Sword vs. Spear

[teks]

So I'm considering the advantages and disadvantages between sword units and shield units to better determine which is better and when. I'd like to hear input if anyone disagrees or knows anything I missed. First and foremost the idea that swords are a counter to spears is wrong. This I determined pretty early using scouatoi and saphatoi as examples since they are otherwise identical units. Their performance against sword units from the front was similiar and even slightly favored the spears thanks to their higher unit size. Since this paper rock scissors idea is tossed out the window I wanted to investigate further...

Spears
Spears are better at defense in general mostly because there are more of them.
Spears are better vs. Archers because they get a shield bonus.
Spears are better vs. cavalry because of their numbers, and their inherent attack bonus vs. cavalry.
Spears can defend a larger area, are harder to surround, and have an easier time surrounding the enemy due to their higher unit size.
Spears benefit more from experience because their attack value tends to be lower.

Swords
Swords have a higher base attack with a faster attack time, so tend to kill enemy units faster.
Swords are more resistant to flank attacks due to their higher defense skill.
Swords are more resistant to AP weapons because their bonus to defense skill is higher then the scouatoi shield bonus.
Swords are better flankers, and more capable against armored opponents due to their higher attack.
Swords are better at wall defense because they can kill more enemies before they are capable of securing a portion of the wall.

My verdict is that swords counter AP units quite well. Swords have a powerful, fast attack which punishes these units for going into battle without a shield, while on the defense swords don't depend on their armor as much since they do have a bonus to their defense skill along with a shield of their own. Swords tend to do better then spears in cities where being surrounded can happen quite often.

Meanwhile spears counter cavalry and archer armies much better as they are more resistant to both. It takes less spear units to defend an area as well which can allow an army to field more cavalry and archers in their own without opening themselves up to attack.

Well thats all. What does everyone else think? Where to you guys like to use swords? What compositions bring out their strengths or weaknesses?

[Duck of Death]

In general...
Spears to defend, swords to attack.

Swords can get in their hand-to-hand, while spears are meant to be a defensive wall.

[minhnd6789]

In general...
Spears to defend, swords to attack.

Swords can get in their hand-to-hand, while spears are meant to be a defensive wall.

I agree.

[apostrophefz]

and how will swords defending against cavalry work out?

[Dekhatres]

Spears
not really, they have high numbers but are weaker
but spearman usually have either low or no armor at all while sword inf generaly are decently armoured so spears arent better than swords against archers
the spear bonus was removed, afaik
sword units can too, units in SS are like in a permanent guard mode they very rarely move around and no unit is better or worse at surrounding the other
yes but that hardly changes much

Swords
i think they only kill more because of their attack value as you said too, i didnt see any diference in weapon speed really
flank attacks ignore defence skill i think, i am sure attacks from behind do, not sure abound flank ones,
armor penetration ignores half of enemy armor, nothing to do shield or def skill, didnt get entierly what you meant there
not better than any other unit, yea
indeed, i found however that it's better to just use some cheap spearman to keep the attackers engaged while my archers shoot them at point-blank range, so depending on situation spear can be just as useful on walls

My verdict is that spears and swords are more or less even, at the end of the day they are both infantry and the only diference is in stats since none have any atributes, so in a melee you want swordsmen instead of spearman not because they are supposedly faster or anything like that but because they are simply better infantry, AP is not something that only 2h units have, and 2h units have armor quite often, AP units with shields have lower attack and because of their atribute they will lower the armor of swords and thus the total defence so it's even (more or less). Swords do better in cities because in open battles units blob a lot and in blobs units end up hiting each other in the back making defence almost useless.

Spears dont counter cav as i said previously the spear bonus atribute was removed, nor the archers, atleast not better than swords, heavy cav will probably erase a unit of scoutatoi swordsmen in one charge while a unit of scoutatoi spearmen will survive with something like 50 men and since sperman has lower attack you wont get many kills, if any, so not a big diference (in the face of game balance!). What makes a unit resistant against cavalry is total defence, that's 1 thing i am sure of xD, the higher the defence skill and armor the more resistant the unit is to cav charge, not sure about shields tho, a inf unit with say 50 armor and 0 def skill will resist cav charge both from the front and from behind without losing a single men, a inf unit with 50 defence and 0 armor will resist cav charge from the front without casualties however will get completley obliterated by charge from the behind, in Stainless Steel both spearman and swordsman lack armor and skill to resist heavy cav, they can only resist against horse archers and other light cav.

And this is all, based on my experience, could be wrong on some things, hopefully someone with more knowledge will corect if it's the case.

[teks]

Thank you your input. This is my response to your comparison.

Spears are normally weaker, and less-trained, but I did not want to make this assumption, so in this I won't say spears are weaker then swords vs. archers by comparing the values of elite foot knights to spear militia. When only looking at the advantages of a spear vs. the advantages of a sword, the spear would have the same armor, more troops, and more shield (spears get shield bonus +2). This does make then superior vs. archers by a significant portion.

That said, I should list better training/quality as a general advantage to swords, because that is the reality of things. The east has good spear units, but I think in the late game they are phased out while swords remain.

I don't know what you mean by permanent guard mode. I haven't seen units act in this fashion. If spears are not in guard mode they will wrap around the enemy. This is very evident just by doing a custom battle. The spears absolutely surround any smaller units they are pitted against. Because spears have much larger sizes they are better at covering a wider area. Its just a matter of numbers here. Spears have more so they are better.

Defense skill is 360 degrees as far as I know, but I don't know. This has been something I've been very confused about. If its 360 degrees or even 270 degrees it would mean swords are far better at being surrounded. The RC guide makes note of this, and states that spears get a defense penalty to represent how spear formations fail when flanked. This is the RC 2.0 guide's notes on spear defense:
***+2 shield for spear unit represents the tactical employment of close-order spearmen - the unit is strong frontally but quite vulnerable from the flanks***
This suggests that defense skill is 360 degree protection like armor and unlike shields. Point Blank has rather intimate knowledge about mechanics, but I'd like to try for more something definitive.

A unit's ability to withstand a cavalry charge is not solely related to defense values. Mass and unit formation are two things outside of defense that weigh in heavily vs. a mounted charge. We know this is true because otherwise pikes would be some of the worst units to withstand a charge, but pikes receive a 1.5x mass bonus, and have a special unit formation which makes it very hard for cavalry to push these units around.
Now relating to spears vs. swords. I don't know if spears have a mass bonus, I thought they did, but maybe that's what was removed. Both units use the same formation as well. I know spears typically use shields which have a mass bonus, but in our case both units have the same shield type. I will test, but I think the only advantage spears have in defense is unit size, but its a big advantage. If cavalry can kill 50 spears or 50 swords in a charge, then the spears come out much better off. I do know that scoutatoi are a nightmare to kill with even byzantine bodyguard units. Unlike most infantry these spearmen tend to stand their ground, and the cavalry kind of get stuck inside the ranks.
Now that you brought this up I'll have to try charging swordmen some more in tests to see whats going on. I do know scoutatoi are pretty hard to wipe out in a charge.
On top of this spears do have an advantage vs. cavalry equal to +4 attack allowing them to score more kills then swords are able at equal skill.

For swords...
I can't say much about weapon speeds. Swords have a faster speed, but animations play a big part. I heard spear animations are very deadly. You could be right that its just attack values. Swords do have a bonus to attack.

For armor penetration, this is pretty straight forward. Swords get +5 defense while spears get +1 defense +2 Shield. Swords have 2 more defense then an equivalent spear unit, so they are naturally more resistant to armor-piercing units. This works really well in practice. I now use swordsmen to counter AP units frequently. Swords have such a high natural defense by the nature of their weapon, and they tend to have good shields as well. This stacking defense tends to put AP units at a disadvantage.

I don't feel that swords > spears in melee. The unit quality is very dependant on the faction. In the east many factions have access to very good spear units. I've tested scoutatoi against sword and buckler men and the scouatoi win comfortably. When scoutatoi have some experience and armor upgrades they really can hold off just about any infantry in the game.

[teks]

I tested spathatoi & scoutatoi vs. chivalric knights.

Giving the foot soldiers 1 armor upgrade:
the scoutatoi lost 2/3rds of their unit in the charge, and the knights broke the line. The rest died shortly after with only 4 dead horses. The Spathatoi all died in the charge.

Giving them 2 armor upgrades and 1 experience.
The coutatoi lost half their unit in the charge, the knights did not break the line and suffered moderate casualties. In the second charge they won, but lost about 1/3rd of their unit in total. The spathatoi all died in the charge.

For whatever reason, maybe just numbers, maybe weight, spears defend against the charge much better then swords.

[Mr. Blob]

Spearmen defensive infantry, hold the line, good against cavalry, units charging them frontally have their charge be less effective. Spearmen are excellent for cavalry strong factions for anvil purposes. Good at the gates, wall breaches etc.

Two handed infantry, pure offensive units. Powerful charge, deal a lot of damage. Die easily if charged, low defense, weak to missiles, effective against cavalry post cav charge. Good for charging gates and wall breaches.

One handed sword infantry, anti infantry units. Can kill infantry effectively, and can take some damage from the missiles. Good at attacking, scaling walls. Poor against cavalry. Cav can charged them frontally with minimal damage to itself, if any. They tend to lose to cav which didn't charge them also.

[k/t]

Defense doesn't work from behind.

Spear units have light_spear, which is supposed to give +8 defense against cavalry and -4 defense against infantry.

[teks]

Thanks K/T, forgot different weapons still have inert advantages/disadvantages. I remember point blank saying he changed all spear units to light_spear to make them more effective against infantry. The -4 defense is amazingly hardly noticeable. I think thats because of their spacing and unit size.

The thing about defense is Point Blank mentions multiple times that a lack of defense skill leaves the unit vulnerable to flanking. I would never assume it works from behind, but point blank worked on these mechanics so intimately I can't help but feel there is more to defense skill on his word alone.

"Spearmen get a penalty versus swordsmen, seems to be a defense reduction. However, they usually have closer spacing between men due to tighter formations so can concentrate attacks somewhat better than swordsmen. Their attack anims are also fairly rapid. As RollingWave stated, they do get a +2 shield bonus to reflect their combat style, with shields close together and protecting their adjacent comrades. However, their defense base is very low (1) as a result of that, and can even drop to zero. This makes them very, very vulnerable to being flanked."
-point blank, http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...n-and-spearmen

Spears have less scope for skill than a sword, and their base defense is lower, but they have a relatively fast attack animation, and they get a +2 shield bonus to represent their employment of shields in a close formation. The low defense and high shield value is mean to depict that they are effective head-on, but if attacked from the flanks are much easier to beat.
-Point Blank http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...Sword-Or-Spear

These are older pots, but its also mentioned in the RC 2.0 guide. Its really strange and its one of the main reasons I wanted to compare sword to spears. I just don't know what else he could be referring to here.

[Sint]

Spear units have light_spear, which is supposed to give +8 defense against cavalry and -4 defense against infantry.

Which is really silly considering that the added range would help defending against infantry too.Especially when you're not have full body armor fighting someone with a spear when only using sword yourself is damn hard.

[teks]

Which is really silly considering that the added range would help defending against infantry too.Especially when you're not have full body armor fighting someone with a spear when only using sword yourself is damn hard.

Don't let the numbers fool you. They were given light spear as a replacement to spear because regular spear had an even heavier penalty against infantry, and even with a hefty -4 defense, swords are not a counter to spears.

I think one part in this is that the spear animation has a longer range, similar speed, and tighter formation. As a result more spear units will be using their attacks then sword units at any point. In addition, attack animations seem to prevent other units from starting their own attack animation, so these spears are constantly unleashing this barrage of weak attacks which prevent other units from moving in and attacking. Considering this, the -4 defense actually makes complete sense because its representing that spears are at a disadvantage once the swords can actually move in or break their line.

Swords have a more aggressive attack animation, and they tend to naturally move into the enemy unit, while spear tend to thrust from a distance and hold their ground. Because of this swords are better in more aggressive situations where the focus is killling the enemy quickly, like wall defense and flank attacks.

This is the standard battle formation I've been using.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I use the spearmen to form the front line. 3-4 ranks is thick enough to prevent any knights from breaking through. Normally the skirmishers break up their charge momentum as well. Skirmishers are easy to replace, and tend to do a lot of dying in my armies. Anyway, heavy horses and skirmishers break up any unit heading to the flanks in an effort to coax the enemy into the center. The spears are set to guard mode and take whatever comes their way. Their job is to hold the enemy in place while the swords and horses break the sides in. The medium horsemen head out to take siege equipment and keep the enemy horses busy, and the archers whittle down the enemy horse archers I face all too often (I normally bring up to 6 archers, and 2 magonels against horse archer-heavy armies.). If the center does break down I will either send archers into melee, or charge the break with the reserve troops.

I feel like this i the way to get the most out of the different infantry.
The archers are safe to lob shots all day with zero risk.
The spears brace the charges and fight from the front in formation.
The swords rush the flanks to collapse the enemy formation.
The heavy horses, supported by the archers, are free to commit to 'crowd control'.
The reserve troops sit ready to plug any holes.

So far I feel like shock troop are the hardest unit to use right. I think I got the ideal sword situation at least. ITs something I've been working on since starting this thread.

[+Marius+]

Has anyone else notice that certain units have a ridiculous blunt attack value?

For instance Royal Mamelukes have 10 blunt damage which is ridiculously overpowered.
I have been thinking about nerfing nearly all of those op blunt wielding units.

[teks]

My file says they have 8 blunt damage, but maybe I'm looking at an old one?
Freaking mamluk archers have 5 blunt damage in my file. They are such a terror. I fought some mamluk archers with scholarii and was mortified by the results. Those archers were tearing into my heavy horses. I only attack them with medium horses now, which puts their mace at a disadvantage.

[+Marius+]

In my opinion blunt weapon damage should absolutely never exceed 3-4, anything higher and it completely destroys all immersion of having high quality armored troops.
Certain mongol light cavalry has blunt attacks so high they plow even through feudal knights in close melee.
Absolutely ludicrous.

Not to mention the heavy Janissaries, who apparently can butcher clean a full unit of late gothic dismounted knights despite the historical fact that they died in the tens of thousands while frontally assaulting heavy troops
All non purely blunt polearms should have their "effective against armor" trait removed completely;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XngmQyV0vuA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSSKRJ13NDI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_JSdrBWcmk&t=2m6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_JSdrBWcmk&t=2m38s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfEFwtToM3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ-Jse08XzY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEXry-okx3A

The higher damage value for polearm wielding troops is more than enough to simulate their capabilities as two handed weapons without them being literal canopeners of any/all elite troops.

[teks]

I was wondering why polearms were considered armor-piercing weapons. I was trying to define AP in a different thread and it kinda dawned on me too. I just don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to make a claim one way or another. In my opinion armor-piercing is justified if the force of the weapon is so great the user could be seriously injured even if his armor deflected the attack. In my opinion, two-handed axes meet this requirement, as do poleaxes. Halberds, I'm not so sure. Halberds don't have a weighted head, which makes me not so sure about their concussive force.

For mounted, consider maybe reducing the speed first. A horseman running by with a mace will deal serious damage to just about anything, but maybe reducing the attack speed will help show that they can't just sit still swinging their mace around with the same kind of force because they are sitting on a mount.

I'd love to hear your rational opinion on it. I don't really know much about how polearms were used, they seem very clumsy to me.

[teks]

So I've been looking up some war axes. It appears that, unlike wood axes we are familiar with, these axes were very thin. With this in mind, they probably were not armor piercing. Much of their effectiveness seems to stem from their shape, like polearms. It can be used like a hook, it can manipulate the enemies defenses like a shield or their parry weapon, and it still packs a good deal of force. On the downside, its an unbalanced weapon without a hilt.

I think maybe in comparison to a sword it could be given more offense and the ap attribute could be removed. A higher attack could represent, instead of piercing armor, its improved ability to circumvent other defenses at the cost of the user's own defense.

I also checked out some maces. They are oddly very light, primarily used on a horse. They would be much worse then a sword against an unarmored man, but they are pretty quick and often built with a metal haft. The problem is that maces are already down to attack 1 in RC. More experienced horsemen should surely have an advantage with attack, so limiting it to a set number wouldn't be fair to the mace elite. The problem is, swords have a +3 attack over the mace. With two opponents with average skill that's probably fine, but this proportion doesn't stay as they rank up or gain experience. One doesn't need to be good at fractions to know 3/1 is much bigger then 6/4.

I mean, what can I say. We're really hitting this limits of what the engine is even capable of. It can't represent that a sword is actually a really good weapon close up against armor due to its ability to get into joints. We can't represent that axes are able to push around shields. We can't make proportions that stay with rank. So, I guess changing pole weapons from AP isn't a bad idea, but anything beyond that isn't so simple. If you wanna gimp the mamluks, it seems fair but the mamluks don't have a good charge to make up for this either. Much of their strength comes from their use as brawling cavalry in opposition to western shock cavalry. The difference isn't perfect, but it is at least interesting and neither is really straight up superior to the other. Even if it does bother me that mamluk horse archers can kill my scholarii. Though I still don't understand how some of the high mace numbers came to be. How does a base 1 weapon go up to +7?

[k/t]

The RC guide has the answer to that question.

Using lighter troops against AP units doesn't put them at a disadvantage at all. Heavy units will always do best against AP units.

Cavalry probably gets too large bonuses to attack right now.

The heavy Janissaries are probably a little more armoured than historically, and they have a really good animation.

Halberds are longer than poleaxes, so yes, they do.

[Dekhatres]

@tesk

about the permanent guard mode, in vanilla units expand after the charge is done, when units finish charging and start fighting the units greatly expand, this leads to one unit or the other slowly swallowing the other, in SS this dosent happen almost at all, it's better if you do a battle in vanilla and see it for yourself, you will see how soldiers have a lot of space between eachother and keep expanding even more while in SS they are extremly packed and they stay that way that's why i think the fact that spearman have more soldiers dosent mean they will encircle another unit better

I must say i dont know much about mass, the diference it makes seems insignificant to me, as it is the pushing

"I dont feel that swords > spears in melee" i feel that swords are better but only because they have higher stats

very very skeptic about that light_spear bonus, too many times i've seen a heavy cav walking around and wrecking everything in melee, so in theory a spear militia with 12 def would have 20 def against cav... no way, no fcking way, why does it [the spear militia] behave like it has 0 def then ? WTH!

I use battle formations very similar to yours, just that if i have javelins available i use them together with inf in a chess board formation