as well as thrust, and even some where am additional spike faces towards the holder, I imagine so that they can yank the weapon back and impale anyone who is too close in the back...

---

That's the basic idea behind a billhook. Put a "hook" on the end of a pole-arm, and you can use it to pull mounted men from their horses.

MTW doesn't have weapon reach. That's why some SAP always die in melee even though in real life, no one woudl be able to reach you through the pikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Procrustes

That's the basic idea behind a billhook. Put a "hook" on the end of a pole-arm, and you can use it to pull mounted men from their horses.

---

That's the one!

I took some Japanese friends (one of which I'm now happy to call my wife!) to the Tower of London and they had a pretty nifty collection of spear-esque weapons there - I think a good dozen or so, some slightly different, others quite wildly.

I assume the Billhook is the one used by Billmen? These are perhaps my favourite unit in MTW (I usually play English Early) - I have about half Billmen (Mercian, I think - the ones with the bonus valour), half Longbowmen (always Welsh!) and a couple of heavy cavalry in case I need the speed. Three stacks of these in the east when the Golden Horde showed up soon sent them packing! (As in, on the turn they emerged ;) )

Thanks for all the replies. I shall revisit to pick up some points, later.

@Zild

The billhook started life as a farm implement, usually mounted on a short staff and used much like a one-handed axe. I have only the vaguest idea what it would have been used for. Scythes variously had the blade at right angles, on a long handle, for use standing up and in-line, for use in a bent over position but the billhook seems less than ideal for cutting crops. I can't see it being adopted for chopping wood, when the axe was already a perfectly decent design. Possibly it was used for chopping the thin branches off pollarded trees, for wickerwork? Who knows.

Anyway, the point is that its our old friends the peasants, who would have been the first to take these things into battle, funnily enough, along with any other sharp (or blunt!) implements they could get their hands on.

I suspect the hook was an exaggeration of an existing feature or a later addition in its own right, when they realised that a way to pull horsemen down was a good idea. You then flip the weapon around and use the spike on the other side of the blade to punch through any armour he might have been wearing.

'Swords into ploughshares' is an interesting expression, when you consider how many medieval weapons seems to have started life down on the farm. ~;)

The medieval world consisted of large undevelopped areas with groups of people living in subsistence like Wales, and lush places like East Anglia and Normandy where the land could support a lot of people who did not have to spend all their time growing food. Despite this there were similiar feudal systems which required a similiar amount of people one step up the ladder, the King of Wales would be poorer than the Duke of Normandy, the Lord of Llewelyn would be poorer than the lord of Lille, the knights of Llewelyn would be poorer than the knights of Lille etc.. This combined with the fact that those in higher classes tended to have large families who's offspring didn't die of starvation and disease and the medieval economy was largely stagnant, meant that there were a lot of poor and desperate members of the different social classes willing to risk their lives to keep their comfortable lifestyles.

It wasn't unusual to find knights armed and armoured like Don Quixote and the professional regulars swinging large sticks with metal spikes driven into them around on the battlefield. Of course these regions tended to refine the art of cheap weaponry over time, turning away from the stereotypical band of barbarians armed with various savage weapons, represented somewhat by the unique units in mtw. Swiss pikemen, welsh longbowmen anywhere where there is a lack of equipment people have adapted.

Billmen are kinda overrated. You do kinda need to protect them from getting speed bumped alot and they aren't exactly the best unit to fight cheaper units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

During a battle you can see how the supporting ranks are fighting too. In woods they lose the ability to have supporting ranks and when swordsmen use the Wedge formation they also lose it.

---

Interesting stuff about inner workings of rank bonus. Against wedge, are you certain it's a loss of rank bonus? I know that wedge gives +1 attack (over and above any charge bonus) albeit at the expense of reduced defence rating in the meleé which ensues. For the rank bonus to be lost by the receiving unit in addition to these boosts to attackers seems harsh. Then again, maybe players would not see any visible advantage to wedge without these changes and thus barely use it at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

A spear is a lethal weapon and its really only for gameplay that swords have an advantage against spearmen. For a pike yes its possible to get in close and make life difficult for the pikemen but a standard spear of 8-9 feet length is a versatile weapon.

---

Gameplay: An important point, well made.
I originally pointed out that spear versus anything results in, at best, a positional standoff, with very slow casualty rates, assuming the spear's flanks are protected. Slow, action-free play does not good entertainment make.

When I referred to difficulty of access for the swordsmen, the front rank's spears being one man-width apart, which isn't too bad but the second rank is displaced a little, so frontman has spears on both sides of him too. If the incoming swordsman dodges the front spear succesfully, the two second-rank guys can converge theirs to get him before he reaches the guy in front. 2 vs. 1... deader.

Okay, CMAA type swords, it might be a different story entirely. If the armour is good enough to fend off spears (plate thickness and/or curvature), then they can just wade in and the spearmen are dead meat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

The "push of the pike" is not to be taken literally. Some ECW reenactors are elevating their pikes so they can go in close and do that mythical pushing. I have never read how pikemen back then had a gentlemens agreements of elevating pikes to do such a thing nor why they didnt grab their swords to actually try and kill some enemies instead ~:) Pike fighting was considered an art and pikes was even an accepted weapon for duelling.
CBR

---

I wasn't aware that this is how reconstructions were done, though it makes sense for the Health & Safety side of things. I have to wonder where they got this idea from, if it's as misconceived as you say.

I rather visualised 'push of pikes' to mean one unit against another, only the points are into faces, chests, legs etc. until one side realises it's losing men and then backs away only as fast enough as required to keep a safe distance from the pointy bits. Overall, it's more about taking and holding ground than killing in large numbers.

The hard part is that they're 10-15 feet long, with a diameter rather like a boat oar, weigh a fair bit, can bend and flex somewhat, under their own weight and need both hands to manipulate properly. Therefore, no shields and you'd have to drop it completely to switch to sword combat. A chest-plate might help but encumberance is already an issue just based on the weapon itself. I suspect many went without protection and just depended on the guys either side of them.

Wedge was modified in MTW 1.1 patch and beyond, so it have that extra bonus versus spears. It still gives the +3 att and -3 defense as it always has.

Swords also has a special bonus versus spears which gives them +1 att but only against a spearmen who is getting rank support and only in the melee after a charge.

It might be harsh bonus but heavy spears are quite good in MTW: a chiv sgt will win most fights against a CMAA but lose most of them if the CMAA use wedge. It does give wedge a role now where as before it was not worth much IMO.


I really dont know why some reenactors are doing such things except that they take the term "push of the pike" literally and it suits their misconception of how soldiers back then were fighting.

The pikes used were not that heavy actually. around 3.5-4 kg IIRC (compared to the ancient Macedonian Sarissa of around 8 kg)

There were two pike fighting styles. The Swiss used an underarm style grabbing the pike at the middle to turn it into a long spear. I guess it better suited their individualistic style, as they really liked their good old halberd and only started changing the ratio of halberd/pike after having problems against dismounted MAA that used their lances. And the process still took several decades.

The other fighting style were used by the Landsknechts, but Im not sure who started using it and when, and later that became the standard for all pikemen. An overam style where a soldier would grab the pike butt with the right hand and thereby get to use the full length of the weapon.

Generally the first ranks were the most armoured men in the unit. Hm cant find any proper websites right now and too lazy to scan in some pics but a bit of info is here: http://www.arador.com/articles/pikemen.html


CBR

IMHO swords should always win. This is how I think of it.

A chivalric sergeant is holding his ground. Just like the men behind and besides him, he holds his spear with his one hand and his shield with the other.
A unit of Chivalric men at arms is moving in for the kill. They hold their shield and swords and they attack the CS.
When the first CMAA in row engage this is what I think should happen:
a)The pointy pike touches the CMAA shield.
b)The CMAA protected behind his shield against the pointy nose, has a variety of angles in order to perform a strike at the spear, not the spearman.
c) Since the CS holds the spear with his one hand and because of its length, no matter how strong he is, he has to loose control of the direction he is pointing, even for a fragment of time. This time will allow the CMAA to take one step forward.
d) The distance between the two men is now shorter than the spear. This means of course that the first line of CS can no longer kill the first line of CMAA.
e) The CMAA shield contacts the second row spear. Using the same technique, the CMAA dislocates the second spear and takes another step forward. Second row spears are now incapable of killing the first row swords.
f) The CMAA is facing the third and last spear that separates him from the first row of CS.Uses the same trick and takes one step forward.
d) The first row of CS is now shield-to-shiel with the first row of CMAA. But the CMAA can kill the CS, but the CS can only dodge, since his spear is way too in front in order to be a threat to the CMAA. The CS will eventually die, before the second or the third row CS has the time to relocate the long spear, avoid the CMAA shield and deal an accurate hit to the CMAA.

Mutatis mutandis, all CS rows will fall in the same way. There will be losses, but the CMAA will prevail.

Any thoughts? Judgements? Different opinions? ~:)

I thought swords generally did always win? ~:confused:

@ Advo-San

Why didn't you post this in the "Weapon Reach" thread, which I started?

It seems you've come up with a perfectly decent counter argument to things I had said, so why start a separate topic about it? It's a lot tidier when people can find all of the discussion in one place.

Great information you guys. ~:cool: Thanks for your time and effort. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zild

I assume the Billhook is the one used by Billmen?

---

Yup. It's a great unit in MTW. The idea was there in other types of polearms, too. They were two-handed weapons.

I don't think of the different pole arm units represented in MTW as very homogenous groups of soldiers - at least not the earlier ones. Instead, I think of peasants, UM, MS, and halbs/billmen as progressively better motivated, trained and equiped "small people" with a variety of weapons and equipment. By the time you get to pikemen (or perhaps halbs) you have professional soldiers.

(I know this isn't how the game actually works, but it helps me enjoy it more to think of it this way.)

Best,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

I often see talk of Unit such-and-such, Attack(x), Def(y) and so forth but I can't see any data relating to 'weapon reach' for the various unit types. Or I may be looking in the wrong place. Would I be right in guessing that this factor isn't modelled in the game?

---

LongJohn did try to model longer weapon reach for pikes by giving them a greater chance of pushing back the opponent. A pushback gives a +6 attack bonus on the next combat cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

The nearest we get to it is things like spears getting a defence bonus against cavalry, which reflects their ability to hold horses at a distance and out of reach of a sword but, in practice, they still take losses anyway.

---

Spears and pikes also cancel the charge bonus of cavalry. However, cavalry was changed in MTW v1.1 so that it has a chance of pushing back a spearman or pikeman. This is mainly why you see cavalry killing spearmen and pikemen. The pushback also disrupts the spear/pike formation which can cause a loss of the rank bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

I hear much talk of 'swords beat spears every time' but, thinking about it, if spears can hold horsemen at bay, what chances does an attacking swordsman have? Surely they're going to get a speartip thrust through their chest before they can get within sword-striking distance?

---

In MTW v1.0, swords could not beat the better spears and pikes frontally. This was changed in MTW v1.1 by giving swords a hidden +1 attack bonus vs spears and pikes because some players thought they should win frontally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

I'm not arguing that the spears can actually kill all the swords in a straight fight though. The swordsmen can easily stand back and dodge side to side to avoid the odd thrust, or parry with a shield. In short, it should be a stalemate situation until something else comes in to flank the spears.

---

This is actually how MTW v1.0 played. The infantry battleline would fight for a very long time and the emphasis was on flanking the battleline in order to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

Btw, I've seen enough TV programmes featuring Mike Loades' words of wisdom to know that reach isn't everything. The Greek/Roman short sword could be concealed behind the shield until the last split second, so the defender doesn't know whether to parry high/low, left/right and, if they should strike first, the attacker parries with shield, closes in and gets a free strike. A stabbing action rather than slash.

---

It's pretty rediculous that the slashing with the gladius and the underhanded use of spears by the hoplites were put in because that's how most people think those weapons were used. The same can be said of the Egyptian faction. These things were not put in for gameplay reasons, historical reasons or realism reasons. So, you can see that all three categories take a backseat to something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Wedge was modified in MTW 1.1 patch and beyond, so it have that extra bonus versus spears.

---

I'm not aware of this except that chance of pushback was probably increased allowing wedge to disrupt the spear/pike formation more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I'm not aware of this except that chance of pushback was probably increased allowing wedge to disrupt the spear/pike formation more.

---

Im pretty sure I saw a comment from LongJohn on that. I also tested it some time ago when we discussed spear v sword and wedges in MP forum. Wedge didnt matter much in 1.0 while in 1.1 and VI there is a clear disruption of the spear unit. So pushback does seem to have been increased when using wedge against spears.


CBR

No one wants to face 5 rows of pikes charging at them. However if they are stationary it's easy as they are just knives on sticks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patron

No one wants to face 5 rows of pikes charging at them. However if they are stationary it's easy as they are just knives on sticks.

---

Or it could be like running into an upright 'bed of nails' ~:eek: .

A few pointy arrows would solve that fairly well.

MTW doesnt' have the ability to have 'weapons reach' unless you make nearly everything a ranged unit that shoots somethign invisible and an animation plays... Which would be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

MTW doesnt' have the ability to have 'weapons reach' unless you make nearly everything a ranged unit that shoots somethign invisible and an animation plays... Which would be stupid.

---

Fixed it for ya ~;)

I mean, you could do it, and I wanted to do it in a Rome Mod to make spear/swordsman but RTW makes all archers in a unit fire at a single target.
In MTW, you could actually make every spear unit a ranged unit with a close in weapon. Give spears the range they need to be effective and give them an actual real rank bonus.

Many thanks to CBR and Puzz3D for the informative and very comprehensive replies, respectively.


Advo-san came out with some interesting counter-arguments to what I said but for reasons best known to him, started his own thread about it.

here

Since combat is resolved in terms of individual men against one another, I was half hoping that each meleé weapon type gets its own 'combat radius', so to speak. However, I suspect that will be buried deep in the program code and thus not modifyable.

But, as a for instance: When the swordsman is at the outer edge of the spearman's radius, he can't reach him with his sword so the spear gets a 'free hit' against him. However, as Advo-san rightly pointed out, once the sword has dodged past the spear successfully, the spearpoint is too far out and can't be brought to bear on him. Once the spearman is inside the swordsman's radius, the sword gets a 'free hit' against him but, between those times, he still has to dodge spears from ranks two and three...

So if spears' rank one fails to kill with their free hit, they should try again, against swords' ranks 2 or 3 but only get a few seconds' worth of opportunity to do so if the guys behind them also miss.

Complicated business, isn't it?

@eyg

You re right, I should have post it there.... I don't know what I was thinking. I actually wrote the post after I read your thread, which put me into thoughts.

IMHO swords should always win. This is how I think of it.
A chivalric sergeant is holding his ground. Just like the men behind and besides him, he holds his spear with his one hand and his shield with the other.
A unit of Chivalric men at arms is moving in for the kill. They hold their shield and swords and they attack the CS.
When the first CMAA in row engage this is what I think should happen:
a)The pointy pike touches the CMAA shield.
b)The CMAA protected behind his shield against the pointy nose, has a variety of angles in order to perform a strike at the spear, not the spearman.
c) Since the CS holds the spear with his one hand and because of its length, no matter how strong he is, he has to loose control of the direction he is pointing, even for a fragment of time. This time will allow the CMAA to take one step forward.
d) The distance between the two men is now shorter than the spear. This means of course that the first line of CS can no longer kill the first line of CMAA.
e) The CMAA shield contacts the second row spear. Using the same technique, the CMAA dislocates the second spear and takes another step forward. Second row spears are now incapable of killing the first row swords.
f) The CMAA is facing the third and last spear that separates him from the first row of CS.Uses the same trick and takes one step forward.
d) The first row of CS is now shield-to-shiel with the first row of CMAA. But the CMAA can kill the CS, but the CS can only dodge, since his spear is way too in front in order to be a threat to the CMAA. The CS will eventually die, before the second or the third row CS has the time to relocate the long spear, avoid the CMAA shield and deal an accurate hit to the CMAA.

Mutatis mutandis, all CS rows will fall in the same way. There will be losses, but the CMAA will prevail.

Any thoughts? Judgements? Different opinions?

I don't know why I started the other thread, EYG is right. My post belonged here, actually this thread was the inspiration to write it. So here it is!

No worries, Advo.

Just in case the topics do end up separated in the thread list, I put a link to this thread in the other one.Whichever one has the newest posting will be what people come across first.

On the other hand, this is why spears should always beat cavalry

A unit of CS is holding its ground, and a unit of CK moves in for the kill. They are arrogant French nobles, so instead of flanking they will try a frontal attack.

a) The huge french warhorses begin galloping. Few meters before the contact, they will reach full throttle, in order to frighten the CS but also achieve a mighty impact. In such speed, the warhorse is like a locomotive, it won't stop, but it cannot manoever either.
b) The CS knee, bunker befind the shield in order to protect themselves from the CK lances and stick their spears to the ground. This move forbidds or at least leaves very little spear-manoevering capability, but as I said above, no weapon manoever won't be needed by the CS.
c) The CK, well trained in the use of their lances will probably destroy the first rank of CS right at contact. Shields will be cracked, flesh will be teared, men will die. As a result of this thunder strike, the armored locomotive-horse will take a few hits, but no serious injuries.
d) The CK, having lost some of his power due to the first encounter, will reach instantly the second row. But, this time things are way different. The CK having used his lance, is uncapable of re-locating it in order to achieve the same strike in row-two CSs. As a result, the second row CS, certain that no pointy stik is aiming their heads, can focus in killing the locomotive that can still run over them and kill them. The pike, used as a "palisade", will be tremendously effective because:
-the dislocated lance means that the horse has to reach zero distance in order to run over and destroy the CS.
-but zero distance means 3 ranks deep spears stuck into the horse, which is afterall made of flesh and tissues.
e) Most horses won't survive the distance to reach rank two, not to mention rank three or deeper. After the horse is dead, the rider, if he survives the fall (imagine wrapping yourself in iron and jump from the roof of a car that is doing 25 km/h or more...) he won't be able to fight; he will at least need a few seconds to stand up, straighten his helmet, etc, but in a hostile spear-forest few seconds are too long time.