The problem I have with these games is that they deliberately seperate infantry into swordmen and spearmen, whereas historically a lot of those higher tier spear units would have carried swords as their sidearms. This is especially a problem in Total War Attila. The higher tier Germanic troops of that period would have been Good spearmen who were also competent swordsmen, or at least this is what the Germanic infantry general unit should have been.
+Henrick Likesrabbits Exceptionally good point, Henrick. This would require FAR more in-depth combat to work with appropriately. Even hoplites, classical spear unit that most games would be happy to force use only spears, used swords, some of them long, some of them intended for thrusting. The problem, truly, is in separating the two as you say, as separate classes. The only distinction that really needs to be made is with units that have no spear at all, and them being far less useful against cavalry charges due to their short weapons. Romans should have the option to use their javelins/makeshift spears automatically A) In defense, if B) You do not throw both/all of their pila. This is their secondary function historically, otherwise they were always extremely vulnerable to horses. Spearmen who have swords should actually *Use the length of their spears appropriately first, and if they're in a close formation, should overlap spears as the hoplite phalanx would*. This function *needs* to be a smaller version of pike combat, wherein it is difficult to bypass the layers of spears, but once you do, the first rank will draw their swords while, if possible, the second or third rank assist overhead with their spears. This is how a good spear group functions in reality, and this would realistically mimic just how tough it is to take on a dense group of spearmen with frontal attacks. Spearmen who are not organized, have shorter spears or are loosely formed out and don't have secondary weapons, would be under the real, serious disadvantage when confronted with swords, and they should have to choke up on their spears in order to combat swords at close range. Due to their short spears and lack of formational discipline, these kinds of troops would be the kinds that expert swordsmen would have a field day with. These kinds of changes would require huge formation changes as well as a complete overhaul of the ludicrous current animations.
Jan Lykourgos If I remembered correctly, Europa Barbarorum for Rome I had this implemented quite successfully on the Germanic generals bodyguard units. The downside was that you couldn't force the unit to fight with a specific weapon and they tended to use spears on city walls
Henrick Likesrabbits Ah, you're right, I remember that now! Man, makes me want to play it again. That was good stuff. Of course, these games could be loads better if they actually went and tried to innovate. Allowing us to set their weapon usage would be far better. And as I said, their animations need a huge overhaul, they're pretty awful, especially for spear units.
It was done well in EB. I think they had to remove the secondary weapon for hoplites in later versions though since they would far too often switch entirely to their kopis. They also made some sub-mods including one for hoplite and sarissa formations in guard mode and that made things quite awesome. Units like the Germanic bodyguards, Getic elite infantry, Celtic Solduros, etc. had sword and spear. More often than not they'd use both of them at the same time (say like out of 120 Ischyroi Orditon about 40 would use spears while rest would use the swords), so they're like mixed units.
Hopelites in phalanx should be able to win front engagements. Otherwise Hoplites wouldn't have been practiced for so long. They were abandoned because of their lack of mobility, getting flanked and cut down was what destroyed.
crackshack2 Generally speaking, heavy spear units weren't abandoned until bayonets came around. No, not gunpowder, spearmen and pikes were often used to protect musketmen from cavalry. Hoplites themselves didn't stay around because the successor states followed Alexander's example. Also Rome saw little use in them, and had a way of destroying hoplites. Hoplites were usually greek nobility, and that same nobility had a hard time surviving between Philip II's conquests and the Roman ones. I don't necessarily agree with people who say in real life spears always beat swords because, among other examples, the Romans did pretty well for themselves. They're just easy to make and learn.
+Albrecht “Ridicuous Name” Shnoodle Actually, against the spear and pike using Greeks, the Romans tended to have their asses kicked. In the Macedonian-Roman wars, the Romans won two battles, Cynoscephalae and Pydna. In the former, the Romans won the flanks using their war elephants, thus outflanking the pike-and-spear sarrissaphoroi-thureophoroi Macedonian phalanx (the Greeks of the day used a mixed phalanx of pike wielding sarissaphoroi and spear and javelin wielding thureophoroi). The Romans engaging the phalanx proper actually lost ground and was beaten badly before the elephants turned things around. In Pydna, the Macedonian phalanx broke ranks the pursue the fleeing Romans after beating the crap out of them, while the Greek cavalry for some reason remained uncommitted. The Romans rallied, reformed their formation and destroyed the now disorganized phalanx. Rome's advantages wasn't in its tactics. Its tactics were shit compared to the Greeks. Their advantages laid on their strategic advantages of a stronger economy, a greater population, and a culture that unambiguously glorified warfare, coupled with a logistics system with efficiency unheard of before. They could literally raise army after army regardless of defeats or casualties.
crackshack2 Roman culture? To be fair, ancient cultures were extremely warlike by our standards. The Romans just had a culture that was extremely warlike even by ancient cultures' standards. It's telling that when Rome incorporated barbarians and their allies into their empire, and thus Romanized foreigners and their culture, they became less aggressive and expansionist, not more.
You understand the Romans had a force of about 22,000 facing 44,000 in that battle? The cavalry was even matched. Also, spears should be differentiated from pikes due to their different uses in warfare.
Honestly the spearmen should've won that engagement. Any unit attacking a phalanx head on is suicide irl. The reason Rome's legionnaires were so good was because of their adaptability and versatility.They have enough flexibility to go to the flanks of the phalanx and wipe them out.
The only case where the phalanx formation worked against the Romans was specifically the Macedonian pike phalanx. Lindybeige made a great video regarding the weaknesses of spear combat against swords. The spear was generally the most common weapon of ancient peoples and its range makes it a weakness against the short Roman gladius (and later longer spatha). It's hard for a unit of spearmen to be effective against an armored wall of scorpion-like legionaries and stabbing from above or below with their short swords. You are right about flexibility though. The maniple system worked in their favor against heavy infantry that the Greeks and Macedonians had.
@@Zhohan- Short roman gladius is an absurdly short weapon compared to a 2-3 meter long spear and has an inherent disadvantage against a spear because the spear has a longer reach and a lot greater operational distance, it also allows multiple ranks to fight at the same time and many spears to gang up one a single swordsman at the same time. The romans originally used a spear phalanx formation but started using the gladius because spears were unwieldy in mountainous terrain during the Samnite wars. But the romans were equipped with lorica segmentata and lorica hamata which would allow them to beat unarmored infantry easily simply by abusing their metal armor that blocks thrusts, cuts and slashes. I think the video you mean is where Lindybeige is saying that spear and shield is worse at dueling but that is dueling and not formation fighting, the point still stands, charging a spearwall through the front with only swords is not very effective in real life.
_What the fuck? umm, no? even in game they say prinCipes, not prinkipe_ Probably the voice actors weren´t the most proficient latin speakers. The correct latin pronunciation is priːn.keps
Usually the only time when a hoplite switched to his sword was if he droped/broke his spear. And there are no such mechanic in the game so i dont see why.
Rickon Well rome 1 also made hoplites use pikes and that is not even historically correct. Only the macedonian sarissa wielding used something that large. greek hoplites use spears, and their spears where usually more effective then their swords.
Timothy Heimbach Yes it is true that they where shorter then the macedonian pikes but they where still longer then what they usually where historically.
I get having spears loose in regular formation, but they should be able to hold their own in a hoplite wall. Their lack of maneuverability would balance out their advantage against cavalry.
I have noticed another general trend amongst sword infantry in which they differ from their spear counterparts. It seems that their armor and, more noticably, melee defense comes from their shields. With spearmen, or at least hoplites, a large part of armor and melee defense are "base". I haven't managed to solidly test it, but I assume this means that swords are more sensitive to attacks (both missile and melee) from their right flank and rear. It's not much, but maybe something people could try to use to mitigate the already dominant position of heavy melee infantry on the battlefield.
Hey Maximus, I really enjoy your work. My question is slightly off-topic, you had a video (if I'm not misremembering) about when to use formation/not to use formation attack, and also, should you spread your lines (with swords) as thin and wide as possible, or try to have them packed more densely? Thanks
Hey! Not off topic at all. Formation attack is good when you're up against superior enemy infantry frontally, and want to limit the amount of men fighting to basically hold as long as possible while the enemy charge bonus wears off. If you charge and use Shield Wall/ Hoplite Phalanx, turn it off to avoid contracting your formation unless you do that to purposefully make gaps. So basically, when you go for the kill (rear charge, flanking, already engaged enemy) turn it off, when you're going to get killed by a high charge bonus, use formation attack. Going as wide as possible is problematic against cavalry, which easily will be able to knock down your men. If you have several lines of infantry or speed bumps in front, you're safer. The benefit lies in wrapping around enemy formations, the risk in having your lines penetrated. Against elephants/chariots/ alot of cavalry it might be a good idea to go deeper - say 5-6 ranks.
Great video! Thanks for doing the comparison. Also, I think hoplite is pronounced "hop-light" or with the "lite" part of the word pronounced the same as the English word "light".
In my experience, the lighter cheaper spears are more cost effective than the heavier ones anyway. More manueverable on the battlefield and tend to have higher bonuses vs large like levy spears/levy freemen. Heavier spears just suck.
Maximus Decimus Meridius I would like to see the javs removed from levy freeman. They would be less useful, making barbarian factions spend a little more on mid spears and that much less on swords.
I have been able to win great victories thanks to Baktrian Royal Guard, Picked Hoplites, Colchian Nobles, Mercenary Veteran Hoplites...I don't know, I think hoplites are actually pretty good if you use them properly, although my favourite spear unit is the Agema Spears for its versability and low cost for an elite unit.
Hey Maximus! What do you think is better between Thorax Sword or Thorax Hoplites? That would be great if you would test these 2 units with their abilities!
Damn bro your graphics are insane. Mine are no were near as good. What are the specs of your pc? But most importantly what graphics card are you using?
And then we look at history and we see spears winning from swords in pretty much most if not all engagements (: I know it's game balancing but it still bothers me lol
@@cheesestyx945 in this time period? why would i pick one in this time period when the comment was about history? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halberd is a really good source, it tells you they were used to combat heavily armored troops(knights). on top of that, i think you underestimate the speed and reach a spear/polearm has over a sword, history itself shows reach over speed is far more effective, hence why we've used them against cavalry and also why pikeman were so formidable, the greek phalanx destroyed batalions and it didn't matter if they had normal spears, swords or cavalry. ua-cam.com/video/O8RWLxlzTiM/v-deo.html that is a very good repressentation of sword vs spear, mind you, in armored figts, the spear still wins considering the plentitude of gaps in plated armor, knees/armpits/parts of the neck and throat, it's merely waiting for a good opening and avoiding getting hit, in a battle with a frontile however, spears don't need to back off, their pointy end pointing forward does all the work for them, no one willingly runs into a spear. On top of that, melee combat in our time period is heavily redundant since the rise of accurate firearms.
@@Zarosian_Ice a buckler? That's barely a shield no one who used a sword in combat brought a buckler. A sputum or kite shield is a proper swordsmen's shield. A spears reach cant do anythin against a big shield which allows you to close the distance making their reach actually work against them. And also when I said this time period I meant during the Roman Empire.
@@cheesestyx945 that was merely an example of a spear being more effective in range, and having the same speed as a sword, a shield does give you an added deffensive bonus because you're harder to hit, however you're just asuming that people did not use shields with spears, even romans used spears, they had up to 3 javelins on them, some of them threw them before battle and sometimes they used them on their assault depending on which kind of battle was fought, romans had superior logistics compared to tribes but simply stating that swords are the better weapon even tho it was a secondary weapon in almost every army if the people could buy a sword is kinda ignorant.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage#:~:text=With%20their%20elite%20status%2C%20members,fought%20in%20a%20phalanx%20formation. carthage used spears swords and shields, they won a plentitude of battles against the romans with them.. Yes, a mace is a good weapon, but again you would have to get really close to your enemy which is a very bad idea if you don't want to end up getting poked, most people during the roman period and even up to the middle ages used chain mail, because it was far cheaper and rather good in it's defense, even tho robust spear still hurt them really badly because mail can still be pierced and bones can still be broken (broken bones and ruptured organ meat were often the case of death) makes longer reach far superior then a stabby weapon or a blunt weapon. Blunt weapons were rather effective against knights because well, it breaks bones and causes internal hemorrhaging, but even then halberds set the tone because they could hook people tip then over and stab straight in between the plates, they also had the spike and the axe head on them, the spike could penetrate armor and the axe could deliver blunt damage. If Lindy can't sway your opinion i have no clue what to tell you.. ua-cam.com/video/afqhBODc_8U/v-deo.html
I'm not convinced, you did not show the Hop charge and shield wall. The attack and defence is relative, so yes swords have higher attack but the def is insane on the hops (*thus what is important is the relation between the 2 attack/def ratios)*. For example, 30/40 (sword to hop) is the same as 18/24 (hop to sword). These are not exact figures, but you get the picture that the ratio is the same, hence their abilities to hit each other are the same. The armor will diminish what gets through even more. When you turn on shield wall the difference is even less. I would imagine with shield wall on and with the charge of hops it would be a wash. In terms of cost effectiveness you are probably still correct. Great channel by the way, one day I hope you buy a PUH-op filter for your mic though!
Historically when hoplites was on phalanx formation they could win every light and heavy sword infantry , if for some reason if the formation was destroyed then hoplites had short swords to act like an sword infantry , the weak point of the phalanx was when the enemy overflank it. At the battle of Leukopetra ( the last major battle between Greeks and Romans) hoplites holded easy the Roman infantry (pre Marian , hastastii principes) , Greek cavalry was light and outnumbered and lost the cavalry battle so the Romans easily over flanked the phalanx and won. Pilum and arrows couldn't hit critical the hoplite infantry because their heavy armor.
I find this "balancing" bogus. A spartan hoplite phalanx should be able to hold its own, or more reasonably just straight up beat pre marian, and possible even marian roman infantry head on. There's no account of spartans fighting romans, but in every account of romans fighting phlanxes, they get their buts kicked and only win the battle as a whole because they outflank the enemy. This spear V. sword "balancing" makes every non pike, non sword heavy faction less fun to play than the others. Spartan hoplites can't hold their own VS. the shittiest barbarian swordsmen out their. If you play as sparta in campaign, you use pikes. Period, or you get slaughtered. The royal Spartans and the hereos of Sparta *barely* hold their own against freed swordsmen.
They should have a lot of bonuses when stationary and in formation to the front. However they should move slowly and should the spearmen be caught out of formation they should be wrecked. Basically like in real life.
YES THANK YOU! After beating Rome 1 with Spartan Pikes, I played Rome 2 with Spartan Spears and it's just not the same unless they are Royal Spartans. The Spartan Pikes seems to be doing a better job at holding the lines than Spartan spears. It's only when you get to Royal Spartans that they do a better job than the cheap Spartan Pikes at half its price.
Pikemen in the phalanx would destroy swordsman in a front engagement like the one shown in the video sword units would have to use flanking or overwhelming numbers to break a line of pikemen in a phalanx
It should at least be closer between them. Maybe the solution lays in giving the hoplites a 10 bonus vs inf, when in phalanx. Maybe give them a option to fight with swords.
Hoplites should be able to use their Kopis in close combat, spears against cavalry and defensively. Makes up for their lack of javelins and cavalry counter tactics.
+Maximus Decimus Meridius By and large, Maximus, hoplites used their spears aggressively and offensively too. It helps a lot when the first strike you can make on your opponent is out six feet in front of you at the end of the dory. Initially they faced a lot of other hoplites, so there could very well be a lot of 'spear-fencing' going on too. Of course, if they are getting bum-rushed into close range, they'd have their swords as well. But they definitely marched at each other and fought at spear range first.
Depends on the spear units. Spartan's hoplites are pretty evenly matched against Legionary Cohort, surprisingly.. Spartan Hoplites have lower damage than thorax hoplites, but have a higher attack, health, melee defense, and have a higher AP value than Principes.
Well that explains why I'm having so much more trouble with my Massalia campaign than I did my Roman campaign. I've pretty much got no good sword units, and hardly any of the computer players use much cavalry.
As a note: All swords (Other then shortswords,) have a reach of 1, spears have a reach of 2. This does make it so in perfectly even attribute tests (No precursors, no formation attack,) spears do seem to dominate. I figure that this is simply because this gives the spears more opportunities to deliver hits then swords, thus, even though the accuracy and damage are equal, the spears are able to punch more often. Of course, the spears being as weak as they are now statistically, they practically are only being held above water by this trait, especially since the most popular method of dealing with cavalry in the current game is the precursors that the Celtic and Germanic spears have, with the other factions rely on melee infantry or mid teir spears as a javelin source. Of course, the less you pay for the unit that throws them, the better spent your money is on the cheap precursors.
Unmodded, no spear/sword unit with identical stats exists, all swords that deal a net damage as low as an elite hoplite either use shortsword (The weapon designed for skirmishers.) The minimal damage a sword inflicts is 34 (Generic Sword,) provided it isn't a shortsword or anti-infantry sword, the maximum damage a spear inflicts is 30 (Hoplite Elite.) So first off, you need to mod a spear and a sword to have the same damage and armor piercing. Then you set two units to use identical armor, shields, abilities, and base stats. So, lets say we have rome_test_spear, that is cloed from the Hoplite spear, but inflicts 30 damage, 4 peircing, this puts it on par with rome_generic_sword. The charge results in the swords taking slightly more casualties (around 50% more then the spears take, so its a 60%-40 split for the swords to the spears,) and then it landslides from there. However, the spears ability to just win by reach seems to be negated by formation attack, when the units stand in normal formations, the formation isn't normally dense enough for what I call "1.5 ranks" of spearmen to be able to attack.
You can kinda see it in action in the Legionary Cohorts VS Spartan Hoplites video on Maxi's own channel. Of course, the wider unit from formation attack off clearly killed faster, the formation attack on phalanx didn't take that many more casualties then some of the formation attack off phalanxes. Of course, you can fit three phalanx into the space of one formation attack off phalanx... Spears scale really well with unit density.
If you’ve ever fenced you know that a spear is hard to close in on. So I’d say it’s inaccurate. It was widespread because it was cheap and held people at a distance. Maneuverable units with swords can beat spears
Maximus, one thing I did notice was at the moment you froze the video, just before the Principes and the Thorax Spears clashed, the Principes were Fresh, and the Thorax Spears were Active. Not sure how this factors in. Obviously, it gave the Principes an advantage right off the bat. Not sure how that should affect tactics on the battlefield.
It affects the battle alot. If your troops are fresh they can put a more decent fight depending on their tier. Plus that if their too tired they won't hold the line for too long. If you watch some other ppl play total war like "Pixelated Apollo" or anyone else. The thing is if your troops are too tired they can get a good enough charge to clash with the enemy. I done this with AI and we be walking and running the same pace to see which troops holds out longer and kills more. Then I let the AI run towards me until their tired and that's how I won with less deaths. Your troops must be kept fresh for battle at all times. For cavalry, they mainly are on the flanks to keep the enemy's cav busy otherwise if you charge too early you'd be caught between the inf. and cav. So yes it does matter on your troops stamina. Sorry, I'm a huge total war fan and player.
If it is for you to test whether spears are better or worse than swords , do not use hoplites . Putting hoplites in battle without making them a phalanx is like telling your dog not to bark . It makes them useless because they were trained for only that purpose.
Why = idiotic game mechanics in the name of "balance". If you look at the data files, swords are given a magical damage bonus against infantry, and do more damage per hit. In reality, spears were considered overwhelmingly superior in melee combat across practically any time period and culture, and those who used swords (the Romans only did for a few centuries) tended to have THROWING spears or other projectile weapons. Held overarm, a spear can be thrust with FAR more force than a sword, and can be deadly even when you're shield to shield with the enemy. You can also hit an opponent one or two rows over from the one directly in front of you, further increasing the advantage in formations. It's worth noting that when the Romans adopted the plumbata to replace the pilum (lighter and smaller) they readopted spears as primary infantry weapons (and no, "barbarization" is an idiotic myth, disregarded by any Roman military historian) It's hilarious that they claim to have "historical battles" but you can't actually complete them with the techniques used thanks to this sword-wank rubbish. At Cannae, Hannibal's Libyan spearmen were able to press in on the hastati and principes and massacre them. If you try this in game, the Romans will magically hack their way through the Libyans and route them.
Martin Karlsson Yep. I've been seeing this guy everywhere in UA-cam preaching the glory of the pole arm. I myself love spears and recognize their role as a primary weapon, but you don't see me jacking off to their effectiveness.
Have you actually studied any historical warfare? Did you know that people used to carry two swords, one that was a longer one and the other one that was a shorter one, such as the seax. There's a reason these were used, that was when you got in to melee combat that was tightly packed and became more of a pushing contest a weapon such as a spear or a sword that was too long would have been useless.
@Rock Bottom ''people'' did not use two swords. it did happen, but it in very rare occasions and pretty much never in a professional army. A shield is just more flexible, it can not only protected the wielder from harmfull missiles but they can also be used efficently in offence and defence. and the fact that you are saying that spears/swords are useless in tight formation fighting show that you have never heard of such tactics as the greek phalanx or the roman testudo and many more that have shown the opposite.
Martin Karlsson There were quite a lot of archers in many battles. And you're right - I'd rather wield a sword and shield than two swords. Perhaps in duels I might chance at dual wielding blades, but in a battlefield where arrows rain down by the hundreds(?), I'd be most comfortable with a shield and sword/spear.
tbh, i almost never use sword units except with the rome. One of the strongest tactics you can use is to have a solid line of spear infantry and a few sword infantry at reserve and cavalry on the flanks. And never, like EVER charge with the spear units which can assume a defansive formation (Shield screen, Shield wall, Phalanx). In several comparisons i made with my friend, we have seen that a Standart Hoplites vs Legionaries, (Using the phalanx and not running the entire map before the fight) goes legionaries way but with about 30 man left and unit at weavering. mostly due to the javelins thrown. But in an Legionary Cohort vs Spartan Hoplites fight, Spartan hoplites win every, single, time. with over 40 or so man left. In some other comparison, Germanic Spear Wall wins against Legionaries when both units are charged and after the charge, spear wall is taken into shield screen. Spartan Hoplites can go head on against literally anything. It's not even a comparison anymore. In my conclusion, there is no such thing as a "ROCK PAPER SCISSORS" mechanic in RTW 2. Especially against the "FAMOUS BARBARIAN SWORD SPAM", what i use is throwing a full line of spartan hoplites and calling it a day.
Why have swords at all if they’re so inferior to spears, which are cheaper to manufacture, have longer range, and are more effective in formation? As a sidearm, why not just have a dagger instead?
thank you for this video, appreciate it.... just the way you say latin stuff like "principei" drives me nuts :D edit: i think the hoplites were alraedy one stage "more exhausted" than the roman forces, thus, having mali right from the start.
I bought the first total war for the campaign But after a few sieges I found out that it’s way different from Rome total war 2 The first rome game is fun But I noticed It plays different Could you help me out with why or tell me somthing why it is
@@sushanalone Centralized administration, greater economic output, higher population thus manpower reserves, culture of war. Pyrrhus humiliated the Romans, but they can raise another army while he can't because of lack of men. Hannibal humiliated the Romans, but they came back because Carthage never listened to him. Besides that, the majority of even post-Marian legions still used spears, as pila. Auxillae infantry and the cavalry composed of both foederati and mercenaries used spears extensively.
Ramsey I'm not sure what version you are playing. I'm playing Rome 2 Total War Emperor edition 2.2.0 ver. I play it against friend 1v1 campaing and my roman mele legions have loose formation button at the same place where you have group/halt/skirmish mode/ etc buttons. It's nice versus missiles and to destroy pike formations head on, since legions outflank them automaticly.
the dumb thing about spear infantry in games they treat it Always as a defensive passive unit which makes no sense especially with hoplites. phalanx were never talked about as being passive or defensive, they were the ancient bulldozer when it got moving nothing could stop the push besides another Phalanx. head on a spearman should never lose against swordman especially in tight advancing formations
Abhijeet Pandule Spear is better in every situation. They are only worse if you fight in toilet or whatever. Swords were side-arms if your spear or other polearm was broken. There were no "spear" or "sword" infantry. Spear is a primary weapon, sword just rests in scabbard just in case.
Wrong. Prikipey is much closer to historical Latin pronunciation. Prinsipey is just modern convention/anglicisation. Just like Caesar is historically pronounced kaisar (like in fallout New Vegas) but modern convention is see-sar.
This is bullshit. You never send elephants into spears. That is ridiculous. Also, this engagement is biased for the swords. The spear unit isn't fulled rested. And of course a spear unit will use it's defensive formation, which is most often stronger than a sword defensive position, prior or during the engagement. From my experience, especially with elite units, spears are excellent defensive units and ABSOLUTELY more versatile! Cavalry, elephants, and chariots will wreck swords, while at the same time, spears will wreck them.
Tell this to a guy who defeated my barb sword faction with a fuckin adriai super armored spear/jav spam : ) and I thought he was just a noob, what a mistake to make : )
I'll make sure to tell him that outlying results due to confounding factors (player skill) don't invalidate the mean results when confounding factors aren't accounted for.
Maximus Decimus Meridius I assure you, it wasn't about skill solely, but about more factors that are often unforeseen by most of community. Adriaei have most cost efficient and highest value armored units from all factions in game and in 1 on 1 same price mix of elite and mainline spears will defeat even sparta easily. Plus they have best tureos spear variant in game (marines) with plenty javs and great stats, that can direct missiles like iberian infantry. We had meet again in next quick game and I *barely* was able to defeat him with shameless tylis sword spam army that I don't use because it's OP otherwise. Later we befriended and I was guy is in top 100 leaderboard players, probably with same army. I could send you replay if you like but I'm not sure that I want to rat this guy out, and this interesting setup to became mainstream : )
The rest of the army would be another confounding factor. The replays would be great to watch I think. I have beaten Boii and Rome with Ardiaei, but that wasn't because of the ability of their spears to kill swords. They lose to similarily priced swords from Rome/Barbarians, you just have to use the rest of your army alot better to support them.
Maximus Decimus Meridius That is correct, that's why people don't even consider spear factions as serious, but in reality some of them have the tools to counter even nastiest sword rushes, with some skill and proper deployment plan.
Why are you playing such a low unit size... people should be playing on Ultra unit size or playing DEI with 200 and 300 men Infantry units, to encourage CA to increase unit sizes further to more realistic amounts. That's just my opinion, though. Also, you seem to have quite good graphics so I dont understand why you dont increase unit size in the first place
The word "hoplites" is the English adoption of the Greek word "οπλιτοι" and is conventionally pronounced HOP-lights, not ho-PLEAT-aze. If you want to follow the original Greek the pronunciation would be Hope-PLEA-toy.
Because of stupid and unrealistic game mechanics. Hoplights should also use their spears overhand when in close formation, which allows a far better thrust both in terms of power and angle over the enemy shields.
Realistically, there is real life balance to heavy spear infantry vs sword infantry, namely that infantry without proper thrusting spears usually carried OTHER weapons like javelins that could be used against spearmen.
For those who r pissed that Spears losing to Swordsman. First of all,Romans use for swords rather than spears due to reforms.Rome military once used Hoplites but soon changed after the Marian Reforms.Romans r the best melee unit in close combat because they r well displined.They use swords and big shields to cut long spears in Phalanx formation but vulnerable to cavalry charges.Eg.The Pateorians.The point of swordsmen were to cut heads not standing their ground like spearmen.Talking about Barbarians,they use hit and run tactics most of the time instead of hand to hand combat with the Romans.The spearmen only use they short swords when their spears r broken or an enemy very close to them.Elite or whatsoever,Romans have been fighting with everyone all along.
also they didnt abondan spears they had the pilum who were used as spears and they had auxiliary troops as spearman and reeintroduced it for the legions in the late roman period
Why are people in the comments surprised that the Romans are defeating Greeks? That's what happened and that's what Roman formations were basically designed to do as a replacement for the older phalanx.
@maciejl20 The Thorax Hoplites were tired before they even got to the fight, so basically it would've been a more fair fight and test. Plus that in every total war game, it matters on your troops stamina. If they are too tired, they can't fight for crap, while his troops we're fresh cuz they were marching. I'm not defending any side, but to make a more better video, he should've gotten someone else to help him instead of AI. AI is just gonna run their troops every time. Hoplites were backbone of Greeks, so basically they were the best troops the Greeks can offer. I'm not trying to bring "Historical" things to a game that is just a god damn game. Hoplites vs every other kind of swordsman would have close or different outcome especially the tier troops, phalanx formation if is gonna be used since it's gonna boost the troops defences up. I done a test awhile long time ago, Sparta vs Bactria (if that's how you spell it) Sparta, mostly Hoplites and Royal Hoplites along with archers or slingers, cav. Then Bactria (the faction I choose) I went with archers, Thorax swordsmen, pikes, Bactria cav, and other inf. troops that probably wouldn't stand against Sparta. It was a Siege battle, I'm defending plus I had low quality troops except the pikes and maybe the swordsmen. Sparta broken down the gates captured zones, rested their troops and sent six units to attack my choke points. Pikes were last resort with my Thorax swordsmen, then Sparta sent everything in to destroy my lines. My swordsmen were getting slaughter, and my pikes just gone. Even with pulling my swordsmen back and forth trying to counter charge the choke point they still lost and broke to a route which I lost the Siege battle. Spearmen in the game is good as long as they are fresh and can get bonus charges against inf. and are in phalanx after the charge. Which happened to me in the Siege at the last defence. My swordsmen even though being in shield wall, they still lost cuz of the Royal Spartan Hoplites being high tier and dangerous.
@maciejl20 I know it's not actual info, I'm mainly talking about him and his methods on doing tests such as these. In history and in game, no commander would be stupid to have tired soldiers attack a fresh line of enemies. As shown in the video he played against AI to do his test and video about Spear vs Sword. If both troops were fresh, then both units won't have a disadvantage, in the game I seen plenty of players running their troops and when they are tired they can't fight for crap. Spears can still put a good fight against swords, Sparta has shown that.
Jesus christ bro get a pop filter. I feel like I'm being held down while someone spits in my fucking ears from both sides at once. Doesn't feel good man. .__.
It's prin /tʃ/ ipes if you use the ecclesiastical pronunciation (the one teached in school, at least in Italy). You can say prin k ipes but that's the classical pronunciation (1aD upper roman class pronunciation). We are both right I think :) [I'm italian and I studied latin for 5 years in highschool.]
Swords beat spears. The only reason the spear was used 99% of the time is money. Very few nations could afford an entire army of swords. Cheapness, not effectiveness are why spears were the king of the battlefield.
The actual evidence says "No." Viking lords, Samurai, men at arms, and Knights, not to mention early and late Roman soldiers and Ancient Greek armies, all brought polearms, (mostly spears) to battle as primary weapons, even though they had swords. They were used by even wealthy warriors because they possess serious advantages (like reach, leverage, and power) against swords. Swords were NOT obtainably expensive in the ancient or medieval worlds.
laughs in pikemen holding a chokepoint
I was going to say a good pike unit is stronger than the best sword infantry in a frontal assault.
Pike men beat everything if u know how to use them , mix them up thureo spears
The problem I have with these games is that they deliberately seperate infantry into swordmen and spearmen, whereas historically a lot of those higher tier spear units would have carried swords as their sidearms. This is especially a problem in Total War Attila. The higher tier Germanic troops of that period would have been Good spearmen who were also competent swordsmen, or at least this is what the Germanic infantry general unit should have been.
+Henrick Likesrabbits Exceptionally good point, Henrick. This would require FAR more in-depth combat to work with appropriately. Even hoplites, classical spear unit that most games would be happy to force use only spears, used swords, some of them long, some of them intended for thrusting. The problem, truly, is in separating the two as you say, as separate classes. The only distinction that really needs to be made is with units that have no spear at all, and them being far less useful against cavalry charges due to their short weapons.
Romans should have the option to use their javelins/makeshift spears automatically A) In defense, if B) You do not throw both/all of their pila. This is their secondary function historically, otherwise they were always extremely vulnerable to horses.
Spearmen who have swords should actually *Use the length of their spears appropriately first, and if they're in a close formation, should overlap spears as the hoplite phalanx would*. This function *needs* to be a smaller version of pike combat, wherein it is difficult to bypass the layers of spears, but once you do, the first rank will draw their swords while, if possible, the second or third rank assist overhead with their spears. This is how a good spear group functions in reality, and this would realistically mimic just how tough it is to take on a dense group of spearmen with frontal attacks. Spearmen who are not organized, have shorter spears or are loosely formed out and don't have secondary weapons, would be under the real, serious disadvantage when confronted with swords, and they should have to choke up on their spears in order to combat swords at close range. Due to their short spears and lack of formational discipline, these kinds of troops would be the kinds that expert swordsmen would have a field day with.
These kinds of changes would require huge formation changes as well as a complete overhaul of the ludicrous current animations.
Jan Lykourgos If I remembered correctly, Europa Barbarorum for Rome I had this implemented quite successfully on the Germanic generals bodyguard units. The downside was that you couldn't force the unit to fight with a specific weapon and they tended to use spears on city walls
Henrick Likesrabbits Ah, you're right, I remember that now! Man, makes me want to play it again. That was good stuff.
Of course, these games could be loads better if they actually went and tried to innovate. Allowing us to set their weapon usage would be far better. And as I said, their animations need a huge overhaul, they're pretty awful, especially for spear units.
+Henrick Likesrabbits I have to play Barbarorum again, damn that was the best mod for any TW game.
It was done well in EB. I think they had to remove the secondary weapon for hoplites in later versions though since they would far too often switch entirely to their kopis. They also made some sub-mods including one for hoplite and sarissa formations in guard mode and that made things quite awesome.
Units like the Germanic bodyguards, Getic elite infantry, Celtic Solduros, etc. had sword and spear. More often than not they'd use both of them at the same time (say like out of 120 Ischyroi Orditon about 40 would use spears while rest would use the swords), so they're like mixed units.
Hopelites in phalanx should be able to win front engagements. Otherwise Hoplites wouldn't have been practiced for so long.
They were abandoned because of their lack of mobility, getting flanked and cut down was what destroyed.
crackshack2
Generally speaking, heavy spear units weren't abandoned until bayonets came around. No, not gunpowder, spearmen and pikes were often used to protect musketmen from cavalry.
Hoplites themselves didn't stay around because the successor states followed Alexander's example. Also Rome saw little use in them, and had a way of destroying hoplites. Hoplites were usually greek nobility, and that same nobility had a hard time surviving between Philip II's conquests and the Roman ones.
I don't necessarily agree with people who say in real life spears always beat swords because, among other examples, the Romans did pretty well for themselves. They're just easy to make and learn.
+Albrecht “Ridicuous Name” Shnoodle
Actually, against the spear and pike using Greeks, the Romans tended to have their asses kicked. In the Macedonian-Roman wars, the Romans won two battles, Cynoscephalae and Pydna. In the former, the Romans won the flanks using their war elephants, thus outflanking the pike-and-spear sarrissaphoroi-thureophoroi Macedonian phalanx (the Greeks of the day used a mixed phalanx of pike wielding sarissaphoroi and spear and javelin wielding thureophoroi). The Romans engaging the phalanx proper actually lost ground and was beaten badly before the elephants turned things around. In Pydna, the Macedonian phalanx broke ranks the pursue the fleeing Romans after beating the crap out of them, while the Greek cavalry for some reason remained uncommitted. The Romans rallied, reformed their formation and destroyed the now disorganized phalanx.
Rome's advantages wasn't in its tactics. Its tactics were shit compared to the Greeks. Their advantages laid on their strategic advantages of a stronger economy, a greater population, and a culture that unambiguously glorified warfare, coupled with a logistics system with efficiency unheard of before. They could literally raise army after army regardless of defeats or casualties.
Albert Ray Jonathan
Thats actually really scary
crackshack2
Roman culture? To be fair, ancient cultures were extremely warlike by our standards. The Romans just had a culture that was extremely warlike even by ancient cultures' standards. It's telling that when Rome incorporated barbarians and their allies into their empire, and thus Romanized foreigners and their culture, they became less aggressive and expansionist, not more.
You understand the Romans had a force of about 22,000 facing 44,000 in that battle? The cavalry was even matched. Also, spears should be differentiated from pikes due to their different uses in warfare.
Honestly the spearmen should've won that engagement. Any unit attacking a phalanx head on is suicide irl. The reason Rome's legionnaires were so good was because of their adaptability and versatility.They have enough flexibility to go to the flanks of the phalanx and wipe them out.
Phalanx is a formation formed with spears. Those spearmen were not in phalanx formation, thus no, they should not have won.
The hoplites weren't in phalanx
The only case where the phalanx formation worked against the Romans was specifically the Macedonian pike phalanx. Lindybeige made a great video regarding the weaknesses of spear combat against swords. The spear was generally the most common weapon of ancient peoples and its range makes it a weakness against the short Roman gladius (and later longer spatha). It's hard for a unit of spearmen to be effective against an armored wall of scorpion-like legionaries and stabbing from above or below with their short swords.
You are right about flexibility though. The maniple system worked in their favor against heavy infantry that the Greeks and Macedonians had.
@@Zhohan- Short roman gladius is an absurdly short weapon compared to a 2-3 meter long spear and has an inherent disadvantage against a spear because the spear has a longer reach and a lot greater operational distance, it also allows multiple ranks to fight at the same time and many spears to gang up one a single swordsman at the same time.
The romans originally used a spear phalanx formation but started using the gladius because spears were unwieldy in mountainous terrain during the Samnite wars.
But the romans were equipped with lorica segmentata and lorica hamata which would allow them to beat unarmored infantry easily simply by abusing their metal armor that blocks thrusts, cuts and slashes.
I think the video you mean is where Lindybeige is saying that spear and shield is worse at dueling but that is dueling and not formation fighting, the point still stands, charging a spearwall through the front with only swords is not very effective in real life.
Accurately pronouncing "Principes". I like it.
What the fuck? umm, no? even in game they say prinCipes, not prinkipe...
_What the fuck? umm, no? even in game they say prinCipes, not prinkipe_
Probably the voice actors weren´t the most proficient latin speakers. The correct latin pronunciation is priːn.keps
V!PeR C had only K sound in Latin
In Rome 1 TW they pronounce it correctly, so CA knew but didnt care it seems..
Certain elite spear units such as these hoplites should have an ability to switch to spears/swords...
Usually the only time when a hoplite switched to his sword was if he droped/broke his spear. And there are no such mechanic in the game so i dont see why.
Martin Karlsson because Rome 1 had it...
Rickon Well rome 1 also made hoplites use pikes and that is not even historically correct. Only the macedonian sarissa wielding used something that large. greek hoplites use spears, and their spears where usually more effective then their swords.
Martin Karlsson Rome 1 had shorter spear/pikes for hoplites
Timothy Heimbach Yes it is true that they where shorter then the macedonian pikes but they where still
longer then what they usually where historically.
I get having spears loose in regular formation, but they should be able to hold their own in a hoplite wall.
Their lack of maneuverability would balance out their advantage against cavalry.
i cant understand you because i dont speak english but your soft voice help me to sleep thanks ^^
really this is a very interesting video of total war anyway
I have noticed another general trend amongst sword infantry in which they differ from their spear counterparts. It seems that their armor and, more noticably, melee defense comes from their shields. With spearmen, or at least hoplites, a large part of armor and melee defense are "base". I haven't managed to solidly test it, but I assume this means that swords are more sensitive to attacks (both missile and melee) from their right flank and rear. It's not much, but maybe something people could try to use to mitigate the already dominant position of heavy melee infantry on the battlefield.
RIP Fire Emblem weapon triangle...
Principes Beats Thorax Hoplites without Hoplite Wall
But Normal Hoplites with Hoplite Wall gives Oathsword a run for their money,Lol.
Hey Maximus, I really enjoy your work. My question is slightly off-topic, you had a video (if I'm not misremembering) about when to use formation/not to use formation attack, and also, should you spread your lines (with swords) as thin and wide as possible, or try to have them packed more densely?
Thanks
Hey! Not off topic at all. Formation attack is good when you're up against superior enemy infantry frontally, and want to limit the amount of men fighting to basically hold as long as possible while the enemy charge bonus wears off. If you charge and use Shield Wall/ Hoplite Phalanx, turn it off to avoid contracting your formation unless you do that to purposefully make gaps. So basically, when you go for the kill (rear charge, flanking, already engaged enemy) turn it off, when you're going to get killed by a high charge bonus, use formation attack.
Going as wide as possible is problematic against cavalry, which easily will be able to knock down your men. If you have several lines of infantry or speed bumps in front, you're safer. The benefit lies in wrapping around enemy formations, the risk in having your lines penetrated. Against elephants/chariots/ alot of cavalry it might be a good idea to go deeper - say 5-6 ranks.
Spears have higher defence and longer reach meaning that spears defending on a hill are x3 better than swords defending a hill.
And armoured which helps against arrows
Great video! Thanks for doing the comparison. Also, I think hoplite is pronounced "hop-light" or with the "lite" part of the word pronounced the same as the English word "light".
Aaron Torres no
In my experience, the lighter cheaper spears are more cost effective than the heavier ones anyway. More manueverable on the battlefield and tend to have higher bonuses vs large like levy spears/levy freemen. Heavier spears just suck.
Absolutely. It's hard to justify even mid-tier spears in most builds when you can get a Celtic Warrior and a Levy Freeman for their price.
Maximus Decimus Meridius I would like to see the javs removed from levy freeman. They would be less useful, making barbarian factions spend a little more on mid spears and that much less on swords.
DarkMatter Blasphemy. 10 ammo and 41 missile damage, 150 range.
I have been able to win great victories thanks to Baktrian Royal Guard, Picked Hoplites, Colchian Nobles, Mercenary Veteran Hoplites...I don't know, I think hoplites are actually pretty good if you use them properly, although my favourite spear unit is the Agema Spears for its versability and low cost for an elite unit.
Do you use some mod that add additional stats info? I dont recall seeing detailed information on these stats
Hey Maximus! What do you think is better between Thorax Sword or Thorax Hoplites?
That would be great if you would test these 2 units with their abilities!
Damn bro your graphics are insane. Mine are no were near as good. What are the specs of your pc? But most importantly what graphics card are you using?
And then we look at history and we see spears winning from swords in pretty much most if not all engagements (:
I know it's game balancing but it still bothers me lol
Name 1 in this time period. Armor back then didn't cover most of the body so faster weapons were better hence a sword.
@@cheesestyx945 in this time period? why would i pick one in this time period when the comment was about history?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halberd is a really good source, it tells you they were used to combat heavily armored troops(knights).
on top of that, i think you underestimate the speed and reach a spear/polearm has over a sword, history itself shows reach over speed is far more effective, hence why we've used them against cavalry and also why pikeman were so formidable, the greek phalanx destroyed batalions and it didn't matter if they had normal spears, swords or cavalry.
ua-cam.com/video/O8RWLxlzTiM/v-deo.html that is a very good repressentation of sword vs spear, mind you, in armored figts, the spear still wins considering the plentitude of gaps in plated armor, knees/armpits/parts of the neck and throat, it's merely waiting for a good opening and avoiding getting hit, in a battle with a frontile however, spears don't need to back off, their pointy end pointing forward does all the work for them, no one willingly runs into a spear.
On top of that, melee combat in our time period is heavily redundant since the rise of accurate firearms.
@@Zarosian_Ice a buckler? That's barely a shield no one who used a sword in combat brought a buckler. A sputum or kite shield is a proper swordsmen's shield. A spears reach cant do anythin against a big shield which allows you to close the distance making their reach actually work against them. And also when I said this time period I meant during the Roman Empire.
As soon as armor covers the whole body I wouldn't use a spear or a sword, I'd switch over to a mace or something.
@@cheesestyx945 that was merely an example of a spear being more effective in range, and having the same speed as a sword, a shield does give you an added deffensive bonus because you're harder to hit, however you're just asuming that people did not use shields with spears, even romans used spears, they had up to 3 javelins on them, some of them threw them before battle and sometimes they used them on their assault depending on which kind of battle was fought, romans had superior logistics compared to tribes but simply stating that swords are the better weapon even tho it was a secondary weapon in almost every army if the people could buy a sword is kinda ignorant..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage#:~:text=With%20their%20elite%20status%2C%20members,fought%20in%20a%20phalanx%20formation. carthage used spears swords and shields, they won a plentitude of battles against the romans with them..
Yes, a mace is a good weapon, but again you would have to get really close to your enemy which is a very bad idea if you don't want to end up getting poked, most people during the roman period and even up to the middle ages used chain mail, because it was far cheaper and rather good in it's defense, even tho robust spear still hurt them really badly because mail can still be pierced and bones can still be broken (broken bones and ruptured organ meat were often the case of death) makes longer reach far superior then a stabby weapon or a blunt weapon.
Blunt weapons were rather effective against knights because well, it breaks bones and causes internal hemorrhaging, but even then halberds set the tone because they could hook people tip then over and stab straight in between the plates, they also had the spike and the axe head on them, the spike could penetrate armor and the axe could deliver blunt damage.
If Lindy can't sway your opinion i have no clue what to tell you..
ua-cam.com/video/afqhBODc_8U/v-deo.html
I'm not convinced, you did not show the Hop charge and shield wall. The attack and defence is relative, so yes swords have higher attack but the def is insane on the hops (*thus what is important is the relation between the 2 attack/def ratios)*. For example,
30/40 (sword to hop) is the same as 18/24 (hop to sword). These are not exact figures, but you get the picture that the ratio is the same, hence their abilities to hit each other are the same.
The armor will diminish what gets through even more. When you turn on shield wall the difference is even less. I would imagine with shield wall on and with the charge of hops it would be a wash. In terms of cost effectiveness you are probably still correct.
Great channel by the way, one day I hope you buy a PUH-op filter for your mic though!
Historically when hoplites was on phalanx formation they could win every light and heavy sword infantry , if for some reason if the formation was destroyed then hoplites had short swords to act like an sword infantry , the weak point of the phalanx was when the enemy overflank it. At the battle of Leukopetra ( the last major battle between Greeks and Romans) hoplites holded easy the Roman infantry (pre Marian , hastastii principes) , Greek cavalry was light and outnumbered and lost the cavalry battle so the Romans easily over flanked the phalanx and won. Pilum and arrows couldn't hit critical the hoplite infantry because their heavy armor.
Please come back Maximus!!
I find this "balancing" bogus. A spartan hoplite phalanx should be able to hold its own, or more reasonably just straight up beat pre marian, and possible even marian roman infantry head on. There's no account of spartans fighting romans, but in every account of romans fighting phlanxes, they get their buts kicked and only win the battle as a whole because they outflank the enemy. This spear V. sword "balancing" makes every non pike, non sword heavy faction less fun to play than the others. Spartan hoplites can't hold their own VS. the shittiest barbarian swordsmen out their. If you play as sparta in campaign, you use pikes. Period, or you get slaughtered. The royal Spartans and the hereos of Sparta *barely* hold their own against freed swordsmen.
They should have a lot of bonuses when stationary and in formation to the front. However they should move slowly and should the spearmen be caught out of formation they should be wrecked. Basically like in real life.
Royal spartans are the second best infantry in the game, they beat oathsworn and praetorian guard in hoplite wall.
Sounds like you were just bad.
@@samithonjames370 So who is best?
Galatian Royal/Lusitani?
YES THANK YOU! After beating Rome 1 with Spartan Pikes, I played Rome 2 with Spartan Spears and it's just not the same unless they are Royal Spartans. The Spartan Pikes seems to be doing a better job at holding the lines than Spartan spears. It's only when you get to Royal Spartans that they do a better job than the cheap Spartan Pikes at half its price.
Pikemen in the phalanx would destroy swordsman in a front engagement like the one shown in the video sword units would have to use flanking or overwhelming numbers to break a line of pikemen in a phalanx
It should at least be closer between them. Maybe the solution lays in giving the hoplites a 10 bonus vs inf, when in phalanx. Maybe give them a option to fight with swords.
Hoplites should be able to use their Kopis in close combat, spears against cavalry and defensively. Makes up for their lack of javelins and cavalry counter tactics.
+Maximus Decimus Meridius By and large, Maximus, hoplites used their spears aggressively and offensively too. It helps a lot when the first strike you can make on your opponent is out six feet in front of you at the end of the dory. Initially they faced a lot of other hoplites, so there could very well be a lot of 'spear-fencing' going on too. Of course, if they are getting bum-rushed into close range, they'd have their swords as well. But they definitely marched at each other and fought at spear range first.
Take a shot each time he says thorax hoplites
Actually i thought armor is just blocking missiles etc while meleedefense manages your normal combat. Thanks for all this information
Depends on the spear units. Spartan's hoplites are pretty evenly matched against Legionary Cohort, surprisingly.. Spartan Hoplites have lower damage than thorax hoplites, but have a higher attack, health, melee defense, and have a higher AP value than Principes.
Well that explains why I'm having so much more trouble with my Massalia campaign than I did my Roman campaign. I've pretty much got no good sword units, and hardly any of the computer players use much cavalry.
Jase Poag just use more defensive positions and hoplite phalanx
As a note: All swords (Other then shortswords,) have a reach of 1, spears have a reach of 2.
This does make it so in perfectly even attribute tests (No precursors, no formation attack,) spears do seem to dominate.
I figure that this is simply because this gives the spears more opportunities to deliver hits then swords, thus, even though the accuracy and damage are equal, the spears are able to punch more often.
Of course, the spears being as weak as they are now statistically, they practically are only being held above water by this trait, especially since the most popular method of dealing with cavalry in the current game is the precursors that the Celtic and Germanic spears have, with the other factions rely on melee infantry or mid teir spears as a javelin source. Of course, the less you pay for the unit that throws them, the better spent your money is on the cheap precursors.
Can you give an example?
Unmodded, no spear/sword unit with identical stats exists, all swords that deal a net damage as low as an elite hoplite either use shortsword (The weapon designed for skirmishers.)
The minimal damage a sword inflicts is 34 (Generic Sword,) provided it isn't a shortsword or anti-infantry sword, the maximum damage a spear inflicts is 30 (Hoplite Elite.)
So first off, you need to mod a spear and a sword to have the same damage and armor piercing.
Then you set two units to use identical armor, shields, abilities, and base stats.
So, lets say we have rome_test_spear, that is cloed from the Hoplite spear, but inflicts 30 damage, 4 peircing, this puts it on par with rome_generic_sword.
The charge results in the swords taking slightly more casualties (around 50% more then the spears take, so its a 60%-40 split for the swords to the spears,) and then it landslides from there.
However, the spears ability to just win by reach seems to be negated by formation attack, when the units stand in normal formations, the formation isn't normally dense enough for what I call "1.5 ranks" of spearmen to be able to attack.
RoraborialisTrawler it would be nice to see different formations especially from hoplites the is pretty bare in that department
You can kinda see it in action in the Legionary Cohorts VS Spartan Hoplites video on Maxi's own channel.
Of course, the wider unit from formation attack off clearly killed faster, the formation attack on phalanx didn't take that many more casualties then some of the formation attack off phalanxes.
Of course, you can fit three phalanx into the space of one formation attack off phalanx... Spears scale really well with unit density.
Your name is maximus decimus meridius. Commander of the Felix legions......
Where in the database does it say that bonuses act like AP?
Wonderful
wouldnt spearmen have much higher damage historically?
63 Spartans have watched this video
If you’ve ever fenced you know that a spear is hard to close in on. So I’d say it’s inaccurate. It was widespread because it was cheap and held people at a distance. Maneuverable units with swords can beat spears
How can i do these tipes of custom battles? Please answer
Spear unit losing to sword unit? Hahahhaa.
Maximus, one thing I did notice was at the moment you froze the video, just before the Principes and the Thorax Spears clashed, the Principes were Fresh, and the Thorax Spears were Active. Not sure how this factors in. Obviously, it gave the Principes an advantage right off the bat. Not sure how that should affect tactics on the battlefield.
It affects the battle alot. If your troops are fresh they can put a more decent fight depending on their tier. Plus that if their too tired they won't hold the line for too long. If you watch some other ppl play total war like "Pixelated Apollo" or anyone else. The thing is if your troops are too tired they can get a good enough charge to clash with the enemy. I done this with AI and we be walking and running the same pace to see which troops holds out longer and kills more. Then I let the AI run towards me until their tired and that's how I won with less deaths. Your troops must be kept fresh for battle at all times. For cavalry, they mainly are on the flanks to keep the enemy's cav busy otherwise if you charge too early you'd be caught between the inf. and cav.
So yes it does matter on your troops stamina. Sorry, I'm a huge total war fan and player.
how do i hear shogun 1 sound track
What about masses falx and axes?
Why sparta dont have sword unit?
If it is for you to test whether spears are better or worse than swords , do not use hoplites . Putting hoplites in battle without making them a phalanx is like telling your dog not to bark . It makes them useless because they were trained for only that purpose.
Why = idiotic game mechanics in the name of "balance". If you look at the data files, swords are given a magical damage bonus against infantry, and do more damage per hit. In reality, spears were considered overwhelmingly superior in melee combat across practically any time period and culture, and those who used swords (the Romans only did for a few centuries) tended to have THROWING spears or other projectile weapons. Held overarm, a spear can be thrust with FAR more force than a sword, and can be deadly even when you're shield to shield with the enemy. You can also hit an opponent one or two rows over from the one directly in front of you, further increasing the advantage in formations. It's worth noting that when the Romans adopted the plumbata to replace the pilum (lighter and smaller) they readopted spears as primary infantry weapons (and no, "barbarization" is an idiotic myth, disregarded by any Roman military historian)
It's hilarious that they claim to have "historical battles" but you can't actually complete them with the techniques used thanks to this sword-wank rubbish. At Cannae, Hannibal's Libyan spearmen were able to press in on the hastati and principes and massacre them. If you try this in game, the Romans will magically hack their way through the Libyans and route them.
i think we have the worlds first spearaboo
Martin Karlsson
Yep. I've been seeing this guy everywhere in UA-cam preaching the glory of the pole arm. I myself love spears and recognize their role as a primary weapon, but you don't see me jacking off to their effectiveness.
Have you actually studied any historical warfare? Did you know that people used to carry two swords, one that was a longer one and the other one that was a shorter one, such as the seax. There's a reason these were used, that was when you got in to melee combat that was tightly packed and became more of a pushing contest a weapon such as a spear or a sword that was too long would have been useless.
@Rock Bottom
''people'' did not use two swords. it did happen, but it in very rare occasions and pretty much never in a professional army. A shield is just more flexible, it can not only protected the wielder from harmfull missiles but they can also be used efficently in offence and defence. and the fact that you are saying that spears/swords are useless in tight formation fighting show that you have never heard of such tactics as the greek phalanx or the roman testudo and many more that have shown the opposite.
Martin Karlsson
There were quite a lot of archers in many battles. And you're right - I'd rather wield a sword and shield than two swords. Perhaps in duels I might chance at dual wielding blades, but in a battlefield where arrows rain down by the hundreds(?), I'd be most comfortable with a shield and sword/spear.
M8 if u put a unit of pikes up nothing can do shit to them
tbh, i almost never use sword units except with the rome.
One of the strongest tactics you can use is to have a solid line of spear infantry and a few sword infantry at reserve and cavalry on the flanks.
And never, like EVER charge with the spear units which can assume a defansive formation (Shield screen, Shield wall, Phalanx).
In several comparisons i made with my friend, we have seen that a Standart Hoplites vs Legionaries, (Using the phalanx and not running the entire map before the fight) goes legionaries way but with about 30 man left and unit at weavering. mostly due to the javelins thrown.
But in an Legionary Cohort vs Spartan Hoplites fight, Spartan hoplites win every, single, time. with over 40 or so man left.
In some other comparison, Germanic Spear Wall wins against Legionaries when both units are charged and after the charge, spear wall is taken into shield screen.
Spartan Hoplites can go head on against literally anything. It's not even a comparison anymore.
In my conclusion, there is no such thing as a "ROCK PAPER SCISSORS" mechanic in RTW 2.
Especially against the "FAMOUS BARBARIAN SWORD SPAM", what i use is throwing a full line of spartan hoplites and calling it a day.
Why have swords at all if they’re so inferior to spears, which are cheaper to manufacture, have longer range, and are more effective in formation? As a sidearm, why not just have a dagger instead?
fl333r The same why spears are better than swords. Reach. You can have both sword and dagger as side-arms.
thank you for this video, appreciate it.... just the way you say latin stuff like "principei" drives me nuts :D
edit: i think the hoplites were alraedy one stage "more exhausted" than the roman forces, thus, having mali right from the start.
apparently, the most powerful infantry in the game is not a sword unit but a spear unit...how ironic
I'll take pikes any day of the week
Please, how do you control both armies? Is there a mod?
i think he is playing with a friend
I bought the first total war for the campaign
But after a few sieges I found out that it’s way different from Rome total war 2
The first rome game is fun
But I noticed
It plays different
Could you help me out with why or tell me somthing why it is
Shadow Deslar lmao you should know why they play different
Trevor I forgot about this . Ahahah. Stupid question. Truly. But I still love the first one
In irl spears win on the battlefield all the time
Yep, Example Ancient Rome. Oh wait...
@@sushanalone Centralized administration, greater economic output, higher population thus manpower reserves, culture of war. Pyrrhus humiliated the Romans, but they can raise another army while he can't because of lack of men. Hannibal humiliated the Romans, but they came back because Carthage never listened to him.
Besides that, the majority of even post-Marian legions still used spears, as pila. Auxillae infantry and the cavalry composed of both foederati and mercenaries used spears extensively.
yeah its called the pilum,pleb
Spear units were OP in Rome, so they nerfed it down ever since
This is so strange. I cant find the loose formation butten in rome 2 anymore. Could it be because of a mod or am i missing something?
I don't think there is a button for loose formation in rome2
+siyuan hong There is loose formation :)
Gagi Milankov And how do i use it?
Ramsey
I'm not sure what version you are playing.
I'm playing Rome 2 Total War Emperor edition 2.2.0 ver. I play it against friend 1v1 campaing and my roman mele legions have loose formation button at the same place where you have group/halt/skirmish mode/ etc buttons. It's nice versus missiles and to destroy pike formations head on, since legions outflank them automaticly.
Gagi Milankov Yeah but i dont see that option for me. Maybe only the roman/greek culture have them but that would be wierd.
Gonna check it out
the dumb thing about spear infantry in games they treat it Always as a defensive passive unit which makes no sense especially with hoplites. phalanx were never talked about as being passive or defensive, they were the ancient bulldozer when it got moving nothing could stop the push besides another Phalanx. head on a spearman should never lose against swordman especially in tight advancing formations
In reality which one is better sword or spear
Depends on the situation, like everything
Abhijeet Pandule Spear is better in every situation. They are only worse if you fight in toilet or whatever. Swords were side-arms if your spear or other polearm was broken.
There were no "spear" or "sword" infantry. Spear is a primary weapon, sword just rests in scabbard just in case.
Battlefield spear always the spear , its the ancient way of more range that evolve to range stone, arrows and then bullets
The creator has done nothing wrong but Spears and Great group weapons and in my oppinion should have an advantage
Literally why are swords superior to spears in total war games
All you need to do is poke from a distance
At least in shogun 2 you had the yari wall
Pince-eh-pey. Not prink-eh-pey
Wrong. Prikipey is much closer to historical Latin pronunciation. Prinsipey is just modern convention/anglicisation. Just like Caesar is historically pronounced kaisar (like in fallout New Vegas) but modern convention is see-sar.
how do people find out about hidden stats?
Mainly here: ua-cam.com/video/m7E6mZTw8kM/v-deo.html Or on websites like www.honga.net
Maximus Decimus Meridius thanks
3:15
This is bullshit. You never send elephants into spears. That is ridiculous. Also, this engagement is biased for the swords. The spear unit isn't fulled rested. And of course a spear unit will use it's defensive formation, which is most often stronger than a sword defensive position, prior or during the engagement.
From my experience, especially with elite units, spears are excellent defensive units and ABSOLUTELY more versatile! Cavalry, elephants, and chariots will wreck swords, while at the same time, spears will wreck them.
and the principes had an echelon the hoplite did not
Tell this to a guy who defeated my barb sword faction with a fuckin adriai super armored spear/jav spam : ) and I thought he was just a noob, what a mistake to make : )
I'll make sure to tell him that outlying results due to confounding factors (player skill) don't invalidate the mean results when confounding factors aren't accounted for.
Maximus Decimus Meridius I assure you, it wasn't about skill solely, but about more factors that are often unforeseen by most of community. Adriaei have most cost efficient and highest value armored units from all factions in game and in 1 on 1 same price mix of elite and mainline spears will defeat even sparta easily. Plus they have best tureos spear variant in game (marines) with plenty javs and great stats, that can direct missiles like iberian infantry. We had meet again in next quick game and I *barely* was able to defeat him with shameless tylis sword spam army that I don't use because it's OP otherwise. Later we befriended and I was guy is in top 100 leaderboard players, probably with same army. I could send you replay if you like but I'm not sure that I want to rat this guy out, and this interesting setup to became mainstream : )
The rest of the army would be another confounding factor. The replays would be great to watch I think. I have beaten Boii and Rome with Ardiaei, but that wasn't because of the ability of their spears to kill swords. They lose to similarily priced swords from Rome/Barbarians, you just have to use the rest of your army alot better to support them.
Maximus Decimus Meridius That is correct, that's why people don't even consider spear factions as serious, but in reality some of them have the tools to counter even nastiest sword rushes, with some skill and proper deployment plan.
the main reason i deleted this game, also spears to short
Why are you playing such a low unit size... people should be playing on Ultra unit size or playing DEI with 200 and 300 men Infantry units, to encourage CA to increase unit sizes further to more realistic amounts. That's just my opinion, though.
Also, you seem to have quite good graphics so I dont understand why you dont increase unit size in the first place
The word "hoplites" is the English adoption of the Greek word "οπλιτοι" and is conventionally pronounced HOP-lights, not ho-PLEAT-aze. If you want to follow the original Greek the pronunciation would be Hope-PLEA-toy.
Scott Miller I'm Greek and pretty sure it's Op (as in Oppa gangnam style) - lee - tee . Oi makes an ee sound.
Because of stupid and unrealistic game mechanics. Hoplights should also use their spears overhand when in close formation, which allows a far better thrust both in terms of power and angle over the enemy shields.
Realistically, there is real life balance to heavy spear infantry vs sword infantry, namely that infantry without proper thrusting spears usually carried OTHER weapons like javelins that could be used against spearmen.
wtf is a hop''light''
Prinkepes? xD
+Irn Mon It is pronounced similarly to that, yes.
+Jan Lykourgos the C in Principes is pronounced as a S
Magnus Djäken In ancient Latin?
+Jan Lykourgos it's latin yes, it's pronounced the same in english as well
Magnus Djäken Ah. See, I have heard elsewhere from other sources.
forvo.com/word/principes_milites/
For those who r pissed that Spears losing to Swordsman.
First of all,Romans use for swords rather than spears due to reforms.Rome military once used Hoplites but soon changed after the Marian Reforms.Romans r the best melee unit in close combat because they r well displined.They use swords and big shields to cut long spears in Phalanx formation but vulnerable to cavalry charges.Eg.The Pateorians.The point of swordsmen were to cut heads not standing their ground like spearmen.Talking about Barbarians,they use hit and run tactics most of the time instead of hand to hand combat with the Romans.The spearmen only use they short swords when their spears r broken or an enemy very close to them.Elite or whatsoever,Romans have been fighting with everyone all along.
And it is just a game.Seeing the Thorax Spearmen lose isn’t the end of the world.
Mg Gu romans changed to swordsmen after they had 3 armies outflanked and cut down by swords
also they didnt abondan spears they had the pilum who were used as spears and they had auxiliary troops as spearman and reeintroduced it for the legions in the late roman period
These pronunciations are killing me
prinKipes!!! LOOOL
Hop-lights not hoplitase. Prince-ipeas not prinkipase. Sorry but this kinda bugged me.
*Prince_ipase
Sorry but you are stupid, end of discussion
Its hoplitoys
Why are people in the comments surprised that the Romans are defeating Greeks? That's what happened and that's what Roman formations were basically designed to do as a replacement for the older phalanx.
@maciejl20 The Thorax Hoplites were tired before they even got to the fight, so basically it would've been a more fair fight and test. Plus that in every total war game, it matters on your troops stamina. If they are too tired, they can't fight for crap, while his troops we're fresh cuz they were marching. I'm not defending any side, but to make a more better video, he should've gotten someone else to help him instead of AI. AI is just gonna run their troops every time.
Hoplites were backbone of Greeks, so basically they were the best troops the Greeks can offer. I'm not trying to bring "Historical" things to a game that is just a god damn game. Hoplites vs every other kind of swordsman would have close or different outcome especially the tier troops, phalanx formation if is gonna be used since it's gonna boost the troops defences up. I done a test awhile long time ago, Sparta vs Bactria (if that's how you spell it) Sparta, mostly Hoplites and Royal Hoplites along with archers or slingers, cav. Then Bactria (the faction I choose) I went with archers, Thorax swordsmen, pikes, Bactria cav, and other inf. troops that probably wouldn't stand against Sparta. It was a Siege battle, I'm defending plus I had low quality troops except the pikes and maybe the swordsmen. Sparta broken down the gates captured zones, rested their troops and sent six units to attack my choke points. Pikes were last resort with my Thorax swordsmen, then Sparta sent everything in to destroy my lines. My swordsmen were getting slaughter, and my pikes just gone. Even with pulling my swordsmen back and forth trying to counter charge the choke point they still lost and broke to a route which I lost the Siege battle. Spearmen in the game is good as long as they are fresh and can get bonus charges against inf. and are in phalanx after the charge. Which happened to me in the Siege at the last defence. My swordsmen even though being in shield wall, they still lost cuz of the Royal Spartan Hoplites being high tier and dangerous.
@maciejl20 I know it's not actual info, I'm mainly talking about him and his methods on doing tests such as these. In history and in game, no commander would be stupid to have tired soldiers attack a fresh line of enemies. As shown in the video he played against AI to do his test and video about Spear vs Sword. If both troops were fresh, then both units won't have a disadvantage, in the game I seen plenty of players running their troops and when they are tired they can't fight for crap. Spears can still put a good fight against swords, Sparta has shown that.
Jesus christ bro get a pop filter. I feel like I'm being held down while someone spits in my fucking ears from both sides at once. Doesn't feel good man. .__.
prinkipes?really?
Pronunciation tips: it's princhipes. not prinkipe. ;)
It's prin /tʃ/ ipes if you use the ecclesiastical pronunciation (the one teached in school, at least in Italy). You can say prin k ipes but that's the classical pronunciation (1aD upper roman class pronunciation). We are both right I think :) [I'm italian and I studied latin for 5 years in highschool.]
Every school in italy uses ecclesiastical pronunciation ;)
Well they're all wrong, and should feel wrong.
Lol ok.
In Greece we were taugh a bit different. I would call it Prinkipes personally which was also used in Medieval Greek texts
Swords beat spears. The only reason the spear was used 99% of the time is money. Very few nations could afford an entire army of swords. Cheapness, not effectiveness are why spears were the king of the battlefield.
The actual evidence says "No." Viking lords, Samurai, men at arms, and Knights, not to mention early and late Roman soldiers and Ancient Greek armies, all brought polearms, (mostly spears) to battle as primary weapons, even though they had swords. They were used by even wealthy warriors because they possess serious advantages (like reach, leverage, and power) against swords. Swords were NOT obtainably expensive in the ancient or medieval worlds.
I think all mid tier and high tier spears should get a 5% decrease to help increase their usefulness as cheap spears do the same job, but are cheaper.