Sword vs. Spear

[grudzio]

I have read on this forum, that the units with a spear attribute have lesser attack against other infantry units. And I am wondering if is it really true. Were the spear armed units in disadvantage when fighting against non spear units?

[mcantu]

The most common description of the spear attribute is that it gives +4 vs cavalry an -4 vs infantry. It also gives a pushing affect that sometimes messes up the units. I have also seen it described as giving +8 vs cavalry.

The EDU says that this is supposed to be used for long spears only. I guess that the penalty vs infantry comes from long spears being unwieldy in close combat

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In reality? No, quite the reverse in many cases. The Romans were one of the few peoples to employ swords for their close order heavy infantry.

[mcantu]

In reality? No, quite the reverse in many cases. The Romans were one of the few peoples to employ swords for their close order heavy infantry.

Notice I said "long spears." I dont thing that would apply to the hasta...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't see your post before I hit reply.

In any case we are phasing it out as, well, silly.

[grudzio]

In reality? No, quite the reverse in many cases. The Romans were one of the few peoples to employ swords for their close order heavy infantry.

So, I understand that spear attribute bonuses are pure CA invention.

I suppose that in spear vs. non spear unit duel the bottom line is can the nonspear warriors get close enough to spearmen, to make their weapon ineffective. (Just like mcantu wrote).

[mcantu]

JeromeGrasdyke of CA said the following...

What bonuses do weapons have against other weapons, eg swords vs spears, long spears vs other spears

The spear bonusses are fed into the stats system in a couple of different ways, via the mounts bonusses (which are direct attack modifiers against units mounted on that particular mount type) and via the 'spear' weapon attribute. Units which are marked with spear gain a +4 combat bonus against cavalry and use the cavalry's charge bonus against them, while cavalry get a -4 attack penalty against them.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...6&postcount=19

[grudzio]

Thanks for the link.

[the_handsome_viking]

I have read on this forum, that the units with a spear attribute have lesser attack against other infantry units. And I am wondering if is it really true. Were the spear armed units in disadvantage when fighting against non spear units?

Depends on the situation really, in a one to one a spear typically was at a disadvantage against a sword because a swordsman simply had to get in close and open up his main array of attack moves.

In dense formation however the collective spear thrusts would have been something close to an ancient short range machine gun.

I've been thinking a lot about this recently in terms of spear shaft design and sword designs, a lot of it I'll admit is something close to experimental archeology but I think that the sheer nature of common sense and objective application of technology will pretty much milk equipment for all its worth in terms of possibilities.

A good spear in the hands of an extremely deadly opponent will typically take down anyone becausae of their range and efficiency, it's essentially a long range stabbing sword, but a swords advantage is really short range versitility, and if coupled with a good shield you have a very dangerous fighting unit.

Finally I would say that the spear in war is very much a defencive weapon, whereas the swords very nature is offensive, I personally think that in EB spears should be a bit better at taking down enemy units, but I also think that, especially in the case of Celtic swordsmen, that the sword moves should be a lot more elaborate, that the formations should be slightly looser and that they should attack faster than spears.

You can simply practice the actions of spear fighting yourself and see that the nature of spear combat is typically slower and demands more precision when compared to the chaotic and fast nature of sword combat, where you can literally swing in a figure of eight without much in the way of proper training and still have a high chance of hitting something.

The sword is a fast versitile and deadly weapon, the spear is a weapon of precision and range, both are super deadly when in the right hands, in dence formations though the spear usually outmatches the slashing sword, until the formation is broken, in which case the slashing sword rips up spear formations.

I hope this post was helpful.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In combat swordcraft is generally about low thrusts and brutal downwards hacks. The for elaborate forms and positions are for one-on-one dueling. A spear is also a much easier weapon to use effectively when twinned with a shield. A sword takes months or years to master.

Bladecraft became the reserve of the rich not just because of expense of the blade but also because of the time needed to learn to wield it.

[blitzkrieg80]

actually, it's all about the neck, imo... one good shot and you're done... it's a very efficient use of energy besides... the ancients knew this- therefore the spear is as described: superior in its longer range, quickness, and super cheap cost to produce, which would decide more battles than as portrayed by any RTS games... yet the spear is more unwieldy and can be broken quite easy or shocked/shivered, besides deflected because of leverage problems, which the sword does not have... of course, having both a sword and spear = the best possible combo

range is well acknowledged as the best resource of keeping the warrior alive, which is his primary purpose, so he can kill more of course, true warriors don't go for range beyond spearpoint... yet, no culture I know of neglects an advantageous war-element, no matter how cowardly it was viewed, since their enemy might use it to their disadvantage- case in point: Samurai and gunpowder, or Germanics and bowmen... the status of needing to train for a weapon cannot be overestimated either, the sword is not used for hunting, thus regardless of difficulty in production (material resource/man-power) the warrior aristocracy is defined by this and so it is better to them who wants to be compared to the ignorant rabble who win by probability and luck? damn gunpowder!!

[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.

[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.

[Charge]

Hi,guys.
What about axe vs sword?
+1 att. +1 ch. -1def.sk. +delay -cost?
(1handed axe)

[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?)

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Units last for the longest time in a square formation. A thin formation will be broken through in short time.

[NeoSpartan]

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?)

depends on who your fighting, the ground your in, the number of troops you have, etc...

Like Centurio Nixalsverdrus said, a thin formation will break faster than a thick formation (a square is fairly thick).
-But if your fighting levies then you don't really have to worry about your legionnaries being broken through in a thin regtangular formation. If your not fighting levies, or if your fighting uphill (as un ur bellow and the enemy is above) then a square or short regtangle would be best.

it is the same with sword troops, only that the 1st rank do the fighting. And if they are post-Marian legionnaires, in defensive battles, the 1st line changes every 8 or so minutes. (see the biggining of HBO's Rome, or Boudicca on the History Channel).

[The Internet]

Is there an actual animation for the post-marian legionnaires to change position during the fighting? I am aware that they did do it in real life but i've not reached that far in the game so i wouldn't know about that in EB.

[Foot]

No, that would be impossible to do.

Foot

[The Internet]

Ah, i thought as much.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

it is the same with sword troops, only that the 1st rank do the fighting. And if they are post-Marian legionnaires, in defensive battles, the 1st line changes every 8 or so minutes. (see the biggining of HBO's Rome, or Boudicca on the History Channel).

Actually, this isn't true, when fighting a Roman Legion is always either trying to move foward or retire and in every era the first two ranks would probably be constantly moving through each other, it goes like this.

1st. Rank step foward, shield punch, stab face, guard.

2nd. Rank step foward, shield punch, stab face, guard.

Etc.

The constant momentum means the enemy front line was always facing advancing men, in retreat it basically works backwards, except the shield punch still comes before the face stab.

It seems likely that a bogged down Roman line was probably in serious trouble, at which point they probably locked shields and formed a phalanx, it seems very unlikely they changed ranks every eight minute intervals. For one thing it's probably too long, at eight minutes the men would be beggining to tire and hence die, arbiturally timed chang overs would also mean that legionaries would be retreating from potentially undispatched opponents.

I'm very curious as to where you got that figure from. Bear in mind the Centurians don't have stopwatches.

[The Internet]

From what i've read, i have personally come to the belief that the lines were not constantly engaged as they are in RTW but infact fought in furious outbursts broken up with breaks because it was way to exhausting to fight for hours and hours. During these breaks is when i believe the changes happened because really, it would be much too complecated and dangerous to do in the midst of active battle and makes much more sense when taking into consideration the breaks in the middle of battle.


So while the scene in HBO's Rome where the whistle is sounded and the legions rotate the ranks does seem to be correct, the time it is used is wrong. just imagine them doing it during a lull in the fighting and at the same time, dressing the ranks and preparing once again for the clash.