Shields are better against arrows

**Doug-Thompson** · 10-06-2005, 23:28

There. That should make the phalanx "phans" very happy. Good work as usual, Kraxis.

**CBR** · 10-06-2005, 23:30

Hm interesting. Do we have any test done in 1.2?

CBR

**Doug-Thompson** · 10-06-2005, 23:37

Originally Posted by CBR

Hm interesting. Do we have any test done in 1.2?

CBR

Maybe somebody reading this thread can do one. wink wink, nudge nudge.

I can say from experience, though, that even shield-bearing infantry took heavy losses from the front in R:TW.

Still, a test for 1.2 would obviously be best.

**professorspatula** · 10-06-2005, 23:44

It's laughable at times how effective those shields are against archers. If on the move the shield effectiveness was less it wouldn't be so bad, but 1000 arrows aimed at 81 men and zero casualties is hilarious. It's like throwing paper aeroplanes at an elephant and hoping it falls over and dies before it tramples over you.

If shields do gain a sizeable bonus against missile fire, then I suppose CA have kind of gone a bit more towards the paper/scissors/stone type setup, whereby the unit is more effective against a certain type of troop (non-shield infantry for example) and rubbish against something else (anyone with a bit of armour and a large shield). Here's to aiming at units backsides.

**Kraxis** · 10-06-2005, 23:55

Well, I think it comes from our own complaining that archery was so efficient in RTW. And honestly it was very efficient. Even Legionaries in Turtle could get depleted rather fast.

Also some people loved to bring many units of horse archers and then blast the enemy apart with little meneuvering. Now they have to be careful of where the arrows actually go. Into the back and the losses are very unpleasant.

Oh, I haven't tested if CA has kept the running = no shield effect. But I suspect it is still there.