Suggestion for better 2hd-sword-balancing.

[notger]

In my opinion, units using two-handed-swords should get the armour-piercing ability.

1. Balancing reason: Without it, these units are useless; They are very expensive, come quite late (HRE: citadel baracks) and lose consistently to older castle units (Dismounted Imperial Knights, Dismounted Noble Knights (?)).

2. Physical reason: The armour-piercing ability is a matter of pressure. Pressure depends on the force and the area. The heavier and stiffer your weapon (assuming constant collision speed) and the smaller your area of impact, the higher your chance to penetrate the armor. In most cases, it is enough to make a deep dent in the armour because that hurts the wearer just as much as penetrating would hurt him. Twohanders are used as blunt weapons just like axes, they have the weight of axes (or more) and they can inflict serious damage on an armour. Therefore, they should be considered as armour-piercing.

Your feedback will be appreciated.

[Lusted]

I agree with you, 2 handed sword units are underpowered. Just ran some tests with them with the ap ability added and they now perform much better, but im also going to boost their attack by 2 as that should be the final adjustment needed to balance them.

[ENSAIS]

On the subject of balancing, AP, and 2 handed units...

I was wondering-- weren't billmen traditionally very potent against cav? I had thought the billhook was very effective for pulling riders out of saddles and dispatching with them. I was wondering if adding the anti-cav trait might mimik this historical proficiency?


On a side note. Lusted thanks mucho for your helpful PM. I now enjoy LTC2.0 with full barrack reskinned europeans. Very snazzy!

ENSAIS

[Lusted]

I was wondering-- weren't billmen traditionally very potent against cav? I had thought the billhook was very effective for pulling riders out of saddles and dispatching with them. I was wondering if adding the anti-cav trait might mimik this historical proficiency?

Historically yes, ingame they have a different use as shock troops. Adding the anit-cav trait will make them weak against other infantry, and they do not have a high enough defense to be any good against cavalry anyway. They will however rip through and cav which are standing still.

[notger]

Thank you for your answer and your consideration of my suggestion.
I will implement the 2pt-boost manually. Sounds like a good idea, especially since I am playing HRE right now.

[Lord_Calidor]

I dissagree with AP. Swords which can pierce armor (in that time, mostly plate & scale armor) came rather late, in form of rapiers and tappering swords, abt. late 16th century. Definitely not zweihanders - they were used as a counter-weapon for spearwall tactics with long pikes & halberds. Landsknechts & Doppelsoldner would charge in, break up pike formations and hack lightly armored pikemen & halberdiers to pieces. They were never intended to defeat heavy armor, but they were devastating to lightly armored troops.

My suggestion - increase attack value, let's say to 17-18ish, but leave out AP. Then, adjust def. value to make them balanced. But maybe as addition, add "scare infantry" flag (if such thing exists) or increase their morale.

However, historically they were usually very well armored, as they needed to be when facing long spears and halberds, and carrying no shields.

[DrJambo]

Yes I agree with the OP. Two-handed sword units are currently underpowered. They flop against the 2-handed axe (with ap) units and don't have a high enough attack to penetrate the good sword and shield troops (assuming the bugged shield bonus has been addressed in some way). In reality 2-handed swords were one of the most feared battlefield weapon in medieval times. Compared to the standard 1-handed broadsword, their sheer size and weight were more than capable of slicing through armour.

As to how to rebalance them - well one could either give them the ap attribute as suggested OR one could simply increase their attack strength by a substantial amount. Doing both might be excessive.

[Daovonnaex]

Historically yes, ingame they have a different use as shock troops. Adding the anit-cav trait will make them weak against other infantry, and they do not have a high enough defense to be any good against cavalry anyway. They will however rip through and cav which are standing still.

Why would adding an anti-cavalry trait make them weak against infantry? The Danes have two units which are both armor-piercing and anti-cavalry. Shouldn't billmen be the same? Historically the billhook was a terrible weapon which sliced through cavalry in and infantry alike. Hell, billmen were so effective that they were still used in Elizabethan times (in conjunction with longbowmen) when most other European powers were switching to pikemen and musketeers.

[Lusted]

Why would adding an anti-cavalry trait make them weak against infantry?

Because the spear_bonus gives a negative against infantry, so whilst it may boost billmen against cav, it amkes them weaker against infantry.

[DrJambo]

Is it "spear_bonus" or simply the "spear" attribute? I thought it was the latter.

[Lusted]

Is it "spear_bonus" or simply the "spear" attribute? I thought it was the latter.

Both i believe. Spear provides a bracing bonus against cav, and spear_bonus a bonus against cav. I think both also give negative effects in combat with melee infantry.