Shield Values

[Southern Hunter]

Notwithstanding problems with shields in MTW2, and just focussed on EB...

(Apologies if this has been discussed to death some time in the past. I searched and didnt find)

Why are the shield values so low, and why are Hoplite and Legionary types lower than pikemen?

Macedonian Pikemen (Pezhetaroi) - 5
Greek Classical Hoplite (Hoplitai) - 4

Now we can see from pictures that the Argive shield is a big honking shield designed to cover the whole body, except head and ankles, while the pikes have a small shield because they need to use their arm to hold their pike.

This will affect their defensive ability against missile troops greatly.

Also, the shield values are substantially lower than the armour values of some troops (10 and 11 for the troops above), which doesn't reflect the critical importance of the shield against missiles. I believe it was more important than the armour worn; better to have sling bullets or arrows hitting the shield than hoping they bounce off your armour.

The Romans similarly have a shield value of 4 (Cohors Reformata) when it can be seen clearly that they have a full body covering shield, with historical examples of it 'catching' dozens of arrows in defence of a legionary.

A value of 4 compared to 5 for that dinky buckler that the foot companions have got?

My contention is that, barring good explanations, the shield values could be increased in line with shield sizes, possibly replacing some of the higher armour values or skill values, and this will decrease casualties from missiles (except when flanked).

Discussion welcomed.

Cheers,

Hunter

[Boyar Son]

Size counts, but the durability of the shield and it's quality also plays a big role.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'm certain it's no accident that they have a lower value - when one of the stat guys gets a chance, they'll fill us in on why there is a difference like that.

[QwertyMIDX]

Shield values are related not just to size, but also to other factors, most importantly use. Also, we give pike phalanx units a little boost in shield value at the cost of armor and defense skill to make them tougher from the front and more vulnerable from the flanks and rear.

[Intranetusa]

"Shield values are related not just to size, but also to other factors, most importantly use. Also, we give pike phalanx units a little boost in shield value at the cost of armor and defense skill to make them tougher from the front and more vulnerable from the flanks and rear."

So this is a game balance issue? bleh! RTW vanilla tried that and made the game horribly unrealistic & inaccurate.

[QwertyMIDX]

So we should just do what then? Pretend that stats system works perfectly as a representation of ancient warfare and just use a completely inflexible, abstract system instead of trying out best to tweak it to get half-way decent results?

[antisocialmunky]

I've heard it claimed that the way that the sarrissa(sp) were held in phalanx - with each rank inclined after the first few - helped deflect missiles to a certain extent. That might account for it some if it could be proven.

[Domitius Ulpianus]

So this is a game balance issue? bleh! RTW vanilla tried that and made the game horribly unrealistic & inaccurate.


:juggle2: :dizzy:

[Kull]

So this is a game balance issue? bleh! RTW vanilla tried that and made the game horribly unrealistic & inaccurate.

Don't be a complete moron. Where oh where did he say it was a "game balance" issue? Those are YOUR words. But the good news is you've uncovered the big secret - EB is exactly the same as Vanilla RTW. So please go back to playing that and don't trouble us with your inanities any further. :no:

[fallen851]

Wow, this thread sucks.

Even I am tired of the flamewars... Can we lock it?

[Thaatu]

Add a little water to the spark and flames are avoided. :jarswim:

Intranetusa, don't look at the stats. Stats can never be historically accurate for in real life there are none to begin with. Stats are all about game balance.

[Lovejoy]

OMG, whats up with all this EDU reading? The main thing is the units perform historical good against eachother, not whatever the shiled value should be a little higher on this or that unit.

[Quilts]

I can't say with any certainty (as I'm not part of the Mod team) but people will probably find that a large portion of some troops 'Armour value' is infact from their shield.

Just because they now get 'the shield bonus', or the portion thereof, from the rear is not really a problem. A soldier in a 'flexible' unit (so perhaps not phalanx with pikes lowered) could very easily turn himself around 180 degrees to get cover from missile troops attacking the rear of the unit. His shield, and body :laugh4: , would even provide a level of cover for his comrades who hadn't turned around.

Now, I may be completely wrong.....but it all makes sense to me.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Arkatreides]

It actually all makes perfect sense. The Phalanx, when in phalanx formation gets an 'effective' shield bonus form the pikes as well. If you think about it, they are a complete wall of spears from the front and even though they have a relatively smaller shield than the Hoplites, their tight-packed formation adds to the overall shield value. Now you are right it is not a shield per se, BUT unless you have a good way of rewriting the game engine so that you can model this, upping the shield is the best that EB can do to simulate this.

[Southern Hunter]

Hmmm, ok.

1. I did expect someone to mention the 'wall of spears deflect arrows' argument which I have also heard, and cannot tell whether it is true or not. I imagine it is NOT true for sling bullets, which would be travelling at a lower trajectory in general.

2. Most people know (but some previous posters don't seem to be clear about) that the defense is split into 3 for a reason. Shields only work from front, not right side or rear. Armor works all the time (but also slows you down, etc), Defensive skill works in melee but not against missiles.

3. I see the point about making shield value higher for pike to simulate front facing being better.

However, I wonder if it really matters when the values are really so low anyway? Peltasts have shield value 3, roman post-marian have 4. Were not shield values substantially higher in vanilla (sorry, cant remember that far back). Has EB deprecated the kind of effect that shields should give against missiles?

Also, as they normally turn around to face an enemy, does this really work?

4. Someone posted that it was quality of shields as well as size, and somebody highlighted use. This kind of makes sense, but I don't see any sensible example that explains why Romans have such a low value, or hoplites for that matter. No one is claiming that their shields were rubbish, or not used to shield them missiles are they?

Anyway, I have not noticed the stats causing huge problems in battles, but I will pay more attention in future to see if they do. I AM a little concerned about missile casualties, which seem a little high, although it it true that the real carnage happens when they become shieldless (by turning around under fire and marching backwards - something that would probably not actually happen irl)

[Southern Hunter]

It actually all makes perfect sense. The Phalanx, when in phalanx formation gets an 'effective' shield bonus form the pikes as well. If you think about it, they are a complete wall of spears from the front and even though they have a relatively smaller shield than the Hoplites, their tight-packed formation adds to the overall shield value. Now you are right it is not a shield per se, BUT unless you have a good way of rewriting the game engine so that you can model this, upping the shield is the best that EB can do to simulate this.

Well actually this doesn't make sense to me. It MAY make sense to add to shield value for the protection from pikes sticking in the air, although it isn't clear to me the probability of an arrow being intercepted by a thin pike. Other than this however, they are just a bunch of slightly armoured targets, packed very tightly into a small space, making themselves excellent targets for volleys of missiles.

IF they had a shield that covered their whole torso, then it would be different, as they would have a 'shield wall' covering the whole formation, and could be confident that nearly all missiles would hit the shields in front.

One would be MUCH happier under fire with a legionary style shield.

[Foot]

Only listen to the ebmembers, we know how the stuff works. We never mentioned the "pikes in the air" defence. You will notice for pike units that a lot of their armour defense has migrated to the shield defense, which means that they are still as susceptible to missile fire, but their rear and right flank are far more susceptible to harm.

Foot

[QwertyMIDX]

The shield stat also has some other oddities that we try to avoid by keeping it low. First of all it is not affected by the AP stat (which is ridiculous, ever seen what a falx does to a shield?) and secondly, point for point, shield value is a more effective defense than armor is, as long as your unit is facing the right way. Despite the fact that RTW adds up all 3 values to make defense doesn't meant it actually works on a point for point ratio, it doesn't.

[blacksnail]

Shields only work from front, not right side or rear.
Front and left side, for clarity.


Defensive skill works in melee but not against missiles.
Additionally, in melee it is only applied to the front and right side.

[LordCurlyton]

Additionally, in melee it is only applied to the front and right side.
:idea2: So THAT'S what defensive skill does. Would explain why my left flank enveloping movements always seem to work better than the right side...learn something new every day.

[Boyar Son]

Though there has to be some left handed troops in the ancient era...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Though there has to be some left handed troops in the ancient era...
Prior to a century to a half century ago, all left handed children were forced to use their right hand. It was seen as a bad thing, to have a left handed children and parents would make sure their children were right handed whether they really were or not. Forcing a left handed person to be right handed had negative effects on the brain and the interaction between hemispheres though. This could cause minor mental problems.

[mcantu]

Doesnt the game give units with the phalanx ability get an automatic shield bonus?

[antisocialmunky]

The root word of sinister is the latin for left.

[Tuuvi]

Prior to a century to a half century ago, all left handed children were forced to use their right hand. It was seen as a bad thing, to have a left handed children and parents would make sure their children were right handed whether they really were or not. Forcing a left handed person to be right handed had negative effects on the brain and the interaction between hemispheres though. This could cause minor mental problems.
So that applied to the ancients too? I always thought it was just a christian thing, because the bible saying something about jesus putting the bad sheep on his left side or something like that. But then again, the bible was written in ancient times, and that was just a metaphor...:idea2: it all makes sense to me now.

[Southern Hunter]

The shield stat also has some other oddities that we try to avoid by keeping it low. First of all it is not affected by the AP stat (which is ridiculous, ever seen what a falx does to a shield?) and secondly, point for point, shield value is a more effective defense than armor is, as long as your unit is facing the right way. Despite the fact that RTW adds up all 3 values to make defense doesn't meant it actually works on a point for point ratio, it doesn't.

OK, didn't really understand that. Very confusing I must say.

I still may have a tiny bit of a play with the values and see if I can get any 'better' results.

With pikemen, was it considered to reduce their skill level, such that they would even more so rely on their formation to push the enemy back, rather than a lot of kills? From the flank and rear would make them weaker as well.

Cheers,

H

[NeoSpartan]

edit...

[Mi Fhein]

i was just wondering does the sheild value still count as defence for units that r routing

thx

[Watchman]

So that applied to the ancients too? I always thought it was just a christian thing, because the bible saying something about jesus putting the bad sheep on his left side or something like that. But then again, the bible was written in ancient times, and that was just a metaphor...:idea2: it all makes sense to me now.I'm pretty sure it's actually something in the environs of a 1800s European thing. There were some odd ideas bouncing around about these things, most of which to modern sensibilities are dodgy at best and inhuman at worst (eugenics was a legit science and policy until the Nazis sorta made anything of the sort So Not Kosher).

Most other eras and cultures didn't give much of a damn far as I know. Really complete combat training tended to account for the possible unusual handedness of a foeman, and I've read one of those Scottish clans which was famous for hereditary left-handedness (...inbreeding much...?) liked to build the stairs of their fortified houses counter to the norm so as to take full advantage of the trait on the defensive.

[QwertyMIDX]

OK, didn't really understand that. Very confusing I must say.

I still may have a tiny bit of a play with the values and see if I can get any 'better' results.

With pikemen, was it considered to reduce their skill level, such that they would even more so rely on their formation to push the enemy back, rather than a lot of kills? From the flank and rear would make them weaker as well.

Cheers,

H

Do you mean defense skill or attack skill. They actually get a 'penalty' to both defense skill and secondary attack skill.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I'm pretty sure it's actually something in the environs of a 1800s European thing. There were some odd ideas bouncing around about these things, most of which to modern sensibilities are dodgy at best and inhuman at worst (eugenics was a legit science and policy until the Nazis sorta made anything of the sort So Not Kosher).

Most other eras and cultures didn't give much of a damn far as I know. Really complete combat training tended to account for the possible unusual handedness of a foeman, and I've read one of those Scottish clans which was famous for hereditary left-handedness (...inbreeding much...?) liked to build the stairs of their fortified houses counter to the norm so as to take full advantage of the trait on the defensive.
The left hand was seen a dirty in the in many places in ancient world. All social interaction was done with the right hand.

For one thing, before the introduction of toilet paper, the left hand was the 'cleaning' hand in certain places.

[Watchman]

That doesn't mean they shared the Victorian insistence on 'fixing' such matters.