light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2

[Woreczko]

Because spears are uniquely well suited for anti-cavalry work, and the effects of the attributes reflect that ?
*shrug* Spearmen that failed to run away were grossly dangerous to cavalry. Fact of the world, even if their spears were just bayonets atop a musket (which it should be noted was not a very optimal configuration as a spear...).

Of course! But then, how often enemy infantry IN EB runs away BEFORE cavalry charge hits them? Not very often, eh? Such is the engine of RTW. With current state of affairs, it means, that you can stop enemy hetairoi with most feeble pantodapoi, beacause they will not run away in fear of being trampled. And in melee they have a good chance to prevail, due to spear bonuses combined with innate high attack value. The latter would be ok, if the former actually took place. Hell, in RL any stationary cavalry is as good as dead if mobbed by infantry, spears or not.

But in EB infantry won`t run before the charge and cavalry will fight it stationary. I`m just trying to do something about it :)

Also, without the compensation bonus units with either of the spear attributes grossly underperform against infantry - to recognise how grossly nonsensical this is, look no further than the Greek hoplites who for most of their history chiefly fought each other...

You are right. I`m not advocating spears to be made weaker (in fact I don`t expect EB team to work on EB I at all - better speed up the release of the second incarnation :) ). I just don`t like this attack bonus. It skewers autocalc and makes them unusually good vs units with high defense. Better increase thier lethality and, in case of hoplites, reduce radius (slightly, so they still need guard mode to fight in a "shieldwall") :)

Gee, no duh. Might have something to do with the fact that the usual lenght of a fighting-spear was 2-2.5 meters, which is obviously something you're not going to lug around unless you know you're going to need it.
Which rather obviously disqualifies it as an everyday self-protection tool in most contexts, though I'd point out over here long a popular peasant version was a skiing pole with a spearhead on top - I've heard such called "wolf-spears".

Worth noting, though, that foot travelers pretty universally had a fairly robust staff as a walking stick; the techniques used to fight with one are virtually identical to those used when wielding spears two-handed, and it is further worth mentioning that several accredited masters-at-arms such as George Silver thought very highly of it as a tool of "civilian" personal combat...
And you base this claim on what exactly ? Pikes, perhaps ?
From what I understand for example Homer has his heroes engage in their duels primarily with their spears, only resorting to swords when those are lost. Similarly, take the diverse highly warlike inhabitants of northern Europe in Ye Olden Times; while due to economic reasons proper swords were quite rare axes and war-clubs (which some Germanic warriors around Roman times at least seem to have been rather fond of) were ubiquitous enough. Yet despite that, and the fact the heavily forested and generally uncooperative terrain and small "skirmish" scale of most engagements commonly forced the warriors fight a whirling melee in open order (essentially a series of more-or-less duels en masse), spears were the favourite primary weapons by far...

But even Homer`s heroes carry swords into the duel! Because spears are to be thrown or broken or made useless by the closeness of the opponent. It`s not safe to rely on spear alone. That = malus to defense if unit is armed with spear only. Or is not really trained to use it`s secondary arm.

Howgh!