Shields are OP (combat balance)

[ClickForFreeBeer]

I use Realistic Battle Mod which makes the AI even more defensive, and yes, I do find it annoying when a low tier enemy turtles behind his shield when all I want to do is quickly kill him so I can get to where I'm going. But c'mon, that is exactly what a scared soldier would do.

Battlefields are not the place for duels. As said, flanking is the best way to tear apart your enemy foot soldiers. And quite frankly I wish the soldiers would be even more defensive. Even with Realistic Battle Mod I don't have time to attempt maneuvers. I'm trying a Cav-less Sturgian army this round, and I would love if I could use my line-breakers effectively to either flank or to... well... break the line. But then I'd need some shielders to protect them from the enemy ranged, plus split my regular troops into two, three or maybe four divisions so I can either spread them out or pull back, plus have a reserve which I could use to add men to flagging divisions.

But this will never happen. In real life two equally sized battle lines could fight for hours until exhaustion set in. A soldiers first and main priority was staying alive. Spears kept everyone a healthy distance away from each other, and the shields were never ever lowered. Now I'm not saying every battle should last several hours, but even if you had two equal armies fighting face to face with no flanking or any tactics it should at least last ten minutes.

So I say lets make AI even more defensive, and give recruits shields. It's odd that the worst soldiers would not have one of the cheapest pieces of equipment to produce.

Granted, but we don't have the abilities in game that fighters would have in real life. Also angles are much more important in real life. Axes can't hook shields, horsemen at full galloping with heavy weapons can all be taken easily by a really weak shield stance (and a really crappy shield), you can't attack the legs of a shield bearer (with a sword). Even if low tier soldier might realistically hide behind shield, experienced soldiers should have a good counter one on one (I find the kicks pretty lame, the hilt smash is a little better, typically they can recover and get the shield in the way quicker than you can strike though).

I don't mind the AI using shields to help their defence, I just wish it the shields strength came from how they used them and the shield itself, rather than just being unreasonably strong. Right now, the only thing prolonging battles and giving troops survivability is that all melee troops are equally awful at killing each other - it'd be nice to get a more dynamic balance where slightly tipping the scales can lead to disaster for one side; good incentive to plan well, know your troops and keep a well-balanced party.

But I get what you mean about making AI more defensive, they're not very smart at the moment. I'd be all up for that, I only think the shield itself is OP but the man behind it is dumb as rocks: basically, I'm annoyed because the dumbass only lasted so long because of his deus ex machina shield rather than his actual strength or skill. (Some of my custom troop mods gave shields to the recruit unit and they perform so much better than regular recruits, which at the moment are basically just free kills unless you get mobbed).

 

[TechnoSarge]

I have over 500 hours in this game, and I just saw my FIRST instance of a shield breaking. (It happened to me in the Arena.) Seriously, I thought all this fluff about shield points was unimplemented.

 

[The Horrorlord]

if you think shields are op just do a vlandian crossbow only playthrough. Shields aren't op enough.

 

[KingEroc1st]

with the perk a couch lance hit can easily do 300+ dmg to a shield now
2 perks in the 2h tree that do extra damage to shield

but most importantly you probably want the mods that removed magnet shield behavior

 

[Grank]

Now THIS is new.

 

[KingEroc1st]

A horse weights 500-1000 kg.
100 soldiers weight 10000 kg. There should be some effect.

you are talking as if the soldiers were piled into a wall and the horse ran into it...

he ran across 200 meters of distance, gaining momentum each time after hitting a soldier. you clearly have never seen a horse before lol a STANDING man hit from the SIDE by a RUNNING horse won't really slow the horse down much if at all.

 

[Madeloc]

I absolutely hate enemies using shields.

As an archer/crossbowman, they'll pull a huge shield from their hip to their face faster than humanly possible, and catch your arrow. You can also aim over the shield at their exposed head but the magical shield still somehow stops it. Same thing when aiming for the legs, which should be the counter for shield-bearers (who btw can't actually see you behind the shield so wouldn't be able to even see the arrow coming), the shield becomes an arrow magnet 90% of the time.

No pila or javelins can seem to penetrate even the worst shield and cause any damage, even when the javelin is entering the character model. Any javelin thrown from the shield side always magically find their way into the shield, even when they're not actively blocking.

How unsatisfying it is when I lead a cavalry charge with a couched lance into infantry, only to hear a pathetic little "donk" sound, do no damage besides charge damaged, then get mobbed. Are you really telling me that a heavily armoured knight galloping full speed with a couched lance was stopped by some random peasant with a thin bit of wood? The shield dude should at the very least be knocked over and have his shield shatter. Another point on cav charges: the charge damage done by horses is pathetic and really needs to be better at knocking over the enemy - at the moment infantry are just taking a whole horse to the face like their girlfriend slapped them and mass cavalry charges aren't causing nearly enough chaos.

When using complex polearms or two-handers, shield are frustrating (especially when fighting multiple enemies at once) because they cover way too much area and can constantly see the sword clip into their arms, head or legs right before I hear the dreaded donk and I apparently do no damage (although I noticed this has gotten a little better recently). Again, when riding full speed on a horse, it's annoying how powerful shields are at protecting against me clotheslining other cavalry, considering we just collided at full speed and nothing happened.

When I'm fighting as shield infantry, it's not even fun. The shield is obviously very useful against archers, but it's also just a "click to defend everything" button, as long as you don't go left/right the wrong way (up and down blocking blocks pretty much everything). I also can't use my 1H shortsword properly in the shield wall because the stab animation is so weak (it gets blocked by the guy on your right because of the weird angle the thrust originates from). The thrust should come much quicker and straighter, sort of like the kick.

In general the melee suffers because weapons are swung waaaayy too slow (especially the spears and thrusting in general), but it also makes the shield's catch all ability so much stronger as well as a boring playstyle. I would like to see faster weapons and less god-like shields. Perhaps adding in some sidestepping could help provide a way to outmanoeuvre the shield-bearer as well as make the infantry gameplay more exciting and dynamic.

Yes, these are not shields, these are electronic auto-block, as you say, it is the hell boring. I've tried two-handed axes with all possible vs shield bonuses, vs low tier units it works, but for higher tier units, after several hits, the shield is still here, but, you, you are less here lol because the others hit you too =)

 

[Maximum997]

and dense formations should be the cavalry counter (Make Vlandian Pikemen Great Again!),

We have ranged meta and OP archers in the game. Pikes are completly useless in this game.

Shields need nerf, but only after archers nerfs

 

[ClickForFreeBeer]

We have ranged meta and OP archers in the game. Pikes are completly useless in this game.

Shields need nerf, but only after archers nerfs

tbf I agree that ranged needs a nerf... fiddled around with bow/xbow damage values and velocity (forget the xml parameter) in my own game and helped tremendously. Quite a simple fix really, but I guess taleworlds is hesitant cuz everyone likes their F(ia)N M249 Champions and Khan's Guard...

 

[Madeloc]

Shields need nerf, but only after archers nerfs

I would say shield nerf vs melee only, not vs archers, or much less.

 

[geala]

That was quite a necroing, wasn't it?

However, gives me the possibility to express my opinion that shields do not need a nerf at all. Many archers and wannabe twohanded users during history surely discovered that shields were an unfair advantage for their users, therefore shields were used. They were one of the main reasons that twohanders and archers did not rule the battlefields from the invention of shields in the Bronze Age till the advent of the firearms (one of the last of such events being for example the battle of Flodden where the heavy use of pavises, and some good armor, nullified any effect of the English bowmen on the Scottish central battle during it's attack).

What needs a nerf are archers, but only from the longer distances, like a much greater inaccuracy and slower shooting. Archers should keep piercing armor and be very accurate from short distances. BTW the shields need the magical extension because BL soldiers are too stupid to raise the shields enough against incoming arrows or block in the right way in melee.

 

[five bucks]

I would say shield nerf vs melee only, not vs archers, or much less.

Well, in Warband I think what we had was good.

In Bannerlord, it takes about 30 arrows for a T4 archer to destroy a T4 shield, but only takes about 4 arrows to kill a man in T4 armor.

In Warband, it took about 20 arrows for a T4 archer to destroy a T4 shield, and took about 8 arrows to kill a man in T4 armor.

So that archers are not so overpowered, but in exchange archers are not so completely countered by shields being up.

 

[ClickForFreeBeer]

However, gives me the possibility to express my opinion that shields do not need a nerf at all. Many archers and wannabe twohanded users during history surely discovered that shields were an unfair advantage for their users, therefore shields were used. They were one of the main reasons that twohanders and archers did not rule the battlefields from the invention of shields in the Bronze Age till the advent of the firearms

But two-handed weapons were also used, which by your logic shouldn't happen unless there was an advantage to having one instead of a shield. Also, shields got smaller and were used less and less as armour got better and more affordable, not because firearms rocked up. Dane axes are probably one of the best early medieval examples of two-handed weapons, and they're noted for their effectiveness against both cavalry and infantry.

What needs a nerf are archers, but only from the longer distances, like a much greater inaccuracy and slower shooting. Archers should keep piercing armor and be very accurate from short distances. BTW the shields need the magical extension because BL soldiers are too stupid to raise the shields enough against incoming arrows or block in the right way in melee.

Again, agree with the archers bit... have previously changed every bow's stats in the xml to more closely line up with actual velocities from historical bows and crossbows... the balance was so much better, as you'd still get rained on and hit every now again from distance, but the arrows would do barely any damage in decent armour.

I heavily disagree with the magical extension bit though. AI can always outperform the player in that way unless it's being purposefully handicapped (i.e. difficulty setting, seriously just play with some AI mods that crank up the difficulty). Something that is an AI tweaking issue shouldn't warrant interfering with the shield mechanics IMO. I'm fine with a shielded guy not melting like butter to my 2h cleaving spree or couched lance, but the way they block rn is annoying AF and doesn't present the player with a fun way to overcome such an obstacle.

Currently the way to get round a shield user is: (1) Keep swinging until either you catch him with his shield down or it finally breaks. (2) Spam kicks. Boredom incarnate.

Shields would still give the user an advantage, it just less passive and more fun. If you need something to balance it out then hey, teach the AI how to shieldbash and give them resistance to shield/weapon bashes themselves. Imagine: active blocking (timed and in right direction) completely negates damage and knockback from kicks and bashes; passive blocking (not timed but collides with the attack) negates damage from both but a kick would cause the normal knockback, a shield bash would break guard (so take away the block for a brief moment) but not cause knockback). I'm fine with 2H swords not breaking a passively-blocked opponent's guard, but a 2H axe should at least be able to break it momentarily with an overhead swing (but not the crushthrough damage like with an unshielded block), even if that's just enough time for an ally to get a shot in.

 

[Wheem]

Current (1.8 beta) projectile accuracy is pretty absurd, IMO. There are *so* many times in big battles that I get hit - almost always in the leg or head - from really long range, even with my shield up while at full gallop on a 60+ speed horse. I could understand getting hit below/above/around my shield if I were under withering fire from a massed archer formation, but this isn't that. No...instead, it's a singular arrow from long range, "aimed" perfectly in order to bypass my shield and hit my character. These are shots that aren't even realistic with modern rifles + optics, much less medieval bows/crossbows/throwing weapons, especially when it's done by lower end archers. Even looters with rocks make Major League Baseball pitchers look like little league amateurs with how readily they can pop you in the one little pinky toe that's sticking out below your shield.

I don't want archers to be useless, especially since they would largely ruin Battanian armies (assuming no other changes occurred at the same time), but they definitely need something done about the accuracy. Then, and only then, would I be amenable to the "force field" effect of shields being reduced.

 

[five bucks]

Current (1.8 beta) projectile accuracy is pretty absurd, IMO. There are *so* many times in big battles that I get hit - almost always in the leg or head - from really long range, even with my shield up while at full gallop on a 60+ speed horse. I could understand getting hit below/above/around my shield if I were under withering fire from a massed archer formation, but this isn't that.

I just stood 50 metres (yards?) away from a Battanian T5 Fian, who has 160 bow skill. Third most accurate archer in the game.

The Fian shot until they ran out of arrows.

Over 20 shots missed me entirely.

One shot hit me in the chest while I had my shield down trying to figure out how to take the screenshot, and took off an entire third of my health. One shot hit me in the arm while the shield was up, taking off another third of my health.

Over 30 shots hit the shield, which outlasted the number of arrows the Fian had to fire.

---

For comparison, here's a modern tournament archer doing 50 metre archery with a traditional bow. He hits all 11 of his shots on the target.



So I think Bannerlord's archer accuracy is probably fine. Archer damage dealt to armor is the real issue.

I don't want archers to be useless

Same here. But I think that increasing arrow hits-to-kill against armor from an average of 4-5, to an average of 7-8, and also reducing the number of hits a shield can take by about 5-10, would be a good nerf that would balance archers without making them useless.

 

[geala]

But an archer cannot destroy a shield

But two-handed weapons were also used, which by your logic shouldn't happen unless there was an advantage to having one instead of a shield. Also, shields got smaller and were used less and less as armour got better and more affordable, not because firearms rocked up. Dane axes are probably one of the best early medieval examples of two-handed weapons, and they're noted for their effectiveness against both cavalry and infantry.

Twohanded weapons in our world timeframe which relates to BL were mainly used by some elites from the protection of the shieldwall. Only imbecils (or BL players) would have used their weapons to destroy shields because it is very dangerous for the weapon user to imobilize his weapon in a wooden structure (HEMA people often don't consider that sharp weapons act very differently to blunt stuff). As Dane axes were rather light and nimble and fast moving, they surely were a good weapon for hitting people above and around the shields in a melee with fast strikes however. But they were not meant or able to replace spears and shields as the foundation of combat.

Shields were used less and less by fully armored knights after the introduction of more and more plate armor, which is on the other hand a reminder that earlier armor was probably not that able to protect without help of shields. As shields are clumsy, being able to fight without because of armor and especially being able to walk/ride without was surely nice. Shields were however often used into the 16th c. AD by lesser armored soldiers but lost more and more sense in an environment with firearms, changed battlefield tactics (pikes mainly) and cheap soldiers in mass armies.

 

[ClickForFreeBeer]

Twohanded weapons in our world timeframe which relates to BL were mainly used by some elites from the protection of the shieldwall. Only imbecils (or BL players) would have used their weapons to destroy shields because it is very dangerous for the weapon user to imobilize his weapon in a wooden structure (HEMA people often don't consider that sharp weapons act very differently to blunt stuff). As Dane axes were rather light and nimble and fast moving, they surely were a good weapon for hitting people above and around the shields in a melee with fast strikes however. But they were not meant or able to replace spears and shields as the foundation of combat.

So you agree with my grievances with two handed weapons not being able to get around a shield very easily, despite incorrect blocking and good footwork? Also you must then agree with the overhead strike causing a guard break (to simulate hooking). I'm not sure why you're bringing up shield breaking as I haven't mentioned in the comment, maybe you misunderstood me when I was talking about guard breaking? I'm also not advocating two-handers as the foundation of combat, I just want them to have more intelligent and fun use rather than "Oh if you manage to catch them it'll probably be a one-shot. I have similar girevances with 2H swing polearms and have made a separate thread suggesting alternate animations to restore functionality.

 

[ClickForFreeBeer]

Same here. But I think that increasing arrow hits-to-kill against armor from an average of 4-5, to an average of 7-8, and also reducing the number of hits a shield can take by about 5-10, would be a good nerf that would balance archers without making them useless.

I'd be up for this. I've previously edited all the bows in the game to deal something like 50%-60% of their original damage, lowered the velocity to be closer to historical standards (i forget the name of the parameter I changed) and increased the damage limit for a arrow to stick in an actor, which gave roughly your suggested hits-to-kill ratio. Could be less linear, but at a decent distance arrows are coming in at a very steep angle and don't do a whole lot of damage to someone with decent armour (like 2-6), get up close without decent armour though and you're gone. I'd recommend 70-75% current damage + slightly lower velocity + armour recalculation for arrows which prioritise plate armour would probably be good to for most players to make archers dangerous to approach without good armour/shields, but not be long-range, omniscient snipers... would make those headshot perks actually useful as well rather than redundant with a strong bow.

I agree AI accuracy is fine as it is, I can typically outshoot any archer in game with just a low bow skill, and as a cavalryman my horse will usually get hit once of twice unless I'm actually charging the archers... but lucky shots happen for the AI too. The consequences of getting hit clearly need to be less dire, then we can have non-magic shields. When there's gaps in the shield wall, I still expect men to get hit. Would make those huge round shields of the Sturgians make more sense as well.

P.S. Taleworlds, please make the front row of a shield wall crouch, and make it possible to attack from crouching (like at least a thrust, c'mon)

EDIT: I think I also changed the minimum distance to shoot as well, to stop AI archers wasting all their arrows on targets that were too far away

 

[Wheem]

So I think Bannerlord's archer accuracy is probably fine. Archer damage dealt to armor is the real issue.

Same here. But I think that increasing arrow hits-to-kill against armor from an average of 4-5, to an average of 7-8, and also reducing the number of hits a shield can take by about 5-10, would be a good nerf that would balance archers without making them useless.

Custom Battles are good for testing certain things, but that isn't always going to give you the full picture. Massed archers firing into an infantry formation can get some kills (depending somewhat on the particular units, angles, etc...involved), but yes - most shots will fail to make it through, which is how it should be. But that's not what I'm talking about when I mention their uncanny accuracy. I'm talking about being fairly far away from any missile unit, while riding a horse at a full gallop, and getting popped in the head, foot, shoulder, etc...with one arrow. Not a full quiver being fired while I'm standing still with a shield raised directly at the enemy archer. There are times that the AI will apparently line up a "perfect" shot, and the only way to make it miss is to change direction or speed, which isn't necessarily possible when it comes from a different area of the battlefield and from an angle that may not even be visible to the player (particularly in first person).

It may also be somewhat dependent on difficulty settings, with things below "Bannerlord" (what setting do Custom Battles use?) not having these sorts of sniper shots happen as often.

Edit: Requiring only 5-10 arrows to break even good quality shields would leave most infantry in large battles engaging in melee with a 1h weapon and no shield. It's also not that realistic to have arrows do all that much damage to shields, though I'd be fine if it could cause some sort of modifier to their speed stat...though that may not be possible to implement in-game.

 

[five bucks]

Custom Battles are good for testing certain things, but that isn't always going to give you the full picture. It may also be somewhat dependent on difficulty settings, with things below "Bannerlord" (what setting do Custom Battles use?) not having these sorts of sniper shots happen as often.
Massed archers firing into an infantry formation can get some kills (depending somewhat on the particular units, angles, etc...involved), but yes - most shots will fail to make it through, which is how it should be.
But that's not what I'm talking about when I mention their uncanny accuracy. I'm talking about being fairly far away from any missile unit, while riding a horse at a full gallop, and getting popped in the head, foot, shoulder, etc...with one arrow. Not a full quiver being fired while I'm standing still with a shield raised directly at the enemy archer.

What gives even less of a picture than custom battle tests is random observation with no sort of testing at all. Because then that leaves you open to confirmation bias. Do you think it could be possible that you're only noticing when you get hit by lucky shots, and not noticing the enormous amount that miss you?

Obviously you aren't charging at just one archer in battle normally, you'd be charging at a group of 10 or more. So even with realistically low accuracy where most of them still usually don't hit shots, there is still a very good chance that one out of 10 of them will get a lucky hit in, because being in a group of 10 increases their likelihood of hitting 10x.

Now multiply that chance for every time you charge at them. You don't notice the 4 charges where you charge at a group of 30 archers, and they each shoot at you 3 times on the approach (so far that's 360 shots) and none get a lucky hit in. But you do notice the 5th charge, where 1 of them gets a lucky hit in, because it's lucky you're more likely to notice it. Then you come away with the impression that archers are unrealistically accurate, because 1 of them can make a lucky shot in 1 out of 360 shots. That's confirmation bias.

If you think my custom battle test was possibly inaccurate due to difficulty setting or not being on horseback, fine: I just jumped ingame in Realistic difficulty and damage, and took on a bunch of 8 Imperial Archers both on horseback and on foot. 50 metres.

On foot they did not hit around my shield (but a horse archer did shoot me in the back). On horseback they shot me in the legs a couple of times and all other shots hit my shield, none hit past my shield covered area. However, I didn't last out their whole arrow supply because it was too annoying dealing with their still-alive horse archers.

So if you don't like these tests, go ahead and do your own. If the test is convincing and representative, I will gladly agree that accuracy is too high, and support changes. Otherwise, I don't think it's reasonable to make the definitive statement that troops are too accurate.

Edit: Requiring only 5-10 arrows to break even good quality shields would leave most infantry in large battles engaging in melee with a 1h weapon and no shield.

No my dude - I should have worded my post differently, but I said "reducing the number of hits a shield can take by about 5-10".

As in, they can take over 30 hits right now from an archer of the same tier, they should only be able to take about 25-20 hits.