The Shield Problem(s)

[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.

[Carl]

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.

Indeed, many thanks, I’ll probably include this in my 1.02 bug fixer. Would it be possible for you to settle an argument between me and Musashi and tell us weather shields should be having their defence value halved by AP missile fire?

I'd also like to make the point that Carl is entirely speculating, and more than anything probably venting his frustrations at HA types.

You've mostly hit the nail on the head Foz. I'm not so much frustrated as alarmed by my own experiences in vanilla and reports I’ve heard from time to time. But I am ONLY speculating with that statement.

I'll go into what’s alarming me in a separate thread, but my point is that with fixed spears against any decent opponent (i.e. someone who holds formation and does his best to keep units facing you at all times without exposing his flank/rear to cav charges). You will find that mostly foot archer/armoured sergeant quality spears will be able to give you serious problems as even Generals Bodyguard cav will lose a lot of men charging braced spears of that quality (they will win, it's just going to be expensive).

Lets also not forget that the Turks at least have excellent composite infantry and spears, (fix the shield bug), early on and the best muskets and 2-handers in the game late on. It isn't like your infantry is as bad as you'd have some people believe, no offence BTW. (The other eastern factions are another matter of course).

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Would it be possible for you to settle an argument between me and Musashi and tell us weather shields should be having their defence value halved by AP missile fire?

AP (armour-piercing) was a flag intended to model high-momentum weapons like 2H axes and heavy crossbow bolts, which are by their nature more capable of punching through armour than something with only armstrength behind it, like an ungrounded spear or longsword. So in general, yes, AP should indeed halve the shield defence values.

But ultimately this is an argument along the lines of "how long is a piece of string". The reality is a sliding scale which incorporates the difference in vector momentum between the impacting weapon and the armour it's impacting on, the relative hardness of same and the area of impact. Modelling that would make a game which is fantastically hard to balance and likely tough for players to grasp as well.

You could argue that some shield types should not be affected by AP - toughened layered hide shields with wood backing perhaps, or massive heater shields - but equally you could argue that shields should deteriorate over time... both of those effects are not modelled by the game, and instead we assume a standard shield quality which which adds a level bonus, but can be penetrated by massive weapons - your standard lighweight, wooden shield with some metal covering.

Maybe you would like shields to subtract def in melee, but it doesn't change the fact that it's bugged. A CA programmer posted in this thread agreeing they are bugged and giving a suggestion on the best workaround for it. SHIELDS ARE BUGGED!

Just to clarify: I said it looks like a bug, and that it was being investigated. Only the guys in Oz who are working on it can categorically and officially state that it *was* a bug. And if i sound a little cranky saying that, it's because I am recovering from the tooth-extraction-from-hell...

[Carl]

Thanks for the clarification. The RTW method, Digrams and in file notes where all saying otherwise so I wanted it clarifying.

You win Musashi.

[Carl]

EDIT: You could have made abigger deal of telling everyone you'd changed it from Rome BTW.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

EDIT: You could have made a bigger deal of telling everyone you'd changed it from Rome BTW.

Aha... ok, my misunderstanding. I thought you were asking whether it "should" do that in general, rather than specifically, "does it do that in Medieval 2". The answer to the second question is, I'm not sure without checking the Med2 code, and I don't currently have access :) Sry about that.

[grinningman]

Just to clarify: I said it looks like a bug, and that it was being investigated. Only the guys in Oz who are working on it can categorically and officially state that it *was* a bug. And if i sound a little cranky saying that, it's because I am recovering from the tooth-extraction-from-hell...

You don't sound cranky, just careful . Hope the tooth extraction aftermath is improving.

Posts like JaM's (and I don't mean to single him/her out, it's just an example of one of those "it's not a bug, it's a highly obscure undocumented feature!" posts) show why it is really nice to get CA developers to comment on these issues in the forums. Thanks for taking the time to do it.

[Carl]

And the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined towards the opinion that some sort of bonus to defense on top of the half-shield bonus to armour would be best. It's mainly because the bulk of combat in the game is front-on, face-to-face, and so higher armour rating in the rear is unlikely to compensate fully for lower frontal defense, even with the greater per-attack impact of rear/flank attacks.

If I’m understanding this bit correctly, then I agree. Frontal defence really matters for spear units when receiving cav charges. In my experience, even with it all in the armour, spears are only JUST good enough ATM. Generally I like to add a couple of points of defence skill to all shield units on top to help them balance a bit better vs. cav/2-handers. Spear Militia can now just barely hold Mailed Knights, and most Sword and Shield units when up against 2-handers of similar quality will inflict some losses on the 2-handers before dying.

Would You have any issues with me starting a thread with questions on how the engine works to be passed onto the devs and hopefully the answers included in the readme of a future patch? Theirs a lot of stuff people would like to know, but it isn't really fair to barrage you with questions.

This method would hopefully get them answered, but without putting pressure on anyone, it would be a back-burner type project in effect.

Regardless of the answer, thanks for all the answers.

[Jambo]

Yeah, major thanks Jerome, it's really nice to have some of these answers. Much appreciated. On a Saturday too!

Maybe the_foz_4 could generate an exe program which puts half shield into armour rounded down and half into defence skill rounded up? Of course that's if he has the time and is willing (I've no idea how much work it entails, so excuse my ignorance if it's a lot to ask!).

Regards

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Would You have any issues with me starting a thread with questions on how the engine works to be passed onto the devs and hopefully the answers included in the readme of a future patch? Theirs a lot of stuff people would like to know, but it isn't really fair to barrage you with questions.

You can ask of course, but answers might not be forthcoming :) Part of the fun of playing games is finding out how they work, and we wouldn't want to give away all the hidden secrets of how the whole thing fits together.

[dopp]

The dev has spoken. We mortals hear and obey.

Half into armor was my proposal waaaaay back on Page 2 of this thread or something. We know we can't fix the problem totally on our end, so compromise a bit and find a balance we can live with. Getting rid of the buggy shield is the first step, now let's just agree on where those defense points should go. Since the shield only protects half or less of the soldier at any time, I vote for half into armor.

I play HA too (Parthian/Sassanid/Byzantine fan here), and I think I can say that there are more uses to outflanking than just shooting at vulnerable rears. Units seem to take morale hits just from having their line of retreat cut off in M2TW. Units also take morale hits from getting charged in the rear by the tougher types of HA. At the very least, running behind allows you to catch his routers more easily and divide his forces so your lancers can deliver the killing blow. It's not a completely lost cause. Half the shield bonus is around +3 for melee units and +2 for cavalry. This translates to around 15-20% less losses on average.

[Jambo]

Now we just need a nice little exe program to help us change all shield values to 0 and put half into armour (with the option of then putting another half into defence skill)! *hint hint* ;)

lol.

[dopp]

Now we just need a nice little exe program to help us change all shield values to 0 and put half into armour (with the option of then putting another half into defence skill)! *hint hint* ;)

lol.

It called WordPad.

[JaM]

I dont think shields are bugged. They are working ok against missiles,bigger is the shield - bigger is the drawback to have it in melee. Right now Pavises working as they should.

Way out of this is to lower all armor values, shields attack and missiles to half. That way, armor upgrades will mean something (if your armor is 2 and you upgrade it to 5,it will definitelly help you if arrow has attack value 2)

Then you need to leave defence value for every unit as it is and add a bonus to all units with small to medium shields to benefit them in close combat (dismounted knights for example).

example dismounted knight has: 2/6/2 (armor/defence/shield) so in melee he will have defence 2+4=6,against arrows 4, spear infantry with attack 1 or 2 will have hard time to beat them. as it has to be.
armored seargants will be 2/5/2 melee defence 5, arrow defence 4.
spear unit with attack 1 (+4 against cavalry) will have enough of power to fight against cavalry and will be not so good against heavy infantry armed with swords or axes.

My suggested values are: 0 unarmored, 1 leather, 2 light chain, 3 heavy chain, 5 partial plate,6 full plate,7 adv plate. 1 small shield,2 medium shield,3 or 4 pavise.
swords 4, axes 6, spears 1,polearms,halberds 2+AP, maces 4+ap, arrows 2,longbow or composite arrows 3(+ap for bodkin arrows),normal bolts 3+ap, steel bolts 4+ap (or 5), lances 4 (5 for knights heavy lances) etc...

I will post my EDU soon, it is based on Darth Vader work (using his arrows), you will be suprised how god it works in game.

[Lusted]

They are working ok against missiles,bigger is the shield - bigger is the drawback to have it in melee. Right now Pavises working as they should.

Big shields are not a darw back in melee, they are very useful. If they were a drawback the roman legions would not have been half as useflu in vombat as the large shield was a key part of their equipment.

[grinningman]

I dont think shields are bugged. They are working ok against missiles,bigger is the shield - bigger is the drawback to have it in melee. Right now Pavises working as they should.

Maybe you would like shields to subtract def in melee, but it doesn't change the fact that it's bugged. A CA programmer posted in this thread agreeing they are bugged and giving a suggestion on the best workaround for it. SHIELDS ARE BUGGED!

Yeesh.

[Foz]

I dont think shields are bugged.

I just have to laugh when people say this. It's like people who deny the holocaust. Against mountains of evidence, and everything reasonable, they still don't see it. Apparently even a dev commenting on the problem and proposing a solution is not enough to get some people on board. Sad.

The dev has spoken. We mortals hear and obey.

AMEN BROTHER DOPP!

Now we just need a nice little exe program to help us change all shield values to 0 and put half into armour (with the option of then putting another half into defence skill)! *hint hint* ;)

lol.

It called WordPad.

LMAO @ the comment. Trust me Dopp, you don't really want to sit there and shift numbers around with WordPad. I did about 3 lines of that the first time before I decided it would be way easier to automate it... which it undoubtedly was. And that's not to mention the computer can't forget to change something or do math wrong. You're bound to screw something up trying it by hand.

I'll be on it when I'm done with dinner tonight guys, as I work til then. I'm initially not going to give the option for half to go again into defense skill, just going to send half to armor, as it will make discussion difficult if people are not using the same unit stats. Then we can open up discussion on it and try to determine if the affected units warrant the added defense skill points or not. I apologize to those of you who may be itching to get the skill points in there too, but it would make discussion too confusing and possibly impossible, so you'll have to wait.

[Midnight]

I'm a little confused about something - if AP halves the shield value which it seems is currently being subtracted from the total defence, does that mean that AP is now a bad thing, as it halves the amount subtracted from defence, leading to a higher defence vs AP than vs non-AP for shield-bearing units?

I've not been following this thread overly closely (but it does interest me), so sorry if I've just not understood something!

[Jambo]

I'll be on it when I'm done with dinner tonight guys, as I work til then. I'm initially not going to give the option for half to go again into defense skill, just going to send half to armor, as it will make discussion difficult if people are not using the same unit stats. Then we can open up discussion on it and try to determine if the affected units warrant the added defense skill points or not. I apologize to those of you who may be itching to get the skill points in there too, but it would make discussion too confusing and possibly impossible, so you'll have to wait.

Great, thanks.

How will you deal with those units that have an odd number for shield bonus?

[JeromeGrasdyke]

I play HA too (Parthian/Sassanid/Byzantine fan here), and I think I can say that there are more uses to outflanking than just shooting at vulnerable rears. Units seem to take morale hits just from having their line of retreat cut off in M2TW. Units also take morale hits from getting charged in the rear by the tougher types of HA. At the very least, running behind allows you to catch his routers more easily and divide his forces so your lancers can deliver the killing blow. It's not a completely lost cause. Half the shield bonus is around +3 for melee units and +2 for cavalry. This translates to around 15-20% less losses on average.

In fact there should also be a small, direct bonus for attacks on the flanks or rear, independent of the armour / defense / shield mechanisms, if the Rome model holds true. That was intended to model differences in armour quality around the body, dodge chance due to perception from the 'corner of your eyes', and a greater kill chance due to being able to pick your exact strike location with less obstruction and interference. Which would mean that even with a straight armour modifier instead of shields, you should still see some direct kill-rate bonusses from missile flank and rear attacks on the altered units, on top of morale modifiers and the secondary benefits from catching routers.

And the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined towards the opinion that some sort of bonus to defense on top of the half-shield bonus to armour would be best. It's mainly because the bulk of combat in the game is front-on, face-to-face, and so higher armour rating in the rear is unlikely to compensate fully for lower frontal defense, even with the greater per-attack impact of rear/flank attacks.

[dopp]

In fact there should also be a small, direct bonus for attacks on the flanks or rear, independent of the armour / defense / shield mechanisms, if the Rome model holds true. That was intended to model differences in armour quality around the body, dodge chance due to perception from the 'corner of your eyes', and a greater kill chance due to being able to pick your exact strike location with less obstruction and interference. Which would mean that even with a straight armour modifier instead of shields, you should still see some direct kill-rate bonusses from missile flank and rear attacks on the altered units, on top of morale modifiers and the secondary benefits from catching routers.

And the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined towards the opinion that some sort of bonus to defense on top of the half-shield bonus to armour would be best. It's mainly because the bulk of combat in the game is front-on, face-to-face, and so higher armour rating in the rear is unlikely to compensate fully for lower frontal defense, even with the greater per-attack impact of rear/flank attacks.

Thanks for taking the time to explain the secrets of the universe to us, oh Great One, your expertise is appreciated. A lot of the frustration on the forums is due to people not knowing for certain if something is broken, imbalanced or working as intended, or if anybody even cares. Kind of like life, really. Well, maybe not.