Polearms in Field of Glory

[PorkSol]

(researching this game to see if I want to buy)

Is it true that polearms in this game are classed as "heavy weapons" and don't get any particular advantage against mounted units?

So in this game against cavalry you'd be better off with a simple spear than one of the polearms below?

I suppose that might make sense due to the tighter formation of spears.

But is it also true then that polearms more or less don't get any advantage against horses and are treated just like a two handed axe or something?

Abstraction is all well and good but polearms are one of the more unique and interesting aspects of the medieval period and it is a shame if they're essentially not modeled at all, or just modeled as any big two handed weapon.

A lot of the rest of the modeling sounds good, for example I was impressed by how swords vs pikes was handled, so I am hoping I missed something here.

[TheGrayMouser]

I actually was thinking of this topic a while back (although more in relation with the cost effectiveness of dismounted knights with heavy weapons)

You of course you are correct, there is a big difference between a halebard and or a short hafted axe / poleaxe godentag or whatnot...

However I think the lumping of the two in FOG is OK as is

Anyway historically though if you think about it, what battle did large bodies of pole armed troops repel determine dcavalry charges on their own? I honestly cannot think of any!

The Swiss: well most of their battles with halbards were mountain ambuscades, not open field battle...
Regardless, the Swiss dropped the pole arm mid 15th C for the pike...

Coutrai?? (French kniggits vs the Flemish polearmed foot) Well, the Flemmings were helped by being behind a swamp, AND the tired , disordered knights still gave them a hard time until the Flemmish commander committed his reserve...

I dont believe spears would have presented any greater density of sharp pointy weapons than a similarly sized polearm formation
Also of possible importance, consider these factors:
*Pole armed troops would not have used shields which possibly reduced there effectiveness of defense.
*I would imagine that a lance still was able to out reach MOST pole arms
*pole armed troops likly were either levies , so not very trained , high eprit de corp in the ist place, or they were proffessional specialist troops , small in #'s and having a specific function in battle, which likly wasnt to repell cavalry!

finally pole armed troops were , for the most part phased out of warefare to be replaced by the pike anyways..

In the end i think this is one of those areas where you just need to trust the designers combat system as is .

I certainly wouldnt let something like this from stopping your purchase of the game, cheers!

[batesmotel]

HF with heavy weapons stand up to knights fairly well in the game. They are at -POA at impact. As long as they do not drop cohesion from impact, after that they are even with the knights in melee. After one round of melee, the knights have to break off from the HF. They are not as good as pikes against knights but do about as well as spearmen do. If the spearmen lose cohesion from impact, they then fight at -POA versus the knight's +POA while the heavy weapon HF are still at even POA. Superior HF with heavy weapon do quite well and average with rear support do pretty well also.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

HF with heavy weapons stand up to knights fairly well in the game. They are at -POA at impact. As long as they do not drop cohesion from impact, after that they are even with the knights in melee. After one round of melee, the knights have to break off from the HF. They are not as good as pikes against knights but do about as well as spearmen do. If the spearmen lose cohesion from impact, they then fight at -POA versus the knight's +POA while the heavy weapon HF are still at even POA. Superior HF with heavy weapon do quite well and average with rear support do pretty well also.

Chris

I think "fairly" is accurate
I love charging HW infantry(even dismounted superior knights) w superior mounted knights , the mounted knights more often enough win because they have other advantages beyond the POA charts:
*mounted knights dont lose any dice until they are below 50% casualties
*if the hw foot loses a combat they should should test at a -1 on the cohesion test for losing to shock troops
*if the mounted knights are "not feeeling it" they break off and you can charge em back in next turn for the impact +poa

All other factors ignored , my experiance is an equal or slight numerical disadvantaged # of mounted knights will prevail over dismounted..... Your mileage may vary......

[batesmotel]

But superior knights cost about twice as much as HF with heavy weapon (or more) so you're probably not looking at only slightly numerically disadvantaged knights. Galloglaichs as superior, protected, heavy weapon HF are particularly good for this at 9 points versus 20 odd for the knights usually. Stick a few 5 point a piece Kern MF BGs behind the Galloglaichs for rear support. Send in your knights . Swedish Militia with rear rank crossbows are also quite durable. Dismounted superior knights, especially heavily armoured, aren't the best way to buy heavy weapon HF . Even when the knights eventually win, they have usually taken enough losses that they won't survive trying to take out a second heavy weapon HF. I watched my Nueva Castillian knights bather themselves to bits all too often against protected Scots Islemen HF with heavy weapons under Davouthojo.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Of course you are correct in those observations, but I find i usually have quite a few knights in my armies... Is it me our do players not like t use knights? Even armies where one can easily take/afford 7-9, most players will only buy 3-4 and spread them out like butter as leaders behind the lines or have them on the flanks like they are leading an ancient Succesor state army. When you have 10 or so in one armoured fist they can do very well! Even if they fail it is enjoyable to watch.


Hmm... support troops of lessor quality Wonder when that will change? ( i have suffered enough setbacks from opponents who use poor mobs to shore up pike lines from the rear) maybe I am just jealous as i didnt think of such a tactic ist...

[ianiow]

Hmm... support troops of lessor quality Wonder when that will change? ( i have suffered enough setbacks from opponents who use poor mobs to shore up pike lines from the rear) maybe I am just jealous as i didnt think of such a tactic ist...

I wonder why they changed this from the TT ruling? In TT rear support must be of equal or better morale.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm... support troops of lessor quality Wonder when that will change? ( i have suffered enough setbacks from opponents who use poor mobs to shore up pike lines from the rear) maybe I am just jealous as i didnt think of such a tactic ist...

I wonder why they changed this from the TT ruling? In TT rear support must be of equal or better morale.

Maybe one of those things that slipped thru the cracks? Or originally they wanted the game to be much simpler? Its funny , I was looking for an old post and found one from way back where Iain himslef was questioning someones suggestion of setting agressive stances.. Based on his commentaring it seemed as though such a feature would never even be contemplated. And now in a few days we will have this very thing.

[Xiggy]

Maybe in the future rear support will have the feature of same moral grade. Even though I would think historically, the poorer moral and green troops were put in the rear until they learned their craft. So how it is now in the digital version may be more accurate. Also, a BG is much smaller using hexes, so this may be how they wanted to translate rear support to the digital version. Maybe one of the guys will comment.

[batesmotel]

I suspect that lifting the same or better grade requirement was a trade off made for playability in the digital version. Supporting BGs are required to be adjacent and it takes a full BG to support another which are stricter requirements than in the TT rules where they only need to be half the strength of the group they are supporting and they can also be the equivalent of multiple hexes behind the unit being supported.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

I suspect that lifting the same or better grade requirement was a trade off made for playability in the digital version. Supporting BGs are required to be adjacent and it takes a full BG to support another which are stricter requirements than in the TT rules where they only need to be half the strength of the group they are supporting and they can also be the equivalent of multiple hexes behind the unit being supported.

Chris

I dont think it would effect playability, just need to remeber having a mob of children old men/hens and the occasional goat wont help front line troops feel any better about the combat they are in just because such a motly horde is behind them

[Xiggy]

Good thing most people dont read the forums or the swiss would be even tougher to beat. The 2 point enfant pardue reenforcing the pike units would not be fun.

[TheGrayMouser]

Good thing most people dont read the forums or the swiss would be even tougher to beat. The 2 point enfant pardue reenforcing the pike units would not be fun.

He he, i dont think anyone will purchase those in a DAG, if only for the reason that that BG has the worst graphic in the game