What games properly let me utilize spears?

but you'll be full of holes once you're close enough to use your fancy sword

But what if you aren't a fan of the ballet?

:^)

Pick the brandistock in chivalry and use the mousewheel down exclusively.

You do know that is unsubstantiated rumour. Right?
The reason why reason why landknecht were superior to the swiss pike formation was mostly for their willingness to use blackpowder weapons. Seeing how they mainly too wielded pikes like every other schmuck those days.

Personally i always thought tercio is the coolest of all formations.

Mount and blade Viking conquest. Spears are high tier in that.

Age of Decadence did spears pretty well but I dunno if it's the kind of game you're looking for.

Not with mods that allow for proper spear formation and especially spear bracing to destroy cavalry charges.

not if you're on a horse! seriously get a spear and just ram into everyone.

nigger how do you make a phalanx on a horse
i specifically want infantry, hence why spears don't always work in mount and blade

Oh? I though it was because the codpieces distracted the pikemen and their spear lust.

Personally I don't see the point in putting a musketeer in front of a pikeman, but I'm sure they had their reasons.

...

Spears arent trees you fucking retard.

Why though?

that would only hinder the horsemen's movement. There is a reason why the wedge formation was a thing.

maybe he needs a less retarded horse then

but you can make them from wood

Why would you limit a unit that was worldwidely used for it's agility and speed by having it in a compact formation.

It's like having bomber planes fly 2m from the floor.

can you imagine how scary that would be for all involved? doesnt sound that silly

I just discovered this is apparently a thing.

Horses have been used by people other than mongolians nigger. and it's uniqueness on the ability extends far beyond being faster than foot.

...

youtu.be/dMEnBHef96c?t=149

well they could have just lowered their spears a little bit

...

This is an actual tactic though not so low and it's more relevant to helis than to aircrafts.
You use a low altitude approach and use terrain like hills and mountains and what not to mask sound, make the fuselage harder to hit and see, and generally "stealth" with the heli. It's mostly used in ambushes though.

why does garrus think hes a bag of bread?

correction, it's more relevant to helicopters than airplanes.

...

amazing

Good job you retarded nigger

alright, pointy sticks then

Polearms.

WE

TRUM TRUM TERUM TUM TUM
DIE LANDSKNECHT ZIEHEN IM LAND HERUM

Are you terminally retarded?

only nonwhite niggers used spears kiddo, its a nigger nonwhite weapon

Dragon's Dogma

you cant hug your children with pole arms

Just back the fuck up. That speargear weighs a fuckton, and does nothing if the enemy is not literally trying to die by charging that phalanx. I would love to see how that formation is turned 90-degrees if flanked.
That is a really nice pic though. Thanks user.

sounds like a 3 stooges situation waiting to happen

You tend to have other phalanxes next to you, and highly mobile mounted forces on the side.

...

oh and the pike is is double pointed so theoretically you could just reverse the formation, I dont know if that happened tho.

Whites also used spears until high quality armor entered the battlefields of Europe. The spear is an excellent weapon for fighting lightly armored opponents.

In fact, if you're fighting an unarmored duel there are very few weapons that the spear doesn't have advantage against. Maybe pike, maybe bill. Every type of sword will absolutely get destroyed.

Yeah, but that phalanx has to end somewhere. If not, why would the enemy fight there? They would just fall back and find a better place to fight.

In the old bad times, horde of people with long sticks, could overrun a small army by just pushing them back and killing the ones that fell down on the way. That is why bowmen with good arrows where so important - to not get those longstick bastards get close while holding a good formation.

well, isnt the point to be impenetrable while the ballistas and archers did the work?
im no history buff but i thought romans had a huge hardon for ballistas

Romans killed phalanxes by running up to the phalanx, throwing javelins and running away ad infinitum.

I agree completely that mobile forces on the sides is and was the key. Big scouting partys had sometimes more effect on the battle than the actual main army. Most cases bloodbath was avoided by some diplomatic agreement, that was to hide the fact that the armies were too evenly matched, and none of the generals had come up with a reliable plan to crush the enemy with acceptable losses. Lucky day for those peasants.

sounds infuriating

That's not true at all. Skirmisher lines before phalanxes get into contact predated Rome and Rome herself used Phalanxes against other Nation states with great success in the flat plains. It was only when they went north where it was mountainous where phalanxes wouldn't work since they kept getting broken up by uneven terrains that they developed the maniples and shifted their tactics to semi autonomous 100 man units that were flexible enough to fight independently or form a faux-phalanx if need be.

Cramming people into a tight line (tight means ~1 arm apart from each combatant, not shield to shield like a viking shield wall) with multiple rows deep and marching them to overrun another tight line of men while skirmishers do their best to create pockets in the lines for their infantry/cav to take advantage of has always been the golden standard until the development of early firearms. The innovations the Roman army did was essentially introduce small unit tactics to their troops that also have components to add up into legion wide tactics if they needed to commit that many men.

Well pre Macedonian phalanx's used shorter spears and little to no cavalry, however in the battle of marathon they simply charged fast enough overwhelm the persians before their archers could set up properly.

Once the Macedonian phalanx was used the main purpose was to hold the enemy while the heavy companion cavalry flanked. Basically forcing the opposing army to fall back or die on the spears.

As the Macedonian phalanx became the standard people started making the spears longer and longer so they would have an advantage (Alexanders forces used 5m spears while later phryus used 7.5m).

The spears directed into the air were supposed to assist in deflecting arrows and each soldier had a shield and robust helmet.

Roman tactics were either to retreat and break up the phalanx via the terrain or to use Greek mercenaries in a phalanx in the center of the formation and then swing the roman sword based infantry around to flank.

Pic related from the third Macedonian war

Well, the only head-on takes against the phalanx armies was when they were fighting on even terrain.

uneven*
fuck

Pilums, those short throwing spears with tiny metal wedge on the tip. I wonder who invented that, because that guy is a the cheapest arms developer in history. Those metal pointed sticks where so cost effective that it broke the whole warfaregame.

The hedge of pikes would help to deflect arrows coming in, combined with a decent bit of armor made it to where the Pikemen could make it to the enemy in good order most of the time.

Fuckin βάρβαρος only beat muh phalanx when they would get excited and break formation, or in shit ground that would disrupt the formation.
t. Pyrrhus
Also at the time many of the Hellenistic states were undergoing a lightening of equipment due to the celtic invasions (these guys are often labeled as "imitation legionaries", though the idea wasn't solely inspired by the Legion see. Thorakitai & Thureophoroi)

Well the tactic of Rome fucking up a phalanx by luring them to uneven ground came after they changed to the maniples precisely because they themselves experienced the weaknesses of the Phalanx when waging war in the Northern Italian highlands. Before that, Rome was no stranger to phalanx vs phalanx warfare, and they were pretty good at it too.

It's pretty much the classical era equivalent of a mass produced IED.

This sounds like the shit I remember reading. Most old weapons and tactics were developed sometimes to a very specific circumstance. And most of the tactical shit was done on the sides and behind the actual battle.
I remember reading that roman phalanx was trained for mobility and adaptability. Taking terrain and situation advantages if possible, mostly by themselves without a specific order. So that classic rigorous Roman formation could break at any point to smaller cells that work to a common goal.

Pic. not related to anything.

are phalanxes the worlds first combining super robot in recorded history?

Why are you guys so hung up on phalanxes? The Romans proved definitively how astonishingly flawed the entire concept is, at Cynoscephalae and Pydna, to such an extend the phalanx model of warfare never came back into fashion.

Latter european pike formations where nothing like a phalanx in any way other than using long spears. Claiming they are the same is akin to saying Samurai and european knights fought in the same way.
One formation is intended as the primary offensive force of its army, ploughing through anything the enemy could throw at it. It relied on heavy shields and at least some armour on most people in it to keep them alive.
The other is a defensive formation made up of whatever fools where dumb enough to sign up, sitting around with long sticks to get in the way of enemy cavalry while troops with expensive firearms, bows that took decades to fully master or crossbows, shot at the enemy from the cover the pikes provided. Armor was limited to nonexistant outside elite formations, training could be done in weeks for a militia and noone had shields unless they where some spanish maniac armed with a sword.

TL:DR Phalanx =/= Pike
One is an idiotic idea that only works against complete morons, like persian sand niggers, the other is a static defence that requires a minimum of training and expensive equipment to do job, which is just standing in the way of enemy cavalry.

Don't you fucking get me started on why the Pillum was shit. It had next to no killing ability, would most likely hit nothing but ground, was big and heavy enough that troops couldn't carry many of them around and even if you hit an opponent with the stick you had to log around everywhere, it would at best mildly inconvenience the bloody cunt. Roman infantry was deadly because they had good weapons, actually wore armor unlike most of their enemies) and where properly trained to fight as a disciplined unit lead by an experienced veteran. All that shit is far more important than whether or not your opponent has a pilum stuck in his spear, which only a few of them would have anyway.

No. That would be the first war chariots, perfect combination of man, horse and mechanics. And stupid and useless also, so yes.

Dubs.
Loadsa long pointy sticks never got out of fashion for a reason. They work and are extremely cheap. Roman phalanxes (phalanxie) are just overhyped by the historical value and popmedia status.

Pillum was good for it's value. If only 1/10 wounded an enemy, it was well worth it. If only 1/30 killed an enemy, worth it. But I think it was just a way to get some "first strike" initiative in battle.

But your point stands, Romans where trained and lead by veterans. No pointy stick can do better. Though pointy sticks help.

Gotcha covered fam

But your wrong, the Romans used the phalanx long after those battles in the form of their most elite forces on the battlefield the triarii.

Your game can't make a forest of spears.

Have you seen her bush?

Its Britney bitch!

...

Except they where rarely deployed in one long line, they fought from the back of the army, not the from row and mostly just hung back and let the rest of the army, mostly armed with swords, get on with the real work of killing the enemy.
The strength of the roman army was that each group of troops fought on their own, allowing groups to move independently of eachother within the classic roman checkerboard formation, allowing them to more easily react and adapt to a changing battlefield than any phalanx could ever hope to.
The weakness of the phalanx is that all your troops must be deployed in one long unbroken line, and if the enemy gets around your flanks, you're fucked. If the enemy uses terrain to break up your formation, you're fucked. If the enemy uses field fortifications to make defensible positions, you're fucked. If enemy troops ambush your army and attack while you are out of formation, you're fucked. If the enemy has decent artillery, you're fucked.
See the pattern? Unless your phalanx is properly deployed and fighting enemies too stupid to attack with anything by a headon rush at them, with no support, tricks or nasty surprises planned, your phalanx is fucked. The romans beat the greeks because roman formations could move and adapt as the situation on the battlefield changed. A roman cohort could fight in any direction at a moments notice, but a phalanx can only ever go forward.

is it even possible to play mountain blade without becoming a horsedude?

I remember the good old times where we would use a phalanx formation to protect us from enemy aircraft. Those damned greeks and their flying saucers

its called mount and blade because you mount and blade.

Any game with Isengard in it.

Yeah, you just need to be really good at ground combat. Rhodok-mode is the easiest way.

It's fairly easy to sidestep out of danger unless you're absolutely surrounded.

I always hated how the Red Eyed Knight just fucked your shit up with his spear in Demon's Souls. Like, Jesus Christ, that damage.

WEW

we already covered this, the flank is supposed to be surrounded by cavalry
what you'd want to do is force the phalanx onto uneven terrain, where they'd have to break up a bit
alternatively, you'd have to somehow sneak by the cavalry and go behind them, as far as i remember that's how the battle of Cynoscephalae was won, since the greek forces couldn't organize on time and their flanks weren't defended, a group of roman troops walked around them and attacked them from behind
now if the greeks had enough time to organize the phalanx, their flank would have been guarded

Wew indeed. Honestly fielding an army of blind/deaf anti-social soldiers was a weird choice. Why weren't they as smart and tactical as me?

Oh man war is so easy I don't understand how anyone dies.

You DO know that ancient greek cavalry was pretty fucking shit, right? It wasn't until Alexander the Great started using combined arms tactics, where the phalanx was only part of a greater whole the greeks actually started conquering anything.
At Cynoscephalae for example, the greek cavalry was kind of shit, as greek cavalry where, and could never have hoped to fend off legionnaires, even if said legionaries had attacked on the side of the army the cavalry was supposed to attack. The legionaries how ever attacks philips phalanxs from the side where the other half of his phalanx was supposed to be, after having routed them off the field, which is why there weren't cavalry to defend that flank. If Philip had been using cohorts this setback wouldn't have been as catastrophic since he could just have broken off troops from the rear and side of his formation to meet this flanking force. But he had a phalanx, so he was fucked.

Its like you've never heard how real battles where fought. When there's thousands of dudes, running around trying to murder thousands of other dudes, in a place where you can't see everything going on at once from a birds eye view, spotting a group of enemies coming around your side to surprise buttsex you and your mates from behind is easier said than done. Especially if the army is commanded by some dude in the front row, like the greeks where fond of doing it.
Go read up on some of Hanibal the Greats battles if you want some classic examples of how to flank enemy troops on flat open terrain by simply being sneaky. The idea of trying to do something besides blindly rushing at the enemy is kind of fundamental to all kinds of warfare.

Because this post is written badly and there might be people reading this thread to learn, let me be clear: Alexander the Great wasn't Greek. The Greeks are boy-molesting fruits whose greatest inventions all turned out to be suicide pacts. Alexander was Macedonian.

Its like you've never heard how real battles where fought.

who said i was limited to greeks?
i'm talking about phalanxes and cavalry in general

this
even niggers knew they needed reserves in case something got fucked up

Spear-loli in Vindictus is fun.

...

Kind of makes you wonder why real life warfare is so full of drawing enemies into ambushes and traps when clearly its physically impossible to surprise anyone.
Just look at Canae. Clearly the romans knew they where being surrounded and where just going along with Hanibals plan to see what would happen.

The zulu horns are a neat idea, given the kind of organisation they where working under. It gets dudes to the right place, at the right time. It has some of the weaknesses of the phalanx in that its inflexible, due to lack of communications between the different parts of the army and the general. So the general might well not know that one of his horns ran into a counter attack and got run off the field, until after the battle. It mostly worked, since they fought dumb niggers in mudhuts who's idea of fighting wars was to stand around and shout at each other while occasionally tossing a spear at the other guys. Against such a strategic masterstroke, just running up to the other guys and stabbing them with your spears, worked surprisingly well. If they had tried that shit on a roman legion, they'd have gotten slaughtered.
The bulls horns, works, within the context of african tribal warfare where weapons, tactics and the sophistication of communications and officer training was all kind of shit. But against any remotely competent military force, even one a thousand years older, from places like Europe, the middle east or china, those horse would have gotten shot to pieces or run down by cavalry long before they could surround anything.

So we've gone from battles in general to the specific type of battle that is set up specifically to catch the enemy off guard so you can do your Gary Sue warfare?

Lol.

So now we've gone from "I can never be taken by surprise and my phalanx will always be ready and pointed at the enemy" to "tactics and strategy can lead to anyone being taken by surprise"?
Its almost like a battlefield is a big chaotic mess, where its hard to know what goes on everywhere and even harder to remain in control of even the few things you can see going on, isn't it?
And here comes the point about why the phalanx is so shit. The formation relies on the entire army moving as one wall of spears, going only ever in one direction, forward, with little to no ability to respond things like enemies coming around your flank, attacking at an uneven angle like at Leuctra, drawing your phalanx into uneven ground to break up your formation or springing an ambush on your with hidden troops. All of which are situations the phalanx has a hard time responding to, since you have to break up and reform your entire formation, if you want it to face any other direction.
Its not that ambushes and surprises beat everything else every time, its that a phalanx is a formation that is exceptionally shit at doing anything but moving straight forward over flat open terrain and any halfway intelligent enemy is ALWAYS going to have tricks up their metaphorical sleeves, because tricking, deciving and ambushing your enemy is the single most fundamentally important part of all strategic warfare. This is why Sun Tzu's the Art of War is still taught in modern military academies to all prospective officers. Remember his most famous quote?

Phalanx was so shit everyone used it, there were glaring weaknesses that everyone ignored, Sun Tzu is tactics.

The Phalanx was an invention of greek warfare that was mainly used in greece until Alexander the Great's conquests, after his death, the greek generals of his army divided the empire between them and set up their own kingdoms, each keeping the greek style. This spread the use of the phalanx formation, but little further than alexanders empire and old greek colonies, like Italy and Libya.
Then the romans came along, using Hastati and Principes to do most of their fighting with swords, as part of small units that could act on their own instead of solely relying on giant phalanx formations, they beat the greeks in nearly every war until they took over the greeks they admired so much, and the phalanx quickly fell out of favour, never to be used again.
Just because the persians where idiots does not mean the phalanx was some kind of invincible superweapon. If it was, people would have returned to using it, which noone ever did.

>>>/his/

The phalanx makes perfect sense considering what Greek armies were for the most part, citizen militias fighting in village feuds. You can't expect a militia to bring the discipline needed for anything more complicated and less safe-looking than a phalanx.

True. The context its used in, makes a phalanx make perfect sense. Its just that this context is small city states fighting each other petty grievances, rather than large scale battles and strategic warfare.

People did return to using pike formations in the Renaissance, which are the natural evolution of phalanxes.

Why did it work against the Persians? The Battle of Marathon was literally like the Shazbowl.

Nobody really knows, Persian forces let themselves get bumrushed and got routed all the way back to their ships by the Phalanx, flanking didn't happen because of favorable terrain. When you can't flank it and have no heavy infantry of your own, a Phalanx is terrifying.

You'd be more concerned with the guy shoving a spear over the musketeer's shoulder to get to you than the musketeer, even though the musketeer's the more dangerous

I got into a fist fight in a bar over someone refusing to say "use" instead of "utilize".

Mount and blade is all a nigga needs in life