The Shield Problem(s)

[Musashi]

Okey dokey.

Intel Pentium M 1.73 ghz, (Family 6, Model 13, Stepping 8)
1.5 GB DDR2 400 RAM (One 1 gigabye stick and one 512 meg stick)
GeForce Go 6200 64MB Turbocache

I'm not sure about the configuration of my RAM, I know it's not overclocked, because I haven't messed with the default settings of things like that. It's a laptop, it's hard to fix if you break stuff ;)

I'd post a screenie to show I play at max detail, but for some reason the game shrinks the screenshots to 1024x768 from the 1400x1050 I play at, and they don't look as good as it actually looks in play.

[Carl]

Armoured Seargents, Papal Guard, ect. There are probably more that are similar but I can't think of them now. As far as I'm concerned, "Professional Militia" is a Oxymoron, seriously.

They are professional spearmen, and like all professional spearmen they are meant to deal with equally professional and late era Knights.

The purpose of ALL spear armed units in this game is to stop knights of similar era , (but with heavy losses to the spearmen). In addition, for many western European factions at least, Spear Militia are the best anti-cav unit they get prior to Pikes. That’s quite important as that means that mostly they are the ONLY thing you've got infantry wise that CAN be used against knights. Saying they should be annihilated makes no sense under these circumstances.

The Professional militia isn't really an oxymoron at all. You treat all militia as idiot peasants given a set of equipment, no real raining and sent out. Most militia in this game ARE NOT this type of unit. they are semi permanent forces that exist in war time who have decent training with their equipment, (although not as much as proper full time soldiers). They get called up in times of crisis, but unlike most militia, they stay called up until the crisis is over, (rather than only being called up for the problem when it effects them locally). To avoid getting overly long winded my Point is this:

Most Militia units (including Militia Spearmen), are NOT portrayed as useless peasants given proper weapons. They are semi trained levy units that are available at, (nearly anyway), a moments notice and that are somewhat decently trained. Professional solders might be able to beat them 1 on 1. However, if used well the Militia can tip the balance against them.

Let Spear militia continue to get bowled over to send home the message that in the early days before professional armies..Knights trully did rule.

The problem is that isn't balanced and neither me, (nor seemingly the devs based on some things in the game), are willing to put history ahead of balance to say nothing of the fact that Militia Spearmen represent troops equipped with long spears, (units with sort spears get the Light_Spear attribute), who have enough training to know how to brace and fight properly with them. Professional Knights charging into those would get decimated, you've said it yourself.


Also, if you do this I have to ask you WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MILITA SPEARMEN. They can't fight against any other infantry and seemingly you don't ant them to be any good against knights, so in that case we'd better remove them from the game since everything in the game beats them and they serve no purpose :sarcasm:.

Also, to Carl, who's mentioned on several occasions that he wants to merely have the game work as the Devs intended I have this to say..GODS NIPPLES?! Who drank my ale...






And also, we, the paying customers, do not answer to the Devs whims. They answer to us and our desires. Instead of focusing on how to go backwards in game design, why don't we focus more energy on improving this game above and beyond what "The Devs Intended". I know thats probably heresy for questioning the might of our almighty CA gods, but then I'm a protestant..

All right this next bit is going to get nasty, and I’m sorry for that, but a combination of worn out patience, an inability to think of a way to politely phrase this, and the belief that I won't get through to you any other way leaves me feeling like I’ve got no choice really.


Here it is:

If you aren’t interested in a balanced game, DON'T POST IN BUG THREADS.

Simply put these threads are about fixing bugs and creating a balanced game as a result. If your ideas on the matter won't create that, (as having Mailed and Fuedal Knight wail on Militia spearmen wouldn't), then your replies are pointless, detracting from the purpose of the thread, gives us and CA no useful information and are totally unimportant IMHO.

It would save a lot of argumentation and frustration on the part of myself, (and, (I imagine), others trying to create a balanced game), if you left them out of these threads.

By all means express them, I’d never dream of saying you shouldn’t be allowed to express those opinions, just try not to do it in bug threads if it creates obvious IMBA as it dos no good. I'll even create a thread for you all to debate it in as soon as I finish this post.

You'll cry when you hear this, but I play on huge unit sizes, with unit detail set to "highest" and texture detail set to high.

DAMM YOU.

[Musashi]

Carl: Technically, normal spears were never capable of dealing with the late era uberknights (Gothics, Lancers, etc). It was pikes, or go home.

[Carl]

Well I know techincly they whern't, (well probably depens on the spear too). But Blademun said units with Long Spears and the Training to brace them against the ground sould beat cav in his opinion in game. I was pointing out that Militia Spearmen actually do have Long spears and the Training according to the in gam descriptions.

[Zenicetus]

If you aren’t interested in a balanced game, DON'T POST IN BUG THREADS.

Simply put these threads are about fixing bugs and creating a balanced game as a result. If your ideas on the matter won't create that, (as having Mailed and Fuedal Knight wail on Militia spearmen wouldn't), then your replies are pointless, detracting from the purpose of the thread, gives us and CA no useful information and are totally unimportant IMHO.

A problem here is that we don't all agree on "balance." And we may also be mixing multiplayer balance issues with campaign balance issues.

For example, you and I seem to disagree about how powerful horse archers should be in the game. I really wouldn't want to see them diminished, and I believe (yes, in a historical context) that they're currently well-represented in the game.

I also think that militia spearmen are working as intended. The game needs weak units to put stronger ones in perspective, and to provide a feeling that you're building up from scratch in the early campaign. It makes you appreciate the better units when you can get them. There is more to this game, at least on the campaign side, than having units that perfectly balance all other units in some respect.

Now, if we're talking about adjusting unit stats for perfect MP balance, that's a different story. But there is a MP forum for that.

[Carl]

Perhaps I was a littile unclear.

I don't mind diffent PoV. but the idea that cav should dominate all infantry till pikes/pro spears come along is clearly unbalanced. Thats what Bladenum was suggesting and why i'm so annoyed.

I Might disagree with you on HA, but they are a lot closer to balanced than the vaniliia spear units are.

Like I said, in this game if a unit dosen't serve a purpose on the batlefeild it dosen't have a place. Why build Spear militia if everything beats them. I might as well build Town militia who don't get the melee penalties vs. infantry and are thus of some use. Without the ability to beat Maqiled/Fuedal Knights Militia Spearmen simply can't beat anything in the gaame. Yet Bladenum seem to want that.

Now, if we're talking about adjusting unit stats for perfect MP balance, that's a different story. But there is a MP forum for that.

Agreed, allthough this heavily impact MP too.

[Musashi]

Most factions have at least sergeant spearmen from very early on in the game.

Additionally, even if a unit can't beat another unit, there's still often a reason to bring it. No matter how weak your best spear unit is, you'll always bring a few, because heavy infantry, even really good heavy infantry, can't hold a charge. They'll be annihilated. Often you bring your spears just to die, but their merit is in the fact that they die slowly, giving your real worker units a chance to flank and kill the enemy cavalry.

[Carl]

The problem is that any spear unit that can actually hold a charge BETTER than a sword unit will beat or almost beat a cav unit all on it's own. Likewise, a sword unit that can take the cav charge better than the spearmen will still do heavy damage without support. Now lets take this across to the appropriate thread i set up, (please).

[Blademun]

Alright, we will, but I would like to express my real concern that you are not genuinely interested in "fixing" the game, but using your posistion to slip in balance changes that will change the game toward the way you see fit. Thats why theres a argument in the first place. Its already very clear how biased you are toward spearman, and it is certainly no wonder if somehow this bias were to get translated into any fix you created.

Perhaps I'm being paranoid, if so then I am sorry. However I do personally doubt your intentions. I realize this is a bug thread though, so I'll leave to discuss balance elsewhere.

[Carl]

Not really, How I want spearmen to be is how they actually perform with the shield fix in place. That’s the thing. Some of you history buffs want knights to dominate, but that’s not what happens with the fixes in place and like the balance like that a lot. I’ll admit I’m not 100% happy with the performance of Spear Militia vs. feudal knights. But they do okay.

If you'd said you where worried I was trying to skew balance I probably wouldn't have got so fed up and bit your head off.

It felt to me like you where trying to say that cav/HA should decimate all non-pike forces making them the only useful unit except pikes, muskets and the odd archer unit.

I would consider you saying that your worried that I might be taking things too far the other way with my suggestions, constructive and useful. It's when people ask for historically accurate things that are fairly obviously IMBA because of how they neuter so many armies/unit types that gets my back up.

What you just put is actually very constructive as your acting to try and check balance me and I’d happily appreciate more comments like that.

I wasn't really trying to drive you awa from bug threads alltoghether. I was just trying to get you to leave the history vs. balance bits out, as arguing over them isn't the purpose of these threads, thats why I created the spearmen balance thread. S we CAN have these types of discussions without cluttering the bug threads with them, as they are off-topic really in them IMHO.

[antisocialmunky]

Has anyone tried a negative shield fix? Does it indeed alter the animation so that units block with shields in melee?

[Carl]

Negetive values don't work unfortunatly, and if they did it would bugger their missile defence anyway.

[pike master]

not to interrupt the spear comments but about the shield problem i seem to see animations where the soldiers move their shield up and block weapons but maybe im mistaken. and as i stated before maybe why they are getting slaughtered is because swordsmen with shields usually arnt going to have the same weapon power as a halberdier or war pick/hammer.

but as far as the spear units i think that any unit that is supposed to represent the scottish schiltrom should have a spear 10 to 12 feet in length. i mean as far as i know the scots were the first to develop the schiltrom asides from greek testudos and circles.

schiltrom is specifically an anti-cav formation thats why the scots developed the technique so maybe there should be a boar spear, regular spear 8ft, short or early pike 10 to 12ft, and long pike which seems to be about 16 to 18 in the game but not sure on that.

i think pikes should be able to form schiltrom which would be effective versus cavalry but since the pikes are radiated out and the front rounded it would make them vulnerable to infantry assault. while the spear wall would basically be an anti infantry or link up with other units formation.

but i see nothing wrong with schiltrom spearmen bracing spears. napoleon era muskets with bayonets may have been around 7 to 8 ft long and they braced against cav but then again they werent trying to stop an avalanche of heavy armored knights.

i think that missiles are not as effective against units as they were in the previous games. i think the reason why shielded infantry arnt benefiting from a shield is because they dont seem to be guarding with them until after they have been hit by missiles and before the next volley hits them they have relaxed again. this wasnt a problem in rome since when a unit braced against missile fire it stayed that way for some time.

[Psyco]

*Sorry if this has already been suggested. Finals are coming up and this is a long thread

Would it not fix the problem if you were to leave the shield values unaltered but add twice the shield's value to the unit's skill
( -x + 2x = x ). This would give the unit the bonus against archers, as well as in combat.

[Foz]

Not really, How I want spearmen to be is how they actually perform with the shield fix in place. That’s the thing. Some of you history buffs want knights to dominate, but that’s not what happens with the fixes in place and like the balance like that a lot. I’ll admit I’m not 100% happy with the performance of Spear Militia vs. feudal knights. But they do okay.

While I enjoy the ability of spearmen to beat or at least hold their own against cav with the fix in place, there is a point to be made here:

We really have no idea whether the units were balanced to each other in playtesting, or if they were balanced numerically without playtesting.

The first would mean knights are less capable than intended by CA with the fix, and is probably the camp the people who want spear units to continue to remain bad and knights to mop up would find themselves in.

The second means fixing the bugs would directly put the units back into a balanced state, and would be represented by people who feel the fix makes game balance better.

After having watched the debates rage for quite some time, I find myself in no man's land: I feel some units appear clearly to have been balanced down to the levels of borked shield units, while others have not been. The end result, IMO, is that fixing the shield bug has improved balance in some ways, and made it worse in others. This mixed weird situation is probably due to the combat bugs, which undoubtedly made it impossible to balance the units in any reasonable or logical way in the first place, meaning unit stats are all over the place while not having any clear relation to how the units are actually performing in the game.

However, I would not be supporting the fix in the first place if I did not feel it makes more and bigger things better than it makes worse. Things I've noticed with the fix:

- Archers are a little on the downside of things, though I consider this a vanilla game issue. Especially the English ones have never been very good unless you achieve enfilade fire from the weapon side of the enemy, which should not be absolutely vital to them being at all useful in combat.

- Spearmen are useful now. They stall more against infantry, but still are very disadvantaged due to penalty against infantry units (i.e. they die, but take a little longer to do so). They take cav charges now, causing MAD on initial impact (a lot of the first line of knights dies, as does a lot of the first line or 2 of spearmen), and can typically win in standard melee against cav though still suffering significant losses.

- Sword+Shield infantry are put at a level where they are actually good. They lose to 2H AP units something like 3:2 or 2:1, which by the vanilla stats is exactly what I'd expect (they have even stats except the 2H have AP and 3 extra charge). They hold cavalry pretty well, but lack the spear's ability to reflect the charge back at the knights. Against mailed knights they go about 1:1, higher knights can be MAD or loss for S&S unit depending on knight stats and how the charge goes.

- Animation-fixed 2H units (with vanilla stats) feel totally in balance with the shield-fixed units, and most units in general. 2Hs are shock troops on the ground now, but get much more wrecked by missile fire than S&S units, as well as being destroyed by charging cavalry (and that's 21/13 type DEK units I'm talking about. Bills and such can be assumed to get wrecked by those two things even more so). I'm a big fan of this balance, as trading your shield in for a 2H weapon should make you win in melee but leave you less capable of defending yourself from other battlefield elements (archers and cav primarily) as well.

- 2H swords are unquestionably weak. This is one of the unit's I'd suggest was balanced to the broken shield units, and thus left underpowered with them fixed.

- Cavalry... well, something can actually kill them now, that being the fixed spear units who brace correctly for the charge now. The MAD on the charge can be avoided if you keep from charging directly into spears that are set for the charge, and seems to help the knights' situation a lot. Additionally, high armor units (like, 21) also are okay at accepting charges due to their correctly-working high AC providing more protection. As I mentioned for S&S, higher cav can beat them while lower ones usually go 1:1. Cavalry actually suffered from the shield bug in a lot of cases too, and so have largely benefited from the fix, keeping them competitive with all the other units that benefited, and also delivering the melee staying power I think was necessary to make them best 2H units (perhaps mostly due to the formed charge, but I'm okay with that).

Feel free to discuss this further. I hope my insight from using it for a while helps people decide whether or not they feel the fix is something they wish to try, or might possibly accept as an improvement over vanilla and an interim solution until a real fix arrives from CA.

[DukeKent]

Good job on the Shield fix

[Jambo]

Good post the_foz!

That's exactly the sort of information that I was looking for - a nice summation of the pros and cons of the shield fix, presumably the one transferring the shield value into armour. As much as the fix helps shield infantry, it's also worth noting (as you did) that it also impacts the shield based cavalry. Feudal knights, etc, will also benefit from the shield fix, so the net effect should be an overall "slowing" down of combat resolution.

Quite clearly the 2HS units are underpowered. In fact, I'd argue they were underpowered to start with. Maybe giving them a deserved ap attribute and a slight hike in attack would balance them out? Still, it's hard to see how the Highland Nobles and the 2HS HRE units can be easily balanced with the proposed shield fix - certainly nothing intuitive immediately springs to mind. It's interesting to see you mention that the DEKs with their lofty 21/13 stats and the ap attribute were considered balanced. These guys became monsters with the fixed animation. I guess I'll just have to try the fix and see for myself.

[Han Summer]

... Of course this also introduces a lot more error into the testing as the player is required to maneuver around 2 units on the battlefield, and try to precisely engage the enemy left flank at the same time and in the same manner each time...

the Foz, with all due respect to you and all the others who have done a marvelous job figuring out the intricacies of this bug, have you done any testing in multiplayer? it would remove a lot of the variability of AI control (with what goes on in the battlefield, as well as any variables difficulty settings will throw in). it means greater ease in replicating any given maneuver or circumstance. for example, the early testing (at least from what it sounded like) in this thread always had to factor in the effects of charging, when what people wanted to test was effects of the shield in melee. by doing that in multiplayer you can just have both units walk into each other, removing any effects of a charge, and of having either unit designated as the "attacker".

of course it helps to have an extra computer in the house that can actually run M2TW (i am amazed that my old computer with its radeon 8500 is actually able to).

anyway, again, props to you guys for finding this bug and so throroughly searching for the best fix until the official one comes out.

[Carl]

Quite clearly the 2HS units are underpowered. In fact, I'd argue they were underpowered to start with. Maybe giving them a deserved ap attribute and a slight hike in attack would balance them out? Still, it's hard to see how the Highland Nobles and the 2HS HRE units can be easily balanced with the proposed shield fix - certainly nothing intuitive immediately springs to mind. It's interesting to see you mention that the DEKs with their lofty 21/13 stats and the ap attribute were considered balanced. These guys became monsters with the fixed animation. I guess I'll just have to try the fix and see for myself.

Genrally giving 2-H swords AP and +2 attack helps. But DGK are still too expensive for their power. On the other hand this was true in vanillia anyway too IMO.

DEK still beat any other non-pike infantry out their with all the fixes but they do suffer losses and don't tottally walk all over things like they did before. It's just that (as their stats suggest), they are the best infantry in the game in general melee.

[IvarrWolfsong]

Just a comment from the history over balance peanut gallery:

Most of the spearmen in M2TW (and in corrosponding periods of history) are using a normal spear, about 6 feet long, with ONE hand. Considering that they are holding it around the mid point, that isnt a very big reach advantage. Setting the spear on the instep would mean that 2 feet or so would be "used up" going from the foot to the hand.

The popularity of the spear in history stems more from its ease to make and cheap production than any cavalry killing magic. It is a dagger on a stick: cheap easy to create and easy to use. It's benefit against cavalry is more about it's reach in melee that allowed you to poke at mounted opponents chest rather than bonking his knees with a club.

Long spears and pikes are a totally diffrent story though. They ARE designed to kill cav and out-distance a lance. However, their length makes them unweildy as a melee weapon unless they are packed together in a strong formation.

[Carl]

Long spears and pikes are a totally diffrent story though. They ARE designed to kill cav and out-distance a lance. However, their length makes them unweildy as a melee weapon unless they are packed together in a strong formation.

Well according to the unit descriptions, every spearmen above Town Militia has a "Long Spear". as you put it. the in game animations don't allways match reality. Town Militia for example look nearly identical to Militia Spearmen, yet one has a short spear and the other a long spear according to the descriptions. does raise a lot of WTF moments mind.

[Kaidonni]

Will this shield fix bug be compatible with other mods, such as Lusted's LTC? Oh...just occured to me that he balances units in his mod, so it'd mess with the changes he made, wouldn't it? Or would it still be compatible, just changing the units?

[Lusted]

Will this shield fix bug be compatible with other mods, such as Lusted's LTC? Oh...just occured to me that he balances units in his mod, so it'd mess with the changes he made, wouldn't it? Or would it still be compatible, just changing the units?

After testing the shield fix i do not recommend it as other changes i've made unbalance things if you use the shield fix. I will be using the shield fix in 2.1, i just need to balance some other things.

[Kaidonni]

Thanks. :)

HOPEFULLY M2:TW comes to me soon...then I can download the patch and pick the mods I want to install to improve my experience (by improve, I mean fix (some of) the issues with unmodded patched vanilla).

[Musashi]

Personally I like my missile troops too much to nerf them by applying the armor based shield fix... And the skill based fix either leaves infantry too weak vs missiles or doesn't fully fix the problem.

So basically I'm just going to wait until the next patch, and then do my modding.

I need the darn mesh import/export tools anyway.

[Gen_Lee]

Sorry, I saw a post on twc and ima quoting someone«s post there (i cant log into twc right now so i cant say the name of the auhor iof the post).
Quote:
I've found that if you use the shield to armour bug fix (for shield units add their shield value to their armour value and make shield value 0).

It works not too bad with the following 2 handed fix,

Use Highland_Nobles soldier for:

billmen
heavy_billmen
bill_militia
heavy_bill_militia
dismounted_english_knights
dismounted_noble_knights
dismounted_portuguese_knights
free_company_men_at_arms

Use Viking_Raiders for:
woodsmen
croat_axemen
religious_fanatics
berdiche_axemen
varangian_guard
norse_axemen
galloglaich
Galloglaich mercs
tabardariyya
mutatawwi'a
eagle_warriors
english_huscarls


and use 270 for attack speed for all of these units except the ones using viking raider soldier these need about 300
with the lower order ones like woodsmen and croat axemen needing around 330 while leaving other stats intact.
Of course more testing is needed and the charge bonus is probably too high.

Unquote.

Unfortunalty Im not finding how I do the last phase:
and use 270 for attack speed for all of these units except the ones using viking raider soldier these need about 300
with the lower order ones like woodsmen and croat axemen needing around 330 while leaving other stats intact.

Can any explain me How do I change atack speed to those values???

[Foz]

the Foz, with all due respect to you and all the others who have done a marvelous job figuring out the intricacies of this bug, have you done any testing in multiplayer? it would remove a lot of the variability of AI control (with what goes on in the battlefield, as well as any variables difficulty settings will throw in). it means greater ease in replicating any given maneuver or circumstance. for example, the early testing (at least from what it sounded like) in this thread always had to factor in the effects of charging, when what people wanted to test was effects of the shield in melee. by doing that in multiplayer you can just have both units walk into each other, removing any effects of a charge, and of having either unit designated as the "attacker".

of course it helps to have an extra computer in the house that can actually run M2TW (i am amazed that my old computer with its radeon 8500 is actually able to).

anyway, again, props to you guys for finding this bug and so throroughly searching for the best fix until the official one comes out.

I've not done multiplayer testing, as I don't have the luxury of having a second computer around the is good enough to run M2TW. And honestly, except for this one case, I wouldn't have wanted to do it that way anyway. The AI actually makes the computer totally predictable in 1v1 combat, to the point that I could almost snap my fingers at the exact moment when the computer would choose to regroup its cavalry unit, and point on screen where it was that they would be moved to. If you control your unit scientifically, it actually makes the AI a total non-factor.

Thanks for the props!

Will this shield fix bug be compatible with other mods, such as Lusted's LTC? Oh...just occured to me that he balances units in his mod, so it'd mess with the changes he made, wouldn't it? Or would it still be compatible, just changing the units?

Lusted answered this one about LTC, but concerning other mods, it depends if and how they've modified the EDU file. If the EDU is left untouched, or changes have been made that don't affect unit offense and defense stats, then you'll get the same results I've described. If some attempt has been made to balance units, though, your results will vary (sometimes quite a lot) from what I've been describing as the results of applying it to the vanilla game file. In general you can apply the fix (via my exe that patches the file) to absolutely any EDU out there, and it will do what it's supposed to - add the shield points of each unit into their armor, and put 0 for their shield. The only difference is that if stats have been changed, then unit balance will be different from what I've told you to expect. You'd have to try it in each case to find out exactly how though.

After testing the shield fix i do not recommend it as other changes i've made unbalance things if you use the shield fix. I will be using the shield fix in 2.1, i just need to balance some other things.

I figured you'd say that, as you already took measures to harden spears against cavalry, and their fixed shields would make them OTT against cav - something like an impervious cavalry meat grinder. I'm sure horse meat is tasty and all... but that doesn't mean we should install factories to make it on every battlefield.

I'm glad to hear you're implementing the fix into LTC 2.1, it sounds promising already. I imagine you're putting back in balance a lot of the things I feel are out, and look forward to seeing it, as we seem to want the same sort of things from the game.

Personally I like my missile troops too much to nerf them by applying the armor based shield fix... And the skill based fix either leaves infantry too weak vs missiles or doesn't fully fix the problem.

So basically I'm just going to wait until the next patch, and then do my modding.

I need the darn mesh import/export tools anyway.

I guess I'm just less patient than you. I'd rather swat the shield problem, then worry about putting archers and 2HS units back in balance with the higher power level of the rest of the units, than just sit around doing nothing. It's certainly not a bad option to wait for the official patch if you can do so... but I, knowing about the problem, would be constantly bothered by it in the game... and I can't just not play it until the patch comes. That leads me to use the fix, and finish balancing disadvantaged units as I can. It sounds like Lusted is already on this particular on though... so maybe I have to just tolerate the game being slightly off until he gets 2.1 done

[Musashi]

Well, to me, it's better to have my shielded units a little nerfed in melee than completely remove the value of flanking fire from the game.

[hrvojej]

Well, to me, it's better to have my shielded units a little nerfed in melee than completely remove the value of flanking fire from the game.

I agree, it takes away too much from tactics. I am well into my campaign with skill-fixed shields, and so far things are looking good.

[Foz]

Well, to me, it's better to have my shielded units a little nerfed in melee than completely remove the value of flanking fire from the game.

This represents a gross misunderstanding of the problem. The archers, who are far less numerous than the shield units, experience at most a 6 point difference in flanking fire from this fix, as the shield value instead becomes armor which applies against missiles from the right and rear (that's if I correctly recall the maximum shield as 6 points). Left and front archer fire should be entirely unaffected as shield already counted there.

The backwards melee shields, OTOH, affect the units in melee twice as much as the fix nerfs any flank archer fire against them. In a great many cases that is to say the 6 point flanking archer fire difference instead is a 12 point deficit from what the shield should be doing for the unit in melee. 12 points is not "a little nerfed," it is "absolutely destroyed." It's much worse of a problem too even ignoring it having a twice as harsh effect on stats and breaking more units than the fix does, as it applies to any normal melee from the front or left where the shield is supposed to be applied, situations that happen far more frequently and are more integral to the function of the game than flanking archer fire. That is not to downplay the usefulness of flanking archer fire working right by any means, but simply to say that standard melee combat is far more important to the game and thus makes the fix a good trade to make since melee affects all units that aren't archers, and archers too sometimes.