The Shield Problem(s)

[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.

[Carl]

OK, thing is according to everyone the shield value WAS unaffected by AP, (unlike armour), in RTW. And their are notes in the Export_Descr_unit file that says it still shouldn't in M2TW so when some tests showed it WAS effecting the shield value I was understandably confused. Especially since I’d also seen a M2TW diagram showing it actually saying the shield was unaffected by AP.

I can say that in game tests show it DOES effect the shield.

I was just pointing out that this apparent change between RTW and M2TW is quite a big one and it wasn't advertised very well, so I wasn't having a go, i was just expressing suprise at the lack of mention on it.

[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.

[Carl]

Thats fine, Genrally it's stuff thats confusing people that I expect to see come up or stuff we ust can't find out conclusivly for ourselves.

[Foz]

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.

Having played pretty much using the Shield Fix 1.1 changes yesterday, I am inclined to agree that more frontal defense is required for shield units. Observations:

- Archers seem to be functioning pretty well. They kill a bit better from the front than in vanilla, a bit worse from flanking positions generally. Seems reasonable, which leads me to believe the defense boost for shield units should be in defense skill which doesn't affect archers, as opposed to armour which does.

- My less capable spear units are decidedly underperforming against knights without their full frontal defense. Armored Sergeants should probably be beating mailed knights, and nothing I did seemed to be able to make that happen.

- Sword&Shield units are getting beat down a little too much by 2H units now.

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

Heh... let's see now. It took me about a whole minute to add the one line required to do this into the file, recompile it, and run it on the vanilla EDU. A bit of time to upload... and voila!

Shield Fix v1.2:

Patched export_descr_unit.txt

Patcher exe file

Same thing as usual, use the link in my sig if you need the directions again.

[Jambo]

Nice one, thanks. Does anyone think that with the sudden improvement to shield infantry and the subsequent boost to 2HS units, that there will be any need to boost 2H Halberd units?

[Magussen]

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.

Only if we are playing the game instead of trying to work around glitches.

[AussieGiant]

@ Jerome,

I`d like to acknowledge the fact that despite having what sounds like half your face removed with your tooth, you have provided the most amount of feedback I have seen in 2 years on this board from CA.

Thanks again Jerome.

I hope the facial wound is healing nicely.

Remember to gargle with salt water 3 times daily

Cheers
AG