To those who say spears are imbalanced

**gran_guitarra** · 10-22-2007, 02:10

To those who say that spears are overpowered:

I have been checking the unit cards and it really depends on the type of sword and spear.

Short non-Ap swords tend to have a lethality between
0.1 and 0.12

Short spears tend to have a lethality between
0.11 and 0.13

Short AP swords tend to have a lethality between
.11 and .225 (Kind of a big hole wouldn't you say?)

Long Swords tend to have a lethality of around
.225

Long AP swords (two handed swords and Rhomphaia) tend to have a lethality of more than: .250

Pikes tend to have a lethality of between
.16 and .175

So in the end the spears are not as unbalanced as most would think and have been stating.

**PershsNhpios** · 10-22-2007, 03:48

I am of the opinion that the statement, 'Spears are imbalanced', and the other, 'Spears are unbalanced', are of two very different natures, attitudes and reasonings!!

Who's with me?!

**Sakkura** · 10-22-2007, 04:59

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

Short non-Ap swords tend to have a lethality between
0.1 and 0.12

The Roman legionaries have 0.13 lethality with their gladius. Goes for camillan, polybian, marian and augustan units alike.

**Laundreu** · 10-22-2007, 05:33

Spears are sometimes unbalanced and sometimes well-balanced.

See, some of them have buttspikes and some don't, and that is a big factor in how well balanced the weapon is~

**Watchman** · 10-22-2007, 07:44

That doesn't make much sense as a general statement. It's not like a butt-spike/counterweight was even remotely the only way to balance a spear, esle everyone'd have used the things.

**blank** · 10-22-2007, 12:08

Originally Posted by Watchman

That doesn't make much sense as a general statement. It's not like a butt-spike/counterweight was even remotely the only way to balance a spear, esle everyone'd have used the things.

I think he meant it as a joke...

To the OP, don't forget the penalty that spear units get against sword units

**Watchman** · 10-22-2007, 13:29

That penalty has nothing to do with swords or whatever else the other guys are armed with - it's just a categorical modifier for fighting infantry.

**HFox** · 10-22-2007, 15:08

As auntie Mable used to say.....it depends where you hold it....

**blank** · 10-22-2007, 16:32

Originally Posted by Watchman

That penalty has nothing to do with swords or whatever else the other guys are armed with - it's just a categorical modifier for fighting infantry.

well duh - when fighting against other spear units, the penalties balance each other out, thus me saying it only affects sword vs spear...

**Watchman** · 10-22-2007, 16:44

Right, but it's still a general penalty against infantry rather than a specific sort of infantry (ie. those with swords). Toss around unclear terminology about it and I'm willing to bet some money someone will sooner or later interpret it the exact wrong way and think we're back to those MTW "bonus fighting spearmen" days for sword units... which is not only incorrect, but quite possibly impossible with the RTW engine.

**blank** · 10-22-2007, 18:19

Originally Posted by Watchman

Right, but it's still a general penalty against infantry rather than a specific sort of infantry (ie. those with swords). Toss around unclear terminology about it and I'm willing to bet some money someone will sooner or later interpret it the exact wrong way and think we're back to those MTW "bonus fighting spearmen" days for sword units... which is not only incorrect, but quite possibly impossible with the RTW engine.

er... so? If the effects are the same either way, i quite honestly don't see what harm it can do to anybody

**Watchman** · 10-22-2007, 18:23

I for one don't think it desirable innocent people went around with the impression specifically swordsmen had an anti-spear bonus. And saying the penalty is "against swords" communicates exactly that fallacy... right ?

**blank** · 10-22-2007, 18:39

Originally Posted by Watchman

I for one don't think it desirable innocent people went around with the impression specifically swordsmen had an anti-spear bonus. And saying the penalty is "against swords" communicates exactly that fallacy... right ?

Originally Posted by ME

er... so? If the effects are the same either way, i quite honestly don't see what harm it can do to anybody

there is no difference.
Someone thinking that is, IMO, the least worrying aspect of the EB community

But that might just be me

**Watchman** · 10-22-2007, 19:13

A valid point, but given that such quite potential unnecessary confusion is easily avoided simply by using one different word...

**Ritterlichvon86** · 10-22-2007, 19:18

watchman is right, I just thought exactly the same thing after reading your statement and said to myself wow I didn't know that. I'm multitasking atm, so it took 10 seconds for me to remember that your statement is not just vague, it's simply wrong in words^^

Never mind though, we EB aces know what you meant to say and that that is right

**bovi** · 10-22-2007, 23:52

Originally Posted by blank

there is no difference.

There is a difference. Some units have other weapons than spears and swords, such as axemen and our dear apeleutheroi with clubs.

**Palasta** · 10-23-2007, 22:02

IMO spearunits are overpowered, as far as i expirienced it and at least my Principes are. Today i captured Gergovia. There was a Unit of Brihentin Cavalry in the settlement. Well, i sent my Principes (EXP 1, Camillian) into the fight against them and they took 'em down in an instant, so easily, with the loss of about 6-8 men. When they start to fight them the enemys unit was about 70-80 horsemen strong.

Are the stats acceptable like they are? I know spearunits have a bonus gainst cavalry, but it was so d*** easy, to easy if you ask me. I play this campaign VH/M. Before i started playing EB 1.0 i had a campaign running in 0.81 on VH/H. I often read the mod is adjusted to battles on M-level so i decided to try it out, but after this battle today, i feel a little bit unsettled. Well, maybe i better stick to VH/H.