Shields slung on the back

[Miracle]

Certain units, such as Pavise Xbows and Varangian Guards, have shields affixed to their backs instead of their arms.

Does that mean the shield defense bonus applies only to their rear defense?

If so, that would mean Dismounted Noble/Portuguese/English Knights and Tarbardariyya are just as good as Varangian Guards in the frontal melee match, and Pavise Xbows aren't as tough in a melee as their stats would indicate.

[Atalus]

I think it means that when the crossbow men are reloading their shield bonus applies

[HoreTore]

Well, the varangians don't have much on the way of crossbows...

I'm really wondering if someone has the answer to this.

[Rozanov]

Interesting to see what is in wikipedia on this:

Pavise

A pavise (or pavis, pabys, pavesen) is a large convex shield of European origin used to protect the entire body. The pavise was also made in a smaller version for hand to hand combat and for wearing on the back of men-at-arms. It is characterized by its prominent central ridge.

The pavise was primarily used by archers and crossbowmen in the medieval period, particularly during sieges. It was carried by a pavisier, usually an archer, or, especially for the larger ones, by a groom. The pavise was held in place by the pavisier or sometimes deployed in the ground with a spike attached to the bottom. While reloading their weapons, crossbowmen would crouch behind them to shelter against incoming missile attacks.

Pavises were often painted with the town's coat of arms where it was made or sometimes stored in the town arsenal for when the town came under attack. Religious icons such as St. Barbara and St. George were featured on the front of pavises. Even the Hussite chalice was featured on pavises during the Hussite Wars. Most pavises were covered in a coarse, carpet base like canvas, before painting and painted with oil and egg-based paints. Only 200 or so exist today but many were present in period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise

seems the pavise crossbowmen in M2:TW are a hybrid - probably because doing it properly (ie with a detachable pavise held by a groom (no less)) wouldn't work in the battle engine.

[Jambo]

Good query. This is something I've often wondered about too. Does anyone know for certain?

[Didz]

I must admit I was slightly bemused by the depiction of the pavise used on MTW2. The idea of the crossbowman having it strapped to his back so that his arms were free and then crouching with his back to the enemy to load seemed like quite a clever idea when I first saw it happen in an MTW2 battle.

However, I'm not sure how historically accurate this use of the pavise is. The historical references suggest that the pavise was used as a freestanding but movable sheild which was either stuck in the ground using a spike or held in place by a second man. Apparently, the role of pavise-bearer was recognised as a skilled and dangerous task and men employed as pavise bearers were actually paid twice as much as the crossbowman they were employed to protect.

The archer or crossbowman would then shelter behind it whilst reloading. Some even had firing slits inserted so that the crossbow could be fired from behind it. It was essentially a shield for use in seiges rather than the battlefield.

There are some references to men-at-arms having pavise strapped to their backs but whether this was part of some special combat technique or merely a means of protecting ones back during the confusion of a melee is not clear. It may even be a simple misunderstanding as soldiers almost certainly strapped their shields to their backs on the march and its possible some historian has seen an image of soldiers on the march and extrapolated a flawed theory based upon the image.

It seems to me the extra weight would more than offset any benefits. It would be interesting to find out if Mike Loades has done any experiments with the use of pavise shields.

[Slaists]

I guess, only CA can provide a definite answer on this... They know the engine and they know whether the pavise defense is applied to the back or to the front and left as for the common shield-bearer variety.

[edyzmedieval]

Varangians used their shields on the back almost all the time. Only the most powerful of them could handle the big shield and that huge double-handed axe (in this case, single handed).

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

The shield is useless.

[pike master]

it seems i learned from somewhere once that a shield worn on the back was to aid the soldier when he turned to run protecting his backside. but also under a hail of arrows they may have unslung the shield for protection and then when the arrows stopped firing as the moment of contact approach they probably reslung the shield and wielded their axe.

maybe if you turn them backwards when they are fired at it will show whether or not the shield is factored in.

[Afro Thunder]

The shield is useless.

Oh really? Where is your experiment that supports your little hypothesis?

[HoreTore]

Wll, what the pavise is, and how such things were used in the real world has very little value in this thread, really, which is about how it affects the game... Ie., does it affect melee, which side does it give the bonus to, etc etc.

[Miracle]

it seems i learned from somewhere once that a shield worn on the back was to aid the soldier when he turned to run protecting his backside. but also under a hail of arrows they may have unslung the shield for protection and then when the arrows stopped firing as the moment of contact approach they probably reslung the shield and wielded their axe.

maybe if you turn them backwards when they are fired at it will show whether or not the shield is factored in.

What's interesting is that Ottoman Infantry, Dismounted Dvor and Dvor Cavalry will actually unstrap their shields from their backs in a melee and use them like a regular melee unit.

Also, from my casual observation, I believe that back-mounted shields might protect attacks from both the left side and the rear. The big clue is that when the unit is braced, the shields face the left-rear quadrant.

That means the three units mentioned above have protection from the left and rear when using bows, and protection from the left and front when using melee weapons. However, when they receive a frontal cavalry charge, they cannot whip out their shields in time to respond, so they get no front shield bonus when attacked that way.

Since Pavise Xbows and Varangian Guards cannot unsling their shields, it appears they permanently have only left-rear protection. However, while Pavise Xbows actually have a good use for their shields, the Guards do not. VG are only good for straight frontal assaults, so that tiny back shield does very little for them.

So if my theory is correct, D[N/P/E]K's are actually the best short polearm units, not Varangian Guards.

[Caliburn]

A shield slung on the back sounds like it would reinforce the armour of the man, but as arrows and bolts penetrate a few inches into the shield, it would seem like a shield/pavise held away from the body would be more effective against missiles. This is what my intuition would say, I've nothing to back the notion. No idea about the game mechanics of pavises, though.

Still, I would've loved to see pavises being placed on the ground supported by spikes, and having the Pavise Crossbows have to gather them again as the enemy cavalry approaches. They're not hindered by the pavises now, if I'm correct? I remember them being dead slow in MTW, and I can imagine carrying one of those shields along with a crossbow a chore.

[edyzmedieval]

Having them in the back will render their movement a bit, but putting in down and after that shoot the crossbow with the Pavise near you, it's kind of hard.

I mean, you have to reload, then put your crossbow down, make sure the pavise doesn't go away, aim and shoot. It's heavy, so perhaps that's why they wore it on the back.

[Ciaran]

MTW has the feature that certain shields protect only against missile fire, not melee attacks, the shields of the pavise units, the Varagian Guard and Swabian Swordsmen are examples for that. But whether or not this is carried over into M2TW I don´t know, if so, it should be visible in EDU. The game may take animations into accout, but I doubt the same goes to the actual equipment of a model.

[Furious Mental]

That is interesting Miracle. Hadn't noticed it before.

Ideally the pavises would actually be carried by some other bloke but obviously that's not possible in MTW2.

[Didz]

It could have been handled in a similar way to the stakes used by longbowmen. At the start of the game pavise units would plant their pavise walls and then use them for cover during the battle.

Alternatively, they could be treated as a seige weapon and moved by attaching an infantry unit to move them around. So, Pavise Crossbowmen would begin a battle attached to a personal shield wall and could then move it where it was needed and drop it before firing. Picking it up later if they needed it moved elsewhere.

[TinCow]

So does this mean that the Varagian Guard is more resistant to friendly-fire arrows shot into the area they are meleeing in from behind? If so, that would open up a new tactic for Byzantine players.

[sapi]

That certainly could be intriging, especially as byzantine guard archers are so damn good

[Bob the Insane]

With shields fixed in the leaked 1.2 patch I sure a simple test could show us...

Simply take a group of troops with shield on their backs and put them up against a unit of archers (non-AP). Test A is stand you troops facing the archers and Test B is facing away from the archers. Perform each test type a few times and see what the averages say.

If the rear shield has no effect they the casualty rate should stay the same no matter which way the troops face...

I will give it a go tonight unless someone else does it first...

[Bob the Insane]

Well some quick and dirty tests...

Archers where Scotish Highland archers..

I controlled the targets...

First target was VG and it did not seem to make any real difference which way they faced, they receveid roughly the same number of casulties...

Second target was a control one to ensure shield were having an effect. It was DFK. Facing the enemy they took around 50% casualties, facing away they were reduced to single figure numbers. So it would appear that shields have an effect.

Final target was militia Pavise crossbowmen. A little odd this one as when fire at will was switched off then the direction they faced seemed to have little impact on the casulties received from missile fire. However if I let them shoot they recieved far fewer casualties. Of course allowing them to shoot reduced the number of enemy archers which would squew the numbers. However this effect persisted twen I put the militia Pavise crossbowmen up against two units of Highland Archers. They in fact defeated the two units taking only 50% casulties...

[Miracle]

This may be a newly-found bug, Bob.

Those big pavise shields ought to provide some significant back protection even if the militia are just standing.

[PutCashIn]

Uhm, in MTW didnt pavise crossbow men use the shield in front of them, the 'staked in the ground' idea mentioned above?

When I saw the shield on the back in M2TW I thought what an excellent idea, even though all the historical paintings on the sides of church walls in europe generally seem to depict archers, both xbows and curve bows, hiding behind a wall of shields staked out in front of them.