User blog comment:MilenHD/Streltsy vs Tercio/@comment-17814994-20170522144709/@comment-4661256-20170523052217

Sorry mate, but I have to disagree. The bardiche/pischal combo, while nice, only really works as a boost for the pischal's accuracy. The bardiche is a big, heavy, two-handed weapon, so I don't agree with Your claim that a Streltsy could "easily switch" between the axe and the gun like a soldier switches weapons in Call of Duty. Your claim that "the partisan is heavy, needs two hands, amd requires the user to get close" just as readily applies to the bardiche--and I would argue these drawbacks apply even more to the Russian weapon than to the Spanish one. The partisan will give the Tercio a reach advantage and though you attempt to downplay its usefulness, it was one of the principal weapons in a Tercio formation, so they will be well-prepared to effectively use their polearm.

It was really, honestly, the anon's vote that convinced me. I really don't think the pischal is so vastly superior as to win the fight for the Streltsy. I genuinely have no idea where you got the idea that the pischal loads faster or that the arquebus lacks a foresight--I would argue long-range accuracy and rate of fire will be mostly user-dependent since the guns are so similar. Both guns are single-shot matchlocks, so at the end of the day we're realistically going to see one volley before they close the distance to melee.

This is precisely where the Tercio will shine. Their superior close-range combo, as well as what I believe is a superior mid range weapon, will prove to be the deciding factors. If you look at the X-Factors, intimidation and brutality are pretty useless, so with training equal the armor edge will be decisive. Yes, the pischal can pierce cuirass, but the arquebus will just as quickly compromise the Russian armor. In a contest of blades, though, the Tercios are that much more protected, and I think that says a lot.