Heres a video with a very short spear… its a metal thrusting head on a stick...
Ohh I would LOVE to see you school Timmortal in DanishEnglish is not even my mother language. Its my second language.
Do you really need me to school you in your language for you to be able to understand that?
Tvivler på at han ville kommer særlig langt, selvom mit engelske på nogle punkter er bedre end mit danskeOhh I would LOVE to see you school Timmortal in Danish
There's no point in comparing an army 2.5x the size to prove your point. In fact, this example would disprove your assertion that spears are fine with an army outnumbering its opponent 2.5x and being the perfect counter to them still taking 80% as many casualties.500 Sturgian Spearman: 342 alive - 158 dead
200 Imperial Heavy Horseman:0 alive, 200 dead
"Tactics" used with Spearmen, with me as commander: "charge"
So yeah, no fancy tactics, no convoluted bull****. Just 500 spears vs 200 horses, and the spears absolutely dominated.
My original post still stands, and stands more firmly and truthfully than ever before (thanks to actual in-game playtests): spears are fine. They are an anti-horseman weapon, and a weapon which performs well when riding a horse.
They are weaker in an infantry vs infantry or 1v1 situation, but that is because they have strong niches that other weapons do not have.
Making spears even stronger than they are now would make them the undisputedly best "all around" weapon in the game. And regardless of your feelings about that, it would be terrible for balance and terrible design.
TLDR: Spears are fine, L2P
They are weaker in an infantry vs infantry or 1v1 situation, but that is because they have strong niches that other weapons do not have.
Making spears even stronger than they are now would make them the undisputedly best "all around" weapon in the game. And regardless of your feelings about that, it would be terrible for balance and terrible design.
There's no point in comparing an army 2.5x the size to prove your point. In fact, this example would disprove your assertion that spears are fine with an army outnumbering its opponent 2.5x and being the perfect counter to them still taking 80% as many casualties.
Now they are second.Why do you think they were literally the number 1 weapon of choice from stone age to when firearms were invented?
Unrealistic Actually swords weren't sharpened much, and using sword as mace, holding by its blade in hands was quite common depends of situation. Medieval smiths and warriors were pragmatic. Because sharpened edge isn't practical at all - it will dull very fast, bend, break etc and almost give no advantage against even light armor. Against unarmored sharpened edge was overkill too.I downloaded Xorberax's Cut Through Everyone mod and... Well, this mod lets me impale plenty of people at once! It's great, I feel like a badass piercing 4 guys at once with a spear lol Also sword slashes can affect all the people that are in the way of the swing, not just one... the mod is great!
Spears are very effective in this game. They definitely have the reach advantage by a long shot, so you lose me by claiming that swords have the same reach. That's simply not true. The main strategy when fighting with a spear versus someone with a regular melee weapon is keeping your distance and taking advantage of the superior reach. This is one of the few instances where shield bash, kicking, and shoving opponents is useful. Spears are more difficult to aim and hit with and take more practice to get better at. I would agree that they should be faster, but then again skill level may need to be taken into account. As skill level is supposed to increase melee speed.
I'd also say that it's possible that piercing damage isn't bypassing armor enough in general. I've noticed that even with a sword that cut damage tends to do more damage than piercing, even on heavily armored targets, which doesn't seem right. But this is purely anecdotal, and I haven't done any real testing on cut versus piercing damage. Though, I'm still doing way more damage on lower armor targets than you're claiming here. On average, I'd say it's in the 30s and 40s in the face and neck areas and 20s and 30s in the chest. You're playing a different game than I am, apparently.
500 Sturgian Spearman: 342 alive - 158 dead
200 Imperial Heavy Horseman:0 alive, 200 dead
"Tactics" used with Spearmen, with me as commander: "charge"
So yeah, no fancy tactics, no convoluted bull****. Just 500 spears vs 200 horses, and the spears absolutely dominated.
My original post still stands, and stands more firmly and truthfully than ever before (thanks to actual in-game playtests): spears are fine. They are an anti-horseman weapon, and a weapon which performs well when riding a horse.
They are weaker in an infantry vs infantry or 1v1 situation, but that is because they have strong niches that other weapons do not have.
Making spears even stronger than they are now would make them the undisputedly best "all around" weapon in the game. And regardless of your feelings about that, it would be terrible for balance and terrible design.
TLDR: Spears are fine, L2P