What should the weapon types be and what strengths/weaknesses should they have?

[Yomamashouse]

In the total war games there have been a few basic weapon types:

-Heavy spears have improved attack vs cavalry but less against other infantry
-Light spears have improved defense vs cavalry but less defense against other infantry
-Swords don't have any special abilities (although in EB longswords have higher lethality)
-Axes and maces and 2H weapons typically have armour piercing

I am not an expert on ancient weaponry, so I am curious to see what the different weapon types should be coded into the game. Suppose you could pre-define weapons and give them to soldiers in export_descr_unit, rather than defining every single unit's weapon individually, what would these be?

I would have overhand spears, light underhand spear, heavy underhand spear, shortsword, longsword, mace/axe, sarissa, 2H sword, 2H axe, cavalry spear, lance.

I don't know a whole lot about their relative strengths so I don't want to comment on what their stats would be - I would just end up plagiarizing EB.

Any opinions from knowledgeable folks on this subject would be great!

(This is basically a remake of my previous post, without making the foolish error of bringing up armour. That never stays civil for long.)

[torongill]

Spears - increased range(meaning more than one rank can attack if in dense formation), bonus vs Cavalry. Weakness vs swords and chance of breaking. Can be used in all types of formation.
Short Swords - low range, bonus vs spears, low effectiveness vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking. Can be used in all types of formations, increased effectiveness in dense formations.
Long swords - medium range, bonus vs spears, slight weakness vs short swords. No bonus or weakness vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking Cannot be used in dense formations.
Pikes - Very long range, very good bonus vs cavalry, chariots and elephants . Useless against infantry unless in very dense formation. Chance of breaking.
Mace/Spike/Axe - medium range, slight bonus vs spears, slight weakness vs swords. No bonus or weakness vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking. Can be used in denser formations than long swords.
Two-handed swords - increased range, increased defense vs spears. Slight bonus vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking. Can be used in loose formations only. Decreased effectiveness vs dense formations.
Two-handed Axes/mace - increased range. Slight bonus vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking(but higher than swords or 2h swords). Can be used in loose formations only. Slightly decreased effectiveness vs dense formations.

Piercing type of weapon - more rapid attack and increased penetration vs leather armor and mail armor. decreased effectiveness vs plate armor.
Slashing type of weapon - slower attack. Increased penetration and lethality vs naked units, light and leather armor. Quite ineffective against plate armor. Chance of blunt damage.
Blunt type of weapon - slower attack. Increased penetration vs armor and increased chance of blunt damage. Lower accuracy. Increased tiring of the unit.

Should we discuss also missiles and AP attributes?

[Yomamashouse]

I know nothing of missiles and how effective they were. I'd be interested in learning though.

How would you differentiate overhand vs underhand spear wielding?

[torongill]

I know nothing of missiles and how effective they were. I'd be interested in learning though.

How would you differentiate overhand vs underhand spear wielding?

No real difference IMO except for the density of the formation. If you have units in shieldwall/hoplite phalanx then it would be better for them to wield their spears above the shields(more spears can be brought to bear). Otherwise, in a looser or straight loose formation or single soldiers, it would be more comfortable to wield spears underhand.

[TheRomanRuler]

Spears - increased range(meaning more than one rank can attack if in dense formation), bonus vs Cavalry. Weakness vs swords and chance of breaking. Can be used in all types of formation.
Short Swords - low range, bonus vs spears, low effectiveness vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking. Can be used in all types of formations, increased effectiveness in dense formations.
Long swords - medium range, bonus vs spears, slight weakness vs short swords. No bonus or weakness vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking Cannot be used in dense formations. Also penalty versus dense formations? Roman tactic was to go very close to enemy where he cannot use longer sword
Pikes - Very long range, very good bonus vs cavalry, chariots and elephants . Useless against infantry unless in very dense formation. Chance of breaking.
Mace/Spike/Axe - medium range, slight bonus vs spears, slight weakness vs swords. No bonus or weakness vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking. Can be used in denser formations than long swords.
Two-handed swords - increased range, increased defense vs spears. Slight bonus vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking. Can be used in loose formations only. Decreased effectiveness vs dense formations.
Two-handed Axes/mace - increased range. Slight bonus vs cavalry. Low chance of breaking(but higher than swords or 2h swords). Can be used in loose formations only. Slightly decreased effectiveness vs dense formations.

Piercing type of weapon - more rapid attack and increased penetration vs leather armor and mail armor. decreased effectiveness vs plate armor.
Slashing type of weapon - slower attack. Increased penetration and lethality vs naked units, light and leather armor. Quite ineffective against plate armor. Chance of blunt damage.
Blunt type of weapon - slower attack. Increased penetration vs armor and increased chance of blunt damage. Lower accuracy. Increased tiring of the unit.

Should we discuss also missiles and AP attributes?

[HanSomPa]

Mmm, spear formations aren't really fragile. They have a good chance of defeating swordsmen since spears have a longer reach. Rank for Rank, soldier for soldier; the spear is a much more efficient weapon.

[Lacedaemon]

Mmm, spear formations aren't really fragile. They have a good chance of defeating swordsmen since spears have a longer reach. Rank for Rank, soldier for soldier; the spear is a much more efficient weapon.

It is more dependant on terrain than lethality: a perfectly flat plain will always favor spearmen, where as once it is even slightly rough with small obstacles, the phalanx and spearwall lose almost all of its effectiveness as attackers exploit the momentary gaps.

[torongill]

Mmm, spear formations aren't really fragile. They have a good chance of defeating swordsmen since spears have a longer reach. Rank for Rank, soldier for soldier; the spear is a much more efficient weapon.

1.What fragile formation?
2.Spears have longer reach, that's true. But they break much more easily, plus once you're past the point of the spear the spearman is helpless. The spear is efficient not because it's superior, but because it's cheaper. Spears allow you to arm a lot of people at low cost and at the same time be more or less effective(since you don't need to train that much with a spear). Swords are much more durable, versatile and require of course much more training. When both opponents are well armored and with big shields the only advantage of the spear, that is longer reach can be negated by the simple(yet difficult and terrifying) expedient of making a step forward.

Also penalty versus dense formations? Roman tactic was to go very close to enemy where he cannot use longer sword

True, but I think the slight disadvantage against short swords covers it. I think that if we heap more advantage on the short swords it would cause overbalance in favor of the romans, since the gladius would be mainly stabbing=piercing, i.e. more rapid attacks and increased penetration (and lethality) vs cloth, leather and and ring armor(which is basically every unit. Only elite heavies would have scale or plate armor).

[Wodeson]

It's more profitable to look at how soldiers were trained, rather than just consider the weapons they used.

On one occasion when gladiators were armed as legionaries, they were defeated badly because they had been trained to fight as individuals, whereas the real legionaries fighting them has been trained to fight together in a cohesive unit.

[Anna_Gein]

Sure but a weapon type could provide a base around one unit stats could evolve.
Or they could get different stats with their formation to reflect their training.

[akkakk]

wouldn't combat skill and experience of the troops be a better gauge for defensive and offensive skill rather than the type of weapon used?

it may not be the best option, as the type of weapon did play a part, however, to make everyone happy would be inexplicably annoying and the chances of something not working right is high.

best go with the simpler option.

[torongill]

wouldn't combat skill and experience of the troops be a better gauge for defensive and offensive skill rather than the type of weapon used?

it may not be the best option, as the type of weapon did play a part, however, to make everyone happy would be inexplicably annoying and the chances of something not working right is high.

best go with the simpler option.

The type of weapon is not a gauge of the outcome of the battle, that's nonsense. The idea is to provide a template of how different types of weapons relate to each other and their strengths and weaknesses vs different types of armor. Of course combat skill and experience would be very important. So would formation, morale, stamina, etc.
The idea is to have realistic combat. The more variables you have, the more options you have to simulate combat more truly.

[Condottiere 40K]

I tend to draw on D&D when it comes to weapon types and relative advantage. Tends to be universal.

[Archimonday]

There is a lot that comes into considering the effectiveness of weapon systems of the era. A phalanx was a powerful formation due to its depth and the weapons it carried, but put on a level plain whereby its limited mobility left it vulnerable to being out maneuvered, a phalanx could meet with disaster as light cavalry or infantry surrounded it and harrased it with missiles, allowing it to only occupy the ground it stood on. But in a defensive posture, where a frontal assault was required, such as a bridge, fird, pass, street, or between two forests, or when other types of formations secured the flanks, it could stand against attack from light and heavy infantry and cavalry and push forward.

Roman formations would use a wedge on the attack, whereby, the tip of the wedge would pierce an enemy line by a close range, violent presentation of missiles. Once javelins had broken a small hole, the hope was that the wedge would pierce the enemy line, giving the Romans an avenue to move behind, and attackk its enemy in the rear, as well as getting so close to render spears useless. In addition there shield was designed to aid it defeating spears by deflecting spears off its sides by its convex shape.

Theres tons of factors involved.

[bobbin]

There is a lot that comes into considering the effectiveness of weapon systems of the era. A phalanx was a powerful formation due to its depth and the weapons it carried, but put on a level plain whereby its limited mobility left it vulnerable to being out maneuvered, a phalanx could meet with disaster as light cavalry or infantry surrounded it and harrased it with missiles, allowing it to only occupy the ground it stood on. But in a defensive posture, where a frontal assault was required, such as a bridge, fird, pass, street, or between two forests, or when other types of formations secured the flanks, it could stand against attack from light and heavy infantry and cavalry and push forward.

A phalanx on its own would have been in trouble no matter where it was, supported by light infantry or cavalry to protect its flanks its ideal terrian would actually be a flat plain, as this reduced the chance of the formation being broken up when moving.