The Shield Problem(s)

[Vinsitor]

Tnx

[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.

[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

[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.

[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...

[Frankmuddy]

May I suggest developing a standard test formula of X many of unit A with set stats versus X many of unit B with set stats, twenty times. Volunteers could conduct regular tests with consistent parameters, allowing for a greater number of tests to be performed and collated later on.

[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

[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

[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,

[Foz]

May I suggest developing a standard test formula of X many of unit A with set stats versus X many of unit B with set stats, twenty times. Volunteers could conduct regular tests with consistent parameters, allowing for a greater number of tests to be performed and collated later on.

Sure you can suggest it. I don't think anyone is doing much testing at the moment though. We've run more than enough tests already to prove the problem to anyone except those unable to accept it due to religious reasons.

At the very least I can say that I'm not really concerning myself much further with the problem, and am assuming that a patch is on its way from CA. So barring some as yet undiscovered catastrophic side effect of my v1.2 Shield Fix, I intend to enjoy the game to the full extent of the law until that official patch shows up from CA and hopefully fixes all these problems we've all been seeing.

[Janderclander]

This is for The_Foz_4

Here is a post I wrote somewhere else and I was wondering if you could create a script like the one for the shield fix for this:

"Can someone tell me what file / line contains the variable that makes units more likely to route when the general is dead?. It might be historically correct, or not, but I do not like the fact that once the AI general is killed, the battle is almost over as units rout and you end up with results such as Kills 1200, Loses 150.
Can that morale bonus from the general be canceled or reduced easily?

It is either that or one by one, go through every unit in the EDU and give them a morale boost. I also found out that in this file, you can add lock_morale to the end of the stat_mental field of each unit. Like this:

stat_mental 3, normal, trained, lock_morale

This stops unit from ever routing. It might be a bit extreme but it can be quite amazing, seeing all units fighting to death, instead of routing and being killed anyway by cavalry.

I will try it when I go home. Might take a while to modify every single unit though"

Just to add that parameter to every unit. Thanks

[Janderclander]

Another solution would be to give every unit a morale boost with a similar script, but a believe playing on VH already does this and it does not seem to be very effective since units route easily when their general is gone.

If it is not too much work, you could maybe create a second file that gives, lets say, +7 to everyone and compare what solution is best

What do you say, the_foz_4?

[SnowlyWhite]

I'll toss 2 cents in, despite the hotness of the topic going down:p

1st of all - foz - regarding an eventual patch by ca; while it's obvious that the source of the problem is a - instead of +(boy, that happened to me a ton too:p), hoping for a patching is imho ifi. If they patch that, it means that they have to do all the rebalancing(since it's obvious that the testers balanced around the way it's currently working). I don't see how any sane producer would accept this...

2nd - Carl - regarding the whole ha discussion(though it's hardly the place), you're forgetting a ton of things.

a. it's an "no way I win this" situation in 35-40% which greatly reduces their overpowerness. Anyone playing a ha faction will notice that:

- it HARDLY works on bad weather;
- when you get out of your "native" environment(the east + russian steepe) and you go on the catholic factions, it can be a sure loss on a ton of occassions.
If you field a full cav. army(which I do alot when playing east), you have to take in account that, after you got the russian steepe and the east and you start moving into the westernese lands, you find a ton of forests. Where... you don't win, period. It's like a pre modded 2hander... it doesn't work in... replace "against cav." with "in forests".
Obviously, you can be lame and, reload, and place your army somewhere where there ain't any forest(though I dare you do that in Poland:p) or reload when he ambushes you. The problems start in Italy and are a pain further on.
Leaving aside that your HAs are hardly effective in a siege either(unless you mange to convince the guy to sally) if you patched the game accordingly and the ai leaves more then 1 poor sob in the city.

b. the reason why the unit is very powerful is simple - it shoots while moving and is fast mount(a ha without fast pony ain't a ha worth recruiting, period).
The shield working or not working is simply irrelevant for someone who played a ha faction extensively.

This, combined with the fact that the "light" cavarly of the west ain't fast pony bar the border horsies(*hint* Jerome *hint* - if you make light cavalry, it should be fast pony... that's why it's light cavalry in the 1st place:p Plus, without a practical way of pinning the opponent... you're in for a very very very time consuming merry go round) means you have a field where... noone catches you.

AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE PLACE WHERE THE HA REALLY BECAME POPULAR:

while it's good to play a ha faction, the real problem(at least for me) is playing AGAINST a computer played ha faction when I'm with a western army.
The computer... doesn't get bored; you can sit there against some poor unit of cossacks depleting it's ammo against your golden chevroned general, who barely feels anything, but still... even at x3 speed, you'll waste ~5 mins. looking how your general runs after those people, only to never catch them. Combine that with the fact that the game pauses when you alt+tab, and you're in for a ton of very frustrating battles where... you just look at the screen while reading only to wait for him to withdraw.
This ain't real life... if their cav. is fast moving and yours aint... you'll never catch him. You don't... barely catch him, you don't catch him after suffering some losses, you don't catch him period.
Worse of all, you don't catch his normal missile cavalry either. Since he keeps the distance. For a test, try running HRE vs Poland... you'll be in for a frustrating 10 mins. of your general chasing his Strzelcy without ever catching them. Obviously the Strzelcy would barely bruise your general, but still it's "time poorly spent" to quote the diplomats:p

On the other hand, if you make the ha not able to shoot on the run, you're simply taking them out of the game.
Why would anyone use a unit that has only 2/3rd of the men, is highly susceptible to missile fire, acts poorly at best in melee(read it can beat poor FAs and nothing else) when he can go for a FA? Which also, in a decently modded game, has about 1/3-1/2 of the upkeep and way lower recruiting costs? Which also have flaming arrows(at big bonus in my book).
Only to chase some routing cavalry? How many cav. do you usually see the computer field?

b1. Why the shield fix doesn't really affect HAs(at least in the way I play). Btw., you can easily replace HAs with jinettes too(though actually I find jinettes to be HAs on steroids).

The idea is that, in a cav. army:

- your anvil is the heavy cav.(usually I run a 7 heavy cav., 1 general, 12 vard byzantine army, same thing, replace catas with knights of santiago/chiv knights, whatever and vard with jinettes for spain and so on);
- your HAs will remove the enemy shooters then "assasinate" the enemy general.
The FAs would normaly be the answer to the HA, pitty that the comp. never actually protects them - an english army player led would tore appart a HA army comp. or not, a comp. one doesn't. The situation is even more obvious when playing an italian army, full of pavises.
- your heavy cav. charges and afterwards your HAs charges from the back(since you're full cav., the fight happens when you want if you have some experience - he... mathematically never catches you:p).

The shield working or not working is highly irrelevant, since:

you have a high dreaded general(you have too, in a full cav. army with this tactics 55-70% of his casualties would be prisoners - you can't afford releasing/ransom them, unless you want to do the same next round too and the round after next round and so on:p), their general is dead, you charge from their backs while surrounding them. They... break on contact, no matter what. The HAs could actually have 0 charge and 1 in melee for that matter...

[Foz]

@Jander: What exactly is it you want the thing to do? I gather you want units less likely to rout, but you mentioned about 5 different ways to maybe do it. I need a clear 1 to do. Also I'll point out that I'm not sure we have access to any part of the game that deals with generals causing morale penalties when they die (possibly it's in the hardcode). If we do have access to it somewhere, then I'm not familiar where it is done in the game files. So you can make the units more rout-resistant for sure, but possibly not eliminate the effect of their general being dead.

[JaM]

I'm still not sure if it is the best solution to put half shield value to armor and half to defence.

I think we have to distinguish shields, as not all shields are same. 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. That why all spear infantry always fought in formation and were killed imidiatelly after formation was broken. 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.


At the other end, small shields are not that heavy ,they can help you to block blows of your enemy and provide limited protection against arrows.

My oppinion is that negative shield value should stay, as it allow to make units perform realistically against different type of attack. Units just need more balanccing work.

My suggestion is add same defence value as the shield has for all spear units (to negate " - " effect), and for all melee infantry armed with small shield to halve the shield value and add it to armor. That way melee units will have same missile resistance, flanking them will be a good idea (with shield fix it is unimportant) and negative bonus will not efect them that much.


It is easier to add few points of defence to all units that dont have shield and balance it to have autocalc work, than loose that kind of reality.

[dopp]

We tried that, but then spear units become too powerful in autoresolve because their defense goes through the roof.

Having separate shield bonuses for missile and melee combat was cut out of the unit files, along with scaled armor bonuses for upgrades (ie +4 armor for padded upgrade rather than +1). Re-enabling it crashes the game.

[Jambo]

Jerome Grasdyke advised that the best option was half to armour and half to defence skill. That's good enough for me. Balancing the other troop types can be done afterwards.

[Foz]

@JaM: If you don't like your shields to give bonuses in melee combat, you of course are free to think that and consequently not download or use any sort of fix. Things to keep in mind though:

1. You are not going to make me believe shields are bad in melee combat, which means my shield fix is not going to change to reflect what you think or want.
2. You are not going to get most people to believe it either, which is clear because so many people have spoken up at being disturbed that shields are NOT working in melee, and because it's historically inaccurate to suggest that shields do not work in melee combat. Even the heaviest of metal shields is typically not more than 15 pounds (exception being tower-style shields meant for covering a man completely), the weight of a bowling ball (wooden shields are lighter still). Practice and training make that kind of weight rather easy to heft on the battlefield. You don't even need to move a large shield around much for it to be effective: it's a big barrier that gives you cover from the enemy, and significantly narrows the area of your body that he can strike at in order to harm you. Smaller shields of course require more active blocking, but at the same time they are much lighter so you can maneuver them around a lot to get that done.

So please, stop insisting that the shield melee penalty should be there: it's a tired and completely erroneous argument, and one that only serves to clutter the thread with kickback from the other 99% of people who realize how shields actually work.

[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.