The Shield Problem(s)

[Doug-Thompson]

Fixing one part of the game by breaking another part, isn't a real solution

Hopefully CA will find a way to fix shields without breaking archers, and that's all some of us are asking for.

Amen to all that.

CA should fix this by fixing shields. The real topic is: What should we do until a realistic, effective fix comes along, assuming some modder hasn't done this already.

========

The idea that taking away flanking fire is no big deal is absurd on its face. Take an English Dismounted Knight, for instance. There's a well-armored unit that doesn't depend as heavily on his shield as others. His defensive skill adds nothing — absolutely nothing — to his defense against missiles. Giving him a "force field" shield bonus takes him from a defense of 7 against missiles on his weapon-hand side and all away around his back to a defense of 13 all the way around. That's an 87.5 percent improvement along three-fourths of his defensive perimeter.

If adding that wouldn't make much difference to my style of play, well, I'd have to wonder about my style of play. I'm a dedicated Muslim player, but even I'd probably put up with the Pope for a bonus like that. I'd never have a Crusade that failed.

Having a shield value of 0 gives that same dismounted knight a 46.2 percent disadvantage in one-quarter of his facing during melee. Now, melee is obviously very important to a lot of people. Fine. Argue that the "negative shield" or "death field" is worse. Just don't argue that taking away flanking fire is no big deal.