Buff for heavy weapons ?

[melm]

TIM截图20190130142628.jpg (28.14 KiB) Viewed 1885 times

TIM截图20190130142609.jpg (32.3 KiB) Viewed 1885 times

[Jagger2002]

heavy weapons closer to the middle ground between spears and swords

It seems to me a halberd is a spear with an axe added to the end. In terms of fending off cavalry, why wouldn't a halberd be at least the equivalent of a spear? Any weapon based on a pole plus pointy end should serve well as spear vs cavalry, I would think. So off the top of my head, it seems a halberd would be modeled nicely as spear plus armor reduction.

Undoubtedly there are weapons included within the heavy weapon category which lack the halberd qualities which might not deserve the spear plus armor qualities but for the time frame in which halberds were predominant, it seems spear plus armor reduction would be appropriate.

[MVP7]

It seems to me a halberd is a spear with an axe added to the end. In terms of fending off cavalry, why wouldn't a halberd be at least the equivalent of a spear? Any weapon based on a pole plus pointy end should serve well as spear vs cavalry, I would think. So off the top of my head, it seems a halberd would be modeled nicely as spear plus armor reduction.

I was also going to bring out this point. Long polearms are not that far from spears (spears might be longer but poleaxes and halberds are usually used with both hands which mitigates the difference) and I think even the most top-down enthusiast person can agree that spear has meaningful advantage over sword against cavalry. I personally don't agree with the assessment that polearms (or other "heavy weapons") were some tactically nigh-pointless dueling weapons when their wide spread and use is indisputable. On FoG2's level of detai comparing halberds to spears and swords is not a matter of insignificant differences like some seem to suggest. If all heavy infantry armament were equal at everything no one would ever have moved on from sturdy clubs and sharp sticks.

I didn't remember the mounted armour max POA benefit was increased to 100 which is a very significant POA to negate but that still leaves the other issues I have mentioned and brings out new ones. When a unit of unarmoured falxmen, protected rhomphaia or armoured hw is fighting Protected, Armoured and Fully Armoured superior cavalry, they will all be just as effective against every type which doesn't seem right no matter how far up you are looking at it from. It would seem more reasonable if armor penetration negation was capped at 50 POA so the strongest armour wouldn't be completely negated.

[SnuggleBunnies]

So you would be suggesting that armor negation be toned down, but heavy weapons' anti cavalry abilities be increased then?

[MVP7]

So you would be suggesting that armor negation be toned down, but heavy weapons' anti cavalry abilities be increased then?

That would give heavy weapons better melee performance against cavalry with the exception of fully armoured cavalry which would remain at the same POA as it currently is. Ideally armour penetration could be made into separate attribute which would allow more flexibility like rhomphaia (and other bladed weapons) without armour penetration or swordsmen+penetration that would give performance very similar to the current heavy weapons without advantage vs cavalry (fitting for maces, warhammers etc and could also be used by cavalry).

[TheGrayMouser]

Well , I think people are forgetting that poa’s are are system of relative advantage..it’s abstract. I get what what you saying that falxman have no additional advantage when facing protected opponents versus armored vs heavily armoured. But why should they when the relative advantage is still achieved. When’s the last time you played a skirmish battle when your falxmen had to face a series of assaults from protected , armoured and cataphacts all at once? In medieval times, Billman/ halberds would likely be facing heavily armoured horse , anything less would be considered light horse in that era and their in game quality ratings and impact weapons would be reflective of their reduced combat power , relatively, and thus it doesn’t matter one bit if they don’t get a bigger advantage vs the lighter horse , which will appropriately suck versus the hw. Similarly comparing falx’s to danish axes to bills doesn’t matter either, as they operated in different eras, even if their stats are the same.

Also , pole arms etc have a big disadvantage: they require the use of two hands and with no shield , such troops were very vulnerable unless they had decent armour, something that you generally don’t see until the later Middle Ages. There’s a reason why Falxmen etc were rare and confined to warrior tribes. There is a reason why two handed axes were considered obsolete on the continent by the time of Hastings. ( yet remained in use in peripheral areas for cattle raids etc ie galloglaches). And there appears to be a reason why halberds etc were replaced by pikes. I don’t know for sure but I can guess: the earlier types were for crazy, strong , skilled warriors, whom depended in aggressive attacks in lieu of defense. Such troops had less utility in a tight battle array. The plethora of pole arms in later times was likley due to easy and cheap production, and they took little skill to be effective, but they weren’t Uber weapons either. Certainly a menatarms in plate with a pole axe was a fearsome foe, a Billman in a padded coat maybe not so much, or at least not that much better or worse than a man with a sword and buckler or a spear. If you need a justification why hw don’t do “ better” vs an opponent whom doesn’t have better armor, just imagine they are just that much more nimble and can take advantage of the hw soldiers lack of a shield and clumsy agricultural tool that is hard to parry with .

[MVP7]

The relative advantages are precisely what's not working right with heavy weapons as they are. Rhomphaia and falxmen exist in time where they can face plenty of superior cavalry with armor ranging from protected to fully armoured, whether or not all those types are faced in the same battle is irrelevant as that's not how the POA relativity works.

The claim that heavy weapons only face heavily armoured mounted opponents in medieval times shrugs of a few hundred years of early and high medieval period and is very eurocentric. Even in Europe you would have various militias that would qualify as protected heavy weapons.

I also don't see how halberds being used by skilled warriors is an explanation for heavy weapons being basically swords that threat all cavalry the same and being irrelevant from 11th to 14th century, not to mention other eras. Even if we accept the idea that polearms are for some reason useless in tight infantry formation, that still leaves the in-game heavy weapons near same level with swordsmen and way below spearmen when fighting cavalry in the rough where fighting would be much like that disorganized dueling where heavy weapons are supposedly more effective. Even if halberds were replaced by pikes that doesn't mean that halberds are automatically useless against cavalry and comparable to swords. Even if pikes are more suitable for combat in the open that doesn't mean heavy weapons have nothing going for them the in that field. This isn't just a game of rock-paper-scissors.

I have never asked why armour penetrating weapons don't have bonus against less armoured foes. Swords (or spears) are more convenient weapons against unarmored or lightly armoured opponents and what little advantage would be gained by extra penetration in those situations can be thought as being lost (in terms of POA) due to heavy weapons being more cumbersome.

[TheGrayMouser]

The relative advantages are precisely what's not working right with heavy weapons as they are. Rhomphaia and falxmen exist in time where they can face plenty of superior cavalry with armor ranging from protected to fully armoured, whether or not all those types are faced in the same battle is irrelevant as that's not how the POA relativity works.

The claim that heavy weapons only face heavily armoured mounted opponents in medieval times shrugs of a few hundred years of early and high medieval period and is very eurocentric. Even in Europe you would have various militias that would qualify as protected heavy weapons.

I also don't see how halberds being used by skilled warriors is an explanation for heavy weapons being basically swords that threat all cavalry the same and being irrelevant from 11th to 14th century, not to mention other eras. Even if we accept the idea that polearms are for some reason useless in tight infantry formation, that still leaves the in-game heavy weapons near same level with swordsmen and way below spearmen when fighting cavalry in the rough where fighting would be much like that disorganized dueling where heavy weapons are supposedly more effective. Even if halberds were replaced by pikes that doesn't mean that halberds are automatically useless against cavalry and comparable to swords. Even if pikes are more suitable for combat in the open that doesn't mean heavy weapons have nothing going for them the in that field. This isn't just a game of rock-paper-scissors.

I have never asked why armour penetrating weapons don't have bonus against less armoured foes. Swords (or spears) are more convenient weapons against unarmored or lightly armoured opponents and what little advantage would be gained by extra penetration in those situations can be thought as being lost (in terms of POA) due to heavy weapons being more cumbersome.

Your first para graph reflects that we simply disagree on what the abstraction represents which is fine, only the developer would know for sure...

The Eurocentric comment: yes, my musings are euro-middle east centric, because that is what we have in the official game, so is really the only relevant things to discuss.

As for the rest of your post I never said any of those things, and, except for a few last mumblings, will bow out of this discussion, which I found to be interesting but not so interesting that I want to re state everthing and defend everything that’s been misconstrued.

Of note, there was no comment on how a lack of a shield when using a hw could influence the overall effectiveness of that “system”. IMHO I think that’s important. I think you would suggest that SHOULD be represented by a units armor rating, I would suggest the poas are fuzzier and in game a hw poa is more of a system.

For example, if you think about what a sword poa is, it’s not just having a sword, it’s the skilled use of a sword ( or sword like weapon, Cavalry used maces hand axes a hammers thru history up to the 17th century). Similarly, Lancers get sword poa in melee but regrow their dropped lances once they disengage( or if a new opponent enters the scrum via impact!!). Theres more samples than that but I would imagine you get my point.

Cheers man!

[MVP7]

I still have to point out that the generalization of high- and late-medieval heavy weapons facing nothing but relatively heavily armoured cavalry falls apart just by looking at East-Europe and North-Africa while the game covers the map all the way to India.

But yeah, I guess this debate has been going for long enough and then some. Looks like it got you promoted to carrier .

[TheGrayMouser]

Ugh, I liked the Ferdinand (I think it was that) better. Perhaps in another 10 thousand posts I can get the Exxon Valdez !

[vakarr]

For answers to these questions I suggest reading this:

Book cover The Gods of Battle.jpg (58.78 KiB) Viewed 1617 times

- now available for a very low price as an E-book from Pen & Sword Books, Amazon etc

"It may be no coincidence that the rhomphaia makes its first appearance on Thracian battlefields at about the same time as the thureos / hasta full body length shield – the longer reach and curved blade being needed to get over or under the shield. If that wasn’t effective, then a two-handed blow from a rhomphaia might break the shield or knock it from its owner’s arm. Experiments with a replica falx (wielded by a suitably semi-naked barbarian [on the YouTube video]) and Roman shield have shown this to be to be a real possibility."

Thureophoroi would be at a slight disadvantage in difficult terrain as they would then be disordered and would lose one of their long spear advantages. Again against armoured Thureophoroi they would be equal. I think that it makes sense that long spears in a forest would not be as good as heavy weapons but that they are about equal elsewhere.

Thracians vs Romans.jpg (146.2 KiB) Viewed 1614 times