Why are Spears and Polearms separate weapon categories?

[apocal43]

I just realized there are no two-handed spears in the game and it makes for a rather unimpressive lineup (talking standard options, not uniques) when it comes to pointy weapons. That would be fine except... the one undoubtedly two-handed spear-type weapon (a pike) is instead under the polearm category.

What's up with that? Why not just have one unified polearm category?

[Teut]

You want to include the short, one-handed spear in the polearm category?

The unifying feature of polearms seems to be that you need both hands to use them, wich makes them different enough from a spear, I think.

But yes, I have two Spearbros` and they only get 'fighting time' when we're up against a huge number of Orcs (with many Orcwarriors), so it's not the most useful weapon specialisation.

[gazomierz]

Because spears weren't twohanded weapons mostly. Spear mostly was used in conjunction with shields. And ofc they could be used by themselves, just as swords can. But in context of battlefield use they were exclusively paired with shields in pretty much every culture.

Pikes were a different beast. They were used in different way both in terms of each individual combatant as well as in tactical sense. And they were all twohanded weapons, as in requiring both hands to use effectively.

Only example of pike used with shield I can think of from top of my head is macedonian sarrisa and mounted warriors (lances and knights and whatnot, I also admit this is simplification as lances were quite unique on their own). In case of sarissa I would credit its effectiveness to very specific tactics/formation employed as well as to tactics/fighting style it mostly faced. In the long run it proved to be rather limited and possible to be hard countered.

Same problem occured later in history. Pike blocks were very inflexible and more vulnerable to flanking maneuvers than any other units. Lot of thought and experimentation went into how to combat that.

We can also consider mounted warriors. In such case we can talk about lances vs spears. Lances were highly specilized weapons for specific tasks. Not personal combat weapon. Spears were much more versatile at the cost of drop in ability to deliver crushing charges. Very distinctive difference between the weapons.

Ofc on horseback both weapon types could be used with a shield, so that one applies only to foot soliers.

In terms of translating it to video game I think it makes sense to inlcude pikes and such in polearm rather than spear category. Granted, it's mostly difference in size between short and long spear. But consequence of that is entirely different use and nature of weapon. Pike being pretty much unusable in personal combat and short spears being very nimble weapons in contrast, as an example. Except being pointy stick to poke someone with there are very few similarities in how the weapons were used.

I don't know how satisfactory you'll find this answer to be. Hope it helps.

Edit:
And don't let lack of twohanded spear stop you from using them. On dedicated builds they're amazing far into late game. In early and mid game they are just good weapons overall.

[holy-death]

Originally posted by apocal43:

I just realized there are no two-handed spears in the game and it makes for a rather unimpressive lineup (talking standard options, not uniques) when it comes to pointy weapons.

What do you mean by "unimpressive lineup"? I tried spears and pikes formation and I found it absolutely devastating.

[apocal43]

Originally posted by gazomierz:

Because spears weren't twohanded weapons mostly. Spear mostly was used in conjunction with shields. And ofc they could be used by themselves, just as swords can. But in context of battlefield use they were exclusively paired with shields in pretty much every culture.

Throughout most of history, sure, but by the late medieval era, shields (outside of stuff like big pavise ones for crossbowmen) were giving way to improved armor by the rough timeframe the game depicts (1310-1340 or thereabouts). Spears were frequently used two-handed in armored combat because the combatants were basically wearing their shields at that point and one-handed use couldn't really compare when it came to speed and technique.

That's history though and I was thinking more gameplay. The polearm mastery perk is already fairly lukewarm as far as I can tell. Other weapons -- warhammers, axes, cleavers, flails -- get two-handed versions which can take advantage of a single mastery perk while offering different abilities.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

Edit:
And don't let lack of twohanded spear stop you from using them. On dedicated builds they're amazing far into late game. In early and mid game they are just good weapons overall.

I haven't yet seen any reason to use a build like that instead of like four greatswords and three greataxes for maximum slaughter potential. I really want to like the spear, but its damage is just too low, even with double-grip + duellist + crippling strikes + executioner + killing frenzy. Or rather, the damage at that point is decent but with any other weapon I'd be some hulked-out, unstoppable murder machine for the same investment. Actually even less since greatswords/greataxes don't require crippling strikes to reliably proc executioner.

That being said, I'm really new to this game so if there is some situation I missed or the build I described is just all wrong for a dedicated late-game spearman, by all means, tell me.

[apocal43]

Originally posted by holy-death:

What do you mean by "unimpressive lineup"? I tried spears and pikes formation and I found it absolutely devastating.

Unimpressive lineup meaning only three weapons (five if you include the goblin and ancient dead variations), two of which are only straight-line upgrades of the original and the other races' versions being straight worse in every way except for fatigue for the goblin version and being a little bit better than the Militia Spear for the Ancient Spear.

Meanwhile, swords have both one-handed and two-handed lines (Riposte vs. Split and Swing), axes include the 2-tile range longaxe with different abilities (Chop for one-handers, Strike instead of Split Man and no Round Swing on the Longaxe), hammers divide between Smite and Shatter for the two-handed variant and Dent Armor for one-handed hammers.

Maces and daggers have the same problem, I wasn't saying it was only spears that come across as generic, in case that wasn't clear.

Anyway, I tried spears and pikes for awhile as well. It was devastating in the early game, when naz and direwolves would just welp right into my spearwall over and over and over and over again, but later on it started to show a few cracks. No problem, I built around that so it was no longer just a static wall, but constantly pressuring the enemy back line thanks to pike in the front row, occasionally knocking opposing double-tile damage dealers back, etc. But then serious armor became more and more common and spears/pikes just didn't have the oomph needed.

That's when I swapped to orc weapons (head splitters and a berzerk chain) to just kill the opposing front rank faster. But until that point, yeah, in the early game massed spears were perfectly devastating.

[gazomierz]

Originally posted by apocal43:

Throughout most of history, sure, but by the late medieval era, shields (outside of stuff like big pavise ones for crossbowmen) were giving way to improved armor by the rough timeframe the game depicts (1310-1340 or thereabouts). Spears were frequently used two-handed in armored combat because the combatants were basically wearing their shields at that point and one-handed use couldn't really compare when it came to speed and technique.

This game isn't really set in late medieval period. Looking at weapons ad gear available it's more 12th-13th century, maybe early 14th. After that plate armour became dominant, as time progressed even amongst the poorer soldiers. Mail was being phased out, as well as many other kinds of medium (as rpg games tend to categorize them) armour such as brigandine, lamellar armour and gambesons (which evlved into arming doublets or became generally "lighter" due not being primary layer of protection). Gear we see in this game is definietly not late medieval. We have no breastplates. No full on plate armour. Not even any real plate armour. Best we have is smth like coat of plates/brigandine really. Mail/lamellar/gambesons of differnt kinds seem to be dominant.

That would also hold true for helmets (with few exceptions). We mostly see less sophisticated designs, from simple cup-shaped helmets through nordic-ish ones up to great helm. At the same time we see no armets, barbutes or even a single sallet. Best we have are enclosed helms, maybe bascinets.

Shields. We have no pavise shields, do we? The peak of shield development in this world are kite/heater shields. Heater shields started appearing late 12th century iirc. Their existance alongside kite shields further suggests game is based on earlier timeframe, 12th/13th.

I'm not aware of any extensive use of pikemen with shields in ~medieval Europe. Generally pike wasn't really used that much outside antiquity, renaissance and China. In Europe they returned to favor as devastating potential of shock cavalry kept improving. Later rise in gunpowder weapons reliability/availabilty only added to that, as protection offered by shield became kinda irrelevant

They were used in form of lances, with which they share spear ancestor, to great degree. But foot soldiers mostly used (what I wuold still categrize as) spears. Of varying lenght but nothing as extreme as pikes.

It was highly specilized weapon for very specific task. Outside of it it was pretty much useless. Pikeblocks moslty depended on other troops for protection in melee. They had pretty much one role, stopping front charges.

Granted, pikemen often carried bucklers or some other tiny shields to protect themselves when block got broken/disordered. As pikes became useless at that point.

I'd be happy we have pike at all. I'm not really arguing with you as to if it should or shouldn't be included in spear category. For me it makes sense it's in polearms. I explained why. You asked the question and I simply answered to best of my abilities.

Originally posted by apocal43:

That's history though and I was thinking more gameplay. The polearm mastery perk is already fairly lukewarm as far as I can tell. Other weapons -- warhammers, axes, cleavers, flails -- get two-handed versions which can take advantage of a single mastery perk while offering different abilities.

History is fun.

Spears don't really need twohander type for them to be viable. While dmg potntial isn't as straightforward as with some other weapons spearwall dmg can really add up. It's more damage over time thing. Btw, same is true for 1handed swords. They offer incredible tactical utility. Only hammers come even close in that regard to spears/swords.

Originally posted by apocal43:

I haven't yet seen any reason to use a build like that instead of like four greatswords and three greataxes for maximum slaughter potential. I really want to like the spear, but its damage is just too low, even with double-grip + duellist + crippling strikes + executioner + killing frenzy. Or rather, the damage at that point is decent but with any other weapon I'd be some hulked-out, unstoppable murder machine for the same investment. Actually even less since greatswords/greataxes don't require crippling strikes to reliably proc executioner.

That being said, I'm really new to this game so if there is some situation I missed or the build I described is just all wrong for a dedicated late-game spearman, by all means, tell me.

Nah, yuo got it mostly right when it comes to build. Have you ever actually used it on premium quality mercs? With adequate tiered gear and such?

It's generally cosidered very valid build. Somewhat gimmicky, but very effective nonetheless. It could be you weren't using it right. Maybe you messed up placement/timing? It's also possible that it just doesn't fit your playstyle. Archers don't fit mine so I use minimum number of those, for example. There are many ways to build you mercs for them to still put out great performance. Context.

Which also applies to history part. As, in case of armour for example, lamellar/mail armour was used extensively in 16th/17th century still in countries of central and east Europe, Balkans, PLC, Ottoman Empire and such. Jsut like round cavalry shields. Hell, PLC still favored lances when oher nations made pistols their primary impact weapon and their armies were composed moslty of tight pikeblocks. So yeah, it all depends greatly on exact region/time period in question.

[gazomierz]

Originally posted by apocal43:

Anyway, I tried spears and pikes for awhile as well. It was devastating in the early game, when naz and direwolves would just welp right into my spearwall over and over and over and over again, but later on it started to show a few cracks. No problem, I built around that so it was no longer just a static wall, but constantly pressuring the enemy back line thanks to pike in the front row, occasionally knocking opposing double-tile damage dealers back, etc. But then serious armor became more and more common and spears/pikes just didn't have the oomph needed.

You should combine weapons. Limiting yourself to one/two weapon types seriously limits your options and weapons potential. There are few way you could deal with such situation. Give some of your guys hammers, doesn't matter if 1 or 2 handed. That way you could switch when needed and easily strip armour off of targets. Maybe cleavers to few others, enemies engaging you should be already wounded a bit and decapitate can help you finish them off faster. It's very rng tho. Double mastery isn't that uncommon.

Or just give them billhooks as secondary. They're polearms, so no need for double mastery, and are quite good at taking down armoured guys.

[Azov]

I'd like spears to have a 2h variant

[Zorp]

Originally posted by stefit555:

I'd like spears to have a 2h variant

..Like a pike?

[Azov]

Originally posted by Feluto:

Originally posted by stefit555:

I'd like spears to have a 2h variant

..Like a pike?

Yeah, well, I mean, add the pike to the spear category at least, maybe make a second variant for a 2h spear and a unique variant too.

[gazomierz]

Originally posted by stefit555:

Yeah, well, I mean, add the pike to the spear category at least, maybe make a second variant for a 2h spear and a unique variant too.

It was considered. Problem is spears would be kinda op then. Spearwall itself, especially with mastery, justifies whole weapon category. If we threw in pikes in addition to that... Well, at least now you have to spend two perk picks to achieve that (and boost with billhooks as extra). That's a fair trade.

[apocal43]

Originally posted by gazomierz:

Originally posted by apocal43:

Throughout most of history, sure, but by the late medieval era, shields (outside of stuff like big pavise ones for crossbowmen) were giving way to improved armor by the rough timeframe the game depicts (1310-1340 or thereabouts). Spears were frequently used two-handed in armored combat because the combatants were basically wearing their shields at that point and one-handed use couldn't really compare when it came to speed and technique.

This game isn't really set in late medieval period. Looking at weapons ad gear available it's more 12th-13th century, maybe early 14th. After that plate armour became dominant, as time progressed even amongst the poorer soldiers. Mail was being phased out, as well as many other kinds of medium (as rpg games tend to categorize them) armour such as brigandine, lamellar armour and gambesons (which evlved into arming doublets or became generally "lighter" due not being primary layer of protection). Gear we see in this game is definietly not late medieval. We have no breastplates. No full on plate armour. Not even any real plate armour. Best we have is smth like coat of plates/brigandine really. Mail/lamellar/gambesons of differnt kinds seem to be dominant.

That would also hold true for helmets (with few exceptions). We mostly see less sophisticated designs, from simple cup-shaped helmets through nordic-ish ones up to great helm. At the same time we see no armets, barbutes or even a single sallet. Best we have are enclosed helms, maybe bascinets.

Shields. We have no pavise shields, do we? The peak of shield development in this world are kite/heater shields. Heater shields started appearing late 12th century iirc. Their existance alongside kite shields further suggests game is based on earlier timeframe, 12th/13th.

Late medieval is generally considered to be 1300-1500. I could have been more specific by saying "the early late medieval period," but that would read like I'd made a typo.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

I'm not aware of any extensive use of pikemen with shields in ~medieval Europe. Generally pike wasn't really used that much outside antiquity, renaissance and China. In Europe they returned to favor as devastating potential of shock cavalry kept improving. Later rise in gunpowder weapons reliability/availabilty only added to that, as protection offered by shield became kinda irrelevant.

Pikes (or various forms of longer-than-typical spear) were used reasonably often in the medieval era, most notably by the White Company. Taken from Mercenaries in Medieval and Renaissance Europe:
The White Company introduced into Italy a practice already common in France during the battles of the Hundred Years’ War: sending dismounted men-at-arms into battle. When so doing, the Company fought dismounted and in close order, walking forward at a slow pace, often with two men-at-arms holding the same very long spear and bellowing battle cries. The archers followed close behind them. The Milanese writer Azario describes the Company’s battle formation in these terms:
[The soldiers had dismounted from their horses, which were held by pages during battles, and fought on foot.] They had very large lances with very long iron tips. Mostly two, sometimes three of them, handled a single lance so heavy and big that there was nothing it would not penetrate. Behind them, toward the posterior of the formation, were the archers, with great bows which they held from their head to the ground [i.e., the bows were as long as a man is high] and from which they shot great and long arrows.

They were not the originators of the tactic, but the issue is muddled because the medieval era weapon vocabulary was all at once broad, vague and constantly shifting -- javelins, lances, pikes and other similars weapons could all (depending on time and place) be described as "spears" in contemporary accounts. Occasionally, things could get even broader, with various forms of glaives, bills, etc. also being mis-labelled as spears.

It is the same reason that Froissart calls what are clearly poleaxes simply "axes," while attesting that English preferred "spears" (cut-down lances used by dismounted men-at-arms) during the first half of the Hundred Years' War.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

They were used in form of lances, with which they share spear ancestor, to great degree. But foot soldiers mostly used (what I wuold still categrize as) spears. Of varying lenght but nothing as extreme as pikes.

It was highly specilized weapon for very specific task. Outside of it it was pretty much useless. Pikeblocks moslty depended on other troops for protection in melee. They had pretty much one role, stopping front charges.

I'm not trying to get too deep into the history or anything, but contemporary accounts of the White Company spell out the broadstrokes of their tactics clearly; use a very tight wall of pikes, constantly advancing, while archery pressured broke up attempts to do emulate the same. Since the White Company had a lot of English archers, they were the most successful of the bunch. But they weren't the only ones using pikes (or spears long enough to be called pikes) in the 14th century.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

Spears don't really need twohander type for them to be viable. While dmg potntial isn't as straightforward as with some other weapons spearwall dmg can really add up. It's more damage over time thing. Btw, same is true for 1handed swords. They offer incredible tactical utility. Only hammers come even close in that regard to spears/swords.

Nah, yuo got it mostly right when it comes to build. Have you ever actually used it on premium quality mercs? With adequate tiered gear and such?

Premium? No, I only had someone around level nine to play with for my own experiment in making a spearmaster. My spearmaster was equipped with mail hauberk (the heaviest armor I possessed at the time) and a padded kettle hat (140 durability helm) for armor and boar spear (tier 2, the highest tier spear I'd owned at that point) for his weapon. His off-hand was free to get the double-grip and duelist.

I know the fighting spear is better and uniques better still, but I didn't have any of those. But at the same time, I wasn't dealing with end-game adversaries -- I can't recall, but probably supply train guards or garrison House troops. Definitely not ancient dead; obviously I wouldn't expect much in that case.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

It's generally cosidered very valid build. Somewhat gimmicky, but very effective nonetheless. It could be you weren't using it right. Maybe you messed up placement/timing? It's also possible that it just doesn't fit your playstyle. Archers don't fit mine so I use minimum number of those, for example. There are many ways to build you mercs for them to still put out great performance. Context.

It is entirely possible I wasn't using the build right.

He was placed as far flank "bait" with only one side covered by another brother (I can't recall if also spearwalling or shieldwalling for additional defense). For two turns he managed to evict everyone who got near him, but didn't actually kill anyone in the process -- or even put them all that close to death through their armor -- so killing frenzy never procced. Then a shield-equipped enemy shieldwalled before advancing, successfully, and after that, the damage output was minimal once spearwall was down. It was not especially bothersome though, since the guys I had with orc weapons elsewhere in the line were pretty much cleaning up while my spearmaster held the line below.

It was disappointing that I could invest a lot in terms of levels and talents into trying to make a build work only to have lackluster results, especially when my early-builds, which were (and still are) partially screwed up, manage to get one or two kills, and a few others close to the grave, in that same timeframe.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

You should combine weapons. Limiting yourself to one/two weapon types seriously limits your options and weapons potential. There are few way you could deal with such situation. Give some of your guys hammers, doesn't matter if 1 or 2 handed. That way you could switch when needed and easily strip armour off of targets. Maybe cleavers to few others, enemies engaging you should be already wounded a bit and decapitate can help you finish them off faster. It's very rng tho. Double mastery isn't that uncommon.

Or just give them billhooks as secondary. They're polearms, so no need for double mastery, and are quite good at taking down armoured guys.

I'll give it a shot on my next playthrough, thanks.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

It was considered. Problem is spears would be kinda op then. Spearwall itself, especially with mastery, justifies whole weapon category. If we threw in pikes in addition to that... Well, at least now you have to spend two perk picks to achieve that (and boost with billhooks as extra). That's a fair trade.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying give pikes the spearwall ability.

[gazomierz]

Originally posted by apocal43:

Late medieval is generally considered to be 1300-1500. I could have been more specific by saying "the early late medieval period," but that would read like I'd made a typo.

While that's true I'll say again all evidence points to this game being set somewhere around 12th/13th transition.

Originally posted by apocal43:

Pikes (or various forms of longer-than-typical spear) were used reasonably often in the medieval era, most notably by the White Company. Taken from Mercenaries in Medieval and Renaissance Europe:
The White Company introduced into Italy a practice already common in France during the battles of the Hundred Years’ War: sending dismounted men-at-arms into battle. When so doing, the Company fought dismounted and in close order, walking forward at a slow pace, often with two men-at-arms holding the same very long spear and bellowing battle cries. The archers followed close behind them. The Milanese writer Azario describes the Company’s battle formation in these terms:
[The soldiers had dismounted from their horses, which were held by pages during battles, and fought on foot.] They had very large lances with very long iron tips. Mostly two, sometimes three of them, handled a single lance so heavy and big that there was nothing it would not penetrate. Behind them, toward the posterior of the formation, were the archers, with great bows which they held from their head to the ground [i.e., the bows were as long as a man is high] and from which they shot great and long arrows.

They were not the originators of the tactic, but the issue is muddled because the medieval era weapon vocabulary was all at once broad, vague and constantly shifting -- javelins, lances, pikes and other similars weapons could all (depending on time and place) be described as "spears" in contemporary accounts. Occasionally, things could get even broader, with various forms of glaives, bills, etc. also being mis-labelled as spears.

It is the same reason that Froissart calls what are clearly poleaxes simply "axes," while attesting that English preferred "spears" (cut-down lances used by dismounted men-at-arms) during the first half of the Hundred Years' War.

Originally posted by apocal43:

I'm not trying to get too deep into the history or anything, but contemporary accounts of the White Company spell out the broadstrokes of their tactics clearly; use a very tight wall of pikes, constantly advancing, while archery pressured broke up attempts to do emulate the same. Since the White Company had a lot of English archers, they were the most successful of the bunch. But they weren't the only ones using pikes (or spears long enough to be called pikes) in the 14th century.

All very true. I didn't say pikes weren't used at all. But...

Italy was like the most progressive place when it comes to armour, wepons and tactics development in late medieval period. Renaissance kicked in there couple decades earlier than in most of Europe. This also applies in military sense.

Rest of Europe wasn't as keen on pikeblocks and screen troops at this stage. Ofc they were used, as they served vey important role on the battlefield. But most armies still relied on spearmen formations mostly, man-at-arms in more medieval sense. And ofc shock cavalry.

Even if we look earlier in time we can see examples of pikes being used. Like the Scots. But, at least in Europe, era of pike starts in 14th century. It becomes really prominent and by 15th century is pretty much basic formation around which entire armies/tacics are strucured. Then being complemented by other more sophisticated polearms for it to still be able filling its role. Then being replaced more and more with gunpowder weapons as main focus. WIth exceptions ofc.

We're both saying pretty much same thing. We're just arguing over details and semantics.

Originally posted by apocal43:

Premium? No, I only had someone around level nine to play with for my own experiment in making a spearmaster. My spearmaster was equipped with mail hauberk (the heaviest armor I possessed at the time) and a padded kettle hat (140 durability helm) for armor and boar spear (tier 2, the highest tier spear I'd owned at that point) for his weapon. His off-hand was free to get the double-grip and duelist.

I know the fighting spear is better and uniques better still, but I didn't have any of those. But at the same time, I wasn't dealing with end-game adversaries -- I can't recall, but probably supply train guards or garrison House troops. Definitely not ancient dead; obviously I wouldn't expect much in that case.

Originally posted by apocal43:

It is entirely possible I wasn't using the build right.

He was placed as far flank "bait" with only one side covered by another brother (I can't recall if also spearwalling or shieldwalling for additional defense). For two turns he managed to evict everyone who got near him, but didn't actually kill anyone in the process -- or even put them all that close to death through their armor -- so killing frenzy never procced. Then a shield-equipped enemy shieldwalled before advancing, successfully, and after that, the damage output was minimal once spearwall was down. It was not especially bothersome though, since the guys I had with orc weapons elsewhere in the line were pretty much cleaning up while my spearmaster held the line below.

It was disappointing that I could invest a lot in terms of levels and talents into trying to make a build work only to have lackluster results, especially when my early-builds, which were (and still are) partially screwed up, manage to get one or two kills, and a few others close to the grave, in that same timeframe.

Couple of things.

In order for spearmen to work they require mastery. It is essential. Mastery, in addition to fatigue reduction, makes spearwall hold when enemy moves into contact with you. So unless they really swarm you (and can just igonre zoc by jumping on their friends heads) spearman can still serve his purpose.

And that isn't dmg dealing. Don't get me wrong, spearwall dmg will still add up to be substantial over course of battle. But it's not the main point of the build. Here, I think, you're kinda missing the point/looking at it wrong.

What spearmen bring to the table is incredible tactical utility, mostly in ability to deny ground to the enemy. Let's say you're facing 20 raiders. You brake enemy formation in the middle. While you commit your dmg dealers to secure one flank your spearmen hold second one at bay. Buying your dmg dealing mercs time to do their job. Think about synergies and tactical use of things too, it's not always about pure dmg.

Kf is mosty wasted on such merc. Just as berk (sadly). You're usually better off picking survivability/utiliy perks. Like underdog, steel brow, hold out (awesome perk). Or footwork/rotation for beter placement/battlefield contol.

And alwas build such mercs with double mastery. Spears are great. But sometimes you just need pure dmg. Like I've said, cleavers or hammers are really ok as secondary. I think they have good synergy wiht spears, as they play to eachother strenghts. But you can use anything you like. Axes, maces, flails, whatever. As long as you make it work :)

Originally posted by apocal43:

I'll give it a shot on my next playthrough, thanks.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by apocal43:

Just to be clear, I'm not saying give pikes the spearwall ability.

But it wouldn't work either way really.

If we include spears in polearms it becomes like the best thing ever. It would make it obvious choice and meta would drasticly switch to even more extensive polearm use. Because what would be the point of using anything else really, apart from some aoe. If we stip spears of mastery buff it would render spears luckluster, like it used to be.

If we include pike in spear category it's pretty much same thing. Spears don't really need boost as long as we have mastery buff available. They are dedicated control weapons but that's fine, they're great at what they do.

So it is, in large part, balancing issue. It was considered including pikes in same category but it was dropped due to balance reasons. I can't recall if it was considered by devs but I remember taling about it with community at least.

I should have probably started with that aspect. Got distrected by historical side of things. Because history is fun. And that aside (I still think pikes and spears being different categories is correct) I think it's balance wise that is most crucial factor in why they're split as they are.

[apocal43]

Originally posted by gazomierz:

While that's true I'll say again all evidence points to this game being set somewhere around 12th/13th transition.

I wouldn't say all evidence. The blade form used for the billhook dates to roughly 16th century, called a roncone or Italian bill. The greatsword/zweihander is similarly post-medieval. The longbow (warbow) wasn't widespread in (English) military use until the 14th century. In the 13th century, the six foot warbow was mostly purview of the Welsh, and associated mercenaries. It was only towards the reign of Edward III of England did it become a major part of the English order of battle. But of course the actual picture of the longbow is a recurve bow of some kind, which could be from any number of eras. Their depiction of the warhammer is also close to the Renaissance evolution built to defeat plate armor.

In short, BB is pretty inconsistent.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

All very true. I didn't say pikes weren't used at all. But...

Italy was like the most progressive place when it comes to armour, wepons and tactics development in late medieval period. Renaissance kicked in there couple decades earlier than in most of Europe. This also applies in military sense.

Italy was backwards militarily, but very well-off financially, which is why there were hordes of foreign mercenaries running around. It was only progressive due to a lot of experienced men from various conflicts and regions coming there, essentially to rob the Italians blind, either through state-sponsored raids on their enemies' lands, charging obscene rates for their services or simple brigandage. For example, in the account about the White Company's tactics, they were still under command of a German, Albert Sterz, with their ranks being split between English and German contingents.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

Couple of things.

In order for spearmen to work they require mastery. It is essential. Mastery, in addition to fatigue reduction, makes spearwall hold when enemy moves into contact with you. So unless they really swarm you (and can just igonre zoc by jumping on their friends heads) spearman can still serve his purpose.

I did have the spear mastery, of course. The mastery still doesn't allow you to put up a spearwall when the enemy occupies an adjacent hex. That is what happened to me -- the enemy unit put up shieldwall and made it inside, so the next turn I couldn't spearwall again. I might have gotten a few more hits in had anyone else tried to move on me that turn, but none of them did until the next turn.

Originally posted by gazomierz:

And that isn't dmg dealing. Don't get me wrong, spearwall dmg will still add upto be substantial over course of battle. But it's not the main pointof the build. Here, I think, you're kinda missing the point/looking at it wrong.

What spearmen bring to the table is incredible tactical utility, mostly in ability to deny ground to the enemy. Let's say you're facing 20 raiders. You brake eney formation in the middle. While you commit your dmg dealers to secure one flank your spearmen hold second one at bay. Buying your dmg dealing mercs time to do their job. Think about synergies and tactical use of things too, it's not always about pure dmg.

Kf is mosty wasted on such merc. Just as berk (sadly). You're usually better off picking survivability/utiliy perks. Like underdog, steel brow, hold out (awesome perk). Or footwork/rotation for beter placement/battlefield contol.

And alwas build such mercs with double mastery. Spears are great. But sometimes you just need pure dmg. Like I've said, cleavers or hammers are really ok as secondary. I think they have good synergy wiht spears, as they play to eachother strenghts. But you can use anything you like. Axes, maces, flails, whatever. As long as you make it work :)

Oh, I'm not denying that it offered some utility. The master spearman held up basically four or five units (if I count the one who hung back with javelins, accomplishing sweet-nothing) essentially for the cost of a bit of fatigue, nothing unmanagable. My problem with the whole idea is that I could have gone with pure damage and just killed probably half, maybe more of that group in the same time for a similar cost in fatigue.

But it wouldn't work either way really.

If we include spears in polearms it becomes like the best thing ever. It would make it obvious choice and meta would drasticly switch to even more extensive polearm use. Because what would be the point of using anything else really, apart from some aoe. If we stip spears of mastery buff it would render spears luckluster, like it used to be.

If we include pike in spear category it's pretty much same thing. Spears don't really need boost as long as we have mastery buff available. They are dedicated control weapons but that's fine, they're great at what they do.

So it is, in large part, balancing issue. It was considered including pikes in same category but it was dropped due to balance reasons. I can't recall if it was considered by devs but I remember taling about it with community at least.

I should have probably started with that aspect. Got distrected by historical side of things. Because history is fun. And that aside (I still think pikes and spears being different categories is correct) I think it's balance wise that is most crucial factor in why they're split as they are.

OK.

[gazomierz]

Originally posted by apocal43:

I wouldn't say all evidence. The blade form used for the billhook dates to roughly 16th century, called a roncone or Italian bill. The greatsword/zweihander is similarly post-medieval. The longbow (warbow) wasn't widespread in (English) military use until the 14th century. In the 13th century, the six foot warbow was mostly purview of the Welsh, and associated mercenaries. It was only towards the reign of Edward III of England did it become a major part of the English order of battle. But of course the actual picture of the longbow is a recurve bow of some kind, which could be from any number of eras. Their depiction of the warhammer is also close to the Renaissance evolution built to defeat plate armor.

In short, BB is pretty inconsistent.

OK. Most evidence then. And ofc it's inconsistent, it's just a game.

There is some gear fitting later period. Good points on weapons, not arguing with those. We have even more examples in form of unique items looks (like bardiche one) or warhammers. We also have stuff like pavise shield (we actually do have those, unique look for shield). But at the same time... Shortsword is very early medieval looking. Dane axes. Throwing axes. One of the greatswords looks very bronze age. Imho none of them really look late medieval, they're all very simple designs. No ring guards. No ricasso. All simple straight edged blades, no wavy blades. We see none of the more developed elements of greatswords. To be honest none of the swords in the game is really a greatsword, they're all just regular longswords. Granted, we're ahead of 12th/13th century anyway. [Edit: Not to say longswords didn't exist earlier. But it's really not before 14th century when we see boom in their popularity.]

But when we look at armour? Like I pointed out in my earlier post it all strongly points to that period [12th/13th]. All armour is mail basicly. Even the heaviest stuff in the game is some plated tunic/brigandine/coat of plates thing thrown over what looks like extremly heavy layered mail armour. Look through the artbook. And game is surprisingly consistent in that.

We could discuss stuff like architecture, clothing and so on. If you're interested I'm happy to. But for now I'll leave it here. Enough to say that examples to support both views could be found.

Generally the game doesn't give me the feeling of late medieval times. It much more feels like 12th/13th century. Mostly due to armour and overall look of most weapons. Ofc, like said before, there are exceptions.

Originally posted by apocal43:

Italy was backwards militarily, but very well-off financially, which is why there were hordes of foreign mercenaries running around. It was only progressive due to a lot of experienced men from various conflicts and regions coming there, essentially to rob the Italians blind, either through state-sponsored raids on their enemies' lands, charging obscene rates for their services or simple brigandage. For example, in the account about the White Company's tactics, they were still under command of a German, Albert Sterz, with their ranks being split between English and German contingents.

So it was progressive after all. All those mercenaries from all of Europe, fact it was staging pont for crusaders from all over for quite some time, constant wars/skirmishes with Ottoman Empire and diferent sultanates before that. Wars with European powers. All those contributed to Italy being melting pot of ideas. As you pointed out it was also, in large part, wealthy as hell. Craftsmanship of arrmour and weapons from that region is consistently tops. Italian plate armour is effing beautiful. It is also highly distinctive from rest of Europe, it possesses some unique features. It's its own thing. Granted I'm getting a bit ahead of time. It could be developed to such an extent tho as it was commonly used there for a long period of time. [Edit: Granted, we can't really talk about Italy. It's a simplification, hope you don't mind. Italian states at that time were moslty part of HRE. Some were under France. Some were independent. Venice was kinda superpower. It's not much later in history before Italy became one unified political entity, not untill Bonaparte. ]

Originally posted by apocal43:

I did have the spear mastery, of course. The mastery still doesn't allow you to put up a spearwall when the enemy occupies an adjacent hex. That is what happened to me -- the enemy unit put up shieldwall and made it inside, so the next turn I couldn't spearwall again. I might have gotten a few more hits in had anyone else tried to move on me that turn, but none of them did until the next turn.

Sorry then, I misunderstood. You could push that guy away with your shield, if he was only one in contact with you, and put spearwall back up. Or use polearm mercs to help your spearbro clear his zoc. You can, and should, switch 2tilers between flanks as needed.

Originally posted by apocal43:

Oh, I'm not denying that it offered some utility. The master spearman held up basically four or five units (if I count the one who hung back with javelins, accomplishing sweet-nothing) essentially for the cost of a bit of fatigue, nothing unmanagable. My problem with the whole idea is that I could have gone with pure damage and just killed probably half, maybe more of that group in the same time for a similar cost in fatigue.

Well, I don't blame you for thinking so. I run teams of moslty twohanders and polearms. But in a more balanced band, with chars specilized in different basic roles (tanks, dmg dealers and so on) spearbros are quite usefull.