Spears are weak.

[chiconspiracy]

Musashi lived almost half his life in the Japanese "Warring States" era. It is said he participated in the losing side of the battle which ended that era - which would mean he did, in fact, have experience in a large-scale battle. Not that he would need it to know what the hell he is talking about. (60 duels proves he knew a lot more about combat than pretty much anyone he came in contact with, and pretty much everyone he didn't meet as well.) He also said nothing about the yara or naginata... although he did defeat a yara specialist in a duel.

However, I did come across this when reading a treatise on Musashi:
"Likewise, halberds and spears were specialized weapons, primarily for fighting in formation and especially for dismounting and anti-cavalry actions."

Which sounds close to exactly what I've been saying all along.

The more you guys talk, the more obvious it becomes that you're actually spear fanboys (which I had no idea existed before a few weeks ago) and want that particular weapon to be overpowered. And you base this on a skewed and inaccurate view of history.
(No, the spear isn't "king of the battlefield" and no, Musashi never made a statement about yara or naginata being the best battlefield weapons.)

I can only hope any mods who read this see your opinions as the biased spear-worship that it has become.

P.S. as for your mini-rant about daggers: they're not designed as a primary battlefield weapon, while swords/axes/spears/maces/bows/crossbows etc are all considered candidates for primary battlefield weapon. But to quote you: nice try.

Are you serious? your "quote" is from some random person on the internet, NOT Musashi! http://sebastianmarshall.com/why-does-musashi-talk-about-swords-so-much You're actually using a random internet comment to pretend to have historical credibility!

"The more you guys talk, the more obvious it becomes that you're actually spear fanboys"

The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes that you don't give a single care for actual history, choosing willful ignorance and random internet comments over actual historical figures who actually fought with these weapons in reality because they disagree with your armchair deductions.

Meanwhile some actual quotes from people more qualified than anyone alive today (and didn't primarily have knowledge of unarmored duels):

From Paradoxes of Defenses:
George Silver, who actually trained nobility to fight in both duels and battle describes polearms of the perfect length as having the advantage over "the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets "

From the Konungs skuggsjá, an instructional manual for the son of Norse nobility:
"In battle a spear is worth two swords"

Actual period sources and artwork depict spears (and later, other polearms) being overwhelmingly used as the primary weapon for the warrior elite of medieval Europe.

Knights on foot used spears against other knights and common infantry... not just as or against horsemen:


EVEN FOR DUELS ON FOOT.

And even samurai. And no, these aren't primarily "for cavalry".

There was even a yari made for Samurai police (who had swords) to be used inside... Definitely an "anti-cav" weapon right? Or maybe because spears have superior leverage and speed of point over swords.

 

[Jagati Khan]

Are you serious? your "quote" is from some random person on the internet, NOT Musashi! http://sebastianmarshall.com/why-does-musashi-talk-about-swords-so-much You're actually using a random internet comment to pretend to have historical credibility!

"The more you guys talk, the more obvious it becomes that you're actually spear fanboys"

The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes that you don't give a single care for actual history, choosing willful ignorance and random internet comments over actual historical figures who actually fought with these weapons in reality because they disagree with your armchair deductions.

Meanwhile some actual quotes from people more qualified than anyone alive today (and didn't primarily have knowledge of unarmored duels):

From Paradoxes of Defenses:
George Silver, who actually trained nobility to fight in both duels and battle describes polearms of the perfect length as having the advantage over "the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets "

From the Konungs skuggsjá, an instructional manual for the son of Norse nobility:
"In battle a spear is worth two swords"

Actual period sources and artwork depict spears (and later, other polearms) being overwhelmingly used as the primary weapon for the warrior elite of medieval Europe.

Knights on foot used spears against other knights and common infantry... not just as or against horsemen:


EVEN FOR DUELS ON FOOT.

And even samurai. And no, these aren't primarily "for cavalry".

There was even a yari made for Samurai police (who had swords) to be used inside... Definitely an "anti-cav" weapon right? Or maybe because spears have superior leverage and speed of point over swords.

Most people get their knowledge from Hollywood eh lol

 

[Mastigos]

Are you serious? your "quote" is from some random person on the internet, NOT Musashi! http://sebastianmarshall.com/why-does-musashi-talk-about-swords-so-much You're actually using a random internet comment to pretend to have historical credibility!

"The more you guys talk, the more obvious it becomes that you're actually spear fanboys"

The more you talk, the more obvious it becomes that you don't give a single care for actual history, choosing willful ignorance and random internet comments over actual historical figures who actually fought with these weapons in reality because they disagree with your armchair deductions.

Meanwhile some actual quotes from people more qualified than anyone alive today (and didn't primarily have knowledge of unarmored duels):

From Paradoxes of Defenses:
George Silver, who actually trained nobility to fight in both duels and battle describes polearms of the perfect length as having the advantage over "the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets "

From the Konungs skuggsjá, an instructional manual for the son of Norse nobility:
"In battle a spear is worth two swords"

Actual period sources and artwork depict spears (and later, other polearms) being overwhelmingly used as the primary weapon for the warrior elite of medieval Europe.

Knights on foot used spears against other knights and common infantry... not just as or against horsemen:


EVEN FOR DUELS ON FOOT.

And even samurai. And no, these aren't primarily "for cavalry".

There was even a yari made for Samurai police (who had swords) to be used inside... Definitely an "anti-cav" weapon right? Or maybe because spears have superior leverage and speed of point over swords.

I can smell the desperation on you. Trying to say that I attributed a blog post quote to Musashi is the height of absurdity.

I'll quote myself: "I did come across this when reading a treatise on Musashi"

I didn't say nor imply that quote was from Musashi; in fact, I said it was a treatise on Musashi. You're acting like I said it was a treatise by Musashi. Trying to frame me in order to undermine my credibility says a lot more about your lack of it than it does about mine.

Then you come up with two quotes; one from George Silver, and one from some random-ass medieval Norse training manual.
A) For every Norse combat manual, there's a Japanese school of combat that centers around the katana. I'm sure that many, many instructors of the sword would say that highly skilled use of the sword would defeat use of the spear. Look no further than Musashi - the man of the hour, apparently - who regularly defeated yara/staff/naginata users.
B) George Silver was one of many people who claimed to have knowledge of combat. Yet out of the slew of "masters" you chose one. The man I chose won 60 duels and lost 0. The man you chose did what, again?

Oh, and nobility went to war with a damn entourage and often preferred a greatsword, but do keep up the spear fanboyism. Between falsely attributing claims to myself that I never made and using it to strawman me, to the supremely odd spear-worship that compels you to want to buff a weapon in a video game based on (incorrect) history instead of actual game balance, I'm not sure what to make of your posts anymore.

 

[Mastigos]

And speaking of George Silver -- apparently the man you think knows everything -- here is an actual quote from him, and not some out-of-context nonsense you want me to take as fact.

First I will begin with the worst weapon, an imperfect and insufficient weapon, and not worth the speaking of, but now being highly esteemed, therefore not to be unremembered. That is, the single rapier, and rapier and poniard.

The single sword has the vantage against the single rapier.

The sword and dagger has the vantage against the rapier and poniard.

The sword & target has the advantage against the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard.

The sword and buckler has advantage against the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard.

The two handed sword has the vantage against the sword and target, the sword and buckler, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard.

The battle axe, the halberd, the black-bill, or such like weapons of weight . . . have advantage against the two handed sword, the sword and buckler, the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard.

The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike.

The long staff, morris pike, or javelin, or such like weapons above the perfect length, have advantage against all manner of weapons, the short staff, the Welch hook, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of vantage excepted, yet are too weak for two swords and daggers or two sword and bucklers, or two rapiers and poniards with gauntlets, because they are too long to thrust, strike, and turn speedily. And by reason of the large distance, one of the sword and dagger-men will get behind him.

The Welch hook or forest bill, has advantage against all manner of weapons whatsoever.

Yet understand, that in battles, and where variety of weapons are, among multitudes of men and horses, the sword and target, the two handed sword, battle axe, the black bill, and halberd, are better weapons, and more dangerous in their offense and forces, than is the sword and buckler, short staff, long staff, or forest bill. The sword and target leads upon shot, and in troops defends thrusts and blows given by battle axe, halberds, black bill, or two handed swords, far better than can the sword and buckler.

The morris pike defends the battle from both horse and man, much better than can the short staff, long staff, or forest bill. Again the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, and sword & target, among armed men and troops, by reason of their weights, shortness, and great force, do much more offend the enemy, & are then much better weapons, than is the short staff, the long staff, or the forest bill.

So according to your man:
King of 1v1: Welsh Hook / Forest Bill
Kings of the Battlefield - Offense: Sword and "Target;" Two-Handed Sword; Battle Axe; Black Bill; Halberd
King of the Battlefield - Defense: Morris Pike

So basically what I said all along. Spears are great for defensive use against horsemen, and in formations such as shield walls and circles.
To say that spears are just the ultimate weapon is a concept that George Silver doesn't agree with. If that's not definitive proof that you defeated yourself in your mind, then you're impossible to reason with.

 

[TrashMan]

Spear vs thick plate, still at least 1" penetration and a very strong impact even by someone that isn't really trained as a warrior.

- low quality plate
- rather flat plate armor
- no give, fixed armor

 

[Jagati Khan]

@Mastigos You watch too much tv pal i used to think the same way as you when thinking of sword vs spear then i did some research.
There is a reason the spear was around throughout human history, so widely used and there is a reason that the sword was considered a backup weapon.
Only real exception to this was the Roman Empire with the Gladius and there is a reason for that and from horseback a sword or lance is better than a spear.
The spear was a far more effective weapon in a variety of situations compared to the sword and was far easier to learn.
You are also forgetting how effective mail was at stopping slashing damage mail armours main weakness was to thrusting from a fine pointed weapon.
I also wonder if you are getting pikes and spears confused pikes were certainly a formation weapon as their length made them too unweildy but in formation they were great anti infantry weapons.
Cavalry did not charge pike formations unlike in tv and film because horses have self preservation thus pikes were used to deny opportunities for cavalry.
The fact is people romaticize swords because they look cooler more badass while a spear is just a simple pointy stick essentially.
Tv and film always show swords because of this getting actors to perform flashy looking twirls and other crap that never would have happened on a real battlefield.

A few qoutes from history forums.
"I did HEMA for two years doing long sword mainly and we got a spear, picked it up and sparred with it... almost impossible to lose with unless they’re just incredibly lucky and/or good "
"1v1 the spear almost always has the advantage. Shields can help balance out the difference though. Swords are generally considered prestigeous because they are more expensive, require more training to use, and they are also a sidearm which can more comfortably be carried during civilian life. "
"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."

A few vids to digest -

 

[Ryotarou]

This is a feedback towards both Single and Multiplayer.

Spears in the game are currently all considerable short to at most medium spears, both due to their lengths and improper way of holding and placement on the characters hand.
They also possess too little damage and besides than on horseback, they aren't really as effective as they should actually be.

At times, when fighting someone with a sword, it feels like you both have about the same reach, when even a short spear should outreach a long sword most of the time.
That is precisely why spearmen footwork is entirely directed to keeping a distance and swordsmen footwork is directed to closing in.

A true long spear should be about twice the size of the current longest spear in the game. (Image examples)

You can see that a long spear, at times, can be almost twice the size of a person.

And cavalry trained to be able to hold with one hand at between the half mark to 3/4 mark to the back of the pole, which would leave almost 1 to 1 and a half human bodies of length remaining.

Even for ground melee infantry, spears were mostly held closer to the back.

And lastly, comes the matter of couch lancing, which mostly was held even closer to the back of the pole, leaving almost the whole of the spear's length to the front.
You can clearly see this through jousting and how a joust lance looks like.

Their damage also needs to be upped quite a bit. Even with an armor or a helmet, the minimum damage that should be registered should be about 10 or so, as spears easily penetrated or at least dented armor and shield.
As it currently is, at times, you can strike with a lance and see it cause 3 or even 1 of damage, so not only are we losing length through improper technique, its damage is too low.

I ask the dev team to truly consider taking the time to fix the current state of spears and couch lancing in the game.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

deGoucan Scrolls Index

Your post was very good, something else the spear is one of the most powerful weapons in a real combat other than the sword

 

[Demoulius]

I like the OP

But some caveats from my part. Some of the pictures arent spears per se but lances or pikes. Which are ALOT longer then the avarage spear. Mind you spears also had longer examples but I dont think the range per se is the problem really... There are alot of spears and ances in the game, some are longer then others. Ive found a few which are over 200 units long (2 meters long? Im not sure what the length stat means...) and I can basicly hide behind 2 ranks of my own troops and still overhead poke enemies. While others are barely longer then a 1 handed sword. So it varies from spear to spear.

A combination of problems they do have in my opinion is the low speed and the low damage that they do. I can run at someone and hit them with a spear at 12 m/s speed difference and do....50 damage. While with a weapon like a bardiche or simular weapon I could be standing still and with less then 2 m/s do over TWO HUNDRED damage. Both values have damage soaked up with armor included so before someone thinks im hitting different kinds of armour....

Now dont get me wrong, completly over the top polearms have a place in the game but at the moment they have 0 drawbacks. You can parry faster without a shield and you do alot more damage (generally) with a 2 hander then you do with a 1 hander. You only need to brush into someone and they and their future offspring are disintigrated while you need 5 minutes alone time with a comatose enemy to bring them low with a spear. Slightly exerated offcourse but the damage on spears is SO BLOODY LOW its insane.

Specially considering they are the easiest weapon to counter in a 1 on 1 fight and even with a horse all the stars need to align before you even have a chance of getting decent kills with them...

 

[Mastigos]

ut do keep up the spear fanboyism. Between falsely attributing claims to myself that I never made and using it to strawman me, to the supremely odd spear-worship that compels you to want t

@Mastigos You watch too much tv pal i used to think the same way as you when thinking of sword vs spear then i did some research.
There is a reason the spear was around throughout human history, so widely used and there is a reason that the sword was considered a backup weapon.
Only real exception to this was the Roman Empire with the Gladius and there is a reason for that and from horseback a sword or lance is better than a spear.
The spear was a far more effective weapon in a variety of situations compared to the sword and was far easier to learn.
You are also forgetting how effective mail was at stopping slashing damage mail armours main weakness was to thrusting from a fine pointed weapon.
I also wonder if you are getting pikes and spears confused pikes were certainly a formation weapon as their length made them too unweildy but in formation they were great anti infantry weapons.
Cavalry did not charge pike formations unlike in tv and film because horses have self preservation thus pikes were used to deny opportunities for cavalry.
The fact is people romaticize swords because they look cooler more badass while a spear is just a simple pointy stick essentially.
Tv and film always show swords because of this getting actors to perform flashy looking twirls and other crap that never would have happened on a real battlefield.

A few qoutes from history forums.
"I did HEMA for two years doing long sword mainly and we got a spear, picked it up and sparred with it... almost impossible to lose with unless they’re just incredibly lucky and/or good "
"1v1 the spear almost always has the advantage. Shields can help balance out the difference though. Swords are generally considered prestigeous because they are more expensive, require more training to use, and they are also a sidearm which can more comfortably be carried during civilian life. "
"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."

A few vids to digest -

I'm not "forgetting" anything.
You're posting videos from ****ing Lindybeige and trying to turn a whining post about a video game into a post about IRL history and trying to "prove" that the weapon you like the most is the best in the most situations.

Unlike many of you, I couldn't give a flying **** about what weapons were used in what time period, which is "best" etc
I'm saying that spear fanboys exist, and that they want the spear to be literally overpowered in a video game because reasons.
And I'm saying that regardless of what you want, imbalancing a game to appeal to your fanboyism is terrible for the health and state of this video game.

Also, posting a few videos of random sparring matches and Lindybeige means about as much as me quoting George Silver and Miyamoto Musashi: people have different takes on what works best IRL. Which is entirely different than how a video game should be designed.

Again: in Bannerlord, spears work wonders on charging Cav, do decent damage against Cav units (momentum is super important and very potent with spears) and are wonderful when used on horseback. They shouldn't also be equal or better than swords, axes, maces, etc against infantry: that would be making the spear the best overall weapon in the game, the very definition of imbalanced. And regardless of your feelings about that, it's terrible from a design and balance standpoint. This is a video game. It needs to be treated like one.

 

[Maximum997]

I'm saying that spear fanboys exist, and that they want the spear to be literally overpowered in a video game because reasons.
And I'm saying that regardless of what you want, imbalancing a game to appeal to your fanboyism is terrible for the health and state of this video game.

No. Actualy you are acting like a sword fanboy who want to spears be so bad as they are now.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

Again: in Bannerlord, spears work wonders on charging Cav, do decent damage against Cav units (momentum is super important and very potent with spears) and are wonderful when used on horseback. They shouldn't also be equal or better than swords, axes, maces, etc against infantry: that would be making the spear the best overall weapon in the game, the very definition of imbalanced. And regardless of your feelings about that, it's terrible from a design and balance standpoint. This is a video game. It needs to be treated like one.

You're totally wrong. Spears only work well against charging cavalry and on horseback because of the massive speed bonus damage multipliers, which every other type of weapon also gets. My 1H sword is also great against a fast charging horse if I can time the hit right. My glaive doesn't even need the speed bonus. It can 1-shot a horse that's standing still or even moving away from me.

Raising the thrust damage on spears wouldn't unbalance anything. Its already unbalanced because they are so weak. Spears only get 2 attack directions, upthrust and downthrust, while every other weapon gets 4 attack directions, so they're at a disadvantage right off the bat, but as a pure thrusting specialist weapon, they should be better at thrusting than any of the other weapon types. Instead, it turns out that they are worse at their specialty than even a 1H sword. The only advantage a spear has is that it can stop a horse mid-charge, but you still have to deal with the rider after that and you're stuck dealing piss poor damage. I don't get why its fine that every other weapon does huge damage while spears still do crap.

Or, to put it another way, if there was a sword that only thrusted but couldn't swing, but still did lower thrust damage and was slower than a regular sword that could also swing for decent damage, would you ever use that sword?

 

[Mastigos]

No. Actualy you are acting like a sword fanboy who want to spears be so bad as they are now.

Just because I don't agree that spears should be buffed, doesn't mean I'm a "sword fanboy."

I think swords, maces, and axes should outclass spears in infantry vs infantry combat - just as spears outclass swords, maces, and axes in infantry vs cav combat, and lance/spear cav vs infantry combat.

You saying I have a particular affinity for swords, when I've been saying all along that maces and axes deserve the same thing as swords, tells me that you're attempting to frame this as a "sword vs spear" discussion. It's not.

You're totally wrong. Spears only work well against charging cavalry and on horseback because of the massive speed bonus damage multipliers, which every other type of weapon also gets. My 1H sword is also great against a fast charging horse if I can time the hit right. My glaive doesn't even need the speed bonus. It can 1-shot a horse that's standing still or even moving away from me.

Incorrect. Spears cause horses to rear up and stop their charge cold; swords, maces, and axes do not. That unique feature of spears, combined with their huge reach, is what makes them good against cav.
1h swords, axes, and maces have about 1/3rd to 1/4th the reach of spears, which means they are quite bad at infantry vs cav combat, unless the horseman is barely moving. It's not about "timing the hit" in most circumstances, it's about being able to hit at all. And that's not even factoring in the fact that if the horseman has a couched lance, he can easily OKHO you. (It's also ignoring the fact that a spear used on horseback has a massive reach advantage against 1h maces/swords/axes, and all other things being equal the horseman will stomp the 1h infantry without couched.)
As for glaives, I've already said multiple times that they are the ultimate anti-cav weapon against a cav unit that isn't moving fast. Which is why Vlandia nobles often rock a spear and a glaive: it's the complete anti-cav infantry package.
To quote you: "you're totally wrong."

Raising the thrust damage on spears wouldn't unbalance anything. Its already unbalanced because they are so weak.

You only think they're weak because you're not using them properly. When skillfully used against charging horses, or on horseback, they are amazing. It's not my problem you want them to be on equal footing with weapons designed to be used in infantry v infantry combat.
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.
This is infantry v infantry combat, btw.

 

[Maximum997]

just as spears outclass swords, maces, and axes in infantry vs cav combat

But they dont... They certanly worse then any 2handers against cav. And only slightly better then anything else. Becouse after stoping the horse they do no damage.

And infantry in this game actualy cant do anything about cav. With spears or without.

 

[Mastigos]

But they dont... They certanly worse then any 2handers against cav. And only slightly better then anything else. Becouse after stoping the horse they do no damage.

And infantry in this game actualy cant do anything about cav. With spears or without.

When someone is so totally wrong, all I can say is learn to play.
We're at an impasse because your words completely contradict my experience.
Step One: get a good spear.
Step Two: get good.
Step Three: get the "horse killer" perk.
Step Four (A): OHKO every horse moving faster than a gallop.
Step Four (B): OHKO armored knights when stabbed in the head/neck moving faster than a gallop.
Step Five: Find horse, couch, slam into people for 500-800 damage. (That's enough to kill several people/horses several times over.)

Saying that infantry "can't do anything against cav" has literally been disproven by me in a custom battle earlier in this thread. 500 Sturgian Spearmen (tier 4 normal unit) can stomp 250 Imperial Heavy Cav (tier 4 noble unit) provided you as the general don't die. All you have to do is tell them to attack move and stay live, and witness the slaughter. So I know for a fact that you're not correct.

 

[Jagati Khan]

I'm not "forgetting" anything.
You're posting videos from ****ing Lindybeige and trying to turn a whining post about a video game into a post about IRL history and trying to "prove" that the weapon you like the most is the best in the most situations.
I can find others and he is irrelevant to the content anyway.

Unlike many of you, I couldn't give a flying **** about what weapons were used in what time period, which is "best" etc
I'm saying that spear fanboys exist, and that they want the spear to be literally overpowered in a video game because reasons.
And I'm saying that regardless of what you want, imbalancing a game to appeal to your fanboyism is terrible for the health and state of this video game.
And yet you have argued about it
No one wants them overepowered at all we just a bit more realism surrounding them.


Also, posting a few videos of random sparring matches and Lindybeige means about as much as me quoting George Silver and Miyamoto Musashi: people have different takes on what works best IRL. Which is entirely different than how a video game should be designed.
Repeating yourself here.


Again: in Bannerlord, spears work wonders on charging Cav, do decent damage against Cav units (momentum is super important and very potent with spears) and are wonderful when used on horseback. They shouldn't also be equal or better than swords, axes, maces, etc against infantry: that would be making the spear the best overall weapon in the game, the very definition of imbalanced. And regardless of your feelings about that, it's terrible from a design and balance standpoint. This is a video game. It needs to be treated like one.
Yes they do work well on charging horses but the only reason they get decent damage here is the horses momentum
Personally i would be happy with spears being given a swing attack and either buff thrust speed and by that i mean the animation or a thrust damage buff.
And to also add other than the arena i haven't used a single spear because other weapons are just far superior.

 

[sjblack2014]

Even in the early period Roman legion post Marian reforms, there's a good argument to be made about how the pilum was actually the primary weapon instead of the gladius. Late period Roman legion adopted the spear like everyone else.

 

[Ishtarin]

When someone is so totally wrong, all I can say is learn to play.
We're at an impasse because your words completely contradict my experience.
Step One: get a good spear.
Step Two: get good.
Step Three: get the "horse killer" perk.
Step Four (A): OHKO every horse moving faster than a gallop.
Step Four (B): OHKO armored knights when stabbed in the head/neck moving faster than a gallop.
Step Five: Find horse, couch, slam into people for 500-800 damage. (That's enough to kill several people/horses several times over.)

Saying that infantry "can't do anything against cav" has literally been disproven by me in a custom battle earlier in this thread. 500 Sturgian Spearmen (tier 4 normal unit) can stomp 250 Imperial Heavy Cav (tier 4 noble unit) provided you as the general don't die. All you have to do is tell them to attack move and stay live, and witness the slaughter. So I know for a fact that you're not correct.

Perhaps try playing the game, the horse killer perk multiplies damage to horses by 1.007 courtesy of http://www.bannerlordperks.com/perk;skill=polearm;perk=horse-killer. Your argument that spears are good also applies to any two handed weapon. 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.

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.

 

[chiconspiracy]

I can smell the desperation on you. Trying to say that I attributed a blog post quote to Musashi is the height of absurdity.

I'll quote myself: "I did come across this when reading a treatise on Musashi"

I didn't say nor imply that quote was from Musashi; in fact, I said it was a treatise on Musashi. You're acting like I said it was a treatise by Musashi. Trying to frame me in order to undermine my credibility says a lot more about your lack of it than it does about mine.

Then you come up with two quotes; one from George Silver, and one from some random-ass medieval Norse training manual.
A) For every Norse combat manual, there's a Japanese school of combat that centers around the katana. I'm sure that many, many instructors of the sword would say that highly skilled use of the sword would defeat use of the spear. Look no further than Musashi - the man of the hour, apparently - who regularly defeated yara/staff/naginata users.
B) George Silver was one of many people who claimed to have knowledge of combat. Yet out of the slew of "masters" you chose one. The man I chose won 60 duels and lost 0. The man you chose did what, again?

Oh, and nobility went to war with a damn entourage and often preferred a greatsword, but do keep up the spear fanboyism. Between falsely attributing claims to myself that I never made and using it to strawman me, to the supremely odd spear-worship that compels you to want to buff a weapon in a video game based on (incorrect) history instead of actual game balance, I'm not sure what to make of your posts anymore.

Oh wow, a "treatise"... written by who exactly?

You claim not to care about history (which is apparent), yet then spout the most ridiculous armchair drivel.

A "random-ass medieval Norse training manual".... Well, your historical ignorance is beaming through once again, this was to serve as instruction for the son of a Viking king... you know, somebody who would be expected to fight with a spear, sword, and axe, and kill people wearing metal armor in both duels and field battles. You know what constituted the vast majority of Musashi's (who only said the sword was better than the spear in confined interiors, and held the spear and naginata as better for field battles) combat experience? Fighting UNARMORED opponents in peace time Japan.

I know you "don't care" about history (except when you are pulling things out of your rear), but the real Samurai combat period was the Sengoku period beforehand.... and look what those samurai are holding! If only they had the mighty Mastigos to tell them they are wasting their time! Stupid samurai trained from birth! Don't they know those yari are only good for anti-cav!

I also love how casually you can claim that knights preferred a longsword, when the Matt Easton video showed countless examples from the hundred years was of knights using specifically modified lances for FOOT COMBAT... with their longswords worn at their hip, as SIDEARMS (which you claimed a dagger was). And these are from period combat manuals at a later time (des Kampfes and Mair) ... again, if only they had the wisdom of a 21st century arm chair warrior, they would know they should drop those spears and draw those longswords at their hip...

 

[Mastigos]

Oh wow, a "treatise"... written by who exactly?

You claim not to care about history (which is apparent), yet then spout the most ridiculous armchair drivel.

A "random-ass medieval Norse training manual".... Well, your historical ignorance is beaming through once again, this was to serve as instruction for the son of a Viking king... you know, somebody who would be expected to fight with a spear, sword, and axe, and kill people wearing metal armor in both duels and field battles. You know what constituted the vast majority of Musashi's (who only said the sword was better than the spear in confined interiors, and held the spear and naginata as better for field battles) combat experience? Fighting UNARMORED opponents in peace time Japan.

I know you "don't care" about history (except when you are pulling things out of your rear), but the real Samurai combat period was the Sengoku period beforehand.... and look what those samurai are holding! If only they had the mighty Mastigos to tell them they are wasting their time! Stupid samurai trained from birth! Don't they know those yari are only good for anti-cav!

I also love how casually you can claim that knights preferred a longsword, when the Matt Easton video showed countless examples from the hundred years was of knights using specifically modified lances for FOOT COMBAT... with their longswords worn at their hip, as SIDEARMS (which you claimed a dagger was). And these are from period combat manuals at a later time (des Kampfes and Mair) ... again, if only they had the wisdom of a 21st century arm chair warrior, they would know they should drop those spears and draw those longswords at their hip...

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.

 

[ShotgunJed]

Spears should be buffed. Right now this game is all about just spamming horse archers and heavy cavalry, pressing f1 f3 and winning battles easily with no tactics. It's so braindead that I don't know if I'm playing a realistic medieval battle simulator, or some casual mobile game made for 12 year olds.