A question of two-handed infantry.

[Landwalker]

In light of the fact that I seem to always end up playing factions for whom two-handed infantry is a notable part (Varangian Guard and Alamanoi, Zweihanders and such, Gotland Footmen and Sami/Norse Axemen, etc.), I decided to investigate their utility by running some Custom Battle trials:

First: Dismounted Feudal Knights vs. Zweihanders. Essentially, the two were evenly matched.

Next: A comparison of DFKs vs. Armored Sergeants, and Zweihanders vs. Armored Sergeants. The DFKs were overwhelmingly superior, losing seven men and killing 123, while the Zweihanders lost about 25 and killed about 75.

Now, I acknowledge that the two-handed axe units may perform better, particularly against more heavily armored foes, but I can't imagine that the basic message here would really change: Namely, that anything you can use two-handed units for, a relatively equivalent sword-and-shield unit can do it better (and Dismounted Imperial Knights can probably do it even better than that).

With that in mind, I'm wondering what uses people are seeing in two-handed units? Why recruit them or use them at all? On top of their unflattering performance relative to one-handed infantry, they're arrow-bait due to their lack of shield. Presumably they do have their uses... but what are they?

N.B. Anybody that says they're anti-cavalry units on the basis of "Bonus Fighting vs. Cavalry" is going to get smacked. If they can't take a charge without getting annihilated to a man (and they can't), they aren't anti-cavalry anything, I don't care if they are decent at fighting already-engaged cavalry.

Cheers.

[delra]

Flanking.

[Landwalker]

That crossed my mind, but I question whether or not two-handed units are really more effective than one-handed units at it. Once they're engaged, they're in the same position as normal, and I'm uncertain whether or not they are really significantly more useful on the flanking charge. In fact, I have run some tests to see whether or not this is the case, it appears another case of "Anything Two-Handers can do, One-Handers can do as well or better."

Cheers.

[Stinkfloyd]

You should bring this up with Point Blank, I think he designed Real Combat which is where the units get their stats from. You do seem to be correct in saying that they don't really have a niche. Maybe increase their attack by a point or two. In my opinion, they should be able to deal a lot of damage quickly but be more vulnerable if left in battle for too long with no backup. Also increasing their initial charge damage might help a little.

[Captain Irish]

IMO, two-handed units are great for siege defense. I always keep a few garrisoned in key border provinces if I can.

Ideally, a few units of spearmen hold the walls and the rest guard chokepoints in the streets. My heavy 2-handers I station on either side of the gates and when the enemy breaks in they charge their flanks. They'll annhiliate lesser troops and at least thin the ranks of better soldiers.

Of course, this strategy is useless if elites come pouring in, as they'll eat the 2-handers for dinner.

[Fenix_120]

I know how you feel man, historically two handed weapons totally replaced most single handed weapons, and heavy plate armor was so damn tough that a shield would only get in the way of the user(but notice the Gothic knights still don't have as much defense as other "less" powerful knights)


What I would do is...


Make the two handed units have less men and give them more than one hit point, give them more attack, moral, and defense.

Historically soldiers who wielded two handed weapons were backed up by other troops but they always lead the charge, they were much better trained and paid than other soldiers, and you had to be very strong to use a two handed axe or sword effectively(let alone complete the training) so they would naturally be beefier than your average soldier.

Make them more of a shock trooper than a foot soldier.

This would also keep people from spamming armies of Gothic Knights as this would result in your forces being flanked.

My two cents.

[Oberhut]

Historically soldiers who wielded two handed weapons were backed up by other troops but they always lead the charge, they were much better trained and paid than other soldiers, and you had to be very strong to use a two handed axe or sword effectively(let alone complete the training) so they would naturally be beefier than your average soldier.

This shows that you have never wielded a realistic ( reproduction of a ) medieval two handed weapon.
A two handed sword of the 16th century weighs in at about 3,5 kg max.

[Victus Sagrada]

As delra said so "eloquently" above, Flanking.

Two handed infantry I use for flanking and attacking already engaged enemies. I also tend to use them to "roll up" the enemies lines. As in I set up a couple on the ends of my flanks, kind of separate from the main body and have them attack the backs and rout the infantry (then proceed to the next down the line) while the light horse men chase the routers/missile units.

Any other strategies with them would be most helpful, b/c who doesn't like huge weapons? ;D

my 2 cents,

[Landwalker]

As delra said so "eloquently" above, Flanking.

Like I said, I have actually tested the utility of two-handers in a flanking role, and they have not proven to be any better suited to it than their one-hander counterparts (Zweihanders and Dismounted Feudal Knights as a non-AP example, Norse Axemen and Huscarls as an AP example). Equivalent one-handed units are just as good (or so nearly so that it makes little difference) on the charge, but they go down much more slowly and, to top it off, won't get chewed up by enemy crossbowmen while they're maneuvering into a flanking position (not that the two-handers would come out on top in this comparison even when not subject to missile file).

Taking Captain Irish's example of flanking in a city...

this strategy is useless if elites come pouring in, as they'll eat the 2-handers for dinner.

... whereas a shield-and-weapon infantry unit would have some degree of staying power even against the elites.

There really seems to be no niche for them. I had thought that, perhaps, they would fair better against spear-armed infantry than sword-and-shield infantry, but that is not the case.

In a last-ditch effort to find something for them to be doing, I decided to throw them up against pikemen and see how they compared to sword-and-shielders in the same role. The results: There is still virtually no difference in relative performance.

Cheers.

[shubumpkin]

I have noted this aswell.

Their attack value needs to be increased at least 2 points per unit, perhaps even 3 for the top tier units (i.e. dismounted gothic knights), and their price increased accordingly so that they truly become the elite murder weapons they are supposed to be and carve a swathe through ranks of enemy infantry. Their increased points cost would means they would be used more tactically, so as not to squander the investment to missile fire or foolish positioning. This would differentiate them from bog standard 1H knights.

It's a shame that they offer no real value when compared to 1H units, as many of the interesting unique units in the game wield 2H weapons, so aesthetically/historically you would want to use them, but in practice DFK are more efficient alternative (and overused as a result).

[republic_bohemia]

Two handed infantry were used against another infantry,because there big massive weapon would knock down the opponent or crack the armor as far as I know of.

[Vasquez]

I thought 2-Handers are really just armor killers and pike breakers. Any anti cav bonus is the stuff of Braveheart fantasy. If anything give them a bonus when wall storming, they should perform well as shock troops.

[Sarpedon]

This has been on my mind a lot too LW. I think the most frustrating thing in the game is watching my Templar Zweihanders being evenly matched against dismounted sipahis just because of a shield for spearmen, they should be cleaving skulls left and right. But it comes down to a stick beating a massive metal blade, preposterous. The 2 hander units have such potential...

Good tips on this thread though. I'll put them into action.

[aduellist]

Zweihanders are more of a fantasy unit than an actuality on the medieval battlefield. If you look at the development of the sword over the period, you see a definite trend. As armor thickens, the sword shortens somewhat, blade taper increases (which reduces cutting power) and ends in a strong diamond cross-section thrusting point. The warrior used the sword to punch through gaps in armor, not through armor itself. In fact, in the age of full plate, the sword is relegated to no more than a weapon of last resort.

If you equate the Zweihander to Swabian Swordsmen, remember that in MTW were strictly an early period unit. The weapon is still very effective against unarmored opponents and retains good effectiveness versus mail, due almost entirely to impact damage.

In the later period, one equates the Zweihander to the "Dopplesoldner" of the Landsknechts. The primary purpose of these men was to disrupt pike formations, the members of which would be at best lightly armored.

In short, outside the early period or very late period (when gunpowder decreased the utility and thus commonality of armor on the battlefield), the Zweihanders should be essentially useless except against pike formations, peasants, or militia units that were lightly armored.

[Landwalker]

Zweihanders are more of a fantasy unit than an actuality on the medieval battlefield. If you look at the development of the sword over the period, you see a definite trend. As armor thickens, the sword shortens somewhat, blade taper increases (which reduces cutting power) and ends in a strong diamond cross-section thrusting point. The warrior used the sword to punch through gaps in armor, not through armor itself. In fact, in the age of full plate, the sword is relegated to no more than a weapon of last resort.

If you equate the Zweihander to Swabian Swordsmen, remember that in MTW were strictly an early period unit. The weapon is still very effective against unarmored opponents and retains good effectiveness versus mail, due almost entirely to impact damage.

The problem with that in-game is that it isn't any more effective than a one-handed counterpart unit. Which does tend to nullify what niche it might conceivably have.

In the later period, one equates the Zweihander to the "Dopplesoldner" of the Landsknechts. The primary purpose of these men was to disrupt pike formations, the members of which would be at best lightly armored.

In short, outside the early period or very late period (when gunpowder decreased the utility and thus commonality of armor on the battlefield), the Zweihanders should be essentially useless except against pike formations, peasants, or militia units that were lightly armored.

And again, unfortunately, the zweihanders perform no better than einhanders (i.e. one-handers) against pikes. Against Spear Militia, they actually perform worse.

Cheers.

[aduellist]

The problem with that in-game is that it isn't any more effective than a one-handed counterpart unit. Which does tend to nullify what niche it might conceivably have.

Yup, which I think means it needs to be addressed by fiddling with attack values.

And again, unfortunately, the zweihanders perform no better than einhanders (i.e. one-handers) against pikes. Against Spear Militia, they actually perform worse.

Cheers.

Again agreed. Too bad there isn't a "bonus vs. pikes" or "bonus vs. unarmored". Makes it difficult to simulate the things the Zweihanders would be useful for.

Of course, that's why I don't delve into unit balancing. I think my brain would explode.

[Oberhut]

Zweihanders are more of a fantasy unit than an actuality on the medieval battlefield. If you look at the development of the sword over the period, you see a definite trend. As armor thickens, the sword shortens somewhat, blade taper increases (which reduces cutting power) and ends in a strong diamond cross-section thrusting point.

Or longer whith thicker cross sections - and therefore to be used with both hands.
In fact the two handed usage of swords came only into prominence in the late 13th century together with the usage of plates to reinforce mail.
The Long ( hand and a half later compound hilt ) Sword was the melee weapon of choice for most knights ( as a kind of an all round weapon ).

The warrior used the sword to punch through gaps in armor, not through armor itself.

Right - in this role half sworded ( gripped by the blade ) Longswords excel ( the tuck or estoc being the most extreme form of this ) as they allow for greater thrusting power and precision

In fact, in the age of full plate, the sword is relegated to no more than a weapon of last resort.

This is true for the typical one handed cut and thrust type - but much less so for Long/Great Swords.

Still 'true' ( in comparison to hand and a half ) two handed swords where propably not as common nor prominent on the battle field as the cheaper and IMHO more effective infanterie weapons ( bills, halberds, pole axes .. )

[Henry X]

Don't all infantry have two hands?

[Chim]

Don't all infantry have two hands?

Ahahaha XD

[Okocim]

I have to say that the main way I've used 2 hander units is flanking. One thing I like to do besides flanking is the following, and it's effective at times. I position 2(2hand) units behind archers, so when the archers fall back the enemy runs into a solid wall of 2 handers. In this situation just flank with whatever you got. This doesn't always work the way I want it to but I keep trying.