Anyone find (BI?) Roman spears worthless?

[econ21]

I like BI and particularly how it seems to have reduced the power of missiles and cavalry compared to RTW 1.0. But I still can't get much joy out of any of the Roman spear units - the foederati, the lanciarii and the auxilia palatina. I bring a couple or so along as anti-cav units but, on the few occasions they manage to catch AI cavalry, they don't seem to do very well. The always seem to come out of battles with the highest rate of casualties among my army. I think it's probably better to just use comitatenses or even better plumbatarii - use missiles to soften the enemy horse down and then prevail through a dense formation. Is anyone else finding Roman spears a bit pointless or is it just me?

I also found a similar thing with triarii and auxilia, so maybe it's not just a BI phenomenon.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Auxilia are great in shieldwall, I've found the Foederati to be acceptable for recieving a charge but Sarmations are the Roman Cav killers. Spears are just for recieving the charge.

[KrooK]

auxilla palatina are great
they fight meele like heavy inf and got better morale - it's ideal units for flanks or agains heavy fire

[Oaty]

First of If I remember correctly 1 of the Roman spear units does'nt actually have a bonus vs cavalry. Right click on thier card and if it does'nt say bonus vs cavalry they are the same as using swordsmen vs cavalry.

The main bonus of infantry vs cavalry is to have the infantry stationary before they are charged by cavarly.

You have to remember here that cavalries big advantage here is it's mobility wich sometimes the A.I. can use to it's advantage.

I've personally found if the A.I. has outmaneuvered my infantry with thier cavarly, it's better not to move them unless they are threatened to be charged in the rear. I prefer stationary infantry to get hit in the flank than to have them marching towards the cavalry (or reforming) as charges on stationary infantry is less devastating (IMO) than a unit that is moving even if the infantry is counter charging cavalry. Once the cavarly loses it's charge I then either usually tell the infantry to counter attack or have them pin the cavarly for my cavalry to charge.

Sometimes you have to live with being outmaneuvered but it comes down to who made the decisive maneuver to disintegrate thier army.

[Slaists]

i believe, the spear (not phalanx) anti-cavalry attack bonus in rtw is only +2 or so and no rank bonus... so, given rather weak starting stats of the spear units, the anti-cavalry bonus does not make much of a difference... especially if played on higher difficulty levels, where the AI gets +4 attack on hard and +8 on very hard.

in my experince with the BI - no roman spears can stop enemy general units... they just smash through anything... i play on hard battlefield difficulty, btw. i am not sure, the difficulties have been fixed since 1.2 though.

[econ21]

Looking at the stats, I think Oaty probably hit the nail on the head, saying spears have to be stationary. I tend to charge them into cav as I am trying to catch the blighters (the AI cav not being stupid enough to want to charge into my stationary spears). I guess this invalidates the ability of spears to negate the cavalry charge bonus and of course, the cavalry charge bonus does now work, post-1.5.

All the 5 Roman spear units do have a pretty hefty +8 to attack vs cavalry (I think Oaty may have been thinking of the town watch, which don't). However, in the case of the foederati and lanciarii, their combined attack and defence is 8 lower than the Comitatenses, so there is no real advantage to using them against cav unless they are stationary. One other point - all spears have a lethality of 0.73 compared to 1 for the sword-armed troops, which sounds like quite a big difference and may go a long way to explaining the apparent weakness of Roman spears.

BTW, digging into the stats, I only just realised 1st cohort comitatenses are not just bigger units (like they are in RTW), they also have better stats than ordinary comitatenses (+2 better attack and defence). D'oh!

[Ordani]

Spears, Roman or otherwise, do fairly well against most cavalry in the game. The problem you typically find in campaigns, however, is that the cavalry you face is not some some generic 0-2 experience light lancers but 5-7 experience General's Bodyguard or Clibinarii/Cataphracts.

High experience cavalry plows through low experience infantry like a boat through water. If you ever trap 5 or more Horde general units in the same city, just expect to have to siege it 3 times to kill them all. It's quite worthwhile to focus a Pagan town with +exp to making as many high-experience Legio Lanciari as you can -- then the experience edge is in your favor and what "normal" cavalry you do face bounces right off the spear wall as you'd expect.

[Deus ret.]

When I charged Saxon raiders into Roman foederatii in an emergency manoeuvre to rescue my general (hell...the AI really got some boost in BI) the Romans did pretty well in killing off the raiders, even though they were at 5 exp and had upgrades. As far as this goes, I don't understand your problems with Roman spear units: they're as fine as any other spear....which means that they're normally not the most useful unit type around.
But what I have found to be a major improvement for some spears is the shield wall formation. Of course, most Romans don't get it, but with shield wall turned on it's no great risk to charge cavalry with some spears and win (warlords and maybe graal knights excepted). not to mention that they'll weather almost any charge without taking too many casualties or breaking up their formation (this happens when a third unit charges them on top of the first two). at least that's my experience with the Saxon keel....

[econ21]

As far as this goes, I don't understand your problems with Roman spear units: they're as fine as any other spear....which means that they're normally not the most useful unit type around.

That's the point - I think my experience suggests that the "rock-paper-scissors" system of RTW is not as strong as it should be. For Romans, the alternative to cheap spears is comitatenses, but I don't think the cheap spears do well enough even against cav to justify their place in your field armies. Try yari samauri vs cavalry in STW for a taste of a much stronger RPS system.

Maybe I should not moan, as I not that convinced by a swords vs spears RPS system is historical anyway (did the Romans really try to use their foederati foot in particular as counters to cav?).

[Nelson]

That's the point - I think my experience suggests that the "rock-paper-scissors" system of RTW is not as strong as it should be. For Romans, the alternative to cheap spears is comitatenses, but I don't think the cheap spears do well enough even against cav to justify their place in your field armies. Try yari samauri vs cavalry in STW for a taste of a much stronger RPS system.

Maybe I should not moan, as I not that convinced by a swords vs spears RPS system is historical anyway (did the Romans really try to use their foederati foot in particular as counters to cav?).

The yari is more of a pike than any Roman spear, so they get a better anti-cav bonus. Granted, the RPS paradigm is more pronounced in Shogun but I attribute that to the smaller unit mix and having the same units for all factions.

Simon touches on a good point here and this gives me an excuse to talk about what I think of RPS as a design approach. I am not an unabashed fan of RPS. I think RPS is fine in a very general sense but not regarding specific unit types at all times. The manipular legion fought Pyrrhus to a standstill although it clearly did not enjoy any sort of automatic sword vs spear bonus. Hence, any inherent advantage given to swords over pikes would be misplaced. This is just one example where an RPS design, if rigidly applied, would yield a poor result (as Simon suggests).

RPS often doesn’t leave room for a historical presentation of exceptional troops, good or bad. Some units were rather poor whomever they fought while others were pretty much always effective. In a system where every unit must have obvious strengths and weaknesses built in so that RPS is enforced, we can get a very inaccurate simulation. I think Rome’s RPS design, such as it is, works OK. Cav vs pike has had problems in Rome but I don’t see that as an RPS issue so much as an RP issue, if you see what I mean. For some rocks there are no scissors, not every paper can cover all rocks, and some scissors can only cut certain paper. The world is a gray place ergo any RPS design mustn’t be too black and white if historic fidelity is to be achieved.

[econ21]

...I am not an unabashed fan of RPS...

I agree - I must confess, I find RTW battles "feel" the more like a historical wargame to me than MTW or STW[1], perhaps partly because it has a weaker RPS system.

STW always felt like a highly stylised representation of combat, the RPS system was so strong and the unit types so limited.

Ditto, in MTW, the sharp distinction between swords and spears (MAA and Sergeants) left me uneasy. It dominated the gameplay but I could see no historical basis for it - no Medieval general would say the equivalent of "now, send in our swords to attack their spears".

By contrast, RTW makes quality matter more - the legions walk over most infantry, not because they have swords, but because they are high quality. There are unit weapon types that have a big impact on gameplay - notably the phalanx and the horse archer. But in these cases, it is more about capturing historical differences in overall army composition and style of warfare, rather than trying to encourage players to seek RPS type unit match-ups.

[1]I confess, I am speaking more about RTR and EB versions of RTW but I think the point stands, regardless.

[QwertyMIDX]

RPS often doesn’t leave room for a historical presentation of exceptional troops, good or bad. Some units were rather poor whomever they fought while others were pretty much always effective. In a system where every unit must have obvious strengths and weaknesses built in so that RPS is enforced, we can get a very inaccurate simulation. I think Rome’s RPS design, such as it is, works OK. Cav vs pike has had problems in Rome but I don’t see that as an RPS issue so much as an RP issue, if you see what I mean. For some rocks there are no scissors, not every paper can cover all rocks, and some scissors can only cut certain paper. The world is a gray place ergo any RPS design mustn’t be too black and white if historic fidelity is to be achieved.

That's true, I'd rather have the RTW system than the Age of Empires II one. Still I think the RTW system could have been done better, I tried to do something of a compromise in EB.

[Braden]

I have to agree that the RPS system in Rome and BI has certainly been tweaked towards realism. What are the units that manage to prevail in most situation or are the games “pre-dominant” units? The high level legion, the Phalanx and the horse archer. Historically, through the periods covered these were the key military developments and as such are depicted correctly in the game. However, I’m off topic and lets not get into a “what’s historically correct” discussion.

More on topic though is the point that the spear units need to be stationary before receiving a charge. Froggy has mentioned that spears “brace” just prior to receiving a charge and this may be when the bonus comes into effect. Obviously, this “bracing” – which is a visible animation if you watch a unit – takes time and if they are not ready to receive that charge the unit will be blown away by most organised cavalry charges, even head on.

The keys I’ve noticed are:

Roman spear units (Limitanei etc) can also throw missiles (Pila etc – think I’ve misspelled that) but doing this negates the ability to “brace” to receive ANY charge (cavalry or infantry) so you must be more careful in Rome when you choose to use this ranged attack.

It easy to enable Fire at Will and Guard so that your whole infantry line gets a good chance to throw their missiles into the attackers – not a bad idea when facing massed infantry – but as cavalry can close the distance before the units get a chance to throw this is a very bad plan.

Just think about it. An infantryman intent on throwing his missile is unable to defend himself at all at that point, if it just happens to be the same moment as a full cavalry unit hits the unit then you get the effect similar to if cavalry it an archer unit! Obviously, denser formations negate this a bit but casualties are still very high.

With this in mind I tend to keep my spear units on the flanks, double stacked and keep them in Guard mode and Fire at will disabled. This way I give the best chance to the units to be ready to receive charges in the best order.

I still use the Comitatensis troops in the same old manner initially and certainly Plumbatarii are also used in this older manner – Guard mode ON + Fire at Will ON. My front line being Comitatensis with Plumbararii behind. I’ve found Plumbatarii rather fragile in a strait fight despite their stats when compared to Comitatensis.

If the Limitanei receive the charge in good order they still get plenty of penetration by the charging cavalry BUT don’t receive as many initial casualties. Hence the double stacking – so that any forced penetration doesn’t result in the cavalry wheeling and charging the rear of the Limitanei unit. The 2nd unit isn’t there to counter charge.

So, my view is that players have been spoilt by the strong RPS systems in previous TW games and with the introduction of the most recent patches and BI need to start looking more at what their units actually ARE. A spearman WILL be great against cavalry BUT you have to treat him like a spearman and not a Missile or Melee trooper even if they have that capability. A commander now has to pre-plan more and anticipate the enemy more than before as spear units will not get a bonus unless they’re ready – getting ready takes time.

[econ21]

I don't think the limitanei are spearmen, are they? They are just like comitatenses - swordsmen with pila - but inferior.

I'm not sure "bracing" to receive a charge matters for non-spears. There is an animation, yes, but I am not sure it has an effect. But yes, it does seem to matter a lot for spearmen - playing RTR, my Italian spears regularly got mangled by cavalry, but now I've started to take care to brace them, they shrug off the charge and behave rather like MTW spears vs cav.

Also, can anyone confirm that men caught in the act of throwing javelins are more vulnerable to melee? They could be - I think I have observed this on wall fights - but I'd be grateful for other opinions.

[Watchman]

You'd certainly think it nullified the "brace for impact" status for the duration of the throw, at least.

[econ21]

You'd certainly think it nullified the "brace for impact" status for the duration of the throw, at least.

Well, ok, but off hand I can't think of any spear units in RTW or BI that also have javelins[1]. So if "brace for impact" only matters for spears, the effect you mention would not be important. I am curious about that "if" though - why would CA program the animation for swords if it had no in-game effects?

[1]There are some in mods like EB - e.g. early principes.

[Braden]

I'm sure the Limitanei primary weapon is a spear?? I can't confirm as I have not visual reference to hand but I'm sure the graphic has a spear.

I'm happy to be wrong though.

[Watchman]

Right off the bat I can name both Legio Lanciarii and the Levy Spearmen of at least some of the barbarians in BI.

I'd assume the "bracing" for non-spear units mainly improves their "push resistance" a bit - although obviously as horses out-mass infantrymen quite handsomely, and without spears the braced footmen lack the "charge reflection" kill factor, its usefulness against cavalry is probably somewhat limited. Still, counter-charging incoming horsemen usually appears to result in an even more thoroughly buggered formation with cavalrymen deep in its midst, so...

[Conqueror]

The "bracing" animation happens against all types of incoming enemy units, not just cavalry. Non-spearmen might gain more benefit from it when receiving a charge from infantry.

[Braden]

The Lanciarii are most certainly Spearmen (checked the unit details – and Lanci is a latinisation of Lance = spear etc), however, there is no mention in the unit “blerb” about having any bonus against Cavalry. That either means that they have the same even stats than sword etc infantry have OR it means the “bonus” is negligible.

I have only noticed a “Bracing” animation occurring for Spearmen units – the Spear is presented firmly forward from the upright position and locked beside the shield.

Other melee units do similar but as they have no Spear to present all you really get is “Shields Front”.

But I have to concede that this may just be a nice animation feature and has little or no real in-game value. I would like to think that it does give you a defensive bonus at least though.

i.e. Spearmen would gain their “Bonus against Cavalry” whilst others will just gain a few extra points to their defence total.

A difficult thing to test though.

[econ21]

IIRC the lanciarii do get the anti-cav bonus of spearmen. Watchman was right to say I had forgotten about their pila. I checked the EDU file when I started this thread and all the Roman spear units get the same +8 bonus when defending against cav. They also have the spear property which I believe allows them to negate the cavalry charge when braced.

[Braden]

That's good, means I'll be using my Lanciarii more often now. Thanks Simon. May even start using them for bridge defense as my Coms seem to get far to much penitration from enemy units like Chosen Warriors etc.

[econ21]

That's good, means I'll be using my Lanciarii more often now. Thanks Simon. May even start using them for bridge defense as my Coms seem to get far to much penitration from enemy units like Chosen Warriors etc.

Yeah, if I knew I was facing cavalry across a bridge, I'd deploy spears in the first line. But looking at the stats of lanciarii vs coms, it's probably only a marginal gain (all you really get is negating the charge). Against Chosen warriors on foot, of course, the coms would be far better.

Then again, I just read your post in the ERE guides and if you can hold off 5 hordes with only 4 melee infantry, you don't need any advice from me.

[Braden]

….that was 5 stacks from the same Horde, and 4 units of Coms, I’ll not over-glamorise my achievements. Besides 8 archer units (most at least triple chevron) can really kill lots of horse archers AND chosen warriors over a long period of time. (yeah the Coms were of a similar experience)

The AI was having one of those “I’ll just sit here and let my horse archers whittle the player down….oh, they’re all dead now….I’ll just sit here for another 20 mins whilst the player fires waves of arrows at me” moments for each battle.

By the time the AI charged over the bridge at me (chosen warriors leading), and although it got penetration he didn’t have the stomach to keep fighting for long enough to break my units.

I guess the “penetration” is realistic for foot vs foot.

[econ21]

….that was 5 stacks from the same Horde, and 4 units of Coms, I’ll not over-glamorise my achievements. Besides 8 archer units (most at least triple chevron) can really kill lots of horse archers AND chosen warriors over a long period of time. (yeah the Coms were of a similar experience)

I understand - it's just I tried to do something similar in an ERE PBM and found that even after defeating a few stacks, my coms had been whittled down to next to nothing. Maybe I was taking too few archers - 3, not 8.

[Braden]

Absolutely too few archers. 8 units in two groups, one on either flank. First concentrated fire on a unit by unit basis on the enemy archer units (horse in this case). I was also lucky in that there were no units capable of swimming so I didn’t have to position my few infantry units anywhere else than at the bridge-head.

Sorry, we appear to be getting off topic……