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

[Carl]

I'm starting this thread as another thread that is a bug fixing thread has degenerated into a: "Cav should dominate the early game at the exclusion of all melee infantry" thread.

Since the thread is about finding and fixing bugs and creating a balanced game as a result, such unbalancing suggestions contribute nothing to the real purpose of the thread. So this once I figured I'd start them a thread on the matter to argue it out in and hopefully leave the bug fixing threads to bug fixing.

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

My basic line is that whatever era it becomes available in it should beat the cav of that era, and be able to inflict heavy losses on the next era up's cav before being destroyed, (that’s way it doesn’t become instantly outdated).

This seems balanced in m mind and is similar to what the Shield Fix produces.


Now Post your own opinions and why.

[Musashi]

Militia spear should be pretty weak. Town militia should fall to basically anything, and proper militia spearmen should be able to hold Feudal Knights at best imho. Professional spearmen are another story, they should be able to do ok against Chivalrics perhaps... but they should all fail against heavy infantry of approximately equal "tier". I like the rock/paper/scissors system.

[Bijo]

Way I see it is very simple. It's pretty much kinda what you said already. Anyway, I want spearmen to hack cavalry to pieces, but I want no overkill --> example: if they're very well-armoured horsemen and horses, surely spearmen must have some trouble with 'em.

[Carl]

@Musashi: I’m largely fine with that, you have to remember that whilst fixed Papal Guard can beat Chivalric Knights head on, they do suffer a lot of losses, (about 50%), and most of these are from the effects of the initial Formed Charge. It just happens to kill half the knights and the other half die fast on he charge too. I doubt Papal Guard cold even take on any non-spear infantry above Peasants.

Town Militia actually have Light-Spears (short spears basically), and thus have no penalty vs. infantry. With their better stats and slight anti-cav bonuses they do fine. hey get beat by most cav charges with few losses inflicted. But in close quarters they make good backup and are great at holding walls I imagine.

My main Bone of contention with having weak Spear Militia is that they are the only SP anti-cav unit many western European factions get prior to Pike units. So without them being able to give cav serious issues, it breaks play balance badly. Whish is more important than historical accuracy to me.

[Musashi]

Some factions are meant to be weak in infantry though. A lot of factions with great cavalry are deliberately neutered in terms of their line troops, in order to force them to field more cavalry.

[Carl]

Well of course. But some arn't.

The problem is if Italian spear militia and armoured sarges are the only good non-pike cav counters most armies have no cav counters in the early stages (beyond their own cav), and some still don't have enough into the late game.

Pike foot armies for example rely on them to protect their flanks from cav as pikes turn too slow. Spanish defintly rely on them for anti-cav infantry, and they have an otherwise decent unit lineup.

[Musashi]

Again, not every faction is meant to be able to field a foot army and win.

More to the point, many many factions have weak spears but strong shock infantry. Their spears are meant to receive charges and simply die slowly enough that the shock infantry can work over the enemy engaging the spears.

Very few factions are meant to have a cavalry counter that can simply grind the cav up on their own.

[General Zhukov]

I consider militia spearmen to be little better than peasants. In fact, they are peasants except for one point of attack, a nice shield, and an unspecified "bonus vs. cavalry". What exactly is that bonus? +3 attack? Doubled attack? It matters.

Also, spear militia cost about 1/3 of your average mounted knight. Their hand spears shouldn't do anything special vs. a heavy charge, but with the bonus in mind, they should be able to inflict minimal to moderate casualties in the general melee. That is opposed to town militia, which do and probably should inflict minimal to no casualties. Professional spearmen should do serious damage to cav in a general melee, to the point of forcing late era knights to withdraw. Spearmen should not be able to resist any kind of heavy infantry, but even the cheap cheap pike milita unit can cause 30% casualties to dismounted knights using swordplay. That is quite effective from a logistical point of view.

Nothing from any era should stand against a frontal charge by knights except a braced pike formation. IMO knights, and cavalry in general, do and should dominate this game all the way up to pikes. And even then, there are ways for the canny cavalry commander to break up and defeat pike-based armies.

[Carl]

@Zhurkov: Your one of the history trumps balance guys I take it. All I’ll say is that for me I’m more interested in balance and thus I don't CARE what would have happened historically.

As an aside, the knights I'd expect them to beat are actually only a half again as expensive as them and considering they are anti-cav I’d expect them to beat these knight with heavy losses, (with silver armour they do this great for me with my shield fix).

The bonuses are as follows: 8 attack extra against cav, reflect charge abilities, (I presume this means that they get the attack bonus of the enemies Charge value as well), and an as yet undisclosed extra.

Ignoring the unknown extra, Militia Spearmen get 5+8+6 against charging mailed/fuedal knights for attack. Or 19 attack. The Knights get 16 attack.

Very few factions are meant to have a cavalry counter that can simply grind the cav up on their own.

The problem is this is exactly what ALL spear units are actually supposed to do.

I also did a quick check of unit lists. England, Scotland, Portugual, Hungary, Poland, and Spain all lack decent Spears. The 4 Italians get their spear militia and France and HRE get armoured spears. Denmark seemed weak here too.

Again, not every faction is meant to be able to field a foot army and win.

Of course not. but without good spears, enemy cav render any foot forces totally pointless unless they are Dismounted Saxon Knights or better, (13/20 is about the minimum, give or take a bit).

Their spears are meant to receive charges and simply die slowly enough that the shock infantry can work over the enemy engaging the spears.

The problem is, that isn't what happens with spear vs. cav or anything vs. 2-hander fights though.

Their are 2 possibilities, (spears 3 ranks deep):

1. The cav charges in and badly damages out the front rank of spearmen but they also suffer heavy damage to their own front rank. The second rank of knights then hits and wipes out the remnants of the front rank and badly damages the second rank whilst suffers moderate damage, (charge effects have dropped off by this point so the reflect charge seems less deadly). After this about half the knights and half the spearmen are dead. The spearmen then massacre the remaining knights.

2. The Knights charge into and annihilate the first 2 ranks for the loss of their own front rank and lightly/moderately damage the 3rd rank. about 6 or 7 seconds later the spearmen rout with about half the enemy knights dead. Occasionally a really powerful cav unit will have more than half left.

Their isn't any situation in which spears pin" cav that I’ve been able to produce, they either take the charge with heavy losses on both sides and win by themselves. Or take it with decimation on their side and light to moderate losses to the cav. Theirs never any spearmen grinding up cav moments because spearmen that aren’t annihilated by the charge wipe out the knights normally.

[General Zhukov]

@Zhurkov: Your one of the history trumps balance guys I take it.

That's a fair statement. I would like the units to perform roughly as their historical counterparts did.

The bonuses are as follows: 8 attack extra against cav, reflect charge abilities, (I presume this means that they get the attack bonus of the enemies Charge value as well), and an as yet undisclosed extra.

Wow, I didn't know the spearmen bonuses vs. cav were that extensive. That's militia spearmen too? Those really do seem to justify cav losing a decent amount on the charge. And with 13 unupgraded attack in the general melee, they should give any knights a stiff fight. But I wonder if there are other factors in play that skew the results of cavalry versus infantry?

Of course not. but without good spears, enemy cav render any foot forces totally pointless unless they are Dismounted Saxon Knights or better, (13/20 is about the minimum, give or take a bit).

As I understand it, mounted knights really did dominate the field in western Europe during most of this period. In the vanilla version of the game that is modeled pretty well.

[Blademun]

I've already stated my opinion on spears plenty. I believe spear milita should be weak and Professional spearmen like Armoured Sarges should be more effective.

Doesn't this forum have a Poll function? Thats what this post needs, a poll.

[Carl]

That's a fair statement. I would like the units to perform roughly as their historical counterparts did.

AND

As I understand it, mounted knights really did dominate the field in western Europe during most of this period. In the vanilla version of the game that is modeled pretty well.

As I say, I prefer balance to trump history where necessary. However, I respect your opinions nonetheless. to each their own, (and just a few years ago I’d have had your view on the matter too).

Wow, I didn't know the spearmen bonuses vs. cav were that extensive. That's militia spearmen too? Those really do seem to justify cav losing a decent amount on the charge. And with 13 unupgraded attack in the general melee, they should give any knights a stiff fight. But I wonder if there are other factors in play that skew the results of cavalry versus infantry?

Yeah, it's surprisingly extensive. Papal Guard for example have 22 attack in general melee, and 28 vs. charging Feudal. 30 vs. charging Chivalric's. They can actually beat said Chivalric with some guys left even if the Chivalric charge. 3 gold Chevrons and weapons upgrade adds 4 to those values so it's now 26, 32, and 36 respectively.

For what it's worth, Militia Spearmen can beat Chivalric’s in general melee, if the Chivalric’s don't get to charge them.

[Musashi]

You're having different results than I am Carl... I can field a bunch of Spear Militia, and while they'll take heavy losses on a charge vs say, Feudal Knights, the kill rate then drops quite low... The Feudal Knights will win in the end, but it's a MUCH slower process than if they had charged say, my dismounted knights, or axemen, or something along those lines. Once they're held up like that, my dismounted knights, or axemen can annihilate them by sweeping in from the flanks.

Or I can bring in cavalry to countercharge.

It does work for me.

[Carl]

@Musahsi: How do you fix your sheilds? last time i heard you where using double the sheild skill added to the defence skill wern't you? or have you switched?

If you don't zero the sheild value I find they don't brace properly and the reflect charge effects don't go off fully as a result, (this is what kills the Knights on contact with the spearmen). It also slows down the kill rate in general melee considrebly.

[Musashi]

I actually haven't applied a fix. I don't like the side effects of the fixes, and I like the game well enough in it's current form that I'm not going to make such a drastic change. I'll simply wait for the patch.

But even in the vanilla game I find that spearmen, even when they will ultimately lose to a cavalry squad, will hold them longer than a unit of shock infantry would have. Most shock infantry go down like flies vs. cavalry, which is how the RPS balance was meant to work.

[Carl]

That explains it. I use the sheild Fix, (I thought i'd stated that). When this happens:

1. The cav charges in and badly damages out the front rank of spearmen but they also suffer heavy damage to their own front rank. The second rank of knights then hits and wipes out the remnants of the front rank and badly damages the second rank whilst suffers moderate damage, (charge effects have dropped off by this point so the reflect charge seems less deadly). After this about half the knights and half the spearmen are dead. The spearmen then massacre the remaining knights.

The effect of the cav contacting the spearmen looks very similar to that of cav contacting braced Pikes with the exception that the cav take most of the front row of Spearmen with them. Spea vs. cav fights are over VERY quickly if you apply it.

[antisocialmunky]

To be honest, I rather have a more historic feeling campaign and a balanced MP with price tweaks. Seriously, balance is only requisite on MP.

[Carl]

Not for me it isn't. Besides, no price tweaks (beyond making all cav cost 3 times as muc in MP), would fix the issue.

[Musashi]

Carl: My point is that the cavalry, even when they took significant losses in the charge, will generally win in the melee that follows. Spearmen suck in protracted melee. But they live long enough to allow me to flank.

[Foz]

I'm not really sure what I think the overall fights should look like between spear units and cavalry, but on one point I'm very certain:

I feel that a spear unit able to brace for the incoming cavalry should cause MAD during the initial charge.

I feel this way because cavalry cannot simply trample over guys with spears without largely getting the horses impaled on the veritable wall of spears at the same time. The end result of this ought to be that many horses die, ejecting their riders long distances, those wounded/dead horses rolling through the enemy ranks as high speed projectiles steamrolling the enemy men as well as the ejected riders of its own unit (and their own riders if they weren't thrown from the saddle). I don't really mind that the game doesn't show the spearmen bracing the spears to receive the charge... the point is that they do brace, and the reality of why it was done IS to set the spear, thus hopefully killing the incoming horse... so that kind of action and intent should be reflected in in-game results IMO. Some other factors should perhaps be considered in determining how successful the spearmen are in making that initial stand:

- Mental factors. Training and state of mind are important here, as troops in this situation would be prone to trying to run away in fear, or possibly just freezing up as the mass of cavalry descended on them at high speed. Spear militia would not be less effective because of their equipment or even their training so much as because of their lack of being hardened military men capable of standing tall in such a frightening situation.

- Spearman defense stats. I think this follows logically since units with higher armor/skill/shield values should be able to absorb/avoid/deflect otherwise deadly blows a bit better, even during a charge. I say avoid for skill as I commonly conceptualize it as not only ability to parry, but also ability to actively avoid blows in melee combat. One doesn't have to actually touch an opponent's weapon in order to avoid it, and sometimes simply dodging a blow is far easier and more practical.

- Cavalry defense stats. Again it seems only logical to suggest that a more well-defended knight and horse should in fact survive better.

Offensive stats are of secondary importance here IMO, as I can't imagine what you would do to a long spear or lance's construction to make it any more effective in this situation. The sheer speed and force behind the weapons in this situation pretty much means any grade weapon provided it is constructed correctly will get the job done. IMO this is exactly the reason for the "reflect charge" ability the spears have: that it applies the power of the knight's charge to the attack power of the spear too, which should be the case as the force of the horse hitting the spear would equal that behind the lance during the charge.

Perhaps the offensive stats are different more than anything to indicate the skill level of the given unit using the weapon... which I would freely admit should have some effect: a more capable spearman or knight can in fact do more even in this situation to ensure his blow strikes true than a less capable one can.

To be honest, MAD on impact is my only real concern here, and I'll be largely happy as long as it happens, as it ought to be an unavoidable consequence of cavalry charging into spears. Cavalry charging into a spear formation is really scary stuff from a physics perspective... (and I can only imagine IRL as well for those unlucky enough to have faced it)

[Carl]

I never could get cav to suffer significant losses when charging spearmen in vanillia myself. Although i did allways use uard Mode back then.

With the sheild fix the Spears will even win in protracted melee. Hell the adviser even says it's a bad idea to frontal charge spearmen and that attacking engaged cav with spearmen is a good idea. If the spearmen arn't likliy to beat the cav, why say that. Thats a good indicator of where CA wanted them to be IMO. Namely that the adviser really dosen't think you should get cav in any kind of fight with spears.

[Musashi]

That's gonna be a fairly hefty neutering for cavalry, if even weak spears become death for them. It's a bit too much, IMHO.

I really don't think spears should be good for killing much of anything. They should be a defensive line troop.

[Carl]

They arn't death to everything with the fix. But Militia Spearmen can beat Maileds with heavy losses, and fuedals the same with silver armour. So high end cav can beat weak spears. But spears of a given era will typicly beat cav of the same era. Or cav an era upwards if they have enough upgrades.


Of course, I had 8 gold armour Spera Militia units and 4 1 Bronze Chevron, 1 weapon and bronze armour Armoured Sarghes take on and defeat a 20 stack army of french cav (8 knightly Orders, 8 Chivalric/noble knights and some lancers). However it needed close grouping of units in Schiltrom formation to pull it off. A single missile unit would have had a feild day.

[Musashi]

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.

[pike master]

i think they should be made as cheap as pike units since they arnt much better than peasants. i have no problem with a company of knights (40) rolling over (75) men but at least if they are cheaper you can link and block them together or you can form super schiltroms of superimposed spearmen units that would make 150 vs 40 horse which is more believable of what would be needed to stop heavy cavalry.

[econ21]

I think spears should be balanced according to their historical effectiveness. The problem is, no one knows for sure how effective they were in history.

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.)

Personally, I think it is fine that a well armoured knight who has trained for combat all his life and has a big strong horse should be able to beat up vanilla militia spearmen. I've read an account of a handful (I think it was seven or so?) feudal knights defeating about 100 Welsh spearmen. And knights do seem to have been the dominant arm in most medieval battles. The basic militia spearmen should be just filler units - they perform that role fairly well (ie are pretty bad) already in M2TW.

BUT, if you get a well armoured knight who has trained for combat all his life and stick him on the ground with a bunch of fellow stout hearted men, the story changes. My money then would be on such foot to be able to beat off their mounted counterparts. That's why the French knights started fighting dismounted in the Hundred Years Wars - they could not run down the English dismounted knights and, no, it was not the longbowmen that stopped them doing so.

Unfortunately, a lot of this is messed up in the Total War system thanks to the arbitrary and ahistorical sword vs spear unit distinction. Dismounted English and French men-at-arms often used lances (cut down or not) - ie spears - but we don't really have such top of the range spear-armed units in the game. And, of course, they would probably have mini-arsenals of poleaxes, swords, maces, daggers etc for when the fighting got up close and personal. I guess we have the DEK and the billmen as compensation, but currently, they are useless against cav.

Total war does have some intermediate spear units - the Italian militias, armoured sergeants etc. I see them stopping mounted knights due to decent morale and numbers. It would probably degenerate into a bit of a shoving match, as at Courtrai, but in the end my money would be on the foot if they were attacked frontally. M2TW has the balance here wrong, IMO. Mercenary spearmen and the like die too much to cavalry charges thanks to the shield bug or whatever. MTW/VI ended up with the balance between spears and knights about right, IMO: negate the cavalry charge, then allow slow, mutually assured destruction. The spears were a bit too strong against heavy cav in STW and MTW 1.0, IMO, although I gather the MP folk liked them that way for "balance".

[Foz]

I'm not really interested in discussions about "balance" that pay no regard to history or plausibility. 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.)

Likewise, no one should be interested in discussions of history or plausibility that pay no regard to balance. I'm not saying don't talk about history... just don't project history directly onto the game without regard to how it affects the game play (and resulting fun of the game). An important fact of the game is that it has multiple units. You can't just make knights into a medieval wrecking ball no matter what they were really like in history, or suddenly no other unit has purpose. Each one must be useful for something, otherwise why is it in the game at all? I do not demand some sort of perfect mathematical balance be applied to the game, but it is a cornerstone of good game design for each unit to be good for something on the battlefield, and encourages better tactics as well (by providing actual viable options for players to explore instead of the linearity of "this is the only way that works" which focusing everything on historical accuracy can sometimes cause). I don't want to have a unit at my disposal that I can't look at and say "I should recruit that unit because it fills role 'x' in my army..." even if that roll is as narrow as "I hold against cavalry, and roll over to everything else." Currently spear units suck so badly that they in fact have no use, which should never happen to a unit.

The other important point I wish to make is that none of us is here strictly because we like history. If that were the case, we'd be out doing re-enactments, watching the history channel, and doing various other activities that don't involve gaming. The fact that we are also gamers indicates the nature of the genre: historical gaming. If either one is allowed to dominate the other, the genre ceases to exist, falling instead into historical simulation or ahistorical turn-based strategy. It is only by allowing each to influence the other, to counterbalance and temper the other's ideas, that we can even hope to maintain such a delicate balance, and thus be true to the spirit of the genre. So while it is possible to discuss history without gaming implications, and the game without historical accuracy, we will need to discuss them both at the same time in order to arrive at anything remotely reasonable to apply to the game.

[Zenicetus]

Likewise, no one should be interested in discussions of history or plausibility that pay no regard to balance. I'm not saying don't talk about history... just don't project history directly onto the game without regard to how it affects the game play (and resulting fun of the game). An important fact of the game is that it has multiple units. You can't just make knights into a medieval wrecking ball no matter what they were really like in history, or suddenly no other unit has purpose. Each one must be useful for something, otherwise why is it in the game at all? I do not demand some sort of perfect mathematical balance be applied to the game, but it is a cornerstone of good game design for each unit to be good for something on the battlefield, and encourages better tactics as well (by providing actual viable options for players to explore instead of the linearity of "this is the only way that works" which focusing everything on historical accuracy can sometimes cause).

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?

[lobo76]

imo:

If cavalry frontal charge a spear unit, BOTH first ranks should be decimated or rather totally destroyed. Horse impaling themselves onto a spear WILL die. The mass + speed of horse and man charging onto a human (spear unit) WILL crush him.

The second rank's performance will be determined by other factors. Spear units professionalism for example. A professional unit will form up quickly into another spear wall, cavalry continue to impale themselves. With momentum large dissipated, spear units then take some damage but not much. The professional spear unit should win ANY cavalry from the front.

Then morale comes into play. Morale determines whether the formation will be disintegrated after the charge and if the cavalry will rout. Highly trained cavalry will not rout, but they will not be able to kill a lot, if any more spear units as they cannot breach the well formed spear wall. It descends into a stalemate to be broken by flanking units.

If spear units cannot maintain their formation (failed the morale roll), melee rules will apply. Spear unit's professionalism will also extend to their fighting technique (bonus versus cavalry) which will counter by cavalry's armor and professionalism.

If a spear unit is lousy, they shouldn't be able to do much beyond bracing for first charge. They receive no bonus versu cavalry as they never really trained to do so. Most cavalry (after first rank is gone) should have the advantage, fighting from a higher position on their horse. The more heavily armored and skilled the cavalry, the less loss they will take in the ensuing melee.

[dopp]

History part: I agree with econ21 on this. The spearmen issue is tricky because the whole concept of disciplined spear infantry, or any infantry for that matter, in the Middle Ages is doubtful at best. Could spear infantry hold off cavalry? Yes, most definitely. Were there large numbers of disciplined infantry in the Middle Ages? History suggests not. The only serious fighting men were the knights and their retainers (and the various mercs) and they mostly preferred to fight on horseback. Thus horsemen ruled the battlefield, while infantry was often relegated to moral support and baggage train duty (just like my Gendarmes).

The distinction between swords and spears (and pikes) in Total War is artificially imposed for variety's sake. Dismounted knights used their lances as pikes against each other at Agincourt, the English falling back a spear's length before the French onslaught. Swords would of course have been preferred for single combat, but spears and polearms seem to have been the staple infantry weapon throughout history for massed combat.

Of course, spearmen are in the game, they behave like professional, disciplined infantry, they are supposed to be good against cavalry but not so good against swordsmen. It works, no reason to change the basic setup just to satisfy doubtful historical evidence.

Game part: Discounting the dismounted knights, spears seem to be the basic infantry for most factions. You get sergeant spearmen for the Catholics and elite spear militia for the Muslims. You don't get any cheap swords for many factions. So, if the basic spearmen are hedgehogs of death for cavalry, then the only use for the knights is running down archers until, ironically, more 'advanced' infantry units show up that were stupid enough to leave their spears at home. That doesn't strike me as fun. A moderate buffing of spearmen charge resistance to the front against cavalry charges is what I would like to see, plus fixing whatever shield bug is holding the spearmen back in melee. If fixing the shields also improves their charge resistance, then maybe that is all that is needed. The spearmen should be able to hold against a cavalry charge from the front against same-era knights, so that the cavalry player needs to actively outflank instead of brainlessly charging directly at the enemy line. 'Hold' does not mean 'suffer no casualties while killing the entire front rank of horsemen', but instead means that the spearmen should not get pulverized like they do now and should suffer maybe 10-20% losses from the initial charge instead of 80-90% like they do now.

I would suggest that spearmen also be made slightly better against swordsmen and the like, making them more 'defensive' combat troops rather than dedicated anti-cavalry troops that get beaten up by anything that goes on two legs, even by peasants. Swordsmen would be used to spearhead attacks and outflank, while spearmen hold the line. This was the balance of MTW and I thought it worked quite well. Of course, the swordsmen will often beat the spearmen because they are higher quality troops in general, but this should not happen 'just because swords pwn spears', but because elite troops beat merely average ones. Right now spearmen have very low attack values that make them easy prey for swordsmen. Buff them up a bit so they can compete, even if they lose eventually.