The Shield Problem(s)

[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.

[Moah]

Hell let's face it HA are pretty much invincible anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I love them. But a shield fix that makes those Parthians/ERE/Turks just a little bit more of a challenge? Great!

I'm pretty certain that a HA army could still slaughter a tortoise Catholic army with fix. Not that I'm going to contribute any actual work by testing it. oh no. I'll just sit here and snipe from the sidelines and reap the benefits of everyone else's hard work and testing.

[Moah]

Ah. Can't edit so please ignore the opening word of above post if it offends or breaks forum rules....

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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?

[CeltiberoMordred]

Well, there are 3 types of shields: +3, +4 and +6.

Using half of these values, it looks fair a +1 for the smallest shield creating logic steps, so:

+1 bonus for small
+2 for medium
+3 for big

[Jambo]

Well, there are 3 types of shields: +3, +4 and +6.

Using half of these values, it looks fair a +1 for the smallest shield creating logic steps, so:

+1 bonus for small
+2 for medium
+3 for big

[Carl]

@Midnight: No, what it is is that in RTW the sheild was unaffectd by AP. The diagrams and in files notes say this is still the case, when in fact CA have changed it.

Before a unit with 6 armour and a 6 sheild got 9 defence vs AP attacks (because the AP halved the armour to 3 points of effective defence).

No the sheild is also being halved so the sheild only provides half it's value against AP attack as apposed to the full value. That is a pretty big change overall and is tottaly undocumented as far as i know.

[Musashi]

Like I said, a lot of the comments in the files are outdated :)

And I knew I was right all along

*gloats*

[Ulstan]

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.

Also, the better your armor, the bigger drawback to have it in melee. Those stupid, stupid romans and their big clumsy shields! What idiots! If only they were as smart as JaM and realized that the most effective way to fight in melee was butt naked.


Oh wait. The barbarians that fought the romans tried that. And got slaughtered.


Shields should absolutely help you in melee. A *lot*. A shield that prevents the blow from even landing on your torso or arm is in many ways more effective than armor in a melee combat. A shield can be used as an additional weapon in melee combat, and it often was.


It doesn't currently. And since we know the CA devs are not a bunch of bleeding idiots, we can determine that it's a bug.

[Foz]

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!

Actually this question is substantially different and more thought-provoking than the initial response to it would indicate. I believe what he is getting at is that since the shield works backwards, AP may in fact be causing the target unit's shield melee penalty to be reduced, thus helping the target in fact resist resist the attack. I would surmise that this is probably the case. What net effect the AP stat has in vanilla, then, is entirely dependent on whether the target unit's shield stat is in fact bigger than its armor stat. If the shield is bigger, AP will be halving more shield penalty than it will armor bonus, and therefore helping the target unit resist the attack. If they are the same AP does nothing at all. OTOH if the unit's armor stat is bigger, more armor bonus is removed than shield penalty, and the result is a slight gain in attack effectiveness, though not nearly what would be gained if the shield was working correctly (in that case, though, the shield would be giving a correct bonus in melee, and consequently the unit would still have a higher resistance to the attack than the borked shield/AP combo could possibly give it). Needless to say, that AP could actually help the opposing unit resist the attack is a strange oddity caused by the shield bug, and in general AP will make a far lower difference in combat in the vanilla game that it does with a fix in place. I'm not saying it's the case, just that I suspect it probably is.

Great, thanks.

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

Well, there are 3 types of shields: +3, +4 and +6.

Using half of these values, it looks fair a +1 for the smallest shield creating logic steps, so:

+1 bonus for small
+2 for medium
+3 for big

Sounds good to me. For what it's worth, I was planning on truncating even before I realized it would make the bonuses so nicely tiered! :smiles:

[Foz]

I'm posting my shield fix, which puts the shield points directly into armour instead (and thus zeroes the shield stat for all units). It's available in 2 flavors:

1. A patched vanilla export_descr_unit.txt file...

OR

2. The patcher program, which will generate a new file from your existing EDU, adding all shield values to armour and replacing them with zeroes. Put it in your data folder where the export_descr_unit.txt file you use is, and run it. It generates a new file called "new unit file.txt" that you'll have to rename to export_descr_unit.txt after you backup your old one.

Shield Fix Version 1.1 is now up, and is used exactly like 1.0 above was. I replaced the old fix files, so the links above now link to the 1.1 fix. It now adds half (rounded down for odd numbers) of the shield into armor, and zeroes shield for all units that have a non-zero shield stat. Note that there's no good way to redo an already fixed file, so you'll have to re-implement any changes you've made into the fixed vanilla file, or patch a file that has your changes but not the previous shield fix in it. As it may change again, it's probably a good idea to mod a vanilla file to suit your preferences and stash it away somewhere, then apply the fix to it and use the resulting new file. That way you have those changes to apply the next (if any) version of the fix to.

Let slip the dogs of war.