History says otherwise though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Wars
Here we have several well documented examples spanning multiple wars involving battle hardened and professionally trained Macedonian, Greek and Seleucid spearmen + hoplites being slaughtered by Roman swordsmen. Probably the best example you can find of trained soldiers using spears vs swords considering the majority of European medieval armies were mainly filled with poorly trained peasant levies.
i fail to see how this applies to crpg because afaik ancient roman battles utilized tactics and infantry formations which are wholly different than the mindless play of na1
I've watched that video and it was pretty laughably biased in favor of the spear. Literally did like 20 matches of 1h no shield vs spear (where spear has MASSIVE advantage) but then when they swap to shield vs spear and they sweep every match they only do like 6 or 7 matches before quickly swapping. They just let spears run up the score when they have the advantage and change it so when they dont. In the group fights, why were the swords all 2h and not 1h and shield? Wonder how that fight would have went.
It was also really obvious none of them had ever really fought with shields before either. All in all, a shit video.
Also, polearms is already arguably the best class in cRPG so dont see why they need a buff. I just recently swapped from 2h to pole and holy fuck its so easy to rack up kills
well the funniest thing about HEMA "hit" counting is any tip/edge contact with the opponent being a point. like even if you're only wearing a medium gambeson, 75% of the hits that would "count" in HEMA would MAYBE leave a scratch in a medieval fight. A lot of the fights in that video show the spear guy making such weak contact with legs and shoulders
i mean the idea is to be sporting, not actually kill the other guy
if you use the context of unarmed fighting especially as it relates to hema, spear has the advantage because of reach in a duel. even the addition of a shield doesn't diminish the fact that reach is a massive advantage. in the opposite context, armored fighting, the higher you go up on the degrees of armor scale, both swords and spear begin to lose viability because armor is really helpful. swords aren't going to cut through gambesons and weak points in armor are generally exploited by sharp pointy thrusting weapons, and in the realms of sharp pointy thrusting weapons, spears still have this fantastic reach advantage.
as to why in the groupfight people had different weapons: people use what they want just like in crpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae_(191_BC)
Even under the very best conditions, in the same mountain pass that the Spartans fought the Persians hundreds of years before the Greeks were severely defeated in a frontal assault in the narrow gap by Roman swordsmen charging their Sarissas and Phalanxes head on.
The spear is a reliable weapon still no doubt, but it's effectiveness even against cavalry is greatly exaggerated, example even where you can brace your spear, the impact of the horse is going to break your arm and then you will be trampled or crushed to death if you stand fast in formation. Even if you do manage to stop the first horse you will be severely wounded or crushed, and then there are 5-10 more horses following after that, in other words you are screwed either way. Cavalry were able to roll through formations of spearmen with relative ease up until professional pikemen could be employed, even then they had severe trouble handling cavalry because of the various angles and timings of cavalry attacks.
speaking out of my ass here, but i'd argue that one of the things cavalry wants to do is keep moving when in combat. if you get stopped, you get swarmed by enemy infantry if they haven't routed. out of all of the weapons that can potentially fight cavalry, i'd argue that spears and other longer pointier things are generally the go to as compared to swords. it makes sense considering for millennia, people have used spears and pikes and formations to fight cavalry. if these weapons and formations were ineffective, then why didn't the practice die out early instead of subsisting for so long?
i think one of the reasons spears are so "unrealistic" as to their historical counterpart is the animations. i don't think anyone in their right mind would wield a spear in the demeanor as shown in warband. there's tons of wasted shaft that could be used for more reach.
Yup, pretty dopey to believe that bracing a long spear's end in the ground will break your arm on horse impact. A horse will naturally shy away from an obstacle. A hedgehog of spears would be insurmountable to cavalry UNLESS they could attack the formation in the flanks or rear. The square solved that.
i agree that charging a spearwall isn't ideal whatsoever, but trained warhorses might not be as averse to obstacles as you presume THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
