What are the main things you want to see fixed from EB1 in EB2???

[MisterFred]

At a certain point we stop deciding what would be best for statting, and are just making a list from best to worst of shields. Remember, because of the limits of the engine, fine distinctions are impossible. Try working at the problem from the other direction. Instead of examining in detail whether the aspis or the scutum is better protection in every situation (more fun, I know), create a list of possible shield values and what categories of shield they represent:

0 - Don't got one
1 - Is that a shield or an elbow guard?
2 - Effective shields that are, for whatever reason, small (most cav shields, quality bucklers)
3 - Large shields of decent utility, but which may not be of the very best construction (not as heavy); also, the best cavalry shields
4 - Big 'ole, high-quality infantry shields, capable of reliably protecting against all but artillery shot from at least knees to face
5 - Better than the best - shields which have a higher value because the developers feel it is important to represent some non-shield resistance to missile fire through this stat, not because of the shield itself (e.g. the theoretical ability of phalanx pikes to partially block or disrupt arrows meant for the back ranks of a phalanx formation

Once that silly little exercise is over, it becomes clear that even if you think the aspis is inferior to the scutum or vice-versa, it is still perfectly plausible to give them the same value in-game. Since statting does not permit infinite distinction, we must acknowledge they both (at the very least, ARGUABLY) qualify as "big-ass, high-quality shields." Because further precision is impossible, a 4 for both of them.

Sure if hoplites and roman cohorts were the only units in EB a finer distinction would be possible. But the limitations of the engine prevent a holodeck-like experience.

Edit: By the way, I resent the accusation that I look to EB as an end-all, be-all historical authority (the accusation made by certain people who don't like to be disagreed with). It is easy to recognize, of course, instances in which the team has decided to be very credible to ancient legends (the lakes in Tolosa, the efficacy of drugs used by the Gesaetae, etc.). But I'm not going to ignore their exceptionally high-quality work or insult them by implication, especially when it is incredibly fun to conquer Tolosa and realize the team included that story. There are plenty of things I'd quibble with in their representation - but the fact remains that as a historical recreation of 272 BC in the form of a video game, EB has done a better job that I thought was possible.