Shields

[Axelus]

Hey guys

I've played EB 8.0 for a few months and I'm really stunned by the great gameplay features and the historical depth. It takes the game to a new level.

I'm just wondering about the shield stat system. Why does some units carrying big shilds, such as roman heavy infantry scutum, only have 3 shieldpoints, but some hoplite units have up to 6? Some two-handed pikemen units with tiny shields strapped to their leftarm have more shieldarmor than other with bigger shields. To me it would seem logical and practical if the size of the shield on the battlemap correspond with the shield stats.

Thanks

[MeinPanzer]

Hey guys

I've played EB 8.0 for a few months and I'm really stunned by the great gameplay features and the historical depth. It takes the game to a new level.

I'm just wondering about the shield stat system. Why does some units carrying big shilds, such as roman heavy infantry scutum, only have 3 shieldpoints, but some hoplite units have up to 6? Some two-handed pikemen units with tiny shields strapped to their leftarm have more shieldarmor than other with bigger shields. To me it would seem logical and practical if the size of the shield on the battlemap correspond with the shield stats.

Thanks

I, too, have wondered about this, especially since many units with identical shields (for instance, mercenary thureophoroi versus other kinds of thureophoroi) have differing shield values. I'd assume that it is averaged out among all the other values, though.

[Fondor_Yards]

Hey guys

I've played EB 8.0 for a few months and I'm really stunned by the great gameplay features and the historical depth. It takes the game to a new level.

I'm just wondering about the shield stat system. Why does some units carrying big shilds, such as roman heavy infantry scutum, only have 3 shieldpoints, but some hoplite units have up to 6? Some two-handed pikemen units with tiny shields strapped to their leftarm have more shieldarmor than other with bigger shields. To me it would seem logical and practical if the size of the shield on the battlemap correspond with the shield stats.

Thanks

All units that fight in a phalanx get a shield bonus, thats why units that fight in it have higher then normal ratings *ie with pikemen small shields having a rating of 5 or whatever*, since their shields would overlap and cover each other.

[HumphreysCraig00]

Pike units couldnt overlap thier shields if they were used as EB shows them (strapped to the forearm)

But the differing values are probably just oversights, or perhaps to try to illustrate that romans who have a higher armour (which protects all round) to shield (which protects front and maybe left) were better at fighting when surrounded then phalanxes who have a lower armour to shield ratio.

One of the EB team will give a better answer though.

[Sdragon]

Pike men also have a forest of pikes that help to deflect incoming missiles. Plus those guys at the back having them held at an angle also helps for arcing attacks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The shield value is used to reflect not just the size of the shield but also the quality and the soldier's ability to use said shield.

[QwertyMIDX]

Roman infantry with an actual scutum have a shield value of 4, most pikemen have 5 (not 3 and 6 as reported).

[silverster]

shouldn't the roman shields have higher shield points? since the sheer size of it and the training behind it?

[soibean]

they probably do after a couple of reforms, but not early on
if I remember correctly, they were just farmers and other random citizens who were drawn into the army with little training
Id say after the Marian reforms they would receive it

correct me if Im wrong its been awhile since I read up on early roman armies

[silverster]

But wasnt the hastati from the middle to high class citizens? even before the marian reforms?

IRCC these class of citizens has bit of money so that can afford decent armor and become the main lane infantry. Otherwise they would've been drafted to became the Leves and if they are very inexperienced or untrained, they would make up the Rorarii or Accensi.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The early Scutum isn't as tough as the Aspis, added to which Romans don't overlap their shields. As to the question of training, a militia is a militia and in terms of training the early Roman units are about equivilant to their Greek counterparts, added to which Hastati are young men, with little real experience. The big thing about the Roman army is the system rather than the soldier in the early years.

[mcantu]

The shield value is used to reflect not just the size of the shield but also the quality and the soldier's ability to use said shield.


Shouldnt that be reflected in a units experience/training level?

[HumphreysCraig00]

Shouldnt that be reflected in a units experience/training level?

It would (probably) be better this way but thats not the way the game was programmed so unfortunately no.



I still stick with my original thoery

[Watchman]

If I've understood correctly the EB stat guys do not treat the "shield" value as something directly tied to the qualities of the defensive item in question. Instead, they factor in stuff like the soldiers' skill and technique of using the things and overall method of fighting, and then adjust all two or three component values accordingly. For example, AFAIK quite a few of assorted barbarian infantry with barely clotches on their back have a semi-decent "armour" value to represent them using their shields to block and deflect missiles etc., but nothing remarkable in the "shield" score. Conversely the assorted phalangites and suchlike are given relatively high "shield" values to make use of that score's "directional" nature in the game engine to represent the comparatively "linear" fighting style of such troops, and presumably it also interacts with the phalanx special formation in some fashion.

I think the Romans also fit into the category whose shields are partly counted into the "armour" and "skill" defense scores - that seems to be fairly typical of comparatively loose-order close-combat infantry. I would assume the purpose thereof is to represent the comparatively fluid and flexible, "all-around" combat ability of such troops who do not depend extensively on drill and formation for their defense.

[pezhetairoi]

wow, that's complex. And it's certainly a lot more than i gave the team credit for, if that were indeed the way they were thinking. Trust the Team to leave no detail behind, kudos to them once again! My girlfriend's been playing Baktria and I've been playing Makedonia, and apart from that Baktrioi Hippeis .tga bug, it's been really good! Even my girlfriend, trying out the game for the first time without touching RTW except to learn the ropes, says it's really good! So great going, on the shields issue level of thought, and on everything else!

[Fondor_Yards]

. For example, AFAIK quite a few of assorted barbarian infantry with barely clotches on their back have a semi-decent "armour" value to represent them using their shields to block and deflect missiles etc., but nothing remarkable in the "shield" score. Conversely the assorted phalangites and suchlike are given relatively high "shield" values to make use of that score's "directional" nature in the game engine to represent the comparatively "linear" fighting style of such troops, and presumably it also interacts with the phalanx special formation in some fashion.


Celtic helms were among *if not the* best in the world at this time. That is were most of their armour bonuses come from*celtic helms were used by not only by themselves but others like iberians and romans*. I know that those little celtic checkguards themselves add 1 armour point. A helm is the single most important piece of armour.




My girlfriend's been playing Baktria and I've been playing Makedonia, and apart from that Baktrioi Hippeis .tga bug, it's been really good! Even my girlfriend, trying out the game for the first time without touching RTW except to learn the ropes, says it's really good! So great going, on the shields issue level of thought, and on everything else!


Oh no a girl playing EB! Run and hide!!! Well at least she has very good taste in factions :P

[mcantu]

If I've understood correctly the EB stat guys do not treat the "shield" value as something directly tied to the qualities of the defensive item in question. Instead, they factor in stuff like the soldiers' skill and technique of using the things and overall method of fighting, and then adjust all two or three component values accordingly. For example, AFAIK quite a few of assorted barbarian infantry with barely clotches on their back have a semi-decent "armour" value to represent them using their shields to block and deflect missiles etc., but nothing remarkable in the "shield" score. Conversely the assorted phalangites and suchlike are given relatively high "shield" values to make use of that score's "directional" nature in the game engine to represent the comparatively "linear" fighting style of such troops, and presumably it also interacts with the phalanx special formation in some fashion.

I think the Romans also fit into the category whose shields are partly counted into the "armour" and "skill" defense scores - that seems to be fairly typical of comparatively loose-order close-combat infantry. I would assume the purpose thereof is to represent the comparatively fluid and flexible, "all-around" combat ability of such troops who do not depend extensively on drill and formation for their defense.


Arent examples like these were the "Defense Skill" category come in? I always thought that "Armor" was the actual protective level of the armor worn, that "Shield" was for the shield carried and "Defense Skill" for the training and experience of the unit...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Defence skill only covers right and front. So a unit with 4 shield and 6 defence is actually better defended on the right than the left.

[QwertyMIDX]

Not quite.

Shield covers the right and front and is unaffected by AP.
Armor covers everything, but is affected by AP.
Defense Skill only works in melee, and is unaffected by AP.

[Fondor_Yards]

Shield covers the right and front and is unaffected by AP.

Front and left, unless all our units are left handed now ;)

[HumphreysCraig00]

Front and left, unless all our units are left handed now ;)

Does the shield actually protect the left though as I get the same amount of casualties shooting into the right flank as I do shooting into the left flank...

[Sdragon]

I get more damage when I hit the right flank over the left. But I have noticed that shooting into the left flank causes more damage than front. Is shield value halfed when hitting the left flank?

[pezhetairoi]

Celtic helms were among *if not the* best in the world at this time. That is were most of their armour bonuses come from*celtic helms were used by not only by themselves but others like iberians and romans*. I know that those little celtic checkguards themselves add 1 armour point. A helm is the single most important piece of armour.




Oh no a girl playing EB! Run and hide!!! Well at least she has very good taste in factions :P

I'll say she certainly does ^_^

And I'll also say I had something to do with that. :D Baktria's personally my favourite faction of all, but after my Romani had to slog through fullstack after fullstack of Maks I decided to try it out for myself and see what the Diadochoi unit roster is like. Mmhm.

Aaaaanyway, surely there must be some girls playing EB around here? You can't be telling me half the human race est barbarus aliquo to the other half once EB comes into the picture...



Okay enough of this. Back to topic; shields up!