The Shield Problem(s)

[Shahed]

Great work guys, really good bug-spotting :) The reason that we don't usually comment is that - to be brutally frank - there just isn't much to say about these things. We try hard to prioritise core gameplay bugs, but it's a huge piece of software with many people working on it, and obviously a few things have slipped the net that shouldn't have.

Rest assured that we do read these forums, both here in the UK and in Australia, and that these things do get discussed internally and passed on for investigation to the folks in Oz who are dealing with the patches.

Good to hear. Thanks.

[Jambo]

By the way, how do we know "skill" only works to the front and right? How do we know it's not cumulative with the shield?

[Foz]

By the way, how do we know "defence" only works to the front and right? How do we know it's not cumulative with the shield?

You'll have to clarify your question a bit. Defense would be the generic term for whatever sum of numbers applies to the unit's defense from any given direction against a particular kind of attack. The individual stats that comprise it for each unit are Armour, Skill, and Shield. For instance, Armored Sergeants have defense listed 14 on their info sheet, which is their front melee defense rating. This is the convention applied in the game. That number is arrived at by adding the unit's armor, skill, and shield, which all apply from the front in melee. Armor applies to all sides of the unit, skill to the front and right, and shield to the front and left. Additionally, armor and shield apply (in the same directions they do in melee) against missile attacks as well, while skill is ignored against missile fire. Hope that clarifies the terms and their interaction for you, but of course feel free to ask further questions or rephrase the current one if I haven't covered what you were trying to get at.

[Slaists]

IMHO, CA should jump on this ASAP and issue a hot-fix patch... The shield bug is game breaking. With it present, the tactical dimension of the game is lost and what we have is just an application with pretty soldier animations running around and doing random stuff in eye-candy environmental settings...

And it's not that we can fix the shield issue easily through modding. None of the currently suggested modding solutions work without grave side-effects. Putting the shield defense value into armor nerfs all missile units while putting it into defense skill distorts melee aspects of the game.

[redriver]

IMHO, CA should jump on this ASAP and issue a hot-fix patch... The shield bug is game breaking. With it present, the tactical dimension of the game is lost and what we have is just an application with pretty soldier animations running around and doing random stuff in eye-candy environmental settings...

finally a realization of the truth!

I've been sayin' this for ever since before the game was released -- m2tw is a big flop.. it's an overhyped mtw clone with better graphics for those lucky to have state of the art systems in order to appreciate the only thin' m2tw has goin' for it -- graphics

sorry for not bein' on topic or constructive.. just had to get it out of my chest

[Jambo]

You'll have to clarify your question a bit. Defense would be the generic term for whatever sum of numbers applies to the unit's defense from any given direction against a particular kind of attack. The individual stats that comprise it for each unit are Armour, Skill, and Shield. For instance, Armored Sergeants have defense listed 14 on their info sheet, which is their front melee defense rating. This is the convention applied in the game. That number is arrived at by adding the unit's armor, skill, and shield, which all apply from the front in melee. Armor applies to all sides of the unit, skill to the front and right, and shield to the front and left. Additionally, armor and shield apply (in the same directions they do in melee) against missile attacks as well, while skill is ignored against missile fire. Hope that clarifies the terms and their interaction for you, but of course feel free to ask further questions or rephrase the current one if I haven't covered what you were trying to get at.

Sorry, I meant "skill" instead of "defence" then.

[Musashi]

Carl: I've played with schiltrom vs. missile fire with the unmodded game, and it does suffer badly. I never play on any settings other than Huge unit size, as far as I'm concerned there is no other unit size setting. But in my experience schiltrom has a unit get massacred under missile fire, because even when they're firing on a relatively "flat" trajectory approximately half the missiles fires in a given volley will go over the front facing ranks and hit the men behind them.

[Carl]

YES, but sheilds don't work right against NON-AP missile fire in vanillia eithier, you can expect SIGNIFICANT reductions once sheild ARE working.

The unit size thing is being hard headed IMO, most people don't play on that size as their comp simply can't handle it from what I can tell. Remeber, the larger the unit size, the more likliy a miss is to still hit somone enyway. On smaller unit sizes, many of those hits in the back will be misses on the smaller unit sizes as they'd sail rght over-head. This is true in AND out of Sciltrom BTW.

iIm, not knocking your results though, i'll trust you as i can't handle above normal in non-seige games and small in seiges games because of jumping. (allthough i probably could run a test the jumpiness starts at around 3500-4000 models). However it is worth remebering that your results are probabky getting skewed in your favor by your choice of huge unit size compared to normal, (which is also probably what they tested and balanced the game at IMHO).

[Musashi]

Most people's rigs can run huge unit size if they turn off shadows. Shadows are a huge performance hit, and they don't add much to the looks of the game, so I always turn them off.

[Foz]

By the way, how do we know "skill" only works to the front and right? How do we know it's not cumulative with the shield?

Hmm... interesting question. We don't know it's not cumulative with the shield on the left. And frankly, I cannot think of a good way to test it. The only way possible is to have a unit get flanked in melee from their left. And even then, you'd have to set it up with the unit in one case having stats x/0/1 and the other having 0/x/1 to make sure you were able to see any difference that was there. The 1 shield point is to make sure skill is forced to right-side only in case shield points are relied on to make this happen. X should be fairly large, so there is a big difference in the unit's left defense value if skill is not applying there. Then of course you have to work the combat so the unit gets engaged from the front, then flanked... and I guess either time how long it takes to be wiped out, or judge by how many of the enemy units it is able to kill (should be less with x skill point case if it has less left defense due to skill not applying there, or ~same if skill does apply left). 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.

[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.