How Good Do You Think 2-Handers Should Be?

[Carl]

Similar to my Spearmen one. I want your opinions.

Personally I like how they turn out in my bug fixer. ABkle to wipe out any non-pike/other 2-Hander with only moderate losses, but very vulnrable to Cav charges and missile fire.

Others (Jambo for example), feel that any infantry unit of similar Price should beat them.

I don't agree with that largely due to the fact that many S&S units of similar price are a lot more resistant to both Cav charges and missile fire. To mention nothing of the fact that for their price, most 2-Handers come along much later in the tech tree than comparable price S&S infantry, (english bills being an obvious exception).

SO what do you think?

[Von Nanega]

Good enough to crush S&S on the offensive. Hurtin for certain in a defensive posture. I like to imagine screaming axemen hurtling through terrified S&S and militias as they charge. But if they stand still, they should get cut up.

[Stlaind]

It really depends on the unit in question and its role. For instance the english bill comes at a cost: the complete absence of pikes. So I'd think that billmen should have some pretty serious staying power at the level they come into existence at.

The Dismounted 2h Knights should all be roughly on par I think, capable of thrashing lower quality units pretty handily, but much more easily torn apart by cav/archers.

One line: strong enough to compete, weak enough to require combined arms

[pevergreen]

Are they weilding two-hander Chickens? If they are, they should have upwards for 50 hp and 9 billion attack.

As Stlaind said. And using zxiangs does that. Billmen can snap infantry but get hurted a lot by missiles and cav.

[Carl]

One line: strong enough to compete, weak enough to require combined arms

Couldn't agree more. This is where Pikes, Cav, and Missile units come in. If fixed 2-Handers where the new cav it would be stupid.

Allthough I would add that for the same cost any 2 diffrent units of 2-handers should have similar abilities vs both the enemy and each other. So JHI at their price really should be beating DEK/DPK/DNK, even though these units really are a bit underpriced ATM, (IMHO).

[Stlaind]

I'll also add that there are some S+S infantry that should be a decent fight as some faction get high end S+S instead of 2H.

[LordKhaine]

It's all relative to the unit itself. There shouldn't be clear cut stone-scissors-paper. Some of the decent 2 handers (like dismounted english knights) should be able to crush most infantry. While some should get torn up by decent swords.

I think most people view double handers as higher attack, lower defence. Something to smash through infantry quickly, yet lack the staying power of more armoured units. Though you also have to remember that a lot of the double handed units are so armoured they don't *need* a shield, so being a double hander doesn't necessarily have to mean a unit is vunerable. If I recall, towards the end of the medieval period knights stopped using shields because plate armour had become so effective it wasn't needed.

[dopp]

Most factions get some sort of halberd/2hander for their 'top tier' infantry, so they really need to be able to clean house against older infantry (especially sword and board, which they historically replaced).

I think their armor is too low, actually, or the swordsmen's defense is too high. A swordsman can exceed 20 defense, with a whopping 8 defense skill plus a shield bonus of 6 added to his base 7 for heavy mail. And he can usually get further upgrades to his armor while retaining all those bonuses intact. A 2hander in advanced plate (no more upgrades for him) is lucky to get 14, with around 4 defense skill. His advanced armor only gives him 3 extra armor over what swordsmen start with, slows him down by four or more points of defense skill, and makes him pigheaded enough to do without 6 points of shield. Given how many AP missiles and melee troops are flying/running around in M2TW, 2handers tend to die rather easily. Plate armor made shields unnecessary, but you hardly see that in the game atm.

Swordsmen also have ridiculously high defense skills just by virtue of carrying swords: 8 or 9 compared to 4 or 5 for most infantry (and 1 or 3 for anyone carrying a spear). All this generally means that earlier units are better protected in melee than later, more heavily armored units, by an enormous margin, great enough that even when the AP is factored in, DFK are actually still slightly better protected than DGK (and actually, vanilla DGK don't have AP at all). So far the shield bug has kept sword and board men from showing their true potential, which leads me to wonder if they were given such high defense skill to compensate. Perhaps it's not necessary any more with the shield fix in place and they should be dropped back to 5 defense or something.

[Stlaind]

I'll agree with that, but there does need to be some balance.
Perhaps that S+S infantry should be cheaper/more available (numbers wise) than 2H?

Also, I do think that 2H could stand to have more Def skill, there seems to be this misconception that plate made the wearer unwieldy. However I've seen a video of a person wearing field plate and doing cartwheels (I'll have to see if I can find that later).

[econ21]

Again, I would start from the history. What were 2-handers used for? That will tell you how to model them in the game.

The basic Medieval two-handed weapon was a kind of polearm - the halberd, bill, poleaxe etc. These had a number of advantages compared to swords:

(1) better at penetrating armour (or concussing the armoured opponent)

(2) more reach, so functions almost like a spear against cavalry.

There are some differences between these 2-H weapons - the halberd and poleaxe are heavier and more AP than the bill; the halberd has more reach than the poleaxe etc. But these are nuances.

The primary disadvantage was that you don't get to use a shield, at least in melee (you could sling one on your back, I guess, and use it versus missiles like the MTW Varangians), although this was less of an issue when you have plate armour to fall back on.

I think MTW did a fair job of modelling these kind of weapons: higher base attack stat, AP, +3 attack/+1 defence vs horses, and (for non-two handers) a shield bonus that disappeared as the base armour got more advanced.

I think they should start to replace sword and shield men towards the middle of the game. The S&S should become obsolete. Early two handers - like halberd militia - should suffer a little due to their lack of armour. I'd see them as "flankers" or cav killers (not cav stoppers). But the later two handers, like DEK, should basically replace the armoured swordsman type as they did historically.

Having dealt with pole-arms and the standard S&S unit, there are a few more "novelty" units to consider - specifically, the two-handed sword (Zweihander etc) and the sword/buckler men.

The 2-H sword probably should be AP, just to reflect is weight and bludgeoning power, but unlike a polearm has no particular advantage against cavalry. It should have a high attack, but low defence - making it the archetypal flanker sort of unit. Again, I think MTW did a good job modelling this. It should be lethal against the flanks of pikes etc, but I would not see it necessarily besting comparable S&S units. I'd see that more as a fair match-up: high offence vs high defence. The 2-H sword was a bit of a rarity, mainly introduced as a novelty to counter pikes.

The sword/buckler were another counter-pike novelty. I don't see them doing well against plate armoured men-at-arms (no AP). Historically, they were not a sure kill against pikes either. I'd probably let the outcome be decided by troop quality. I suspect the best pikemen (the Swiss) beat sword and buckler men more often than they lost, but I'll leave that to the historians to confirm or refute.

But 2-H swords and sword/buckler were much more niche weapons than polearms, which had become the man-at-arms weapon of choice for fighting on foot by the end of the period.

[zverzver]

My 2 cents.

1. All 2 handers should be AP (I think they are)

2. VS Hevay Infantry. From what i read on military history 2- handed fighting is a representative of individualistic warior cultures (e.g. Gaul in Cesars time). 2 - handers were usually the elite, fierce, brave and individualistic warriors. Thay won most of their fights against other infantrybecause their enemy would simply run away rather than face elite of the enemy forces. Unless they were highly disciplined (e.g. Cesars legions in Gaul) and would be ready to slug it out with stroung and terrefying but undisciplined and individualistic enemy. So my proposal is to raise 2H charge value to somethink like 5 or 6 (cavalry charge is much stronger because of the weight of the horse) and give them a morale penalty to nearby enemies, but slower and smaller attack values than heavy infantry and much smaller defence values. The outcome of 2H Vs HI engagement should depend on morale more than anythink else. If heavy infantry can stand the poverfull charge and morale penalty it should then slowly but without much further loss cut down the 2Hs. If HI has low morale it should rout right after the 2H charge, if there is no proper charge or 2H are charged themselves they are quickly cut down. Not all 2H should have high morale themselvs, so if bill milita performs a charge but is not able to break the enemy it should rout almost imediatly.

3. VS Horses. Cavalry charge is much stronger than 2H charge due to the weight of their horse (+ horse armour) so a cav charge should inflict heavy loss on any 2H although smaller loss than shild and sword unit would sustain. After the charge is over or if their was no charge all benefits should be on the side of 2H as they have higher reach, AP, better balance and leverage than a horsman with a sword and shield. Plus a knight on his horse presents a bigger target. So in case of 2H Vs Cavalry the situation is reverced, if 2H can survive a charge it should overcome cavalry with no big problem but the cances of surviving a charge should be low.

4. So this would be my example of Dismonted feodal knight and a comparable 2H unit.
DFK 2H
Attack 13 8
Charge 3 6
Defence A/D/S 7/8/6 6/6/0
Morale: 9 6
Tranining: trained trained
Discipline: disciplined undisciplined
Bonuses: - AP, Bonus VS Cav +8, weak vs Arrows, Cause fear morale -2
Cost/Upkeep 570/225 480/150

Well this is my 2 cents.

[Carl]

@zervrzer: This was true in Roman Times, but not late Medievil Times. 2-Handers won then through sheer discapline, better equipment, and better training. A Halberd/Bill/Polearm in general could be used to entangle a sword or sheild and shove the swordsman off balance, leaving them open to a killing blow.



For me History dosen't really matter. Thats why I have few issues with such well defended S&S units, it might not be 100% realistic, but it does create a use for the Late era S&S units, (better against Missiles, Pikes and Light/Medium Cav).

[Jambo]

Others (Jambo for example), feel that any infantry unit of similar Price should beat them.

I didn't actually say that and you must have misinterpreted something I've said. I believe that 2-handed should be beating S&S but where you might have misunderstood me is I think the margin of victory should be closer than some here, i.e. something like just under half of the 2-handed unit remaining.

This is more complicated because the DFKs are really good for their time period and continue to be decent for the entire game. They aren't much different from the later S&S infantry that essentially replace them, and I think the later S&S infantry should be closer to the 2-handed.