The Shield Problem(s)

They won't brace when in Guard/Hold mode. Yiou must also be tottaly still, if you order them to move whilst reciving a chage they won't brace.

And defence on diffrent sides dosen't matter here. Leave the sheild value in and you get too high a defence on one side and almost no defence on the other. Lets also remeber that this is a GAME. It's meant to be a Balanced. With the sheild value still their and crazy defence values for sheild units and weakened 2-handers and other similar stuff the game isn't balanced at all, in or out of auto-calc. we allready know the sheild isn't working right against missile fire and may be effected by AP so theirs no point keeping it, and considering most sword units have a defence skill VERY similar to their sheild value, it doesen't actually change their left/right defence values by more than a point over what they should be with working sheilds. So with working sheilds you'd still be playing an AOE game not a TW game anyway. Except it isn't things like that that set the systems apart. It's the fact that the TW games actually include Startegy and complex Tactics as apposed to simpile ones. As an AOE player i can tell you that the fixed game STILL uses the rock/paper/scissors system that has dominated RTS so long, (with good rason). and at the basest level isn't much diffrent in terms of unit interaction in head on fights. It's things like Morale, Flank and Rear Charges, units instead of individual models and many other things that set the games apart. these introduce a lot of new tactics to the TW games that AOE can never have. The sheild fix dosen't change that one bit. it just makes units work more as intended.

p.s. it's 180, not 360.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

Now testing the shield fix i've found late shield sword infantry very resistant to cav, when they shouldn't be considering that they're swordsmen.

---

Should this not be the case? Don't forget that said shield sword infantry units are wearing and carrying enough metal to practically build a small tank, and have an 8 point advantage in defense over 2H AP units that in fact do get slaughtered by cav. It should be considerably harder for cavalry to make a dent in sword+shield units with them able to bring so much defense to bear against the charge. They do still take some losses from the initial charge, but are (and should be) in a better position defensively to hold against the ensuing melee sword assault of the cavalry, and once a horse is near you in combat, it shouldn't be very difficult to hit it with a sword.

The real point, though, is that the sword+shield unit's stat sheets tell me they should survive a cavalry charge pretty well. More than likely it's just that you're so used to enjoying being able to plow into what ought to be high-armour units and win the day easily with cavalry that it's never occurred to you that maybe it doesn't make all that much sense.

I would also recommend working with the vanilla shield fix file as a baseline, as any changes you've made like lowering charge values and such will certainly affect your results. A fair number of shield guys should still die on initial contact, and I'm gonna guess the charge modifier is largely responsible for those kills. Just figured I'd mention this, since it's entirely unclear whether you've added the fix into your modified LTC file, or are actually working with the vanilla fixed version I provided. Also when I say using a 2H fix along, I mean an animation replacement fix, like zxiang's 2h fix, not replacing soldier types in the unit definitions, which could be another source of potential disparity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

And defence on diffrent sides dosen't matter here. ... *snipped for brevity*

---

Right... To each his own.

Quote:

---

Right... To each his own.

---

Of course, Agree 100%. We each have our own veiw on how things should be, and are free to implement them like that in our mods.

I was mearly trying to point out that the sheild fix only really disfavours HA as a unit class in general. Whilst not fixing it disadvantages 3 classes. Spear units, Sword & Sheild Units, and Cav with a sheild. It might give them slightly better rear charge resistance and Enfidle fire resistance than we'd like. But overall it fixes a much bigger set of problems much more cleanly and without creating as many more and is thus a better fix in general IMO.

The shield into armor fix nerfs all missile troops Carl... Even with foot archers you generally try to flank because enfilade fire is the best kill rate of any attack type in the game... Making it so that archers can't do any better when flanking/rear firing makes them basically worthless (Which explains why you think the Scots are so good) whereas they're the best killers in the game without that kind of fix.

PS: I've stated this before but you seem not to believe it -- AP counts against shield as well as armor, so moving armor into shield doesn't make AP anything better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musashi

The shield into armor fix nerfs all missile troops Carl... Even with foot archers you generally try to flank because enfilade fire is the best kill rate of any attack type in the game... Making it so that archers can't do any better when flanking/rear firing makes them basically worthless (Which explains why you think the Scots are so good) whereas they're the best killers in the game without that kind of fix.

PS: I've stated this before but you seem not to believe it -- AP counts against shield as well as armor, so moving armor into shield doesn't make AP anything better.

---

Of course, I thought archers (at least English ones that I've played with a lot) were underpowered already even without making any fixes/changes to the EDU. I was running tests earlier and the computer marched (they never decided to run) pikemen at some Yeoman that I allowed to sit still and auto-fire at the pikes. They were highland pikemen, with stat_pri_armour 0, 3, 0, flesh. That is, 0 armour, 3 skill, 0 shield, which should mean zero rating against missile fire. I disabled skirmish too so they'd keep firing as the pikes approached. To my horror, ~1/3 of the pikes were still alive when they got to the yeoman. They took several volleys from close range (probably ~12 in total), including one from about 6 feet away, which while it almost entirely hit the front line of men, did NOT cause all of those men to fall over dead. In fact I would estimate that at least half of the arrow impacts did not directly cause deaths, from any given distance. I have no idea why this would/should be the case, but it really makes me wonder if archers stats are too low.

It may be necessary to balance archer stats up to the level of fixed shield units and 2h units, as the archers now appear to have far worse game effects than similarly costed dismounted knight units. For instance compare working armoured swordsmen with yeoman. They cost almost the same in recruitment and upkeep... but it's clear that the yeoman are not nearly as powerful. I don't know what exactly to propose for stats yet, but the balancing will probably be considerably more subjective than what I've previously been doing, which makes it touchy at best. I won't be surprised if a missile attack value of 13 or even more for yeoman is required to make them feel as useful as various dismounted knight units clearly are.

It should be noted too that this is an issue I feel has been present at least for English archers since the beginning and is not caused by any of my modding: The yeoman I tested are completely unmodified, while the pikes have only their swords taken away (the pike fix) which affects their ability to die from missile fire not at all. I would submit that yeoman that cost 650 and 150 upkeep should completely dismantle a 0-missile-defense unit like these highland pikemen before they ever get to melee range... especially since >75% of the last 3 volleys appeared to be registered as hits, yet men hit by 3 or more arrows sometimes still failed to fall over dead. This should not happen, especially with completely unarmoured troops...

As for Musashi's comment about the shield fix not making AP anything any better, I heartily agree, as my limited testing of it and battlefield experience have shown it true. Tests have borne out that the armour points protect as well as the shield ones do against AP missile fire, so people claiming the fixed units are weaker to AP missile fire b/c of having armour points instead of shield points will have to make a compelling case with data to support that conclusion.

I have to agree with above. It almost sounds like you guys are trying to neuter the game.

Quote:

---

The days of your HA simply shooting half the enemy army to death and then running the rest down with formed charges are well over IMO.

---

A little bitter, eh? Last time I checked, historically, a good HA army (mongol/Byzantine/Turk) was suppose to do just that to a all infantry army.

While I feel its nice that we have the opportunity to 'balance' the games for ourselfs, it shouldn't be left to a small community of modders to decide how the game shall play for all of us. Already, when we are discussing strategy, its automaticly assumed that your using the '2H fix' and the 'Pike' fix. I can see this new 'sheild' Fix being mandatory for strategic discussion in the not too far future.

It is a shame that the shield does not contribute to melee fighting like it should. However, I still feel the idea that sheild values contribute negativly to defence in melee is still debateable. However, if it IS true, I would prefer to wait for a official patch.

Why? Well lets state the problem: We want our shields to have a effect in melee.

Well, of the possible solutions, the best two ways are to:

A: add sheild to the armour and 0 the shield value. This has the effect of nerfing the depth that CA took in simulating archery based combat. It also does not produce the above desired effect.

Why? Well lets talk about what happens when you add to armour.

There are three 'quadrants' of defense to each solder. The Front-Right, Front-Left, and Rear.

the Armour value adds to all three quadrants. The Skill value adds to the front Right, and the Shield value adds to the Front-left. So, Lets look at a vanilla DFK from a Quadrant perspective assuming the shield bug is true.

Front-Right: 7 Armour + 8 skill= 15 defense
Front-Left: 7 armour + -6 shield= 1 defense
Rear: Defense = 7.

Now add the Armour fix.

Front-Right: 14 armour + 8 Skill= 22 Defense
Front-Left: 14 armour + 0 shield.= 14
Rear: Defense = 14

This game is balanced under the assumption(not knowing of the shield bug) that DFKs are actually: 15, 13, 7 respectively, not 22, 14, 14. Thus, we get a unit that is overpowered in terms of the way this game was meant to be played. What -you- think is how it suppose to be doesn't matter as much. If you think Dfk's should be Zomg death knights, then great, mod your game...don't declare it a universal fix for everyone.


The other Fix:

B: Keep the shield value and add double the shield value to the skill value to offset the inverse effect sheild has on melee defense. This also does not produce the desired effect:

With this fix the DFK's Quadrants are

Front-Right: 7 Armour + 20 SKill(6*2+8)= 27 Defense(Zomg)
Front-Left: -6 Shield + 7 armour= 1 Defense
Rear: Defense = 7

So we get a Dfk who's Quadrants are 27,1,7. Crazy, but at least arrow fire will continue to work like its suppose too.

TO me, both of these 'fixes' are not really fixes at all. Assuming one used the Shield-to-armour fix..I think there is only way it could be done barring a official patch. You would have to go through every unit in the game and readjust their stats to balance accordingly with the new and improved shield units. With that goes hours upon hours of balance testing just like the designers went through when they made this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

Of course, Agree 100%. We each have our own veiw on how things should be, and are free to implement them like that in our mods.

I was mearly trying to point out that the sheild fix only really disfavours HA as a unit class in general. Whilst not fixing it disadvantages 3 classes. Spear units, Sword & Sheild Units, and Cav with a sheild. It might give them slightly better rear charge resistance and Enfidle fire resistance than we'd like. But overall it fixes a much bigger set of problems much more cleanly and without creating as many more and is thus a better fix in general IMO.

---

Speaking as someone sitting on the sidelines (this is a very interesting thread)... comments like that make me very nervous about applying a "shield fix" to a full campaign game. At least, not without deep testing, in that context.

Someone mentioned up-thread that auto-calc is important because the AI uses it all the time, which is a crucial point. Every time you hit the "turn" button, the Ai is auto-calc'ing based on stats. I don't want to suddenly see the Mongols nerfed in the campaign game (just taking one possible example), because suddenly HA's are less effective.

Okay, back to lurking on this thread now. :beam:

I apologize ahead of time and mean no disrespect Blademun, but I have to rip your assumptions about the 3-quadrant system to shreds.

One of the very early tests I ran included 3 key elements. Those were the following:

-Testing a unit with 22 armour/0 skill/0 shield
-Testing same unit with 0 armour/22 skill/0 shield
-Testing same unit with 0 armour/0 skill/22 shield

It was one of the pivotal tests for me, because it showed that shield points did NOT do the same thing as other defense points. On the flip side of that coin, however, is a point pivotal to your discussion:

-The all armour point unit produced combat results nearly identical on average to the all skill point unit.

Since I can't seem to find it at the moment and it's possible I didn't actually post those numbers as they were part of other testing, I'll put the results that back it up right here:

Code:

---

Armored Swordsmen 22/0/0 vs. Dismounted Noble Knights 15 attack no ap

AS Kills/DNK Kills
50/30
40/29
55/29
40/25
45/43
-----
230/156

Armored Swordsmen 0/22/0 vs Dismounted Noble Knights 15 attack no ap

AS Kills/DNK Kills
39/17
60/48
60/59
38/23
34/19
-----
231/166

I'm also including a set I ran just now with lock_morale.  I set shield 1 to be sure skill would only affect the right side in case shield 0 makes it have 180 degree arc.

Dismounted Feudal Knights 13/8/1 vs. Dismounted Norman Knights 21/0/1

DFK Kills/DNK Kills
61/52
61/49
61/56
47/61
45/61
-----
275/279

---

The results immediately indicate your front-left and front-right thinking must be flawed. The first 2 sets show that an all armor unit performed the same in CC as an all skill unit. If skill only applied on the front-right, we would presumably see the all skill unit take a performance hit, as half the attacks against it should come from front-left and thus be against a 0 defense value.

The third set that I just ran tonight is much more carefully constructed. lock_morale removes the morale factor, making units fight to the last man. The DFK have 8 skill points where the DNK instead get an extra 8 armor points. I gave each unit shield 1 to force the skill to only affect right if it in fact becomes 180 degrees in the absence of a shield (this may be set already for each unit instead of relying on shield value to determine it). The result shows an even matchup, where we would expect DNK to be dominant if a front-left and front-right field were used, as half the attacks against the DFK would come from the front-left and thus have a 12 defense instead of their front-right 21. The DFK suffer no such performance hit because of having skill instead of armor.

What all this means is that there is a front rating which sums armor, skill, and shield, and into which the majority of attacks in frontal melee combat go. Skill therefore does not apply to front-right, but rather to front AND right, and likewise shield would go front and left. The way I picture it is with quadrants (that means 4 btw), one for each of the cardinal directions, with their borders at 45 degrees, 135 degrees, 225 degrees, and 315 degrees (i.e. diagonals, like NE would be on a compass). That representation may not be completely correct, but it is for certain at least that some field directly in front of the man gets all 3 values (armour, skill, shield) counted for it, and that field is wide enough that it accounts for the vast majority of melee attacks in frontal melee combat.

After understanding that, go back and look at the shield-to-armour fix, and you'll note that in all cases it makes the all-important front number the amount the devs would've assumed it to be, as well as the left number, while making the right and rear numbers too high by an amount equal to unit's shield amount. It's a VERY important distinction to make, as the screwy numbers don't affect typical front combat like you suggested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

Speaking as someone sitting on the sidelines (this is a very interesting thread)... comments like that make me very nervous about applying a "shield fix" to a full campaign game. At least, not without deep testing, in that context.

Someone mentioned up-thread that auto-calc is important because the AI uses it all the time, which is a crucial point. Every time you hit the "turn" button, the Ai is auto-calc'ing based on stats. I don't want to suddenly see the Mongols nerfed in the campaign game (just taking one possible example), because suddenly HA's are less effective.

Okay, back to lurking on this thread now. :beam:

---

That's exactly why I've been saying the armour fix is the way to go. All the discussion about HA's being less effective is only in the context of the battlefield. The shield-to-armor fix maintains the defense total as calculated by the game, and therefore doesn't affect the massive amount of auto-calcing the computer does! The mongol HAs will only be affected when actually in battle with you. And even then, the effect has been exaggerated: shield units will have at most 6 more missile defense to the right and rear than they used to (newly covered areas by the armor points), and the exact same amount they did on the left and front (where shield was already being applied). That at most 6 point difference is effectively halved if the archers in question have AP. The biggest thing is that HAs may be underperformers on the battlefield in melee now, since they might have been balanced stat-wise against the shield-bugged units, which would cause up to a 12-point defense swing in a lot of cases...

Foz, using your fix, doesn't it make units with shields more vulnerable to missile from the front where the 'shield' defence is now zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_foz_4

That's exactly why I've been saying the armour fix is the way to go. All the discussion about HA's being less effective is only in the context of the battlefield. The shield-to-armor fix maintains the defense total as calculated by the game, and therefore doesn't affect the massive amount of auto-calcing the computer does! The mongol HAs will only be affected when actually in battle with you. And even then, the effect has been exaggerated: shield units will have at most 6 more missile defense to the right and rear than they used to (newly covered areas by the armor points), and the exact same amount they did on the left and front (where shield was already being applied). That at most 6 point difference is effectively halved if the archers in question have AP. The biggest thing is that HAs may be underperformers on the battlefield in melee now, since they might have been balanced stat-wise against the shield-bugged units, which would cause up to a 12-point defense swing in a lot of cases...

---

Okay.... but what if I'm playing a faction like Turks, which is actually my current campaign (hence my interest in the thread)? I almost never auto-resolve battles, and while it's not their main strength, my HA's do sometimes enter melee when the arrows run out.

I suppose an argument could be made that vanilla HA's are overpowered, but it took me a long time to learn how to use those "overpowered" units.

It seems that many of you are trying to change units to make them 'balanced'
in multiplayer. Speaking for myself, I abhor the idea of rock-paper-scisors
balancing applied to historical units. Heavy cavalry should devastate anything
but pikesmen. Horse archers should anihilate infantry. Shields should protect
only in an arc, and should help in melee.

I do not think that my wishes can be reconciled with those who wish to
balance multiplayer. I can only hope that someone (CA or a modder) will
strive for a "total realism" mod, as opposed to a "total balance" one.

Hello,

I thought I drop in to compliment you on your findings. I've followed a different approach trying to find out how the stats actually influence combat. I've worked with zero stats etc. but didn't expect one value like the shield to be so completely bugged as it is.
I've just done some tests where I set the shield of ASergeants to zero and otherwise kept their stats as they are. I pitted 5 of them against 5 Mailed Knights (also with zeroed out shield).
Now those units actually work like the advisor tells you and like it's supposed to be. If the AS receive the charge in default formation they may win but take horrendous casualties. Before the fix they would've just been run down by the knights. Now they stand a chance and are actual anti-cav units.
What's even better, the Shiltrom works. It really does. When placed in shiltrom your AS won't take much losses from repeated charges and will eventually rout the knights.
If you still feel you want Spears to be stronger, change the shiltrom to shield_wall (unused feature) and the knights don't stand a chance.

Width of the shield_wall (unit in the back) compared to default:
https://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4919/0028sq6.jpg

Spear wall ready to receive charge:
https://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3561/0029oc8.jpg

Charge at shield_wall
https://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2573/0033pc4.jpg

Charge at Shiltrom
https://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7121/0034eh7.jpg

I was surprised that this simple fix makes it unnecessary to toy around with other values like collision mass or skeleton comp. factor.
:2thumbsup:

R'as

So this has become a hot topic.

What I find amazing is that no one from CA takes the time to jump on a thread like this and say something...anything.

Even something like;

"Guy's, great work, thanks for that and where going to get on it."

When is the next "update" scheduled?

Is this 'Fix' working with armor upgrades? Having tried a number of battles with upgraded and non-upgraded units vs the same opponents, the upgraded units seem to do worse.

Maybe when a unit is upgraded it will not retain the higher armor value generated by the Fix?

Even unupgraded Armored Swordsmen now seem to be able to take om JHI quite well wiith the Fix...

Since the original problem is that the game subtracting the shield value in melee rather than adding it, setting the shield values to negative would in fact correct the melee values since subtracting a negative yields a positive. It would make shielded units more vulnerable to missile fire though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Point_Blank

Since the original problem is that the game subtracting the shield value in melee rather than adding it, setting the shield values to negative would in fact correct the melee values since subtracting a negative yields a positive. It would make shielded units more vulnerable to missile fire though.

---

That doesn't work. Negatives are displayed as zeroes in the stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

That doesn't work. Negatives are displayed as zeroes in the stats.

---

Yeah I just tried it, would have been confusing anyway.

But I would still like to know whether armor upgrades are working properly in conjunction with the Fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

What I find amazing is that no one from CA takes the time to jump on a thread like this and say something...anything.

Even something like;

"Guy's, great work, thanks for that and where going to get on it."

---

Great work guys, really good bug-spotting :) The reason that we don't usually comment is that - to be brutally frank - there just isn't much to say about these things. We try hard to prioritise core gameplay bugs, but it's a huge piece of software with many people working on it, and obviously a few things have slipped the net that shouldn't have.

Rest assured that we do read these forums, both here in the UK and in Australia, and that these things do get discussed internally and passed on for investigation to the folks in Oz who are dealing with the patches.

Quote:

---

The shield into armor fix nerfs all missile troops Carl... Even with foot archers you generally try to flank because enfilade fire is the best kill rate of any attack type in the game... Making it so that archers can't do any better when flanking/rear firing makes them basically worthless (Which explains why you think the Scots are so good) whereas they're the best killers in the game without that kind of fix.

---

Well just to get it out of the way at the start, my scots comments where based on a game where the only modification was a 2-hander fix and MY version of the shield fix which DID NOT get shield units to brace, and which DID NOT give them any extra armour. They're better with foz's fix I admit.

Second, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If your being competent and the enemy army isn’t bigger than your you WILL NOT get enfidle fire with foot archers, they can't get into position fast enough, and need guarding from cav. The result? You've got 2 small armies to beat as apposed to one, and while he's repositioning his archers you can advance on him with no missile fire losses. I can’t see any advantage to even trying against someone competent./ remember the AI is terrible at unit control, you have to think of what a good human player would do, not a stupid AI that can’t recognise when to take advantage.

Let me also point out, AGAIN, that you can easily create all kinds of unit layouts where you force the enemy to shoot through a unit whose shields are facing the HA if thy want to hit anyone in the back. Or fire in an arc instead. Either will cut the effects of enfidle fire ANYWAY, so your not getting as big an advantage as might first appear. It just lets you use sloppy formations as apposed to carefully thought out ones.

@ this post: Yep, I noticed the same thing, it's really shocking. From the sounds of it I’m not the only one finding Shiltrom 10X more effective than it used to be.

Quote:

---

A little bitter, eh? Last time I checked, historically, a good HA army (mongol/Byzantine/Turk) was suppose to do just that to a all infantry army.

---

Nope, the only time I’ve ever fought against HA on the battlefield was those tests furthar up the thread. However, I have heard a LOT of reports of pure HA armies defeating mixed and pure Inf armies. That simply isn't BALANCED. It doesn’t matter if it's historical or not, this is a game and it must be fun to play, that requires BALANCE.

Quote:

---

It is a shame that the shield does not contribute to melee fighting like it should. However, I still feel the idea that sheild values contribute negativly to defence in melee is still debateable. However, if it IS true, I would prefer to wait for a official patch.

Why? Well lets state the problem: We want our shields to have a effect in melee.

Well, of the possible solutions, the best two ways are to:

A: add sheild to the armour and 0 the shield value. This has the effect of nerfing the depth that CA took in simulating archery based combat. It also does not produce the above desired effect.

Why? Well lets talk about what happens when you add to armour.

There are three 'quadrants' of defense to each solder. The Front-Right, Front-Left, and Rear.

the Armour value adds to all three quadrants. The Skill value adds to the front Right, and the Shield value adds to the Front-left. So, Lets look at a vanilla DFK from a Quadrant perspective assuming the shield bug is true.

Front-Right: 7 Armour + 8 skill= 15 defense
Front-Left: 7 armour + -6 shield= 1 defense
Rear: Defense = 7.

Now add the Armour fix.

Front-Right: 14 armour + 8 Skill= 22 Defense
Front-Left: 14 armour + 0 shield.= 14
Rear: Defense = 14

This game is balanced under the assumption(not knowing of the shield bug) that DFKs are actually: 15, 13, 7 respectively, not 22, 14, 14. Thus, we get a unit that is overpowered in terms of the way this game was meant to be played. What -you- think is how it suppose to be doesn't matter as much. If you think Dfk's should be Zomg death knights, then great, mod your game...don't declare it a universal fix for everyone.


The other Fix:

B: Keep the shield value and add double the shield value to the skill value to offset the inverse effect sheild has on melee defense. This also does not produce the desired effect:

With this fix the DFK's Quadrants are

Front-Right: 7 Armour + 20 SKill(6*2+8)= 27 Defense(Zomg)
Front-Left: -6 Shield + 7 armour= 1 Defense
Rear: Defense = 7

So we get a Dfk who's Quadrants are 27,1,7. Crazy, but at least arrow fire will continue to work like its suppose too.

TO me, both of these 'fixes' are not really fixes at all. Assuming one used the Shield-to-armour fix..I think there is only way it could be done barring a official patch. You would have to go through every unit in the game and readjust their stats to balance accordingly with the new and improved shield units. With that goes hours upon hours of balance testing just like the designers went through when they made this game.

---

First your example are wrong, it should be 7+6 to the left. That's 13, 1 less than the value with the armour fix. defence skill also seems to be a 180 affect ATM, so it's only rear armour and right missile armour that’s borked.

Second, the shield isn't even working properly against MISSILE FIRE

RE READ THE ABOVE.

Got it, good.


Overall the fix actually makes the units have about the right defence values all the time from everything except the rear, and right if it's missile fire.

Quote:

---

Okay.... but what if I'm playing a faction like Turks, which is actually my current campaign (hence my interest in the thread)? I almost never auto-resolve battles, and while it's not their main strength, my HA's do sometimes enter melee when the arrows run out.

---

Then you get smashed. As you should. Use a combined arms army so you have some infantry, or heavy melee cav to finish the job and you'll do fine. Byzantine has all those spear and shield units for a reason you know. As do the turks.

Quote:

---

Great work guys, really good bug-spotting :) The reason that we don't usually comment is that - to be brutally frank - there just isn't much to say about these things. We try hard to prioritise core gameplay bugs, but it's a huge piece of software with many people working on it, and obviously a few things have slipped the net that shouldn't have.

Rest assured that we do read these forums, both here in the UK and in Australia, and that these things do get discussed internally and passed on for investigation to the folks in Oz who are dealing with the patches.

---

Thanks for the heads up~:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

Great work guys, really good bug-spotting :) The reason that we don't usually comment is that - to be brutally frank - there just isn't much to say about these things.

---

Thanks very much for posting but it's not true that there's not much to say.
What you just posted, an acknowledgement, means a lot to the community.
It's fine that we can have faith that you read the forums and take care of problems but it's even better to hear it. Seeing is believing. We don't want details, sometimes a simple "aha" or "mmmmh" or "ok" would be totally sufficient. :wink: Give us lifesigns now and then and we'll be as tame as kittens.
Of course, I realise that in the past some remarks have been taken as promises.
I see CA's problem there but there's always a compromise.

R'as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

Great work guys, really good bug-spotting :) The reason that we don't usually comment is that - to be brutally frank - there just isn't much to say about these things. We try hard to prioritise core gameplay bugs, but it's a huge piece of software with many people working on it, and obviously a few things have slipped the net that shouldn't have.

Rest assured that we do read these forums, both here in the UK and in Australia, and that these things do get discussed internally and passed on for investigation to the folks in Oz who are dealing with the patches.

---

LOL,

Mission accomplished, thanks Jerome for confirming that you guy's at the very least are aware of this issue.

I just needed a little positive reinforcement...I'm not too demanding...at least I don't think so. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

If you still feel you want Spears to be stronger, change the shiltrom to spear_wall (unused feature) and the knights don't stand a chance.

---

R'as, did you mean shield_wall, or spear wall i.e. phalanx? I would love to be able to use shield_wall formation in game, but I think that the AI will not use it with his spearmen, which then imbalances things for the player. Have you tested it with the AI controlling the spearmen, is it able to employ shield_wall properly (or at all)? If not, do you, or anybody else for that matter, know how to get the AI to use a new formation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

Great work guys, really good bug-spotting :) The reason that we don't usually comment is that - to be brutally frank - there just isn't much to say about these things. We try hard to prioritise core gameplay bugs, but it's a huge piece of software with many people working on it, and obviously a few things have slipped the net that shouldn't have.

Rest assured that we do read these forums, both here in the UK and in Australia, and that these things do get discussed internally and passed on for investigation to the folks in Oz who are dealing with the patches.

---

Many thanks for posting this! :yes:

Hmmm looks like everyone who thought it was a bug was right, while Zhukov was wrong.

Quote:

---

Great work guys, really good bug-spotting :) The reason that we don't usually comment is that - to be brutally frank - there just isn't much to say about these things. We try hard to prioritise core gameplay bugs, but it's a huge piece of software with many people working on it, and obviously a few things have slipped the net that shouldn't have.

---

Oh, we understand the difficulty in making a completely bug free product. I'm not interested in 'gotchas' or assigning blame to the developers, nor is anyone else, I think.

We just want assurance that what we are seeing actually is a bug, and that CA is aware of it, and working to correct it.

Icing on the cake would be an ETA on the fix :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

Hmmm looks like everyone who thought it was a bug was right, while Zhukov was wrong.

---

The opening shot at member who posted a completely valid point was totally unnecessary.

Especially considering that this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

We just want assurance that what we are seeing actually is a bug

---

Was essentially Zhukov's point to start with: That just because you're seeing something you don't think is working as it should, doesn't necessarily mean its a bug.

@Kraggenmor:

I agree that was a cheap shot, but also, if you read my last reply to Zurkovs last post in this thread you'd see that i'd pointed out how it made fixed 2-handers work with origonal stats, (and thus in auto-calc), and also made late era sheild units competetive with all other late era units. This proved it was bug to me as it brought everything back into balance. The effects of getting working bracing, have only added to this extra balance where seeing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

@Kraggenmor:

I agree that was a cheap shot, but also, if you read my last reply to Zurkovs last post in this thread you'd see that i'd pointed out how it made fixed 2-handers work with origonal stats, (and thus in auto-calc), and also made late era sheild units competetive with all other late era units. This proved it was bug to me as it brought everything back into balance. The effects of getting working bracing, have only added to this extra balance where seeing.

---

I did read it and you've done excellent work!

My comments weren't directed across your bow.

I knew they wern't directed at me BTW, I was just pointing out that I can understand the frustration that caused the post, no matter how "bad" a post it might have been.

Also, whilst I must say thanks for your thanks, i played only a very small part in this issue, running a few tests and noticing the odd thing. Foz did all the real work really. I'm just very long winded and vocal, so i get noticed a lot, and thus get more praise than i deserve...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvojej

R'as, did you mean shield_wall, or spear wall i.e. phalanx? I would love to be able to use shield_wall formation in game, but I think that the AI will not use it with his spearmen, which then imbalances things for the player. Have you tested it with the AI controlling the spearmen, is it able to employ shield_wall properly (or at all)? If not, do you, or anybody else for that matter, know how to get the AI to use a new formation?

---

hrvojej, I meant shield_wall, sorry for the confusion. I'll edit my post.
Personally I just think that shield_wall looks better and is a bit more plausible. 75 men forming a shiltrom does look a bit funny in the battle.
I've edited the formation line where it says one or two of :"square, horde, schiltrom, shield_wall, phalanx, testudo, or wedge" can be used. So, now it's there I suppose that the AI will use it but to be honest I haven't seen the AI do a shiltrom formation. It may be difficult to test because it is rarely used.

Considering the typically ambiguous wording of the guy from CA's statement, it's not clear whether CA considers this a major gameplay bug, a minor nuisance, or an embarrassing revelation of shortcuts they made to achieve the desired unit balance.

From a conversation a forum member had with someone from CA:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

I also mentioned the shield bug to him(looks like CA changed the way shields worked and this was an unfortunate side effect)

---

However, was the unfortunate side effect known about before the game was released? The answer to that question may lead to which of the following idealized conversations are going on, or have gone on at developer HQ:

1. "Drat. They found our shield factor. Alright, redo the engine for the next patch so that the unit balance is roughly maintained, but so that the factor doesn't show up in homebrew testing."

2. "God's Nipples! I want that prog's head on a plate! This means that all shielded units have been underpowered in melee versus unshielded units and against units with smaller shields. Fix it for the next patch."

I also like to know if the proposed shield fix, whereby the bonus is transferred from shield to armour, works with armour upgrades??

Some have stated that armour upgrades are kind of hardcoded and linked to how they appear on the battlefield. For instance, padded gives 4 armour regardless of the actual numbers displayed in the unit scroll. If this is the case then surely giving a massive armour boost is going to be completely negated as soon as the unit's armour level is upgraded.