Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Rad]

That's not going to happen. If I remember correctly, the team is quite adamant on that. Some units do use underhand grip, though.

Like you, I had doubts about the overhand grip. However, I eventually realised that it works - especially in formation fighting.

Current overhead/icepick grip not only looks ridiculous but also is unrealistic, as no sane, not to mention trained person, would fight like that

p.s. Unless you can prove that you're a time traveling Hellenistic era hoplite, such words will not convince anyone. All you're doing is belittling the time and effort that the team spent on research and the creation of units that use the overhand spear grip. By doing that, you're also making yourself look bad.

State why you think that the overhand spear grip is not realistic. After you do that, we can move the conversation forward.

[Just let me post]

Ok, so first of all I'm sorry for the harsh tone of my previous post, it indeed sounded rude. My apologies.


Secondly, reasons:

Advantages of overhand / icegrip:

+ stronger blow
+ a bit more precise
+ ability to throw it as last resort and use your sidearm?

Disadvantages:

- shorter, halved range (spears are supposed to be long)
- if your spear is retracted, you can't protect your friends with it
- predictable motion and direction of attack
- in formation, you poke out eyes of your friends behind you (spears often had two sharp ends)
- even if the other end is dull, it still hits your friends and disrupts your attack
- you don't throw your spear at enemy

[Rad]

Ok, so first of all I'm sorry for the harsh tone of my previous post, it indeed sounded rude. My apologies.

That's nice of you. Some people are not capable of saying sorry. I may be one of them

Secondly, reasons:

Advantages of overhand / icegrip:

+ stronger blow
+ a bit more precise
+ ability to throw it as last resort and use your sidearm?

I'll expand on what you said and add a few things.

1. Yes, the overhand spear attack is considerably stronger. The overhand spear grip uses the back muscles more (the second largest muscle group in the human body) and also the triceps muscles which are much larger than the biceps muscles. You also have gravity helping your attacks.

2. Secondly, with the overhand spear grip, you are better able to reach over your opponent's shield and target the vital head, neck and shoulder area.

With the underhand spear grip, one is inclined to target the area of the body which is covered or can quickly be covered with a shield.

3. Third - overhand spear grip is more convenient to use in a tight formation, especially in the hoplite phalanx which relies on interlocked shields and unit mass - the spear is free up in the air and it does not bother your or your comrades.

With the underhand spear grip, you always risk hitting your comrades behind you - that could be nasty because spears can have secondary spear heads on the other end. Also, if you use underhand spear grip, your spear would be sandwiched between your shield and your comrade's shield. Also, the people behind the front rank are going to have issues when presenting their spears to the enemy because they will limited by bodies of the people in the front. You could try to mitigate those issues by spacing soldiers further apart, but that would damage the formation and make the soldiers more exposed. Kind of ruins the whole point, doesn't it?

4. You can immediately throw the spear which is a HUGE game changer. Your opponents have to be much more careful with you because of the range you have with throwing.

Disadvantages:

- shorter, halved range (spears are good because they are long)

Although reach is a nice bonus, it's not the best quality of the spear. In my opinion, it's not even in the top three. The spear is good because it's low tech, cheap, deadly, easy to use and does not require much space to use. Contrary to the sword, even the humblest village blacksmith can make a spear head out of a small amount of low quality iron and the weapon will still do its job. That means you need much material and you don't need specialized facilities and craftsmen. Spear thrusts and thrusts in general are deadly because they penetrate deep and cause massive bleeding and damage to vital organs. The doctors of that time were few and ill prepared for such wounds. Also, most forms of existing armor were better suited at stopping slashing attacks and weren't ideal for stopping powerful thrusts. Even mail is not immune to a dedicated overhand spear thrust. Again, contrary to swords, spears are simple to use because your main attack is poke, your secondary attack is poke, your tertiary attack is poke etc etc etc. People tend to ditch complicated things under the stress of combat, so the simplicity of the spear is actually a huge benefit. I have already mentioned why it doesn't take up much space when used with an overhand grip, so I won't repeat myself.
Most line infantry spears appear to have been in the ranges of 2m to 3m length. Even if that reach is halved (which it doesn't have to be because you can train those large muscle groups I mentioned AND balance the spear shaft by making it heavier on the other end and with counterweights), you still outreach opponents armed with swords. More importantly, one or two ranks behind you can also present their spears to the enemy and attack together with you. Opponents who use spears with the underhand grip run into all the issues I mentioned above. That enables you to close the distance and engage the enemy in the range that suits you and does not suit them. At the end of the day, if you really, really want a range advantage in melee combat, you grab a pike. That's what the Macedonians did.

- if your spear is retracted, you can't protect your friends with it

You and the people next to you have shields to defend yourselves. The spear is an offensive weapon. Its primary purpose is to attack, not to fend off attacks. You can use the spear to defend yourself by attacking - that way you are seizing initiative from the enemy and forcing them to play your game. A good offence is the best defense. There are Indian and Afghani styles of sword and shield combat in which the sword is used offensively while the shield does most, if not all of the defending

- predictable motion and direction of attack
- even if the other end is dull, it still hits your friends and disrupts your attack

That's actually one of the drawbacks of the underhand grip. Most attacks are funelled towards an area which the enemy can cover with the shield. Also, your spear is sandwiched between your shield and the shield of the comrade next you, further limiting your reach and making your attacks more predictable.

- in formation, you poke out eyes of your friends behind you (spears often had two sharp ends)

That's another drawback of the underhand grip, not of the overhand grip. With overhand grip, spears are angled so the other end of the spear points towards the sky.

- you don't throw your spear at enemy

You absolutely do throw a spear at the enemy if you see an opening. You will still be protected with a shield and you can ask for a replacement spear. Also, the mere threat of throwing the spear makes the enemy completely change the way they fight, making them more cautious and reserved. A more skilled, aggressive and disciplined group of fighters can use that to their huge advantage.

[Just let me post]

Hm, some of your points are very good and convincing, and what is more, I think the key element in either grip usefulness is whether the fight is happening in a "shieldwall" (like hoplites) or in more loose "barbarian" (and also later medieval) formation


Because in tight "shieldwall" formation = overhand grip makes sense (no sandwitching, you can freely jab from above)


In other formations = overhand grip is an amazing way to get killed

With the underhand spear grip, you always risk hitting your comrades behind you

You grab the spear near the end and secure it under your elbow so the end tip barely sticks out, and it's safe to use

spacing soldiers further apart, but that would damage the formation and make the soldiers more exposed. Kind of ruins the whole point, doesn't it?

Well yes, but that's where length of the spear comes into play, which is far greater with underhand grip - more of that next

Although reach is a nice bonus, it's not the best quality of the spear.

This is absolutely not true. Take shields out of the equation. Who wins, a guy with a long spear or a guy with a gladius?
Spears are dirt cheap but ALSO amazing. Just not so good in close quarters... hence the overhand grip making sense, but only then

4. You can immediately throw the spear which is a HUGE game changer. Your opponents have to be much more careful with you because of the range you have with throwing.

I agree, provided your own formation won't suffer from the loss of weapon/positioning. Good point

That's actually one of the drawbacks of the underhand grip. Most attacks are funelled towards an area which the enemy can cover with the shield. Also, your spear is sandwiched between your shield and the shield of the comrade next you, further limiting your reach and making your attacks more predictable.

Again, depends on spacing of fighters, but with underhand grip, you can attack high/mid/low + you have more reach, thus covering more area. With icepick grip, you can only attack from above, and from a short distance.

The spear is an offensive weapon. Its primary purpose is to attack, not to fend off attacks. You can use the spear to defend yourself by attacking.

Exactly! If you have reach, which you have with an underhand grip, you can not only threaten an enemy in front of you, but also the one trying to attack your friend, making him think twice. Defense by prevention. I guess situation is the same with icepick grip when shieldbearers are hugging





Nevertheless, that's surely an interesting discussion here, and you made my eyes irk a bit less when I see those EB2 soldiers jabbing about

[Rad]

Hm, some of your points are very good and convincing, and what is more, I think the key element in either grip usefulness is whether the fight is happening in a "shieldwall" (like hoplites) or in more loose "barbarian" (and also later medieval) formation


Because in tight "shieldwall" formation = overhand grip makes sense (no sandwitching, you can freely jab from above)


In other formations = overhand grip is an amazing way to get killed

Medieval eh? Medieval fomations could be as compact as phalanx formations. Just think of the Anglo-Scandinavian shield wall.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BNF Nouvelle acquisition française 15939 Miroir Historial Vol 1 1370s France

However, it doesn't mean that the overhand spear grip was used exclusively in tight formations.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BL Royal 20 C I Les fait des Romains - French, first quarter of the 15th century.

You grab the spear near the end and secure it under your elbow so the end tip barely sticks out, and it's safe to use

If you do that, you make the spear tip heavy. That tires you more quickly, makes your attacks slower and allows your opponents more chances to move past your spear, knock it aside or just outright grab it from you. Also, you are still limited by your shield and the shield to the person next to you. Lastly, no one would hold the secondary spear head close to their skin - that's a self inflicted wound waiting to happen.

Medieval manuscripts leave a bit of the shaft sticking in the other end.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bodley Ashmole 1511 The Ashmole Bestiary early 13th England

This is absolutely not true. Take shields out of the equation. Who wins, a guy with a long spear or a guy with a gladius?
Spears are dirt cheap but ALSO amazing. Just not so good in close quarters... hence the overhand grip making sense, but only then

You cannot take shields out of a discussion about spear&shield combat. I really can't stress that enough. They are such a huge game changer- they are the main reason we're having this discussion.
Reach can be a great bonus, but it's not the main quality of the spear. Just look at Zulu spears. They are short. That's because their style of melee fighting relied on closing the distance and stabbing the enemy.

Again, depends on spacing of fighters, but with underhand grip, you can attack high/mid/low + you have more reach, thus covering more area. With icepick grip, you can only attack from above, and from a short distance.

High/mid/low with the underhand is trapped by your shields and it strikes right into the enemy's shield, armor, greaves. In a fight, wasting energy and opportunity is extremely dangerous.

On the other hand, overhand focuses on moving past defensive gear and striking the vulnerable areas of the body.

Exactly! If you have reach, which you have with an underhand grip, you can not only threaten an enemy in front of you, but also the one trying to attack your friend, making him think twice. Defense by prevention. I guess situation is the same with icepick grip when shieldbearers are hugging

With the underhand spear grip, you get 1m of extra reach at the expense of speed, power, your ability to easily operate the weapon in close quarters etc. Your opponents know you can't throw the spear in that position, so they are less concentrated on you.

With the overhand grip you are able to throw the spear at any moment - that's up to or even perhaps more than 10m of extra reach, depending on the spear and the strength of the thrower. That's a considerably greater risk to the enemy. In my opinion, that's a better form of active defense.

Nevertheless, that's surely an interesting discussion here, and you made my eyes irk a bit less when I see those EB2 soldiers jabbing about

I'm glad we're having this discussion. Like I said, I wasn't a fan of the overhand grip when I started getting interested into ancient and medieval history. Time and experience changed my views.

[RodriguesSting]

Everybody who ever weld a spear and made historical or archeological studies on the subject have their very own opinion on that, and sometimes, these opinions can be shattered by experimentation (see the whole debacle of the "Mediterranean archery", arrow on the right side of the bow, etc). As the subject is if overhand grip is practical, rather than possible, though, and if it was used (people don't always do what's practical), no conclusive answer will ever be found least we find a way to look at an ancient battle in real-time.

Besides, the overhand grip has a purpose in the mod: it offers a better attack animation than the underhand grip, thus units using it fare much better, both offensively and defensively (attacking quicker means dying less too).

[Kilo11]

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I think you guys should post a couple more responses to one another, to work out all the theoretical argumentative points, and then we'll get you each a spear and let you boys do some practical research! After all, that's the only way to be really sure

[Rad]

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I think you guys should post a couple more responses to one another, to work out all the theoretical argumentative points, and then we'll get you each a spear and let you boys do some practical research! After all, that's the only way to be really sure

So, you want us to try to kill each other? At least give us a shield as well

[Kilo11]

So, you want us to try to kill each other? At least give us a shield as well

Fine. I'll give the two of you one shield. I will be interested to see how that affects matters.

[Rad]

Don't get technical now!

[Lusitanio]

What we could do is create new animations so that some units could use the spears in different ways and demonstrate different ways of using the spear as a weapon.

[RodriguesSting]

I believe that's already the case, with units using undergrip and others overgrip?

[Just let me post]

That would be much apprieciated, and potentialy satisfying both camps

*thrusts underhand argument*


P.S. If I got the shield in that duel, and Rad grabbed his spear two handed overhand, making it a rather poor oar, I would die laughing, thus disproving effectiveness of underhand grip :S

[Kilo11]

So, I didn't share this earlier, but only because I was pressed for time on my (quippy) response. But a friend and me often fought each other using (rather shoddy) recreations of antique weapons during our high school days. We had wooden gladii, long and short spears, disc shields, and also a small array of other more ridiculous things (nets and chains and whatnot; basically anything we saw in Gladiator or the original Spartacus movie). Doing one-on-one fighting, I found overhand and underhanded grips to be similarly effective, but very dependent on the situation. However, I only found them to be similarly effective because of the fact that we were fighting one-to-one. Thinking back on how I used the spear alone, or the spear and shield together, I would say with certainty that in formation overhand would be far superior. I know it was more maneuverable that way, had more force in thrusting, and was easier to return to attack position when batted away. The one scenario where I remember underhand being (possibly) better was when the shield being used was very small. In that case, holding the shield above the spear allowed one to guard one's center while thrusting, and also use the shield hand to partially guide the thrust. It was a small advantage gained by underhand, but it was there. That being said, it was only in one-on-one combat with a small shield that such tactics proved helpful. In general, I would always use overhand, largely for the reasons Rad gave above.


P.s. For anyone interested in hands-on research, I would love to again do some spear and shield battling! I challenge you all!

[Satapatiš]

So, I didn't share this earlier, but only because I was pressed for time on my (quippy) response. But a friend and me often fought each other using (rather shoddy) recreations of antique weapons during our high school days. We had wooden gladii, long and short spears, disc shields, and also a small array of other more ridiculous things (nets and chains and whatnot; basically anything we saw in Gladiator or the original Spartacus movie). Doing one-on-one fighting, I found overhand and underhanded grips to be similarly effective, but very dependent on the situation. However, I only found them to be similarly effective because of the fact that we were fighting one-to-one. Thinking back on how I used the spear alone, or the spear and shield together, I would say with certainty that in formation overhand would be far superior. I know it was more maneuverable that way, had more force in thrusting, and was easier to return to attack position when batted away. The one scenario where I remember underhand being (possibly) better was when the shield being used was very small. In that case, holding the shield above the spear allowed one to guard one's center while thrusting, and also use the shield hand to partially guide the thrust. It was a small advantage gained by underhand, but it was there. That being said, it was only in one-on-one combat with a small shield that such tactics proved helpful. In general, I would always use overhand, largely for the reasons Rad gave above.


P.s. For anyone interested in hands-on research, I would love to again do some spear and shield battling! I challenge you all!

Well, the Greek pottery art shows people using both kinds of grip. But they're usually shown with the overhand one when in the formation and the underhand grip is drawn when heroes are dueling.

I suspect that both were used and a trained spearman could switch depending on the situation.

Lindybeige's video is missing one point related to the spears and specifically the Ancient warfare. Greek, Roman and Persian spears had metal counterweights to let them be used held at a roughly 1/3 of their length.

[RodriguesSting]

On the topic of suggestions, back on Gauls, I would like to suggest to remove the Confederation and Top Government from places that are not supposed to have them. You can theoretically build confederations everywhere but outside of Gaul they will offer no pool whatsoever, and I believe the top government should be built only in the capitals?

[QuintusSertorius]

On the topic of suggestions, back on Gauls, I would like to suggest to remove the Confederation and Top Government from places that are not supposed to have them. You can theoretically build confederations everywhere but outside of Gaul they will offer no pool whatsoever, and I believe the top government should be built only in the capitals?

The lack of pools is supposed to be a giveaway, but given it's a higher-tier government, they can also be restricted by upgrade paths.

I'll have a look. EDIT: In fact they are restricted in the upgrade paths. You can only build the Confed in Gaul, and the higher tier one in a specific place (though not sure when I applied that to the build). Unless you're talking about the Boii one?

[Just let me post]

P.s. For anyone interested in hands-on research, I would love to again do some spear and shield battling! I challenge you all!

When the coronavirus quarantine is over, I will look for you, I will find you and I will spear you

[Rad]

Not if I get him first!

[Kilo11]

When the coronavirus quarantine is over, I will look for you, I will find you and I will spear you

Not if I get him first!

Looking forward to it, lads!