Same here.
In my point of view, spearmen and its derivatives should all give a boost on defence. I forgot how they are in AND, but everyplace else they're praticaly useless...
Have you ever saw those movies, where the swordmen infantry rushes torwards a wall of shielded spearmen, only to be pierced by the majority of it?
Plus a very wide used infantry for defence in the middle ages were the pikemen.
The problem with movies is that they aren't too accurate.
Of course spearmen were a good defensive unit against cavalry and lightly armoured infantry. But against trained swordsmen they are not much use.
In the antique world the highly organized macedonian style phalanx was not only outmaneuverd by the Roman legions, the legionaries just simply cut off the spear tips, and cut themselves through the wall spears like a buzzsaw...
In the (late) middle ages, pikemen were in high use, but mainly because of their cost-effectiveness ratio. Later troops (like the Landsknecht Infantery, unlike in civ) armed with heavy swords specialised in cutting down the walls of pikes...
The main purpose of spear infantery was to stop cavalry, which was a very powerful force on the battlefield. But against other meele infantery or archers spearmen just were NOT effective, especcially used defensively.
I will gladly provide sources if necessary.
In conclusion: If the overall value of mounted units increases, spearmen automatically also gain value.
Instead of making spearmen and pikemen stronger defensively (which would be historically very inaccurate) I would strongly reccomend the following changes.
Spearman:
5 strengh
+ 75% vs. mounted units - 25% vs. archers
Pikeman:
7 Strengh
+150% vs. mounted units - 25% vs. archers -10% meele units - 25% vs. gunpowder units
Technology: Military Training!!!
Heavy Pikeman:
11 Strengh
+150% vs. mounted units - 25% vs. archers - 10% meele units - 25% vs. gunpowder units
Apart from the
commando bonus it would be extremely important - for reasons of realism - to rebalance mounted units in general, especcially with considerations of terrain.
I would suggest to give all mounted units:
+20% Grassland, Desert, Plains Attack - 20% Forest, Jungle, Marshes Attack. This would be very important. Cavalry had severe limitations in unsuitable terrain and urban combat, but was very hard to beat in the right terrain... there is a reason the horse became the weapon of choice for the peoples of the vast, steppe emires, and not of the city-dwelling peoples or jungle or forest cultures...
+ 25% vs. archers (NOT longbowman or crossbowman) +25% vs light swordman - 25% city attack to represent the effect they had on battle. Formations of unfortified archers or light infantery, in the wrong terrain were simply torn apart by cavalry. This changed when ranged units became more formidable with the invention of the crossbow and/or longbow.
So Affo:
- Please make mounted units stronger/weaker - according terrain
- And consider my suggestions regarding spearmen and pikemen
these suggestions should strongly increase realism and improve the quality of the game
for Slaves is too harsh early in the game. Slaves should be used a lot when you have the Slavery-Civic, but i also think not without a penalty.
. And with Feudalism an extra +1 
. Spears were not meant to fight well against swords. The units which were used to pierce armour were polearms like Halberds.
