Recruits should have shields

peenerz

Sergeant
WB
Best answers
0
So I'm 2 years into a game on 1.1.0, so far its been running great and I appreciate all the changes that Taleworlds has done, but something I noticed is how easy battles have become.

Many of my battles ends up with the enemy closing the gap but then breaking and running away even before they reach my shield wall. My archers get way more kills proportionally than anyone else, even though I have only around 20 out of an army of 100. Most of the soldiers I fight tend to be recruits, and their lack of shields makes them so vulnerable to ranged units. Even if they do manage to close the gap (or I tell my infantry to charge) they get completely mowed down within seconds too, being attacked by multiple people in different directions and only being able to block in one direction with their swords or spears.

I think giving all recruits shields would mitigate these issues. Shields would both make recruits less vulnerable to ranged units and also last a bit longer in melee fights. It also would make a lot more sense, I would imagine most lords would issue their levies cheap shields because the advantages shields give far outweigh the cost of a few planks of wood.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

aWildJosh

Recruit
Best answers
0
i second this, also half tge reason i bother upgrading troops for my frontline in new campaigns simply to get a functioning shield wall going, the t1 infantry having shields would help cut costs at that point in the game
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight
WB
Best answers
0
Whenever I have recruits to train, I just hunt looters and autoresolve. I don't lose even a single unit. So no, I don't think recruits need shields. The real problem I have is that most AI lords have armies that are composed like 50% of recruits. Now that needs fixing.
 

CrazyGeorge

Recruit
Best answers
0
I recently added a suggestion that there should be a tier 1.5 unit upgraded with gold. Basically recruits with the same stats but given extra weapons and armour.
 

peenerz

Sergeant
WB
Best answers
0
Whenever I have recruits to train, I just hunt looters and autoresolve. I don't lose even a single unit. So no, I don't think recruits need shields. The real problem I have is that most AI lords have armies that are composed like 50% of recruits. Now that needs fixing.
I'm not talking about our own recruits though, fighting enemy armies consisting of recruits with your own tier 4+ units is sort of bland. Also in 1.1.0 autoresolving with looters levels up way slower than manually fighting them, I also noticed troops are more likely to be injured (although no deaths)
 

Shrugging Khan

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNW
Best answers
0
Yah, agreed. Recruits having swords but no shields, where swords are far more complex and expensive to make, makes little sense.

Just give them the ****tiest little boards to fend off a few arrows with; they can break immediately in melee for all that I care.
 

peenerz

Sergeant
WB
Best answers
0
They are recruits for a reason
A recruit should be given basic tools to fight and be survivable yes? Having your men be shot by archers because they don't have cheap shields is a waste of manpower and even weapons (assuming the enemy loots them) IRL
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight
WB
Best answers
0
I'm not talking about our own recruits though, fighting enemy armies consisting of recruits with your own tier 4+ units is sort of bland. Also in 1.1.0 autoresolving with looters levels up way slower than manually fighting them, I also noticed troops are more likely to be injured (although no deaths)
That's the exact issue I just pointed out in the message you're quoting, AI lords should not have armies that are 50% recruits. They should have at least T2 units. And I strongly doubt giving recruits shields will actually help much on the enemy side, because even if they dont die right away, they will just rout and die anyway.
 
Last edited:

kekkuli5

Regular
Best answers
0
I wonder, AI can't seem to block at all without shields, how do they think all the players can?
 

peenerz

Sergeant
WB
Best answers
0
That's the exact issue I just pointed out in the message you're quoting, AI lords should not have armies that are 50% recruits. They should have at least T2 units. And I strongly doubt giving recruits shields will actually help much on the enemy side, because even if they dont die right away, they will just rout and die anyway.
The reason they route in the first place is because they get mowed down by archers. I don't expect recruits to hold out long but giving them shields would make them at least reach the front and not die instantly. And I agree lords should also have higher tier troops
 

R4MPZY

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
A recruit should be given basic tools to fight and be survivable yes? Having your men be shot by archers because they don't have cheap shields is a waste of manpower and even weapons (assuming the enemy loots them) IRL
Thats why tier 2 have shields. Tier 1 are merely peasants with scythes and whatever else they have.
 

peenerz

Sergeant
WB
Best answers
0
Thats why tier 2 have shields. Tier 1 are merely peasants with scythes and whatever else they have.
No, peasants are peasants with scythes. Tier 1 troops have swords and spears, they're *recruits* implying they were recruited and issued gear. There's no reason any commander would only issue half of any loadout or severely compromise their own army's ability to fight. It doesn't really make any sense to arm someone with an expensive sword and not a shield as well.
 

enemy_man

Knight at Arms
M&BWBNWVC
Best answers
0
I agree. Recruits should all have shields because anything else makes them useless. What commander in their right mind would let some dude with only a shirt and a sword stand in the shield wall? I also think they should be using spears instead of swords, but since no infantry use spears except against cavalry I assume there is some AI problems related to that.
 

JustinTime49

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I think lord armies should upgrade relative to the time they stay alive(not captured) because it gets really weird as during peace times MOST lords will end up with recruits and since their parties are usually too large for bandits they dont ever level up their recruits.
 

JustinTime49

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I agree. Recruits should all have shields because anything else makes them useless. What commander in their right mind would let some dude with only a shirt and a sword stand in the shield wall? I also think they should be using spears instead of swords, but since no infantry use spears except against cavalry I assume there is some AI problems related to that.
The AI is really bad with spears, but I think the main issue with recruits is in shieldwall for whatever reason they are allowed to be in the frontline while actual shielded units are in the back.
 

durbal

Sergeant
Best answers
0
No. They would become a mass spam unit and building up armies would become way too easy. If you want better units then build influence or train your recruits. Recruits are supposed to take casualties and are supposed to run when they take too many.

That's the exact issue I just pointed out in the message you're quoting, AI lords should not have armies that are 50% recruits. They should have at least T2 units. And I strongly doubt giving recruits shields will actually help much on the enemy side, because even if they dont die right away, they will just rout and die anyway.
Why should they just magically have T2 units? If I'm fighting an AI lord and we both have one fief and both start recruiting an army, my units are just worse because...?
 
Best answers
0
They are recruits for a reason
Yeah. They are. And whoever is in charge for recruiting them into my army not issuing them a shield is dumb. For some reason they shave swords! Swords and nothing else, that’s the dumbest way of equipping your levy... Swords are really hard to be produced, they are much more expensive than other kinds of melee weapons, it requires training to use due to edge alignment and gladius aside, swords were mostly used as sidearms anyway. It’s something you might issue to an experienced soldier, but recruits? Hell no!
Get rid of that stupid “colorful shirt + single sword per recruit” combo and you will be able to equip them like proper fighters. The price of that single sword should be enough to replace it with a basic axe or spear, simple shield, crude helmet and a gambeson. Not only that set of gear is much more useful, but it also is much easier to learn and use effectively. A rookie in a shirt with his spatha stands no chance against an equal rookie but with the most basic shield and spear. Even competent swordsman is going to struggle in that scenario.
And I am not even bringing missiles here. They are going to a battlefield with archers, some anti-tank guided javelins are going to be thrown at them, how does that sword help with that? They are inexperienced recruits, true, but they also are sapient people. If I was such a recruit with nothing but a single sword issued to me, I would most likely just bail out as a deserter.
Even if there is only one thing you can issue to them, not even the most basic shield like buckler is allowed, they are much better off being equipped with a single spear. It’s cheap and it gives significant reach advantage, hence a chance to beat a guy with spatha.
 

peenerz

Sergeant
WB
Best answers
0
If you want better units then build influence or train your recruits. Recruits are supposed to take casualties and are supposed to run when they take too many.
Again, this is not for myself. It's for the 60+ lord armies I fight can't even reach my enemies before they run cause of my 20 archers. They will get destroyed in melee combat even with shields (albeit last a bit longer), are you afraid they'll suddenly kill all your tier 6 soldiers with shields?