Unit Speculation?

[Karl08]

This affects gameplay how? The only question in regards to gameplay is should the nagamaki function more like a longsword unit or a polearm unit and I'd argue for the former. Obviously your hands are farther apart as the shaft is longer but you still don't really slide your hands up and down the shaft when you wield it, and it's more considered a variation on the no-dachi than the naginata, hence it's odd you're calling it a "mounted naginata" below.

Beg your pardon? Where was I talking about gameplay? I was talking about terms, then you said the nagamaki had the same type of stances as swords. I pointed out that they do not, and now you are moving the goal posts by asking about gameplay, which is not what we were talking about with regards to the nagamaki at all.

A naginata is almost identical to a guan do and other similar chinese polearms and they were occassionally used from horseback.

The guan dao has a broader blade, which makes it more forgiving when it comes to badly aligned cuts. I haven't tried one personally, but it looks to me like a more chop-friendly blade. And without having tried the naginata from horseback, I would dare say that you could not utilize the speed of the horse for added power withing considerable risk of dropping it, and serious risk to the shaft or the blade itself, because it has a comparatively narrow curved blade (which is not meant for chopping).

In any case, the guan dao was also not designed to be used from horseback, and from what I can gather its mounted use was as infrequent as that of the naginata: it is perfectly concievable that on rare occasions, someone would grab one and jump on a horse, but mostly these would be "hero" tales. You similarly see, in certain illustrations, samurai dual wielding yari and naginata, all the while being peppered with arrows. We should take such depictions with a grain of salt. And there really is no reason why anyone would use a glaive from horseback when he could use a spear.

The original game also had mounted naginata

I know, and I reacted to them not being nagamaki, too. It was a dreadfully overpowered unit, by the way.

(although they probably should have been sohei). I know what the the things are, I don't need a history lesson the forum. Yet again, I'm more interested in balance, utility, and play of a unit than strict historicity anyway, although nothing I listed is really unhistorical, just either uncommon or simplified.

I know, and all I did was point out that the nagamaki was a mounted compromise. It has the support it needs to make cuts from horseback, and when necessary extended reach (by changing the position of the right hand). The extra long grip is not, near as I can tell, to make more powerful cuts, but to support cuts better. That would be very useful from horseback. Yes, you could use a naginata the same way, with a wide grip, but you would risk having the tang split the would in a hard impact.

Exactly what I was saying was that there really doesn't need to be more than two types of spearmen, nagayari (pikemen basically) and standard yari (spearmen). The fact there were dozens of different spear-length and spear-head combinations historically is irrelevant, and not just in in MP gameplay but in single player too. It's a strategy game not a historical larp so unless the designers can come up with a convincing mechanic for why a yari a foot longer than another one, or a yari with a prongs on the side and one without has some real effect, there's no reason to have it in game, particularly because you wouldn't get entire units of identical yari anyway. At best, it should just be something used graphically to differentiate the soldiers in a unit. If this mount and blade type game, I'd say yes, give us all different types of yari, but that's not what kind of game this is.

So we are in agreement on this point, then.