Page 2 of 2 First 12

IMHO, CA should jump on this ASAP and issue a hot-fix patch... The shield bug is game breaking. With it present, the tactical dimension of the game is lost and what we have is just an application with pretty soldier animations running around and doing random stuff in eye-candy environmental settings...

Reply

I still think AP should apply to shields, and I will be quite cross if they change it in a patch.

Reply

@Musashi: You have to remeber though that Sheild units WHERE intended to be resistant to even AP missile fire. if the sheild was effected by it they would have to have a defence so high that it would tottaly bork non-ap attacks and Auto-Calc.

Reply

I don't really care what the devs intended. AP missile troops should apply the AP to shield bonus. I really don't care to see them nerfed any further, missile troops should be very deadly.

Reply

You'd sure rather your shield was smashed into splinters than your arm.

Anyway, such a test ignores the fact that the shield was not infact, completely stationary so he could hit it dead on. The guy using the shield would be swinging it around, turning it, defelcting your blows with it, etc, doing what he could to prevent you from getting a good solid dead on center smashing hit.

If shields were so awful, the roman legions wouldn't have used such honking big ones for so many years with such success.

Reply

Let me first say that if your a historical accurracy prefer, then you can safely ignore me, i'm talking about balance points only.

Now then, yes Archers should be deadly to units. HOWEVER, from a balance point of veiw it seems it was allways intended that this WOULD NOT be the case vs. sheild units. Missile units where bassicly meant to be balanced along the lines of:

Good vs. 2-Handers and cav without sheilds, (i.e. late high power cav mostly).

Weak vs. Sheild and Cav with sheilds, (i.e. most early cav).

Their was never any intention of Bows being own everything units. What they where meant to do, (IMHO), is whittile 2-handers/late cav down enough that your spear and sword units can beat them.

Reply

It's not game-breaking. Look how long it took the community to figure this out--and there are some rather intelligent people here. We played it before we knew of this, we'll play it afterwards. Does this issue need to be fixed? Yep. Does it need to be rushed in a hot-fix patch that breaks other stuff? Nope. This bug simply, for the moment, explains why a lot of goofy things went on regarding unit stats and fighting ability, and in due time it will be fixed. Relax, don't do it...(forget the next line of lyrics)...

Reply

@Danfda: is IS game breaking though. people might not have figured out what was wrong until recently. But they DID know somthing was wrong, and it tottaly destroys every unit in the game with sheilds as they are far less resistant to both missile and melee attack (both Ap and non-AP), than they should be. They also fight less effectivly and don't brace which kills spearmen vs. cav. The entire balance of these units against everything else in the game is broken because of it. Since sheild equipped units make up over half the units out their it tottaly breaks things for over half the units out their.

Reply

I fail to see how this issue IS NOT game breaking. I, personally, liked the older (Shogun, MTW I) TW series for their battlefield tactical finesse, which is currently lost in MTW 2 due to bugs and the shield bug in particular.

One of the tactical aspects of the game is to try flanking and attacking from the unshielded sides of the unit (right side and the rear). Attacks to the left side and front should be much less effective. This tactical detail is negated by the shield bug. Actually, if the negative of the shield value is applied to defense, attacks from front and the left side should be MORE effective now...

Also, unshielded unit should be less effective versus a unit with a shield, given all other stats are the same; the reverse is true in the game now. To me - this IS game breaking.

In the current version of the game, unfortunately, I find the most effective tactic to be stacking several units on top of each other and running them trough the enemy... works like a charm. But can it even be called "tactic"?

Reply

Carl: Missile units were always meant to own even shield bearing units from the flanks. Enfilade and rear missile fire is meant to be devastating.

And shields provide some benefit even vs. armor piercing missiles, just not the full value.

Reply

@MUsahsi: Take a look though at how it's supposed to work, (not how it does currently work), and listen to the adviser. The adviser even says that sheild equiped units are very resistant to missile fire.

Plus as noted, the way it's supposed to work is that AP arows don't get any benefit from being AP against the sheild value. That clearly says they where meant to be very resisitant to missiles (not to mention them having some of the best armour values in the game on top.

You keep going on about enfidle fire, but with foot archers thats not going to be easy to get. Sure it's powerful if you can pull it off and the AI probably is dumb enough to let you do it. But I get the general impreshion that Sword and Sheild units where meant to be partly balanced vs. 2-handers because of their sheilds immunity to AP effects. Also remeber that HA units typicly have lower Attack and no A on their missile weapons, so the defence they present to HA in their rear is genrally as great as what they present to the front with a wroking sheild.

Honestly, I'm not intrested (in this thread anyway), in what people, (not just you), think SHOULD happen, (no offence intended BTW). Just in what should happen and in pointing out that it differs from this and possibly why. What we think should happen, and what is actually intended are 2 diffrent things here. All the avalibile evidance points to CA intending Sheild equiped units to be very resistant to missile fire. In starting this thread, i mearly wished to point out that this wasn't happening, and when you mentioned you thought AP should effect sheilds, I decided to point out what I thought had prompted this decision by CA. Namely they wanted them to be resistant to archers and if the sheild was effected by AP this wouldn't really be true against AP Archers.

EDIT: I'm not having a go at you with that last pharagraph. Just Poininting out that weather sheikld equipped units really should be resistant to AP archers falls outside the scope of this thread's purpose.

Reply

Actually almost all horse archers have AP missiles... Because they have recurve bows.

Just because the advisor says shielded units are meant to be resistant to arrows doesn't mean they're supposed to be immune to AP effects. Obviously slapping a shield on top of armor does make the unit more resistant to arrows. Whether it's effected by AP or not.

I don't believe sword and shield infantry is supposed to be balanced vs the two handers.

Reply

Neithier do I in even numbers. But thats my point, what means 2-Handers can't own anything is their vulnrability to even light cav and their inability to take even light missile fire without horrendous losses, (same thing with Pikemen BTW). Thats what actually makes things balanced. Remeber, some armies don't seem have really good late era Pikes or 2-Handers, (Aztecs, and the Spanish/Moors spring to mind here). They NEED to be able to beat 2-Handers. Somthing has to give balance. The anwser is missile vulnrability between the two.

HOWEVER, their is an officiol diagram, AND notes in the files we mod that BOTH say ONLY armour is effected by AP. It's as clear as a bell. AP should not effect sheilds. Weather we belive thats right or not is upto us. But their is absolutly no doubt it isn't what CA meant to hapen.

I'll go and re-check the stast and get back to you but last time glanced at them they where all missing the ap stat if they wern't mounted javelins/gunpowder/crossbows.

Reply

Well, a LOT of the comments in the files are useless because they're hold overs from earlier games (Seriously, this came up earlier on, and I ended up having a pages long shouting match with someone who was certain that something had to be a certain way because the comments said X, referring to a file that doesn't even exist in M2).

And the Aztecs have a couple of very good two hander units, and the spanish have Tercio pikes.

The Moors have terrible infantry because they're meant to rely on their cavalry and camels. Although their Urban Militia is actually kind of sweet.

Again though, I don't feel that shields need to be immune to AP missiles in order to make shielded units significantly better vs arrow fire than unshielded units. An advanced plate wearing, shield carrying unit is going to be significantly more resistant to AP missiles (From the front) than an unshielded, advanced plate wearing unit. That's balance enough, imho.

Reply

Theirs still the M2TW diagram.

Reply

I haven't seen the diagram, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was out of date.

Reply

Page 2 of 2 First 12