Getting Rid of Over-Arm Thrusts in RS II?

[danny117ca]

I've been playing RS II for weeks now--I absolutely move it. But there is just one thing that bothers me a lot: Spearmen using over-arm thrusts in combat.

A fine gentleman named Nikolas Lloyd made a wonderful video that explains exactly why he thinks nobody in history ever used over-arm thrusts during the whole battle. I can't really explain any better than he did, so I will just link it.



Taking into account these physical realities, I hardly doubt hoplites fought entire battles with spears overhead. Probably, they stabbed under-arm, like sensible individuals. Over-arm was probably used under very few circumstances.

Yes, I know they have pictures of hoplites with spear over-arm on Greek vases. I'll refer you to this video. Again he argues better than I can.



I'll admit that using over-arm grip is at least slightly defendable on the ground. But what really grates me is seeing the Tribunus Milli cavalry trying stab their enemies with an over-arm thrust. Has anyone on the team tried to stab down with an over-arm thrust to see if it was realistic? Sorry if that sounded harsh--I meant no malice or disrespect. Anyway, even without a spear, that motion is extremely taxing on the wrist--in fact, if you tried it in real life, you'd probably break your wrist if you hit the guy's shield. And then you'd get stabbed in the guts by a guy using his spear the correct way.

Is it possible to alter the animation on AT LEAST the cavalry in the next patch so that nobody is using over-arm thrusts?

Thank you, and I appreciate your work on the mod immensely.

[C-Rob]

I think the cavalry is annoying and that I like the infantry over arm hold because of what he said, it's more dramatic. It's a game. There is not parrying, there is no stabbing the guy two bodies down the formation so either hold works perfectly fine.

[Velico]

Right, first off I watched the videos with an open-interpretation. I tried researching this Nikolas Lloyd character to see what his credibility is for saying such things and couldn't find anything on him.

From what I know on the phalanx formation (which I admit is not extensive) is that the first row of the line connected shield and used an underarm stance. The second and third line would use an overarm stance so that they could not only protect the men in front, but also present more spear points towards the enemy. From what I gather, the overarm stance was used less for being the main point of attack in the formation, but as a defensive role with occasional offensive roles when called upon.

Also, he says in the first video that it, "spears were normally used, not exclusively used, underarm."

Personally, I don't think the request should be granted. Not because I don't agree with it, but because it is fairly minor and would take some time to readjust the animation for said (or multiple) unit(s).

[NightEye]

Doubt it'll happen anyway, with the team is busy with patch one and all. Besides, somebody can simply make a sub-mod of it, it's not that hard. All you have to do is change the animation type used in the DMB, RSII still has underarm spear animations you don't have to go and add a new animation for it.

[C.Maximus]

An interesting book I read The Western Way of War Infantry Battle in Classical Greece by Victor Davis states that the spears of the first row of toops usually broke on the impact of the charge. Hoplites didnt just stand there waiting for the attackers to come but marched at a steady spead then eventually charged at each other. The first line would smash their shields into the enemies shields and try to penetrate with the spear, but it usually broke inside your enemie's body or on his bronze, the 1st line would then move to the sword and rely on the cover of the 2nd line's spears, usually overhand.

[Hambi]

just from thinking fighting in such a row of hoplite or spearmen adversing the enemy, I would change the style of holding my spear, or at least fight differently than the man next to me, to be able to stab the enemy (who protects himself with a shield) from upside or underneath his shield... wouldnt you?

If all fighted with the spear only up or only down, the enemy could just hold the shield in one position, not having to move it, right?

anyways, thats just what I would order my men to do back then... man I wish I was there...
(-;

[Dull_Gladius]

just from thinking fighting in such a row of hoplite or spearmen adversing the enemy, I would change the style of holding my spear, or at least fight differently than the man next to me, to be able to stab the enemy (who protects himself with a shield) from upside or underneath his shield... wouldnt you?

If all fighted with the spear only up or only down, the enemy could just hold the shield in one position, not having to move it, right?

anyways, thats just what I would order my men to do back then... man I wish I was there...
(-;

Haha, yeah. We all aspire to be badass, battle-hardened centurions or a member of an elite hypaspist unit from the good old days. Somethin' tells me the brutality of that kind of close combat would shatter most people today, though .

[Hambi]

Haha, yeah. We all aspire to be badass, battle-hardened centurions or a member of an elite hypaspist unit from the good old days. Somethin' tells me the brutality of that kind of close combat would shatter most people today, though .

true that!

[Aristedes]

It seems logic to me that when you use a spear over arm you can put more power in your blow? Seen as most shield-spear combinations relied on one hand spear usage. You can try it for yourself. I did and my conclusion was that with one hand I could put more power in the over-arm than in the under-arm way.
As well as said before, in the midst of the battle most men would rely on their sword for man-to-man combat, as it's easier to use. And, yea, it's a game and it looks nicer with the over-arm way. Under-arm is dull on screen lol.

[Adam the VIth]

Haha, yeah. We all aspire to be badass, battle-hardened centurions or a member of an elite hypaspist unit from the good old days. Somethin' tells me the brutality of that kind of close combat would shatter most people today, though .

AMEN to that. I'd be the guy crapping my britches next to the heroes of the day.

[NerZhulen]

OMG I want hoplites riding dolphins !!

[chris10]

OMG I want hoplites riding dolphins !!

[DarthLazy]

People dont understand a thing such as too much work or engine limitations....

[C.Maximus]

I think overhand is accurate for a hoplite simply because how large the hoplon shield is. A Roman shield is tall and thin but a Hoplon shield is large and round. It would be heavy as hell too so the most comfortable position would be to rest it on your shoulder. If your shield is creating a wall of shields with your line then it only seems practical that overhand is the way to go. This time of close combat was tireing and it would result in a push contest I dont think there would be enough room to attack from underneith.

And to note on the idea of actually doing this in today... well I wouldn't mind if i was in one of the rear ranks doing the pushing! XD

[Dull_Gladius]

Question is, is such a small detail worth fixing? I don't know about everybody else but I rarely zoom in unless I send my general off to fight the enemy commander or something.

[DarthLazy]

Stirrups were not used by most of the cultures in this timeline, use a spear underhand is a quick way to fall off and get trampled.

[chaplain118]

cataphracts were historically depicted as using spears underhand, which brings us to a new point:

for LONG speared cavalry, yes, they should be using their spears underhand as those things were made of oak and ash so that they could withstand multiple charges without giving and turning itself into a pole vault for hurling the rider off.

For short speared cavalry like the Roman cavalries, it makes sense for the spear to be overhand. Why? Because the length of those spears lack the dampening effect a longer spear and it is much easier to unseat a rider holding a short spear than a long spear. As for the stabbing motion, it's an engine limitation, but the actual motion of an overhand spear animation on a horse would be akin to slamming your fist downward. This not only puts the greatest distance between rider and enemy but is also a natural movement which conserves more energy.

[Sandrus Castus]

http://romanarmy.net/hasta.htm



Now THAT's an article from someone who knows what he's talking about.

[Lou337]

http://romanarmy.net/hasta.htm



Now THAT's an article from someone who knows what he's talking about.

and most men seemed to prefer to be able to slide their hands up and down the shaft freely.

Yep, definitely learned something there.

[Chris Death]

The more i think about it the more i get the impression that cavalry when using short spears underhand
take a high risk of loosing their spear on the very first engage while when using overhand that risk
would be gone. Off course i'm talking in first case about cavalry versus infantry or versus other cavalry
with short spears - heavy cavalry with long spears should be avoided engaging from the frontside at all
but again when engaging them from any other side overhand would be more comfortable imho.

Just think of it you're riding as light cav with some speed and you push your short spear underhand into something - what will happen? How will you pull out that stick without breaking the stick or your arm? You will need a good Chiropractican
to get your shoulder back in while when you push your spear from above you can easily pull it out because it's some
kind of a circle move with your arm.

Sorry if this sounds a little bit confusing but i can't explain it better in english.

~S~ CD