Buff for heavy weapons ?

[rbodleyscott]

I'd actually like to confirm this. Do heavy weapons get an overall bonus against protected swordsmen then? The 100 POA the heavy weapons get in melee should cancel out the 100 the swordsmen get quite nicely, and the removal of the protected status should then put the swordsmen at a disadvantage.

Why? The heavy weapon removes armour advantage, not armour. As there is no armour advantage, it removes nothing.

The suggested amendment above, however, would have effect you describe.

[Ludendorf]

I'd actually like to confirm this. Do heavy weapons get an overall bonus against protected swordsmen then? The 100 POA the heavy weapons get in melee should cancel out the 100 the swordsmen get quite nicely, and the removal of the protected status should then put the swordsmen at a disadvantage.

Why? The heavy weapon removes armour advantage, not armour. As there is no armour advantage, it removes nothing.

The suggested amendment above, however, would have effect you describe.

Ah... thanks. Failure to read the fine print on my part.

[Geffalrus]

I know I'm necro-ing this thread, but just wanted to add my two cents. If you look at some modern reconstructions of the Rhomphaia, you can start to notice that it seems more focused on cutting power and speed instead of weight and concussive force. While, yes, I wouldn't want to take a blow from that thing with or without armor, it doesn't seem to have much more effectiveness against armor than other weapons (sword, spear, sarissa, etc). To which I'd like to back up the point made earlier that the Thracians developing it weren't facing a ton of armored opponents. Their primary issues were: cavalry and light skirmishers. As such, the Rhomphaia makes more sense as a weapon with long reach to help with cavalry, and a long cutting surface to punish lightly armored skirmishers (foot or mounted).

As such, my recommendation would be to replace the Heavy Weapons trait with something new that gives them a higher POA against cavalry and light troops than Offensive Spear, but a lower POA against infantry than the Offensive Spear.

[rbodleyscott]

I think it extremely unlikely even on a theoretical basis that they were better against cavalry than thrusting spears. As for evidence that they were, I don't think there is any: Yes two-handed rhomphaia (and axes) could supposedly lop off a horse's head, but first you would have to let the horse get close enough for the rider to stab you with a lance or spear. If you survived that, then maybe you could chop off the horse's head.

Spears (or pikes) were the optimum infantry weapon against cavalry because they could keep them at a distance. Axes/rhomphaia were almost as good, not better.

(Not in period, but a reasonable tactical comparison - the Bardische axe/musket combo caught on in Poland/Russia, but everyone else used a pike and musket combo).

[MVP7]

There are also the Asian examples of anti-cavalry swords like Zanbato and Zhanmadao (and used to hit at the horses legs rather than the head which seems a lot more sensible ). To me it seems unlikely that such expensive weapons (compared to spear) would be developed and used against predominantly cavalry opponents if they were significantly worse than spears.

If I have have understood the POA tables correctly the heavy weapons don't really have any advantage vs cavalry at the moment. Maybe it would portray typical heavy weapons more accurately if Mounted Swordsmen would only get +50 melee POA vs Heavy Weapons rather than the same +100 as vs Foot Swordsmen.

[TheGrayMouser]

An oft overlooked advantage for some weapons classes(like HW) is the poa is not degraded/negated by disruption/frag or disorder. Cost wise , expensive mounted with no armor advantage ( and being smaller too) vs cheap hw troops seems sufficiently balanced.

[MVP7]

I'm not saying there's issue with the current performance vs price, the entire heavy weapon balance has been changed after this thread was originally started.

My point there is that a lot of weapons categorized as 'Heavy weapons' were historically effective against cavalry and sometimes very clearly aimed against cavalry yet in game there is little difference between 'Swordsmen' and 'Heavy weapons' performance against cavalry.

By reducing the cavalry melee bonus vs heavy weapons (and raising the price accordingly) they would still be worse than spears against cavalry on impact but perform better than swordsmen in melee, which is pretty much how Richard described heavy weapons earlier.

[TheGrayMouser]

Cost is just part of it, but there is already a huge difference. Mounted swords poa is netted out versus the foot sword as well as Hw. However the mounted could have up to 100 poa armor versus the swords, they get None versus the hw. That’s pretty significant. I get what you saying about some of the anti mounted properties of some of the later pole weapons, but that utility seems to have only useful when the Cavalry was in rough terrain or of skirmishes between individuals. I’m not quite sure there are many sword foot units in the late medieval lists anyhow to compare to hw anyhow ( at least for European armies, and likely limited to irregulars, the occasional sword and buckler types etc). I think the assumption is hw foot knights could also be using long swords in the half swording style, along with pole axes etc.

[Geffalrus]

I think it extremely unlikely even on a theoretical basis that they were better against cavalry than thrusting spears. As for evidence that they were, I don't think there is any: Yes two-handed rhomphaia (and axes) could supposedly lop off a horse's head, but first you would have to let the horse get close enough for the rider to stab you with a lance or spear. If you survived that, then maybe you could chop off the horse's head.

Spears (or pikes) were the optimum infantry weapon against cavalry because they could keep them at a distance. Axes/rhomphaia were almost as good, not better.

(Not in period, but a reasonable tactical comparison - the Bardische axe/musket combo caught on in Poland/Russia, but everyone else used a pike and musket combo).

If you have the time and money to train your infantry in a dense, organized formation, spears have some serious advantages. However, I'd argue that for individual soldiers fighting outside of a formation, the Rhomphaia had some advantages in attacking horsemen 1v1. The large cutting surface of the Rhomphaia, and the slight hook to it, could be brutal to a horse on the move. Most cavalry attacks on infantry came as the horseman rode by. During that lateral motion, the Rhomphaia could be used to swing at the legs of the horse, the face, or parts of the rider. And because the strike was a lateral motion, so long as initial contact was made, the continued motion of the horse would increase the damage done by the Rhomphaia. Would this be useful against all cavalry situations? No. But no infantry formation was ideal against all types of cavalry. Strengths and weaknesses.

Anyway, I'm sure there's a lot to debate with how the Rhomphaia actually worked, but my main argument is that it doesn't have the concussive potential that true anti-armor weapons like maces, hammers, and poleaxes do in later times. So the Heavy Weapons trait seems like an imperfect fit from that perspective.

[MVP7]

It's a bit inconvenient that Heavy weapons as a category covers so many very different weapons. One option would be separating Armour penetration from Heavy weapons into its own attribute. That way you could have late medieval armour piercing heavy weapons like poleaxes, long blades that were probably not effective against armour but good against cavalry (falx, rhomphaia) and maybe even stuff like maces and flails (swordsmen + armour penetrating).

[sIg3b]

The current plan is for longbows to be somewhat better than "bows" vs armoured/heavily armoured targets.

I would imagine them having higher accuracy and/or range. Perhaps no reduction at 3/4.

[SnuggleBunnies]

This is an issue that has come up in a number of other threads, but I think some of the posters here are looking at things from a Grunt's Eye view, while the game was explicitly designed from a top down perspective. Maybe the Romphaia was useful in attacking horsemen 1v1, but since an infantry unit is 500 men, 1v1 and skirmishing is not what is being represented here. Instead, the 1v1 advantage can be considered to be included in the fact that those troops are medium infantry who absolutely slaughter cavalry in broken ground. Furthermore, even your standard quality Thracians are actually much safer against cavalry than they used to be, thanks to the patched in +100 POA defending against cavalry charges. This, combined with negating armor, and more importantly, their larger unit size than cavalry, allows them to generally prevail in melee even against far more expensive, Superior quality troops. They have little to fear from frontal attacks by most cavalry in the ancient era (Light Spear on Impact). If charged by Lancers, if they pass their cohesion test, they are likely to come out on top in the melee. Their chance to fail is not massive and overwhelming. These relatively loosely formed troops, then, should probably stay in broken ground, but aren't automatically doomed if caught in the open by cavalry.

I would also like to point to a similar situation in Japanese accounts, that I think casts some doubt on the whole concept of these weapons as being specifically anti-cavalry. There are accounts of weapons like the No-Dachi (two handed swords) and Nagamaki (wide handled two handed sword/polearm - think the Elvish swords in the Lord of the Rings movies) being effective against horsemen in one on one combat. Yet the Japanese really only stopped or greatly reduced the fielding of cavalry when the use of long spears, almost pikes, became nearly universal.

Furthermore, there are always more granular statistics that could be added to the game - different types of every weapon category, more detailed armor stats, different armor effect vs different weapons, axes and maces as opposed to swords, differentiating light spears from javelins, tracking pila ammunition, etc. etc. But that's not how the game is designed. It's designed to provide historically convincing results, and, at that, I think it does a great job, and is getting better at it with each patch.

[sIg3b]

This is an issue that has come up in a number of other threads, but I think some of the posters here are looking at things from a Grunt's Eye view, while the game was explicitly designed from a top down perspective. Maybe the Romphaia was useful in attacking horsemen 1v1, but since an infantry unit is 500 men, 1v1 and skirmishing is not what is being represented here. Instead, the 1v1 advantage can be considered to be included in the fact that those troops are medium infantry who absolutely slaughter cavalry in broken ground. Furthermore, even your standard quality Thracians are actually much safer against cavalry than they used to be, thanks to the patched in +100 POA defending against cavalry charges. This, combined with negating armor, and more importantly, their larger unit size than cavalry, allows them to generally prevail in melee even against far more expensive, Superior quality troops. They have little to fear from frontal attacks by most cavalry in the ancient era (Light Spear on Impact). If charged by Lancers, if they pass their cohesion test, they are likely to come out on top in the melee. Their chance to fail is not massive and overwhelming. These relatively loosely formed troops, then, should probably stay in broken ground, but aren't automatically doomed if caught in the open by cavalry.

I would also like to point to a similar situation in Japanese accounts, that I think casts some doubt on the whole concept of these weapons as being specifically anti-cavalry. There are accounts of weapons like the No-Dachi (two handed swords) and Nagamaki (wide handled two handed sword/polearm - think the Elvish swords in the Lord of the Rings movies) being effective against horsemen in one on one combat. Yet the Japanese really only stopped or greatly reduced the fielding of cavalry when the use of long spears, almost pikes, became nearly universal.

Furthermore, there are always more granular statistics that could be added to the game - different types of every weapon category, more detailed armor stats, different armor effect vs different weapons, axes and maces as opposed to swords, differentiating light spears from javelins, tracking pila ammunition, etc. etc. But that's not how the game is designed. It's designed to provide historically convincing results, and, at that, I think it does a great job, and is getting better at it with each patch.

From the specific to the general:

1. I agree that Thracians are rather good already and do not really need a buff.

2. One reason the game is getting better with each patch is player input; so these discussions do serve a purpose.

3. We all agree basically that FoG2 is the best thing since sliced bread- at the least!

[MVP7]

I'm a big supporter of FoG2's top down design philosophy that achieves far more authentic results than, for example, Total War series with its exact opposite design. I just think the current heavy weapon and armour-penetration solution is oversimplified compared to the rest of the armament types.

Here are some quick win:draw:lose numbers when Superior Armoured Lancers are facing Average Protected Medium foot on even and open field (in rough terrain or with heavy foot the odds will be heavily against cavalry in any case):

Code: Select all

UNIT:	O/D-spear	Swords+LS		Impact-foot		Heavy-weapons
IMPACT:	4:72:24		25:71:4			29:67:4			23:71:6
MELEE:	2:52:47		12:74:14		10:74:17		10:73:18

Heavy weapon performance is pretty much the same as Light-spear and impact foot during IMPACT phase while spears are in their own league. The same pattern continues in MELEE phase, heavy weapons performance is practically the same as swordsmen while spears are several times more effective. If I understand the mechanics correctly, the only benefit the Heavy weapons get there is negating a 25 POA from armour with 50 being the theoretical maximum. Against protected cavalry there wouldn't be even that difference.

Do heavy weapons beat cavalry in the rough? Yes, but so does all medium infantry of otherwise similar specs. Did heavy weapons get +100 POA vs cavalry charge in patch? Yes, but that only put them on the same line with every other primarily melee non-spear infantry type in the game. Is spear/pike the ultimate anti cavalry melee weapon? Yes, but long blades and short polearms are the next best thing.



In later medieval times heavy weapons will become more common and you will probably have units like armoured heavy foot that will get no benefit for using heavy weapons against most units and will only get full benefit against fully armoured units with the effect being no more than a few percentage points compared to swordsmen while offensive and defensive spearmen will continue to perform on whole another level. Units like halberd infantry would be weaker against cavalry than raw defensive spear unless they were spearmen instead of heavy weapon, which would however strip them of the obvious armour penetrating properties of halberds. The way it is, polearms and long blades simply don't have any meaningful advantage against cavalry when compared to supposedly worse options.

You don't need to imagine some soloing ninja warrior slicing horses to pieces when there are multiple historical examples of long blades (not to mention polearms) being used in anti-cavalry role. Odachi might have been more of a ceremonial fad weapon than anti-cavalry but Zhanmadao and Zanbato literally translate to "horse chopping saber", their use against horses is documented and they were wielded against cavalry armies for over thousand years. I think it's also important to note that producing a long sword requires huge amount of resources and skill compared to spears. Ineffective practices rarely survive for long in warfare so if anti-cavalry swords had no meaningful benefits when compared to short swords and spears/polearms, they wouldn't have spread and lasted. In terms of armour penetration, it seems unlikely that such relatively fragile weapon (at least during early first millennium) would be great against armour when compared to spears, polearms or even blunt weapons.

TL;DR, I'm suggesting a change in weapon interactions, not asking for buff since I don't think heavy weapon units are currently under-powered for their price. Reducing the mounted melee POA vs Heavy weapon foot would put heavy weapons closer to the middle ground between spears and swords where they arguably belong and separating armour-penetration to a separate attribute would allow for more flexible and accurate depiction of the overall characteristics of many different armaments without making things unnecessarily complicated.

[TheGrayMouser]

You need to revisit the poas for armor vs hw. ( not easy as the manual is out of date due to changes in patch 1.39??). When we get to high medieval times knights will be fully armoured (like catphracts) and will exert a 100 poa vs armored ( or lower) foot swords due to armor poa alone. Hws troops will negate this. I don’t know how well armored most medieval foot troops will be, but I reckon except for foot knights, they will be armored or less. This means the majority of knights versus sword or hws armed foot, the hw will be a clearly superior weapon negating a 100 poa advantage. If you doudt my words launch a game of cataphracts vs armored Roman legions to see the 100 poa the cats get over the swordsman....
As snuggles pointed out , individually pole weapons could be fearsome weapons versus a lone mounted knight, or in rough going, but I can’t think of any battles where pole armed troops in homogeneous units repelled knights in the open. The Swiss ditched the halberd once they began operating out of mountain pass ambuscade situations.

[Rodia]

As snuggles pointed out , individually pole weapons could be fearsome weapons versus a lone mounted knight, or in rough going, but I can’t think of any battles where pole armed troops in homogeneous units repelled knights in the open. The Swiss ditched the halberd once they began operating out of mountain pass ambuscade situations.

From Wikipedia article about the battle of Courtrai:

The Battle of the Golden Spurs had been called the first incidence of the gradual "Infantry Revolution" which occurred in Medieval warfare during the 14th century. In conventional military theory of the time, mounted and heavily armoured knights were considered an essential part of military success and consequently warfare was the preserve of a wealthy elite of bellatores (nobles specialized in warfare) serving as men-at-arms. The fact that this form of army, which was expensive to maintain, could be defeated by basic militia, drawn from the "lower orders", led to a gradual change in the nature of warfare during the subsequent century. The tactics and composition of the Flemish army at Courtrai were later copied or adapted at the battles of Bannockburn (1314), Crecy (1346), Aljubarrota (1385), Sempach (1386), Agincourt (1415), Grandson (1476) and in the battles of the Hussite Wars (1419–34). As a result, cavalry became less important and nobles more commonly fought dismounted. The comparatively low costs of militia armies allowed even small states, such as the Swiss, to raise militarily significant armies and meant that local rebellions were more likely to achieve military success.

[TheGrayMouser]

I am aware of most of these battles , they really don’t meet the definition of mounted knights engaging homogeneous units of pole armed men in the open. Courtrai:? Flemms behind
swamps and stake pits , Bannockburn: uncoordinated Knights vs spearmen, agincourt?? Foot engagement only (and by game definition hw vs hw after the arrow barrage). I won’t go thru the rest. This wiki is about the supposed reinvention of heavy infantry following courtrai, not about pole arms or fog 2 poa’s. . Also the idea that most of these armies were simple militia armies as the article posits, is nonsense.

Anyways my previous posts are that in game terms , viewed for the relevant era, hw do very well and don’t need a boost. In past threads I have occasionally advocated splitting hws into two classes: short(rhombus, axes etc) vs long( halberds, bills) , but in the end I always struggle with how they would work and be different enough to make any changes worthwhile, but not turn one into an infantry killer and one into a Cavalry killer, which would be ahistorical.

[jomni]

As mentioned before, based on experience, heavy weapon-armed Chinese infantry can chop down cataphracts at its current state (armour advantage cancelling) in the Silk Road mod. Seems to be working as designed from a top down perspective.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I have to second that Courtrai really doesn't make the case for heavy weapons, as the Flemings also were armed with spears and crossbows, but more importantly, it made the case for "don't charge your cavalry through a ******* swamp." And yes, the whole idea that a Europe had a scientific professional military culture "copy or adapt" the Flemish tactics at Courtrai are... unproven at best, I would say. Not to mention that the Flemings were repeatedly defeated later by French armies so... I wouldn't call that a relevant example.

As for the other battles.... Bannockburn, a narrow frontage, cavalry against tightly packed infantry with no room to retreat if things go wrong. Crecy, disorganized, piecemeal frontal attacks against prepared positions. Frontal attacks against prepared positions again at Aljubarrota. Sempach was fought entirely on foot, and the information around it seems kind of sketchy. Agincourt was also fought almost entirely on foot, and the narrow battlefield and mud were certainly greater factors than polearms, with the influence of the longbow itself on the battle still debated. Grandson was decided by the unexpected speed and aggression of the Swiss advance.

I think the tendency to look at military affairs technologically is a result of how important weapons technology is in our own times. I'm reminded of the various threads about the effectiveness of javelins vs bows vs slings, and the kinetic energy behind each etc... but to the ancients, such troops were often simply classified as "light armed" and their function was reflected in that, and not their weaponry. And even in modern times, look at the fetishization of German armor in 1940, when the allies in fact had arguably more and better tanks, but worse doctrine.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that I think heavy weapons are fine. The only awkward point for me would be later on, in say, the late 15th century. It would seem odd to me if a plate armored unit of men with Pole Axes had no advantage over a plate armored unit of Swordsmen, because both had the same level of armor.

[Rodia]

Just to clarify, I quoted the Courtrai Wikipedia article as an answer to the last paragraph of TheGrayMouser, and only because I remembered this old question in History Stack Exchange: Were there any battles in Continental Europe that were decided by “peasants with pitchforks?”

Far from my intention to enter your heavy weapons debate, as rules discussion are not for me.