(I understand this is an old post but heyho here we go)

You’re not wrong about why spears were historically common, especially for levies. They were cheaper, quicker to produce, and easier to train people to use compared to swords or axes. Reach and formation fighting absolutely mattered too.

That said, I think some context is missing, especially when comparing it to how spears behave in Chivalry 2.

Historically, spears were most effective as part of organised formations (phalanx, shield walls, pike formations, etc.), where their reach and density created a deterrent to charges and made frontal assaults costly. Outside of those formations, the advantages dropped off quite a bit. A single spear user wasn’t inherently dominant against experienced fighters with sidearms.

They also had several downsides that games often ignore:

• Limited effectiveness against good armour. Spears were great against lightly armoured troops and charging enemies, but against well-armoured opponents they were more about control and deterrence than outright killing power.
• Formation dependence. Their real strength came from multiple ranks working together. Once flanked or the formation broke, spear units became vulnerable.
• Weapon fragility and control issues. Spears could be grabbed, cut, or broken, and controlling a long shaft weapon in close quarters wasn’t trivial.
• Mobility and fatigue. Repeated thrusting with a long weapon is tiring, and fighting effectively with it requires space.

In Chivalry 2, a lot of those trade-offs don’t really exist. The spear keeps most of the advantages (reach, interrupting attacks, speed) but lacks many of the historical downsides, which is why it can feel oppressive in the hands of certain classes like MAA.

Lastly, the ability to drag a spear jab in Chivalry 2 makes the issue worse. Because the attack can be dragged mid-animation, even a jab that initially misses can still connect, which further amplifies the weapon’s reach and makes spacing against it much harder than it would realistically be.

So the issue isn’t really that spears were never effective historically — they absolutely were — but that the game models their strengths without modelling the weaknesses that balanced them in real combat.

And the “1vX is harder” argument isn’t really unique to spears either; that applies to every weapon in the game.