How Effective Do You Think Militia Spearmen, and Spearmen In General Should Be?

[Foz]

IMO, people arguing for "unit balance" under all conditions are ignoring what historical accuracy brings to the game, in terms of replayability. I enjoyed playing the Turks after my first big campaign as a European faction, precisely because that faction forced me (through lack of decent infantry in the early game) to learn how to use HA's better.

Do we really want all factions to have the same basic "flavor" and combat tactics, with just different unit appearance?

I completely agree, and would add that people arguing for "historical accuracy" under all conditions are ignoring what unit balance brings to the game, in terms of a full, rich, and varied gaming experience. No one would want to play a game where your every move was dictated by history, and if you didn't mass produce armies with compositions shown historically to work the best, you would be beaten easily by your foes who did so. Just as we both enjoy having varied units at our disposal when playing different factions, so do I enjoy the ability to build differently composed yet still viable armies within the same faction. This was of course the heart of my previous post: that one pillar without the other destroys the game.

As for the rest of your post, of course we do not want every faction to have the same flavor and tactics, with only a different look. The situation of the Turks lacking good infantry, however, is not analogous to that of the numerous factions that have useless spear units. The former I have no problem with, as it does not neuter the tactical options at your disposal: infantry exist primarily to battle other infantry, which the turks are more than capable of doing very effectively with HAs and early mounted melee units instead... units that in fact probably give you more tactical flexibility and options than infantry would. You won't be using infantry, so the flavor, unit, and tactics will all be different, but you will still accomplish a similar end. European armies lacking any decent anti-cavalry options until reaching pikes, on the other hand, are left with no viable tactic against cavalry. One could try to accomplish this with archers, but they will not be able to kill multiple units of knights before they can shred the entire battlefield.

Each faction needs some reasonable thing to do about cavalry, infantry, and archers, so that some strategy is possible for the player to win with. If this is taken away, it actually becomes possible that the computer can paint the player into so much of a corner that it is inescapable no matter how well the player plays or what units he tries to employ. I believe that some Catholic factions are made so weak by having horrible spear units that a cavalry-heavy attack on them might literally be impossible to beat... and everyone knows that the first rule of a game is that it must always be winnable. I don't mind if I'm beaten by AI that outplays me, but the potential to lose because there is no option that can make me able to win is absolutely unacceptable.

edit: Quoted the post I was referring to, as other posts happened while I was thinking and typing.

[Lord_hazard]

I would say it kinda depends on what kind of cavalry were talking about, normally knights using lances would be able to outreach the normal spear and then they would prob crush their way through the first lines of men.
But spearmen in this game should as a rule always be a match for cavalry of the same era or atleast be able to hold their own against them.

[Vinsitor]

So How do You think Spears should do vs. cav?

I think spear is the easiest weapon to use and it is good to mantain the distance from the enemy and hit him, expecially light armoured cav.

I think that shield+spears have to absorb FRONTAL heavy cav charge (cav charge bonus has to have a MALUS against spear+shield units) and hold the ground, it doesn't matter their kill ratio (but they can have some kind of little bonus in melee).

The difference among cheap and expensive spears is above all the morale, then the defensive equipmend. But I think the bonus has to be first of all against cav charge.

[cegman]

I am wondering (rather pathetically as I don't have the full game) if it wouldn't work better to try to negate the charge bonus against spears. You wonder how many horses would charge if the spearmen were in formation and brave enough to stay that way.

[Vinsitor]

I'm not really interested in discussions about "balance" that pay no regard to history or plausiblity. Why play Medieval Total War at all, if you don't care for the realism - just find some arbitrary rock-paper-scissors game and have fun tweaking it to be perfectly mathematically "balanced". (I understand balance is important in MP, but there's another forum for that particular discussion.)

I completely disagree. Actually the game is soo umbalanced 'cause of this "historical" heavy cav charge power (is it really HISTORICAL??? Or maybe is it only a French ballads influence? Where is history?) that you can win the whole campaing playing with an "all heavy cav army", charging and recharging on units all the time and killing 30/50 men at any impact, without loosing men.

Try it to believe. Is it historical? I don't think so. Is it balanced, of corse not. Is it FUNNY? Completely not for me.
Heavy cav is so overpowered that the other hundred of units are useless in the game.

Any unit must have a counterpart, to be usefull in any way. And IMO light/heavy spears have to counter light/heavy cavs

[econ21]

I am wondering (rather pathetically as I don't have the full game) if it wouldn't work better to try to negate the charge bonus against spears. You wonder how many horses would charge if the spearmen were in formation and brave enough to stay that way.

That's the heart of the issue. I suspect CA intended that spears do negate the charge bonus (frontally). I believe that's been true in all TW games to date - certainly it is in STW and MTW. But for some reason it does not seem to work as intended in M2TW. I personally hope and expect spears will get a boost with the next patch, for both gameplay and historical reasons.

Some folk disagree with CAs intention for historical reasons and think that knights should be able to smash up spears, which is what actually happens in the game at the moment. I am not really one of those folk, although from past debates at the Org (dig up the epic "myth of the cavalry charge" thread from MTW), I concede there is evidence for and against.

I completely disagree. Actually the game is soo umbalanced 'cause of this "historical" heavy cav charge power ...

If you read my first post in this thread carefully, you may find we agree more than we disagree.

[Vinsitor]

I am wondering (rather pathetically as I don't have the full game) if it wouldn't work better to try to negate the charge bonus against spears. You wonder how many horses would charge if the spearmen were in formation and brave enough to stay that way.

Yes I agree. Charge is a way to break unit's formation and to fear fighting men, not to kill them.
Once a unit have lost its formation and cohesion (expecially spears), charge has to be effective against it.

[Temujin]

My point is that I just don't like the idea of spearmen having a good kill rate. I don't think they should be good on the offense.

I completely agree.

I have been reading up on some battle-accounts from the spanish Reconquista, and there's a lot of cav vs. spear going on there, with the quality of the cav ranging from the lightest jinetes and arab auxiliaries to the heavier late-era spanish knights and their granadine counterparts, and the quality of the spears ranging from unwilling and hastily levied peasants to the superb Lamtuna berbers and sergeants of the Order of Santiago.

One pattern that I often see is the repeated, and sometimes futile, attempts of heavy cavalry to break spearwalls, having little effect on either side. Spearmen of sufficient morale and discipline could certainly resist cavalry attacks, almost regardless of the skill of the cavalry, but they were also unable to damage the cavalry enough to render squadrons combat-ineffective, allowing them to keep retreating, regrouping and charging back in. This could keep on for hours at times.

Thus, the desired results, would be for a cavalry charge to either succeed (against poor spears) with the spears being routed on contact, or fail (against good spears, like dismounted MAA) with the cavalry having the option of fighting it out or retreating, but suffering little-to-no damage on the initial charge. If the cavalry chose to retreat, they should need a period of regrouping and rest during which they are vulnerable to counter-attack by enemy cavalry. This would, IMO, mirror the historical interactions between these unit-types.

"But if spears can't kill cavalry, what are they good for? What's the counter for cavalry, then?!?"
Medieval tactics didn't follow simple RPS mechanics; the counter for cavalry, at least in the early period, was your own cavalry. The function of infantry was not to be anti-anything, but to aid in sieges and fighting in bad terrain. The Moors, who actually had decent spearmen in the early period, used their spearmen as a moving fortress on the battlefield, creating an area where their own cavalry could rest and regroup between offensive action. Their spearmen were valuable to their tactics, even if they didn't kill anything on their own. Similarly, crusaders in the levant used their sergeants to protect their cavalry from missiles until they were ready to charge. I doubt the spearwall at Dorylaeum killed very many turkish horsearchers, but they were still instrumental in the defeat of the turkish army. Without them, the first crusade would have ended right there. And so on. The role of the medieval infantryman was not glorious, but they weren't useless either, as evidenced by their usage.

As for balancing: Insisting on unit-to-unit balance seems rather myopic to me. Playing as the Turks, I don't care that I don't have effective spears, because their historical tactics of wearing down the opposing heavy cavalry with cheap HAs before meeting them with their own heavies, actually work. Playing as the Danes, I don't care that I don't have good spears, as this is made up for by my much better melee infantry, and using archers and terrain I can still achieve victory against cavalry-heavy foes.
Balance is, IMO, achieved when no single faction has a massive blind-side that can be exploited for easy victory, and sufficient options to deal with or work around all situations they might encounter.
There's more to tactics than simply meeting scissors with rocks.

[Lusted]

People asking for the rock, paper, scissor balance are not asking for strict adherence to it There will be exceptions, and there are other unit types etc. But atm in game spearmen ARE useless. They have always been used in the TW games to counter cav, but in M2TW they are uesless at it. But light spears should still be mauled by heavy cav, and heavy spears should still suffer large casualties in the charge.

[Temujin]

But atm in game spearmen ARE useless. They have always been used in the TW games to counter cav, but in M2TW they are uesless at it.

I do not contend this point, they very well may be. My post concerns how I believe it should be, as per the OP, not how I perceive it to be in the present version.

[dopp]

Refer to original MTW, where the spearmen got a bonus to DEFENSE rather than attack vs cavalry. This made them good at holding the line defensively until something else intervened (missiles, swords or their own cavalry) but they were not exceptionally good at killing anything themselves.

[Malkut]

I agree that massed charge should overcome spears. You should lose a few knights, but that's it. Spears are incredibly common, and making them able to stand up to a charge means you might as well remove cavalry from the game entirely. A guy with a long-reach weapon, large shield, and armor is a defensive soldier. I agree with the above point about them getting a defense bonus, rather than an offensive one.

Also, I think history is more important than balance. There's no point having a game called Medieval: Total War that bares no resemblance whatsoever to medieval warfare. If I just wanted raw stats, I'd play with a graphing calculator.

[Lusted]

Also, I think history is more important than balance. There's no point having a game called Medieval: Total War that bares no resemblance whatsoever to medieval warfare. If I just wanted raw stats, I'd play with a graphing calculator.

Yet the kind of balance you are against is what made the original Medieval Total War such a good game in terms of battles as things were nicely balanced.

I agree that massed charge should overcome spears. You should lose a few knights, but that's it. Spears are incredibly common, and making them able to stand up to a charge means you might as well remove cavalry from the game entirely. A guy with a long-reach weapon, large shield, and armor is a defensive soldier. I agree with the above point about them getting a defense bonus, rather than an offensive one.

And spearmen on the move should be decimated by cav. Searmen holding ground should be able to resist cav charges whilst losng lots of troops, unless they've low level spearmen against high level cav in which case they should be killed.

[econ21]

Spears are incredibly common, and making them able to stand up to a charge means you might as well remove cavalry from the game entirely.

I can see your point, as I found knights rather optional in MTW, where they lacked the kick they have in M2TW.

But whether you are right depends on some other factors. For example, I am used to cavalry in Rome Total Realism Platinum Edition, where they devastating on the charge but fragile (not unlike M2TW). They are also very expensive. You would never dream of charging heavy infantry frontally. But nonetheless, they are still the decisive arm because of flank and rear charges. In TW, causing lots of casualties quickly can rout even high morale troops (RTR has sky high morale). Cavalry charging the flank of engaged spears could still cause such casualties, even if they were buffed to be resistant to frontal charges. This means a handful of cavalry can still have a disproportionate effect on a battle, setting off chain routs.

And I have not even mentioned the crucial role of cavalry in hunting down routers. This has been crucial from STW onwards, reflecting Napoleon's dictum that no victory is decisive without cavalry.

[Vinsitor]

Spears are incredibly common, and making them able to stand up to a charge means you might as well remove cavalry from the game entirely. .

Cavalry is god for it's mobility on the battlefield. If you know Total War games you would know that cavalry is usefull even if spears or any unit can stand up to a cav's frontal charge, because of flanking.

Also, I think history is more important than balance. There's no point having a game called Medieval: Total War that bares no resemblance whatsoever to medieval warfare. If I just wanted raw stats, I'd play with a graphing calculator.

You think that this game is historical accurate then...

[Malkut]

I'm not "against" balance. There’s no unbridgeable dichotomy between game balance and history. I want both.

What I am against is making the entire game to boil down to a game of rock/paper/spearmen that could be mastered in a weekend by a blind monkey because all possible tactics are laid out on the character detail screen.

I've NEVER had a problem dealing with charges. Massed charges already have limits. They’re dictated by terrain, unit cohesion, and luck, a fact everyone complains about but nobody seems to be taking into account. Position yourself well, and you’ll never see one. On the rare occasions in which I am hit by one, I have no problem killing most of the knights that don’t fall with the initial charge with nearby units and the scattered survivors, all before they can withdraw, in the rare cases when they aren't bogged down in an unwinnable melee with the rest of my forces.

Pikemen and high level spearmen should be death for horses, true, but the idea that your average Joe off the filthy medieval streets could stand up to thousands of pounds of steel and stallion charging him down just because he has a pointy rock tied to a stick is silly. If that were anything even approaching reality, we'd all thrill to the legendary exploits of King Arthur and his Spear Infantry of the Round Table.

The real problem with spearmen is not that they’re ineffective against cavalry, it’s that they’re ineffective against everything else in the entire game, and are all you have in the early game, making it kind of a dull slog until you get swordsmen.

[General Zhukov]

European armies lacking any decent anti-cavalry options until reaching pikes, on the other hand, are left with no viable tactic against cavalry.

It's important to dispel the idea that Catholic factions are helpless against knights. Temujin said it best:

Medieval tactics didn't follow simple RPS mechanics; the counter for cavalry, at least in the early period, was your own cavalry.

Right. The surefire counter is not a 300 florin, free upkeep unit that can be recruited from any city with a second tier barracks, it's other knights! It's historically accurate, and it's gameplay balanced. OTOH, muslims use mobility tactics to defeat knights, and those tactics are very effective.

[Lusted]

Now i like the balance that the shield fix brings, in combination with some changes i've made(increased mass of horses but reduced charge bonus). Mailed Knights will beat Town Militia, Spear Militia, Sergeant Spearmen etc., but will struggle against Armoured Sergeants their dismounted equivalent. They will also wipe out any unit without a shield easily, and will do pretty well against Dismounted Feudal Knights. Armoured Sergeants will be beaten by the better later heavy cav, which will also beat units like Dismounted Chivalric Knights, but they themselves will be beaten by Pikemen. I think its a nice balance, makes for good gameplay and is fairly historical.

[FrauGloer]

Now i like the balance that the shield fix brings, in combination with some changes i've made(increased mass of horses but reduced charge bonus). Mailed Knights will beat Town Militia, Spear Militia, Sergeant Spearmen etc., but will struggle against Armoured Sergeants their dismounted equivalent. They will also wipe out any unit without a shield easily, and will do pretty well against Dismounted Feudal Knights. Armoured Sergeants will be beaten by the better later heavy cav, which will also beat units like Dismounted Chivalric Knights, but they themselves will be beaten by Pikemen. I think its a nice balance, makes for good gameplay and is fairly historical.

Seconded. If it really works this way, I'm all for it.

I'd still like polearm troops to get a bonus vs non-charging cavalry, though... (I know, quite off-topic, but still... )

[pike master]

about mtw 1 making it hard for knights to take on spearmen.

in the original release of mtw1 before the patches knights would demolish spearmen and fuedal seargeants but they tuned it down in the later patches. but even then basic spearmen never did very well against knight units but the fuedal did a lot better. and of course armored spearmen, chivilaric*, and order foot soldiers did a very good job of stopping them.

if i remember knights were pretty tough in the original release thats why some people kept playing it even after vi came out because they didnt like the tuned down cavalry.

[Jambo]

Now i like the balance that the shield fix brings, in combination with some changes i've made(increased mass of horses but reduced charge bonus). Mailed Knights will beat Town Militia, Spear Militia, Sergeant Spearmen etc., but will struggle against Armoured Sergeants their dismounted equivalent. They will also wipe out any unit without a shield easily, and will do pretty well against Dismounted Feudal Knights. Armoured Sergeants will be beaten by the better later heavy cav, which will also beat units like Dismounted Chivalric Knights, but they themselves will be beaten by Pikemen. I think its a nice balance, makes for good gameplay and is fairly historical.

Lusted,

Presumably you've now incorporated the shield to armour fix?

How did you rebalance afterwards, particularly with reference to the 2-handed axe and sword units?

Edit: And missile units for that matter!

[Carl]

Many points raised that I want to reply to. First however I’d like to link to another of Foz's posts elsewhere that details the exact effects of applying the shield fix.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=285

Foz does raise a good point about the way the shield fix throws a few units out, and thus asks what CA really intended, however I tend to go with the "spears of a given era should beat cav of the same era" argument purely because that’s what all the in game help text implies should happen.

With that point aside you should now get an idea of how unit balance has been flipped about for me, and it's worth remembering that when I talk of preferring the balance with the shield fix in place.


Now onto other points:

First I’d like to raise the point that Foz, Econ21, and Dopp have raised. Namely that of professional vs. non-professional spearmen and their resistance to cav charges. I agree 100% that non-professional troops should get swept aside by cav charges and even that professional troops where rare back then in reality.

The problem is, this isn't true in game as such. Most units in game are professional soldiers, or part-time soldiers with sufficient training to be weak professional soldiers.

The only units that are peasants with weapons and minimal training are the peasant units and Town Militia. The rest of the units, (including Spear Militia), represent someone who is much better equipped and trained than that. In reality CA have badly misused the militia term IMO. The combination of unit descriptions, their level of discipline and training, (as listed in the stats file, namely the same as most dismounted knights), and their close similarity, (even identical in some cases), to levy spearmen and a number of eastern tribal spearmen, and the fact that Town Militia already fulfil the peasants with proper weapons role, has always led me to believe that Militia Spearmen, (as represented in game), where more than simple presents with weapons and minimal training. In reality I view them as part time professional solders, (a bit of an oxymoron I know). Individuals who have been given decent equipment and training semi-regularly in how to use it. They WILL have been taught how to brace properly and the basics of how to use their weapons in general melee. As a result, whilst a professional soldier will beat them, (because they have been trained in the more advanced general melee techniques, have some actual battlefield experience, and have slightly better equipment), they aren’t actually unprofessional soldiers that would fall apart when charged by cav.

They are in effect portrayed as semi decent fighters with ok equipment and training who will be called upon to supplement the main standing army on campaign. as apposed to being simple local defence militia with littlie training and substandard equipment.

DISCLAMER: Before someone mentions it, I’m sure that in reality Militia of the type represented by Militia Spearmen as I’ve just described them where pretty rare. I'm mealy pointing out that they don't, (in game), really fall into the type of unit that Dopp or Econ21 or myself would expect cav to ride over with few losses. CA have however seemingly chosen a unit that, historically speaking, would be expected to be able to beat cav as they have sufficient training and equipment for the job. The un-historical part being merely the numbers you can field.


Second, some people, (Dopp did it best), have expressed worries about early era fights degenerating into spear vs. spear with cav running down the missile units. I shouldn't worry about that, their are 3 things to remember.

1: Spears hate flank and rear charges. You can wipe out 90% of a unit, (as you do in vanilla with frontal charges), if you do that.

2: Cav above a certain power will simply sweep through a unit of spears causing 90% losses to said spears with less than 10% losses to themselves. Thus, in general the cav reliant factions aren’t as badly hit as you might think as their unique, high power knights usually can get away with frontal charges. Only really Papal Guard, (and maybe one or two equivalent eastern spear units), can take frontal charges in normal formation from units like Chivalric/Noble Knights.

3: Whilst point 2 CAN be overcome by using multiple Schiltrom formations together, (butting the edges up against each other with a bit of inter-mingling), said formations are not fast moving and the sheer number of men packed together so tightly means even peasant archers could get better than 100 kills against them with short range volleys of fire arrows. To say nothing of what proper archers could do...

An example of the Schiltrom formations I’m talking of below:




Third, Some people have asked what’s the point of cav if spears beat them, why include cav. Well first, early spears should never beat late cav except in the case of factions that are supposed to have really powerful early spears.

Fourth, some people are worried this will produce factions that are all alike. I shouldn’t worry about this if I where you. The Turks, (as an example), would STILL have their focus on cav and HA, but they'd need to use at least some infantry in their armies now. The HA would still be numerous and would still kill large numbers of enemy, the main difference is that instead of just charging the remnants down with your heavies, you now have to bring up your own infantry (even cheap peasants will do), and let them pin the enemy while your run your cav round the rear and actually wipe the enemy out. Your cav and HA are still your primary troops and do the real killing. But the rest of your roster is no longer pointless.

@ This Post:

Whilst I don't doubt you are reporting what you’ve read correctly and that it's a genuine historical source. I don't remotely believe it. If you've ever watched Horse racing you'll be familiar with what happens when a horse runs into a hedge or a fallen rider. The Horse and Rider go flying all over the place 9 times out of 10. If those cav where charging at full speed into those shield walls I can guarantee the effects of striking the formation would result in a lot of tripped horses and thrown riders, to mention nothing of the way the spearmen would get knocked down too and probably hit by both horses rolling around and flying riders.

Of course if the cav trotted up to the spearmen and started hacking then yes you'd get the effect described, (few losses on either side), but once those horses actually start getting surrounded by the spears in a general melee your going to get a lot of dead horses, purely because spears are basically very well designed for getting deep enough into a horse to cause damage, they just have to get through the horses armour, (if any). If however the spears and Cav keep perfect formation, then it's going to be impossible for the spears to do a lot of damage as they don't have the reach when attacking horses from the front, and the riders can't really get blows past an effective shield-wall.

As I say, I don't disbelieve you, but I think it's more a case of good evidence that they didn't do full gallop high speed charges into formed up men as the number of horses and men alike that should have gone flying all over the place at this point would have been notable and devastating.

Another point to remember is that even with the shield fix, unless the spears are stationery, in good formation, properly facing their opponents, and braced they will get swept aside committer how good they are. It takes a lot of planning and preparation to get the spears in the right place in time.

but the idea that your average Joe off the filthy medieval streets could stand up to thousands of pounds of steel and stallion charging him down just because he has a pointy rock tied to a stick is silly. If that were anything even approaching reality, we'd all thrill to the legendary exploits of King Arthur and his Spear Infantry of the Round Table.

As I noted a littlie further up this post, the only units that fit your description in this game are Town Militia. Everything else is represented as being professional/semi-professional.

Right. The surefire counter is not a 300 florin, free upkeep unit that can be recruited from any city with a second tier barracks, it's other knights!

So tell me, what is the purpose of that 300 florin free upkeep unit then? Why is it in the game and why does it cost so much if a 300 florin unit of light cav can walk all over it. Indeed why are any spearmen in the game at all if the game should be a case of cav beats everything. Indeed what’s the point of any infantry that aren’t archers than? Why don't we make them all special units built on the sieges screen? Since it’s the only time they’d be remotely useful, and if you could Dismount Knights, not even then

It's important to dispel the idea that Catholic factions are helpless against knights. Temujin said it best:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Temujin
Medieval tactics didn't follow simple RPS mechanics; the counter for cavalry, at least in the early period, was your own cavalry.

AND

It's historically accurate, and it's gameplay balanced.

1: It's not even remotely balanced as those factions with the best knights prior to anyone getting pikes will be the factions that beat anyone else until pikes show up. And even the manoeuvrability of pikes, (or rather lack of), will ensure those with the best Knights still win. Muskets being the only possible equaliser.

2: I think those of you who prefer Historical accuracy need to calm down. No matter how often you state your case, CA isn't going to listen to you IMHO, they have always marketed the TW series as RTS's set in interesting time periods, they have never marketed, and I believe never intended to imply that they are accurate historical simulators. They are aimed at the RTS gaming market in general, not those of who want an historical simulators. So as much as you'd like cav to dominate everything bar pikes and muskets. I doubt it's actually going to happen. Getting wound up is only going to get those of us arguing for balance wound up and I don't want a slagging match.

3: In relation to point 2, DoW:WA had a similar balance to the Cav owns all in that it's late era units beat everything else of all unit classes. The majority of gamers got very bored with that play style very quickly, it's my own experience of this game that made me decide balance has to trump history for me. the formulae of choose best unit and build as many as possible was just too boring for me and I wouldn't want to play M2TW if the game was Like that. That’s why I got RTW, because it seemed in the demo to be a lot more balanced, I assumed M2TW would be the same.

4: As I noted further up, modern Horse Racing shows quite clearly what happens when a galloping Horse hits something solid, so I honestly think that a lot of the Historical Accounts of cav sweeping aside trained troops with few losses are widely exaggerated IMHO. Take a look at accounts of Longbows, (DON’T you DARE comment Lord_Crapalot, I’ve run out of patience with you), from both the enemy and English sides. The English accounts are always far better sounding and make it sound better than a modern rifle. The enemy accounts are probably a bit under the actual performance too, so the reality will be somewhere in the middle.

Refer to original MTW, where the spearmen got a bonus to DEFENSE rather than attack vs cavalry. This made them good at holding the line defensively until something else intervened (missiles, swords or their own cavalry) but they were not exceptionally good at killing anything themselves.

That’s an interesting piece of info Dopp, I suspect CA changed it because of how Formed charges currently work. They've upped cav power and mobility now according to most people, (I’ve never played MTW), so they probably decided to do the same for spears.

Would that be better though? Based on How Sword and shield units with really high defence perform vs. cav ATM, I’d say no. At least without same serious reduction in cav charging power as if the knight doesn't die on impact with someone he will usually just keep going and kill more swordsmen, unless said swordsmen has a really high defence score, (I’m talking mailed knights against defence 24 units here). The kind of bonuses high level spearmen would need under these circumstances is scary, something like +20 defence vs. mounted. That’s probably why they got the reflect charge and attack bonuses. It gives them the chance to kill charging enemy knights on contact, which seems to be the only way to hold a knight charge without really high defence values.

Now i like the balance that the shield fix brings, in combination with some changes i've made(increased mass of horses but reduced charge bonus). Mailed Knights will beat Town Militia, Spear Militia, Sergeant Spearmen etc., but will struggle against Armoured Sergeants their dismounted equivalent. They will also wipe out any unit without a shield easily, and will do pretty well against Dismounted Feudal Knights. Armoured Sergeants will be beaten by the better later heavy cav, which will also beat units like Dismounted Chivalric Knights, but they themselves will be beaten by Pikemen. I think its a nice balance, makes for good gameplay and is fairly historical.

I'm not sure I like that from a balance point of view. Only a handful of factions get Armoured Sergeants. Most have to rely on spear Militia and/or Armoured spearmen to take on cav prior to Pikes. And nearly everyone gets Mailed/Feudal Knights before they get Armoured Sear gents. That’s a total show stopper Lusted, as it effectively means armies without good cav early on are much weaker than the rest. It also messes up MP balance in early era something horrible.

About MP balance: Whilst this ISN'T the MP forum, it's important to realise that those that play MP will be effected by any changes we push CA into making. Price can partly offset things, but theirs a limit to how far that goes. If Mailed knights start having to cost 1000-1500florins in MP because theirs nothing of the same era that’s not cav that can beat them, you can bet that the MP community will have our heads and really make their displeasure vocal.

At that I’ll call it a day for now.

[R'as al Ghul]

I don't get the idea that Cav should be countered by Cav.
I'm concentrating on the units at hand, included in the game. The idea of a Total War game, for me, is to have a number of units at my disposal that each have their counter units in the enemy army.
To play good is to make successful unit matchups that cummulate into victory. This also includes that if Cav can't beat Spears frontally, you have to use the higher mobility of the Cav to charge them in the flank or rear or search for a better matchup.
If one unit does not have a counter unit, making it an über-unit because no unit can stand against them, why take any other unit? If Cav can only be beaten by Cav then why buy infantry or Archers?
Let's say Archers were the über-unit and not Cav, would you all be satisfied with the fact that only Archers can beat Archers? I think not. But since we're talking knights, the heroes of our childhoods, that's perfectly okay?

For a game like this, we need a counter unit for cav.
I would expect from the spear units to be good defense units against cav:

• if the Spears could resist a charge by knights and hold them long enough for a second unit to flank the CAV without killing many of the Knights themselves, that would be a start. I think Shiltrom or Shield_wall can be used for this if the shield bug is fixed.
• If the spears are caught on the march, they should not have this defensive bonus but be destroyed quickly. Same as with late pikes, have them in Phalanx and they can deal with the charge, have them marching and they die.

I'm playing with my own shield fix, where I've just zeroed the shield value without changing the other values. With this fix applied, Shiltrom is an effective anti-cav formation that is costly and unwise to charge into with knights, just as the advisor tells us. The fix is not perfect but maybe shows what was intended.
The power of the charge may not be too strong, perhaps even the change in the charge of 1.1 patch wasn't nessecary if they had fixed the shield bug before.
I believe that the knight units should be able to exploit opportunities and mistakes of your enemy. If he marches his spears and doesn't pay attention to your Cav you can destroy them, but if the spears brace you'll hardly kill many of them but instead risk your worthy unit of Cav.
The applied anti_cav bonus ranges between 2 and 12 points.
Atm, only a 4 and 8 points bonus is applied. There's much room to spread out the spear units between these values. Town Militia could have 2 or 0 and Swiss Pike or Papal Guard could have the max 12.
I would appreciate it most if CA could just fix the game in the way they intended. I've the feeling that they've had some good intentions that have gone wrong. The in-game battle field advisor's speeches are pretty much what I'd expect from the units, only that the game diverges from it.

[Aquitaine]

The difficult thing about the historical context (and I'm the type that would put history above balance, at least for SP) is that SP and MP are such different games.

Historically, a frontal charge from heavy knights would run right over, as Zhukov said, anything other than braced pikes. A spear wall (not pikes) would get mowed down, though they'd cause a lot of casualties. A good general would never have his knights charge a spear wall, because even if he could take them down, you'd be an idiot to throw away your finest knights like that. A hundred knights were worth more than a thousand peasants in *most* medieval armies (making the obvious exception for English ones, though I'd hardly call yeomen peasants).

In SP, knights being so expensive, you are going to use them 'properly' -- i.e. not charging anything that's going to Hurt A Lot unless you absolutely have to, because you have more battles after the one you're in now to fight.

In MP, your entire existence depends on one battle, so you're going to do what it takes to win. The question then becomes: How much do you re-jigger the knights/spearman balance to be fair in MP?

I usually play MP with the same guy (who got his masters in history and is a big crusades nerd) and he likes throwing lots of cavalry at me as either the French or the Mongols - always has. I knew this, so the first battle we fought in M2TW was Mongols (him) v. English (me) on an open field. I set up a bazillion stakes with a lot of armored sergeants as support and massacred him, though even so, his heavy cavalry charges that went around my stakes still did a number on my spearman, as I think they should have.

[seneschal.the]

Many points raised that I want to reply to.

<SNIPPED lots of good stuff>

2: I think those of you who prefer Historical accuracy need to calm down. No matter how often you state your case, CA isn't going to listen to you IMHO, they have always marketed the TW series as RTS's set in interesting time periods, they have never marketed, and I believe never intended to imply that they are accurate historical simulators.

<SNIP more good stuff>

At that I’ll call it a day for now.

Amen.

QFT, ++, etc.

A very loudmouthed minority has always tried to make TW games go for more "history" (as in "units behaving like _I_ want them too, or believe they did") and less actual game balance (that makes the game playable). CA has never listened, never will, and M2TW is just more proof of that.

Thankfully Carl (and many others!) take the time to stand on the battlements, voicing the opinion of many who do not, in any way, want an unbalanced game because someone who watchs the history channel demands that this and that unit should dominate, "because it did so in reality".

[Jambo]

The way I see, it's balance and fun first, historical accuracy second. However, usually historical accuracy isn't that far off equalling balance and fun anyway.

My gut instinct on this effectiveness of spearmen debate is not one of spears beating cav or vice versa, but rather that a player charging a cav unit into spears should be prepared to lose a good proportion of the cav unit at the same time as causing big casualties to the spears. It should be an expensive decision to charge spears with cav. Cav charging swordsmen is completely different. There's a massive difference charging a solider with a comparatively short weapon than charging a braced spear. However, like I said, a fully armed and heavily armoured knight charging anything is going to cause damage to the front row whether the knight lives or not...

[Carl]

but rather that a player charging a cav unit into spears should be prepared to lose a good proportion of the cav unit at the same time as causing big casualties to the spears.

Which is largely what happens if the spears are of the same era as the Knights doing the charging. Once you Fix the Sheild Bug that is BTW.) The problem I have is with people who belive Kinghts of the same era as spearmen should just be able to roll right over the spearmen with only small losses.

The way I see, it's balance and fun first, historical accuracy second. However, usually historical accuracy isn't that far off equalling balance and fun anyway.

I agree 100% here too. I love my History, but not at the expense of balance. genrally the Historical stuff is well balanced. Cav are the real exception and I think that comes more from distorted accounts of Cav charges. In this situation i'm willing to accept that History has to take the backseat though and that cav should be beatable by somthing thats avalibile as early as the cav, and it should be somthing thats eithier avalibile to all factions. Or it should be somthing diffrent for diffrent factions. Or a mix of the two, but n matter what all factions should have a counter to anything any other faction might throw at them at any point in the tech tree. This counter should also occupy the same point in the tech tree as what it's countering.

[Lusted]

I'm not sure I like that from a balance point of view. Only a handful of factions get Armoured Sergeants. Most have to rely on spear Militia and/or Armoured spearmen to take on cav prior to Pikes. And nearly everyone gets Mailed/Feudal Knights before they get Armoured Sear gents. That’s a total show stopper Lusted, as it effectively means armies without good cav early on are much weaker than the rest. It also messes up MP balance in early era something horrible.

But the lower level spear units can still hold cav even if they lose 1 v 1, so another unit can come in and take out the cav whilst its engaged. and Armoured Sergeants can hold all cav units long enough(barely though with the highest level cav) for a second unit to engage the cav. when i first tested it i hadn't removed the +2 to mass i have in LTC, and that made spearmen too powerful against cav i felt. So Mailed Knights might beat Spear Militia or Sergeant Spearmen in a 1v1, but the spears can hold them long enough for another unit to enage them. So i think its nicely balanced.

Lusted,

Presumably you've now incorporated the shield to armour fix?

How did you rebalance afterwards, particularly with reference to the 2-handed axe and sword units?

Edit: And missile units for that matter!

Well im using a 2 handed bug workaround in LTc so i just upped the attack of those units slightly. 2 handed sword units i gave the ap ability and +2 attack. I have not looked at missile units yet. Sword units are pretty well balanced anyway with the fix.

[Carl]

@Lusted: Fair enough. I tend to find that No spear unit thats holds actually losses to cav so you where worrying me.

I would add i'm still slightly concerned as whilst having to use supporting units might be okay in the campaign (larger armies, stupid Ai and multipiule Stacks on 1 enemy stack), it worries me from an MP perspective as with a decent Human Opponnent, and equal sized armies the guy with spears shouldn't have a supporting unit to throw in becuase the rest are occuppied by the rest of the enemy army.

Genrally if a game is balanced in MP it needs only minor tweaks to be balanced in SP. On the other hand a game balanced in SP first and foremost isn't allways balanced in MP. Thus I tend to worry a lot asbout MP balance, even though i never play MP in games.

i'll wait and see how things go before making final judgments though.

[Musashi]

MP balance isn't really a worry for mods Carl, nobody really uses mods in MP