Big Shields

[Lanceari]

I frequently ask myself if big shields should have higher defense values.

At first glance, they seem fine. But chevrons change the story. While playing the campaign map, my missile troops rack up lots of chevrons. I have quite a few horse archers with one or two gold chevrons, and mercenary cretan archers with two and three silver chevrons. It is very easy for archers to accumulate chevrons because they have lower casualty rates.

Large shields were very effective at blocking arrows, regardless of the skill of the archer. And since archers rack up chevrons so quickly... My guess is that the defense value of these shields should be measured, not against the the basic attack value of an archer, but against the attack value of archers with a few chevrons on their belt.

On the other hand, I was very impressed by two books I read recently. One of them, narrates how Caesar marched ahead of his soldiers who were afraid to attack uphill against an opposing Roman Legion (during the civil war). He grabbed a shield from a soldier and marched halfway up the hill. The opposing romans threw a volley of pilums at Caesar. He ducked behind the shield and survived the whole thing. After that, his legion attacked and won the day.

The other book explains that the Roman soldiers were shorter than the average man today (perhaps about 5'4" or 5'6") Yet, the shield was over 4' top to bottom. If that is so, and you further assume that the soldier would tend to crouch behind his shield when approaching his enemy, what you have left sticking out of the shield was probably just the soldiers' helmet. So, these shields were almost like a moving wall the soldiers carried in front of them.

...any thoughts?

[DaciaJC]

This is a somewhat related question: I very vaguely recall reading somewhere that chevrons for missile troops only increase their range and/or accuracy and not their damage, contrary to what may be shown on the unit card? Is this true?

[bobbin]

This is a somewhat related question: I very vaguely recall reading somewhere that chevrons for missile troops only increase their range and/or accuracy and not their damage, contrary to what may be shown on the unit card? Is this true?

For the answer to that question and a lot more you should read the Ludus Magna.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yes, everyone seems to concur that missile units do not get higher attack with chevrons, but merely accuracy. In any case, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between fresh archers/slingers and seasoned ones. Whether it is the accuracy or attack, but with missile units, increased accuracy is attack. You ever notice how many missiles do not hit targets? Yeah. Chevroned missile units are priceless. My Rhodian Slingers and Cretan Archers are unstoppable with their silver chevrons.

[Geticus]

Regardless I agree with his basic premise. Roman martial culture advocated the use of shield + body armor, but other strong cultures like early Frankish, old Germanic and Viking all prioritized the shield and mail was rare. The standard panoply of the Viking warrior was shield + helm + spear, and sword if he was well off. And the vikings armed in that way were very effective, winning the field many times against the Frankish knights who were the hardest hitting cavalry in the world at the time. While some of that may be attributed to their skill with spears regardless Viking successes in Asia and Europe as well as the rise of the Goths and Franks towards the tail end of the Roman empire demonstrate that the heavily armored way is not the only viable approach to infantry power.

[Julius Augustus]

Yes, bigger shields undoubtedly deserve a higher defence value. In EB, shields make up a relatively small part of a soldier's defence. A shield defence rating of 4 is kind of ridiculous (To me, maybe the EB team has some reasons?) when you consider that many units have a defence skill of three times that. My guess is that all scutum and aspis shields should get a shield defence of 6, not 4.

[antisocialmunky]

*I can't find the reference naymore, nvm*

[DaciaJC]

For the answer to that question and a lot more you should read the Ludus Magna.

Yes, I took a gander there and didn't find any thread related to something I recall reading here in the EB forums... and I had no desire of meticulously going through every thread in the hopes of answering my query, not with a soccer match a mere twenty minutes away.

But my question was answered nonetheless.

[Azathoth]

Yes, bigger shields undoubtedly deserve a higher defence value. In EB, shields make up a relatively small part of a soldier's defence. A shield defence rating of 4 is kind of ridiculous (To me, maybe the EB team has some reasons?) when you consider that many units have a defence skill of three times that. My guess is that all scutum and aspis shields should get a shield defence of 6, not 4.

Phalangites have 5 shield, and they're almost impervious to missiles. I think the PhalanxMod does give hoplites 6 shield though.

[antisocialmunky]

Never compare phalangite vs missiles to anything else vs missiles. They get a ridiculous frontal bonus. If you guys haven't noticed, missiles are fairly how attack weapons in EB due to the 100% lethality. The average missile attack is 4 for archers and 1.5 for slingers. Big shields average 3-5.

Also shield defense does not get APed in half.

[Lanceari]

...shield defense does not get APed in half.

What is APed?

[Aemilius Paulus]

What is APed?

AP is armour piercing, or when a RTW/EB unit with the AP attribute overlooks half of the opponent's armour. For example: a Dakian Falxman attacks a Roman Hastati with 22 armour, but due to the falx's AP attribute, the falxmen has only 11 armour to go against.

antisocialmunky was saying that the AP attribute only halves the armour, but not the shield and the defence skill.

[Lanceari]

AP is armour piercing, or when a RTW/EB unit with the AP attribute overlooks half of the opponent's armour. For example: a Dakian Falxman attacks a Roman Hastati with 22 armour, but due to the falx's AP attribute, the falxmen has only 11 armour to go against.

antisocialmunky was saying that the AP attribute only halves the armour, but not the shield and the defence skill.

Thanks, I was confused by the "ed" in APed. Never thought of using AP as a verb in past tense.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I was more interested about those low shield values in EB.
Some units like roman legionary carry a big rectangular "scutum" with 4 of defence.
Strange: also pedites extraordinarii (with their round shield) have 4 of shield defence.
And phalangites carry a round shield with 5 (!).
Then, i ve did some test and I ve noted that phalangites are very strong also out of phalanx mode.
I agree with EB team choice to give low shield values, but i don t like that round shield carry the same value of big rectangular/oval shield.

However, for game mechanics, shield value count only for attack in front or left(for melee) and become double in front for missile attack(for example roman scutum(4) become 8 for missile attacks from the front).
For this reason an extra shield value(like 7 or 8) make unit too powerful in the front.
I ve already made this battle EDU with +2 to all shield value(without phalangites of course) in my unofficial mini-mod.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=119572

But, after this, I ve noted that units was too strong against missile weapons, so I made +1 to all missile weapons.

[Lanceari]

I was more interested about those low shield values in EB.
Some units like roman legionary carry a big rectangular "scutum" with 4 of defence....

However, for game mechanics, shield value count only for attack in front or left(for melee) and become double in front for missile attack(for example roman scutum(4) become 8 for missile attacks from the front)....

Regarding your first point, I would add Camilian Triariis have a shield value of 4, equal to Principe's and Marian Legionairs. My instinct goes along with your comment: the roman scutum should have a higher defense value than the hoplon. Maybe this would create some unbalance between the combat effectiveness of Legionary and the Hoplite. If that is the case, we could reduce the skill level of the legionary. After all, carrying such a large shield must be cumbersome, but it certainly stops arrows.

As for the second point, I am not clear how game mechanics work. I thought shields had cero value when attacked from the side or from behind. I vaguely remember hearing shield values were reduced when walking or running. But I am not sure if shield values are ever doubled. Could someone educate us here? Is there a thread with this information elsewhere? Ludus Magna reports his experiments but I could not find the actual formulas there.

[DaciaJC]

I thought shields had cero value when attacked from the side or from behind.

As presented in EB, shields are carried in the left hand. Thus, missile attacks from the right or rear of the unit will ignore the shield defense.

[antisocialmunky]

To be honest, shouldn't elite units get some sort of shield bonus for being elite? I mean, you're not just hiding behind you're shield unless you're in tight formation. You're like actually using the thing to not die like the noobs are.

[DaciaJC]

I very much doubt that any person under fire would be trying to "misuse" their shield. It shouldn't take much training to understand how to properly advance behind a shield while under missile attack.

[antisocialmunky]

In formation but what about outside of formation? Besides, big shields are not 100% advantageous since they are cumbersome and obscure your vision if you're blocking or parrying high.

[DaciaJC]

When facing missiles, the bigger the better, no? Obviously, when in hand-to-hand combat, the ideal shield may not always be the largest, but I don't believe that is the issue here.

[Ludens]

I was more interested about those low shield values in EB.
Some units like roman legionary carry a big rectangular "scutum" with 4 of defence.
Strange: also pedites extraordinarii (with their round shield) have 4 of shield defence.
And phalangites carry a round shield with 5 (!).
Then, i ve did some test and I ve noted that phalangites are very strong also out of phalanx mode.
I agree with EB team choice to give low shield values, but i don t like that round shield carry the same value of big rectangular/oval shield.

Phalangites are special case. They get a higher shield value and lower defence to simulate the vulnerability of their flanks. It's also been mentioned that the phalanx formation protected individual pikemen from arrows. Personally, I rather doubt that, but historically the phalanx seems to have had little trouble operating in the missile heavy east.

A long time ago someone proposed that shield values were increased in EB, but the argument against it was that this makes AP weapons less effective. A falx or good axe will make short work of a shield. The current situation is not perfect either, but the team has considered these arguments.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

As for the second point, I am not clear how game mechanics work. I thought shields had cero value when attacked from the side or from behind. I vaguely remember hearing shield values were reduced when walking or running. But I am not sure if shield values are ever doubled. Could someone educate us here? Is there a thread with this information elsewhere? Ludus Magna reports his experiments but I could not find the actual formulas there.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344

[Lanceari]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344

Thanks, this is very helpful. The pertinent part reads, and I quote:

[shield] : Unit's shield value, taken into account against both ranged and melee attacks, but only when they come from the front or the left side. Against missiles from the front it offers twice the protection it's value suggests. Measures the blocking capabilities of a unit's shield. Max value is 31 and everything higher will be considered 31.

...so the frontal defense value of either a Hoplon or Scutum is 4 x 2 = 8. This should take care of arrows incoming from the front.

...but still leaves open the other question raised here: should the Roman Scutum have a higher defense value than the hoplite shield? ...possibly at the expense of a reduction in skill level?

[DaciaJC]

Hoplitai have 4 shield, same as Roman legionaries.

EDIT: Sorry, my mistake. I mis-read your question.

[bobbin]

Given that the Scutum was bigger they probably should but i'm sure the EB team has a good reason.

If watchman is kicking around he could probably answer for you as he did the stats for EB.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Hoplitai have 4 shield, same as Roman legionaries.

This is the true mistake
Oplon ISN T Scutum

[antisocialmunky]

Aspis covers eyes to knees and shins are covered by greeves. Scutum covers eyes to ankles and you cover the leading leg with a greeve.

Its comperable.

[Watchman]

AFAIK the diameter of the aspis was pretty variable actually; I was recently looking through the assorted Osprey books dealing with hoplites, and the pictorial sources seem to suggest everything from "shoulder to hip" to "shoulder to knee", with "shoulder to mid-thigh" seeming to be about the most common...
'Course, it's not like you couldn't adjust the height of your stance behind it for greater coverage as necessary anyway.

Anyway, AFAIK most incarnations of the scutum are not only more covering, but the whole thing is also *much* more robustly constructed - what with triple plywood plus hide covering as opposed to single-planked dome stressed with a cover of half-millimeter bronze. But 4 is the highest the shields go (the special rules of the pikemen nonwithstanding) in the statting system I was handed so meh, plus given that the actual construction of most units' shields is kind of a big question mark (or in any case I couldn't be bothered to try tracking down the details for all the several hundred of the lot) it was pretty much ignored and the value allocation done nigh entirely based on the size of the shields.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I manually highened scutum armor value to 5.

I don't understand why phalangites has 5 shield value: the phalanx formation could protect from arrows? How? In fact they have small shields, and when in formation they can't easily adjust their stance in order to protect from arrows.

[Watchman]

Forest o' pikeshafts entangles missiles, basically.