Results 1 to 30 of 400

Thread: The Shield Problem(s)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,461

    Default Re: The Shield Problem(s)

    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.
    Find my ProblemFixer Purehere.

    This ProblemFixer fixes the following: 2-Hander bug, Pike Bug, Shield Bug, Chasing Routers, Cav not Charging, Formation Keeping Improved, Trait Bugs, and Ancillary Bugs.

    BETA Testers needed for the current version of RebuildProblemFixer. Thread here

  2. #2

    Default Re: The Shield Problem(s)

    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.
    Last edited by Ulstan; 01-18-2007 at 23:13.

  3. #3
    Member Member Zenicetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    On a ship, in a storm
    Posts
    906

    Default Re: The Shield Problem(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulstan
    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.
    Last edited by Zenicetus; 01-19-2007 at 01:16.
    Feaw is a weapon.... wise genewuhs use weuuhw! -- Jebe the Tyrant

  4. #4
    Dyslexic agnostic insomniac Senior Member Goofball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Victoria, British Columbia
    Posts
    4,211

    Default Re: The Shield Problem(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenicetus
    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.
    "What, have Canadians run out of guns to steal from other Canadians and now need to piss all over our glee?"

    - TSM

  5. #5
    Masticator of Oreos Member Foz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    968

    Default Re: The Shield Problem(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenicetus
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenicetus
    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...


    See my Sig+ below! (Don't see it? Get info here)

  6. #6
    Member Member Zenicetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    On a ship, in a storm
    Posts
    906

    Default Re: The Shield Problem(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball

    (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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl
    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?"):

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball
    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.
    Feaw is a weapon.... wise genewuhs use weuuhw! -- Jebe the Tyrant

  7. #7
    Masticator of Oreos Member Foz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    968

    Default Re: The Shield Problem(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenicetus
    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.


    See my Sig+ below! (Don't see it? Get info here)

  8. #8

    Default Re: The Shield Problem(s)

    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO