Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 4720739" data-attributes="member: 82106">Reach weapons DID dominate, in large infantry formations. However a 10+' long spear (pike/sarissa) is quite a bit too unwieldy to be super effective in one-on-one combat. Even in mass formations they had considerable limitations and both Roman Legionaries and Spanish Sword and Buckler infantry developed the technique of moving inside the reach of the pike to the point where would usually be at an advantage. Roman infantry thoroughly beat the Macedonian phalanx at Cynocephali as soon as the macedonians moved onto rough ground where they couldn't keep their formation perfectly dressed.Halberds fall into kind of a middle ground, which is why the Swiss liked them. They would put them in the front rank and at the corners of the square where they could fend off attackers better than a pike. The halberd, while still not generally as effective as a sword, was a good usable general weapon.Shields are indeed highly underrated in pretty much all games. From practical experience I would say if I had a choice between a suite of armor or a nice kite shield, the shield would be choice #1 every time. Possibly a really well made suite of plate armor MIGHT be slightly better, depending the weapons being used.There is a reason why the sword was the side arm of choice for 3,000 years virtually the world over. It combines decent reach with great wieldiness and could be carried easily, drawn quickly, and used in almost any situation. Most cultures which didn't use swords didn't use them for the simple reason that they were very expensive and required good technology to make. Most weapon choices were really dictated by handiness, available materials/technology, training, and availability.All of those are really the factors which limited missile weapons in reality as well. Bows require a lot of training and it isn't simple to make a good one, nor obviously are they much good if your opponent happens to be close to you. In those cases where an army, like the Mongols and Persians, were able to field a force of largely bow armed troops they were pretty close to unbeatable on an open field.Since none of those factors really applies in a fantasy game of course the games aren't going to be super realistic with respect to either weapons or armor.</blockquote>

Verification