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

Originally Posted by the_foz_4

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:

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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... )

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Carl

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".

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...

Originally Posted by Carl

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.

1: I think 32 knights can't wipe out 68 men (the double!) with a charge. How they could do it, to kill instantly an AVERAGE of 2 men per knight?
They have to lower the morale and cause the unit to root, why do you want it to disappear with a charge? I don't understand.

2: I personally don't agree, as I have explained in other posts on this topic.

It seems that you are describing the vanilla game, no need to balance it then.

Originally Posted by Carl

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.

Most Catholic factions have knights that are roughly equal in power, and that are available at about the same time. In the early game, most of these factions can field Mailed Knights, or Norman Knights, or Feudal Knights, all of which are roughly equal (give or take a few points of armor). These troops will attrite each other on the battlefield, i.e. cancel each other out. There is no faction to my knowledge that opens the early period with a knight that can run roughshod over all the other knights of Europe. Therefore, if you can keep roughly an equal amount of heavy horse in the field as your opponent, you have your cavalry counter. Historically, knights sought out knights on the field, and samurai sought out samurai. They knew they were the creme de la creme on the medieval battlefield, and that is was they who would decide most battles. Of course, a clever commander will back up his knights with good spearmen or swordsman, so that any melees that erupt can be tipped in favor of his own knights.

Originally Posted by Carl

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... So as much as you'd like cav to dominate everything bar pikes and muskets. I doubt it's actually going to happen.

You're right, I don't need to keep stating my case. Because CA has already taken my position. M2TW presents knights as almost unstoppable freight trains when charging all foot troops except pikes. So unless one mods it to be different, the game is taking the historical position on this issue.

You're right, I don't need to keep stating my case. Because CA has already taken my position. M2TW presents knights as almost unstoppable freight trains when charging all foot troops except pikes. So unless one mods it to be different, the game is taking the historical position on this issue.

YOUR WRONG.

Deal with the sheild bug and they do NOT do thast, CA have taken the exact opposite postion. The advisor text only proves that still furthar.

Let me also add that lusted has revealed that CA where planning on downpowering cav and are going to try some of his anti-cav measures on top. I think thats points to CA beliving cav are too good ATM.

Most Catholic factions have knights that are roughly equal in power, and that are available at about the same time. In the early game, most of these factions can field Mailed Knights, or Norman Knights, or Feudal Knights, all of which are roughly equal (give or take a few points of armor).

Give or take 3 points of attacka and a few points of armour. actually, and units with better attack/defence trump those with worse attack defence, so those without fuedal Knights or with Knights better than Fuedals will bat the others.

Originally Posted by Carl

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 Turks already have to use some infantry for sieges

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.

In other words, the Turks would then fight more like the other factions? That doesn't sound like much fun to me.

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.

Nobody is getting wound up. The discussion so far has been polite, as far as I can tell. Some of us disagree with your take on the game, and prefer a different type of game, which is a different thing than getting "wound up." It's okay for us to have different opinions on these things, and I've found the discussion interesting, so far.

As for CA's intentions... yes, they're a RTS company, but Warcraft (and a few others) showed that this type of game can go beyond simple rock/paper/scissors balance with all units alike, only dressed up with different skins. And that's the model CA has used; with units that don't necessarily always balance 1 v. 1 against a corresponding unit. It keeps the game interesting, and it allows at least a degree of respect for historical accuracy. I imagine CA will probably keep it that way with the upcoming patch, including not forcing Turks (for example) into an a-historical reliance on infantry.

For those who don't like it, there will be mods. And of course that goes both ways. Some of us may need to look at modding the game if CA goes too far in leveling out the different units for 1 v. 1 "balance" without taking into account mixed units in an army, or historical accuracy.

Nobody is getting wound up.

It seemed to me that some of you, (not all of you), where expecting that if you went on enough that that’s what would happen. Nothing about the balancing in RTW or what the Adviser/in-game hints tells you should happen leads me to believe that CA intended anything other than the RPS balance. The effects of modding out the various bugs only seems to reinforce this.

In other words, the Turks would then fight more like the other factions? That doesn't sound like much fun to me.

You have to understand that the Turks aren’t intended to fight as an ALL HA/Cav army. Just as the English aren’t intended to fight as an all Foot Archer/2-Hander Force Or the French an all Melee Cav Force, or the Scots and all Pike force.

Everyone was expected to use a mix of foot archers, melee cav, melee foot and possible HA's. The differences where always in my mind intended to be the type of melee cav/melee foot/foot archers/HA used, and the quantity in which they where used. Turks and Byzantine both strike me as unit rosters that where meant to use large amounts of HA/Melee cav in combination with small numbers of melee foot, and foot archer forces. With Byzantine having a slightly greater focus on infantry, particularly in the late game.

The Scots where always intended to use large numbers of heavily armoured Pikemen, backed up by good Sword and Shield units and Composite infantry. With Minor cav and missile forces alongside.

NO army IMHO was intended to get by without at least SOME foot melee, foot missile, and mounted melee units. The defining points where meant to be the types and quantities in which they where used.

Generally if a unit is in a game and it's not being used their are 2 reasons for it:

1. The army in question was never intended to need such a units, and thus it's inclusion was an error of judgment.

2. They where meant to HAVE to use it to at least some degree, but the game's balance is out and thus the player is not being made to use it as he should be.

As Turks with the fixes, 75% of your forces will still be cav/cav archers, and 90% of the kills will belong to them. However, you will no longer be able to field armies composed 100% of cav/HA.

Originally Posted by 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.

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!