dunkleosteus
Roman Pleb
Maybe a controversial topic, but I think swords (and swordsmen) are a bad unit that shouldn't exist. They fabricate a historical context and while they existed, had little military use. You may have many objections forming already and while I'm going to adress the few exceptions, I invite you to read this post first.
Swords are a sidearm or back-up weapon. They are versatile and have a high skill cap but simultaneously, a limited reach and a sharper learning curve. The bottom line: organized, formal militaries almost NEVER employed the sword as the primary weapon of their infantry. Exceptions to this rule? Of course: Roman Legions, but those are a unique unit anyway and by all accounts, were largely alone.
The bottom line is that swords are more expensive and less useful in a battle. In one on one combat, they're useful for dueling and they are easier to carry than a spear, but they are NOT better.
The whole idea of an entire class of units that used a sword as their primary weapon is ridiculous, and the idea that this class would have a combat BONUS against spears is equally crazy or more-so. Roman legions are again the exception, not the rule. Swords were always second fiddle to the spear in infantry.
In reflection of this, spearmen should be the ancient era infantry unit unlocked with bronze working. With iron working, Rome may unlock legions and all military units can get a +x combat bonus. Simply imply that iron tools improve the strength of the same weapon rather than making a new one (regardless of the fact that swords and spears can both be made of bronze or iron). In the medieval era, spearmen upgrade to pikemen. With gunpowder, they go to musketmen. In the industrial era, we need our old Riflemen (essentially equal in standing to the position that redcoats have), followed by infantry of some sort in the modern era and later mobile infantry.
It's also important to forget this silly "anti-cavalry" idea that we have about spears in Civ. They are not an anti-cavalry unit, they are an anti-life unit. They stab and poke anything that can bleed, regardless of whether it's a horse or foot soldier. A properly trained cavalry unit would never get in poking range of a spear or a sword, so a few feet of extra reach is only relevant when you can eliminate the maneuverability bonus that cavalry have.
Cavalry in general should reflect this. You can charge down an infantry line to try to break their formation. If the line breaks, you can chase down the scattering soldiers and cut them down. If the line holds, you peel off and come back around for another charge. You don't RUN YOUR HORSE INTO A WALL OF SPEARS.
We need to let go of our attachment to a unit that is made up and has no global historical context.
[Note: swords WERE used by elite military units, such as knights and some samurai, as well as many other mounted units and sometimes as a side weapon by spear-wielding units. They were also a popular civilian defence weapon because they are relatively easy to take with you whereever you go. The oft-compared modern counterpart in the link above is that the sword is a hand gun while a spear is a rifle. Handguns and pistols can be used as a back up weapon or a dueling weapon and often were- think pirates, classically depicted cowboys, many modern police officers, and civilian personal weapons. But if you are in an actual war, there is no doubt that you'd rather carry a rifle than a pistol.]
Swords are a sidearm or back-up weapon. They are versatile and have a high skill cap but simultaneously, a limited reach and a sharper learning curve. The bottom line: organized, formal militaries almost NEVER employed the sword as the primary weapon of their infantry. Exceptions to this rule? Of course: Roman Legions, but those are a unique unit anyway and by all accounts, were largely alone.
The bottom line is that swords are more expensive and less useful in a battle. In one on one combat, they're useful for dueling and they are easier to carry than a spear, but they are NOT better.
The whole idea of an entire class of units that used a sword as their primary weapon is ridiculous, and the idea that this class would have a combat BONUS against spears is equally crazy or more-so. Roman legions are again the exception, not the rule. Swords were always second fiddle to the spear in infantry.
In reflection of this, spearmen should be the ancient era infantry unit unlocked with bronze working. With iron working, Rome may unlock legions and all military units can get a +x combat bonus. Simply imply that iron tools improve the strength of the same weapon rather than making a new one (regardless of the fact that swords and spears can both be made of bronze or iron). In the medieval era, spearmen upgrade to pikemen. With gunpowder, they go to musketmen. In the industrial era, we need our old Riflemen (essentially equal in standing to the position that redcoats have), followed by infantry of some sort in the modern era and later mobile infantry.
It's also important to forget this silly "anti-cavalry" idea that we have about spears in Civ. They are not an anti-cavalry unit, they are an anti-life unit. They stab and poke anything that can bleed, regardless of whether it's a horse or foot soldier. A properly trained cavalry unit would never get in poking range of a spear or a sword, so a few feet of extra reach is only relevant when you can eliminate the maneuverability bonus that cavalry have.
Cavalry in general should reflect this. You can charge down an infantry line to try to break their formation. If the line breaks, you can chase down the scattering soldiers and cut them down. If the line holds, you peel off and come back around for another charge. You don't RUN YOUR HORSE INTO A WALL OF SPEARS.
We need to let go of our attachment to a unit that is made up and has no global historical context.
[Note: swords WERE used by elite military units, such as knights and some samurai, as well as many other mounted units and sometimes as a side weapon by spear-wielding units. They were also a popular civilian defence weapon because they are relatively easy to take with you whereever you go. The oft-compared modern counterpart in the link above is that the sword is a hand gun while a spear is a rifle. Handguns and pistols can be used as a back up weapon or a dueling weapon and often were- think pirates, classically depicted cowboys, many modern police officers, and civilian personal weapons. But if you are in an actual war, there is no doubt that you'd rather carry a rifle than a pistol.]
Last edited:
