The Shield Problem(s)

[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?

[Musashi]

Halberd Militia and the Swiss Guard don't need any boosting.

[JaM]

Ok, About shields. I was refering to pavise.It is the largest shield in Medieval era,much laarger than scutum and much heavier. That kind of shield is not usefull in melee.

By the way, If I remember correctly, Roman Legions were slaughtered in Teutoburger forest by germans, Scutums didnt helped them in defence, because they were wet and heavier than normal.

Small shields were useful, and are much easier to fix in game with +defence addon

[JaM]

Another proof is that Genoeese Crosbowmen were not equiped with pavises as those weere too heavy for them to carry, so they put them on a trails. Due to a chaos before battle they didnt recieve their shields as those were too behind the army. so they weere slaughtered by English Longbowmen and French knights...

[JaM]

Another proof is that Genoeese Crosbowmen were not equiped with pavises as those weere too heavy for them to carry, so they put them on a trails. Due to a chaos before battle they didnt recieve their shields as those were too behind the army. so they weere slaughtered by English Longbowmen and French knights...

Glad to see TWC going down wont kill of AD :)

Kushan

Ofcourse i was talking about battle of Crecy

[pike master]

Halberd Militia and the Swiss Guard don't need any boosting.

they need boosting but not in the fighting sense. in the movement sense there tooooooooo ssssslllllllooooooowwwwwww!

[Ulstan]

Ok, About shields. I was refering to pavise.It is the largest shield in Medieval era,much laarger than scutum and much heavier. That kind of shield is not usefull in melee.

The pavise is not a shield at all. It's basically a mobile wall that the archer hides behind. If you don't want pavises to be helpful in Melee, I completely agree with you. There's not reason for it to be harmful either, as it's just a wall that the archer stands behind. As it cannot be held in one hand by the archer and used to block or turn blows, it's not a shield and thus doesn't really belong in the shield discussion anymore than the effects of carrying a ladder or ram do.

By the way, If I remember correctly, Roman Legions were slaughtered in Teutoburger forest by germans, Scutums didnt helped them in defence, because they were wet and heavier than normal.

The romans did not lose the teutoberger battle because they had shields. And we have no way of knowing what the relative casualties were.

Those big shields most of spearmen holds are quite heavy and bulky. Spearman in close combat equipped with that shield and 2.5m spear will be not very effective in melee,but he will be able to resist missile fire and keep cavalry at bay with his spear.

Hoplites used spears and big shields and were extraordinarily effective in melee. For their day, they were the premier melee unit.

I know that Romans used large shields in melee, but they didnt use them with large swords. Gladius was stabbing sword and therefore was easy to use with large heavy shield in formation.

They also used large shields with javelins and then larger more swingy swords, after the empire split.

My oppinion is that negative shield value should stay

This opinion is not well backed up by historical or logical evidence. Shields simply were not detrimental in melee. To the contrary, they were extremely useful. The fact that they are heavy and cumbersome is irrelevent. Armor is heavy and cumbersome. Swords are heavy and cumbersome. Yet all of these are manifestly useful, rather than harmful, in melee combat.

Soldiers spent years training to learn to overcome the cumbersome nature of shields and have the strength to use them so that they could receive the positive benefits of having a shield.

I'm not aware of any army that fought with one handed weapons and NO SHIELD on the basis that it hurt them in melee. Nor am I aware of any army throwing their shields away before a melee on the basis that it hurt them to have one. Just think about it for one moment: soldiers who threw their shields away were ridiculed. Yet if your line of reasoning held, every soldier would throw away his shield the instant it looked like there would be a hand to hand fight.

The romans used huge shields for hundreds of years, and were primarily facing foes who were not predominantly archers.

When they *did* face horse archer using foes, the shields didn't help them much.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but a shield is 'better' in hand to hand fighting than armor is: you'd much rather turn a blow with your shield than have it smash into your armored limbs.

Also somewhat counter-intuitively, good plate armor could turn arrows that would go right through wooden shields. The 'shields = missile defence only while armor = melee defence only' paradigm is a false one that must be dispelled :)

[JCoyote]

I stated elsewhere I think the pavisse should be treated like siege equipment/artillery. The unit moves very slow while they have it, but you can tell them to "drop" them if need be. Which would definitely add a dimension to those units, they could be used like regular crossbowmen if need be.

[dopp]

Also somewhat counter-intuitively, good plate armor could turn arrows that would go right through wooden shields. The 'shields = missile defence only while armor = melee defence only' paradigm is a false one that must be dispelled :)

Honestly, I'm quite surprised that people would consider shields useless in melee. Might as well say swords are useless in melee as well, and that armor is there solely to handicap you and give the other fellow a fighting chance. I've used the lighter modern riot shields (about the size of a Medieval shield) a little in crowd control practice and I have to say that they are indispensible. When some bloke shoves at you, you'll be glad to shove back with it.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

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?

We probably need a couple of months playing before guessing if it's needed, and even then, there is a good chance we'd be wrong.

Louis,

[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