Why no one ever tried to make battles realistic? Is that bothers only me?

[nicsoew]

In short terms, I would like to share with everyone here the fact that battles on this engine can be made pretty realistic but I don't see mods that do that.
Why someone loses years on mod development, or game development and then makes such an error (yes its huge error if you ask me cos Im medieval/history in general enthusiast).
I never saw mod where battles are realistic and weird thing is, they can be.

Things that are silly, unrealistic and real nonsense in this game (and movies):

1. Infantry in fact never charged except to close the gaps, outflank enemy or attack much weaker opponent when chance is here.
Infantry is charging only in Hollywood movies and it is nonsense. Infantry charge should have penalty, not bonus. Why to come to battle in perfect formation then destroy it with headless running. Source of this information: HEMA instructor of historical marital arts, expert on medieval combat, battles. There is good HEMA videos on youtube explaining what was what in medieval and ancient times regarding battles and duels. Also good source of information are documentaries, BBC is number one. One of the sources: http://youtu.be/leF67yJyzP4
2. Over 90% of ancient and medieval infantry units were spearmen units.
3. Spear units/phalanx/pike were unbeatable by sword units head on (trained ones, professional ones, not peasants with sticks).
4. Spear units (trained ones, professional ones, not peasants with sticks) had problems in woods, mountains, scrub terrain (keeping of formation was crucial for any spear/pike/phalanx unit) and on such terrains sword units could defeat spear units (as Romans did - never head on) - In this game stat ground bonuses or penalties are made prety bad. Spear unit can't have bonus for fighting in woods or scrub.
5. In this game archer ranges are all wrong
6. Catapults never existed as depicted in this game. They were never used in open field battles. Catapult unit in this game is in fact old roman onager siege engine and it was much much weaker than depicted in this game. THey were build under the city walls when city was under siege. After siege they were destroyed.
7. Armor stats are not what you see in game. Same goes for shields. Example: sword quendi has way too weak armor in stats compared to what you see and they are elves with better than human armor.
8. Delay between attacks is again wrong in game, lighter units of same quality should have less delay between attacks than heavily armored units, this way professional light infantry would have more sense.
9. Fight animations are silly and absolutely unrealistic: shield used as counterweight, 360 degrees turns - all Hollywood style nonsense.
10. Where is couched lance? Plate knights not using couched lance? It is concept well before plated knights - from 11 century. Cavalry in game uses 10 century lance tactics.
11. Horses would not charge on still mass of soldiers especially spear units.
12. Cavalry lance should be spent after the charge.

What I wrote is NOT BASED UPON MY OPINION or THINKING, it is based upon expert articles, documentaries, instructors of medieval/historical martial arts views and real medieval manuals that I own (in PDF).

[The Holy Pilgrim]

There have been attempts to make battles realistic.

It's called "Real Combat", a formula made by Point Blank and taken up by k/t. It's a really detailed combat formula for readjusting unit stats and lots of love and labor has been poured into it by Point Blank, k/t, and many other enthusiasts.

As far as I know, MOS uses it; I'm not sure about DAC, but they might. There used to be a Real Combat mod by Point Blank, himself, for this mod, but it isn't compatible with Third Age 3.2, I'm afraid.

[nicsoew]

There have been attempts to make battles realistic.

It's called "Real Combat", a formula made by Point Blank and taken up by k/t. It's a really detailed combat formula for readjusting unit stats and lots of love and labor has been poured into it by Point Blank, k/t, and many other enthusiasts.

As far as I know, MOS uses it; I'm not sure about DAC, but they might. There used to be a Real Combat mod by Point Blank, himself, for this mod, but it isn't compatible with Third Age 3.2, I'm afraid.

If MOS uses it how so that spearmen are easily beatable had on? That bothers me the most. Spearmen units in MOS and all other mod follow this logic:

Spearmen beat cavalry
Swordsmen beat spearmen - yes, but not head on, only if they manage to outflank it - and this is what I managed to do, spearmen are unbeatable head on historically, they are now after my changes also in game - real defensive units.
etc...

So why are spearmen so bad in all mods?

[Arachir Galudirithon]

This is an age old debate where die hard medieval fans suggest that Tolkien's world should be a perfect image of medieval society and then many, many people argue that there is poetic licence afforded throughout the legendarium.

The reason that most mods don't have relaistic battles is because, in all honesty, they tend not to be as fun! Seeing Catapults burning trolls alive or reliving the siege of Minas Tirith is very fun indeed but they are only examples. Yes armour should slow you down but Elves, have almost supernatural abilities and attributes, dwarves are similar and almost any heavy armour unit used by every other faction are taken from the movie side of the game and thus not affected by true laws of nature. Just as in the film they are not affected by true laws of nature.

You can make any submod you wish as well so keep on trucking with your stat overhaul and then go from there.

[nicsoew]

This is an age old debate where die hard medieval fans suggest that Tolkien's world should be a perfect image of medieval society and then many, many people argue that there is poetic licence afforded throughout the legendarium.

The reason that most mods don't have relaistic battles is because, in all honesty, they tend not to be as fun! Seeing Catapults burning trolls alive or reliving the siege of Minas Tirith is very fun indeed but they are only examples. Yes armour should slow you down but Elves, have almost supernatural abilities and attributes, dwarves are similar and almost any heavy armour unit used by every other faction are taken from the movie side of the game and thus not affected by true laws of nature. Just as in the film they are not affected by true laws of nature.

You can make any submod you wish as well so keep on trucking with your stat overhaul and then go from there.

Believe me, battles are far more fun when they are realistic (maybe except catapult part).

Spearmen are now real defensive units with changes i made, almost impossible to beat head on and they must be outflanked to be defeated. They are also slow and suffer in woods and scrub terrain.

I made this post because I saw no one made spearmen realistic, not a single mod (putting aside peasant spearmen) and making them realistic makes game far more interesting. You will never again put swordsmen in main line again as they will get slaughtered by far weaker spearmen. You will use them to outflank spearmen as they are faster and good in any formation, spearmen on the other hand lose if their formation is disturbed.

I made light gondor spearmen unit (dismounted militia cavalry), the have:

4 att
6, 6, 4 defense

I had 4 units of them plus 1 Gondor levy swordsmen

VS

5 Arnor Infantry:

7 ATT
12, 6, 5 DEF

It was custom battle on grassy flatland and every time I kicked their ass if they attacked head on.

Then I played as Arnor and took only 3 Arnor Infantry units and kicked their ass by attacking head on with 2 stretched Arnor Infantry units and used third to outflank them.
What I wanna say, that is realistic: almost unbeatable spearmen head on but slow and very vulnerable to outflanking.

[IAmNotShazam]

(I was testing this over 100 hrs and I changed all units in game accordingly)

"I have already done what I am asking for exactly to my standards. But rather than release it I am going to demand that others make it from scratch."
~ nicsoew

[nicsoew]

No IAmNotShazam, Im working on my mini mod, I will release it. You didn't understand me! I would love to see something like this in all coming mods. Something like base for new mods - realistic combat.

[Funeh]

... sorry, mistake

[Ngugi]

Well first off the interest for proper stats both exist and is well established. RR/RC is both a classic, inspiring submod and a term in its own. When MOS set new credible stats for all units, or when I did for DCILA, etc, we say "we RR/RC:ed the game".

Secondly, call me cynical but I can't help but get the feeling that the point with this thread is to ask why not more people been enthusiastic over your project, that you already have a thread for? Comparing it is as I first start my DCI:LA thread and then soon after a thread about why there are not Second Age mods [though, with some research, there are] or seemingly more interest for that era.
And now you're getting into the edits of your project, thus I want an argument for not merging these threads?

[nicsoew]

Well, Im just obsessed with realism, thats all. And again, no one ever made realistic spearmen (ever) and its so strange to me. Also catapults are something absolutely unrealistic, they are stronger than modern artillery. It is incredible how heavy spearmen are utterly destroyed every time head on by almost any sword unit.
I started this thread because I see huge flaw in all mods: totally unrealistic spearmen and catapults and it seems to me that no one bothers with it. I just want that people become aware that spearmen are nothing close what they should be, in any mod. Why? You tell me! This topic is about realism, not my mini mod.

My question to you is:
1. Why are spearmen so badly made in all mods?
2. Why are catapults made as they are?

Heavy spearmen (one unit) should be able to hold narrow passage against entire army of swordsmen inflicting them heavy
casualties.
Someone called them defensive unit...what is defensive about them in any mod...nothing, they are just cannon fodder in all mods but in reality entire main line was composed of them and sword units could only commit suicide by attacking them head on on leveled terrain.

Well trained spearmen armed with an 8' spear would stand 18" apart with shields locked as his battle formation. Each subsequent row stood 3' behind and could reach beyond the front line to also fight with their spears. A typical "sword" unit like Roman Legionaries typically stood 36" apart, and received no direct help from lines behind him. Now if you do the math, this means that against every 1 swordsman, you could bring 4+ spears against him.

[Ngugi]

In an era of little to no body armour, as the antiquity, for sure the spears provided great impact with the greek phalanx as for a long time unchallenge heavy infantry line, but in a Medieval, even Dark Age, context your argumentation overestimate it.
Beside that the spears advantage was the cheap production and limited need for traning, as alreadyded discussed in your submod thread, it is the reach of the weapon that is it's strength.
However, the ability for heavy sword- and axe-armed opponents to get up close and personal, especially when with shields, shall not be neglected, and then in formations or close quarter the strength of the spear, the range of the polearm, become a liability. A spear is quite limited to be a thrusting melee weapon, while a sword can thrust, cut and stab, and an axe might be a cutting weapon but with armour piercing/blunt damage abilities, both superior when face to face and the spearman lack room to maneuver.
At end, if the spear had such superior defencive abilities, we would have good historical examples of it from Medieval times, but while it played its part properly without doubt, the spear was not a 'phalanx or sarissa of the medieval era'.

[nicsoew]

In an era of little to no body armour, as the antiquity, for sure the spears provided great impact with the greek phalanx as for a long time unchallenge heavy infantry line, but in a Medieval, even Dark Age, context your argumentation overestimate it.
Beside that the spears advantage was the cheap production and limited need for traning, as alreadyded discussed in your submod thread, it is the reach of the weapon that is it's strength.
However, the ability for heavy sword- and axe-armed opponents to get up close and personal, especially when with shields, shall not be neglected, and then in formations or close quarter the strength of the spear, the range of the polearm, become a liability. A spear is quite limited to be a thrusting melee weapon, while a sword can thrust, cut and stab, and an axe might be a cutting weapon but with armour piercing/blunt damage abilities, both superior when face to face and the spearman lack room to maneuver.
At end, if the spear had such superior defencive abilities, we would have good historical examples of it from Medieval times, but while it played its part properly without doubt, the spear was not a 'phalanx or sarissa of the medieval era'.

Swordsmen could not beat spearmen head on. Not spearmen of same quality and equipment. Have you ever red meideval battle manual, real manual from lets say 14 century, 15 century? I did, not one, I have 10-15 combat manuals in PDF.
Do you know there was actually NO swordsmen except literally few unit compared to spearmen in Middle ages. Almost entire army in medieval period was composed of spear units, so I don't know what you mean when you say: "At end, if the spear had such superior defencive abilities, we would have good historical examples of it from Medieval times" - best example was just that, almost entire army was composed of spearmen! Not only in Middle Ages but in history of man kind.
Even one of the best infantry units that ever existed could not defeat spears head on. Roman legionaries were superbly trained and well armoured and still they were not able to take on Macedons head on. They never won head on against spearmen. They outflanked them or distrubed their formation.

Also Spear was better against armor than sword in general and still one swordsmen if engaging head on would have 2 + speears to care about - and thats minimum.
All historians claim that. Sword could not defeat spearmen and pikemen head on, read about it.
Swiss pikemen were superb example of sword vs spears.

So if we take statement that spear wall could not be defeated head on by sword units as true then units are tweaked badly in the game.


Here is REAL example for school of historical fencing, these guys are on same skill level but spear win in 9/10 times:
http://youtu.be/O8RWLxlzTiM

Spearman will own swordman one on one even without shield.
But in this game I just take average swordsmen and kick the ass of spearmen head on....and its making me twitch in pain.

You claim that if we take a unit of spearmen which has same equipment as almost same unit of swordsmen that swordsmen would win head on?

And don't forget:

Well trained spearmen armed with an 8' spear would stand 18" apart with shields locked as his battle formation. Each subsequent row stood 3' behind and could reach beyond the front line to also fight with their spears. A typical "sword" unit like Roman Legionaries typically stood 36" apart, and received no direct help from lines behind him. Now if you do the math, this means that against every 1 swordsman, you could bring 4+ spears against him.

Spear had better reach and mybe it could not cut or slash but 4 spears vs 1 swordsmen??? No way he could pass and live to talk about it.

Swordsmen had advantage of loose formation, they could act independently...etc.

Swordsmen could defeat spearmen (I talk about professional spearmen and professional swordsmen) only if their formation was disturbed/outflanking them!

To simulate that, I made spearmen slower, more densly packed formation and they are impossible to beat head on but are very vulnerable to flanking. Isn't that realistic? Yes it is.

Problem is that so many people believe in this invincible swordsmen myth and its visible in every game, mod and movie but it is simply not true.

I dare you to do a research (Im not being rude ), but research, not 20 mins, not 2 hours. Take one month and do research and then you will see Im telling truth!

[Iquabakaner]

Perhaps professional spearmen are indeed better in defense as you say, but then when the entire army is composed of spearmen, it is quite intuitive that most of them are not professional at all but simply cheap and can-be-mass-recruited cannon fodders.

And pike and spears are essentially two different types of units. You can hold a large shield with spear but not with pike (at least not for medieval ones).

I say it depends on whether it is professional really. You can't expect spear militia to be anything more than cannon fodder.

[xHolyCrusader]

Actually I really like the battles the way they are, this is still a fantasy mod no simulation of realistic medieval-time battles.

[nicsoew]

Actually I really like the battles the way they are, this is still a fantasy mod no simulation of realistic medieval-time battles.

Im not talking literally about realism. IF I did I would say...hey, remove the Sauron, trolls, orcs...I talk only about simple physics and fact that spearmen are not realistic at all.

[War lord]

The problem with realistic battles is that every self proclaimed expert has a different opinion what is realism.

[nicsoew]

The problem with realistic battles is that every self proclaimed expert has a different opinion what is realism.

Do a research by yourself and you will understand about what am I talking about.

[War lord]

Do a research by yourself and you will understand about what am I talking about.

Nope, see you have one opinion of what is a realistic depiction of a Medieval or Medieval like battle would be, the mod is changed. And then 2 weeks later another guy is all "you've got it all wrong, battles went like this..." every would be history buff has an opinion.

[nicsoew]

Nope, see you have one opinion of what is a realistic depiction of a Medieval or Medieval like battle would be, the mod is changed. And then 2 weeks later another guy is all "you've got it all wrong, battles went like this..." every would be history buff has an opinion.

It is not my opinion, I do not have opinion. It is fact backed up by history and historians. 2+2 is always 4 but when you have 3 years you don't know that and that does not mean that 2+2 is not 4.
I studied history, (didn't finish it cos there is no money in it) and I read about the subject for over 15 years. Im history freak. But put all that aside, take google and read about well known fact among anyone who ever cared to read more than 1 hour in their life about medieval armies and you will know what every history noob knows: armies were composed mostly of spearmen trough all known history.
So do a "research" (take 30 minutes and google about the subject) then come back and comment otherwise you are just trolling. Also you might download some medieval manuals, google for them and you could read accounts of many battles.

For educated people (at least concerning history) fact is that spearmen could not be defeated head on (professional spearmen and pikemen) by swordsmen and that is the reason that spear evolved to halberd, billhook...etc. Also professional spearmen were good/superb swordsmen and they all carried sword with them.
That was showed in many battles since bronze age to renaissance. Even Romans were not able to defeat hoplites head on.
btw. you will not find swordsmen depicted on almost any medieval picture. YOu will see mostly archers and spearmen...with good reason.

So go and read, watch documentaries, learn and then comment or please do not comment. Thnx!

The point is, spearmen can be more realistic so why not do it and believe me battles are far more interesting.

[War lord]

It is not my opinion, I do not have opinion. It is fact backed up by history and historians. 2+2 is always 4 but when you have 3 years you don't know that and that does not mean that 2+2 is not 4.
I studied history, (didn't finish it cos there is no money in it) and I read about the subject for over 15 years. Im history freak. But put all that aside, take google and read about well known fact among anyone who ever cared to read more than 1 hour in their life about medieval armies and you will know what every history noob knows: armies were composed mostly of spearmen trough all known history.
So do a "research" (take 30 minutes and google about the subject) then come back and comment otherwise you are just trolling. Also you might download some medieval manuals, google for them and you could read accounts of many battles.

For educated people (at least concerning history) fact is that spearmen could not be defeated head on (professional spearmen and pikemen) by swordsmen and that is the reason that spear evolved to halberd, billhook...etc. Also professional spearmen were good/superb swordsmen and they all carried sword with them.
That was showed in many battles since bronze age to renaissance. Even Romans were not able to defeat hoplites head on.

So go and read, watch documentaries, learn and then comment or please do not comment. Thnx!


The point is, spearmen can be more realistic so why not do it adn belive me battles are far more interesting.

See, here's the thing, I'm also interested in history and I for one sharply disagree with the idea that Spear men were inherently superior to Swordsmen. Or that "professional" Spearmen could be said to be excellent Swordsmen, Greek Hoplites, for example, weren't professional and were noted to be very poor swordsmen. I think, in fact, that to speak of "Professional" Swordsmen, Spearmen or any other troop is hopelessly vague and anachronistic and not something a competent student of military history would do.

The Spear was used by armies primarily because it was of very simple construction, required little to no metallurgy skill to forge, used plentiful resources, could be wielded competently with very little training, had civilian application and could be mass produced by even an unindustrialized state. Swords by contrast are expensive, hard to manufacture and required skill and training to wield effectually, thus limiting their use mostly to Elites and Professional Soldiers.

The Billhook isn't an evolution of the Spear, it's a farming tool sharpened to serve as a makeshift weapon for militiamen so that they could defeat the armour of the knights of the era. The Halberd is a little foggier but the name translates roughly to staff axe, casting doubt on a Spear origin. You'd do well to check your facts before you arrogantly accuse others of a lack of knowledge. You've made very basic factual errors.