The spear was the primary weapon in history, spears should be main weapon.

[Seheron]

The spear has always been the primary weapon in history and the sword was only a side arm. The romans were unique but it should be noted they also carried two "spears" in the form of the pilum.

By late empire, the romans went back to using spears and the byzantines used the kontarion as the primary weapon.

[It's Dunk]

Spears can be used as primary weapons in this game too. Short spears, long spears, throwing spears, it's all there.

[Chibi Life]

Let's be realistic here, we don't live in an era anymore where we gotta care about the details of why spears were more commonly used.

We live in an era where swords are cooler than spears. Swords are just so fricken cool and I never get tired of seeing them. Spears are just... meh.

Seeing 500 x 500 swordsman clashing on the fields in Bannerlords is something amazing to see. The clash of steel, the glint of sunlight shining off the blades, the tint of red running hue mixed with the silvers. Seeing the blade slash through the air, seeing soldiers chasing fleeing troops, their blades swinging along their sides.

--- And then you have spears... meh... I'll take coolness factor over historical accuracy.

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

I'm a big fan of TWCenter. I used to visit there quite frequently...
Empire was the last TW game I bought. I like it, but only with the fixes that Darthmod brings. My favorite game in that series is still Medieval II. (Even with its many faults.) I won't ever buy another CA game due to their rampant monetization practices.

That doesn't surprise. You mentioned DarthMod;s i think?
Some of my cavalry research was- discussing - cavalry issues for his empire mod- ( and - it's alot easier to get sources on that era than say ... ancient era )
not just he and I spoke; whole forums of feedback and mod tests and best research we could muster...
..."Darth Nick" or saint-nick to me- was the very nearly the first modder to talk to me like a fellow modder , after i was "village mob chased" off another games forum for saying I'm modding zombies to grapple.
NIck was one of those people- like the Longwar chaps, later, on Nexus - that ends up teaching 1/2 the community to mod - until they say " bye now... off to make my own games, modding your broken garbage is silly of me". I'm totally objective about what went down, eh?>

Anyway- there were lots off *great* mods, so off subject-
and to me the issue with CA is- related perhaps.
Remember when EA was founded to *be* the "good guys" - to be Electromic ARTISTS not arts?
the whole point was to recognize the artists -as in the music industry- which is still crooked-
but in our industry- what they can do that would never fly in music?
I can make a new game ( album) and say " by the beatles" ( by creative assembly )
.. when none of " the beatles" has worked in that studio for *years*.
This is an industry issue that the founder of EA was *unable* to fix - but it's one I hope is addressed. The "dev as rockstar" may have had it's issues- but being able to say " it's still the beatles" when you have *none* of them?
And it-( that CA as 'the beatles was just a name with no..Beatles) started to show a *while* back , aside from their monetization practices.
( * you have a good point there, but mine is partially separate)

WHere this matters aside from modding -
and i liked Empire- I think CA took the wrong lesson from it's overly-ambitious parts, and taking the wrong "lesson" there; hurt later games development- imo.
But to *try* to be succinct for once :

if you played the games before it- and it - you will have noticed- the ENGINE itself- at a deeper level than i have seen anyone be able to *fix* ( i know 2 personally that thought they could - how'd that go? )- - decompile try to change your collision engine level:
- before mepire, formations had a colllison, and people took up "space" like a mini has a "base" ?

the formations for Empire- the engine they are effectively *still* using- *in effect* have no "collision"- this was removed from TW.
If you noticed it in vieos, or thought it was wonky- or hav "dragged" units through other units-

this is why. ANd- again, for EMpire - not *that* big a deal - with a few exceptions, most melee in that game is either- bayonet charge, 'why did you let the cavalry get behind you'
or a muss around a building or gate/ hole.
Not *perfect* but not as meaningful if formation comabt isn't *great* ina game about guns getting less-sucky.

Once you *ekkp8 that engine - and won't addres this- and move it to eras that are
LITERALLY all about who can hold the shield wall/ phalanx-
and endless endless attempts to figure out how to BREAK or *disrupt* it
( you mentioned skirmishers- in games they're pretty lethal - in historiclal accounts, not that couldn't kill, but the context they are brought up - and most missile troops- is *generally * more of harassing and breaking cohesion- THAT was more important than the actual casualties they created- but seperate point for now? anotertime .. enevermind- you're from TWC?yo've seen hsia 100 times, both sides )

ANyway- i just wanted to point out that- thru all three of my rants- and big points both of you made- the issue becomes - the people that can hold the line, are going to win -
the " it's a big mosh pit yeee haaaaaaa" movie crap that TotalWarp turns into - is crap.
It's " i''ll just throw haymakers versus an actual boxer", level of CRAP - and will get you KILLED. A agme that doesn't - and CAN"T - simulate that- is why all the Total War games... at a deep level, became CRAP.
You won't see history documentarians using them to illustrate battles anymore - just youtubers. because it no longer simulates foramtions - it IS good at simulating psychotic mosh pit blob wjere no on takes up physical space....
ANd i think why he liked the DetI mod - was it helped *reduce * it in that example-
( we can debate lethality- and much casualties happen AFTER people start running? elsewhere ? it relates but- enough on the plate - i DO think it's the*real* answer to something i was oversimplifying last night- why Hoplites & Romans & other Heavy Inf did so much killing -but- too much on these plates )

Eggsy brought up stuff, I debated ( more well, maybe so, here's the other hand )
and while " hey ive been stabbed up a bit and did alot of mostly-unarmed fighting - enough to get in trouble not enough to make pro? the worst middle ) -
that- and recreations , e it by the fantasy groups like ol' ampguard or what-not, or the most historicl ones, hobbyist to pro athlete-
all of this is clues- but imperfect.

WHat i think is clear- and repeated thru just about everything I've ever read or seen?
- until guns and artillery get * very* good - and that--- much later than most people think -
and most games don't get why inventing"shrapnel" chnaged everything -how "artillery" isn't anything like most people think until *that* --

until this huge change - the one that could keep discipline and keep tight- tended to - over and over and over, destroy the enemy.
to touch on the point eggsy made- i think part of what we see is - after the first few fights on the front- if one side is clearly, insanely more dangerous-- the other side is going to be a little hesitant to walk up... i think fights were decide - not done but decided, all to often right there.
an opposite exmaple- is the roman system where they are aware of this and rotate troops out, and have the better ones in reserve for this..
- anyway so much of the tactics i mentioned and other mentioned- are about * breaking cohesion* - we hear off the sassinids - and turks- firing their arrows util the enemy is disrupted, -- THEN chargin in with the (generally nobles ) lancers to get the glory.

the greek shied - push tricks- i don't think they were lying. the romans? the boars head?
We can disagree if this stuff was used- or how much or how aggressively -
but we can agree they had it in their playbook- and they - i don't care what I. or some youtuber, or evena professiona historian thinks on this part-
we KNOW *they* thought having that in their playbook was important. They have too many manuals and training for it examples, to ignore they THEY thought- breaking that line- and holding that line ( and as mork said, "fixing and Efffing that line" - not how he said it, but his whole post is what WE call" fix and F" *today with fire teams )
ANyhow-
a lot of babble, ona lot of things, but ultimately i think it mostly realtes, and aside from some details i think all of us are 95% on tha same page.
YOu can look up some info on human 1h and 2h stabbing joules generated by knife and spear, it's all been studied- a\ fr knife most of the research is re: secuirit, and yuo'll se why there's stab plates and how people who tell you what armor *the imagine* will stop stabs, are talking out of their never-been-stabbed heinie.
The 2h stuff? well- the scariest looking one isee - the guys hamming it up on knight fight?
no thrusting rule apparently.
Watch those idiots beating the hell out of each other and understand they consider thrust atatcks too dangerous for THAT league.

Put..*that* in your pipe and smoke it; the rest of the thread with "simple answers" - you authoritively and dismissively state while the actaul experts can't agree?
probably most on this thread with the most "definite" &strongly-held opinions are those people as probably never *used* a spear, or knocked anyone out with a IRL jab...
Did NONE of y'all box?
Alot of opinions AWFUL strong held for folks who it sounds like , ain't done much more than watch youtube videos.
but it's ok, I'm sure y'all all know more about it than, you know, the knight fight guys, you know, they just amde that all up because not getting their people injured, it don't matter.

Originally posted by Aahz said to the Skeeve:

" Think you know more about war than me? Would you like to PROVE it?

[Syllabus]

Join the campaign:

"Push Back and Keep at Bay must be default traits of the spear, not a perk...!"

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by Syllabus:

Join the campaign:

"Push Back and Keep at Bay must be default traits of the spear, not a perk...!"

ha! of course YOU'd show up here eventually ;)

AT this point this - to me- is a dead thread, kept alive by history nerds debating-
i think ? even the OP has admitted M&B is for a different demographic- and fun for different reasons- than the game he used as an example.
I have my own thoughts on the spear issue- and jabbing, and stabbing- and getting stabbed- and actual fighting-
and some SCARY effers i'v seen in our fight leage, and the rules to keept hem from hurting people with spears.. even with all the padding and armor and padded blunt weapons...
they are very long, and no one will like them.
Which is ok.

ps: when i was rambling on and on in the *OTHER* threads
why did no one tell me the caladrian empire already lost rome/ravenna ?
- i mean seriosuly, ya'll are jerks. i look stupider than usual now. such face /so egg

[The Ohio Question]

Originally posted by Egro:

Originally posted by Eggssy:

Basically, if the game made formations and spear walls stronger, combat would be longer and would make cavalry THE deciding factor. Infantry shouldnt be able to kill each other so quickly and by having stronger formations fight should last longer.

Historically too, horses will never charge a solid line by making infantry stronger due to formations, we as players have to play more strategically and commit our cavalry at the right moment. Makes the game less about unit stats, and more about how our units are used.

Merely ideas tho so no hate please, would love to see the game get better is all.

I dunno where people get the idea that cavalry did not charge an infantry line...Oh wait I know where. Well no, historically cavalry did charge infantry solid line. The French chevalier were well known for charging with their 4m long lances. We even have a historical record of French chevaliers charged at Swiss pikemen formations during the battle of Nancy and get fk up badly by the pikemen.

Frontal charges were not common, for the exact reason you listed, it a great way to throw away your best force. The frankish charge was a thing yes, it wasnt the main use of cav.

Cav was best used for flanking and skirmishing, and once the lines broke to run down fleeing men before they could regroup.

[Syllabus]

Frontal charges were not common, for the exact reason you listed, it a great way to throw away your best force. The frankish charge was a thing yes, it wasnt the main use of cav.

Actually, frontal charges were common. But, the "catch" is that it became common only after the cavalry really, really got proficient in it.

The thing is, if we sort of compare the BL to actual history, the era depicted in BL sort of matches the time frame in actual history where the cavalry were "getting there," but "not quite there yet."

A very significant (and admittedly circumstantial) evidence for this, is the length of the couched lances in BL -- usually between 180~190-ish and pretty short. Compared to this, Warband had much longer cavalry lances which basically lost all function as a thrusting spear, and became solely a cavalry weapon used for couching.

So the cavalry in BL we have, are in that transitional phase somewhere in between ancient-style shock cavalry, and true-blue "Medieval knights."

Cav was best used for flanking and skirmishing, and once the lines broke to run down fleeing men before they could regroup.

"In the ancient times." Cav was best used for flanking and skirmishing, and once the lines broke to run down fleeing men before they could regroup in the ancient times when...

● the cavalrymen did not have advanced armor yet
● the cavalrymen did not use couching method yet
● there were no stirrups and advanced saddles yet
● the horses did not have heavy horse armor/bardings yet
● the size of well-trained heavy infantry was huge, easily over 50~100 thousand men

When the above conditions changed, the heavy cavalry became powerful and proficient enough to bust up spear formations with frontal charges. That was the whole point of raising knights to become the "hammer" of the army. Frontal charge, was what knights were there for.

I mean, it's not like the knights refused to flank enemies... and certainly given opportunity they would flank without problems, but in many cases the knights could be deployed in the center to lead the charge, and they would. They were capable of breaking spear formations well enough, and this continued until the age of pikes and shots in some cases.

By the time the push of pikes were in the field certainly the likelihood of cavalry charging from the front did diminish a lot, but it still happened from time to time.

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by Cabin Fever:

Originally posted by Egro:

I dunno where people get the idea that cavalry did not charge an infantry line...Oh wait I know where. Well no, historically cavalry did charge infantry solid line. The French chevalier were well known for charging with their 4m long lances. We even have a historical record of French chevaliers charged at Swiss pikemen formations during the battle of Nancy and get fk up badly by the pikemen.

Frontal charges were not common, for the exact reason you listed, it a great way to throw away your best force. The frankish charge was a thing yes, it wasnt the main use of cav.

Cav was best used for flanking and skirmishing, and once the lines broke to run down fleeing men before they could regroup.

the just-previous response to you is BS;
a pointless -and wrong, imo - bit of pedantry based on cherry-picking and ignoring the consensus amongst actual military historians rather than forum amateurs hobbyists-
which is ( the consensus ) .. more or less; you're right.

aside from, barding is old as HELL; heavily armored cavalrymen? old as hell;

the general consensus has been- cavalry were *fine* in those periods when no one could have large professional armies, and lines didn't have the discipline or skill to counter them
- to the point people over-estimated their power and would get a nice wake-up call down the line...

and- you have whole other eras where cavalry have a *very* hard time doing..anything but dieing gloriously if they try anything so stupid, becoming used for "hammer and anvil", skirmishing, or - recon/pursuit.

...that they were so constantly and consistently out-fought; and proven NOT to be the queen of battle they had looked like in a specific era and circumstances?...
is generally considered ; just like the *shift* in power that made the greek democracies possible and the roman citizen-army Republic possible ( and how power shifted when that changed ) a society-changing power shift . Literally a paradigm shift as this was re-discovered.

- it's long been established entering this era changed more than war.
Gwynne Dyer goes over it ..extensively - in his book on war-
as did Clausewitz a bit in "On War", btw.

and we can listen to the opinions of internet forum experts like that guy- or me-
or we can look at what - those authorities say on the matter.

a side note?
when i was first majoring in histroy ( didn't finish- i was afraid i'd end up pouring coffee and had decided not to take up a recruiter's offer to join officer college; so I'm no expert either ) -
-- it was "accepted wisdom" that the *gun* had caused this change.
It was still accepted there'd been a paradigm shift, but i was literally taught it was because of *guns*.

...It's now accepted wisdom, this change- and power shift - and not *just the* 100 years war and how it changed how the french fought - all pre-date *useful* handguns.

there ARE exceptions - examples of when it did work, even not as hammer and anvil but- as it had in an earlier age- as "wrecking ball" ( got a poster of winged hussars .. feet from me right now ) - when it had worked against armies that were almost all either noble&retinue ( also generally heavy cavalry) or conscripts not even 'wealthy' enough to be 'militia' as the infantry...
but to confuse "notable exceptions... noted for *being* exception-al " with "what generally works" is yet another kind of logical fallacy.

I mean, we could ignore that this is considered "established" by historical authorities,
and go ot a neat youtube video about- where knights come from, and *just* how early heavy armor for man and horse comes in;
and it... goes right to the tactics of those who, after all;
are the *REAL* experts on the issue-
the people who invented it and DID it.
https://youtu.be/YGCP9QVlo6g
and despite the title he goes to the 1400 bc era to explain how *they* came about.

just a youtube video, he's not saying anything new or controversial that isn't in 5 of the 6 books right behind me on my bed...
( or .. established & recognized by the actual historical community, as opposed to 'fake experts'.. cue Paul Harrell video )

[JP_Russell]

Originally posted by Cute Totori:

Let's be realistic here, we don't live in an era anymore where we gotta care about the details of why spears were more commonly used.

We live in an era where swords are cooler than spears. Swords are just so fricken cool and I never get tired of seeing them. Spears are just... meh.

Seeing 500 x 500 swordsman clashing on the fields in Bannerlords is something amazing to see. The clash of steel, the glint of sunlight shining off the blades, the tint of red running hue mixed with the silvers. Seeing the blade slash through the air, seeing soldiers chasing fleeing troops, their blades swinging along their sides.

--- And then you have spears... meh... I'll take coolness factor over historical accuracy.

Spears would be a lot cooler if they were accurately represented more often, but there's a popular misunderstanding of how fast and unpredictable a weapon it is, how significant the range advantage is, how challenging it is to just get in close and negate that range advantage, etc. Watching a skilled spear user spar against non-spear users kind of shows that spears could be a lot more glamorous if more people understood them just a little better.

Swords are also propped up a bit by the misrepresentation of armor in so much pop culture and fiction. They lose some of their shine in a realistic context where they become less effective as you introduce better armor, and they get relegated to sidearms for good reason. Also, the glamorous but unrealistic way swordfighting is usually depicted makes them seem flashier than they are in practice, as well. Real skilled swordplay is definitely something to behold for the amount of technique in it, but it's a lot more of a careful range game with a much bigger focus on trying to not die.

And I don't even really disagree with you - swords are overall fancier weapons with many different styles of fancy swordplay and more real estate for fancy designs (and in a fantasy setting where you can have characters with sci-fi power swords or super powers that let them slice through buildings, swords certainly are more exciting and dynamic weapons), and there's something more primally satisfying about the imagery of a brandished sword in the human frame than that of a spear. But the mystique of both weapons today is still heavily influenced by their inaccurate representations in pop culture. At the very least, the glamor gap between the two weapons would close a fair bit if more people understood that spears are not as boring and fatally limited as they're made out to be, which I think would then inspire producers of fiction to depict spears more often and use more imagination with them.

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by JP_Russell:

made some thoughtful points,

which i read while seeing if the notification was from one of my " this should be on twc forums guys" - it wasn't but i like the cut of ya' jib.

if i may, as i pointed out to the OP-
and i think you're already addressing this, i'm reinforcing your point is... tropes.
and arguing with mentally-embedded / emotionally invested tropes is an up-hill battle...

everyone knows spears are dumb and *just for mooks* https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BladeOnAStick

and our culture is deeply ingrained not into "cavalry so noble & unstoppbale " ( i mentioned gwynne dyer's book WAr which is.. all about why - why it sayed in our nobility so long after it was practical )
but also a bit of sword-worship: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroesPreferSwords

so, fighting gainst tropes can be an uphill battle...

but, i can amke ya fel better- you won't see it as it's ina long long post-
but when i did SCA fightin' we had some guys point out- you've SEEN us practice with quarterstaffs...

...you DO realize... how many people practiced staves, for sport?

...you DO realize... anything i can do with it i can do with this spear?
( this wasn't me, i was tryin' to learn bill-hook when they changed the rules so no more trippin' doods... aw, man... )

why anyone argued i dunno...
but it did lead to a concussion- despite padded weapons AND a full helm...
just sayin' it's all talk and theory til your DUMB MOUTH gets you a concussion and we're all in trouble...again.
you know what it's like to get yelled at by "lord british" ? sigh
what was i gonna do to stop 'em? run to daddy? pfft
( you gonna talk back to the local "king" who owns real-life castles, throws bad-ass parties; and at whose company you're interning? Nope. )

[Liberator48]

I like to use spears as primary sometimes. I like the "ching" sound it makes when you stab someone, and they have a unique fighting style that is extra challenging but feels more rewarding

[Cordarius France Jammal]

Originally posted by Cute Totori:

Let's be realistic here, we don't live in an era anymore where we gotta care about the details of why spears were more commonly used.

We live in an era where swords are cooler than spears. Swords are just so fricken cool and I never get tired of seeing them. Spears are just... meh.

Seeing 500 x 500 swordsman clashing on the fields in Bannerlords is something amazing to see. The clash of steel, the glint of sunlight shining off the blades, the tint of red running hue mixed with the silvers. Seeing the blade slash through the air, seeing soldiers chasing fleeing troops, their blades swinging along their sides.

--- And then you have spears... meh... I'll take coolness factor over historical accuracy.

how dare you insult my pwessis spears :(


lol

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by Flying Hot Dog:

how dare you insult my pwessis spears :(
lol

, so - i guess you're saying you 're not The Lancer [tvtropes.org] ?

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by LtCysaber:

...
I've tested. Standing still and stabbing deals low damage (assuming the enemy isn't moving toward you). Backing up and then moving forward while stabbing deals way more damage.

Awesome!

Have you compared which seems to be easier or more efficient, a good "Cut/Swing" damage polearm or one of the preferred "Thrust/Pierce" spears that you like?

Bannerlord's "Thrust" mechanic with polearms often seems to be better than it was in Warband. I like to favor using a spear vs a cutting polearm when mounted, but the spear damage output doesn't seem as high as it should be. I'm not sure if this is to promote the Lance as the primary damage weapon for pierce damage or if it's just something that needs balancing.

As long as its sharp and relatively pointy, a spear traveling at a decent amount of speed, backed by the momentum of a horse and rider, should be doing more damage than a slashing strike. Or, perhaps...

Since we have the opportunity to calculate damage and the specific body part being struck, perhaps "Chest" should bet a damage multiplier for damage that passes through Piercing protection? (Not sure that's not already the case. If not, perhaps it should be?)

One trouble that we have in Bannerlord is carried directly over from a problem in Warband - Piercing Damage. There likely should be an entirely separate damage category for Arrows and bolts versus Spear/Lance/Polearm/Sword Thrust... So very many mods had this same problem in that it was difficult to balance Pierce Protection against Weapon Pierce damage and Arrow/Bolt Pierce Damage.

Anyway, I sort of went off on a tangent. But, i think the problems we're seeing with creating good ranged units without them being overpowered while still having realistic, good, pierce damage for spears and similar weapons could be alleviated by recategorizing their damage types.

[Bukkacracy]

Spear is clearly a metaphor for OP's penis. This thread is just wrong.

Disgusting.