Unit Speculation?

[General Malaise]

The only word I can find for the long spear is naga yari, and everywhere I look, the te-yari is a short hand-spear, 3-4 feet in length. I'm rather curious as to who says a te-yari is a long spear.

I already explained this. It is shorter than a typical yari yes, but it's still long enough that it's used with two hands. A "shortspear" generally refers to something wielded in one hand with a shield in my experience. There wasn't a better generic word I could find, but I suppose it should probably just be called yari samurai. I can see you really like to nitpick though, as I mentioned in the original my japanese was probably off but that the names weren't the point of the post anyway.

The nagamaki is a short pole with a sword blade, in essence, and the long pole makes it quite impossible to use it like a katana (which itself originated as a cavalry sword, with the tachi). The average tsuka of your average katana of Sengoku and earlier is about 8-9", meaning your hands will be pretty close to eachother. When tsuka start to reach lengths in excess of 12" (something we first see in Edo), it becomes awkward to keep the hands that close together. The nagamaki requires you to keep your hands quite far apart, so you can't use it the same way as a katana. Try chudan or jodan no kamae with katana and nagamaki, and then tell me the stances are similar.

This affects gameplay how? The only question in regards to gameplay is should the nagamaki function more like a longsword unit or a polearm unit and I'd argue for the former. Obviously your hands are farther apart as the shaft is longer but you still don't really slide your hands up and down the shaft when you wield it, and it's more considered a variation on the no-dachi than the naginata, hence it's odd you're calling it a "mounted naginata" below.

The reason the nagamaki is more a "horseman's naginata", though, is because the naginata is too long and unwieldy for mounted use. If you want to cut with it from horseback, the shaft has to be shortened. Also, the halberd is a polearm with an axe head, and the naginata handles nothing like it. The naginata is a glaive, the glaive being essentially a blade on a pole. The nagamaki is a hybrid, neither glaive nor sword, but tries to be both.

A naginata is almost identical to a guan do and other similar chinese polearms and they were occassionally used from horseback. The original game also had mounted naginata (although they probably should have been sohei). I know what the the things are, I don't need a history lesson the forum. Yet again, I'm more interested in balance, utility, and play of a unit than strict historicity anyway, although nothing I listed is really unhistorical, just either uncommon or simplified.

The problem here is to make different spear units distinguishable. The nagayari varied greatly in length, and which was better of longer vs. shorter nagayari never reached a proper consensus. Except we know that there was a difference. But how do we balance this out, not quite knowing the differences without hands-on experience?

Exactly what I was saying was that there really doesn't need to be more than two types of spearmen, nagayari (pikemen basically) and standard yari (spearmen). The fact there were dozens of different spear-length and spear-head combinations historically is irrelevant, and not just in in MP gameplay but in single player too. It's a strategy game not a historical larp so unless the designers can come up with a convincing mechanic for why a yari a foot longer than another one, or a yari with a prongs on the side and one without has some real effect, there's no reason to have it in game, particularly because you wouldn't get entire units of identical yari anyway. At best, it should just be something used graphically to differentiate the soldiers in a unit. If this mount and blade type game, I'd say yes, give us all different types of yari, but that's not what kind of game this is.