Militia vs Trained

**Musashi** · 12-08-2006, 18:45

The pitchfork is an abstraction for a wide variety of implements... Peasants probably brought clubs and knives and other nasty things as well.

**Kraxis** · 12-08-2006, 18:58

Which are all less capable weapons that the trusty spear. The spear is just about one of the best weapons ever. And there is a reason basically all troops carried one. Or that most weapon trainers emphasise that equal level swordsmen and spearmen should not engage as the spearmen will usually win. In Japanese martial arts it is a general rule that kenjutsu practitioners(swordsmen) should be three levels above any yarijutsu opponent to have an equal fight.

Besides a spear and shield is an intuitive form of combatstyle. You can basically give anybody a large shield and a spear and he will understand without any instruction how to use it effectively.

I don't mind that spears are supposed to get beaten by swords as it is really an abstraction of elite and not elite infantry. But it becomes silly when craptacular Peasants can take avantage of the setup for that.

**Handel** · 12-08-2006, 19:04

I use spear milita as cannon fodder in a schiltrom formation; they keep the gate and the wall breeches giving a time for the elite troops to charge the flanks of the attackers. Usually this ends the siege, but I send out the cavalry to finish as much as possible from the routed enemies.

**Kobal2fr** · 12-08-2006, 21:57

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Which are all less capable weapons that the trusty spear. The spear is just about one of the best weapons ever. And there is a reason basically all troops carried one. Or that most weapon trainers emphasise that equal level swordsmen and spearmen should not engage as the spearmen will usually win. In Japanese martial arts it is a general rule that kenjutsu practitioners(swordsmen) should be three levels above any yarijutsu opponent to have an equal fight.

Besides a spear and shield is an intuitive form of combatstyle. You can basically give anybody a large shield and a spear and he will understand without any instruction how to use it effectively.

I don't mind that spears are supposed to get beaten by swords as it is really an abstraction of elite and not elite infantry. But it becomes silly when craptacular Peasants can take avantage of the setup for that.

True in a one on one fight, not true in a formed melee. A spearman will admitedly always have the advantage over a swordsman in a duel because of his reach. If the swordsman steps forward to even things out, the spearman can step back, and still reach him.
But in tight formation, you cannot step back, you cannot keep that safety distance, and you cannot use wide, circling swings or figure 8s either, the longer your spear is, the more you're restricted to predictable forward thrusts, either overhand or underhand. So the swordsman who dodges the first stab and gets you in his kill range has a good chance to smoke you, since his weapon is faster and more wieldy.

**Musashi** · 12-08-2006, 22:00

Not to mention the obvious drawbacks in terms of being able to turn to face a flank attack...

**Kraxis** · 12-08-2006, 22:05

Medieval battlefield weaponry disagrees. Basically all infantry had spears, especially those in close formation.

Think about it, the swordsman don't just have to contend with your spear alone... If his own buddy is a little slow, or is a bit of a coward, he can suddenly get several spears in his face.
Also, why do you think that the most famous spearformation, the hoplite phalanx had spears and swords, but mainly focused on spears? Because spears simply are better and don't require a lot of room to use.

The idea that swords > spears comes from a simple source. The fact that those who had proper swords were often good with them. We are talking about nobles or rich citizens who had time and money to get the best equipment and training. Then in battle they would trounce basically all spearformations they faced becasue they were far more than those three levels better. To an outsider it would like like swords indeed were better.
And since that is how the game does it, then I have no problem with spears being generally beaten by swords.

In any case, the point was that spears are not disadvantaged against various farming implementations. Hence Peasants really should never haev a chance against a formed spearunit.

**Kobal2fr** · 12-09-2006, 02:47

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Medieval battlefield weaponry disagrees. Basically all infantry had spears, especially those in close formation.

Think about it, the swordsman don't just have to contend with your spear alone... If his own buddy is a little slow, or is a bit of a coward, he can suddenly get several spears in his face.
Also, why do you think that the most famous spearformation, the hoplite phalanx had spears and swords, but mainly focused on spears? Because spears simply are better and don't require a lot of room to use.

The idea that swords > spears comes from a simple source. The fact that those who had proper swords were often good with them. We are talking about nobles or rich citizens who had time and money to get the best equipment and training. Then in battle they would trounce basically all spearformations they faced becasue they were far more than those three levels better. To an outsider it would like like swords indeed were better.
And since that is how the game does it, then I have no problem with spears being generally beaten by swords.

In any case, the point was that spears are not disadvantaged against various farming implementations. Hence Peasants really should never haev a chance against a formed spearunit.

I see what you mean (and wholeheartedly agree that spears are sorely inadequate in M2TW), but then why would those trained and wealthy individuals choose a sword (or an axe, or a mace for that matter) over such an obviously superior spear ? Surely they would have been even better spearmen with that same amount of training, and with better spears than the rest ?

**dopp** · 12-09-2006, 02:55

Trained and wealthy nobles also used spears in formation. The French and English knights used their lances at Agincourt on foot in a 'push of pike' (not true pike formation as that implies drilled and disciplined troops, which neither side possessed).

**Gaius Terentius Varro** · 12-09-2006, 02:58

For the same reason the rich eat virgin lobster in black caviar sauce and you hamburgers. To make a class distinction and keep it there

**katank** · 12-09-2006, 03:29

Militia troops are awesome and not just for the Italian factions (in which case there is precious little need for castles). Some units, such as pavise crossbow militia, are quite a bit better than readily available castle units. They also have an advantage in upkeep. The only thing to keep in mind is their morale. As long as they stick around to fight it out, militias are more cost effective than castle troops in most cases.

Learning to fight the early game with spear and archer militia perhaps bolstered by mercs is invaluable and will help your economy significantly.

**Kobal2fr** · 12-09-2006, 03:42

Yes, yes I know knights did use spears on foot from time to time. They also used swords on foot, axes on foot, flails on foot, zweihänders on foot etc... so there has to be a practical point to all of these other weapons, hasn't it ?

Social distinction is fine and dandy, yet I don't think it holds much value when your life is on the line

. You can wear a sword to tell everyone that your purse is huge and your d*ck even bigger still, but wield another weapon in actual battle if it's more convenient. In other words, the rich eat lobster because, you know, it tastes better than McDonalds

.

Besides, the Roman legionaries had great success with their puny stabbity swords, even against professional, trained-and-wealthy spear and pike formations, and they certainly didn't use them out of social distinction. They were the grunts, not the social elite. And their swords weren't their secondary weapons either, as can be argued for medieval knights.

So there must be something going for swords, and something that allowed them to trump spear formations. I just can't picture what

. Harder to break maybe ?

**andrewt** · 12-08-2006, 23:58

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

True in a one on one fight, not true in a formed melee. A spearman will admitedly always have the advantage over a swordsman in a duel because of his reach. If the swordsman steps forward to even things out, the spearman can step back, and still reach him.
But in tight formation, you cannot step back, you cannot keep that safety distance, and you cannot use wide, circling swings or figure 8s either, the longer your spear is, the more you're restricted to predictable forward thrusts, either overhand or underhand. So the swordsman who dodges the first stab and gets you in his kill range has a good chance to smoke you, since his weapon is faster and more wieldy.

No, cause your buddy behind you has a chance to beat the sword guy as well. If you're in really, really close formation, your buddy 2 men behind you can kill the sword guy as well. I doubt sword guy can dodge multiple stabs at the same time.

Of course, if the spears get hit from the side, then they shouldn't be able to turn around fast. I think that's how spears should be in the game. They should beat everything else on a frontal battle but be the most vulnerable to flank and back attacks.

**Joshwa** · 12-09-2006, 01:46

But then that would trash the rock/paper/scissors thing. I mean, it's going to be quite hard to get swordsmen round the side or back of a canny opponent who has a decent number of units, far easier to do it with cavalry, and so this would make swordsmen only really effective against other swordsmen, which makes them pretty much pointless in the scheme of things.