Bug or feature? warrior gets +50% vs spearman!

[Drunetovich]

Bug or feature? warrior gets +50% vs spearman! So early rush to sparman seem useless. Devs on latest stream seem to have had no idea about this, and got their hoplites wiped by warriors =)

[Waeress]

It seems they changed it yes.
Spearman is good at reach or rather against horsemen. Like it should be.
Going in with a spear against a close melee is not good.

So early rush, no. But you want to keep them around as barbarians also can/will attack with horsemen early on.

[Ensign]

Feature, That annoyed me in civ V. Warriors are THE basic infantry, spears are specialist units for cav. They promote further to anti cav so they are basically useless after the classical age.

Now however the units that will actually promote to be our mainline infantry, our boots on the ground will be appropriatly melee.

Sure historically spears trump swords. But gameplay wise this is a good thing.

I saw a quill rome playthough where he found and explained this unique "promotion stat" after wondering why spears got demolished by his basic warrior.

[Drunetovich]

So we rush horsemen for early conquest now, hmm

[Waeress]

Originally posted by Drunetovich:

So we rush horsemen for early conquest now, hmm

Well, except most will get some spearmen since barbs get them (horsemen) early and with a higher frequency.

[Waeress]

Originally posted by Ensign:

Sure historically spears trump swords. But gameplay wise this is a good thing.

Different uses. If a few spearmen are rushed by a few swordsmen they better all hit on the first try. Else they die. And hitting a moving target is not easy with a weapon of that range, especially not one that can see you starting to move and dodge. The spears in Civ are long spears.

[SamBC]

Paper-scissors-stone.

[Mayhem Effect]

Originally posted by SamBC:

Paper-scissors-stone.

until you research gunpowder.

[Torg Smith]

Originally posted by Mayhem Effect:

Originally posted by SamBC:

Paper-scissors-stone.

until you research gunpowder.

Then it is lead.

[SamBC]

Originally posted by Mayhem Effect:

Originally posted by SamBC:

Paper-scissors-stone.

until you research gunpowder.

The unit promotion classes all remain when you get to gunpowder this time. You still have melee, anti-cavalry, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, ranged, siege and recon.

[Targonis]

This goes back a ways now, but the OLD Total War games(pre-gunpowder era) shows how things play out quite a bit better than Civ does for the different unit types. Medieval 2: Total War was really very good about this. You NEED different types of troops in a battle. One type means you get your butt kicked by the type that beats your one unit. You always want a mix, infantry, horse, and ranged. Ranged are weak when it comes to melee fighting, but are amazing support troops. Horse will demolish the front lines of the enemy, unless they are spearmen.

It always annoyed me when you saw spear being the PRIMARY troops, because honestly, they don't do as well against melee, and without shields, they have less defense against ranged attacks.

[rincewind]

Originally posted by Targonis:

It always annoyed me when you saw spear being the PRIMARY troops, because honestly, they don't do as well against melee, and without shields, they have less defense against ranged attacks.

Well, the greeks didn't used spears as primary troops for a long time?

[White Shadow]

It may be a game feature, and it may even offer an interesting gameplay balance, but I would argue to the death that it is a complete farce that a sword beats a spear in real life fighting. Now, I understand this is a game, so there's no need to give me that "Civ is never historically accurate" argument, because you're wasting your breath.

As someone who practices HEMA, it is complete rubbish that a sword or axe or any "regular" melee weapon beats a spear. Don't take my word for it. Take a listen to a fencing instructor's thoughts:

https://youtu.be/l2YgGY_OBx8

Originally posted by Targonis:

It always annoyed me when you saw spear being the PRIMARY troops, because honestly, they don't do as well against melee, and without shields, they have less defense against ranged attacks.

Even though you have it ass-backwards. A spear (or at least a polearm) WAS a primary weapon throughout most of history. Swords and axes were most often used as SIDEARMS. Meaning, they were easy to carry at the side, as to make a good SECONDARY weapon.

[Dayve]

Originally posted by Ensign:

Sure historically spears trump swords. But gameplay wise this is a good thing.

Spears have never trumped swords. Assuming two armies were equally well trained/disciplined/motivated, sword infantry will usually obliterate spear infantry. Spears may have trumped swords BEFORE the invention and widespread use of shields, and spears continued to be used on a massive scale afterwards because they were much cheaper and used less metal than the sword, but the sword usually won out.

I mean... if you're using a spear and a guy comes at you with a sword and shield similar to what the Romans used, what the hell are you going to do when your first strike glances off his shield and he's in your face? Your spear is fairly useless at this point.

The Romans had a lot of success conquering people who primarily used spears because of their sword + large shield combo.

And don't take a fencing instructor's word for it like the poster above me recommends. Fencing is a sport, it is not war. Fencers don't use shields. In ancient and medieval warfare people didn't fence, they fought battles, and with all else being equal (training, discipline etc.) a man with a sword and shield in his hand will defeat a man with a spear and a shield in his hand.

[White Shadow]

Originally posted by Dayve:

I mean... if you're using a spear and a guy comes at you with a sword and shield similar to what the Romans used, what the hell are you going to do when your first strike glances off his shield and he's in your face? Your spear is fairly useless at this point.

Three main points:

1. To answer your question directly, with a spear against shield, you feint with a high strike and then come in low, at their legs. Even with a tower shield the only way to cover yourself COMPLETELY is to stop moving. With a spear you have the ability to attack multiple points very quickly due to superior leverage.

2. I would argue the spearman can just as easily have a shield as well. So, gee. I dunno. Maybe block his attack with my shield as well?

3. You're wrong when you think that just because a swordsman has closed distance, the spear is useless. I can easily pull my spear all the way back, shorten the distance, and parry your attacks with it (watch the youtube video I linked).

Originally posted by Dayve:

Fencers don't use shields.

Except in HEMA, we do. :)

[Dayve]

Originally posted by Pericles of Athens:

Originally posted by Dayve:

I mean... if you're using a spear and a guy comes at you with a sword and shield similar to what the Romans used, what the hell are you going to do when your first strike glances off his shield and he's in your face? Your spear is fairly useless at this point.

Three main points:

1. To answer your question directly, with a spear against shield, you feint with a high strike and then come in low, at their legs. Even with a tower shield the only way to cover yourself COMPLETELY is to stop moving. With a spear you have the ability to attack multiple points very quickly due to superior leverage.

2. I would argue the spearman can just as easily have a shield as well. So, gee. I dunno. Maybe block his attack with my shield as well?

3. You're wrong when you think that just because a swordsman has closed distance, the spear is useless. I can easily pull my spear all the way back, shorten the distance, and parry your attacks with it (watch the youtube video I linked).

Dude, you're ignoring the fact that in a battle men CAN'T move around much, or draw their spear all the way back, because standing directly to their left, right and behind them are thousands of other soldiers inhibiting their movement. In a battle, like what Civilization depicts, you don't have the space to move around, dodge and dance. You're face to face with thousands of enemy soldiers, with thousands and thousands of your guys at your sides and back. It's a slog.

And in this slog, sword beats spear.

Just ask the Romans and all the spear-using nations they obliterated.