Another Sheild Problem~:(

[Carl]

Thought I’d give this it's own thread as the current shield bug one is a bit long.

Just did some tests with Yeoman Archers vs. Sword and Buckler men. In both tests I gave them 0/1/20 for their armour stats. The difference was that in one tests the Archers had AP on, in the other they had it off.

With AP

15
13
11
9
10

Without AP

2
3
2
3
3

Pretty dismal. The list of issues with shields alone is now 5 items long:(.

1. They don't work correctly against missile fire, their defence being less than that provided by Armour of the same value

2. They ARE effected by AP despite the fact that they shouldn't be.

3. They provide no defence in melee that we can tell.

4. They actually apply some sort of penalty in melee too.

5. If a unit has a shield stat greater than 0 they won't brace for a charge properly. this hurts the ability of all Shield units to receive a charge, but especially Spearmen vs. cav.

EDIT: @Musashi: Looks like you where right, congratz.

[Musashi]

Actually I'd be bitching if shields weren't affected by AP missiles. AP means "goes through big plates of metal". That certainly applies to shields.

[Carl]

YES, but the diagram and notes I the EDU file says it SHOULDN'T effect them. Plus it only makes sense for muskets really. Lets not even get into if it was a 2-hander vs. working melee sheilds as sheilds defintly could stop those kind of attacks...

[Ulstan]

Good test, Carl. Clarification question: unit sizes give you those numbers?

Also, I tend to agree with Musashi that AP arrows should help punch through shields, but that's obviously not the way the CA designers have set up/designed the game, so bug it is, even if it's a bug that creates more historical accuracy ;)

[Carl]

Small, I could have run them on bigger, but If i want to run seiges with full stack armies on both sides I need them on small. My comp starts getting jumpy, (littrially~:p), at above 3500 men even with everything but resolution dialed right down as low as it will go. So I run everything at the small unuit size as it's my defualt.

[Musashi]

Carl: Actually, historically a lot of your heavy armor piecing weapons (Axes, flanged maces, etc) were at least partially designed specifically for destroying shields. A well placed mace strike to a shield will ruin it easily (And break the arm of the guy holding the shield, in most cases).

[Carl]

Sorry, should have been clearer. What I meant is that a sheld was, (as far as I'm aware), much more resistant to what CA terms ap weapons than armour was. The immunity to ap is simply a way to represent that I think.

p.s. Am I the only person no longer suprised when a new bug shows up. I even tested to see if defence skill was applying vs. shooting, and was honestly suprised it didn't apply.

[Musashi]

Actually a shield was generally lighter material than your actual armor. Otherwise it would have been ridiculously heavy.

[JCoyote]

Actually, most shields were made of laminate wood construction, as opposed to metal plate worn as armor. While it seems like metal should always beat wood for resistance, against a projectile this isn't always the case. The softer "grained" nature of wood makes it better at grabbing a long bodied projectile than metal. Once metal is pierced, the projectile body can follow on through. This isn't often the case with wood laminates.

Also consider, if the wearer had ANY armor, and the projectile had to pass through a shield first, it loses so much energy I wouldn't bet on it causing more than superficial injury.

As far as melee goes, most users were trained to use the shield to catch a weapon; driving an axe far into a shield doesn't help you. The shield holder has superior leverage, and if the weapon strikes to deep they can rip the axe right out of the attacker's grasp. It has too high an odds of getting bound, and leaving the axeman short a weapon, while the shield user is bringing his own around. "Splitting" a shield wasn't like a splitting a log, the things were glued together in a crossgrain fashion, to prevent just that from happening.

[Musashi]

Yeah, but if you bit that deeply into the shield you've probably broken the holder's arm, which while it won't kill him might cause him to retire from the field.

[JCoyote]

Not so likely. The other reasoning behind wood in most cases was the more cushioning quality of it. The shield also has mass, mass reduces impact. (Ever notice how heavier firearms recoil less than lighter ones that fire the same cartridge? Same principle.)

Now think about it this way... why is catching a weapon on a broad, absorbative and heavy sheet inherently more dangerous than catching it with a lighter, inflexible weapon instead? It isn't. The parry would catch the same energy from a blow, and the wrist is weaker. Such a blow would only break a shielder's arm if they braced themselves in such a way their arm would break; this is unnecessary to brace that hard, because once the weapon is stuck the shield's job is done.

Also, not very many people were carrying splitting mauls on the battlefield, most weapons, including maces, were much lighter. A light weapon driven fast can break metal, against wood it's a little less efficient because of the softer nature. With metal, the initial moment of impact decides everything, with wood the carry-through is what decides.

[Carl]

Ohh, dear, looks like i've set te history buffs lose.

Don't mind me BTW, it's fun to watch these debates TBH.


As I say, all I was saying is that CA seem to have chosen to represent the ability of the sheild to take blows like it does by making it immune to ap. Besides, it adds an intresting element to things IMO.

[Durallan]

it doesn't injure his other arm that much though and after getting a broken arm hes more likely to be using his other arm :P

is this actually a bug though? I'm not too sure.

[Musashi]

Not so likely. The other reasoning behind wood in most cases was the more cushioning quality of it. The shield also has mass, mass reduces impact. (Ever notice how heavier firearms recoil less than lighter ones that fire the same cartridge? Same principle.)

Now think about it this way... why is catching a weapon on a broad, absorbative and heavy sheet inherently more dangerous than catching it with a lighter, inflexible weapon instead? It isn't. The parry would catch the same energy from a blow, and the wrist is weaker. Such a blow would only break a shielder's arm if they braced themselves in such a way their arm would break; this is unnecessary to brace that hard, because once the weapon is stuck the shield's job is done.

Also, not very many people were carrying splitting mauls on the battlefield, most weapons, including maces, were much lighter. A light weapon driven fast can break metal, against wood it's a little less efficient because of the softer nature. With metal, the initial moment of impact decides everything, with wood the carry-through is what decides.

Actually there's a reason that in any school of swordplay you're always taught to never BLOCK with your sword. A parry is a redirection... any direct sword to sword strike is likely to break one or both swords, or disarm one of the two individuals.

Trying to deflect an axe or a heavy mace is considered extraordinarily difficult.

[JCoyote]

Yes but that is because of damage and destruction to the blades, not damage to the arm or wrist of the user.

And blocking and stopping blades with other blades is certainly not without precedent either. I'd think someone taking the name Musashi would know that.

[NightStar]

The shield is also used to redirect the weapon of the attacker. The Vikings used light wooden shield often with a metal boss, and they often tried to catch a blade on the rim so it would be embedded in the rim and then it could be broken with a twist of the shield or removed by the defender.

Axes were often used to ruin light wooden shield as they could punch through the shield and ruin it with some well placed blows, therefore most axe wielders also had swords as secondary weapons incase if their axe got wrenched from them.

Flails were also a good weapon to counter shields as they could swing over the shield and injure the defender. Flails are also very hard to parry. On the downside they are not quickly readied after a blow and not suited to parry with

Picks or warhammer were the true armor piercing weapons as you get the leverage of a swing and all the force of the blow is projected on a single spot which could easily punch through plate, on the downside the weapon got easily stuck.

[Musashi]

Yes but that is because of damage and destruction to the blades, not damage to the arm or wrist of the user.

And blocking and stopping blades with other blades is certainly not without precedent either. I'd think someone taking the name Musashi would know that.

Actually katana are particularly poor for attempting to directly block an attack. But my point was that either the sword is broken or one person will likely be disarmed because the force, directed straight to your hand, is too much for your fingers to keep their grip.

A shield is buckled to your arm. Instead of losing your grip, the force is sent into your arm, and yes, you will likely have it broken if the force of the blow is from a heavy weapon designed to stave in platemail like a heavy waraxe or mace or hammer.

[pdoan8]

Yes but that is because of damage and destruction to the blades, not damage to the arm or wrist of the user.

And blocking and stopping blades with other blades is certainly not without precedent either. I'd think someone taking the name Musashi would know that.

Actually, he is correct depending on what weapon you and your opponent are using.

In martial art, parry is always prefer as oppose to block (even in fist fight). The worst thing is to directly trike back at the opponent weapon (as often seen in movies). The reason is beause in both cases (direct block/trike back) the stronger one win. Heavier weapon will win if the different is significant (imagine trying to block a sledgehammer with a dagger). Take the extreme case of dagger blocking the sledgehammer as an example, the sledgehammer doesn't have to damage the dagger (and it probably won't), but it certainly can mash the hand holding the dagger and still going.

On the other hand, parry doesn't require as much strength. Weaker person or lighter weapon still can parry with ease if skillful enough.

Back on topic: what I think about the problem is that AP should only have effect on either the shield or armor, not both (as I seem to understand the tes result)

[Ulstan]

If someone smashed you on the shield right against where your arm was, then yes, it could be broken. Could be.

If on the other hand, you caught the descending blow on the edge of the shield, you were very unlikely to have your arm broken. Men at arms with shields would melee all battle and not wind up with a broken shield arm, so it's not as though it was one blocked blow and 'oops! Broken limb!'

[Musashi]

No, but a heavy armor cracking weapon could be deliberately used to destroy a shield or the arm under it with a carefully aimed strike.

[pat the magnificent]

any of you people ever watch that show "Conquest" on the history channel?

that dude build some very accurately constructed laminate round shields and tested their ability to withstand direct strikes from various weapons.

he shot one with a bow (like 40 pound test, no where near the power of a longbow) and it penetrated through a few inches in i recall correctly. i've no doubt that a longbow or a heavy crossbow would power right through it at all but the longest distances.

he struck one single handed with a longsword (like either a viking broadsword or bastard sword or something like that... doesn't really matter i don't think) and it split about halfway through the thing. despite the fact that it was held immobile, it was easy to imagine something similar happening even if it was held by a moving person, if perhaps not on the first strike.

then he attacked the thing with a saxon style 2 handed axe (or at least some type of big war axe, it was a few years ago when i watched it) and i'm pretty sure i remember the shield being completely smashed into splinters. i wouldn't have wanted to have my arm behind that shield at the moment of its demise.

anyways the point is, well i don't really know what the point is, but i know i certainly would want to trust my life to a a few glued together planks of wood when there's people swinging sword and axes at me and trying to stick me with arrows. actually the program convinced me quite throughly that if i was on a medieval battle i just run away as fast humanly possible.

[Blademun]

Back on topic with this post...I personally think that their should be two different 'kinds' of AP. Missile AP and Melee AP. Its so obvious that a AP Axe can break a shield..but a AP arrow will get stuck. There are exceptions to the rule of course, and thats why these are all percentage based values.

Also, I noticed somebody mentioned Musashi and blocking with a sword. He didn't block in the hollywood sense with his blade. He 'caught' the enemy blade with his at an angle that caused it to slide down the edge and get caught on the hilt of his blade. Also, after developing his dual-wield style, he used his wakazashi and Katana together, using the blunt side of each blade in a scissor pattern to catch a downward strike, and turn it down to the right, hold it down with his katana while he turned his Wakazashi back to slice at his enemy.

I've been reading a excellent japanese Graphic novel that fairly accurately depicts the life of Miyamota Musashi(which wasn't his real name, btw..) it also nicely illustrates various forms of Japanese swordsmenry with excellent illustrations. Its a hard series to find, I usually have to go to Anime conventions just to find them.

[dopp]

Notice that shields become smaller or disappear completely once plate armor becomes sufficiently advanced as it is no longer 'needed' for protection. In the original MTW the shield bonus was much smaller than the armor value for heavily-armored troops and some units had purely decorative shields (Gothic Knights) to simulate how the armor made the shield unnecessary. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover that units with shields in M2TW have the full shield bonus for their type, which leads to the interesting situation of 'older' units with supposedly less armor having more total defense frontally than units with advanced plate. Comparing Gothic Knights with advanced plate to upgraded Chivalric Knights with full plate, the Chivalrics have only 1 less armor but 4 shield bonus, giving them 3 more defense to the front. Once the shield issue is sorted out, the newer and more advanced units may lose out to the older units simply because of the shields.

[Jambo]

With AP

15
13
11
9
10

Without AP

2
3
2
3
3

So these results show what exactly? Number of men left or number of casualties? Presumably it's number of casualties and if so, that means the ap attribute is positively affecting the shield value, right?

[Carl]

Number of kills, sorry.

When AP is on arrows cause more damage to units with sheilds.

However according to all documentation they should cause the same with or without AP, as AP should have no effect on Sheilds according to said documentation.

[antisocialmunky]

Don't Gothics have AP maces though, dopp?

[Carl]

Don't Gothics have AP maces though, dopp?

Nope, their a 2-handed sword unit. But i'm finding that once you fix the other 2-handers, Pikes, and the Sheild bug you need to give 2-Handed Swords AP and a slight (+2) attack raise to make them useful.

The thing Dopp's getting at is that Sheilds are unaffected by AP when working right so they would get significant extra's vs. them. For what it's worth, most AP 2-Handers still beat Sheild units in my version of the sheild fix, and the diffrance between my version and working sheilds against AP is only 1 point of defence. So I doubt their would be a massive issue.

Also remember that DGK are pretty poor stats wise for a 2-hander, (once you factor their animation in), and thus really shouldn't be wailing all over DCK. Cost wise is another matter and thats an issue all units have once you fix everything. Most 2-handers are then a littil underpriced, except the Sword ones that are highly overpriced.

[Carl]

Just done a quick test with fixed DCK vs fixed DGK. I controlled the DCK. The DGK won with 18 left. A bit underwhelming I admit, but I honestly expected that as they relly don't have the training level, or animation of the only similar price working vanillia unit, (JHI). (Heavy Billmen, even when fixed STILL get beat by JHI, despite their better attack and defence, and the same animation BTW).

[Jambo]

Two-handed swords (2HS) should probably have been ap anyway. A 2HS was a feared weapon on the battlefield during medieval times and the sheer size and weight of the weapon would enable the bearer to inflict damage to all types of armoured foe (assuming they had the strength to wield one).

[Carl]

I agree Jambo. That and to actually make them competetive with JHI and the Fixed 2-Hander you had to give them so much attack and defence, (if you didn't give them AP), that it tottaly screws up Auto-Calc. The real problem is that the 2-handed sword animation is just ever so slightly worse than the Halberd_Militia animation and that means other 2-handers with the same stats will be slightly better than they are.