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.