They are not better than alternative weapons though, even in cases where they should be better.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Buff the spear and pikes!
- Thread starter Seafoodking
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
They are not better than alternative weapons though, even in cases where they should be better.
Dr-Shinobi
They are the strongest in their class (one handed spears) but it comes for the price of reach which i go for when skills are up since it evens out...What alternate weapons are we talking about ? swords ? which are more riskier to use, bad reach, cant support behind shield walls (well badly) and harder to hit cavs with ? Or two handers where youre not having cover against archers and must time better defensively on incoming hits ? You must counter in the whole situations and trades when we are going for balance making or else you are going to make an weapon class OP compared to the others. Also the AI to especially going anti cav, since every freaking infantry has them now for some strange reason
Last edited:
A unit with shield and spear was always worse as a unit with shield and sword. The attacker could easily block an attack of a one handed spear and close the gap where the spear becomes useless. On the other hand a spear in both hands has more impact and is mor difficult to block, just physics. When they modify the thrust speed for a two handed Polearm it will be just fine. Did some testing after changing some parameters. The thrust speed went from 95 to 107 for my 2h polarm and with that, the base dmg increases to 66 from 53.
On horseback everyone was a one shot, 120-400dmg(not couching) . Because of the speed addition of the horse, of course(14-18 ).
On foot with 295 in athletics 115-245 dmg on head with a speed of (5-9). On chest round about 90.
@Dr-Shinobi this time I haven't changed the armor effectiveness.
Tested it only in one battle though.
On horseback everyone was a one shot, 120-400dmg(not couching) . Because of the speed addition of the horse, of course(14-18 ).
On foot with 295 in athletics 115-245 dmg on head with a speed of (5-9). On chest round about 90.
@Dr-Shinobi this time I haven't changed the armor effectiveness.
Tested it only in one battle though.
Dr-Shinobi
Oh niceA unit with shield and spear was always worse as a unit with shield and sword. The attacker could easily block an attack of a one handed spear and close the gap where the spear becomes useless. On the other hand a spear in both hands has more impact and is mor difficult to block, just physics. When they modify the thrust speed for a two handed Polearm it will be just fine. Did some testing after changing some parameters. The thrust speed went from 95 to 107 for my 2h polarm and with that, the base dmg increases to 66 from 53.
On horseback everyone was a one shot, 120-400dmg(not couching) . Because of the speed addition of the horse, of course(14-18 ).
On foot with 295 in athletics 115-245 dmg on head with a speed of (5-9). On chest round about 90.
@Dr-Shinobi this time I haven't changed the armor effectiveness.
Tested it only in one battle though.
hope you had polearm skill on that to
Yep 100Oh nice
For cavalry defense, literally any other melee weapon in Loose formation outperforms spears and pikes currently.
Dr-Shinobi
Cool
Cant agree on this but sure some may getting lucky at times...But well two handers are also formidable against cavs to, how ever they have lesser protection and it goes two ways...If an cav uses his spear right the two hander has no chance and dies almost instantly depending where the hit lands...They could be lucky so to speak and get hit in the arm/leg or something and also depends on the speed
Problem now is that AI uses the cav really badly at times and charges them in to danger where they get surrounded and pre fired with archers. Its why they look like they are under performing. Still ive seen higher tier cavs tanking single handedly an whole army wacking at them while they perhaps got in two headshots then they moved out from the formation and away. Sometimes not so it depends. But then they could been taking couple of archer hits or something before to so it looks like they couldnt take 2 hits or more before going down so to speak.
However ive also heard that they had blocked some main infantry from using their spears though so idk if thats been activated or not right now ( Nope they are still active since just spotted my t5 Inf using them)
And they can aim to at times, sometimes not as ive seen many players to miss theirs including me
Last edited:
You mean, historically? A gross oversimplification. Deflecting a spear and closing in, movie-like, is not that easy against spears and shields used by soldiers in a formation where you have more than one line. If spear and shield was such a bad combination, it is hard to understand why it was such a common combo.
What I want to say is that a spear is easier to deflect with a shield, if the spear is used with only one hand. Simply put, leverage law. One-two-one fight. Never wrote about formations, since the ai, atm, never hold them like they should. Add: think of it, when I block a one handed spear thrust, where I push his spear aside, I can easily close the gap in that time because the spear user can't handle the push in time. When a spear is used two handed, it is different.
Last edited:
Teslanbenz
Recruit
Spears were often used as a main weapon because pesants were so poor many times they used pitch forks. A stick with a point on it is effective and extremely cheap. A well fashioned sword. Those could only be afforded by the wealthy. The most effective army ever -- the roman army -- main weapon was the gladius- a short sword. The huns.... recurve bow. The english... long bow. No one counquered half the world with spears. They we a cheap weapon wielded mostly by poor peasants as other weapons became romanticized with knighthood and chivalry.
Dude,hate to break it you,but in formation or 1v1 spear and shield will always lose versus shield and sword or axe (I would personally go as far as saying that you can kill spearman (with a shield) with a sword or an axe without a shield).Why do you think Romans were so successful in combat (besides insane amounts of discipline and organization).However spearman that uses the spear with two hands will win in melee against anything except other spearman and probably a soldier using a zweihander.
wut, romans were successful exactly because they fought in formation with hard discipline and organization instead of breaking it into 1x1 meeles to show bravery, they prided themselves for being soldiers instead of warriors and all that, also the age of scutum and gladius was short lived compared to before and after it with shield + spear dominating the roman armies throughout the centuries.
CrazyElf
Sergeant
I'd be interested to know why.
Even if we don't go to history, a compromise might be to make both swords and spears equally viable.
This is not true. Swords, kind of like pistols today, were mainly backup weapons. The Romans themselves abandoned the gladius for spear armed infantry. Swords aren't at times without their advantages, but they also have their drawbacks too. The main advantage is that swords could be worn easily.
If we look at history:
- Greek hoplites generally fought with a spear and kept their swords as a backup weapon.
- Samurai were mostly spear based weapon users too (known as yari) and fought with bows (yumi). Katanas were backup weapons.
- European knights fought with spears or poleaxes as their main weapon and kept swords as a backup. Daggers too were used for penetrating armor. By the late Medieval period, push of pike tactics were emphasized among infantry men.
- Even the Romans - they carefully designed their pila weapons. They threw their javelins then charged and in some cases used their javelins to attack too. The period we associate with the Roman legion with Lorica Segmentata armor was not really that long in terms of numbers of years combined with the Scutum (Shield) and the Gladius (Short Sword).
By the later Roman Empire Days, the system had been abandoned in favor of the auxiliary (lighter infantry) and cavalry based army. Lorica Segmentata was costly to maintain and chain was easier to mass produce. Rome experienced economic challenges in its later years. It also was a matter of the type of enemies fought and because the emperors feared a coup (the more mobile light infantry / cavalry force was more loyal to the Emperor themselves).
Actually even during the height of Rome's power, the success of the gladius (short sword) was in part because of the internal divisions in the Germanic tribes they faced. When they unified, they could even prevail at the peak of Rome's power ( Teutoburg Forest comes to mind). The gladius or short sword was also of limited use against the late Roman wars against the Sassanid Persians and their Cataphracts. Rome had historically struggled in many cases with heavy infantry against heavy cavalry.
The point though is that as primary weapons, swords aren't the best choice. The reach isn't that long and they don't hit very hard, especially not compared to to polearms.
The gladius certainly had its advantages, as it worked well with the Scutum shield the Romans used due to its light weight, not too expensive to make, did not disrupt their line of battle, and could be dangerous in a skilled Roman's hands for thrusting, but it had its reasons for being phased out. War became more cavalry centric and the initial successes were against enemies that did not have heavy armor frequently.
Last edited:
I see no issues with spears and polearms as they are now. You just need more precision and skill when using them over most other melee weapons that you can just swing.
Pro tip: Aim for the head. Also.
steamcommunity.com
Pro tip: Aim for the head. Also.
Steam Community :: Screenshot :: No need to have a better weapon... its enough to have a longer weapon xD
Steam Community: Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord. No need to have a better weapon... its enough to have a longer weapon xD
CrazyElf
Sergeant
That's a problem in and of itself. Swords should be the weapon that needs more skill and spears lower skill. Spears are easier to learn.
Spears hit fast. They should do more damage than they do currently.
Mushbeast
Knight at Arms
Try use a spear in multiplayer and you'll see that it's unbalanced at a mechanical level. Of course you can level up your skill a ton and smash AI as you could with any weapon and you could probably do the same unarmed if you're dedicated enough. One of the big issues is that the AI prefer to use other weapons instead, and when they actually do use the spear they suck at it.
They're not super weak, but a lot of the mechanics and design behind them gimp it to the point where it's not worth taking unless you're doing it for roleplay purposes.
They're not super weak, but a lot of the mechanics and design behind them gimp it to the point where it's not worth taking unless you're doing it for roleplay purposes.
It applies to the AI too, which is the main reason that lancers are the worst-performing troop type right now.
Dr-Shinobi
Strange because i have plenty of vids saying the opposite and even my knights when dismounted have one shotted incoming cavalry with their spears that can be couched. But that could also been situational since the cav man could been hurt already but still it happened couple of times. Theres a reason the couch lance is a bit weaker and its beacuse of both its reach and the couch ability which has an really good bonus...
But even i can one shot an incoming horseman with it on foot so it adds up
Last edited:
Spears=distance vs an ai who can ignore pain and just run near enough to make a hit. For myself I found the problem and it's defnitley not the damage, but to always stay at distance.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
Spears really do need to have that push back effect against ordinary blocks. Can't really think of another way to represent the difficulty of closing the gap, so to say.
Similar threads
