Will sword-only units go away?

[Cheomesh]

It is to my understanding that never in medieval history did people fight with swords alone; typically they were a secondary weapon to a poleweapon of some kind - for cavalry often their mounted lances cut down.

So will these units be going away? I know secondary weapons exist in game (crossbowmen have them, after all), so perhaps follow this with melee units?

Or is there an engine problem? I never "made it to pike" in regular M2TW, but from what I've read here pike units would instantly switch to swords when engaged, completely invalidating the fact that they have pikes. Is this why sword units are still around?

M.

[Andytheplatypus]

It is to my understanding that never in medieval history did people fight with swords alone

Your understanding is wrong.

[Boleslaw I.]

Your understanding is wrong.

I don't think so. if you watch some medieval movies ( of good quality , not cheap " B " production st ) or check some old medieval paintings you'll see that in 90 % of battles infantry always have sword as secondary weapon ( except if they fight with two handed axe or two handed sword like scots )

[Andytheplatypus]

I don't think so. if you watch some medieval movies ( of good quality , not cheap " B " production st ) or check some old medieval paintings you'll see that in 90 % of battles infantry always have sword as secondary weapon ( except if they fight with two handed axe or two handed sword like scots )

Still wrong. And movies arent a reliable source for medieval history.

[Boleslaw I.]

Still wrong. And movies arent a reliable source for medieval history.

I didn't said they are but I doubt that medieval soldier ( professional ) fought only with a one sword

[Gnostiko]

I'll leave it for others to debate the historical accuracy of this thread, but to answer one of your questions; yes, the engine has a little (and by 'a little' I mean 'a lot') bit of trouble handling units with more than one 'primary' weapon e.g. spear and sword, pike and sword.

[Ferdiad]

If you've have never played with vanilla pikes you have no right to complain.

[SirRobin]

If you've have never played with vanilla pikes you have no right to complain.

He didn't complain about anything.


.

[0N3]

BC has people in the same unit with different weapons, but the weapons all function the same. So you can have twohandedswords and falxes together, but you can't have swords and spears together.

[SoulBlade]

I want heavy infantry with javelins just like Roman legionnaires! Plz plz plz plz
Or hybrid archers (medium infantry with bows) - these are my fav units.

[Lugiahua]

I want heavy infantry with javelins just like Roman legionnaires! Plz plz plz plz
Or hybrid archers (medium infantry with bows) - these are my fav units.

ever used Scot Guards before?

[ihranator]

Aren't norse archers and mourtatoi what you call hybrid archers? The other's a little better at melee, the other's a lot better at range.

[SirRobin]

Or is there an engine problem? I never "made it to pike" in regular M2TW, but from what I've read here pike units would instantly switch to swords when engaged, completely invalidating the fact that they have pikes. Is this why sword units are still around?

The problem with the pikes were that the pikemen dropped their pikes at a certain rainge, after which they switched to fighting with knives. That range was wrongly set to about the length of the pike, causing the units to drop the pike immediately when encountering the enemy.

If the "drop distance" could be adjusted, I think pikes could be fixed without removing their secondary weapon completely.


.

[Andytheplatypus]

Ok, what exactly do you think "professional" soldiers did? Switched weapons in the middle of a fight?

"Hey man hold on a second, I gotta switch my weapons."

The fact of the matter is swords were seen as a "noble" weapon, therefore it was used most commonly by those who could afford them. Yes, in the later medieval period other weapons became more common to try and defeat someone wearing plate armor. Swords were still the most common weapon besides spears/pikes (which were very cheap to produce)

Unlike in this game, swords can be effective against plate armor, you just have to go for the area that isnt covered.

[Prince Valiant]

Ok, what exactly do you think "professional" soldiers did? Switched weapons in the middle of a fight?

"Hey man hold on a second, I gotta switch my weapons."

The fact of the matter is swords were seen as a "noble" weapon, therefore it was used most commonly by those who could afford them. Yes, in the later medieval period other weapons became more common to try and defeat someone wearing plate armor. Swords were still the most common weapon besides spears/pikes (which were very cheap to produce)

Unlike in this game, swords can be effective against plate armor, you just have to go for the area that isnt covered.

Do soldiers today go in to action with only a pistol?
Same thing with swords, maces, daggers etc. It's a side arm. It was a side arm to spear, javelin, axe, polaxe...

[Andytheplatypus]

Do soldiers today go in to action with only a pistol?

Your right. What an excellent comparison between modern armies of today and medieval armies from 900-500 years ago.

Im not saying they only had 1 weapon on them, but to say that all units didnt use swords, for whatever reason, is just stupid.

Today's soldier also goes into combat armed with grenades and claymores, grenades launcher attached to their assault rifles, and still use the knife. Today's soldier is much different. I understand what you're saying, but today's soldier also doesn't have to pay for his own weaponry either. The differences are vast between then and now; even in this context. And the soldier is now armed in regards to his combat role; not social status.

That too

[Ferdiad]

No, I prefer "pure" longbowmen.

[Gogolometro]

Best thing to talk about is about uniformity. Swords are a noble status, better soldier, better sword, but, we all know swords was not so common, knights was not so common, and in fact, was nothing like companies sharing same equipment, armor and weapons. Was no noble with same armor, was no sword in line same like next like was in roman cohorts.
In fact, what I find almost amusing is to see 30 mans with same shield, same weapon, same buckler, same. The SS team had great effort to make the medieval game to be an remarcable experience. But if we close look at soldiers, commoners, peasents, mercenaries, man-at-arms or knights, will se they differ. A lot. Only at XVII century we talk about uniformisation. Will be extraordinary to see in same team axes, maces, war hammers and swords.
About secondary weapons, from pesante archers (exceptional unit), to acritae, I think we can easy say can be done, and sometime this must be the direction. A good halebard unit, is certain have a good quality close combat weapon too. A elite crossbowman of course have at least a hammer or a axe with him. We know a viking will come with a two handed axe, a sword and probably and bow too. Because is normal. Because was no standard at all. And about pure pike units, for me are understandable. They work great like a pike formation. That was their strenght. Break that line, go in close combat, and a mounted gotic knight will give you to horse feets to climb.

[Boleslaw I.]

Best thing to talk about is about uniformity. Swords are a noble status, better soldier, better sword, but, we all know swords was not so common, knights was not so common, and in fact, was nothing like companies sharing same equipment, armor and weapons. Was no noble with same armor, was no sword in line same like next like was in roman cohorts.
In fact, what I find almost amusing is to see 30 mans with same shield, same weapon, same buckler, same. The SS team had great effort to make the medieval game to be an remarcable experience. But if we close look at soldiers, commoners, peasents, mercenaries, man-at-arms or knights, will se they differ. A lot. Only at XVII century we talk about uniformisation. Will be extraordinary to see in same team axes, maces, war hammers and swords.
About secondary weapons, from pesante archers (exceptional unit), to acritae, I think we can easy say can be done, and sometime this must be the direction. A good halebard unit, is certain have a good quality close combat weapon too. A elite crossbowman of course have at least a hammer or a axe with him. We know a viking will come with a two handed axe, a sword and probably and bow too. Because is normal. Because was no standard at all. And about pure pike units, for me are understandable. They work great like a pike formation. That was their strenght. Break that line, go in close combat, and a mounted gotic knight will give you to horse feets to climb.

that's what I tried to say. nice job

[Forever Steadfast]

I think its rather biased to ever say anything definite - like infantry never used such a weapon or always used another weapon. Unless one can go back in time and confirm that the sword was almost always a secondary weapon, I wouldn't suggest getting rid of any sword-armed units. I think the issue settles with - as it was said before - the game doesn't do well handling two primary weapons. Its a nightmare switching from spear to sword and the game engine doesn't support things like primary weapons breaking (and therefore the soldier having to switch to a secondary). Even in Rome: TW, when mods allowed Hoplites to switch from spear to sword; you'd generally end up just using the sword and hardly ever the spear. It just isn't practical.