• Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Search results

  1. Let's talk about the spears.

    Good observation and indeed most casualties were caused during the rout, hence the trauma distribution. But not all of the wounds are located on the back of the head and even if those wounds were caused during a rout, it just shows what weapons were in the hands of those dealing the finishing blow and if the spear was the ultimatest greatestest weaponest why would they choose something else to kill the routing foes? Wouldn't it make sense to just use whatever you had in your hands before they routed, during the fight?
    Dude, your arguments getting even more deranged. Just please, stop embarrassing yourself. You are wrong and its ok to be wrong. Just admit it and move on.

    I guess your next argument will be - "Why does Aragorn uses sword to fight nazgul if spears are so good"
  2. Let's talk about the spears.

    Swords were enormously useful.

    The reason they were not as common as spears is simple: Cost.
    Swords require much more metal to make, and are more difficult to make, than hammering out a pointy speartip from a small amount of metal.

    Since swords were more expensive, if they were also less useful, nobody would have bothered taking them to a battlefield. They just would have made fancier spears.
    So you have to ask yourself: Why did people bother with swords? The answer: They were useful.
    As for axes, they can be used as both weapons of war and tools (unlike swords), and unlike both swords and spears, were useful against wooden shields.

    This is quite an incorrect statement. Here's how it really went.

    The Romans began by using spear and large shield, like the Greeks.
    But once Rome's Republic grew larger and richer, they could afford to outfit more soldiers with short swords instead, finding it a much more useful weapon in close quarters for stabbing around shields. So short sword+spear became the primary means of combat for legionaries. (Auxiliaries continued to mainly use spears, again for reasons of cost).

    The Romans then continued to use the sword+shield method for like 300+ years, and fought with it against many, many spear-using enemies around the world. If it was no good they would have changed it in that time. They also never would have bothered to change from spears to swords in the first place if it was a worse and more expensive option!

    Then, the Crisis of the Third Century happened. Rome's economy broke down internally. They could no longer afford to produce and distribute massive amounts of swords.
    And this is why the mass use of the gladius was phased out and replaced by the spear. Not because of Germanic tribes (who used swords plenty themselves).

    In addition, spears do have a use against cavalry which swords do not. This gives them an additional use swords can't offer, even if they were not necessarily better in a straight melee fight between infantry.
    Cost maybe an issue in Early medieval ages, but from 14-th century metallurgy went a long way and basically any mercenary could afford sword or messer. But they still kept fighting with a spears, pikes and halberds.
    Japanese fought with bow and tachi prior to Mongol invasion of Japan, but after they saw how effective mongol-chinese troops were with spears, japanese eventually switched too.

    Even though cost argument has some merit on a surface, but in actuality is completely invalid.
  3. Let's talk about the spears.

    @Sodal Most spearmen in your pictures are wearing swords exactly because when(not if) it comes down to melee, the spears are gonna be dropped to the ground in favour of the sword. They stop being the primary weapon after a certain point. You can clearly see that in the last picture of yours, which is called "Bad war" by Hans Holbein I believe. You can clearly see the pikes at the ground and people fighting with swords in the foreground:
    GFCDQlp.png


    Once again your are proving my point for me. You just need to do your own research instead of blindly believing youtube historians. Here are some other quotes for you from contemporary sources:





    Then there are more facts when we look at perimotem wounds: most of them are cuts, delivered by a sword or an axe:
    lpCkf6j.png



    Similar dsitribution of cuts vs. thrusts in Wisby, Dornach and Towton. Also interesting to note is that except for Wisby the wounds were concentrated usually on the head. No matter how you look at that, there's no way to conclude that a spear was the main killing weapon, at least in Late Middle Ages, as cuts absolutely dominate the statistics so far. Was spear widely used? Undeniably. Was it the bestest weapon ever? Absolutely not.
    I like your mental gymnastics and confirmation bias. You completely disregarded everything and then just redcircled couple of swords in a FOREST OF SPEARS.
    You keep talking about some youtuber or something. But the fact is - you are wrong and you are a joke. The pathetic attempt to bend facts to your own bias is just ridiculous. Go educate yourself.
  4. Let's talk about the spears.

    Tell that to romans, that famously defeated your beloved spear-loving greeks. And you've provided an argument against yourself without knowing it: the spears worked for phalanx exactly because of the formation, once the romans were able to break the formation it dissolved into a melee where swords are superior.


    Who calls/called it that? Here's an actual quote from someone with battle experience:
    Tell that to the Germanic tribes and Hunns which defeated sword loving romans and forced them to adopt spears in the 3-4 century.

    Your "facts" address to exceptions not to rules. You can not argue that spears were used all around the globe an masse. They were only fazed out by firearms over the centuries.
    You seem just like some kind of Hollywood-loving fanboy which disagrees with something that does not correlate with his worldview. You are wrong and there is thousands of facts to prove it.
    By the way, Fiore was a fencing instructor and duelist and not a battle-hardened veteran.
    00006081.jpg

    3555.jpg

    wako_zukan.jpg
    Battle_Scene%2C_after_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg
  5. Let's talk about the spears.

    Oh no lol
    I meant the spear mode would switch where the spear is grabbed from, if the enemy is in the face of your spearman, they would grab the spear in that manner and use it as a dagger.
    That makes sense.
  6. Let's talk about the spears.

    What? how is that similar to dodging a bullet?
    The image was to clarify what i meant and where soldiers would be grabbing the spear from.
    I thought your JPEG was to illustrate how easy it is to grab a spear in a fight. Your opponent's spear, i mean.
  7. Let's talk about the spears.

    What they can do to fix it, is make all spears swing and add a weapon mod (x) where you hold the spear closer to the pointy end for close combat.
    That's how historically spear wielders done it when an enemy got close
    main-qimg-0f02ffdd3d509d7530209df87d93e226
    While i agree that spears possibly should have alternate mode I don't understand what is this JPEG for. Saying "just grab a spear, bro" is like saying "just dodge a bullet, bro". Its a same as people imagining martial arts to be, they think its like Aikido when you just grabbing your opponent and throwing him easily, when in real life you just getting hit with a jab and overhand and get KOd.
  8. Let's talk about the spears.

    Despite what some bald youtubers might tell you, spear isn't the ultimate greatest weapon of all time and it's length WAS a disadvantage when an enemy was able to get past the spear point, which is exactly what you see in the game, albeit in an exaggerated manner, but it makes complete sense from both realism and gameplay point of view. I've already explained why it makes sense from the realism point of view, gameplay-wise it makes sense because if we make spears as useful in melee as other weapons, what purpose would other weapons serve then? They would become useless, and why would you do that?

    The game has a lot of problems, but not representing your long shaft fetish isn't one of them.
    You completely right. In real life there was almost no use for other weapons except spears. Greek hoplites very rarely carried xipos, most of them just used spears.
    Yes, spear might have disadvantage when you get past the point, but you wont get past the point because you gonna get stabed two times before you even be able to respond.

    From ancient world - Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans (as pilum), to medieval ages: vikings, normans, rus, mongols, chinese, japanese - everyone used spears as a main weapon, both in one-on-one combat and in battles. In Scandinavia for every 2 found swords they found 6 axes and 15 spear points.

    Spear is called Queen of the battlefield for a reason.
  9. Let's talk about the spears.

    I've lost my hope of TW ever fixing spears, it's the same mechanics since M&B classic and they seem happy to let the main weapon of warfare in all of human history before gunpowder to be just an anti-cavalry weapon.

    Atleast we can count on mods to (yet again) fix these problems, RBM improved spears so damn much that it became my favorite mainweapon and honestly, give me massed spearmen over any other troop type anyday with that mod, it's amazing what a solid shieldwall full of pointy spears can do.
    The've done it before. I don't see why wouldn't they change in again if the community feedback is there.
  10. Let's talk about the spears.

    Hello everyone! I want to start by saying that I love Bannerlord and Mount and Blade franchise as a whole. I played all variations of the game over the years. Only one single thing in this game makes me unhappy: underutilization of most important weapon on a battlefield – the spear...
Top Bottom