• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
A treatise written by someone with more intellect and less bias than yourself.

All you're doing is spouting ad hominems and nonsense at this point.
Hyping a random viking and a random viking manual, while at the same time belittling the most prolific and proficient duelist in the history of dueling. Repeatedly claiming that Musashi said that spears were better for battlefield combat when he specifically stated that long or heavy weapons (read: spears are long) lose to dual katana/ katana and waz. Claiming that he lived in a time of peace (which wouldn't necessarily have any bearing on his skill or knowledge) when he lived half of his life in the most war-torn era of Japanese history, i.e. the Warring States Era. You've become joke tier, friend.

Posting cherry picked pictures isn't helping your case.
Twisting statements, taking statements out of context, outright lying... you must be desperate to release some pent up energy at this point. May I suggest a stroll outside? It helps burn off some steam.

Open a separate thread and I can go into the explanations on why MIDERN JAPANESE HISTORIANS BASICALLY CONCLUDE Musashi was a "LARP."

None of his statements are corroborated by actual cross-referencing of historical sources, whereas a lot of other swordsmen and their feats and achuevements can be checked for validity.

Musashi, is a popular fantasy. Actual researchers put Kamiizumi Nobutsna and Tsukahara Bokuden a lot higher in the list of capable swordsmen, while Musashi is mostly considered "result of talented self PR."
 

sjblack2014

Recruit
Repeatedly claiming that Musashi said that spears were better for battlefield combat when he specifically stated that long or heavy weapons (read: spears are long) lose to dual katana/ katana and waz. Claiming that he lived in a time of peace (which wouldn't necessarily have any bearing on his skill or knowledge) when he lived half of his life in the most war-torn era of Japanese history, i.e. the Warring States Era. You've become joke tier, friend.

During the Sengoku Jidai, the samurai carried the yari in battle as their primary weapon. It's only during the later Edo peace time that the katana became their iconic weapon. There's no question that the spear was the king of the battlefield.

I imagine that in 500 years there'll be people claiming that the Gulf War was won by US soldiers armed with desert eagles.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
G
During the Sengoku Jidai, the samurai carried the yari in battle as their primary weapon. It's only during the later Edo peace time that the katana became their iconic weapon. There's no question that the spear was the king of the battlefield.

I imagine that in 500 years there'll be people claiming that the Gulf War was won by US soldiers armed with desert eagles.

Yes. And before the Onin Wars, in the "classic" age of the samurai, the samurai of Heike and Genji were basically horse archers, their main weapon the Japanese longbow, and their meth of war was to lead troops as a horse archer. Their method of dueling, was on horseback, shooting arrows against each other.

The Japanese sword, was as much a sidearm as any other swords were in the West.

The karana actually gained notoriety as the weapon of the wako -- Japanese pirates pillaging the coasts of mainland China and the Korean peninsula. In other words, non-military, civilian criminals not adhering to the regular method of field battles of the time.
 

The Hydra

Recruit
Thrusts are more deadly since the weapon will be more likely to travel deeper into the persons body hitting vital parts, swings are more likely to do grazing damage.

Chain mail was designed to stop cuts not punctures, because many soldiers died after the fighting from all the small cuts and grazes due to infection.

It's also important to note that a gambeson was worn under the mail to protect against thrusts.
 
A treatise written by someone with more intellect and less bias than yourself.

All you're doing is spouting ad hominems and nonsense at this point.
Hyping a random viking and a random viking manual, while at the same time belittling the most prolific and proficient duelist in the history of dueling. Repeatedly claiming that Musashi said that spears were better for battlefield combat when he specifically stated that long or heavy weapons (read: spears are long) lose to dual katana/ katana and waz. Claiming that he lived in a time of peace (which wouldn't necessarily have any bearing on his skill or knowledge) when he lived half of his life in the most war-torn era of Japanese history, i.e. the Warring States Era. You've become joke tier, friend.

Posting cherry picked pictures isn't helping your case.
Twisting statements, taking statements out of context, outright lying... you must be desperate to release some pent up energy at this point. May I suggest a stroll outside? It helps burn off some steam.
Joke tier? The following are a small sample of your profoundly ignorant claims:

1. You're putting a random quote from some internet nobody (sorry, I mean "treatise writer") who you can't even name against actual period military treatise writers who trained European nobility to fight and kill armored opponents in both duels and battle. They are practically our sole source of knowledge of combat techniques and the most important source of modern day HEMA. Every time it is mentioned, spears (and other polearms) are said to be generally superior to swords, not the other way around. This is reflected from the viking age all the way to the early modern period in people like Pedro Monte, Joseph Swetnam, and Antonio Manciolino. You still haven't shown me once where Musashi said swords are better than spears in battle, or that spears are only for cavalry. The only specific mention of spears I've seen is where he is comparing them to the "halberd" (probably naginata), saying the yari is superior as it gives the "initiative".

2. Calling PERIOD artwork "random pictures", when it is some of the most important (and often only) historical reference material to the equipment people wore at certain times, created by artists using the warriors of the period as reference, and is often backed up by archaeology. The artwork shown in Matt Easton's video was from the 100 years war, and the artwork I shared was from military treatises (again, written by people who were actually trusted and hired by nobility for combat training). The fact is that Japanese period artwork (especially from the warring states period) shows samurai with short yari that are DIFFERENT than the longer yari used by masses of ashigaru. You also have failed to come up with an answer as to why the samurai police bothered to use a very short te-yari indoors when they were already wearing the almighty katana and short sword! If only they had your profound wisdom (or that of your mysterious "treatise writer").

3. Claimed that knights "preferred the longsword". They did... as a sidearm. Again, the period artwork shows them using spears on foot extensively. In later periods, the poleaxe was the preferred foot weapon (also not a sword). The longsword was a CIVILIAN weapon and military backup weapon, not the primary.

4. Claimed that Musashi spent half his life in the most "war-torn era of Japanese history".
So your as bad at math as you are at understanding historical sources. Musashi was 17 at the Battle of Sekigahara, which is the END of the warring states period. He lived till 60, so how exactly did he he live half his life in it? Even if he was fighting as an infant, your claim falls a bit short. Was he resurrected?
 

Maximum997

Squire
I can say is learn to play.
We're at an impasse because your words completely contradict my experience.
Step Three: get the "horse killer" perk.
When the "gitgut kid" even doesnt know that "horsekiller" perk doesnt work. Oh wait, it gives 0,07% of damage. HUGE boost to 45 damage of the 2h spear.
Gitguders bacame more and more stupid...
Your sturgian example is the best evidence AGAINST your point that spears are fine. You say that spears, the counter to cavalry, do well when they outnumber the enemy 2:1 yet they'd still take similar casualties. Here is an example of 300 Khuzait archers told to hold fire (they use scimitars) fighting 300 Vlandian knights and WINNING THREE TO TWO in terms of casualties in MELEE.
Balance in the game is kinda joke. For example infantry in formations are fighting worse then without it. It is kinda stupid.


A glaive on horseback oneshots much more consistently than a spear, and even more importantly it can do it from behind them while a spear needs them to run into you which is not only dangerous but impossible against horse archers. Two handed swords will oneshot from horseback against footmen and need two quick swipes against fleeing cavalry, spears need 3+ stabs from behind. Couch damage is extremely overrated, 800 damage has no benefit over 100 when you're fighting the man on the horse.

Right now spear is the worst weapon choise as a footman. And i guess the second worst choise for a horseman, becouse some small axe\mace can be worse then a spear. May be they are worse, but i didnt use it so i dont know.
 
Last edited:
I did not like spear remembering experience from Warband but now it can be great weapon truly. I guess most ppl do realize that spear is much more dependant on speed than other weapon while mounted but it is even more dependant on athletics when on foot what perhaps not many ppl grasp.

I recommend to create new char with all athletics taken also using all five focuses to athletics, the rest then ofc on polearms and you will see that you have the most flexible char - against shooters you have shield, against horses you have spear able to stop them or aiming at raider using his own speed against him against regular soldier - just strafe and attack from distance - unreachable. If you want to battle in huge fights then as with all weapons I find the best way to flank them when they reach your line of infantry. Regular menavlion is my best spear if I really need to cut I still can but most of the time "hoplite" style is very good just dont take heaviest armor.
 

Pymous

Veteran
Clearly spears should be the most common and "main" game weapon, and is currently poorly implemented in term of gameplay/feeling/fun/possibilities/lengths (probably require a complete rework with it's own special mechanics)
 

Jagati Khan

Veteran
WB
I did not like spear remembering experience from Warband but now it can be great weapon truly. I guess most ppl do realize that spear is much more dependant on speed than other weapon while mounted but it is even more dependant on athletics when on foot what perhaps not many ppl grasp.

I recommend to create new char with all athletics taken also using all five focuses to athletics, the rest then ofc on polearms and you will see that you have the most flexible char - against shooters you have shield, against horses you have spear able to stop them or aiming at raider using his own speed against him against regular soldier - just strafe and attack from distance - unreachable. If you want to battle in huge fights then as with all weapons I find the best way to flank them when they reach your line of infantry. Regular menavlion is my best spear if I really need to cut I still can but most of the time "hoplite" style is very good just dont take heaviest armor.
But this just shows how badly spears are implemented a spear thrusts harder than any sword while a sword has more cutting power.
 
Open a separate thread and I can go into the explanations on why MIDERN JAPANESE HISTORIANS BASICALLY CONCLUDE Musashi was a "LARP."

None of his statements are corroborated by actual cross-referencing of historical sources, whereas a lot of other swordsmen and their feats and achuevements can be checked for validity.

Musashi, is a popular fantasy. Actual researchers put Kamiizumi Nobutsna and Tsukahara Bokuden a lot higher in the list of capable swordsmen, while Musashi is mostly considered "result of talented self PR."
You might be wasting your time. Mastigos has clearly shown he doesn't understand or care about the historian's craft if it contradicts his armchair theories.
 

King Yngvar

Squire
WBVC
Yes, but whole polearms depends of same skill tree. So changing something in skill tree may fix spears, but will break already broken swingable polearms.

They don't use the same spear blades. Swinging polearms can be nerfed by reducing the cut damage factor of their spear blades.
 

Mastigos

Recruit
Joke tier? The following are a small sample of your profoundly ignorant claims:

1. You're putting a random quote from some internet nobody (sorry, I mean "treatise writer") who you can't even name against actual period military treatise writers who trained European nobility to fight and kill armored opponents in both duels and battle. They are practically our sole source of knowledge of combat techniques and the most important source of modern day HEMA. Every time it is mentioned, spears (and other polearms) are said to be generally superior to swords, not the other way around. This is reflected from the viking age all the way to the early modern period in people like Pedro Monte, Joseph Swetnam, and Antonio Manciolino. You still haven't shown me once where Musashi said swords are better than spears in battle, or that spears are only for cavalry. The only specific mention of spears I've seen is where he is comparing them to the "halberd" (probably naginata), saying the yari is superior as it gives the "initiative".

2. Calling PERIOD artwork "random pictures", when it is some of the most important (and often only) historical reference material to the equipment people wore at certain times, created by artists using the warriors of the period as reference, and is often backed up by archaeology. The artwork shown in Matt Easton's video was from the 100 years war, and the artwork I shared was from military treatises (again, written by people who were actually trusted and hired by nobility for combat training). The fact is that Japanese period artwork (especially from the warring states period) shows samurai with short yari that are DIFFERENT than the longer yari used by masses of ashigaru. You also have failed to come up with an answer as to why the samurai police bothered to use a very short te-yari indoors when they were already wearing the almighty katana and short sword! If only they had your profound wisdom (or that of your mysterious "treatise writer").

3. Claimed that knights "preferred the longsword". They did... as a sidearm. Again, the period artwork shows them using spears on foot extensively. In later periods, the poleaxe was the preferred foot weapon (also not a sword). The longsword was a CIVILIAN weapon and military backup weapon, not the primary.

4. Claimed that Musashi spent half his life in the most "war-torn era of Japanese history".
So your as bad at math as you are at understanding historical sources. Musashi was 17 at the Battle of Sekigahara, which is the END of the warring states period. He lived till 60, so how exactly did he he live half his life in it? Even if he was fighting as an infant, your claim falls a bit short. Was he resurrected?

1. I'm saying that there are people interested in history that agree with me. I'm not pitting his statement against anyone elses. You are.
2. Period artwork or not, you're posting random pictures in the hope that they will make your argument more convincing. They don't. You have specifically chosen only art/quotes/evidence that supports your view, while ignoring all else. That's the embodiment of the cherry picking fallacy.
3. George Silver, the guy who you spear-worshippers love to quote, said himself that the Morris Pike was the king of defensive combat, and 2h swords/1h sword and target/forest bill were king of offensive combat. On the battlefield. You can keep claiming the same nonsense until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
4. The Warring States period didn't completely end until 1615. So you're not only wrong - again - but you're also back to your mud-flinging. Ad hominem attacks are what you're best at, aren't they? But they don't prove a thing.

Despite your salt, despite you ignoring everything I said that you don't have a canned answer for, despite ignoring every shred of evidence that doesn't mesh with your pet view of historical warfare, despite you taking the subject of video game balance and trying to turn it into a history debate in order to justify ruining the balance of Bannerlord - I've humored you. At this point you've reduced yourself to a manchild, hurling insults and resorting to insolence and mockery instead of intelligent discussion.
 
Last edited:

Mastigos

Recruit
I did not like spear remembering experience from Warband but now it can be great weapon truly. I guess most ppl do realize that spear is much more dependant on speed than other weapon while mounted but it is even more dependant on athletics when on foot what perhaps not many ppl grasp.

I recommend to create new char with all athletics taken also using all five focuses to athletics, the rest then ofc on polearms and you will see that you have the most flexible char - against shooters you have shield, against horses you have spear able to stop them or aiming at raider using his own speed against him against regular soldier - just strafe and attack from distance - unreachable. If you want to battle in huge fights then as with all weapons I find the best way to flank them when they reach your line of infantry. Regular menavlion is my best spear if I really need to cut I still can but most of the time "hoplite" style is very good just dont take heaviest armor.

Precisely. I've said numerous times that spears depend on momentum to be most effective, far more than other weapons.
Spears can be extremely effective on horseback, against cav units, and even in formation. But what the spear-worshippers want is a weapon that does everything it currently does, but also is equal or better than axes/swords/maces of the same tier at infantry vs infantry combat.

Which is nonsense concerning game balance. It's awful design, it takes away the niche usefulness of spears, and makes spears the bar-none best melee weapon in the game; relegating all other melee weapons to afterthoughts: "side arms" or third-rate weapons to use "for fun."
At that point we might as well call the game Mount and Spear.

But no: every unbiased, intelligent person interested in a fun game with a variety of valid weapons already knows that spears are already extremely important and powerful, but not the end-all, be-all weapon these fanboys want it to be. And their arguments about the spear being weak amount to "iT DoEsN;T dO EnUff DAMAGE" even though it absolutely does, when used correctly. It's just that they're not content with the definition of "use correctly" that the game gives spears; they want them to be the best at pretty much all aspects of combat. And that will never happen, and should never happen.

I can point you to a slew of mods that improve spears, complete with description quotes like "the spear is king of all arts, no other weapon can hope to match it." Which is right up some peoples proverbial alley. But for the rest of us normal people, who just want a game with a variety of fun and interesting weapons? You can take your bias and head towards the nearest emergency exit.
 

Ishtarin

Regular
Precisely. I've said numerous times that spears depend on momentum to be most effective, far more than other weapons.
Spears can be extremely effective on horseback, against cav units, and even in formation. But what the spear-worshippers want is a weapon that does everything it currently does, but also is equal or better than axes/swords/maces of the same tier at infantry vs infantry combat.

Which is nonsense concerning game balance. It's awful design, it takes away the niche usefulness of spears, and makes spears the bar-none best melee weapon in the game; relegating all other melee weapons to afterthoughts: "side arms" or third-rate weapons to use "for fun."
At that point we might as well call the game Mount and Spear.

But no: every unbiased, intelligent person interested in a fun game with a variety of valid weapons already knows that spears are already extremely important and powerful, but not the end-all, be-all weapon these fanboys want it to be. And their arguments about the spear being weak amount to "iT DoEsN;T dO EnUff DAMAGE" even though it absolutely does, when used correctly. It's just that they're not content with the definition of "use correctly" that the game gives spears; they want them to be the best at pretty much all aspects of combat. And that will never happen, and should never happen.

I can point you to a slew of mods that improve spears, complete with description quotes like "the spear is king of all arts, no other weapon can hope to match it." Which is right up some peoples proverbial alley. But for the rest of us normal people, who just want a game with a variety of fun and interesting weapons? You can take your bias and head towards the nearest emergency exit.
You seem to be disregarding the large number of people in this thread disagreeing with you and pointing towards some silent majority advocating for the completely dominance of swords. You say that spears have a niche usefulness in countering cavalry when I've already proved that swords can do a better job. What is left to spears?

By the way, the argument that spears depend on momentum is one of the biggest weaknesses of the weapon. Grab a two handed axe, swinging polearm, or sword and you can ride down cavalry far better than a spear can. Spears can only joust, and jousting is extremely dangerous. Any momentum you have can be used against you, and it's easy to demonstrate this early game when you ride past a looter and a leg cut takes away a huge chunk of HP.
444669811e.jpg
6343e27ef7.jpg
 

Jagati Khan

Veteran
WB
1. I'm saying that there are people interested in history that agree with me. I'm not pitting his statement against anyone elses. You are.
2. Period artwork or not, you're posting random pictures in the hope that they will make your argument more convincing. They don't. You have specifically chosen only art/quotes/evidence that supports your view, while ignoring all else. That's the embodiment of the cherry picking fallacy.
3. George Silver, the guy who you spear-worshippers love to quote, said himself that the Morris Pike was the king of defensive combat, and 2h swords/1h sword and target/forest bill were king of offensive combat. On the battlefield. You can keep claiming the same nonsense until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
4. The Warring States period didn't completely end until 1615. So you're not only wrong - again - but you're also back to your mud-flinging. Ad hominem attacks are what you're best at, aren't they? But they don't prove a thing.

Despite your salt, despite you ignoring everything I said that you don't have a canned answer for, despite ignoring every shred of evidence that doesn't mesh with your pet view of historical warfare, despite you taking the subject of video game balance and trying to turn it into a history debate in order to justify ruining the balance of Bannerlord - I've humored you. At this point you've reduced yourself to a manchild, hurling insults and resorting to insolence and mockery instead of intelligent discussion.
1. The vast majority accept and know the spear was the superior weapon and that the sword was a backup weapon
3. A pike is not a spear and as i already stated the pike was a formation weapon that was actually an excellent anti infantry weapon and great at denying cavalry opportunities. As for George Silver he was around at the end of the 16th to start of the 17th century Pike and shot tactics came about iirc in the 15th century.
4. In regards to Musashi lets say that his accounts are correct and true this changes nothing just because a spear is the better weapon it does not make anyone invincible. Read this qoute properly
"We practice spear and go sword against spear every now and again, enough to start getting used to it. One of the things we've observed is that although the spear has the advantage, and retains the advantage even after training against it for a long time, the advantage diminishes as the swordsmen get more and more used to facing the spear. It just takes time and practice."
See where they state that with time and practice that advantage can be diminished Musashsi being exceptionally gifted in swordplay including dual weilding is an exception not the rule. Any spearmen could be beaten but the simple fact is the spear gave them an advantage that is a fact.

You have gotten lances and pikes confused with spears a couple of times in this thread now and the only one ignoring evidence is you because you are a sword fanboi.
You claim you dont give a dam about rl history yet continue to argue about it instead of dropping it and focusing on the game.
And not once have i come across anything that says otherwise about the spear btw.
 
Last edited:

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
And what's more: if you actually learn how to use momentum instead of stabbing while holding still, a spear can deal in the ballpart of 20-50 damage per stab against joints in armor, and more than 50 with a headshot against an unprotected face.
Is that supposed to be impressive? My 2H Axe does 150 damage on a blind swing, cleaves through the first guy and does another 100 damage to the second guy. Is that your idea of perfect balance?

And what game are you playing where you can stab joints in armor? There are no joints in the armor. Bannerlord's hitboxes aren't that sophisticated at all. You've got head, neck, body, arms and legs. Maybe front and back as well. Its not tracking joints in the armor.

Precisely. I've said numerous times that spears depend on momentum to be most effective, far more than other weapons.
Spears can be extremely effective on horseback, against cav units, and even in formation. But what the spear-worshippers want is a weapon that does everything it currently does, but also is equal or better than axes/swords/maces of the same tier at infantry vs infantry combat.
No, we just want spears to be a viable weapon. There are only 4 weapon slots. There's no room for niche special-purpose weapons. Each weapon type should be able to stand up to any other, with some pluses and minuses for each. Spears right now are all minuses.

Which is nonsense concerning game balance. It's awful design, it takes away the niche usefulness of spears, and makes spears the bar-none best melee weapon in the game; relegating all other melee weapons to afterthoughts: "side arms" or third-rate weapons to use "for fun."
What do you know about game balance? Are glaives that do 200+ damage "balanced"? You act as if the game is in a perfectly balanced equilibrium and buffing spears a bit would topple the whole system. Obviously, the damage values are all over the place and will change dramatically by launch. And one of the things that really needs to change is the low spear damage.
 
Reading about "we have just 4 slots for weapons" I am thinking for some time whether any bow and crossbow should not have some shots with in same slot like we have javelins and throwing knives and axes. So spear would not be that bad as situational weapon if also bow and xbow had some arrows/bolts of their own without sacrificing precious slot for weapon.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
You might be wasting your time. Mastigos has clearly shown he doesn't understand or care about the historian's craft if it contradicts his armchair theories.

Point taken. I do not want to antagonize this person more than it is required to, but the general statements in this thread seem to indicate a very serious misconception in regards to the role of swords and spears in history.

I hope he looks further into the matter, because the only differences in the opinions of actual historians/re-enactors/HEMA communities is just how the sword was more or less frequently used under which circumstances -- +in terms of just how absolutely prevalent the spear was in actual battles, not a single one of them disputes this. It's a researched, tried, tested, matter of fact that "spears were king" in military combat.

Even the Japanese Warring States period the person seems to be interested in, is characterized by the rise of massive infantry armies armed with long pikes, and some Japanese historians even call this "the ashigaru revolution," because Japanese warfare was no longer between typical small-scale feudal armies consisting of noble troops, but rather, it became a massive-scale clash between armies consisting of pike infantry. The highest cause of death in battles during this period, was from arrows, then pikes, and then firearms. The sword, was never a prevalent weapon of war even in Japan.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
No, we just want spears to be a viable weapon. There are only 4 weapon slots. There's no room for niche special-purpose weapons. Each weapon type should be able to stand up to any other, with some pluses and minuses for each. Spears right now are all minuses.

^^^ This... I must agree to.

I've often stated most of my characters use the spear, because I like the weapon. So winning tournaments and fighting battles with spears isn't a "problem" for me, because I've went through enough practice to make it viable -- BUT, the amount of practice and character investment required to make the spear "viable" is just abnormal. In the beginning phases, I've had so much shi* that I actually had to craft my own spear, at a length of something like just 125, because at the beginning stages with low athletics there was just no way to fight anyone with a normal, longer spear well enough.

Currently, the spear is just about useful as a "niche weapon" when you've already invested a lot of skill points into athletics. But the spear was never a niche weapon. It was THE weapon.


I still stand by all of my comments earlier in this thread.

1. I can accept the lower damage
2. I can accept the difficulty of landing that damage
3. I can even stand for just having only high/low thrusts
4. I'll even accept the ridiculously slow attacks.

I can accept all of the above problems as a gameplay concession, a means to neuter down just how dangerous the spear was a weapon in real life, because if all of the above 1~4 was remedied, everyone will just use a spear. Everyone will just employ spear troops and nothing else. I mean, that's certainly more realistic, but the game's variety will suffer.

But what I CANNOT accept is the fact that the spear's distance advantage is non-existent in the game. Like mentioned, and ridiculed among players, the spear is currently so inept in keeping the distance advantage, that in tournaments, you can just unarm yourself beat down the opponent with your bare fists.

THE EFFECTS OF PERKS PUSH BACK/KEEP AT BAY SHOULD BE A DEFAULT TRAIT OF ALL THRUSTING SPEARS. PERIOD.

I will accept all of the above 1~4, so with a spear, whether in singleplayer or multiplayer, it will be extremely difficult for you to land anything. You only have two attacks -- up and down. Not even feints are as fast as swords. The attacks are telegraphed, and just say good bye to any chance of landing any hits if the opponent has a shield.

But at the same time, in the other person's shoes, so long as the opponent is holding a spear, it should feel FREAKISHLY DIFFICULT TO GET IN RANGE. Blocking the other guy's attacks isn't too hard, but every time you attempt to go in you are halted by spear jabs.

That's at the least, what a spear should be in the game.
 
Top Bottom