Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Zen staff, anyone? ;)
Be careful - they aren't based on China! :P

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Prrecisely! Short axes and similar weapons, too. Only I seem to remember that Austrians used spiked maces, not flails.
By the way, the only good description of fight in Prof. Tolkien comes from exactly this experience - and in that fight spear gets used exactly once - as a thrown weapon.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Something like this, probably. I would say that they should have more Defence than attack - they are quite usable to parry enemy strikes and especially thrusts. Actually, Chinese sometimes used tridents specifically against spear-armed enemy infantry.
Also, I'd say that spears should have higher damage overall... Plus probably higher Defence. ;) It's quite easy to fight with one against sword and damn difficult other way around!
As for pikes vs longspears question, I'd say that pikes are used two-handed. Though I would prefer to give them lower base damage and charge bonus as they were quite often used offensively... But that's just me and there was another discussion on this. ;)

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

You're right, Wrana. A trident could probably do with a +1 to defense, as well as attack. I was thinking of their 1-handed use, where they might be a bit unwieldy to defend with, but I forgot the game makes them be used 2-handed, so in that case, they definitely should get a defense bonus.

It's too bad there's no mechanics set up to allow units to switch between 1 and 2 handedness for certain weapons in the game. Although I suppose it could be modded in as a shapechange, in certain (non forged item) cases.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Tridents should do more damage than spears because tridents are wielded with two hands, not one.

* * *

Partisans were not really battlefield weapons after pike warfare became obsolete. A very similar weapon called a 'spontoon' was on battlefields until the 19th century. However, whilst it would be used as a weapon where necessary, that was not it's main function. Some were given to troops guarding the regimental colours, and were ceremonial more than anything else. Sergeants had them as their symbol of rank (like officers had swords), and used them as a signalling system to give instructions to troops.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Agema: Tridents aren't difficult to weild in one hand. Easy enough to catch fish with them, anyway, or even throw them over short distances. And gladiators typically used them with nets. It's just a game convention, not something that's true in real life.

The big
polearms that evolved from them would be 2 handed weapons, but not the trident itself, which would often be shorter than a spear, and could be used either 1 or 2 handed.

You're right about them being mostly ceremonial, but that's a bit beside the point, which is their extraordinary longevity in the face of obsolescence. They were officers' weapons (master sergeants' weapons, anyway, approximately, or whatever the equivalent rank would have been), and were certainly still used *as* weapons, when the necessity arose--they examples I've seen, the ones that actually saw combat, weren't blunted or faked. And I suspect there was a good reason such weapons were chosen as "symbols", that had atleast something to do with them being useful in a pinch.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

If you want to make a 1-handed Dom3 trident, mod yourself one. I'm just saying they're 2-handed as exist in game, and deserve stats to reflect that.

You mean, an extraordinary longevity based on the fact such polearms were no longer primarily used as weapons. A Napoleonic soldier could bash in the head of an enemy with a large rock he picked up, and you could equally enthuse about the extraordinary longevity of large rocks in the face of obsolescence.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Large rocks have an extraordinary longevity as weapons, as a matter of fact. And I'd question whether they are obsolete; they fill a niche spot, but are extremely effective and cost-efficient in it.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Rifles can be surprisingly well balanced when it comes to bayonets. Then newer M4 carbines aren't that great, especially when you throw on combat optics, laser sights, flashlights, etc., much less a grenade launcher (M203). But even the now-venerable M16 can have a good combination of blunt and edged attacks, and can be surprisingly nimble.

The problem in trenches in terms of hand-to-hand combat is definitely one of lack of space. I, too, think the Agarthans' use of short swords makes a lot of sense thematically.

Re: Units with stupid weapon choices
 

Rocks also have a good combination of blunt and edged attacks, are surprisingly nimble, and can be used in tight places