The Shield Problem(s)

[Jambo]

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.

I imagine skill-fixed shields work fine for the human, but in terms of the AI I think it would have drastic effects on army composition and auto calc. In fact this option ONLY seems to benefit the human!

The armour-fixed option seems to the only real workaround to maintain a competitive and fair level of play, especially given the AI will never take advantage of enfilade fire.

[Carl]

Alsom, some people have just been zeroing the sheild value with no other changes Musahsi. You could try that as it still seems to have positive knock on effects from what I hear.

[Carl]

Got it wrong.

[hrvojej]

I imagine skill-fixed shields work fine for the human, but in terms of the AI I think it would have drastic effects on army composition and auto calc. In fact this option ONLY seems to benefit the human!

The armour-fixed option seems to the only real workaround to maintain a competitive and fair level of play, especially given the AI will never take advantage of enfilade fire.

Of course, I also modified the units without shields, i.e. upped their def skill, to compensate for this. I'm not saying it's perfect, but IMO it's still less of a one-dimensional solution, and for me a more enjoyable way to play the game.

[Foz]

Alsom, some people have just been zeroing the sheild value with no other changes Musahsi. You could try that as it still seems to have positive knock on effects from what I hear.

Well sure, it at least removes the penalties to melee. OTOH it also removes the shield's effect from ranged combat, which I'm guessing will make archers and gunpowder units pretty much slaughter shield troops, even from the front.

[Garnier]

would it be feasible to remove the shield bonus, and add half of it to armour and the other have to defense skill? So archers dont become underpowered, but units still melee good and autocalc isnt messed up? or is that simply a bad idea.

[Musashi]

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.

It's not a gross misunderstanding of the situation. By putting the shield value into armor you create a situation where firing on a unit from the flanks or rear is EXACTLY the same as shooting them in the front. There's no benefit. AT ALL. To me, that's taking an entire aspect of the game out, and is unacceptable.

[Foz]

It's not a gross misunderstanding of the situation. By putting the shield value into armor you create a situation where firing on a unit from the flanks or rear is EXACTLY the same as shooting them in the front. There's no benefit. AT ALL. To me, that's taking an entire aspect of the game out, and is unacceptable.

You've still completely missed the point. I never said it was a good thing to do, or that it didn't remove an aspect of the game. What I said was that the melee shield problem is a far bigger, more prevalent, and important aspect of the game than is the archer flanking fire consideration. An entire aspect is already out of the game in vanilla, that being the melee combat effectiveness of all shield units. That is what is really unacceptable. Anyone should easily be able to see that putting that aspect back in at the expense of the other is about 5 steps forward and one step backward, which is the point I was trying to hammer home, and the reason I say you clearly do not understand the nature of the situation. If you can't bring yourself to fix a greater evil by introducing a lesser one, then so be it, but if you cannot understand why everyone should want to do so, you need to re-evaluate the situation. I don't like the side effects by any means either, but they are a necessary evil to fix a much more horrific problem.

would it be feasible to remove the shield bonus, and add half of it to armour and the other have to defense skill? So archers dont become underpowered, but units still melee good and autocalc isnt messed up? or is that simply a bad idea.

Now that's what I'm talking about... the suggestion shows a lot of good critical thinking. This idea does have the benefit of probably keeping archers at a much more reasonable power level compared to the fixed shield units, and screws up flanking right and rear fire half as much. In return, the archers get an equal bonus against the front and left quadrants. That is, fixing a 6 point shield would now give +3 missile def in rear and right, but -3 def in front and left. I'll have to give this more careful consideration, and figure out what exactly it does to melee.

[Musashi]

I'm not worried about archers being "underpowered". To me, if flanking isn't better than direct frontal attack, that's a whole tactical element removed from the game. Shield bearing units being weak in melee is minor to me.

Just because you feel it's a big deal, doesn't mean it is. It's pretty much a matter of opinion.

[Zenicetus]

You've still completely missed the point. I never said it was a good thing to do, or that it didn't remove an aspect of the game. What I said was that the melee shield problem is a far bigger, more prevalent, and important aspect of the game than is the archer flanking fire consideration.

Not if you're playing the Turks, or any other faction that can flank easily with archers, and who in fact depend on that ability due to lack of infantry (or just straight-up historical realism).

Fixing one part of the game by breaking another part, isn't a real solution (IMO).

[gardibolt]

Great work in puzzling through this, y'all. It certainly looks like only CA can provide a real fix to it though. "Help us Obi-Wan Grasdyke, you're our only hope!"

[Jambo]

I'll be interested to hear the results of the 0 shield, +3 def, +3 arm tests. Maybe that's a better compromise for all?

[Foz]

I'm not worried about archers being "underpowered". To me, if flanking isn't better than direct frontal attack, that's a whole tactical element removed from the game. Shield bearing units being weak in melee is minor to me.

How about the tactical element of "use your shield troops in melee combat, they work." That's the most basic tactic there is, and it's the one horribly broken by this bug. If you want to talk about tactics being borked, you can't just ignore that one b/c you find archer flanking fire more convenient to talk about.

Just because you feel it's a big deal, doesn't mean it is. It's pretty much a matter of opinion.

You're right, just because I feel it's a big deal doesn't make it one - the fact this thread immediately became such a hot topic and continues to stay so, though, does guarantee that it in fact is a big deal. There's power in consensus, Musashi, it runs the entire world. It elects governments, determines policy, makes laws, and defines right and wrong. The people have spoken, and they want their melee units to work right. So I give the people what they want, and try to minimize it's unintended impact as far as possible...

The best part of it is of course that you don't have to (in this case) do anything you don't want to. I'm not sure I can understand why you don't think the problem is as big as the numbers say it is, but that of course is your prerogative. For the moment it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

As a side note, you may find a happier solution in juggling some of the shield points to skill instead of armor. Base armored sergeants, for instance, have def stats 5/3/6, and look like this vs. missiles:

Fr/Le/Ri/Re = 11/11/5/5

The shield-to-armor fix gives 11/3/0 and looks like:

Fr/Le/Ri/Re = 11/11/11/11

It's obvious this is not a good change for archers to have to deal with. That leaves other options of putting all 6 points into skill, or putting some amount into each other def stat (naturally half is a good place to start). The first gives stats 5/9/0:

Fr/Le/Ri/Re = 5/5/5/5

The latter makes the unit 8/6/0 and thus:

Fr/Le/Ri/Re = 8/8/8/8

While I gather you will still not be happy at losing the shield vs. no-shield dynamic (as I'm not either), the quad-8 unit (split the shield points between armor and skill) at least maintains its average defense value against missiles and therefore enemy archers' usefulness.

Note however that skill points instead of armor points may affect melee combat strangely...

Anyway, just some food for thought.

[Jambo]

Guess it all depends on what skill actually does in terms of which areas it gets added to (Fr/Le/Ri or Re)...

Anyway, I'd like to throw in another point for discussion and that's what effect the shield to armour fix has on units like voulgiers, halberds, swordstaff, and JHI?

What I've noticed so far is the shield to armour fix has generally meant a need to improve the other units like 2HS so they keep pace and balance is retained. Should this extend to the other 2 handed units like the Halberd? It would seem so. In fact, it would seem there's a need for a general improvement to all non-shield units to compensate...

Maybe the vanilla (i.e. bugged) shield units were balanced OK to start with?

[Carl]

@Jambo: Not really all 2-Handers that arn't swords do just fine against S&S unit, they just don't massacre them for no losses anymore, which is pretty fair considering prices. Only 2HS suffer and thats partly down to lack of AP, and partly because they have massivlly under powered stats for their cost when compared to the fixed 2-handers.

[Foz]

Guess it all depends on what skill actually does in terms of which areas it gets added to (Fr/Le/Ri or Re)...

Anyway, I'd like to throw in another point for discussion and that's what effect the shield to armour fix has on units like voulgiers, halberds, swordstaff, and JHI?

What I've noticed so far is the shield to armour fix has generally meant a need to improve the other units like 2HS so they keep pace and balance is retained. Should this extend to the other 2 handed units like the Halberd? It would seem so. In fact, it would seem there's a need for a general improvement to all non-shield units to compensate...

Maybe the vanilla (i.e. bugged) shield units were balanced OK to start with?

Mostly the 15 and 21 point attack values plus AP that the various 2H units have easily makes them more than competitive with the fixed shield units (note I mean without touching their vanilla stats here). A few units like 2HS units weren't bugged and so I speculate were in balance with the broken shield units, and therefore yes are left underpowered and can be modified to be put ~"back in balance". That most 2H units were in fact bugged turns out to be important (and good in this case) as they seem to have retained stats that balance with those of working shield units. This leaves a pretty small portion of units out of balance after the fix, IMO just archers a little under and 2HS a lot under, which can easily be put back in with time to toy with their stats. +2 attack and the AP stat have been suggested as help for the 2HS units, and my limited work with archers has me thinking they deserve an attack bump somewhere in the 2-4 range. That of course is just what I want to see archers doing in the game, as judging this is purely subjective business.

[Ulstan]

It's not a gross misunderstanding of the situation. By putting the shield value into armor you create a situation where firing on a unit from the flanks or rear is EXACTLY the same as shooting them in the front. There's no benefit. AT ALL. To me, that's taking an entire aspect of the game out, and is unacceptable

The lack of flanking fire is about a 4, while shields hurting folks in melee is about a 9 on the broken-ness scale.

Without flanking fire, archers would still function, fulfill their primary role, and kill people at range.

With their shields *hurting them* no shield unit can possibly be used for its historical role in any way shape or form.

The equivalent would be if horse archers shooting into someones flanks actually had their arrows reflected and wound up shooting themselves in the face.

Not only is there no benefit AT ALL to having shields in melee IT ACTUALLY HURTS YOU. This is a huge issue and all but the most partisan horse archer fanatics completely uninterested in game balance would agree.

Now, you may feel that the putting the shield value into armor isn't a perfect or even the best fix to the shield problem, and that's fine, but don't try to pretend it's not a major deal.

[Zenicetus]

The lack of flanking fire is about a 4, while shields hurting folks in melee is about a 9 on the broken-ness scale.

Without flanking fire, archers would still function, fulfill their primary role, and kill people at range.

Your missing Musashi's point. Without a flanking fire bonus, there is no incentive to flank! Just always leave your archers, even HA's in the main battle line and fire away! It's easier than trying to maneuver for position, after all. This does seriously detract from the tactical depth of the game, if there is no reason to flank with archers. BTW this doesn't only apply to HA's. There are situations in siege defense and attack where foot archers can get into flanking positions. But hey... why bother trying to maneuver them through the streets into an advantageous position, if I can just mass my army and fire from the front, for the same effect?

With their shields *hurting them* no shield unit can possibly be used for its historical role in any way shape or form.

I don't think anyone is disputing that there's a problem with shields, although frankly I haven't noticed it breaking my campaign games to the extent that some people in this thread say it does. Same thing with the "broken" spears... I still manage to use them, and win. Hopefully CA will find a way to fix shields without breaking archers, and that's all some of us are asking for.

[Carl]

although frankly I haven't noticed it breaking my campaign games to the extent that some people in this thread say it does.

The thing is it dosen't appear to break things badly until you try it out, then when you do you see just how much of an effect it has and it REALLY changes things. Allthough TBH you wouldn't notice it THAT much if you use a mostly mounted force anyway, which is the impreshion most of your posts give. The AI is too stupid to keep it's spears still and braced when you charge cav at them and mounted units arn't effected as badly by it due to their smaller sheild values and high powered charge.

[Ulstan]

Hopefully CA will find a way to fix shields without breaking archers, and that's all some of us are asking for.

Amen to that. No modding fix that we can do will fix this without causing trouble elsewhere, so CA needs to step up to the plate and flip a few switches in the underlying code. But they're aware of the problem and I'm confident they're working on it.

The modding solutions presented are better than nothing, and much thanks goes out to the modders for finding the bug and then creating as much of a work around as they can with the tools available, but none of them are a perfect solution. I don't see how they could be, when the problem is an outright inversion: we can't fix that just be adding some numbers here and there.

Your missing Musashi's point. Without a flanking fire bonus, there is no incentive to flank! Just always leave your archers, even HA's in the main battle line and fire away! It's easier than trying to maneuver for position, after all. This does seriously detract from the tactical depth of the game

Dude, I know. Flanking fire is good and it would be bad if it were gone. However, shields not working at all, in fact, *hurting you* is a far more serious problem. Now naturally I'm not going to tell Musashi he has to install this mod if he doesn't want too. I just don't like the idea floating around that this shield problem is minor because HA folks don't care if shields are detrimental in melee.

[Goofball]

Your missing Musashi's point. Without a flanking fire bonus, there is no incentive to flank! Just always leave your archers, even HA's in the main battle line and fire away! It's easier than trying to maneuver for position, after all. This does seriously detract from the tactical depth of the game, if there is no reason to flank with archers. BTW this doesn't only apply to HA's. There are situations in siege defense and attack where foot archers can get into flanking positions. But hey... why bother trying to maneuver them through the streets into an advantageous position, if I can just mass my army and fire from the front, for the same effect?

I disagree. We are by no means missing the point. While flanking fire as a tactic is useful, both archers and horse archers can still be used effectively without it. In fact, with my play style it has very little effect. I tend to always leave my foot archers behind my line infantry (usually shield infantry, I might add) because they are not really fast enough for me to use for effective flanking. By the time I can get them into a position to lay down flanking fire on enemy infantry, the fight is won or lost already. Horse archers I use to send out in advance of my main army and harrass the enemy as they approach. Yes, they will be slightly less effective, but will still be able to inflict some casualties.

But as has been said, even without getting a bonus for flanking fire, both HA and FA will still be able to fulfill their primary function: killing at a distance.

The primary function of most shield infantry is to be the line infantry, the anchor for your army. The way it works with the shield bug, they are completely unable to fulfill this function. I learned this to my detriment when a bunch of peasants attacked what I thought was my pretty solid defensive line consisting of Urban Militia. I took it for granted that the UM would hold, and went on to the task of micromanaging my cavalry (another peeve, but I won't get started on that right now) to try to get them to charge properly.

The next thing I knew my UMs were routing and the peasants were raping my now unprotected archers.

There are far more factions that depend on properly functioning shield infantry than there are factions that depend on horse archers getting a flanking bonus.

To me, the shield problem is a way bigger issue and worth the side effects.

So please don't tell us we don't understand the problem.

We do.

We just disagree with you.

[Carl]

To those of you who belive the downsides outweigh the upsides, download the file i'm linking to and paste it into the CUSTOM folder in the MT2W folder.

It adds a saved battle to the saved battles in Custom Battle Mode.

http://www.fileshack.us/v/1079978/Fix_Tester.cbx.html

Try the battle as the spanish without my fix. then download and try my fix with it. The diffrance should show you just how big an efect it can have if your force is mostly a sheild infantry force and the enemy is a mostly melee cav/2-handeder/non-sheild infantry of other types. You will need an animation fix in place for bill units and Gallouhchi. But thats just because I had a lot of trouble finding large numbers of non-peasent/non-pike/non-sheild/non-missile/non-bugged-2-hander foot troops to pit against you.

[Zenicetus]

I just don't like the idea floating around that this shield problem is minor because HA folks don't care if shields are detrimental in melee.

I don't think any HA fans here ever said that the shield problem was minor, and sure, we'd like that fixed. Just not at the expense of tactics that work for missile units, and that are also historically accurate for the faction.

BTW, I don't play HA's exclusively. I'm not even very good at it, since it requires so much micro. It's just a nice break from the classic western European armies, when I want a change of pace, with completely different tactics. I'd hate to see that disappear from the game, in favor of abstract 1 v. 1 unit balance.

And FWIW, the only reason I keep harping on this isn't to stop people from modding the game the way they want. If these temporary shield "fixes" work for you, then go for it! I'm speaking up because some people (well, Carl mainly) seem to think that HA's are "broken" and overpowered in the current implementation, and are trying to convince CA that the game should be balanced differently... forcing Turks etc. to use more infantry instead of cav-heavy armies. That deserves a counter-argument, I think, from those of us with different opinions.

[Goofball]

And FWIW, the only reason I keep harping on this isn't to stop people from modding the game the way they want. If these temporary shield "fixes" work for you, then go for it! I'm speaking up because some people (well, Carl mainly) seem to think that HA's are "broken" and overpowered in the current implementation, and are trying to convince CA that the game should be balanced differently... forcing Turks etc. to use more infantry instead of cav-heavy armies. That deserves a counter-argument, I think, from those of us with different opinions.

?????

Where did you get that idea?

HAs work fine.

Shields don't.

[Foz]

I don't think any HA fans here ever said that the shield problem was minor, and sure, we'd like that fixed. Just not at the expense of tactics that work for missile units, and that are also historically accurate for the faction.

I'm not worried about archers being "underpowered". To me, if flanking isn't better than direct frontal attack, that's a whole tactical element removed from the game. Shield bearing units being weak in melee is minor to me.

Just because you feel it's a big deal, doesn't mean it is. It's pretty much a matter of opinion.

So yeah... actually, people HAVE been saying just that, Zen. Also, you insinuate that missile flanking shouldn't be messed up because it's historically accurate. Guess what? So is the fact that shields help protect you in close combat. I'm really starting to get tired of people using a fact to support their own position while neglecting the point that it is equally or even more supportive of the other position.

Your missing Musashi's point. Without a flanking fire bonus, there is no incentive to flank!

Right. And without working melee shields, there is no incentive to field any shield-bearing units. Peasants kick their butts or at least cause heavy losses in every case. When you look at it like that, which is worse?!?!?! This is a pointlesss debate with an obvious answer, as only people who fear that their beloved HAs will actually have to work a little to win would ever be so nearsighted as to suggest that it's actually okay for like 3/4 of the units in the game to stay screwed up so they don't have to deal with a comparatively minor side effect.

I don't think anyone is disputing that there's a problem with shields, although frankly I haven't noticed it breaking my campaign games to the extent that some people in this thread say it does.

All you need to notice this is to put a shield-less unit against one of the shield ones. Peasants against Town Militia is a good example, as I'm told Town Militia don't have the kind of spears that impose a penalty against infantry. Though the town militia have 5 attack, 2 charge, and 7 defense, peasants that are 4 attack, 0 charge, 3 defense can beat them. Needless to say it's quite wrong, as the militia have a +2 edge when attacking, +2 better charge, and a +3 edge when defending. They should win handily. But as their 6 point shield is applied inversely, they really have a 9 point disadvantage when defending against the attacks of the peasants. Thus, they lose...

[Doug-Thompson]

Fixing one part of the game by breaking another part, isn't a real solution

Hopefully CA will find a way to fix shields without breaking archers, and that's all some of us are asking for.

Amen to all that.

CA should fix this by fixing shields. The real topic is: What should we do until a realistic, effective fix comes along, assuming some modder hasn't done this already.

========

The idea that taking away flanking fire is no big deal is absurd on its face. Take an English Dismounted Knight, for instance. There's a well-armored unit that doesn't depend as heavily on his shield as others. His defensive skill adds nothing — absolutely nothing — to his defense against missiles. Giving him a "force field" shield bonus takes him from a defense of 7 against missiles on his weapon-hand side and all away around his back to a defense of 13 all the way around. That's an 87.5 percent improvement along three-fourths of his defensive perimeter.

If adding that wouldn't make much difference to my style of play, well, I'd have to wonder about my style of play. I'm a dedicated Muslim player, but even I'd probably put up with the Pope for a bonus like that. I'd never have a Crusade that failed.

Having a shield value of 0 gives that same dismounted knight a 46.2 percent disadvantage in one-quarter of his facing during melee. Now, melee is obviously very important to a lot of people. Fine. Argue that the "negative shield" or "death field" is worse. Just don't argue that taking away flanking fire is no big deal.

[Zenicetus]

(Zenicetus -- nested quotes don't seem to be supported here?):

"I'm speaking up because some people (well, Carl mainly) seem to think that HA's are "broken" and overpowered in the current implementation, and are trying to convince CA that the game should be balanced differently... forcing Turks etc. to use more infantry instead of cav-heavy armies. That deserves a counter-argument, I think, from those of us with different opinions."

?????

Where did you get that idea?

You're going to make me look for this, aren't you (sigh). Okay, here:

In this thread:

I was mearly trying to point out that the sheild fix only really disfavours HA as a unit class in general.

In the other thread on this topic ("How Effective Do You Think Militia Spearmen, and Spearmen In General Should Be?"):

Fourth, some people are worried this will produce factions that are all alike. I shouldn’t worry about this if I where you. The Turks, (as an example), would STILL have their focus on cav and HA, but they'd need to use at least some infantry in their armies now

HAs work fine.

Shields don't.

Okay, so let's fix the shields without throwing Eastern HA factions into some alternate universe where they have to use completely a-historical armies, and have to fight like every other faction in the game.

[Foz]

Okay, so let's fix the shields without throwing Eastern HA factions into some alternate universe where they have to use completely a-historical armies, and have to fight like every other faction in the game.

If I could do that, it would be done already. I didn't F up the unit stats on purpose, ya know. The whole point of all this discussion is that something has to ge borked since we can't access the code to do a direct fix. I've done what is possible to minimize the side effects, and have since turned to trying to explain that to everyone, along with the fact that the problem I fixed is clearly way worse than the one I caused.

I'd also like to make the point that Carl is entirely speculating, and more than anything probably venting his frustrations at HA types. I don't share the opinion that HAs would no longer be a viable option, and frankly before I keep entertaining all this whining about horse archers maybe getting broken, I require someone to actually go play a game with the fix where you'd normally field cav-heavy armies, and tell me that it is absolutely not possible for them to win using a cav-heavy army. Because if it IS still possible to win, then I'm done hearing about the HAs. And don't tell me to go do it, I'm not the one doing all this whining, and the people that ARE haven't ever touched the fix and are complaining on principle without a single shred of evidence or experience to back up their claims. I will not continue entertaining discussions with people who have not actually played with the fix they are so keen on bashing.

@ the real solution comments: no one ever said this was THE solution. We know we'd have to have hardcode access to accomplish that. What we have said is that it's the best we can do, and that it fixes 4 times more than it breaks, and so is a good trade that does a lot to further the playability and correct function of the game. You don't refuse medication that makes you able to walk because it gives you headaches. It's like that.

[lobo76]

for the shield fix (pardon my forgetfulness) why put the points into armor and not skill?

You may have all been discussing about nerfing missile units' flanking, but doesn't this extend to melee flanking as well to a certain extend. They now encounter twice as much defense when they go one big round to hit them from the back.

[dopp]

The shield bug doesn't just not count in melee, it actually subtracts from the poor fellow's defense in melee.

We thus have a few options in dealing with it:

1. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into armor. Simple, elegant but borks HA because there is now no weak side for them to shoot at.

2. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into defense skill. This now means that the units are way too vulnerable to archery as defense skill doesn't affect missile protection.

3. Keep the shield but add double the points into defense skill to give the correct bonus (because remember the shield not only doesn't count atm, it actually hurts the poor fellow carrying it). This messes up auto-resolve, which accounts for everything properly.

4. Change the reversed value in the hardcode. This is impossible atm since we are not CA and can't get at the code.

Option 1 is the one that The_Foz recommended and evaluated. It's the most elegant solution that can be modded on our end until the patch comes out, but it does hurt the HA quite a bit.