The Shield Problem(s)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

Your missing Musashi's point. Without a flanking fire bonus, there is no incentive to flank! Just always leave your archers, even HA's in the main battle line and fire away! It's easier than trying to maneuver for position, after all. This does seriously detract from the tactical depth of the game, if there is no reason to flank with archers. BTW this doesn't only apply to HA's. There are situations in siege defense and attack where foot archers can get into flanking positions. But hey... why bother trying to maneuver them through the streets into an advantageous position, if I can just mass my army and fire from the front, for the same effect?

---

I disagree. We are by no means missing the point. While flanking fire as a tactic is useful, both archers and horse archers can still be used effectively without it. In fact, with my play style it has very little effect. I tend to always leave my foot archers behind my line infantry (usually shield infantry, I might add) because they are not really fast enough for me to use for effective flanking. By the time I can get them into a position to lay down flanking fire on enemy infantry, the fight is won or lost already. Horse archers I use to send out in advance of my main army and harrass the enemy as they approach. Yes, they will be slightly less effective, but will still be able to inflict some casualties.

But as has been said, even without getting a bonus for flanking fire, both HA and FA will still be able to fulfill their primary function: killing at a distance.

The primary function of most shield infantry is to be the line infantry, the anchor for your army. The way it works with the shield bug, they are completely unable to fulfill this function. I learned this to my detriment when a bunch of peasants attacked what I thought was my pretty solid defensive line consisting of Urban Militia. I took it for granted that the UM would hold, and went on to the task of micromanaging my cavalry (another peeve, but I won't get started on that right now) to try to get them to charge properly.

The next thing I knew my UMs were routing and the peasants were raping my now unprotected archers.

There are far more factions that depend on properly functioning shield infantry than there are factions that depend on horse archers getting a flanking bonus.

To me, the shield problem is a way bigger issue and worth the side effects.

So please don't tell us we don't understand the problem.

We do.

We just disagree with you.

To those of you who belive the downsides outweigh the upsides, download the file i'm linking to and paste it into the CUSTOM folder in the MT2W folder.

It adds a saved battle to the saved battles in Custom Battle Mode.

http://www.fileshack.us/v/1079978/Fix_Tester.cbx.html

Try the battle as the spanish without my fix. then download and try my fix with it. The diffrance should show you just how big an efect it can have if your force is mostly a sheild infantry force and the enemy is a mostly melee cav/2-handeder/non-sheild infantry of other types. You will need an animation fix in place for bill units and Gallouhchi. But thats just because I had a lot of trouble finding large numbers of non-peasent/non-pike/non-sheild/non-missile/non-bugged-2-hander foot troops to pit against you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

I just don't like the idea floating around that this shield problem is minor because HA folks don't care if shields are detrimental in melee.

---

I don't think any HA fans here ever said that the shield problem was minor, and sure, we'd like that fixed. Just not at the expense of tactics that work for missile units, and that are also historically accurate for the faction.

BTW, I don't play HA's exclusively. I'm not even very good at it, since it requires so much micro. It's just a nice break from the classic western European armies, when I want a change of pace, with completely different tactics. I'd hate to see that disappear from the game, in favor of abstract 1 v. 1 unit balance.

And FWIW, the only reason I keep harping on this isn't to stop people from modding the game the way they want. If these temporary shield "fixes" work for you, then go for it! I'm speaking up because some people (well, Carl mainly) seem to think that HA's are "broken" and overpowered in the current implementation, and are trying to convince CA that the game should be balanced differently... forcing Turks etc. to use more infantry instead of cav-heavy armies. That deserves a counter-argument, I think, from those of us with different opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

And FWIW, the only reason I keep harping on this isn't to stop people from modding the game the way they want. If these temporary shield "fixes" work for you, then go for it! I'm speaking up because some people (well, Carl mainly) seem to think that HA's are "broken" and overpowered in the current implementation, and are trying to convince CA that the game should be balanced differently... forcing Turks etc. to use more infantry instead of cav-heavy armies. That deserves a counter-argument, I think, from those of us with different opinions.

---

?????

Where did you get that idea?

HAs work fine.

Shields don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

I don't think any HA fans here ever said that the shield problem was minor, and sure, we'd like that fixed. Just not at the expense of tactics that work for missile units, and that are also historically accurate for the faction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musashi

I'm not worried about archers being "underpowered". To me, if flanking isn't better than direct frontal attack, that's a whole tactical element removed from the game. Shield bearing units being weak in melee is minor to me.

Just because you feel it's a big deal, doesn't mean it is. It's pretty much a matter of opinion.

---

So yeah... actually, people HAVE been saying just that, Zen. Also, you insinuate that missile flanking shouldn't be messed up because it's historically accurate. Guess what? So is the fact that shields help protect you in close combat. I'm really starting to get tired of people using a fact to support their own position while neglecting the point that it is equally or even more supportive of the other position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

Your missing Musashi's point. Without a flanking fire bonus, there is no incentive to flank!

---

Right. And without working melee shields, there is no incentive to field any shield-bearing units. Peasants kick their butts or at least cause heavy losses in every case. When you look at it like that, which is worse?!?!?! This is a pointlesss debate with an obvious answer, as only people who fear that their beloved HAs will actually have to work a little to win would ever be so nearsighted as to suggest that it's actually okay for like 3/4 of the units in the game to stay screwed up so they don't have to deal with a comparatively minor side effect.

Quote:

---

I don't think anyone is disputing that there's a problem with shields, although frankly I haven't noticed it breaking my campaign games to the extent that some people in this thread say it does.

---

All you need to notice this is to put a shield-less unit against one of the shield ones. Peasants against Town Militia is a good example, as I'm told Town Militia don't have the kind of spears that impose a penalty against infantry. Though the town militia have 5 attack, 2 charge, and 7 defense, peasants that are 4 attack, 0 charge, 3 defense can beat them. Needless to say it's quite wrong, as the militia have a +2 edge when attacking, +2 better charge, and a +3 edge when defending. They should win handily. But as their 6 point shield is applied inversely, they really have a 9 point disadvantage when defending against the attacks of the peasants. Thus, they lose...

Quote:

---

Fixing one part of the game by breaking another part, isn't a real solution

---

Quote:

---

Hopefully CA will find a way to fix shields without breaking archers, and that's all some of us are asking for.

---

Amen to all that.

CA should fix this by fixing shields. The real topic is: What should we do until a realistic, effective fix comes along, assuming some modder hasn't done this already.

========

The idea that taking away flanking fire is no big deal is absurd on its face. Take an English Dismounted Knight, for instance. There's a well-armored unit that doesn't depend as heavily on his shield as others. His defensive skill adds nothing — absolutely nothing — to his defense against missiles. Giving him a "force field" shield bonus takes him from a defense of 7 against missiles on his weapon-hand side and all away around his back to a defense of 13 all the way around. That's an 87.5 percent improvement along three-fourths of his defensive perimeter.

If adding that wouldn't make much difference to my style of play, well, I'd have to wonder about my style of play. I'm a dedicated Muslim player, but even I'd probably put up with the Pope for a bonus like that. I'd never have a Crusade that failed.

Having a shield value of 0 gives that same dismounted knight a 46.2 percent disadvantage in one-quarter of his facing during melee. Now, melee is obviously very important to a lot of people. Fine. Argue that the "negative shield" or "death field" is worse. Just don't argue that taking away flanking fire is no big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

(Zenicetus -- nested quotes don't seem to be supported here?):

"I'm speaking up because some people (well, Carl mainly) seem to think that HA's are "broken" and overpowered in the current implementation, and are trying to convince CA that the game should be balanced differently... forcing Turks etc. to use more infantry instead of cav-heavy armies. That deserves a counter-argument, I think, from those of us with different opinions."

?????

Where did you get that idea?

---

You're going to make me look for this, aren't you (sigh). Okay, here:

In this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

I was mearly trying to point out that the sheild fix only really disfavours HA as a unit class in general.

---

In the other thread on this topic ("How Effective Do You Think Militia Spearmen, and Spearmen In General Should Be?"):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Fourth, some people are worried this will produce factions that are all alike. I shouldn’t worry about this if I where you. The Turks, (as an example), would STILL have their focus on cav and HA, but they'd need to use at least some infantry in their armies now

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

HAs work fine.

Shields don't.

---

Okay, so let's fix the shields without throwing Eastern HA factions into some alternate universe where they have to use completely a-historical armies, and have to fight like every other faction in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

Okay, so let's fix the shields without throwing Eastern HA factions into some alternate universe where they have to use completely a-historical armies, and have to fight like every other faction in the game.

---

If I could do that, it would be done already. I didn't F up the unit stats on purpose, ya know. The whole point of all this discussion is that something has to ge borked since we can't access the code to do a direct fix. I've done what is possible to minimize the side effects, and have since turned to trying to explain that to everyone, along with the fact that the problem I fixed is clearly way worse than the one I caused.

I'd also like to make the point that Carl is entirely speculating, and more than anything probably venting his frustrations at HA types. I don't share the opinion that HAs would no longer be a viable option, and frankly before I keep entertaining all this whining about horse archers maybe getting broken, I require someone to actually go play a game with the fix where you'd normally field cav-heavy armies, and tell me that it is absolutely not possible for them to win using a cav-heavy army. Because if it IS still possible to win, then I'm done hearing about the HAs. And don't tell me to go do it, I'm not the one doing all this whining, and the people that ARE haven't ever touched the fix and are complaining on principle without a single shred of evidence or experience to back up their claims. I will not continue entertaining discussions with people who have not actually played with the fix they are so keen on bashing.

@ the real solution comments: no one ever said this was THE solution. We know we'd have to have hardcode access to accomplish that. What we have said is that it's the best we can do, and that it fixes 4 times more than it breaks, and so is a good trade that does a lot to further the playability and correct function of the game. You don't refuse medication that makes you able to walk because it gives you headaches. It's like that.

for the shield fix (pardon my forgetfulness) why put the points into armor and not skill?

You may have all been discussing about nerfing missile units' flanking, but doesn't this extend to melee flanking as well to a certain extend. They now encounter twice as much defense when they go one big round to hit them from the back.

The shield bug doesn't just not count in melee, it actually subtracts from the poor fellow's defense in melee.

We thus have a few options in dealing with it:

1. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into armor. Simple, elegant but borks HA because there is now no weak side for them to shoot at.

2. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into defense skill. This now means that the units are way too vulnerable to archery as defense skill doesn't affect missile protection.

3. Keep the shield but add double the points into defense skill to give the correct bonus (because remember the shield not only doesn't count atm, it actually hurts the poor fellow carrying it). This messes up auto-resolve, which accounts for everything properly.

4. Change the reversed value in the hardcode. This is impossible atm since we are not CA and can't get at the code.

Option 1 is the one that The_Foz recommended and evaluated. It's the most elegant solution that can be modded on our end until the patch comes out, but it does hurt the HA quite a bit.

My head hurts .. :furious3: thinking of trowing out the hole game ..

Young Tommy Atkins arrives at the Quartermaster's store. Today, he's finally old enough to join the men of the York town militia, and he's never felt so proud.

Quartermaster Sargent: "He's your kit: One spear, one helmet, one shield. Put your X here, here, and here. You lose 'em, you pays for 'em. Now get out on the parade ground and look lively!"

Tommy: "But Sarge, the inside of the shield is covered in needle sharp spikes, I'll be cut to ribbons if I have to use it in battle!"

Quartermaster Sargent: (rolling up his left sleeve to reveal horrific scars) "Welcome to the militia, sonny. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously though, I've been playing TW games since Shogun and been lurking here for months, but this is the first time I've been moved to post. This bug takes the cake!

Surely this one is of such a magnitude that CA will have to rebalance every unit in the game before a patch can be released? As patches and mods are developed this game will hopfully mature into something truly great. That's what happened with Rome and the original Medieval game, after all. But until then, I'm sticking to the campaign map and autoresolving. The many, many problems with the batlemap (of which this is, imo, the worst so far) make it too painful for me to play.

*goes off to mumble into his beer*

Just a plea for a few deep breaths and calmness. The real enemy is the shield bug, not each other, and it may be time to accept that there isn't going to be a magic fix that can be modded (or at least, not one that is going to make everyone happy).

That's ok though. I'll wait for the CA patch and until then Lusted's LTC will keep me playing.

Well done the_foz_4 and others who have worked so hard finding and then trying to overcome the bug. Now .... relax. :laugh4:

Hell let's face it HA are pretty much invincible anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I love them. But a shield fix that makes those Parthians/ERE/Turks just a little bit more of a challenge? Great!

I'm pretty certain that a HA army could still slaughter a tortoise Catholic army with fix. Not that I'm going to contribute any actual work by testing it. oh no. I'll just sit here and snipe from the sidelines and reap the benefits of everyone else's hard work and testing. :beam:

Ah. Can't edit so please ignore the opening word of above post if it offends or breaks forum rules....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

We thus have a few options in dealing with it:

1. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into armor.
2. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into defense skill.
3. Keep the shield but add double the points into defense skill to give the correct bonus
4. Change the reversed value in the hardcode. This is impossible atm since we are not CA and can't get at the code.

---

Or,

5. Zero the buggy shield value out. Period. :grin:
I think we can agree that we all want the shield to work as intended.

R'as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

The shield bug doesn't just not count in melee, it actually subtracts from the poor fellow's defense in melee.

We thus have a few options in dealing with it:

1. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into armor. Simple, elegant but borks HA because there is now no weak side for them to shoot at.

2. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into defense skill. This now means that the units are way too vulnerable to archery as defense skill doesn't affect missile protection.

3. Keep the shield but add double the points into defense skill to give the correct bonus (because remember the shield not only doesn't count atm, it actually hurts the poor fellow carrying it). This messes up auto-resolve, which accounts for everything properly.

4. Change the reversed value in the hardcode. This is impossible atm since we are not CA and can't get at the code.

Option 1 is the one that The_Foz recommended and evaluated. It's the most elegant solution that can be modded on our end until the patch comes out, but it does hurt the HA quite a bit.

---

As a temporary fix I would suggest that adding half the Shield value to Armour and then zero'ing the Shield values is the way to go, rather than adding the whole amount.

That way, you get additional toughness at the front which works for missiles as well as melee, it does not mess up the autoresolve to the same extent that a large defense value would (and the autoresolve correctly matches what happens in battles), and the fact that toughness in the frontal segment is not as high as it should have been given the original stat-balance will be compensated by fewer casualties from rear and flank attacks over the course of the battle.

Increasing armour by too much while removing shields will decrease the influence of the positional play aspects of the game, and devalue fast-moving units, so you'd want to avoid that.

You could then also add a further half-shield-value to defense, which would bring frontal melee strength up to the intended value, but you'd probably want to test the half-shield add to armour by itself first to see exactly how much difference the added armour makes against rear and flank attacks in a variety of battles. Adding further defense just for melee attacks might not be justified.

Hopefully that helps some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

Hopefully that helps some.

---

Absolutely! Very interesting points.
Many thanks for posting this suggestion. :bow:

Quote:

---

As a temporary fix I would suggest that adding half the Shield value to Armour and then zero'ing the Shield values is the way to go, rather than adding the whole amount.

That way, you get additional toughness at the front which works for missiles as well as melee, it does not mess up the autoresolve to the same extent that a large defense value would (and the autoresolve correctly matches what happens in battles), and the fact that toughness in the frontal segment is not as high as it should have been given the original stat-balance will be compensated by fewer casualties from rear and flank attacks over the course of the battle.

Increasing armour by too much while removing shields will decrease the influence of the positional play aspects of the game, and devalue fast-moving units, so you'd want to avoid that.

You could then also add a further half-shield-value to defense, which would bring frontal melee strength up to the intended value, but you'd probably want to test the half-shield add to armour by itself first to see exactly how much difference the added armour makes against rear and flank attacks in a variety of battles. Adding further defense just for melee attacks might not be justified.

Hopefully that helps some.

---

Indeed, many thanks, I’ll probably include this in my 1.02 bug fixer. Would it be possible for you to settle an argument between me and Musashi and tell us weather shields should be having their defence value halved by AP missile fire?

Quote:

---

I'd also like to make the point that Carl is entirely speculating, and more than anything probably venting his frustrations at HA types.

---

You've mostly hit the nail on the head Foz. I'm not so much frustrated as alarmed by my own experiences in vanilla and reports I’ve heard from time to time. But I am ONLY speculating with that statement.

I'll go into what’s alarming me in a separate thread, but my point is that with fixed spears against any decent opponent (i.e. someone who holds formation and does his best to keep units facing you at all times without exposing his flank/rear to cav charges). You will find that mostly foot archer/armoured sergeant quality spears will be able to give you serious problems as even Generals Bodyguard cav will lose a lot of men charging braced spears of that quality (they will win, it's just going to be expensive).

Lets also not forget that the Turks at least have excellent composite infantry and spears, (fix the shield bug), early on and the best muskets and 2-handers in the game late on. It isn't like your infantry is as bad as you'd have some people believe, no offence BTW. (The other eastern factions are another matter of course).

The dev has spoken. We mortals hear and obey.

Half into armor was my proposal waaaaay back on Page 2 of this thread or something. We know we can't fix the problem totally on our end, so compromise a bit and find a balance we can live with. Getting rid of the buggy shield is the first step, now let's just agree on where those defense points should go. Since the shield only protects half or less of the soldier at any time, I vote for half into armor.

I play HA too (Parthian/Sassanid/Byzantine fan here), and I think I can say that there are more uses to outflanking than just shooting at vulnerable rears. Units seem to take morale hits just from having their line of retreat cut off in M2TW. Units also take morale hits from getting charged in the rear by the tougher types of HA. At the very least, running behind allows you to catch his routers more easily and divide his forces so your lancers can deliver the killing blow. It's not a completely lost cause. Half the shield bonus is around +3 for melee units and +2 for cavalry. This translates to around 15-20% less losses on average.

Now we just need a nice little exe program to help us change all shield values to 0 and put half into armour (with the option of then putting another half into defence skill)! *hint hint* ;)

lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Now we just need a nice little exe program to help us change all shield values to 0 and put half into armour (with the option of then putting another half into defence skill)! *hint hint* ;)

lol.

---

It called WordPad.

I dont think shields are bugged. They are working ok against missiles,bigger is the shield - bigger is the drawback to have it in melee. Right now Pavises working as they should.

Way out of this is to lower all armor values, shields attack and missiles to half. That way, armor upgrades will mean something (if your armor is 2 and you upgrade it to 5,it will definitelly help you if arrow has attack value 2)

Then you need to leave defence value for every unit as it is and add a bonus to all units with small to medium shields to benefit them in close combat (dismounted knights for example).

example dismounted knight has: 2/6/2 (armor/defence/shield) so in melee he will have defence 2+4=6,against arrows 4, spear infantry with attack 1 or 2 will have hard time to beat them. as it has to be.
armored seargants will be 2/5/2 melee defence 5, arrow defence 4.
spear unit with attack 1 (+4 against cavalry) will have enough of power to fight against cavalry and will be not so good against heavy infantry armed with swords or axes.

My suggested values are: 0 unarmored, 1 leather, 2 light chain, 3 heavy chain, 5 partial plate,6 full plate,7 adv plate. 1 small shield,2 medium shield,3 or 4 pavise.
swords 4, axes 6, spears 1,polearms,halberds 2+AP, maces 4+ap, arrows 2,longbow or composite arrows 3(+ap for bodkin arrows),normal bolts 3+ap, steel bolts 4+ap (or 5), lances 4 (5 for knights heavy lances) etc...

I will post my EDU soon, it is based on Darth Vader work (using his arrows), you will be suprised how god it works in game.

Quote:

---

They are working ok against missiles,bigger is the shield - bigger is the drawback to have it in melee. Right now Pavises working as they should.

---

Big shields are not a darw back in melee, they are very useful. If they were a drawback the roman legions would not have been half as useflu in vombat as the large shield was a key part of their equipment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaM

I dont think shields are bugged. They are working ok against missiles,bigger is the shield - bigger is the drawback to have it in melee. Right now Pavises working as they should.

---

Maybe you would like shields to subtract def in melee, but it doesn't change the fact that it's bugged. A CA programmer posted in this thread agreeing they are bugged and giving a suggestion on the best workaround for it. SHIELDS ARE BUGGED!

Yeesh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Would it be possible for you to settle an argument between me and Musashi and tell us weather shields should be having their defence value halved by AP missile fire?

---

AP (armour-piercing) was a flag intended to model high-momentum weapons like 2H axes and heavy crossbow bolts, which are by their nature more capable of punching through armour than something with only armstrength behind it, like an ungrounded spear or longsword. So in general, yes, AP should indeed halve the shield defence values.

But ultimately this is an argument along the lines of "how long is a piece of string". The reality is a sliding scale which incorporates the difference in vector momentum between the impacting weapon and the armour it's impacting on, the relative hardness of same and the area of impact. Modelling that would make a game which is fantastically hard to balance and likely tough for players to grasp as well.

You could argue that some shield types should not be affected by AP - toughened layered hide shields with wood backing perhaps, or massive heater shields - but equally you could argue that shields should deteriorate over time... both of those effects are not modelled by the game, and instead we assume a standard shield quality which which adds a level bonus, but can be penetrated by massive weapons - your standard lighweight, wooden shield with some metal covering.

Quote:

---

Maybe you would like shields to subtract def in melee, but it doesn't change the fact that it's bugged. A CA programmer posted in this thread agreeing they are bugged and giving a suggestion on the best workaround for it. SHIELDS ARE BUGGED!

---

Just to clarify: I said it looks like a bug, and that it was being investigated. Only the guys in Oz who are working on it can categorically and officially state that it *was* a bug. And if i sound a little cranky saying that, it's because I am recovering from the tooth-extraction-from-hell...

Thanks for the clarification. The RTW method, Digrams and in file notes where all saying otherwise so I wanted it clarifying.

You win Musashi~;p.

EDIT: You could have made abigger deal of telling everyone you'd changed it from Rome BTW:smash:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

EDIT: You could have made a bigger deal of telling everyone you'd changed it from Rome BTW:smash:.

---

Aha... ok, my misunderstanding. I thought you were asking whether it "should" do that in general, rather than specifically, "does it do that in Medieval 2". The answer to the second question is, I'm not sure without checking the Med2 code, and I don't currently have access :) Sry about that.

OK, thing is according to everyone the shield value WAS unaffected by AP, (unlike armour), in RTW. And their are notes in the Export_Descr_unit file that says it still shouldn't in M2TW so when some tests showed it WAS effecting the shield value I was understandably confused. Especially since I’d also seen a M2TW diagram showing it actually saying the shield was unaffected by AP.

I can say that in game tests show it DOES effect the shield.

I was just pointing out that this apparent change between RTW and M2TW is quite a big one and it wasn't advertised very well, so I wasn't having a go, i was just expressing suprise at the lack of mention on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaM

I dont think shields are bugged.

---

I just have to laugh when people say this. It's like people who deny the holocaust. Against mountains of evidence, and everything reasonable, they still don't see it. Apparently even a dev commenting on the problem and proposing a solution is not enough to get some people on board. Sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

The dev has spoken. We mortals hear and obey.

---

AMEN BROTHER DOPP!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Now we just need a nice little exe program to help us change all shield values to 0 and put half into armour (with the option of then putting another half into defence skill)! *hint hint* ;)

lol.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

It called WordPad.

---

LMAO @ the comment. Trust me Dopp, you don't really want to sit there and shift numbers around with WordPad. I did about 3 lines of that the first time before I decided it would be way easier to automate it... which it undoubtedly was. And that's not to mention the computer can't forget to change something or do math wrong. You're bound to screw something up trying it by hand.

I'll be on it when I'm done with dinner tonight guys, as I work til then. I'm initially not going to give the option for half to go again into defense skill, just going to send half to armor, as it will make discussion difficult if people are not using the same unit stats. Then we can open up discussion on it and try to determine if the affected units warrant the added defense skill points or not. I apologize to those of you who may be itching to get the skill points in there too, but it would make discussion too confusing and possibly impossible, so you'll have to wait.

I'm a little confused about something - if AP halves the shield value which it seems is currently being subtracted from the total defence, does that mean that AP is now a bad thing, as it halves the amount subtracted from defence, leading to a higher defence vs AP than vs non-AP for shield-bearing units?

I've not been following this thread overly closely (but it does interest me), so sorry if I've just not understood something!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_foz_4

I'll be on it when I'm done with dinner tonight guys, as I work til then. I'm initially not going to give the option for half to go again into defense skill, just going to send half to armor, as it will make discussion difficult if people are not using the same unit stats. Then we can open up discussion on it and try to determine if the affected units warrant the added defense skill points or not. I apologize to those of you who may be itching to get the skill points in there too, but it would make discussion too confusing and possibly impossible, so you'll have to wait.

---

Great, thanks.

How will you deal with those units that have an odd number for shield bonus? :juggle2:

Well, there are 3 types of shields: +3, +4 and +6.

Using half of these values, it looks fair a +1 for the smallest shield creating logic steps, so:

+1 bonus for small
+2 for medium
+3 for big
:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeltiberoMordred

Well, there are 3 types of shields: +3, +4 and +6.

Using half of these values, it looks fair a +1 for the smallest shield creating logic steps, so:

+1 bonus for small
+2 for medium
+3 for big
:book:

---

:bow:

@Midnight: No, what it is is that in RTW the sheild was unaffectd by AP. The diagrams and in files notes say this is still the case, when in fact CA have changed it.

Before a unit with 6 armour and a 6 sheild got 9 defence vs AP attacks (because the AP halved the armour to 3 points of effective defence).

No the sheild is also being halved so the sheild only provides half it's value against AP attack as apposed to the full value. That is a pretty big change overall and is tottaly undocumented as far as i know.

Like I said, a lot of the comments in the files are outdated :)

And I knew I was right all along

*gloats*

Quote:

---

I dont think shields are bugged. They are working ok against missiles,bigger is the shield - bigger is the drawback to have it in melee.

---

Also, the better your armor, the bigger drawback to have it in melee. Those stupid, stupid romans and their big clumsy shields! What idiots! If only they were as smart as JaM and realized that the most effective way to fight in melee was butt naked.


Oh wait. The barbarians that fought the romans tried that. And got slaughtered.


Shields should absolutely help you in melee. A *lot*. A shield that prevents the blow from even landing on your torso or arm is in many ways more effective than armor in a melee combat. A shield can be used as an additional weapon in melee combat, and it often was.


It doesn't currently. And since we know the CA devs are not a bunch of bleeding idiots, we can determine that it's a bug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midnight

I'm a little confused about something - if AP halves the shield value which it seems is currently being subtracted from the total defence, does that mean that AP is now a bad thing, as it halves the amount subtracted from defence, leading to a higher defence vs AP than vs non-AP for shield-bearing units?

I've not been following this thread overly closely (but it does interest me), so sorry if I've just not understood something!

---

Actually this question is substantially different and more thought-provoking than the initial response to it would indicate. I believe what he is getting at is that since the shield works backwards, AP may in fact be causing the target unit's shield melee penalty to be reduced, thus helping the target in fact resist resist the attack. I would surmise that this is probably the case. What net effect the AP stat has in vanilla, then, is entirely dependent on whether the target unit's shield stat is in fact bigger than its armor stat. If the shield is bigger, AP will be halving more shield penalty than it will armor bonus, and therefore helping the target unit resist the attack. If they are the same AP does nothing at all. OTOH if the unit's armor stat is bigger, more armor bonus is removed than shield penalty, and the result is a slight gain in attack effectiveness, though not nearly what would be gained if the shield was working correctly (in that case, though, the shield would be giving a correct bonus in melee, and consequently the unit would still have a higher resistance to the attack than the borked shield/AP combo could possibly give it). Needless to say, that AP could actually help the opposing unit resist the attack is a strange oddity caused by the shield bug, and in general AP will make a far lower difference in combat in the vanilla game that it does with a fix in place. I'm not saying it's the case, just that I suspect it probably is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Great, thanks.

How will you deal with those units that have an odd number for shield bonus? :juggle2:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeltiberoMordred

Well, there are 3 types of shields: +3, +4 and +6.

Using half of these values, it looks fair a +1 for the smallest shield creating logic steps, so:

+1 bonus for small
+2 for medium
+3 for big
:book:

---

Sounds good to me. For what it's worth, I was planning on truncating even before I realized it would make the bonuses so nicely tiered! :smiles:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_foz_4

I'm posting my shield fix, which puts the shield points directly into armour instead (and thus zeroes the shield stat for all units). It's available in 2 flavors:

1. A patched vanilla export_descr_unit.txt file...

OR

2. The patcher program, which will generate a new file from your existing EDU, adding all shield values to armour and replacing them with zeroes. Put it in your data folder where the export_descr_unit.txt file you use is, and run it. It generates a new file called "new unit file.txt" that you'll have to rename to export_descr_unit.txt after you backup your old one.

---

Shield Fix Version 1.1 is now up, and is used exactly like 1.0 above was. I replaced the old fix files, so the links above now link to the 1.1 fix. It now adds half (rounded down for odd numbers) of the shield into armor, and zeroes shield for all units that have a non-zero shield stat. Note that there's no good way to redo an already fixed file, so you'll have to re-implement any changes you've made into the fixed vanilla file, or patch a file that has your changes but not the previous shield fix in it. As it may change again, it's probably a good idea to mod a vanilla file to suit your preferences and stash it away somewhere, then apply the fix to it and use the resulting new file. That way you have those changes to apply the next (if any) version of the fix to.

Let slip the dogs of war.

Tnx :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

I play HA too (Parthian/Sassanid/Byzantine fan here), and I think I can say that there are more uses to outflanking than just shooting at vulnerable rears. Units seem to take morale hits just from having their line of retreat cut off in M2TW. Units also take morale hits from getting charged in the rear by the tougher types of HA. At the very least, running behind allows you to catch his routers more easily and divide his forces so your lancers can deliver the killing blow. It's not a completely lost cause. Half the shield bonus is around +3 for melee units and +2 for cavalry. This translates to around 15-20% less losses on average.

---

In fact there should also be a small, direct bonus for attacks on the flanks or rear, independent of the armour / defense / shield mechanisms, if the Rome model holds true. That was intended to model differences in armour quality around the body, dodge chance due to perception from the 'corner of your eyes', and a greater kill chance due to being able to pick your exact strike location with less obstruction and interference. Which would mean that even with a straight armour modifier instead of shields, you should still see some direct kill-rate bonusses from missile flank and rear attacks on the altered units, on top of morale modifiers and the secondary benefits from catching routers.

And the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined towards the opinion that some sort of bonus to defense on top of the half-shield bonus to armour would be best. It's mainly because the bulk of combat in the game is front-on, face-to-face, and so higher armour rating in the rear is unlikely to compensate fully for lower frontal defense, even with the greater per-attack impact of rear/flank attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

Just to clarify: I said it looks like a bug, and that it was being investigated. Only the guys in Oz who are working on it can categorically and officially state that it *was* a bug. And if i sound a little cranky saying that, it's because I am recovering from the tooth-extraction-from-hell...

---

You don't sound cranky, just careful ~:). Hope the tooth extraction aftermath is improving.

Posts like JaM's (and I don't mean to single him/her out, it's just an example of one of those "it's not a bug, it's a highly obscure undocumented feature!" posts) show why it is really nice to get CA developers to comment on these issues in the forums. Thanks for taking the time to do it.

Quote:

---

And the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined towards the opinion that some sort of bonus to defense on top of the half-shield bonus to armour would be best. It's mainly because the bulk of combat in the game is front-on, face-to-face, and so higher armour rating in the rear is unlikely to compensate fully for lower frontal defense, even with the greater per-attack impact of rear/flank attacks.

---

If I’m understanding this bit correctly, then I agree. Frontal defence really matters for spear units when receiving cav charges. In my experience, even with it all in the armour, spears are only JUST good enough ATM. Generally I like to add a couple of points of defence skill to all shield units on top to help them balance a bit better vs. cav/2-handers. Spear Militia can now just barely hold Mailed Knights, and most Sword and Shield units when up against 2-handers of similar quality will inflict some losses on the 2-handers before dying.

Would You have any issues with me starting a thread with questions on how the engine works to be passed onto the devs and hopefully the answers included in the readme of a future patch? Theirs a lot of stuff people would like to know, but it isn't really fair to barrage you with questions.

This method would hopefully get them answered, but without putting pressure on anyone, it would be a back-burner type project in effect.

Regardless of the answer, thanks for all the answers.

Yeah, major thanks Jerome, it's really nice to have some of these answers. Much appreciated. On a Saturday too!

Maybe the_foz_4 could generate an exe program which puts half shield into armour rounded down and half into defence skill rounded up? Of course that's if he has the time and is willing (I've no idea how much work it entails, so excuse my ignorance if it's a lot to ask!).

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

In fact there should also be a small, direct bonus for attacks on the flanks or rear, independent of the armour / defense / shield mechanisms, if the Rome model holds true. That was intended to model differences in armour quality around the body, dodge chance due to perception from the 'corner of your eyes', and a greater kill chance due to being able to pick your exact strike location with less obstruction and interference. Which would mean that even with a straight armour modifier instead of shields, you should still see some direct kill-rate bonusses from missile flank and rear attacks on the altered units, on top of morale modifiers and the secondary benefits from catching routers.

And the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined towards the opinion that some sort of bonus to defense on top of the half-shield bonus to armour would be best. It's mainly because the bulk of combat in the game is front-on, face-to-face, and so higher armour rating in the rear is unlikely to compensate fully for lower frontal defense, even with the greater per-attack impact of rear/flank attacks.

---

Thanks for taking the time to explain the secrets of the universe to us, oh Great One, your expertise is appreciated. A lot of the frustration on the forums is due to people not knowing for certain if something is broken, imbalanced or working as intended, or if anybody even cares. Kind of like life, really. Well, maybe not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Would You have any issues with me starting a thread with questions on how the engine works to be passed onto the devs and hopefully the answers included in the readme of a future patch? Theirs a lot of stuff people would like to know, but it isn't really fair to barrage you with questions.

---

You can ask of course, but answers might not be forthcoming :) Part of the fun of playing games is finding out how they work, and we wouldn't want to give away all the hidden secrets of how the whole thing fits together.

Thats fine, Genrally it's stuff thats confusing people that I expect to see come up or stuff we ust can't find out conclusivly for ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

In fact there should also be a small, direct bonus for attacks on the flanks or rear, independent of the armour / defense / shield mechanisms, if the Rome model holds true. That was intended to model differences in armour quality around the body, dodge chance due to perception from the 'corner of your eyes', and a greater kill chance due to being able to pick your exact strike location with less obstruction and interference. Which would mean that even with a straight armour modifier instead of shields, you should still see some direct kill-rate bonusses from missile flank and rear attacks on the altered units, on top of morale modifiers and the secondary benefits from catching routers.

And the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined towards the opinion that some sort of bonus to defense on top of the half-shield bonus to armour would be best. It's mainly because the bulk of combat in the game is front-on, face-to-face, and so higher armour rating in the rear is unlikely to compensate fully for lower frontal defense, even with the greater per-attack impact of rear/flank attacks.

---

Having played pretty much using the Shield Fix 1.1 changes yesterday, I am inclined to agree that more frontal defense is required for shield units. Observations:

- Archers seem to be functioning pretty well. They kill a bit better from the front than in vanilla, a bit worse from flanking positions generally. Seems reasonable, which leads me to believe the defense boost for shield units should be in defense skill which doesn't affect archers, as opposed to armour which does.

- My less capable spear units are decidedly underperforming against knights without their full frontal defense. Armored Sergeants should probably be beating mailed knights, and nothing I did seemed to be able to make that happen.

- Sword&Shield units are getting beat down a little too much by 2H units now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Yeah, major thanks Jerome, it's really nice to have some of these answers. Much appreciated. On a Saturday too!

Maybe the_foz_4 could generate an exe program which puts half shield into armour rounded down and half into defence skill rounded up? Of course that's if he has the time and is willing (I've no idea how much work it entails, so excuse my ignorance if it's a lot to ask!).

Regards

---

Heh... let's see now. It took me about a whole minute to add the one line required to do this into the file, recompile it, and run it on the vanilla EDU. A bit of time to upload... and voila! :smile:

Shield Fix v1.2:

Patched export_descr_unit.txt

Patcher exe file

Same thing as usual, use the link in my sig if you need the directions again.

Nice one, thanks. Does anyone think that with the sudden improvement to shield infantry and the subsequent boost to 2HS units, that there will be any need to boost 2H Halberd units?

Halberd Militia and the Swiss Guard don't need any boosting.

Ok, About shields. I was refering to pavise.It is the largest shield in Medieval era,much laarger than scutum and much heavier. That kind of shield is not usefull in melee.

By the way, If I remember correctly, Roman Legions were slaughtered in Teutoburger forest by germans, Scutums didnt helped them in defence, because they were wet and heavier than normal.

Small shields were useful, and are much easier to fix in game with +defence addon

Another proof is that Genoeese Crosbowmen were not equiped with pavises as those weere too heavy for them to carry, so they put them on a trails. Due to a chaos before battle they didnt recieve their shields as those were too behind the army. so they weere slaughtered by English Longbowmen and French knights...

May I suggest developing a standard test formula of X many of unit A with set stats versus X many of unit B with set stats, twenty times. Volunteers could conduct regular tests with consistent parameters, allowing for a greater number of tests to be performed and collated later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

You can ask of course, but answers might not be forthcoming :) Part of the fun of playing games is finding out how they work, and we wouldn't want to give away all the hidden secrets of how the whole thing fits together.

---

Only if we are playing the game instead of trying to work around glitches.

@ Jerome,

I`d like to acknowledge the fact that despite having what sounds like half your face removed with your tooth, you have provided the most amount of feedback I have seen in 2 years on this board from CA.

Thanks again Jerome.

I hope the facial wound is healing nicely.

Remember to gargle with salt water 3 times daily :2thumbsup:

Cheers
AG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaM

Another proof is that Genoeese Crosbowmen were not equiped with pavises as those weere too heavy for them to carry, so they put them on a trails. Due to a chaos before battle they didnt recieve their shields as those were too behind the army. so they weere slaughtered by English Longbowmen and French knights...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kushan

Glad to see TWC going down wont kill of AD :)

Kushan

---

Ofcourse i was talking about battle of Crecy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Nice one, thanks. Does anyone think that with the sudden improvement to shield infantry and the subsequent boost to 2HS units, that there will be any need to boost 2H Halberd units?

---

We probably need a couple of months playing before guessing if it's needed, and even then, there is a good chance we'd be wrong.

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frankmuddy

May I suggest developing a standard test formula of X many of unit A with set stats versus X many of unit B with set stats, twenty times. Volunteers could conduct regular tests with consistent parameters, allowing for a greater number of tests to be performed and collated later on.

---

Sure you can suggest it. I don't think anyone is doing much testing at the moment though. We've run more than enough tests already to prove the problem to anyone except those unable to accept it due to religious reasons.

At the very least I can say that I'm not really concerning myself much further with the problem, and am assuming that a patch is on its way from CA. So barring some as yet undiscovered catastrophic side effect of my v1.2 Shield Fix, I intend to enjoy the game to the full extent of the law until that official patch shows up from CA and hopefully fixes all these problems we've all been seeing.

This is for The_Foz_4

Here is a post I wrote somewhere else and I was wondering if you could create a script like the one for the shield fix for this:

"Can someone tell me what file / line contains the variable that makes units more likely to route when the general is dead?. It might be historically correct, or not, but I do not like the fact that once the AI general is killed, the battle is almost over as units rout and you end up with results such as Kills 1200, Loses 150.
Can that morale bonus from the general be canceled or reduced easily?

It is either that or one by one, go through every unit in the EDU and give them a morale boost. I also found out that in this file, you can add lock_morale to the end of the stat_mental field of each unit. Like this:

stat_mental 3, normal, trained, lock_morale

This stops unit from ever routing. It might be a bit extreme but it can be quite amazing, seeing all units fighting to death, instead of routing and being killed anyway by cavalry.

I will try it when I go home. Might take a while to modify every single unit though"

Just to add that parameter to every unit. Thanks

Another solution would be to give every unit a morale boost with a similar script, but a believe playing on VH already does this and it does not seem to be very effective since units route easily when their general is gone.

If it is not too much work, you could maybe create a second file that gives, lets say, +7 to everyone and compare what solution is best :yes:

What do you say, the_foz_4? :laugh4:

I'll toss 2 cents in, despite the hotness of the topic going down:p

1st of all - foz - regarding an eventual patch by ca; while it's obvious that the source of the problem is a - instead of +(boy, that happened to me a ton too:p), hoping for a patching is imho ifi. If they patch that, it means that they have to do all the rebalancing(since it's obvious that the testers balanced around the way it's currently working). I don't see how any sane producer would accept this...

2nd - Carl - regarding the whole ha discussion(though it's hardly the place), you're forgetting a ton of things.

a. it's an "no way I win this" situation in 35-40% which greatly reduces their overpowerness. Anyone playing a ha faction will notice that:

- it HARDLY works on bad weather;
- when you get out of your "native" environment(the east + russian steepe) and you go on the catholic factions, it can be a sure loss on a ton of occassions.
If you field a full cav. army(which I do alot when playing east), you have to take in account that, after you got the russian steepe and the east and you start moving into the westernese lands, you find a ton of forests. Where... you don't win, period. It's like a pre modded 2hander... it doesn't work in... replace "against cav." with "in forests".
Obviously, you can be lame and, reload, and place your army somewhere where there ain't any forest(though I dare you do that in Poland:p) or reload when he ambushes you. The problems start in Italy and are a pain further on.
Leaving aside that your HAs are hardly effective in a siege either(unless you mange to convince the guy to sally) if you patched the game accordingly and the ai leaves more then 1 poor sob in the city.

b. the reason why the unit is very powerful is simple - it shoots while moving and is fast mount(a ha without fast pony ain't a ha worth recruiting, period).
The shield working or not working is simply irrelevant for someone who played a ha faction extensively.

This, combined with the fact that the "light" cavarly of the west ain't fast pony bar the border horsies(*hint* Jerome *hint* - if you make light cavalry, it should be fast pony... that's why it's light cavalry in the 1st place:p Plus, without a practical way of pinning the opponent... you're in for a very very very time consuming merry go round) means you have a field where... noone catches you.

AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE PLACE WHERE THE HA REALLY BECAME POPULAR:

while it's good to play a ha faction, the real problem(at least for me) is playing AGAINST a computer played ha faction when I'm with a western army.
The computer... doesn't get bored; you can sit there against some poor unit of cossacks depleting it's ammo against your golden chevroned general, who barely feels anything, but still... even at x3 speed, you'll waste ~5 mins. looking how your general runs after those people, only to never catch them. Combine that with the fact that the game pauses when you alt+tab, and you're in for a ton of very frustrating battles where... you just look at the screen while reading only to wait for him to withdraw.
This ain't real life... if their cav. is fast moving and yours aint... you'll never catch him. You don't... barely catch him, you don't catch him after suffering some losses, you don't catch him period.
Worse of all, you don't catch his normal missile cavalry either. Since he keeps the distance. For a test, try running HRE vs Poland... you'll be in for a frustrating 10 mins. of your general chasing his Strzelcy without ever catching them. Obviously the Strzelcy would barely bruise your general, but still it's "time poorly spent" to quote the diplomats:p

On the other hand, if you make the ha not able to shoot on the run, you're simply taking them out of the game.
Why would anyone use a unit that has only 2/3rd of the men, is highly susceptible to missile fire, acts poorly at best in melee(read it can beat poor FAs and nothing else) when he can go for a FA? Which also, in a decently modded game, has about 1/3-1/2 of the upkeep and way lower recruiting costs? Which also have flaming arrows(at big bonus in my book).
Only to chase some routing cavalry? How many cav. do you usually see the computer field?

b1. Why the shield fix doesn't really affect HAs(at least in the way I play). Btw., you can easily replace HAs with jinettes too(though actually I find jinettes to be HAs on steroids).

The idea is that, in a cav. army:

- your anvil is the heavy cav.(usually I run a 7 heavy cav., 1 general, 12 vard byzantine army, same thing, replace catas with knights of santiago/chiv knights, whatever and vard with jinettes for spain and so on);
- your HAs will remove the enemy shooters then "assasinate" the enemy general.
The FAs would normaly be the answer to the HA, pitty that the comp. never actually protects them - an english army player led would tore appart a HA army comp. or not, a comp. one doesn't. The situation is even more obvious when playing an italian army, full of pavises.
- your heavy cav. charges and afterwards your HAs charges from the back(since you're full cav., the fight happens when you want if you have some experience - he... mathematically never catches you:p).

The shield working or not working is highly irrelevant, since:

you have a high dreaded general(you have too, in a full cav. army with this tactics 55-70% of his casualties would be prisoners - you can't afford releasing/ransom them, unless you want to do the same next round too and the round after next round and so on:p), their general is dead, you charge from their backs while surrounding them. They... break on contact, no matter what. The HAs could actually have 0 charge and 1 in melee for that matter...

@Jander: What exactly is it you want the thing to do? I gather you want units less likely to rout, but you mentioned about 5 different ways to maybe do it. I need a clear 1 to do. Also I'll point out that I'm not sure we have access to any part of the game that deals with generals causing morale penalties when they die (possibly it's in the hardcode). If we do have access to it somewhere, then I'm not familiar where it is done in the game files. So you can make the units more rout-resistant for sure, but possibly not eliminate the effect of their general being dead.

I'm still not sure if it is the best solution to put half shield value to armor and half to defence.

I think we have to distinguish shields, as not all shields are same. Those big shields most of spearmen holds are quite heavy and bulky. Spearman in close combat equipped with that shield and 2.5m spear will be not very effective in melee,but he will be able to resist missile fire and keep cavalry at bay with his spear. That why all spear infantry always fought in formation and were killed imidiatelly after formation was broken. I know that Romans used large shields in melee, but they didnt use them with large swords. Gladius was stabbing sword and therefore was easy to use with large heavy shield in formation.


At the other end, small shields are not that heavy ,they can help you to block blows of your enemy and provide limited protection against arrows.

My oppinion is that negative shield value should stay, as it allow to make units perform realistically against different type of attack. Units just need more balanccing work.

My suggestion is add same defence value as the shield has for all spear units (to negate " - " effect), and for all melee infantry armed with small shield to halve the shield value and add it to armor. That way melee units will have same missile resistance, flanking them will be a good idea (with shield fix it is unimportant) and negative bonus will not efect them that much.


It is easier to add few points of defence to all units that dont have shield and balance it to have autocalc work, than loose that kind of reality.

We tried that, but then spear units become too powerful in autoresolve because their defense goes through the roof.

Having separate shield bonuses for missile and melee combat was cut out of the unit files, along with scaled armor bonuses for upgrades (ie +4 armor for padded upgrade rather than +1). Re-enabling it crashes the game.

Jerome Grasdyke advised that the best option was half to armour and half to defence skill. That's good enough for me. Balancing the other troop types can be done afterwards.

@JaM: If you don't like your shields to give bonuses in melee combat, you of course are free to think that and consequently not download or use any sort of fix. Things to keep in mind though:

1. You are not going to make me believe shields are bad in melee combat, which means my shield fix is not going to change to reflect what you think or want.
2. You are not going to get most people to believe it either, which is clear because so many people have spoken up at being disturbed that shields are NOT working in melee, and because it's historically inaccurate to suggest that shields do not work in melee combat. Even the heaviest of metal shields is typically not more than 15 pounds (exception being tower-style shields meant for covering a man completely), the weight of a bowling ball (wooden shields are lighter still). Practice and training make that kind of weight rather easy to heft on the battlefield. You don't even need to move a large shield around much for it to be effective: it's a big barrier that gives you cover from the enemy, and significantly narrows the area of your body that he can strike at in order to harm you. Smaller shields of course require more active blocking, but at the same time they are much lighter so you can maneuver them around a lot to get that done.

So please, stop insisting that the shield melee penalty should be there: it's a tired and completely erroneous argument, and one that only serves to clutter the thread with kickback from the other 99% of people who realize how shields actually work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musashi

Halberd Militia and the Swiss Guard don't need any boosting.

---

they need boosting but not in the fighting sense. in the movement sense there tooooooooo ssssslllllllooooooowwwwwww!

Quote:

---

Ok, About shields. I was refering to pavise.It is the largest shield in Medieval era,much laarger than scutum and much heavier. That kind of shield is not usefull in melee.

---

The pavise is not a shield at all. It's basically a mobile wall that the archer hides behind. If you don't want pavises to be helpful in Melee, I completely agree with you. There's not reason for it to be harmful either, as it's just a wall that the archer stands behind. As it cannot be held in one hand by the archer and used to block or turn blows, it's not a shield and thus doesn't really belong in the shield discussion anymore than the effects of carrying a ladder or ram do.

Quote:

---

By the way, If I remember correctly, Roman Legions were slaughtered in Teutoburger forest by germans, Scutums didnt helped them in defence, because they were wet and heavier than normal.

---

The romans did not lose the teutoberger battle because they had shields. And we have no way of knowing what the relative casualties were.

Quote:

---

Those big shields most of spearmen holds are quite heavy and bulky. Spearman in close combat equipped with that shield and 2.5m spear will be not very effective in melee,but he will be able to resist missile fire and keep cavalry at bay with his spear.

---

Hoplites used spears and big shields and were extraordinarily effective in melee. For their day, they were the premier melee unit.

Quote:

---

I know that Romans used large shields in melee, but they didnt use them with large swords. Gladius was stabbing sword and therefore was easy to use with large heavy shield in formation.

---

They also used large shields with javelins and then larger more swingy swords, after the empire split.

Quote:

---

My oppinion is that negative shield value should stay

---

This opinion is not well backed up by historical or logical evidence. Shields simply were not detrimental in melee. To the contrary, they were extremely useful. The fact that they are heavy and cumbersome is irrelevent. Armor is heavy and cumbersome. Swords are heavy and cumbersome. Yet all of these are manifestly useful, rather than harmful, in melee combat.

Soldiers spent years training to learn to overcome the cumbersome nature of shields and have the strength to use them so that they could receive the positive benefits of having a shield.

I'm not aware of any army that fought with one handed weapons and NO SHIELD on the basis that it hurt them in melee. Nor am I aware of any army throwing their shields away before a melee on the basis that it hurt them to have one. Just think about it for one moment: soldiers who threw their shields away were ridiculed. Yet if your line of reasoning held, every soldier would throw away his shield the instant it looked like there would be a hand to hand fight.

The romans used huge shields for hundreds of years, and were primarily facing foes who were not predominantly archers.

When they *did* face horse archer using foes, the shields didn't help them much.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but a shield is 'better' in hand to hand fighting than armor is: you'd much rather turn a blow with your shield than have it smash into your armored limbs.

Also somewhat counter-intuitively, good plate armor could turn arrows that would go right through wooden shields. The 'shields = missile defence only while armor = melee defence only' paradigm is a false one that must be dispelled :)

I stated elsewhere I think the pavisse should be treated like siege equipment/artillery. The unit moves very slow while they have it, but you can tell them to "drop" them if need be. Which would definitely add a dimension to those units, they could be used like regular crossbowmen if need be.

the romans actually trained to use their shields to kill kill along with their swords. although i didnt live back in those good ole days when you didnt get cavities because you was too poor to find the treats.

but i figure the shield could be used to push someone back like riot police do.

it could double as a weapon if you lost your sword(like wrestlers do folding chairs :)

or to push your way into the effective weapon radius of a long weapon to deliver the gut splitter with the tip of your spear which you hold at the middle of its length so it will balance better.

but im all talk and no sword play

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

Also somewhat counter-intuitively, good plate armor could turn arrows that would go right through wooden shields. The 'shields = missile defence only while armor = melee defence only' paradigm is a false one that must be dispelled :)

---

Honestly, I'm quite surprised that people would consider shields useless in melee. Might as well say swords are useless in melee as well, and that armor is there solely to handicap you and give the other fellow a fighting chance. I've used the lighter modern riot shields (about the size of a Medieval shield) a little in crowd control practice and I have to say that they are indispensible. When some bloke shoves at you, you'll be glad to shove back with it.

So, the higher the shield stat the worse a unit does?:dizzy2: :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praetorian308

So, the higher the shield stat the worse a unit does?:dizzy2: :inquisitive:

---

Bingo. It subtracts from melee defense, so every point makes the unit progressively worse...

has anyone tried entering a negative number for the shield value?i mean a value with the negative sign in front of it

Then missile fire would be borked.

Yeah, exactly. And since there's no way to give the unit defense that applies to missiles but not melee except for the shield, if you make the shield negative there is absolutely no way to make the unit's missile defense go back to being correct, at least not without adding extra melee defense TOO due to upping the armor stat. So while a negative shield value could theoretically make the unit work right in melee, it leaves no recourse for fixing the missile defense that it will have broken. Coincidentally, several people reported in this thread that a negative value won't stick for the shield anyway, the game sets anything negative to zero instead.

interesting if it did work for melee

Never noticed this bug until someone mentioned it so I think until CA releases a patch I'll stick with the other stuff.

However,
If you add in say a shield value of 1, how bad would it affect the unit? Would it still provide at least some defence against missile attacks without harming the unit in hand-to-hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nameless

Never noticed this bug until someone mentioned it so I think until CA releases a patch I'll stick with the other stuff.

However,
If you add in say a shield value of 1, how bad would it affect the unit? Would it still provide at least some defence against missile attacks without harming the unit in hand-to-hand?

---

Considering that melee is more quickly lethal than missiles, it would hurt them more in melee than it would help in missiles.