Spear wall..where's the negatives?

[Poacher886]

So ive kicked off a campaign as Milan, and looking through the unit stats ive noticed some issues...

*Spear wall: Why would you use any other formation, it gives massive attack bonus??? and massive defensive bonus, massive missile block bonus, and cavalry. There are simply no negatives!!!!
A spear wall is a purely defensive formation, used typically against Cavalry and/or missiles, it is next to useless for any attacking due to the space constriction between men, you simply dont have the movement of body to thrust effectively or with speed and agility, without breaking the formation. This is especially so with hand (non spear weapons) yet we still get an attack bonus for these!!!.
Shield bonus yes. Defensive bonus yes. Mass and Cav bonus yes. And nothing else.

*Mace wielding infantry: So irrespective of whether they are light/medium or Heavy infantry, if they wield a mace they should have armour piercing damage! currently they have "low armour piercing damage", which is even worse. The mace as we know was adopted more and more as armour gained in its effectiveness, culminating in becoming the hand weapon of choice in the late medieval period (pole arms not being a single hand weapon), i would suggest its effect on armour should be represented as this was its only real benefit as a weapon, with lack of skill required being the other.

Looking forward to the latest patch when it arrives....how's the Naval situation coming along??

[You_Guess_Who]

1. The concept behind it is that in order to emphasize the characteristics of spear. THE main weapon of most civilisations over 1h weapons, with range effect as its main advantage both in attack and defense. But how to depict it in-game? Should it be a good end-all weapon superior to anything? Of course not. How to depict range? There is range stat in melee weapon, but it only applies if the unit uses pikewall behaviour; and 2m reach doesn't show any effect, it has to be at least 2,5m long so 2 ranks can engage at once. So, the action taken is making spear-using unit rather mediocre but turns excellent when they can put their spears in formation compared to 1h-shield melee unit. Thus, giving the incentive for players to use spearwall at all times as possible.

I agree there is a problem where (i) it is not possible to charge in spear or pikewall; and (ii) the AI only use spearwall when charged (they use pikewall all the time, in contradiction) and (iii) it is way too good. Been testing on giving spearwall formation the pike wall behaviour - it works, but it brought its own balancing problems with it. There is a first strike stat, but not used even AFAIK in Warhammer; using it need careful testing.

2. Do you refer to units expressly named as Mace-armed ore historically use maces as one of possible variety of weapon shown in the hand of the unit? If former, can you point out for me which unit it is, so I can check and give some adjustments? If latter, it is because the other men carries other weapons. For 1 handed weapons we have bladed-only, mixed, and mace-or-hammer only in the database tables. In general the percentage of AP for the total melee damage isn't very high if we talk in game crunch because small difference of for example 5 points can have significant difference in battle effectiveness. Overall most weapon are so in exception of 2h weapons.

3. No meaningful progress (said by me, the dev responsible for Naval) - T1 placeholders may come in the update after this one.

[Poacher886]

Hi,
1. I understand what your trying to achieve, though worth remembering, that a spear employed with a full size shield is held in one hand, which will need to be held at centre, which reduced by half any distance advantage, also consider a spear thrust blocked leaves a spear man in a more vulnerable position to counter strike..after all, if spears were superior to all, then nothing (literally no other weapon would have been used) throughout the ages classical to early modern. The problem with the status quo, is we have a magic button that renders the spear unit dam near unapproachable due to the significant bonuses with only movement speed reduced as any negative...but if your attack/defence and missile block are so improved, who cares about movement speed!.

A compromise would be to reduce the damage a spear produces. A thrust from a spear into either thick padded leather and especially armour, actually does not penetrate that well and produces a small hole at best, this has been shown numerous times into gel with certain armours of the day. The damage caused is no where near that of a sword slash, certainly not an axe blow, and does not have the bone breaking bludgeoning of a mace. Thus the spear could keep its property as a weapon, but not become a mincing machine that never was. Also, ive never seen any units in 1212ad that actually have pikes??, perhaps in the later tiers which are not available?

2. Yes i was referring to units, both light and medium that ACTUALLY were carrying a mix of maces/Axes but listed as having 'low armour penetration' when i would expect the opposite regardless of the quality of troop wielding it.

3. Thats a shame, really missing the naval aspect, especially as i heard there were new models being created to suit the time period...whats the hold up on progression, is it a time thing, or something physically stopping you?

[KAM 2150]

Just to clarify few things, you dont hold spear in the middle when using with shield, rather further down, what you meant was probably overarm grip in which case it would be more valid. Range advantage and easier way support others was also a benefit even if you missed the hit. Also if you missed, you still had a reach advantage to have time to cover behind your shield.

Spear and overall polearms were the main weapons, swords and axes are sidearms. Even going into Samurai Japan, yari and bows were main weapons while katanas were sidearms.

Spear thrust is a lot more dangerous than sword slash. If we talk about armour, spear is the best weapon you can have against it, especially if you read melee accounts of knights and others. Sword slash to armour deal no wounds as slash is unable to cut through armour. For slash to deal any damage you need to hit unprotected part of the body but even that can cause less injuries than spear thrust as thrusts, including sword thrusts deal deep wounds while slash might not do enough. While using a sword, half-swording or thrusts would be prefered method to deal with armour.

[KAM 2150]

Just to clarify few things, you dont hold spear in the middle when using with shield, rather further down, what you meant was probably overarm grip in which case it would be more valid. Range advantage and easier way support others was also a benefit even if you missed the hit. Also if you missed, you still had a reach advantage to have time to cover behind your shield.

Spear and overall polearms were the main weapons, swords and axes are sidearms. Even going into Samurai Japan, yari and bows were main weapons while katanas were sidearms.

Spear thrust is a lot more dangerous than sword slash. If we talk about armour, spear is the best weapon you can have against it, especially if you read melee accounts of knights and others. Sword slash to armour deal no wounds as slash is unable to cut through armour. For slash to deal any damage you need to hit unprotected part of the body but even that can cause less injuries than spear thrust as thrusts, including sword thrusts deal deep wounds while slash might not do enough. While using a sword, half-swording or thrusts would be prefered method to deal with armour.

For point 2. you are probably refering to text entry in unit description, in which case it does nothing as that is just text entry. Only units stats matter.


EDIT: Weird, after I editted first post, it posted it again instead. Please remove first one.

[Poacher886]

Just to clarify few things, you dont hold spear in the middle when using with shield, rather further down, what you meant was probably overarm grip in which case it would be more valid. Range advantage and easier way support others was also a benefit even if you missed the hit. Also if you missed, you still had a reach advantage to have time to cover behind your shield.

Spear and overall polearms were the main weapons, swords and axes are sidearms. Even going into Samurai Japan, yari and bows were main weapons while katanas were sidearms.

Spear thrust is a lot more dangerous than sword slash. If we talk about armour, spear is the best weapon you can have against it, especially if you read melee accounts of knights and others. Sword slash to armour deal no wounds as slash is unable to cut through armour. For slash to deal any damage you need to hit unprotected part of the body but even that can cause less injuries than spear thrust as thrusts, including sword thrusts deal deep wounds while slash might not do enough. While using a sword, half-swording or thrusts would be prefered method to deal with armour.

For point 2. you are probably refering to text entry in unit description, in which case it does nothing as that is just text entry. Only units stats matter.


EDIT: Weird, after I editted first post, it posted it again instead. Please remove first one.

Hi, Yes i didn't mean you grasp the spear at exactly the halfway point, clearly the weighted front would need compensation (i was being lazy!), but you get what i mean. A spear wielded in both hands could take full advantage of its length, but held one handed reduces significantly it range, not to mention, if you look at a regular arming sword, there no short thing!!

I also agree that a sword 'slash' against metal/thick leather armour had little effect (more bludgeoning than anything else), which is why pole arms / maces were used in later times. But a sword is a more manoeuvrable weapon than a spear and is harder/less predictable to block against due to the various attacking moves it can perform, its also an easier weapon than a spear to block and defend with, due to the same. A spear only really has a single rather predictable method of attack....thrust; it is also near impossible to block with and thus relies entirely on its range and a tight defensive formation to do so..hence the spear/shield walls.

Really to summarise, i would suggest. Spears should have less attack, reasonable defence (when in open formation), but very good defence when in wall formation.

[You_Guess_Who]

Thank you KAM. Now, adding on top of what has been said:

1. Do not confuse melee damage with melee attack. Melee damage is the damage inflicted IF it hits, melee attack is the skill of the unit in landing hits. As of now Spears have high AP (but not as high as polearms), lower melee attack compared to melee unit, and higher melee defense in comparison; all per design. The question is rather the balance of the Spearwall stats bonus effectiveness

[KAM 2150]

Also one thing to add, game engine wise, units in shieldwalls perform worse than exact same units out of shieldwall, which might require a bit more stat buffs to compensate for it. This is due to how game treats attacks as soldiers in formation often do not initiate own attacks, hence why without buffs, exact same unit without formation will beat unit in formation.

[zsimmortal]

Hi, Yes i didn't mean you grasp the spear at exactly the halfway point, clearly the weighted front would need compensation (i was being lazy!), but you get what i mean. A spear wielded in both hands could take full advantage of its length, but held one handed reduces significantly it range, not to mention, if you look at a regular arming sword, there no short thing!!

I also agree that a sword 'slash' against metal/thick leather armour had little effect (more bludgeoning than anything else), which is why pole arms / maces were used in later times. But a sword is a more manoeuvrable weapon than a spear and is harder/less predictable to block against due to the various attacking moves it can perform, its also an easier weapon than a spear to block and defend with, due to the same. A spear only really has a single rather predictable method of attack....thrust; it is also near impossible to block with and thus relies entirely on its range and a tight defensive formation to do so..hence the spear/shield walls.

Really to summarise, i would suggest. Spears should have less attack, reasonable defence (when in open formation), but very good defence when in wall formation.

A spear always had the advantage against sidearms, because it has range. Unless you can cleanly get beyond the spear tip, you're in a situation where the spearman can hurt you but you can't hurt him. But even then, you're disregarding the fact that a unit with sidearms is also charging a unit of spearmen. Since all the spearmen support each other, it's like attacking a wall of spikes, and someone with a sidearm is unlikely to be able to close on such a formation without a great number of casulaties unless its cohesion is broken.

[Poacher886]

Thank you KAM. Now, adding on top of what has been said:

1. Do not confuse melee damage with melee attack. Melee damage is the damage inflicted IF it hits, melee attack is the skill of the unit in landing hits. As of now Spears have high AP (but not as high as polearms), lower melee attack compared to melee unit, and higher melee defense in comparison; all per design. The question is rather the balance of the Spearwall stats bonus effectiveness

Yes, i understand the differences in-game between attack and damage, indeed, as you currently have it is basically as i suggest, but i disagree against 'Attack bonuses' from Shield/spear wall formations,,,only defensive bonuses.

Also one thing to add, game engine wise, units in shieldwalls perform worse than exact same units out of shieldwall, which might require a bit more stat buffs to compensate for it. This is due to how game treats attacks as soldiers in formation often do not initiate own attacks, hence why without buffs, exact same unit without formation will beat unit in formation.

Wasn't aware of this....

A spear always had the advantage against sidearms, because it has range. Unless you can cleanly get beyond the spear tip, you're in a situation where the spearman can hurt you but you can't hurt him. But even then, you're disregarding the fact that a unit with sidearms is also charging a unit of spearmen. Since all the spearmen support each other, it's like attacking a wall of spikes, and someone with a sidearm is unlikely to be able to close on such a formation without a great number of casulaties unless its cohesion is broken.

There's no guarantee of a charge committed against spears indeed foolish tactic i would suggest, the Romans weren't known for it and their short Gladius proved very effective against mostly spear armed enemy. A spear held in one hand, does have a slight reach advantage versus a typical Arming sword, though, as mentioned a spear when used with shield is very restricted in its movement, basically thrust is its only form of attack, with little to no way of defence (due to its unwieldy length and lack of manoeuvrability), thus against a fast skilled swordsman who can both block effectively and attack from all directions, both thrust and slash, i would question a spearman's ability to defend well outside of a close knit well drilled formation.

[zsimmortal]

There's no guarantee of a charge committed against spears indeed foolish tactic i would suggest, the Romans weren't known for it and their short Gladius proved very effective against mostly spear armed enemy. A spear held in one hand, does have a slight reach advantage versus a typical Arming sword, though, as mentioned a spear when used with shield is very restricted in its movement, basically thrust is its only form of attack, with little to no way of defence (due to its unwieldy length and lack of manoeuvrability), thus against a fast skilled swordsman who can both block effectively and attack from all directions, both thrust and slash, i would question a spearman's ability to defend well outside of a close knit well drilled formation.

You're mixing apples with oranges. The Roman efficiency didn't come from using the gladius specifically, but rather the fact it had a standing force of professionals who were well-trained and drilled to work as a unit. They also did not just have a gladius, but also a large shield (which also limited their ability to wield their sword like one would in a sword and buckler style) and pila, and were using it as part of a specific formation with its own tactics. Mind you, that's only for one part of the Roman empire, since the gladius was eventually replaced with a thrusting spear.

You're arguing on the basis of largely inapplicable situations since the basic premise of your argument is that melee units should win against spear units because the swordman can win if he gets in close combat with a single spearman, ignoring essentially any kind of organized fighting. Beyond that, that's also based on the idea that a swordsman is automatically superior to a spearman even when there is distance between them when that's the entire advantage of the spear to begin with. This isn't LARPing, it's actual war, and the historical documentation does not point to sidearm-equipped infantry being some kind of prime soldier in the medieval battlefield, rather they did not exist except for some exceptional cases. Polearms (of all kinds) or missile weapons were almost always the main weapon of any soldier, and it's very easy to understand why.

[Poacher886]

You're mixing apples with oranges. The Roman efficiency didn't come from using the gladius specifically, but rather the fact it had a standing force of professionals who were well-trained and drilled to work as a unit. They also did not just have a gladius, but also a large shield (which also limited their ability to wield their sword like one would in a sword and buckler style) and pila, and were using it as part of a specific formation with its own tactics. Mind you, that's only for one part of the Roman empire, since the gladius was eventually replaced with a thrusting spear.

You're arguing on the basis of largely inapplicable situations since the basic premise of your argument is that melee units should win against spear units because the swordman can win if he gets in close combat with a single spearman, ignoring essentially any kind of organized fighting. Beyond that, that's also based on the idea that a swordsman is automatically superior to a spearman even when there is distance between them when that's the entire advantage of the spear to begin with. This isn't LARPing, it's actual war, and the historical documentation does not point to sidearm-equipped infantry being some kind of prime soldier in the medieval battlefield, rather they did not exist except for some exceptional cases. Polearms (of all kinds) or missile weapons were almost always the main weapon of any soldier, and it's very easy to understand why.

Im not mixing apples with oranges. Im mixing a soldier carrying a spear in one hand and a shield in the other, with a soldier who carries a sword in one hand and shield in the other, The Roman soldier with Gladius is the perfect example as the Gladius is also a very short sword emphasising my point.

The Roman efficiency 'did' come from using the Gladius, it was adopted after their original spear formations were broken by enemy wielding such weapons, it allowed for manoeuvrability while their tight formation attacks hemmed in the enemy's ability to counter..due to the very point im making which is the spears lack of flexibility. The Romans did not replace the Gladius with the spear, it replaced it with the Spatha (another sword of celtic design). The spear only came back into use much later, well after the Romans hey-day, due to its ease of manufacture and relative ease of use, by a now far from as well drilled army.

To suggest it was mostly down to the Romans professional standing army is a mute point...are you suggesting the Greeks were not!

Im not presuming the swordsman to be a better skilled fighter than his spear wielding counterpart at all; what i said, is the swordsman has more options in both attack and defence. Try holding a spear in one hand and see how easy it is to do anything other than thrust forward. Its a simple predicable movement and does not allow for much in the way of counter attack. The sword armed soldier can come form all angles.

As for pole-arms, i never compared them, held with two hands, they can make use of their full length and are an entirely different subject all together.

Again, Spear/shield armed soldiers have good defensive ability when in formation, but this should not apply to attack imo.

[Mugen234]

What if Spears in Shield Wall maintained a 10-15 attack damage boost but get a -5 Attack vs Infantry to counter the Attack damage?

[zsimmortal]

what i said, is the swordsman has more options in both attack and defence. Try holding a spear in one hand and see how easy it is to do anything other than thrust forward. Its a simple predicable movement and does not allow for much in the way of counter attack. The sword armed soldier can come form all angles.

He might have more options if it was a 1v1, but you're having 2 units of hundreds of soldiers. He's surrounded by other soldiers and facing a wall of spears and shields. Unless he gets past the tip of the spears and the spearman behind the other guy can't hit him, he's absolutely at a severe disadvantage.

Once again, your reasoning revolves around duels when this is a battlefield with thousands of soldiers in formations.

[Mugen234]

Also here shows that the formation is definitely critical to the spear wielders, as when they weren't in formation the swords were easier to out maneuver and pick off the spears but in the shield form when they were tightly together it reduced the swords effectiveness of attacking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UybEdUDdxM