The recent thread comparing adjectiveless Spear and Long Spear caused me to have another brain gremlin episode, this time comparing Polearm with Spear.
I did some very basic modeling which, uh... got a bit out of hand...


I compared the performance of Spear and PA against (gods help me) seven different targets to get a feel for things.

To give the Polearm the best chance to use its advantages, I compared the two troop types' performance against Charging Lancer + Melee Expert (a pretty dang common cavalry type), Superior CL+ME (representing Xystrophori, a few Tang-period guard units, and roughly approximating a average-quality medieval knight-- Farm CL+DC+ME). I also compared them to a different cavalry type which both weapons would have faced in-period which wasn't specifically tailored to advantage PA-- in this case cataphracts.

I also ran comparisons against infantry targets with Short Spear (standing in for any number of generic shortspear dudes), Melee Expert (such as sword-and-buckler-men or Indian bladesmen), and finally Short Spear + Melee Expert (standing in for gods-know-how-many line troops). Finally, I ran them against eachother, just cuz.

One point that may cause some confusion: I ran the matchups vs. cavalry targets assuming six-stand TUGs, but when I later decided to run the other infantry matches, I assumed eight-stand TUGs. Hopefully this doesn't muddy things too much; I just didn't feel like re-running the cav math to bump up the UG sizes to match. Sorry!

Second point: I assumed UGs were all deployed two stands deep. I will note when a matchup includes adding a supporting file, but I did not model the uncommon occasion where adding a second supporting file against a 4-stand-wide target is viable.
Third point: I stopped modeling after the second melee phase, as it was very clear who the winner in round three would be in all cases.

Finally: PLEASE CHECK MY WORK! I did all this number-crunching in a Google Sheets doc (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1je2aUIIN_SaI6DGGoY_yLA2mCgHl1bL_sNsJT0pCT0Q/edit?usp=sharing) so that people don't just have to take my word for these numbers.
(... also because I did a lot of this on my phone and might have missed a slip-up during my proof-readings.)


Preamble out of the way, the results I came up with were:



Vs. Xystrophori (Superior Protected CL + ME; 6v6)
Polearm breaks on second charge, inflicting 5 wounds in the process
Dory breaks on second charge, inflicting 3 2/3 wounds in the process

Vs. Medium Lancer (Average Protected CL + ME; 6v6)
Polearm survives with 5 1/3 wounds received, inflicting 6 wounds in the process (Lancers did not disengage for a second charge, instead staying in melee)
Dory breaks on second charge, inflicting 5 1/3 wounds in the process.

{The two above encounters model the best-case scenario for PA, with opponents specifically selected to advantage PA over Dory}

Vs. Cataphracts (Average, FArm/ArmH, LSp + DC + Shove; 6v6)
Polearm breaks in second charge, inflicting 3 1/3 wounds in the process
Dory breaks on second charge, inflicting 5.222 wounds in the process (the weird decimal arose from running odds of a depleted Cataphract file w/o DC claims contacting a depleted Sp file with no anti-cav claims)


Vs. Short Spear Bloke (Average Protected SSp; 8v8)
Polearm survives with 7 wounds received, inflicting 8 wounds in the process (Ssp added one supporting file)
Dory breaks Shortspear, receiving 4 1/3 wounds in the process (Ssp added one supporting file; Dory expanded to match)

Vs. Bladesman (Average Protected Melee Expert; 8v8)
Polearm survives with 7 1/3 wounds received, inflicting 7 1/3 wounds in the process (Bladesmen added one supporting file)
Dory survives with 8 wounds received, inflicting 7 1/3 wounds in the process (Bladesmen added one supporting file)

Vs. Line Infantry (Average Protected SSp + Melee Expert; 8v8)
Polearm "survives" with 8 2/3 wounds received, inflicting 7 wounds in the process (Line Infantry added one supporting file)
Dory breaks in second melee (9 1/3 wounds received), inflicing 7 wounds in the process (Line Infantry added one supporting file)

{The two combats against Bladesmen and Ssp+ME were meant as nightmare scenarios for Dory... but PA only out-survived them by fractions of a wound}

GRUDGE MATCH (Average Protected PA vs Average Protected Sp; 8v8)
Polearm "survives" with 8 2/3 wounds received, inflicting 7 wounds in the process (Yes, this is just the same matchup as PA vs. SSp+ME; not sure why I bothered modeling it separately /facepalm/ )



So... TL;DR:
I think these examples made a good case that however many points the new Spear weapon costs, Polearm needs to cost less.
PA has an advantage against CL specifically, but but against everything else, it performs comparably or blanket worse than Spear. (Even in the nightmare match of fighting SSp+ME, there was less than one wound of difference between the beating Dory sustained and the pummeling PA took.)



I hope this is useful! Please let me know if there are any goofs I missed, or any critical information I missed!

The modelling doesn't reflect the test gaming that I have done.  I think because with spear the not downgrading the supporting file can make such a significant difference. It is not only the combat claims but also how you can position your UGs.  If everything was simply equal units and in a straight line then your modelling would be more valid.

At impact, spear is better against Cv, Cm, Ch - except against CL or SS (whose claims are cancelled by PA standing to receive).  About 70% of cavalry have SS or CL.

In melee, Sp needs 2 ranks vs Cv, Cm, Ch - PA only needs 1 rank.  PA needs 2 ranks vs foot, spear needs 1 rank except against foot ME where it needs 2.

Supports fighting PA downgrade.  Supports fighting Sp don't. 

Clearly competitions this year will show, but I don't expect PA to suddenly vanish or do particularly badly. 

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 29, 2025, 07:23:37 AMAt impact, spear is better against Cv, Cm, Ch - except against CL or SS (whose claims are cancelled by PA standing to receive).  About 70% of cavalry have SS or CL.

Possibly misleading to say "spear are better except ..." when the exception case applies 70% of the time.

What we really need is:

Vs CL spear are worse than polearm.   X%
Vs SS spear are equal to polearm.    (70-X)%
Vs other  Cv, Cm, and Ch,  Sp are better than polearm.  30%

And we need to know what X is.


FWIW I suspect a lot of SS cavalry will have a missile weapon and skirmish, rather than charge an intact unit, so how much do those %s really matter?


If I was modelling this, I would put 8 spear and polearm on a frontage of 3 in cases where they need to be in 2 ranks to get a plus and probably ignore external supporting files.

Am I right in thinking pikes now have their own claims instead of being "Long Spear (or spear) with +1 for extra ranks" ?

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 29, 2025, 07:23:37 AMIt is not only the combat claims but also how you can position your UGs.  If everything was simply equal units and in a straight line then your modelling would be more valid.

In broad strokes I agree, but understanding what a UG is capable of when push come to shove has at least some bearing of how effective (read: how many points a game charges for it) a UG is, right?
If Short Spear and Melee Expert cost the same number of points on infantry, yes, that is something you could mitigate by outplaying your opponent, but I think we could also agree that would be bad points balance?

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 29, 2025, 07:23:37 AMThe modelling doesn't reflect the test gaming that I have done.  I think because with spear the not downgrading the supporting file can make such a significant difference.

I did model the Dory being vulnerable to supporting files, and in my models, all of the infantry targets added a supporting file against them to exploit that weakness.
I did not have the cavalry add supporting files, as the command card to do so was better used to break off for a second charge in all cases except for the average lancers fighting PA, where it would have backfired by giving PA an extra green-green matchup if the PA expanded to meet them. (plus conditions on the table can often make a break-off and re-charge more challenging for a TUG which is wider than its target.)

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 29, 2025, 07:23:37 AMAt impact, spear is better against Cv, Cm, Ch - except against CL or SS (whose claims are cancelled by PA standing to receive).  About 70% of cavalry have SS or CL.

Actually, PA and Spear are identical against mounted Short Spear at impact: both foot weapons are net +1 claim against them.
This is part of why I didn't bother modeling matches against SSp cav; Spear is simply better against these guys than PA because of their identical charge performance and superior melee claims, even moreso if the the SSp cav is Melee Expert.
(Also because virtually every SSp cav unit contemporary to Spear is missile-focused, so would be able to refuse combat.)

That said, I've already been surprised by how some of these matchups performed (the melee expert combats particularly surprised me with how slim PA's advantage was, considering Spear's vulnerability to supporting files), so I'm happy to run another set of models to back up (or refute!) my assertion about the Shortspear cav interaction if that would be helpful.

Quote from: LawrenceG on September 29, 2025, 12:19:49 PMPossibly misleading to say "spear are better except ..." when the exception case applies 70% of the time.

Again, Spear is identical to PA in the charge phase against SSp cav, and looks to be better in the melee unless the short spear gets an additional charge claim from somewhere. It's only a CL where the Polearm is at an advantage.

Now, if someone else feels like auditing the percentages of cav armed with lances/short spears/other in lists which fought against {deep breath} Hoplites or Thureophori, as well as lists which fought against the Spring & Autumn Chinese, Qin/Warring States Chinese, Han Dynasty, Three Kingdoms Chinese, Song Dynasty, Yuan Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Vietnamese in any period, Korean post Silla, England/France from late Hundred Years' War onward, {gasp} Eastern Europe from the Hussite revolt forward, Eastern Mediterranean from ~1200 forward, and whoever I missed...
... Be my guest. XP
(I'm not doing it, though; sounds like a huge pain, TBH. )

Quote from: LawrenceG on September 29, 2025, 12:19:49 PMIf I was modelling this, I would put 8 spear and polearm on a frontage of 3 in cases where they need to be in 2 ranks to get a plus and probably ignore external supporting files.

This is how I've always run my LSp and PA, but the fact that these units previously were available in 6s and 8s, but not 9s indicated to me that the design intention of these UGs was to be deployed 2 ranks deep.

If further modeling is requested, sure, I'll add that to my queue if I have time. (Big if, I'm afraid; apologies in advance if I don't get to it.)
(Though I suspect the U-shaped may backfire for Dory vs ME foot. I might model that just for my own edification if I pick up a Hoplite army at some point)

It's disappointing that the devs were proposing such a change without doing the math, and doubly disappointing that they are hand-waving the data when somebody else does it, let alone thanking the guy for doing the work. The response that the numbers don't matter if you outplayed your opponent is true, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Apologies, I did not wish to sound disrespectful.

Putting together the changes is quite stressful and that my responses may come out stronger than I wish.  I would also point out that we do a lot of modelling.  At no point have I given a response that the numbers don't matter if you outplayed your opponent.

We will monitor the performance of polearm armies in the coming year and see whether a points adjustment is justified.

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 29, 2025, 07:23:37 AMThe modelling doesn't reflect the test gaming that I have done.  I think because with spear the not downgrading the supporting file can make such a significant difference. It is not only the combat claims but also how you can position your UGs.  If everything was simply equal units and in a straight line then your modelling would be more valid.

This is the portion

I was talking about when I spoke of outplaying your opponent. I am delighted to hear that I misunderstood.