View Full Version : Creative Assembly Difference between Armour and Defense
Arkatreides
09-06-2002, 13:14
Ok, this is something that I haven't figured out yet. It seems that when my troops have armour, they get a +1 to both defense and armour (when you press F1 in the battle screen). How does armour differ from defense? Are they both the same?
Same with weapon upgrades, they add to attack as far as I can tell.
armor means they can "take more damage/won't get pierced by arrows as easily", while defense is a bonus to a mode of combat.
i think.
Close...
Armour is affecting only missiles and how fast a unit will tire.
Defence is how good a unit is at defending (staying alive) in combat.
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Iced~Metal
09-07-2002, 08:03
I think it affects more than just missiles. When you look at piercing units such as Pikemen, you will notice that they have "Bonus vs Armoured Troops", meaning their weapons are effective against heavily armoured troops.
So I think armour does have an effect on melee damage as well.
so u want 2 have enuf armour 2 stay alive longer, but not so much as to affect your fatigue so much??
Well,
Defense value takes into account armor, horse armor, and shield. However, if you're attacked in the flank your shield doesn't count and you get a penalty (-2 defense for large shield, -1 for small.) So all other things being equal, it's better to have high armor and no sheild than medium armor and shield, both will have same defense from the front but not from the back.
Also, armor piercing weapons give a bonus to attack based on armor. So in this case, it's better to have more of your defense come from shield and less from armor so attack bonus is less.
Finally, horse armor is best of all, because that part of your defense is not affected by armor piercing or facing.
As for fatigue, this is true, but I don't know the details.
Well... If you upgrade armour then you will gain +1 to both Armour and +1 to Defence. But the units inate Armour has nothing to do with melee combat, besides fighting units with armour piercing.
The worst scenario possible is a highly armoured unit with a low defence going up against a unit with armour piercing. But mostly armoured units have good denfence, so you can often guess the defensive strength by the armour, but not always.
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Bullethead
09-08-2002, 00:41
I'm a bit confused by all this as well. The Strategy Guide has a section titled "How the Combat System Works" on pages 51-57, which goes into how the odds for 1 guy to kill another are calculated. However, the only mention this makes of armor rating is in how armor-piercing weapons work.
This section obviously doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, it just skims over "push back". So maybe armor has other effects, like making certain weapons less effective?
At first glance, the defense rating seems mostly to be an abstract measure of the unit's skill and training. This is because units with the same equipment can have very different defense ratings, and defense improves with experience. There also seems to be some attitude involved. For instance, "fierce" units that are heedless of losses mostly have low defense ratings regardless of armor. Meanwhile, armor rating seems to be straightforward: so many points for certain types of equipment. Thus, the defense and armor ratings seem to be totally separate things. For example, some units with little training have good armor but low defense ratings.
However, then the guide says the following (page 54):
Quote If the target has a shield, a Shield bonus was included in the target's basic initial Defense factor. But if you strike the defender from the rear, he can't use his shield. So the Shield bonus gets plucked out of the equation.
If striker hits target from the rear:
ADD 2 if the target is a footman with a large shield
OR
ADD 1 if the target is mounted or has a small shield.[/QUOTE]
On the same page, there's also this:
Quote The value of the striker's Armor piercing bonus is calculated as follows:
(Target's Armor value - 2) / 2
However, the target's Armor value is modified to subtract the contribution of his shield and horse to his Armor rating. NOTE: it fails to mention what these contributions are.[/QUOTE]
So it's pretty obvious the defense and armor ratings are intertwined in some way. The value of the shield apparently is part of both.
Beyond that, I'm lost.
------------------
-Bullethead
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria
Arkatreides
09-08-2002, 03:29
Yep, I feel exactly the same, the guide gives you the stats but doesn't explain them properly enough. Shame really.
Shields gives the bonus to the front (I guess you know).
Large shield +2 to def. and +2 to armour.
Mounted or small (archers) shield +1 to each.
Pavise +3 to armour, no bonus to def.
What we were told by LongJohn I think (don't me responsible http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif) is that the shields are good only to the front, if attacked in the rear they are a liability, giving a penalty equal to their bonusses. Obviously not to Armour though, there they are only negated.
So shields can be real nasty in some battles, but GREAT in others, like fighting against armour piercing.
Bullethead, we have to consider all units to be of Valour 0, or else it can become impossible to count.
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Arkatreides
09-09-2002, 02:53
Kraxis, I don't think the shield is ever a penalty. If units wielding shields are attacked from the back, it just doesn't apply.
The confusion I think comes from the fact that the unit data files DO NOT contain the shield bonuses and the stats we see when pressing F1 DO. So depending on which stats you consider as 'base', you either have to ADD the bonus when facing the enemy or SUBTRACTING it when you don't. Hope this clears things up.
It seems you were right in some sense. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
longjohn2 wrote this:
Quote
The shield factors are listed as penalties rather than bonuses in the strat guide, because the stats you get when you press F1 (and I think the ones listed in the strat guide) already include the shield effect.
You lose the shield effect whether meleed or shot from behind.
The exception is troops with two handed weapons and shields (for instance Varangian Guard). These count their shields to the front normally, but when fighting they have to sling their shields on their backs so as to have two hands for their axes. Therefore, when shot at while fighting, they count shielded if shot from behind, and not form in front.
[/QUOTE]
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Arkatreides,
Tosa and I tested shields against arrows and they do work as stated. They give added protection to the front, but no protection from the rear or the side.
The armor and defense parameters are separate. Armor is used in the calculation for chance to be killed by a projectile, and defense for chance to be killed by hth combat. Armor is also used in the fatigue calculation, and doesn't directly affect unit speed which is constant. However, there is an indirect relationship to speed because an exhausted unit cannot run.
Now the armor piercing weapons are new to the system, and this is brought in by an adjustment to the attack value based on the armor level of the target. In this case, as the target's armor level increases the attacker's attack level increases or you can think of it as the defend level of the target decreasing. I guess it's set up like that because, when a unit is given more armor, the defend value is supposed to be increased as well. However, there may be some inconsistencies in some units as Kraxis points out.
The algorithm for hth combat as given to us by longjohn is:
df = attack - defend + bonus
chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.2 ** df
Attack is the striker's attack value and defend is the target's defend value. Striking at a target alternates back an forth between the men while the units are fighting in a combat animation cycle.
The df is capped at -20 and + 20.
The bonus is a combination of all the factors that can affect combat like charge, height advantage, trees, fatigue, armor, anti-cav bonus, side attack, rear attack, etc. The shield seems to be added directly to the defend and armor values, and would have to be removed if the attack does not come from the front.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 09-09-2002).]
Ahh... Then this is concluded I guess.
That statement about the Varangians has actually sparked my mind.
With the shield on the back and the good armour they have, you can actually fire into their melee and do more good than harm. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I wonder this though, do Longbowmen negate shields??? That would make shielded units real bad against an army of Longbowmen (they only get the bonus from the front but are easily killed by the Longbowmen anyway).
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
We haven't seen the projectile parameters yet, but there is a parameter called 'power' which is the penetration ability of the projectile. Power and armor must be used in a calculation for chance to kill by a projectile that hits its target. I would expect that longbows (LONG) have a higher power rating than regular bows (SBOW) and possibly longer range, but I haven't checked this out.
Yes, I know about power.
I uased to check the power of the missile units in MI (Skirmishters were really powerful). But have we got a file as back then?
That would make it very much easier to determine.
But my question was if the Longbowmens AP properties would ensure that shields are penetrated. I was not really talking about power.
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Well the shield adds to the armor rating and that should reduce the chance of penetration even by a longbow. However, if the power is high enough, then armor won't noticably lower the chance of a kill. You could check this by firing longbows under carefully controlled conditions at the front and back of units which have a shield.
I dont have access to the strate guide, but my feeling and understanding of the pieces I put together is
1. not all large shield give +2 bonus. The almohad-urban-militia has large shield I believe but they only have +1 bonus from F1 report. I believe when units is attacked from rear or flank, the shield bonus is not effected, and defend bonus go back to norm as per troopstats. e.g. almohad-urban-militia
M3 D4$ A5$ frontally. On side and rear they become M3 D3 A4 (the base value in stat)
2. As for armour piercing, IMO a logical way I think it works is that it negate the shield bonus (or maybe reduce by -1)?
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
Tootee, I got the info from longjohn2 himself. While he might have been wrong, I doubt it.
So I think the AUM has a +2 as all others with large shields.
Maybe we could hunt him down and get the info we need? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Unless F1 is lying, thats what I think I see. Maybe this old man eyes are starting to fail. A check with F1 should suffice I think.
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
Arkatreides
09-10-2002, 13:35
I don't trust F1 all the time. Check out my thread on bonuses: http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001417.html
I found that the attack and defense bonuses can be off by +/- 1 (whithout any good reason)
hehe if i cant trust F1, I dunno who to trust. If it's a bug, then the new patch should address it. But so far the words from the CA peeps is that F1 is cool, no? Other than that, I see no reason why AUM only has a +1$ bonus for large shield.
What are the other inconsistency you have observed for F1, Arkatreides?
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
Arkatreides
09-10-2002, 16:36
These are the stats how they should be (when you press F1):
defense = base + valour + armour bonus + shield
attack = base + valour + weapon bonus
So, for example a valour 3 Chivalric Knight unit, with level 2 weapon and level 4 armour upgrades should be:
defense = 5(base)+3(valour)+4(armour)+0(shield) = 12
attack = 5(base)+3(valour)+2(weapon) = 10
This is USUALLY correct. However, I found that there somethimes is an EXTRA +1 or -1 modifier to either attack or defense (or both) and I haven't been able to figure out when it applies. If it applies, it applies for all units in the army (in the same way, so for example all have a +1 bonus to attack, or all have a -1 bonus to defense), so that made me think that it had something to do with the general, but it seems to wary from battle to battle.
Maybe it has something to do with the weather conditions or the terrain. I don't know. I have been trying to get an official answer for a few days now as this really bugs me.
Tootee, it does seem that the AUM has a different shield value, maybe their shields were only made out of cowhide.
I have not played with the AUM but the stats are 4 Armour, so if you say they have 5 in the F1 screen then they are different.
Not that I mind at all, I think they are a bit overpowered.
Arkatreides, that is indeed very odd. Why would they change values when all is the same. I mean it can hardly be the general. +1 to command when attacking should show as either nothing or +1 to Valour for all, and the +# to Valour should be easily seen...
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
The Strategy Guide does list the AUM as having a large shield and also 3/4/5 att/def/armor which includes the shield effect and matches the F1 screen data. The crusaders_unit_prod11.txt stat file used by the game shows 3/3/4 with a large shield. So the F1 screen is correct, but, for some reason, the AUM's large shield is being treated like a small shield and only giving +1 to defense and +1 armor rating.
Exactly, I wonder if there are other units like that. It would be strange if longjohn2 was wrong about the stats for shields...
But I find it ok that the AUM only has a 'small' shield.
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Arkatreides
09-10-2002, 23:08
Kraxis: yep it is odd, hence it is bugging me so badly! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Re AUM: I 'think' I read somewhere that the shield bonus depends on the weapon carried as well. For Spear troops it's +2, and for sword it is +1.
This should be easy to check, all you need to do is give the AUM a spear instead of a sword in the unit file.
Arkatreides
09-10-2002, 23:10
Ack, it's even simpler than that!
There is an entry called 'Shield modifier' in the units file. For AUM it is 0.5! Hence the large shield only gives +1 bonus.
*I like it when things add up! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif *
Ahhh... So it was intentional? Nice...
Where did you find it?
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Ah, so thats the function of the shield modifier, I has always wonder how it is used. Could you verify with other units of 0.5 rating? that it really reduced the shield bonus by 1/2?
1. ChivalricManAtArms 0.5 large
2. GothicSergeants 0.5 large
3. VarangianGuard 0.5 large
4. HospitallerFootKnights 0.0 large
Thanks. I could do it but now i'm in office, and i cant wait till home to find out. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
Hospitallers have no bonus at all??? It is only eyecandy? Is this deserved?
I know that the Varangians deserve their 0.5 modifier. They kill very much, and even better stats due to large shields is just too much. They are great though that in melee their shield covers their back. A good protection from rear attacks, though it can be hard to determine what their true stats are in combat.
Will their shield cover them when they are charging, or being charged head on??? It is hard to determine...
------------------
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
[This message has been edited by Kraxis (edited 09-11-2002).]
ElmarkOFear
09-11-2002, 22:45
All this talk of valour, modifiers, ratings hurts poor little Elmo's head just thinking about them. I just ram my guys up against the enemy army and see if it works, if not then change army around and ram em' into enemy again!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif My men really hate me when I do battle! LOL PS. One question, is there a stat to tell how quickly/often a unit will rally once routed? To me that is the MOST important stat of all, since most of my kills come after my army routs. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Elmark,
I'm not much for the trial and error approach, but you did zero in on one of the best units right from the start. You can't hide the true genius of your vision, and the smiley face on the faction's flag is appropriate. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Now I know many don't like the tax on more than 4 of one type, but we know what would happen if this wasn't in place. Elmark would have a field day with his faction, and he'd have smiley faces painted on all the shields. Just his way of brightening your day and putting a smile on your face before he cuts your head off.
Arkatreides
09-12-2002, 13:07
tootee: I checked it with Gothic Sergeants and Chivalric Men-at-Arms. Both seem correct, even though I totally disagree that Feudal Men-at-Arms get the Full bonus and Chivalric (i.e. their ugrade) only get half. Looking at the stats there is hardly any reason to ugrade now.
Yes, it does seem odd that they don't have a 'real' Large Shield.
I wonder why they did this.
I can understand the Varangians and AUM, but not the others.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are needed.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Arkatreides
09-12-2002, 16:30
Perhaps a bug?
Anyway, I modded the chivalric men-at-arms to include the full bonus.
No, it is not a bug since this has to be put in secifically. It was intentional, I just wonder why... He needs his shield.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Arkatreides
09-12-2002, 16:54
Oh, no, not a code bug, of course. But perhaps a design bug.
Not unlikely, but I still doubt it.
They did it because they perhaps thought they would be too strong. A balance issue.
But the Hospitallers... They NEED to be strong, they are Order troops. Give them full shields. GAH!
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I found that a lot of cav units have 0.5 modifiers to their shields.
Them being cav they can only have a bonus of +1 so that is perhaps how some units can have 7.5 in Armour, but in Def it is apparently not possible.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I believe the combat melee stats are intergers because they appear in the exponent of the chance to kill algorithm. If you had a real number there, that computation would be a lot more cpu intensive.
longjohn2
09-13-2002, 02:04
The shield value modifiers are there for heavily armoured units, because the more armour you have, the less you need a shield, and the less good it does you. If a shield deflects a blow that would been deflected by your armour anyway, then it hasn't benefited you much. Because of this, later Knights stopped using shields altogether.
I put the modifier in to show that shields are more valuable for less armoured shields, and so that units that got depicted with shields for artistic reasons, don't get an advantage over those that are realistically depicted.
Very nice to get the answer to this, as it has kept me busy for some time now. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I wonder though, why you have given Chivalric Men-at-arms a 0.5 modifier to their shield.
Because they are right now almost not worth it I, personally, believe they actually need the full benefit of the shield.
They cost almost the double of Feudal MAA but they only have +2 to Morale and +1 to attack. If they had the full shield bonus, just like the Feudals they would be 1 better in Attack, Defence and Armour, that combined with the superior Morale would make them worth it, as well as fitting to their price.
Even the Feudal Foot Knights which have, with basic stats a fitting price compared with the Chiv. MAA, are with the full shield bonus a good deal better, and even cheaper (that was for MP only).
This would also go a long way to correct the seemingly superior situation of the spearunits.
Thanks for dropping by. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Arkatreides
09-13-2002, 20:16
I just read somewhere (but alas cannot remember where) that they will be upping all the sword infantry in the patch ... maybe that solves the chivalric MAA probelm
Not if it isn't balanced with the Feudal Men-at-Arms. Then I would just trian them instead. The +1 to attack and +2 to Morale is not worth 125 florins each time. I would rather have three Feudals for every two Chivalrics, which is a florinpositive estimate in favour of the Chivalrics.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Neglecting the shield:
charge/att/def/armor/morale
V0 Chivalric MAA.. 3/4/3/4/4 275 florins
V0 Feudal MAA..... 3/3/2/3/2 150 florins
V1 Feudal MAA..... 3/4/3/3/4 225 florins
When you add the shields in:
V0 Chivalric MAA.. 3/4/4/5/4 275 florins
V0 Feudal MAA..... 3/3/4/5/2 150 florins
V1 Feudal MAA..... 3/4/5/5/4 225 florins
It's pretty clear that the Feudal MAA is better, but costs less. So, within that unit type the Feudal Knight is the one you should buy in multiplayer. There is no reason to ever buy a Chivalric MAA, and this unit will disappear from use in multiplayer.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 09-13-2002).]
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.