Swords vs. spears

[WindBlownLeaf]

I'm wondering which people prefer. I keep hearing that swords are better, but I don't agree. Swords get destroyed even by frontal cav charges, and while they outperform spears, it's not a massive difference. Spears will hold swords for a long time, giving opportunity to flank or focus fire with archers.

Pikes are pretty dodgy though. Very low missile defense which is a problem.

[Stix_09]

spears are generally more defensive units and better for a front line, it also depends on sword units and any formation/ bonus , armour etc it might have. best way to kill is still flanking and rear charges, not line troops. where defence is reduced
there are also sword shock troops, but in gen spears make a better front line holding force.

Personally i like modded combat , vanilla is not very realistic imo (as much as that is possible in a tw game)

[Yews]

The spear has been ‘the weapon’ for centuries even after gunpoweder came around for a reason. Amusing how the devs themselves attempt to represent the sword as the standard weapon so to speak (like how they call units with swords infantry but if the unit is equipped with spears then its name specifically refers to the spear, as though the sword is the standard infantry weapon and the spear is more exotic), but spear units still rule the battlefield.

[Citizen X]

The average hoplite unit is cheaper and has better armor than mid-tier swords. Hoplite carry a 45 shield, where as most swords carry only 35. Royal Peltasts are the only sword unit that I am currently aware of that has a 45 shield

[WindBlownLeaf]

Originally posted by Citizen X:

The average hoplite unit is cheaper and has better armor than mid-tier swords. Hoplite carry a 45 shield, where as most swords carry only 35. Royal Peltasts are the only sword unit that I am currently aware of that has a 45 shield

Cool, the better shield also works better against missiles I assume?

[Citizen X]

Originally posted by WindBlownLeaf:

Originally posted by Citizen X:

The average hoplite unit is cheaper and has better armor than mid-tier swords. Hoplite carry a 45 shield, where as most swords carry only 35. Royal Peltasts are the only sword unit that I am currently aware of that has a 45 shield

Cool, the better shield also works better against missiles I assume?

That should be correct, yes. This is also why Peltasts units are very good; they are the only missile type with a 30 shield, which means they can absorb the most enemy missiles

Having 2 peltasts spread out leading in front of the army will have the enemy missiles target them first. They can eat ammo all day as they quickly dump their 12 AP javelins into the enemies main line. With their ammo depleted, they still have the best melee stats by far of any missile unit type; 65 armor to begin with, along with a little ATK and DFC, they can be thrown at the enemy to absorb Pila and charges or put in the back to use for reserve.

To take your skirmish game to the next level, bring your OWN long-range missiles as well, and you will be able to fire on the enemy while they fire on the peltasts. Youre archers or slingers will be able to fire volley after volley at full strength, as the enemy is focused on your Peltasts.

[IGX]

Oathsworn are laughing at this entire thread.

[WindBlownLeaf]

Originally posted by IGX:

Oathsworn are laughing at this entire thread.

Oathsworn loses to a lot of heavy cav head on. Don't even need to rear charge.

[Skyler712]

Originally posted by WindBlownLeaf:

I'm wondering which people prefer. I keep hearing that swords are better, but I don't agree. Swords get destroyed even by frontal cav charges, and while they outperform spears, it's not a massive difference. Spears will hold swords for a long time, giving opportunity to flank or focus fire with archers.

Pikes are pretty dodgy though. Very low missile defense which is a problem.

ingame swords and spears has static weapon damage, something you cant edit freely unless with general skills.
But in general, just like what happened in shogun 2: a sword deals more dmg than a spear but if you make enough buffs to a hoplite in damage and melee, you can make a hoplite deal more damage than a base sword unit. What does this means? that means you can use those buffed hoplites as swordsmen, you can replace their role.

Thats why i like more spearmen than swordsmen: you can make your hoplites act like swordsmen, but you cant make swordsmen act like hoplites.
Edit: all of this is considering only stats, we all know that almost all swordsmen has pilums, and thats something to consider too.

[IGX]

Originally posted by WindBlownLeaf:

Originally posted by IGX:

Oathsworn are laughing at this entire thread.

Oathsworn loses to a lot of heavy cav head on. Don't even need to rear charge.

What are you smoking? Unless you're using cataphracts the rest will get destroyed by javelins.

[Stix_09]

Originally posted by Skyler712:

ingame swords and spears has static weapon damage, something you cant edit freely unless with general skills.
But in general, just like what happened in shogun 2: a sword deals more dmg than a spear but if you make enough buffs to a hoplite in damage and melee, you can make a hoplite deal more damage than a base sword unit. What does this means? that means you can use those buffed hoplites as swordsmen, you can replace their role.

Thats why i like more spearmen than swordsmen: you can make your hoplites act like swordsmen, but you cant make swordsmen act like hoplites.
Edit: all of this is considering only stats, we all know that almost all swordsmen has pilums, and thats something to consider too.

You will find most swords have higher chance to hit than most spears, spears have in general better defensive stats.

There is alot more to combat and it's calculations than just the weapon damage. (that is only part of it) , ie Armour, damage types of weapon and amounts, charging or not, charge bonus, formations, direction of attack, mass of unit , health of unit, fatigue, unit morale , shielded or not , mobility etc etc

Also you have to ignore reality of what is the better weapon or most historic etc and base discussion on game combat mechanics. The type of unit used by player (that he will ideally want to use) will largely depend on the role its being used for and how its used (just as important) to be most effective

Originally posted by WindBlownLeaf:

[WindBlownLeaf]

Originally posted by IGX:

Originally posted by WindBlownLeaf:

Oathsworn loses to a lot of heavy cav head on. Don't even need to rear charge.

What are you smoking? Unless you're using cataphracts the rest will get destroyed by javelins.

Cycle charging from the front with any heavy cav of similar cost will murder oathsworn.

[Stix_09]

Originally posted by WindBlownLeaf:

Originally posted by IGX:

What are you smoking? Unless you're using cataphracts the rest will get destroyed by javelins.

Cycle charging from the front with any heavy cav of similar cost will murder oathsworn.

That is the worst way to use cav and oathsworn, and even if prob will get a lol of cav killed esp if they use a formation

[WindBlownLeaf]

Originally posted by Stix_09:

Originally posted by WindBlownLeaf:

Cycle charging from the front with any heavy cav of similar cost will murder oathsworn.

That is the worst way to use cav and oathsworn, and even if prob will get a lol of cav killed esp if they use a formation

Lol ofc, who would front cycle charge if they had a choice? However, it proves the point oathsworn arent this god tier unit. Good vs. other infantry but less versatile than spears

[LSD]

Spears in R2TW have crappy attack stats and crappy damage, meaning low chance to hit and low damage when they do hit.
They tend to have higher defensive stats but because the game engine is so terrible at simulating combat mechanics, that increased defence translates into nothing of any value.

The only use for spears is that they can take head-on cav charges that the AI is so prone to using, whereas swords take a fair couple casualties.

[Timmer120]

Generally I find the best solution is to generally use swords as your frontline, Rome being an obvious example aside, with the Proving Ground tree 'Roid Raging your infantry barb swords become SCARY, add 2-4 Spear Units for flanks and to support Cav, some Cav, and some Missiles and you got a slappin' army that can go through pretty much any AI Army

Originally posted by WindBlownLeaf:

Lol ofc, who would front cycle charge if they had a choice? However, it proves the point oathsworn arent this god tier unit. Good vs. other infantry but less versatile than spears

the issue is that this comparison goes sideways once we factor in Supporting Units, for instance any archer unit would cause the cav to die in the process of that cycle charging, or alternatively if we add in a simple Gallic Light Horse, then either that shock cav gets defeated one on one or at the least becomes unable to run away from the oathsworn, while the oathsworn will be able to do significantly better against the opposition's supporting units than your Shock Cav

Meanwhile compare spears, whose only job that they can do is to punish Cav for staying in melee and die slowly for the front line-I like to sprinkle a few since my cav may not be able to defeat their cav and I can use a unit of them to either kill enemy cav or force their cav to retreat, allowing my cav to get a bunch of free pursuit kills, but frontline is Swords 100% if you are playing a faction with good swords