Sword > Spear but my sword lose

[alqaedaarmy]

I'm quiet new to this game , however I know that sword should kill spear easily but I had noticed otherwise.

To be specific, why my Byzantine Infantry(sword) lose Saracen infantry (spear) ? Eventough their stats and costs are exactly equal! What's the use of sword if spear can kill both the sword and calvary?

By this factual, I'm guessing all sword units will have problem against all spears units too. I haven't test them all yet tough.

[olvios]

You mean in reality or in game terms? Spear is longer and wins against any sword in reality.Most of the times.

[alqaedaarmy]

Yes, it's suppose to be that way in-game especially.

[thecactusman17]

In a straight up one-one one fight, the sword may well win thanks to the ability to get inside the opponent's defense where he can't effectively attack. But in regimented combat like in Total War, spears effectively wall out swordsmen from being able to get into that position. Only the most heavily armored swordsmen are going to succesfully approach a massed wall of ready spearmen. If you want to take out spearmen, hit them with archers, longer-reaching pikemen, or flank them with swordsmen or charging cav while they engage another long-reaching unit.

There's a damned good reason why spears are the most common weapon ever created throughout history. Hint: even most Samurai, a warrior cast famous for their swords, were not considered true warriors unless they had first utterly mastered the art of spear combat.

[alqaedaarmy]

In a straight up one-one one fight, the sword may well win thanks to the ability to get inside the opponent's defense where he can't effectively attack. But in regimented combat like in Total War, spears effectively wall out swordsmen from being able to get into that position. Only the most heavily armored swordsmen are going to succesfully approach a massed wall of ready spearmen. If you want to take out spearmen, hit them with archers, longer-reaching pikemen, or flank them with swordsmen or charging cav while they engage another long-reaching unit.

There's a damned good reason why spears are the most common weapon ever created throughout history. Hint: even most Samurai, a warrior cast famous for their swords, were not considered true warriors unless they had first utterly mastered the art of spear combat.

Thanks for the info, I get a glimpse of this topic now. so swordsmen is purposedfully used for making a flank hit only and not a head 2 head coalition.

[Pagan Deity]

There's a damned good reason why spears are the most common weapon ever created throughout history. Hint: even most Samurai, a warrior cast famous for their swords, were not considered true warriors unless they had first utterly mastered the art of spear combat.

Thats because spears are cheap and easy to make

Most of histories spears were no where near as flexible and sturdy as the spears of the Samurai. Japan by the way was the only place in the world that could make such high quality swords that they didn't need to make shields to block or parry an opponents blow.

[thecactusman17]

Thats because spears are cheap and easy to make

Most of histories spears were no where near as flexible and sturdy as the spears of the Samurai. Japan by the way was the only place in the world that could make such high quality swords that they didn't need to make shields to block or parry an opponents blow.

You're right, xaxx. Katana were almost more art than actual weapon (though they were certainly quite capable in the right hands).

As for Japanese and shields, that's not quite accurate PD. There were plenty of types of plate and chain armor used, thanks primarily to the fact that the poor iron mixed with the creation process resulted in extremely brittle swords that could easily shatter if not used correctly. But what this resulted in for the elite (who were more likely to own swords) was extremely talented swordsmen who spent years or decades practicing, so that by the time they actually stepped onto the battlefield the poorly made sword was no longer a liability. The swordsmen themselves were responsible for the lack of shields, as most common sword schools would teach their students to make single blows which wouldn't put undo stress or wear on the blade. Opponents often attacked Japanese swordsmen with other weapons more suited to staying out of reach such as the bow or spear. To fight swordsmen on horseback, they even developed a special type of spear called the naginata, a flat blade at the end of a long pole that they could use to chop off a charging horse's legs.

And as for spears being so common, ease of creation is only part of the answer--the other is that they are excellent defensive weapons. Unlike a sword or club which required the user to approach their target (be it man or beast) close enough to be within range of retaliation, well-made spears kept the user well out of reach while allowing him to put his full strength into the thrust.

[Pagan Deity]

I would Never based my opinion on a movie. Rather awhile ago I read one of Turnbull's books on Samurai. And he points out that at the time of the Mongol invasion Samurai use bows from horseback. However, by the end of the Sengoku Jidai the prevaling Samurai used swords. The nicks in Japanese swords are depicted in a number of artworks. My understanding (from his book that I read several years ago) was that came from parrying blows with the back end of a sword. Something Eurpoean swords could not do until the age of Chivalry had passed.

Oh well it was a long time since I read the book. But don't mistake me for some movie watching idiot.

On another note the Celts were damn good metalsmiths in their own right.

[Lusted]

Their stats are not identical:

Byzatine Infantry:
Attack 9
Defense 14
Cost 370
Upkeep 125

Saracen Militia:
Attack 9
Defense 18
Cost 470
Upkeep 155

So the Saracen Militia win because of their higher defense, which is because of 4 extra points of defense skill. So i would expect the Saracan Militia to win. Now if it was Dismounted Arab Cavalry they were fighting i would expect the Byzantine infantry to win, though DAC need a slightly tweak in terms of stats.

[alqaedaarmy]

Their stats are not identical:

Byzatine Infantry:
Attack 9
Defense 14
Cost 370
Upkeep 125

Saracen Militia:
Attack 9
Defense 18
Cost 470
Upkeep 155

So the Saracen Militia win because of their higher defense, which is because of 4 extra points of defense skill. So i would expect the Saracan Militia to win. Now if it was Dismounted Arab Cavalry they were fighting i would expect the Byzantine infantry to win, though DAC need a slightly tweak in terms of stats.

Lusted, I forgot to mention that my Byzantine were upgraded to level 2 - which makes them equal in stat to saracen - but they still lost. moreover,they are also standing on the top of steep mountain.

I think you should try battle again, i'm quiet sure of this.

[Lusted]

moreover,they are also standing on the top of steep mountain.

Bingo, uphill/downhill bug. At extremely steep angles the uphill units animations will no longer connect with the downhill unit, who can still hit the uphill unit and so win.

[eusKai]

That´s not necessary. In one to one fight, your swordmen can charge spearmen of similar stats and they will win easily. If the spearman are much stronger (somehow def seems more useful than atack in this game) they will win, but for similar stats sword > spear. Flanking always help, of course, but it´s not necessary.

However i think that the different stats is not what is happening in your case, look what lusted said about the uphill bug some posts above

[xxax]

European swords were higher quality... The iron in Japan was nowhere near the quality of european iron. The katana was a good sword but nowhere near the status it has gained in modern culture. Because the iron wasn't top quality they had to work on it more.

The things we see today in movies aren't real...

Here is a good article
http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm

[xxax]

and also the sword was never really a primary weapon... Since it was pretty inefective against heavy armour you had to use maces or something similar. Horsed Knight's had lances, troops were armed with halberds, pikes, sprears...

thecactusman17
as you said. very good swords but nowhere near the god-like status they have today...

[Queen Annes Revenge]

this is good to know, i've been brought up to think that katanas were unequaled in terms of melee weapons.

[Dark Highlander]

Thanks xaxx! Great article. (Real glad I wondered in here.)

[Arjuna]

so if someone thrusted at you, you'd parry and slash their head off!

Problem is, it's more difficult to parry a thrust than a slash.

Seriously. Try it out for yourself.

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

lol u speak sound truth Arjuna it would also depend on the skill on both sides for if the katana wielding samurai was cunning he would know of the danger and dance inside his opponents guard, rolling under the thrust to attack the groin or legs if he jumped the thrust would become more deadly, as the samurai would fall on the blade as well----certain death

[ImKyleJames]

Katana's favored from design I would imagine, the curvature of both blade and hilt make it tremendously effective to slice up the enemy.. and to slice them up quickly! Europeon swords maybe focused more on thrusting than slashing, so if someone thrusted at you, you'd parry and slash their head off!