The Shield Problem(s)

[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...

[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.

[Dexter]

My head hurts .. thinking of trowing out the hole game ..

[Scatcat]

Young Tommy Atkins arrives at the Quartermaster's store. Today, he's finally old enough to join the men of the York town militia, and he's never felt so proud.

Quartermaster Sargent: "He's your kit: One spear, one helmet, one shield. Put your X here, here, and here. You lose 'em, you pays for 'em. Now get out on the parade ground and look lively!"

Tommy: "But Sarge, the inside of the shield is covered in needle sharp spikes, I'll be cut to ribbons if I have to use it in battle!"

Quartermaster Sargent: (rolling up his left sleeve to reveal horrific scars) "Welcome to the militia, sonny. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously though, I've been playing TW games since Shogun and been lurking here for months, but this is the first time I've been moved to post. This bug takes the cake!

Surely this one is of such a magnitude that CA will have to rebalance every unit in the game before a patch can be released? As patches and mods are developed this game will hopfully mature into something truly great. That's what happened with Rome and the original Medieval game, after all. But until then, I'm sticking to the campaign map and autoresolving. The many, many problems with the batlemap (of which this is, imo, the worst so far) make it too painful for me to play.

*goes off to mumble into his beer*

[Lord of the Isles]

Just a plea for a few deep breaths and calmness. The real enemy is the shield bug, not each other, and it may be time to accept that there isn't going to be a magic fix that can be modded (or at least, not one that is going to make everyone happy).

That's ok though. I'll wait for the CA patch and until then Lusted's LTC will keep me playing.

Well done the_foz_4 and others who have worked so hard finding and then trying to overcome the bug. Now .... relax.

[R'as al Ghul]

We thus have a few options in dealing with it:

1. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into armor.
2. Zero the buggy shield out and add the points into defense skill.
3. Keep the shield but add double the points into defense skill to give the correct bonus
4. Change the reversed value in the hardcode. This is impossible atm since we are not CA and can't get at the code.

Or,

5. Zero the buggy shield value out. Period.
I think we can agree that we all want the shield to work as intended.

R'as

[JeromeGrasdyke]

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.

As a temporary fix I would suggest that adding half the Shield value to Armour and then zero'ing the Shield values is the way to go, rather than adding the whole amount.

That way, you get additional toughness at the front which works for missiles as well as melee, it does not mess up the autoresolve to the same extent that a large defense value would (and the autoresolve correctly matches what happens in battles), and the fact that toughness in the frontal segment is not as high as it should have been given the original stat-balance will be compensated by fewer casualties from rear and flank attacks over the course of the battle.

Increasing armour by too much while removing shields will decrease the influence of the positional play aspects of the game, and devalue fast-moving units, so you'd want to avoid that.

You could then also add a further half-shield-value to defense, which would bring frontal melee strength up to the intended value, but you'd probably want to test the half-shield add to armour by itself first to see exactly how much difference the added armour makes against rear and flank attacks in a variety of battles. Adding further defense just for melee attacks might not be justified.

Hopefully that helps some.

[R'as al Ghul]

Hopefully that helps some.

Absolutely! Very interesting points.
Many thanks for posting this suggestion.