The Shield Problem(s)

[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.

[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.

[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.