The Shield Problem(s)

[Blademun]

Alright, I'll accept Foz's explanation.

However, this..

...Then you get smashed. As you should...

Seems way out of line to me. I don't know what your thinking Carl, but alot of us don't want balance We want Historical Accuracy. Thats why we're playing this game, for the historical effect. Of all the medieval units that ever existed, only two survived well into the age of gunpowder..do you know what those two are? Light Cavalry and Horse Archers. Muslim and Native American cultures used horse archers effectively long after the age of bows and swords had died off. This is purely due to the fact that a good horse archer is an extremely versatile and effective weapon. Why is it that they can take on mixed-arms armies? Because, unlike in the 20th century, mixed arms were not nearly as effective in the 14th century. It creates weak and strong spots, and a general has to constantly cover for one while striking with the other. Remembering the most of his troops are on foot, and can't move from point a to b quickly. The general has to reconfigure his army to take into account his enemy every single time he engages them. Whereas the leader of a HA horde knows what they have to do, they've done it a million times before, and they're going to do it again. You think europe was the only country fielding mixed arms? China did too, and they got stomped by Mongolia. Rome was reknowned for their mixed armies. The Huns made them look like fools. Little Bighorn was suppose to be the battle to break the back of indian power...and we know that isn't exactly what happened..

I'd say of all of europes armys, the only one that could effectively counter a powerful HA army at its prime is that of Englands. Not because they fielded mixed arms, but because their longrange longbows and bodkin arrows would make short work of the shorter ranged, light armored cav archers. (Indeed, in a battle between spain and England, Longbowmen made a superior army of jinettes into a shooting gallery.)

Anyway, I feel that the current dominance that a strong army of Mixed HA(heavy/light) is justified. They rightfully are one of the most fearsome, and expensive, armies to be used on the battlefield. The Byzantines, Mongols and Turks rely on their horse archers almost exclusively for cavalry.

This is not to say cav archers are a noob-tube weapon that makes any noob a good player. It takes alot of skill and finnesse to use HA.

Nope, the only time I’ve ever fought against HA on the battlefield was those tests furthar up the thread.

Perhaps your lack of experience with them is the primary reason you don't know this. In fact, Carl, until you've actually played a campaign as one of the HA heavy nations, I really think you ought not be denouncing HA as unbalanced. You've never dealt with the cost, and micromanaging, that it takes to field a effective HA army. I kinda wish Orda Khan would get involved in this post. He's having his beloved mongol HA neutered even moreso then they already are..


P.S. sorry for going sort of off topic. I know this thread is suppose to be about a bug, not discussing the finer points of medieval warfare. To bring it in line with this topic; I would just like to reiterate that game balance is not what all of us want. If you reallllly feel that HA and other units are overpowered in multiplayer, increase their price. Don't neuter their abilities, as for the first time they've been realisticly modeled.

[Carl]

This is off topic.

However.

This is basically a case of preferring different game types.

or me I love historical accuracy, but it HAS to take a backseat to a fun game, a game is only fun for me when it is balanced. A balanced game means taking any too armies, (say a pure infantry and pure HA army), putting them in equally skilled hands, and expecting, (on average), an equal number if wins and losses over the course of a number of games.

Everybody admits that won't happen, and that means to me the game isn't balanced. At heart it seemingly boils down to, (if you have good HA), build economy, spam HA, use well, decimate everyone.

If I want that type of game play I’ll go back to playing DoW:WA, it's pretty much the same play style and requires even less brainpower as it doesn’t require the micro-management of HA, (which I find boring anyway).

I got RTW and M2TW because I liked how they played out in the demos, it felt like the kind of game I’d been looking for, for years. It seemed ok on balance, (cav was a bit OTT in both mind), with good combined arms and a general feel of balance and strategic depth that’s been lacking in any other RTS I’ve played. It's the challenge of wits I love so much.

On the flip side my point about combined arms was meant to apply to those armies capable of it. Just as Scots lack effective heavy archers and cav, the Mongols lack effective Infantry and Heavy cav.

In these kinds of cases, it's OK for a 90% HA army to do great. They don't really have much else to rely on, and thus need HA that can do well if they are to have a chance of winning. The same Logic Applies to Scotland, they don't have much beyond Melee infantry, so they need really good melee infantry. They still have to use combined arms to a degree. But nowhere near as well as anyone else. The comment was really aimed at factions like Byzantine and the Turks who according top most people can get away with littlie besides HA in their armies 90% of the time. They have other very good units and they are their to be used, the game shouldn't be set up so that a competent HA player has no need for them, and nerfing the HA stats any more would only increase the Auto-Calc discrepancy.

As I said, it's different styles, I want a game that’s fun for me, I don't find it fun when all I have to do is build one unit all the time and use it well to win. I like the challenge of using combined arms and making it work.

So no offence meant by anything, we just have different views on what’s fun, and now that’s cleared up we can go back on topic.

[Musashi]

Not to nitpick, but both the Byzantines and Turks have really terrible spearmen and other infantry until the middle to late period.

[Ulstan]

Don't worry Bladenum, I'm pretty sure most Guild members are happy to descend into discussions of historical accuracy and such

For my part, I believe horse archers in the total war series tend to be overpowered, if anything. Note that all cavalry in RTW was massively overpowered, so I'm not singling horse archers out for special ire.

Seems way out of line to me. I don't know what your thinking Carl, but alot of us don't want balance We want Historical Accuracy.

As this is a game, not a history replicator, we must be willing to make some small sacrifices for the name of balance. Now, one of the strongest selling points of the TW series is that there is a pretty historically accurate balance between the different military types, so I agree we shouldn't just chuck all that overpowered.

I do not think any army of the period was composed exclusively of light horse archers, and such a thing is very easy to do in the TW series. Granted, a player can beat the AI with almost any kind of 'all one type' army, just some armies are easier than others. Are horse archers too effective? I tend to think so.

Of all the medieval units that ever existed, only two survived well into the age of gunpowder..do you know what those two are? Light Cavalry and Horse Archers.

And heavy cavalry. There were lancers still in Napoleonic times, and most cavalry were still armed with sabers and such. And of course, you had heavy and light infantry, just they were armed with different weapons. Then you get to rifled weapons and suddenly cavalry vs infantry is a doomed matchup.

Muslim and Native American cultures used horse archers effectively long after the age of bows and swords had died off.

They could have done this, not because a horse archer was intrinsically so awesome, but because they were technologically at a disadvantage to their rivals. Anyway in the native American case, there *were* no native american horse archers during the medieval period. That came later, and they fought Americans armed with revolvers and such, also on horseback. Off hand, I can't think of a single instance of Native American 'horse archers' fighting massed regular heavy infantry.

When US Cavalry killed Indians, they did not take their bows and use them. When the Indians killed US soldiers, they very eagerly and very happily took their guns.

At any rate, considering the Americans got brutally crushed and the Muslims remained a quiet backwater, this hardly speaks to the military prowess of Horse archers :D I think the better examples come earlier on.

This is purely due to the fact that a good horse archer is an extremely versatile and effective weapon.

I agree, it's just that they do have weaknesses and can't fill all roles on a battlefield.

Rome was reknowned for their mixed armies. The Huns made them look like fools.

Chalons? :D Anyway, the Huns had more than horse archers, I think. And I wouldn't really characterize the Romans as a renowned combined arms amy: at least not the western roman empire. Strong infantry, weak cavalry, weak archers seems to be the consensus.

I'm perfectly fine with a heavy cavalry force with lots of horse archers annhilating a pure infantry army, as happened to Crassus: I just don't think they should be able to do it vs any army with zero losses :D

Little Bighorn was suppose to be the battle to break the back of indian power...and we know that isn't exactly what happened..

Little Bighorn was far from a victory of bow armed horse archers over some other troop type. Poor leadership decisions on the Americans part and dash and overwhelming numbers on the Indians part allowed them to surround and cut down the cavalry.

Anyway, it doesn't mean it's a triumph of horse and bow anymore than the British disaster at Isandlwana was a triumph for spear and shield. In both cases the natives won a victory over vastly outnumbered and arrogant invading forces, and then were subsequently crushed by reinforcements who were better commanded. Their victories however, did not change the course of the war, and were the exceptions, rather than the rule. Also, the invaders could replace their losses far better than the natives.

Not because they fielded mixed arms, but because their longrange longbows and bodkin arrows would make short work of the shorter ranged, light armored cav archers.

I think any foot archers would be able to drive off horse archers. And I don't think horse archers should be able to dash away formed spearmen in a charge either :D As long as we don't have a situation where the answer to every problem is 'More horse archers!' then I'm satisfied :)

[Musashi]

The reason horse archers generally win isn't that they can smash spears with a frontal charge, it's that greater mobility plus range means the spears have to either endure their entire arrow supply from flanks and rear directions before the engagement, or have to break formation, and end up getting caught out where the HAs can smash them with 3 units to their one, and under flanking attack any unit will beat any other, more or less.

Carl: In my experience the Byz spear are equivalent to spear militia in other factions (Nothing they have really compare to say, armored sergeants... and I'm certain english spear militia don't win without the a zero shield fix, which I'm not willing to apply). Their sword and shield guys, which are actually quite nice, don't come until about the middle period. You need a level 4 barracks, which actually takes quite a while to get out there.

The turks infantry absolutely SUCKS. Muslim spear units are worse than European militia units, imho.

Granted, in the late period you get the various awesome Janissary units. But to get there you basically have jack other than your horse archers.

[Carl]

and under flanking attack any unit will beat any other, more or less.

Well of course, that’s what I love about the TW games, even though these are my first ones.

The reason horse archers generally win isn't that they can smash spears with a frontal charge, it's that greater mobility plus range means the spears have to either endure their entire arrow supply from flanks and rear directions before the engagement, or have to break formation, and end up getting caught out where the HAs can smash them with 3 units to their one,

Well HA seemed to be able to smash them with a frontal charge before. I was just trying to point out that this has changed and if you don't REALLY whittle them down, your going to get beaten. i.e. it's going to put a stop to half stack HA armies beating Full Stack enemy armies as you claim to have done.

Shilstrom seemed to be the Western European answer to HA too. By the time the HA are close enough to be in effective firing range, (they brace sooner in Shilstrom), they are braced, and that means their are 5 guys with shield pointing at you between you and the guy with his back to you. Don't get me wrong, you will get some enfidle effects and I don't expect shistrom to be as resistant under those circumstances.

Overall, It was more a case of me saying that pure HA armies seem to have been reduced to an even keel and I liked that. Sorry if it game across as overly aggressive. it was too aggressively worded I admit.

[Musashi]

Actually, my victories have not been due to relying on charge bonus... In fact I never chain charge (I think it's lame and exploitish). I've found that flanking fire is SO effective, that I can easily rout or annihilate twice my number in infantry troops without needing to do much melee.

What melee I do do with them is always flanking and rear work. Because of their mobility it's dead simple to do.

The only frontal charging I do with them is against foot archers (Which the AI always foolishly stick out in front of the other troops.

[DukeKent]

As to Little Big Horn. Not only did the native Americans have numerical superiority. But my understanding is that many of the Native Americans were armed with better rifles (and thus more fire power) than what the U.S. government provided the cavalry at the time. Of course that type of fubar rarely makes it into mainstream public history books. The victors write the History books, not the losers. As mentioned above, the biggest problem was the leadership anyway. Custer was rash in the Civil War, why would we he change against what he considered an inferior foe.

Most importantly, great work on the bug identification, and fix guys

[Carl]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but arn't Turkish/Bazantyine spearmen roughly equivelent to English Spear Milita?

The reason I ask is that with Silver armour they, (Spear Milita), CAN take Fuedal Knights, (weird I know, as they get massacred without them), and can badly hurt Hospittelter's. Thus i'm pretty sure any units coming out of a large town are going to be decent spearmen in effect.

Of course if i've missed somthing...?

Likewise, when do all those Bazantyine Sword and Sheild units show up then, I thought they where quite early? (Maybe i'm wrong). Remeber, he Sheild Bug wreacks their power tottally. Most HA vs. Militia spearmen is instant death in melee to the HA. Especially with Shilstrom.

EDIT: Ignore some of the above, i've just gone looking at the Bazantyine guide and found most of them don't turn up till 3/4h barracks, (allthough the expiriance bonuses from 4th barracks would be mean TBH, as combined with silver armour you get some serious defence/offence power).

[Zenicetus]

Not to nitpick, but both the Byzantines and Turks have really terrible spearmen and other infantry until the middle to late period.

Exactly... which is why the alarm bell went off for me, with the comment up-thread about a shield fix that has a side effect of nerfing HA's. That's about all you have to work with, for the first part of a Turks campaign. And it's one of the challenges of playing that faction. It's not some kind of "easy mode" that beats everything else in the game. It becomes more of an interesting option in the later game, when mixed armies are viable for the Turks. But that option should still be there, for those who enjoy running HA-based armies. Otherwise, why have Eastern factions in the game at all? And of course Mongols aren't Mongols unless they're a strong HA-based faction; something to be feared and respected.

I'm sure CA will be taking this into account, when they address whatever is going on with shields in the next patch. I would assume they won't be nerfing HA's in the process, since they're such an important part of the game... at least on the Eastern side of the map.

Meanwhile, nobody is twisting our arms to use the shield fix ideas here, so those of us who are in the "cautious" camp can just wait for the official patch. Or use the mods that have a lighter touch on the stats.

[Carl]

Exactly... which is why the alarm bell went off for me, with the comment up-thread about a shield fix that has a side effect of nerfing HA's. That's about all you have to work with, for the first part of a Turks campaign.

Perhaps, but remeber that the sheild fix will also DRASTICLY up-power all infantry that have a sheild.

Hashashim are terrifying now, (I know they arn't an early unit BTW).

Actually, my victories have not been due to relying on charge bonus... In fact I never chain charge (I think it's lame and exploitish). I've found that flanking fire is SO effective, that I can easily rout or annihilate twice my number in infantry troops without needing to do much melee.

What melee I do do with them is always flanking and rear work. Because of their mobility it's dead simple to do.

The only frontal charging I do with them is against foot archers (Which the AI always foolishly stick out in front of the other troops.

Fair enough. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you where doing what everyone else does and frontal charging all non-pike units. How do you stop the enemy turning to favce anyway. No matter waht I do Ican't force rear charges if I don't have at least the same number of units as my opponnent, and you seem to be doing it when outnumbered a lot. Or have routing units usually given you Numerical Advantage at this point. As I mentioned though. Whatch out for opponnents that go Shistrom on you. they'll be unshiftable if your out of arrows.

[Musashi]

Well, generally even if I haven't achieved numerical superiority (Which would mean I was up against something truly nasty and uber armored... and probably would have brought the rest of my army hehe) I find I can use my cav's speed to tempt the AI into breaking up formation and pursuing in multiple directions, then swing my horses around and focus on one unit while the others scramble to get there, and just disengage when it gets dangerous.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If he has schiltrom capable troops I just focus my arrow fire on them and wipe them out early. Otherwise I focus on the general and wipe his unit out/rout him. That makes the rest easier.

[Carl]

Geuss I have to remeber the AI isn't as smart as a Human.