Shieldwall Tweaks

[CareNoMore]

Honestly the fact that shielded guys should be up front and non shielded on the back is self explanatory. I believe its a thing that needs fixing asap.

if we had an ability for them to actually stay there nicely it would be lovely. If we could get some options to use polearms in them to make phalanx.

but for real. make shieldwall useful. No point of using it if all me recruits are going in front of the shock infantry.
PLEASE ADD or FIX

 

[KAaskilde]

I 100% agree with this!
It's so irritating that units without a shield stands in the front of the wall, while others with shield stand in the back!

 

[hruza]

All shield wall does is to tell your guys to stand closer together and have their shields raised. Essentially it's anti missile formation.

In close melee, this formation sucks, because it will make troops less mobile and not engage enemy unless enemy comes in to weapon range. And event hen AI might have issues using weapon due to collision with close units. If enemy have longer range weapon, your guy in the shield wall is basically dead.

There is no way to fix this in the current mechanics of the game.

As for not putting units without shields in to the front rank, that probably could be done, but not sure how difficult it would be to implement. It might just not be worth it from the game performance point of view.

 

[h1zchan]

As for not putting units without shields in to the front rank, that probably could be done, but not sure how difficult it would be to implement. It might just not be worth it from the game performance point of view.

Viking conquest dlc for Warband had this feature. Guys who have shields were shuffled to the front line with shield wall command.

The main issue with the way shields work in mnb is that shields only block when you hold the block button otherwise melee attacks can go righ through it. This is obviously not how shields work in real life. Shields in real life is used to deny lines of attack on your left side (assuming youre holding shield with your left hand). And you can achieve that without even parrying with the shield. Just holding it passively in place already gives you the advantage compared to anyone who isn't holding a shield. This is also where a bigger shield becomes advantageous as it offers more passive protection in exchange for its lack of mobility whereas a smaller shield like a buckler for example can be moved anywhere instantly but doesn't offer as much passiv protection.

I was really excited to find out that carrying shield on your back mitigates melee attacks in bannerlord, so when can we add shield collision for shields that are held in hand? Same with spears and pikes. They all should have collision models attached. Without this mechanics you can't get spear and shield to work correctly.

 

[Maximum997]

The main issue with the way shields work in mnb is that shields only block when you hold the block button otherwise melee attacks can go righ through it. This is obviously not how shields work in real life. Shields in real life is used to deny lines of attack on your left side (assuming youre holding shield with your left hand). And you can achieve that without even parrying with the shield. Just holding it passively in place already gives you the advantage compared to anyone who isn't holding a shield.

I guess they made it like this for balance reasons. Becouse IRL shields give you insane anvantage in melee, that you can defend and atack in the same time, can keep\close the distance very easy, much more easy to defedn against any atack.

 

[h1zchan]

I guess they made it like this for balance reasons. Becouse IRL shields give you insane anvantage, that you can defend and atack in the same time.

But that's the whole point of using a shield. Also if you've sparred with shields in real life like i have you'll know shields are not really op in real life because raising your shield doesn't guarantee successful parry. This is especially the case when you're up against spears which can still hit you in the legs if you fail to move your legs out of the way because you obscured your view by raising your shield, because the opponent feinted a high attack first. You can perhaps eliminate leg attacks by carrying a bigger shield that covers your legs but then it'll be so heavy that you'll fail to bring it up in time against attacks coming towards your face. Or you can carry a shield that is taller than you but then it'll just obscure your own view such that you'll have to 'open the door' to see what's in front at which point you become vulnerable to thrusts again.

Long stories short parrying with regular size shield in real life is the same as parrying with sword in that thers still a directional aspect to it.

historically big norman kite sized shields faded out of use when hand cannons became common. As far as the 11th century was concerned shieldsdominated the field for a reason

As far as the game is concerned mnb nerfed the passive protection that shield brings, and they also made parrying with the shield op as in you become in pervious to all attacks high and low once you raise your shield.

 

[Niomedes]

But that's the whole point of using a shield. Also if you've sparred with shields in real life like i have you'll know shields are not really op in real life because raising your shield doesn't guarantee successful parry. This is especially the case when you're up against spears which can still hit you in the legs if you fail to move your legs out of the way because you obscured your view by raising your shield, because the opponent feinted a high attack first. You can perhaps eliminate leg attacks by carrying a bigger shield that covers your legs but then it'll be so heavy that you'll fail to bring it up in time against attacks coming towards your face. Or you can carry a shield that is taller than you but then it'll just obscure your own view such that you'll have to 'open the door' to see what's in front at which point you become vulnerable to thrusts again.

Long stories short parrying with regular size shield in real life is the same as parrying with sword in that thers still a directional aspect to it.

historically big norman kite sized shields faded out of use when hand cannons became common. As far as the 11th century was concerned shieldsdominated the field for a reason

As far as the game is concerned mnb nerfed the passive protection that shield brings, and they also made parrying with the shield op as in you become in pervious to all attacks high and low once you raise your shield.

You can still be hit if you block in the wrong direction with a small enough shield.

 

[Maximum997]

This is especially the case when you're up against spears which can still hit you in the legs

Thsts why kite shields was invented. But with big round shields yes, it is true.

Also if you've sparred with shields in real life like i have you'll know shields are not really op in real life because raising your shield doesn't guarantee successful parry.

I sparred. And even noob with spear+shiled is a frkn pain to deal with. And it is against noob.
But for balance raasons in the games we have "2handers beat shields"

 

[h1zchan]

You can still be hit if you block in the wrong direction with a small enough shield.

Well the eastern european style tear drop shaped shields used in the training field at the start of the game are pretty small by my standards and yet they block all attacks once you raise it. You can even crouch down and block low but it still blocks the overhead swing that the trainers throw at you it's hilarious as you can hold block and press the ` key and literally watch their swings getting stopped by thin air.

 

[Orbit-]

Shield wall formation right now is no different than "stand close" command in Warband only with a different name. They don't act like they are in a shield wall formation.

I guess they made it like this for balance reasons. Becouse IRL shields give you insane anvantage in melee.

Thats the whole point of it, balance excuse is not good for this. Shields meant to be protective and formations meant to work. Thats how it should be in the game, I dont care about the balance and nor should you or anyone. Shields should be OP, thats why we have health for shields that they can be broken after a while. If they didnt I'd agree

 

[Liammorris1990]

Fully Agreed, until this is fixed just separate all your units without a shield from your main infantry line put them as archers or in their own group.

it's nice to have a small group of spears to protect your archers from any cav anyway.

 

[h1zchan]

Shield wall formation right now is no different than "stand close" command in Warband only with a different name. They don't act like they are in a shield wall formation.

I get the idea the so called shield wall in this game is more akin to what byzantine reenactors call the foulkon formation, although to do it properly the first rank might need to crouch down. Now I don't know much about byzantine history so i can't verify whether this foulkon thing was made up but my point is if the devs simply renamed this formation in the menu all the complaints might slowly fade away. At the moment all the players get excited when they see the phrase shield wall because they think it's the overlapping shield thing that reenactors do when they march up against each other in play fights. I'm yet to see any evidence of this overlapping shield wall thing being used in actual historical sources. Also what a lot of people don't realise is that reenactors don't thrust to faces due to safety concerns and that completely biases the fight mechanics towards fighting behind a static line of shields. If thrust to face is allowed the meta of the fight would quickly shift to high low thrust feint combos, and all the guys would be too busy raising and lowering their shields to keep them overlapped. They would probably also start to space out from each other because the best defence against low spear thrusts is actually moving your legs out of the way, while delivering your own high thrust at the same time.

 

[broomish01]

I'm yet to see any evidence of this overlapping shield wall thing being used in actual historical sources.

Dude... are you joking?

 

[Orbit-]

I get the idea the so called shield wall in this game is more akin to what byzantine reenactors call the foulkon formation, although to do it properly the first rank might need to crouch down. Now I don't know much about byzantine history so i can't verify whether this foulkon thing was made up but my point is if the devs simply renamed this formation in the menu all the complaints might slowly fade away. At the moment all the players get excited when they see the phrase shield wall because they think it's the overlapping shield thing that reenactors do when they march up against each other in play fights. I'm yet to see any evidence of this overlapping shield wall thing being used in actual historical sources. Also what a lot of people don't realise is that reenactors don't thrust to faces due to safety concerns and that completely biases the fight mechanics towards fighting behind a static line of shields. If thrust to face is allowed the meta of the fight would quickly shift to high low thrust feint combos, and all the guys would be too busy raising and lowering their shields to keep them overlapped. They would probably also start to space out from each other because the best defence against low spear thrusts is actually moving your legs out of the way, while delivering your own high thrust at the same time.

No we dont expect overlapping shields or whatever the Byzantines used. A shield wall is a shield wall, they should be standing there with their shields up. I shouldnt be seeing a shieldless guy standing in the front line when I gave "shield wall" command. BTW reenactors most of the time dont even know what they are doing so we shouldnt be using them as examples here. There are many depictions of Normans using shield walls or close formations. If the formation was more akin to what you call "foulkon" we would have the name foulkon in the game not the shield wall. Warband's mods did it perfectly, we had shield guys standing in front, behind them the polearms and those without shields. Besides what we see in the game is nothing like what you described too. The major problem here is that the shieldless guys still stay in the frontlines even if we give shield wall command. They should stay behind.

PS. Overlapping shield wall were used for hundreds of year early examples being the hoplite formations. I would advise you to rely less on what the reenactors doing and more on actual depictions, miniatures, frescos and actual history books.

 

[kalarhan]

Viking conquest dlc for Warband had this feature.

VC put troops with shield and short weapon on front row, and spear/2-handed weapons on second row, trying to emulate a basic shield-wall (offense based, not defense based). Warband engine was not that good with handling this tho, as it was hard for second row to do attacks, something Bannerlord should hopefully fix until release. This kind of formation is more about keeping your troops discipline and morale, as you have people behind you pushing you forward, no way to run, and you can switch rows once you get hurt or you are tired (well real battles could take hours, not like Warband/Bannerlord couple of minutes).
-> VC game didnt put emphasis on missile units, unlikely Bannerlord

Bannerlord could also add a defense-base shield-wall (the kind of formation where you put shields above your head too for anti-missile protection). Testudo comes to mind if you want one that allows movement (advance towards the castle) as well.

 

[h1zchan]

Thats why kite shields was invented. But with big round shields yes, it is true.

Only if it's a tall and well made deeply curved kite shield. The smaller heater shields of the later period are in my experience less useful than say the center gripped round shields, but every time we played with shields we used late medieval swords because that's all we have as we usually focus on later periods where actual written sources about sword use was available for study. I suspect if the round shield was paired with 9th century swords the guy with late medieval arming sword and heater shield would win becase the 9th century sword feels more like an axe in the hand.

Still, if you and your opponent are both using the same weapons as would be the case in duels it should not have been a problem. And on the battlefield there are numerous ways to defeat shields such as throwing the angon, or using a two handed axe that could hack through shields and perhaps sever the arm behind the shield in one go.

even noob with spear+shiled is a frkn pain to deal with. And it is against noob.
But for balance raasons in the games we have "2handers beat shields"

as matt easton says spear and shield are battlefield weapons. swords are sidearms. Bannerlord forces you to carry limited gear when entering cities. this is great. They should therefore allow spear and shield to be op against low tier troops on the battlefield as they should be. But against chainmail hauberks and greaves spears become less useful because now long point thrust to the legs doesn't work any more, and maybe that's why we see both greek phalanxes on vase painitngs as well as norman knights on tapestry a milenia later both adopting the shortened overhand grip when fighting against armored opponents.

 

[h1zchan]

I shouldnt be seeing a shieldless guy standing in the front line when I gave "shield wall" command.

Agreed. The shield formation in Viking Conquest dlc for Warband worked perfectly. Guys with shield get shuffled to first rank. Not sure why Bannerlord devs didn't borrow these codes.

There are many depictions of Normans using shield walls or close formations.

The Bayeux tapestry depicted anglo saxons in a static defensive formation on top of senlac hill trying to shield themselves from arrows. They were also worried about cavalry charges which is why the formation had to be closely packed. There's little evidence to suggest this formation was used in infantry to infantry combat.

PS. Overlapping shield wall were used for hundreds of year early examples being the hoplite formations. I would advise you to rely less on what the reenactors doing and more on actual depictions, miniatures, frescos and actual history books.

Hoplite shields were larger, less mobile and more easy to keep interlocked. They were also built differently with the grip going through only half of the shield. The other half of the shield doesn't even cover you, and no matter how you rotate your arms the shield doesn't move much. There's little evidence to suggest centrally gripped round shields used by Romans and later on dark age germanic peoples were used in the same way.

One should also note the hoplon was used in the period when the primary source of conflcts was between rival greek city states who were all using the same equipment. Later on when the greeks came across celtic raiders they started adopting the centrally gripped shields the celts used.

 

[Maximum997]

Dude... are you joking?

May be it was a sarcasm

 

[mr_nifty]

Viking conquest dlc for Warband had this feature. Guys who have shields were shuffled to the front line with shield wall command.

The main issue with the way shields work in mnb is that shields only block when you hold the block button otherwise melee attacks can go righ through it. This is obviously not how shields work in real life. Shields in real life is used to deny lines of attack on your left side (assuming youre holding shield with your left hand). And you can achieve that without even parrying with the shield. Just holding it passively in place already gives you the advantage compared to anyone who isn't holding a shield. This is also where a bigger shield becomes advantageous as it offers more passive protection in exchange for its lack of mobility whereas a smaller shield like a buckler for example can be moved anywhere instantly but doesn't offer as much passiv protection.

I was really excited to find out that carrying shield on your back mitigates melee attacks in bannerlord, so when can we add shield collision for shields that are held in hand? Same with spears and pikes. They all should have collision models attached. Without this mechanics you can't get spear and shield to work correctly.

Shields already absorbs arrows and projectiles while in idle mode on your side. Not sure if they absorb any swings, but any ranged projectile will get caught on the shield itself.

 

[broomish01]

Shields do not have to be overlapping for it to be considered a "Shield wall", it is simply a closely packed formation of infantry armed with shields. There are many variations due to the weapons and shields being used at any particular time in history. The Normans', with kite shields, fought in a shield wall against Anglo-Saxons who were also in a shield wall.

Having said that: I'm not sure why any of this matters and I don't think people expect that shields should visually overlap in game, nor is it necessary. The in game shield wall should serve to mitigate projectiles to a degree and to bolster a formations longevity. I think that's all people want.