Spears are too overpowered

[Timmortal]

Spears were not "overpowered", they fulfilled a role; just like all other weapons. And their role in history has been extremely over exaggerated by 'Youtube historians'

First of all, my comment was meant as a joke, just the use of the word "overpowered" about a real weapon should have given you a clue. Second they did not just fulfill a role, its the most used weapon for warfare, its been in pretty much every battle up until modern time in some form or other, because of 3 reasons, It was a very good design, it was a cheap design and it was easy to use. I have seen plenty of youtube historians who know what they talk about, but this info about spears i have known way before youtube even became a thing. The spears role in history cannot be exaggerated, its been in use since the ancient times of man, as one of our first tools for hunting and war and its kept on being used up until the industrial era.

 

[Silen]

Draco222 here (changed my name to better reflect my in game name)

Ok here are my thoughts after having ~10 fights with Krex, 5 on EU server and I think 3-4 on NA. I'm sure everyone's curious, so I'll put what happened here. Keep in mind, this was in TDM, so the tests were very unbalanced. Usually involving one of us with lower health than the other because of arrows, cav, or throwing weapons. Obviously I had a big advantage in the NA server and Krex had one in the EU server. (Also fair warning, if certain people respond without clearly having read the whole post and just reply with a hostile response, you're getting reported <3 ).

On the EU server, I played a sturgian recruit with a shield and a sword, and Krex played Aserai tribal warrior with spear and shield. On NA, I played Empire recruit with shield and sword and shield and axe, and Krex played Khuzait Spear infantry and Khuzait rabble with spear and shield on both classes.

The results? Well if this test is to prove anything, it's frankly that ping is the biggest deciding factor in these tests. In EU server I was completely deleted every time, getting hit 2-3 times and hitting 1 time on average. On NA it was the opposite.The difference in ping for both of us was around 100 if I remember correctly (Krex if you'd like you can correct me).

1) My thoughts are mostly unchanged, and more importantly, they already lined up with Krex's thoughts, so we were already in agreement. If anyone here knows the player "Incanuth", he was the player who showed me how strong Shield and Spear is around a week ago. Even back then, I knew how strong these two weapons were together. Anyways, Krex and I had a chat after the test. Yes, Spear and Shield is strong, and does a lot of damage for how fast it is, Krex and I think this is an issue. Before I say this, let me preface the following statement with this one: Krex and I agree on the next sentence: However, they are not OP. In my eyes, OP is something that can let a new player win against an expert or advanced player in most situations, and we both agree that's no longer the case. Something that we can all agree is actually OP would be cav's ability to couch as easily as it can (and the fact that it can do 20-30 damage just by running into you, but the list goes on).

2) The difference in game modes and the preferred weapon choices is a clear differing factor in how strong weapons are. Krex usually plays skirmish, I usually play TDM or captain's mode. In captain's mode, leaving enemy archers alive the whole game is usually a death sentence. In Skirmish, everyone seems to favor cav or heavy infantry (though I've seen some use archer). Cav is of course completely broken which means you need spears to deal with the very overpowered cavalry. For example, archers in captain's mode will usually destroy any cavalry unit that attempts to kill them even without outside help, though this is mostly due to the stupidity of cavalry AI. Of course, in TDM, cavalry has the advantage over archers. Krex came to the conclusion, and again, I agree, that before the recent patches, spear and shield gave the player that used them a serious advantage in skirmish, TDM, and dueling. Since I play more TDM than skirmish I can say that yes, people use spears to good effect in TDM as well. But, they usually use a shield if that's the case. After the recent patches, we think that spears and shields are approximately equivalent to swords and shields. Yes, you read that right, you can ask Krex yourself. I can even upload a screenshot of our conversation if you'd like!

3) We both agree, therefore, that spears and shields are very good because they function a lot like Warband's 2h weapons. They are as fast as other 1h weapons (actually, a lot of the time they're faster....) but deal more damage than some of them if you know what you're doing, and because you can use a shield with them, they can easily destroy a player using a 2h weapon with the shieldbash + thrust combo. It is the perfect, versatile option for every situation, and it's fast to boot.

4) Finally, the real problem with all this. I obviously haven't used this forum a lot, but there is an awful lot of lazy, or at least badly thought out, writing going on here. Many replies I got directly quoted Krex's opinion as if it was sent from heaven, but unfortunately, that opinion has changed. To address this, Krex may post his updated thoughts in a new thread in a day or two. Also, the classification of throwing weapons as spears is a serious issue. Javelins are not spears. Neither are jereeds, throwing axes, etc. It's important to use clear language because throwing spears are a totally different weapon than regular ones in this game. Not only can a throwing spear kill someone at range in 1 hit, but you can do that infinitely if you go pick it back up. They are also better in melee than most regular spears. This is an example as to why blanket, general statements don't work well. The same goes with the phrase "Spears are OP" when in reality, most of you mean "Spear and shield is OP". If you had started with that, I would have been far more willing to believe what you were saying is accurate. Because a single spear by itself is patently much harder to use than one with a shield. In fact without a shield spears are, as I have been trying to explain, not very good. That's partially caused by the overabundance of throwing weapons and almost every class having access to a ranged option, but also because it becomes difficult to use the spear effectively when you can't shield bash.

So, all in all, Krex and I were mostly already in agreement before the test. But, I did learn more about exactly why he thinks the spear and shield combo is an issue, and I can see more of your side of the argument now. More importantly we were able to actually brainstorm a solution to the problem instead of arguing about it (Krex thinks that maybe a small stun for spears that hit a shield would help, I personally think shields are already strong enough as it is and would rather see a different change. I would actually just lower one handed spear's damage, so that they can't take half of an opponent's health, and that way two handing a spear is slightly more useful in comparison. Another option is to change it so that 1 handing a spear has a small stun even if blocked by a 2h weapon, not just a shield).

Most of spears' issues are exacerbated in Skirmish and groupfighting situations rather than dueling for reasons that I've previously explained, however fighting Krex in a 1vs1 should've given you the idea that spears are not useless whatsoever in such a scenario as you appeared to believe. Regarding throwing spears when used in melee, they suffer of the same issues as regular spears, to a slightly bigger or lesser degree depending on the individual item, and potential tweaks and solutions would affect them as well, hence why they're also considered. There seems to be an ongoing misconception in your posts regarding spears becoming problematic only when paired with a shield, which is simply not the case. Spears will present the same issues whether used with a shield or not — by the way, you can bash without a shield too which is also faster, if you didn't know — if anything using it two-handed will add more damage, the only difference being having to pay more attention to your blocking, although if in Skirmish you're using it by itself you're most likely not under pressure in the first place.

The biggest change needed to address them, which we've been reiterating for months, is adding a stun on blocked thrusts which prevents the attacker from blocking for a short period of time (as in Warband), this would give the defender a small window to gain a free hit if he's close and fast enough, and force the spear user to position himself correctly and time his thrusts carefully rather than mindlessly spamming, to avoid making himself vulnerable. As for damage, which you've mentioned, I don't think the solution would be a flat decrease of spears' damage (not that some of them wouldn't need it) since it's not always problematic, but rather re-evaluating the impact of speed and head bonuses on damage.

 

[Namakan]

^this

 

[Kripaz]

Imagine thinking spears are OP after they got nerfed to hell and deeper thanks to you greasy handed manchild noobs
Git gut scrubs and KYS

Nice bait

 

[Seldkam]

@Krex Yes to clear that all up, my definition of OP is basically that it's one step short of being broken (as in, literally making part of the game completely broken. Like an assault rifle in Mount and Blade for example). Your definition is just that that is "very strong" which we agree on.

Most of spears' issues are exacerbated in Skirmish and groupfighting situations rather than dueling for reasons that I've previously explained, however fighting Krex in a 1vs1 should've given you the idea that spears are not useless whatsoever in such a scenario as you appeared to believe. Regarding throwing spears when used in melee, they suffer of the same issues as regular spears, to a slightly bigger or lesser degree depending on the individual item, and potential tweaks and solutions would affect them as well, hence why they're also considered. There seems to be an ongoing misconception in your posts regarding spears becoming problematic only when paired with a shield, which is simply not the case. Spears will present the same issues whether used with a shield or not — by the way, you can bash without a shield too which is also faster, if you didn't know — if anything using it two-handed will add more damage, the only difference being having to pay more attention to your blocking, although if in Skirmish you're using it by itself you're most likely not under pressure in the first place.

The biggest change needed to address them, which we've been reiterating for months, is adding a stun on blocked thrusts which prevents the attacker from blocking for a short period of time (as in Warband), this would give the defender a small window to gain a free hit if he's close and fast enough, and force the spear user to position himself correctly and time his thrusts carefully rather than mindlessly spamming, to avoid making himself vulnerable. As for damage, which you've mentioned, I don't think the solution would be a flat decrease of spears' damage (not that some of them wouldn't need it) since it's not always problematic, but rather re-evaluating the impact of speed and head bonuses on damage.

I know you can "bash" without a shield, but my point wasn't only about the melee differences. Ranged protection is a big reason why people use shields. I'm amused that since you all play skirmish so much you're not going to acknowledge that point. I'm not buying this "weapon X gives the same experience with or without a shield". I can, in fact, use your own words against you. It's true that the problems with and without the shield are the same with the spear, when you're talking about what the strengths are. But, the problems are exacerbated when using a shield. Speaking of using opponent's words, I never said shieldless spears are useless. I said they're not very good. There's a big difference in meaning there. To put it another way, I would consider a shieldless spear a purposeful handicap, much like using a 1h sword without a shield is a purposeful handicap. Like in warband, the scimitar for example. You can see lots of people who know how to block very well not use a shield when they use a scimitar. The scimitar might be very good, but they are not killing you entirely because of the weapon choice, but also because they have the skill required to block your attacks without a shield. There is a difference there too. (A quick reply to the throwing spears-- you should just agree that they're too good compared to regular ones, I think we can at least agree on that)...

You say that spears present the same problems with or without a shield, which I don't think is "fair" per se. If that was the case you would logically feel the same way about fighting someone with and without a shield when using any 1h weapon. However we both know that there are differences when using shields, and to pretend that the shield isn't a big part of the issue with well, any weapon is misguided. Footwork when using a spear without a shield is also far more important than with, it's not just about blocking. You do need to worry about people hugging you and swinging around your block when using pretty much any weapon without a shield. The shield allows you to focus more on using the weapon itself and not the many other aspects of the game. If, for example, we assume that the spear itself is the problem and the person using only a spear is capable of perfect blocking (which no one is), they are now capable of being shield bashed with no way to defend against it, first of all. Secondly, if someone really is capable of blocking all your attacks without a shield, you have bigger problems to worry about than what weapon they're using. If you'd like I'd be willing to try out shieldless spears with someone here, maybe Krex can weigh in with his thoughts. Though on this point we might not agree, I wouldn't know. As for the "fighting Krex should have made you realize that spears are the problem not just with shields" I fully disagree. How could I know the difference if I never fought him when he wasn't using a shield?

Anyways, what I'm trying to point out is that spears, without shields, rely much more heavily on the player's skill. And chances are if a person killed you without a shield and they're not using one of the many overpowered 2hers in the game (looking at you, berzerker axe) then, the spear may not be the point you would blame for the death.

 

[Timberwolf]

1 - They are active from the very start of their animation and will do max damage from the start to the end. The damage in the start should be less.
2 - They are far easier to use than other weapons.
3 - Turncap is broken. The way you can turn around during it is just not how it should be.
4 - They need a damage buff against cav ty

I'm not really into multiplayer, so I can't speak to that. However, I can say that in general I take issue with the way in which all polearms are represented in the base Mount and Blade games.

For one thing, the NPCs run right past them and get in each other's face. Now, how in the world did a pike wall not stop or slow down a charge? Moreover, now no one can use their weapons because everyone is trying to kiss, rather than utilize weapons. You should want to keep the enemy as far away from you as possible when you kill him. That's been the theory of weapon design since we started throwing rocks.

So I'm not sure how else the developers could make spears effective. You mention the issue with the damage before full extension of the thrust and I agree that's an issue. But so is the fact that spearmen are forced to get that close due to mechanics.

I personally feel that spears and pikes should be solid weapons. All polearms should, as they exist for a reason. Swords are personal defense sidearms, like an M9 or S&W hammerless revolver in your pocket. They're not primary weapons. I also think spears should not be useable when attacking up a ladder in a siege, or indoors at all. I wish they could come up with mechanics to make it unwieldy, thus necessitating things like warhammers, swords, knives, axes.

 

[Silen]

I never said shieldless spears are useless. I said they're not very good. There's a big difference in meaning there.

Ok...

Spears are ONLY good right now with caveats. By themselves in a 1v1 they're absolute garbage against anyone that can block even 1 or 2 attacks.

I know you can "bash" without a shield, but my point wasn't only about the melee differences. Ranged protection is a big reason why people use shields. I'm amused that since you all play skirmish so much you're not going to acknowledge that point. I'm not buying this "weapon X gives the same experience with or without a shield". I can, in fact, use your own words against you. It's true that the problems with and without the shield are the same with the spear, when you're talking about what the strengths are. But, the problems are exacerbated when using a shield. Speaking of using opponent's words, I never said shieldless spears are useless. I said they're not very good. There's a big difference in meaning there. To put it another way, I would consider a shieldless spear a purposeful handicap, much like using a 1h sword without a shield is a purposeful handicap. Like in warband, the scimitar for example. You can see lots of people who know how to block very well not use a shield when they use a scimitar. The scimitar might be very good, but they are not killing you entirely because of the weapon choice, but also because they have the skill required to block your attacks without a shield. There is a difference there too. (A quick reply to the throwing spears-- you should just agree that they're too good compared to regular ones, I think we can at least agree on that)...

You say that spears present the same problems with or without a shield, which I don't think is "fair" per se. If that was the case you would logically feel the same way about fighting someone with and without a shield when using any 1h weapon. However we both know that there are differences when using shields, and to pretend that the shield isn't a big part of the issue with well, any weapon is misguided. Footwork when using a spear without a shield is also far more important than with, it's not just about blocking. You do need to worry about people hugging you and swinging around your block when using pretty much any weapon without a shield. The shield allows you to focus more on using the weapon itself and not the many other aspects of the game. If, for example, we assume that the spear itself is the problem and the person using only a spear is capable of perfect blocking (which no one is), they are now capable of being shield bashed with no way to defend against it, first of all. Secondly, if someone really is capable of blocking all your attacks without a shield, you have bigger problems to worry about than what weapon they're using. If you'd like I'd be willing to try out shieldless spears with someone here, maybe Krex can weigh in with his thoughts. Though on this point we might not agree, I wouldn't know. As for the "fighting Krex should have made you realize that spears are the problem not just with shields" I fully disagree. How could I know the difference if I never fought him when he wasn't using a shield?

Anyways, what I'm trying to point out is that spears, without shields, rely much more heavily on the player's skill. And chances are if a person killed you without a shield and they're not using one of the many overpowered 2hers in the game (looking at you, berzerker axe) then, the spear may not be the point you would blame for the death.

I could also write an essay explaining the differences between fighting with and without a shield, but that's totally besides the point, I wasn't trying to tell you which one is more effective, that seems rather obvious. The point being that it's not only a "spear and shield" problem as you've put it, but a "spears" problem in general, as their issues will be present regardless of which way you use them (dmg early in the animation, inconsistent damage often too high, inconsistent glances, fast delivery, lack of stun and so on).

As for the "fighting Krex should have made you realize that spears are the problem not just with shields" I fully disagree. How could I know the difference if I never fought him when he wasn't using a shield?

I think you misread since I've never said that.

 

[Seldkam]

Ok...






I could also write an essay explaining the differences between fighting with and without a shield, but that's totally besides the point, I wasn't trying to tell you which one is more effective, that seems rather obvious. The point being that it's not only a "spear and shield" problem as you've put it, but a "spears" problem in general, as their issues will be present regardless of which way you use them (dmg early in the animation, inconsistent damage often too high, inconsistent glances, fast delivery, lack of stun and so on).




I think you misread since I've never said that.

Yep, opinions can change. Funny, that. Please in the future refrain from going back to older posts to prove your point, it's dishonest. Especially when (if you read the whole post I made, you would know that I used different wording in that more recent post).

Anyways, if all you're trying to say is "spears are still spears" then well yeah...? I'm not sure what else to say to that then. If you're just going to ignore the nuances of equipment choice and whatnot then I don't think having a conversation is a realistic goal here lol? And aren't we talking about the application of skill at the end of the day? That's why people don't like unbalanced things, because they require less skill... at least most of the time. So I'm pretty sure a difference in skill requirement is relevant. But if you would like to ignore that I just frankly can't be asked to talk anymore. That's literally the whole point of balance.

And no I didn't misread. And unlike you I didn't go back to an older post you made to prove my point either! The very post I replied to, the first sentence. Here's the quote:

Most of spears' issues are exacerbated in Skirmish and groupfighting situations rather than dueling for reasons that I've previously explained, however fighting Krex in a 1vs1 should've given you the idea that spears are not useless whatsoever in such a scenario as you appeared to believe.

...Literally the first sentence.

 

[Silen]

Yep, opinions can change. Funny, that. Please in the future refrain from going back to older posts to prove your point, it's dishonest. Especially when (if you read the whole post I made, you would know that I used different wording in that more recent post).

Nothing dishonest about it, first because you stated "I never said it", which was wrong, and also what I was trying to tell you with this sentence "however fighting Krex in a 1vs1 should've given you the idea that spears are not useless whatsoever in such a scenario as you appeared to believe", is that dueling him should've made you change your mind about your initial post, which you seem to have misunderstood for something else.

Anyways, if all you're trying to say is "spears are still spears" then well yeah...? I'm not sure what else to say to that then. If you're just going to ignore the nuances of equipment choice and whatnot then I don't think having a conversation is a realistic goal here lol? And aren't we talking about the application of skill at the end of the day? That's why people don't like unbalanced things, because they require less skill... at least most of the time. So I'm pretty sure a difference in skill requirement is relevant. But if you would like to ignore that I just frankly can't be asked to talk anymore. That's literally the whole point of balance.

I don't know how else to make it clearer. I'm trying to tell you that spears are not only problematic when used with a shield as you said, since their issues will manifest regardless of whether they're used in pair with one or not, and while without one they might prove more difficult to use in certain contexts, in others they will be equally as overpowered and hard to deal with only because of those very same issues still left unaddressed, therefore saying that what we mean is that spears are only op when used with a shield is incorrect.

 

[Seldkam]

Nothing dishonest about it, first because you stated "I never said it", which was wrong, and also what I was trying to tell you with this sentence "however fighting Krex in a 1vs1 should've given you the idea that spears are not useless whatsoever in such a scenario as you appeared to believe", is that dueling him should've made you change your mind about your initial post, which you seem to have misunderstood for something else.



I don't know how else to make it clearer. I'm trying to tell you that spears are not only problematic when used with a shield as you said, since their issues will manifest regardless of whether they're used in pair with one or not, and while without one they might prove more difficult to use in certain contexts, in others they will be equally as overpowered and hard to deal with only because of those very same issues still left unaddressed, therefore saying that what we mean is that spears are only op when used with a shield is incorrect.

Ok, first paragraph... You specifically went out of your way to go back to an old post and cherry pick phrasing that I have since abandoned. That's dishonest. No buts about it. However, you're correct that I did use that language at that time. That doesn't give you any right to use that in lieu of my current wording.

Second paragraph, I'm aware of what you're trying to say. Let me rephrase then... If you say "spears are OP", then to me, that means the weapon itself. While I can understand you'd still think a spear is a problem regardless of a shield or not, that's not clear if the statement is as simple as "spears are OP". What exactly are the differences between a spear and shield and without a shield? These are the questions you have to ask to address the problem, and you seem to not really be caring very much about that. That's like saying you don't care about the difference in one handing a spear vs two handing it, it just baffles me that you dismiss that as irrelevant. I have no idea what you consider "OP" anyways though so I guess this whole conversation is somewhat baseless lol. Because if your definition of "OP" is similar to Krex's (which means that it's a very strong option) then yes, we pretty much agree on all points as well. If you think "OP" means completely broken / requires very little skill or no skill to use / can bridge the gap between a new player and an advanced player's skill levels, then we don't agree.

 

[Klausolus]

Using a spear two-handed might make blocking harder, but it also increases the thrust speed and damage values while keeping the two traits that make spears (in general) too strong at the moment, which are damage starting too early in the animation and the lack of a proper stun if your attack is blocked.

 

[Silen]

Ok, first paragraph... You specifically went out of your way to go back to an old post and cherry pick phrasing that I have since abandoned. That's dishonest. No buts about it. However, you're correct that I did use that language at that time. That doesn't give you any right to use that in lieu of my current wording.

Again, nothing dishonest there, nor cherry picking. You responded to me while I was referring to something you said in your initial post, claiming that you never said it, and I showed you that you did. Feel free to view it as you like, though.

Second paragraph, I'm aware of what you're trying to say. Let me rephrase then... If you say "spears are OP", then to me, that means the weapon itself. While I can understand you'd still think a spear is a problem regardless of a shield or not, that's not clear if the statement is as simple as "spears are OP". What exactly are the differences between a spear and shield and without a shield? These are the questions you have to ask to address the problem, and you seem to not really be caring very much about that. That's like saying you don't care about the difference in one handing a spear vs two handing it, it just baffles me that you dismiss that as irrelevant. I have no idea what you consider "OP" anyways though so I guess this whole conversation is somewhat baseless lol. Because if your definition of "OP" is similar to Krex's (which means that it's a very strong option) then yes, we pretty much agree on all points as well. If you think "OP" means completely broken / requires very little skill or no skill to use / can bridge the gap between a new player and an advanced player's skill levels, then we don't agree.

Judging by the strawmen it seems that you're not really aware of what I'm trying to say. Where did I say that I don't care about the differences between using a spear with a shield and without? Where did I dismiss it as irrelevant? My definition of op aligns with Krex's, and I simply said that the very same issues that make spears op when used with a shield in some contexts, make spears op without one in others, therefore spears are not only problematic when used with a shield. I've explained this through several posts and I don't know how else to make it clearer at this point, not sure what's still so difficult to grasp, feels like you're clutching at straws now.

 

[John_M]

The biggest change needed to address them, which we've been reiterating for months, is adding a stun on blocked thrusts which prevents the attacker from blocking for a short period of time (as in Warband), this would give the defender a small window to gain a free hit if he's close and fast enough, and force the spear user to position himself correctly and time his thrusts carefully rather than mindlessly spamming, to avoid making himself vulnerable.

Can't wait to go into cardiac arrest every time someone makes one of the easiest blocks in the game. Perhaps just have recoil damage for using the weapon instead. Hopefully we can at least swing spears like baseball bats again.

 

[Silen]

Can't wait to go into cardiac arrest every time someone makes one of the easiest blocks in the game. Perhaps just have recoil damage for using the weapon instead. Hopefully we can at least swing spears like baseball bats again.

It worked very well to solve this issue, and I'd take the cardiac arrest any day over op spears. Can you offer a better alternative?

 

[John_M]

It worked very well to solve this issue, and I'd take the cardiac arrest any day over op spears. Can you offer a better alternative?

"worked very well" meaning it fixed a problem yet created more alongside it. Which I imagine will be the same case here, it'll be added to benefit Skirmish team fighting, but using a spear as a main will become pointless in the rest of the game.
I could brainstorm ideas like anyone else, an alternative cant be determined as better unless it is experimented ingame. But considering the competitive's reception to anything counter to Warband, it would be a waste of effort. If Bannerlord takes cheap solutions like this, I'll be ignoring the multiplayer scene anyways.

 

[R4MPZY]

i feel like spears are underwhelming against cav, simply stuns them for a brief time and then they just waltz on through your shieldwall

 

[Silen]

"worked very well" meaning it fixed a problem yet created more alongside it. Which I imagine will be the same case here, it'll be added to benefit Skirmish team fighting, but using a spear as a main will become pointless in the rest of the game.
I could brainstorm ideas like anyone else, an alternative cant be determined as better unless it is experimented ingame. But considering the competitive's reception to anything counter to Warband, it would be a waste of effort. If Bannerlord takes cheap solutions like this, I'll be ignoring the multiplayer scene anyways.

Worked very well meaning it kept spears as effective support weapons while forcing theirs users to position themselves correctly and time their attacks carefully rather than spamming. You don't have to try every single idea to evaluate it, I don't see much sense in dismissing one idea as a cheap solution, while at the same time not bothering to offer any alternative.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

It happened way more often than you might think. Romans did manage to defeat greek phalanx and it wasn't luck. Closing distance becomes significantly easier when shields and armour are involved. So no, spear wasn't OP, it was great when you wanted to keep someone at range, but none of the warriors of the day relied solely on that, in fact there were plenty of cases, when they willingly switched for shorter weapons, anticipating a very tight melee:

The thing is, the phalanx didn't fail because of the weapons employed, it failed because of the formation employed. Rough terrain and an inflexible command structure brought about the fall of the phalanx, not the gladius.

As far as the rest of that... I disagree. Dozens of texts cite warriors of the medieval period regarding being spearless as essentially being naked and at a large disadvantage. Heavy armor was generally the purview of the upper class, which tended to ride horses (unless the terrain was explicitly detrimental to horseback, in which case they'd dismount and would still generally prefer their polearm as a primary weapon). Swords were largely worthless on horseback until the advent of the hand-and-a-half sword, and axes were worse off still. Most warriors of the middle ages who fought on foot didn't wear heavy armor, early northmen aside.

Even the samurai, as famous as they are for using swords thanks to media, found sōjutsu - the art of spearfighting - the be more essential than kenjutsu. The spear, horse, and bow were the three fundamental fields of training for young bushi. Samurai, every one of whom wore two swords at all times, preferred polearms to blades. There's a very good reason for this. In fact, the very reason shields fell out of use by the Sengoku period, according to many scholars, is because two-handed weapons like the spear were favored by the warrior class.

You are, of course, right about sidearm swords and it being preferable to swap when enemies got inside the range of a spear line. But that doesn't change the fact that the primary weapon of most every armed force that found any success was the good old infantry spear. The only reasons the Romans (and similar forces of the day) got away with not using one is because they had particularly large, heavy shields and superb maneuvers which allowed them to control where fights would take place. For the Romans, being able to push inside and get up close where their enemies lacked effective weapons was to their benefit. Medieval armies pretty much never displayed this level of sophistication in their maneuvers, to say nothing of their smaller shields and heavy reliance on armor more resistant to cutting than stabbing.

 

[Noudelle]

I disagree with the statement that spears are too overpowered.
I simply think they're overpowered.

 

[John_M]

Worked very well meaning it kept spears as effective support weapons while forcing theirs users to position themselves correctly and time their attacks carefully rather than spamming. You don't have to try every single idea to evaluate it, I don't see much sense in dismissing one idea as a cheap solution, while at the same time not bothering to offer any alternative.

When the default is better than a bad solution to a non problem, an alternative isnt needed. You feel entitled to a free hit for blocking, none of my alternatives would give you that. When I see spears as a primary weapon and you see them as support, we wont come to an agreement anyways.