Sword vs. Spear

[geala]

I concur with what was said before, esp. by the_handsome_viking. Only thing I would disagree is the lethality of spears in EB. I think it is just right and should not be increased. Fighting with spears in a firm order and using the usual shield and helmet resulted in astonishing few casualties (~ 5% perhaps). It is a bit like the 6000 rounds necessary to produce a casualty in modern wars; many warriors had not the time or nerve to exercise precise stabs. By far the most casualties were inflicted only after the break of formation.

[grudzio]

Thanks for the input. It is very helpfull.

[Jo the Greek]

Do you have played mtw? The spearunits there were great if they were more than 3 lines deep the front lines would fought together so some foramtions that were in hold the line formation could resist effectlivy the swordmen. It will be great if the same could happen here.

[grudzio]

Do you have played mtw? The spearunits there were great if they were more than 3 lines deep the front lines would fought together so some foramtions that were in hold the line formation could resist effectlivy the swordmen. It will be great if the same could happen here.

I have thought that mtw used scissor-paper-rock scheme with swords beating spears, spears beating cavalry and cavalry beating swords.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not exactly, heavy spears were acknoledged as sword stoppers that could hold long enough to allow flanking moves.

[Tristuskhan]

Do you have played mtw? The spearunits there were great if they were more than 3 lines deep the front lines would fought together so some foramtions that were in hold the line formation could resist effectlivy the swordmen. It will be great if the same could happen here.

Souvenirs, souvenirs.... Saracen infantery, stats so weak, but so solid when put on hold on a five-lines-deep formation. The core of my Turkish armies...

[The Internet]

I've always wandered if the depth of a formation actually matters, for example in shogun the depth of a formation dicatated how many archers would fire and in theory on the RTW engine, the depth of a formation like spearmen or swordsmen should affect how well they fight but it doesn't seem to so is there any reason for me to have my legionnaires in the normal square formation instead of the long rectangle (that is about 4 ranks deep) like the AI does?



I'm not new to RTW by any means but i've always wanted to know this from someone who knows the engine and stats really well.

[NeoSpartan]

Ok the unit formation and depth depend on what kind of fighting is going to happen. In a nutshell here is how it goes.

1st: When a shield wall, or phalanx, will be used to push through the enemy or hold ground.
-A deep formation is better than a thin one. This is because while the first 2 ranks (or 5 in the case of the phalangites) do the fighting the rest are "pushing". So the more men you have pushing, the heavier the weight being put on the enemy formation, thus the faster the enemy line will break. Besically due to weight of numbers.

2nd: When manouvering around:
-Then a square formation is better because it allows a unit of men to change directions quickly without disrupting the formation.

3rd: When trying to cover ground, and no plan for major manouvering:
-Then a regtangular formation is best, however you have to make sure the men are no too thinly strenched. Otherwise the lines will break soon after contact with the enemy. (read above at 1st)

See... you would not want to use deep formations when you should cover some ground. Nor would you want to use long regtangular formations when you will be have your men running around and flanking..... see where I am getting at.....

No one formation/weapon/armor/strategy is better than another one, it really depends on the context in which that formation/weapon/armor/strategy is going to be employed.

[The Internet]

Ok the unit formation and depth depend on what kind of fighting is going to happen. In a nutshell here is how it goes.

1st: When a shield wall, or phalanx, will be used to push through the enemy or hold ground.
-A deep formation is better than a thin one. This is because while the first 2 ranks (or 5 in the case of the phalangites) do the fighting the rest are "pushing". So the more men you have pushing, the heavier the weight being put on the enemy formation, thus the faster the enemy line will break. Besically due to weight of numbers.

The push thing i understand with spear units because they seem to push while swords don't seem to (not to the same degree spears do anyway) but does this apply to sword units in the same way? Would a unit of legionnaires do more damage and last the same amount of time in a longer formation? For example instead of a square formation as normal, would they do better in a rectangle formation with 7 or more men deep because they have more men in the front lines?)

[Ludens]

In S:TW and M:TW deep formations affected missile troop accuracy, but in R:TW it doesn't make a difference. In fact, as long as the front troops are in range, the rear troops will fire regardless of how far away they are. It's one of things that the old engine simulated better.

On the other hand, in M:TW it was best to put your sword infantry two ranks deep as to get maximum flanking bonus. In R:TW, and also EB, this tends to result in them losing formations and getting cut up. Deep formations give units somewhat more staying power, up to a point. However, soldiers don't gain a bonus for being in deep formations (like M:TW spearmen), and in one-on-one engagements a wide formation is less likely to have its flanks turned and more likely to turn the enemy flanks, so it's isn't a good idea to put all your units in deep formations.

Deep formations do have an advantage in manoevrability and hence endurance during marching.

[Swordmaster]

Does unit size matter in this regard? I play on normal and find that the default formations are somewhat too deep and get outflanked easily. I've always wondered if this is different on large or huge.