MP Shock Infantry need shields

[Silen]

1. Captain = a PvP mode so same thing.
2. Same thing applies. Work with your friend who has a shield to get in range of the archer/javelin thrower?

I'd classify Captain as PvPvE, but you know perfectly well what I meant. Not here to debate semantics.

Anyway, no, it doesn't work. If you had some experience in competitive M&B you wouldn't come out with these assertions. There's a reason 2h are never used in competitive Warband.

 

[vota dc]

Anyway if this is an issue wouldn't be better to have just infantry, archers and cavalry as classes in Skirmish mode while keeping current classes and equipment in captain?

 

[UK-Tranquillity]

I'd classify Captain as PvPvE, but you know perfectly well what I meant. Not here to debate semantics.

Anyway, no, it doesn't work. If you had some experience in competitive M&B you wouldn't come out with these assertions. There's a reason 2h are never used in competitive Warband.

But your also forgetting that many of these two hand weapon classes have gain superior movement speed due to the fact they aren't carrying shields. Their encumberance is lower and thus gives them an advantage in melee combat regardless.

I love how because I dont regularly post on the forums that makes me have "no experience in competitive M&B".
Think what you like -- but there are obvious reasons why the devs didn't give a shield to them as an option.
Currently because they are missing a shield Archers are effective vs them so I would say the balance is working as intended.
The counter to archers are shield infantry no?

It all boils down to Realism vs Fun. If it's too much realism it kills the fun - if it's too much fun where all classes can fight every other class then it would become a circus. And you will see many people saying "M&B is just not realistic" etc.

I would argue part of the fun or challenge is trying to overcome these obstacles in multiplayer - and picking the right composition of units / classes in that particular game mode is part of the fun.
If you could just pick two handed with a shield everytime, all of a sudden nobody picks shield infantry.
Because why right? You can just give the best weapons a shield.

But I forget that most players only follow their own agenda and don't think about opposing sides of arguments right?

 

[Ikea Knight]

Anyway if this is an issue wouldn't be better to have just infantry, archers and cavalry as classes in Skirmish mode while keeping current classes and equipment in captain?

Let's keep on topic.
The class system is something Taleworld won't change and it has been discussed on numerous threads already.

 

[Silen]

But your also forgetting that many of these two hand weapon classes have gain superior movement speed due to the fact they aren't carrying shields. Their encumberance is lower and thus gives them an advantage in melee combat regardless.

Higher movement speed is largely useless if they can't get to the fight in the first place.

I love how because I dont regularly post on the forums that makes me have "no experience in competitive M&B".
Think what you like -- but there are obvious reasons why the devs didn't give a shield to them as an option.

But I forget that most players only follow their own agenda and don't think about opposing sides of arguments right?

It's not about how often you post on the forums, but the arguments you come up with. Saying things like "work with your friend who has a shield" makes it obvious, otherwise you'd know yourself that it simply doesn't work. The devs might have a reason for not giving them shields, but it doesn't mean that reason is good. Besides, Armagan said that they will consider giving shields to shock inf in Skirmish.

I have no agenda other than trying to make these classes viable.

Currently because they are missing a shield Archers are effective vs them so I would say the balance is working as intended.
The counter to archers are shield infantry no?

Effective to the point that they're not worth the risk.

I would argue part of the fun or challenge is trying to overcome these obstacles in multiplayer - and picking the right composition of units / classes in that particular game mode is part of the fun.
If you could just pick two handed with a shield everytime, all of a sudden nobody picks shield infantry.
Because why right? You can just give the best weapons a shield.

I don't think that makes sense, why would everyone suddenly pick shock inf? There are disadvantages to it as I mentioned in the op, having a balanced team composition would work better. Giving shock inf a small and weak shield won't replace heavy inf.

 

[JuanNieve]

What about a small shield tied to the arm that can be used with a two-handed weapon :3

 

[vota dc]

What about a small shield tied to the arm that can be used with a two-handed weapon :3

Those are good to parry but bad to block projectiles.

 

[Ikea Knight]

@Gab

As the main contributor to this thread I'd like to know what you would think about my previous suggestion to add an anti-ranged armor perk.
It could keep shock infantry unique in terms of beeing a two handend-only unit, while increasing the usability of shock troops.
I think this perk could be implenetd, as it keeps in line with a lot of the new perks, for example there is the new light shwield perk, or the different arrow perks.
We already have improved armor perks, maybe this could be an addition, which focuses on beeing anti ranged only, without making the armor heavier or better in melee combat.
I think a perk that reduces ranged damage by 30 percent would already be a big improvement.

 

[Fietta]

Isn't ranged supposed to counter shock troops? I just started playing the captain mode yesterday so i might lack experience.
But so far i have seen quite a few occasions where Aserai Guard where used very effectively.
Often you can hide behind friendly troops or terrain to avoid getting shot to pieces. Today i had a match on Druimmor Forest and i was able to destroy a seargents troop even after loosing three guys to crossbow fire.
But of course i might be wrong.

Shock troops makes sense in captain mode as shock troops by definition usually lead attacks and take heavy casualties, however, makes no sense in Skirmish as you've got no troops to waste, you'll be running around on a relatively large map getting peppered by archers and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[sankokuworld]

NO they don't NEED shields.

End of discussion

 

[Fietta]

NO they don't NEED shields.

End of discussion

Care to explain why?

 

[_Osiris_]

clearly they dont need shields! look at the many years of competitive warband where 2h roamed the battlefields of the WNL NC and ECS collecting heads and making puny archers weep

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Warband didn't have archer autoaim or guaranteed footshooting though.

 

[Silen]

@Gab

As the main contributor to this thread I'd like to know what you would think about my previous suggestion to add an anti-ranged armor perk.
It could keep shock infantry unique in terms of beeing a two handend-only unit, while increasing the usability of shock troops.
I think this perk could be implenetd, as it keeps in line with a lot of the new perks, for example there is the new light shwield perk, or the different arrow perks.
We already have improved armor perks, maybe this could be an addition, which focuses on beeing anti ranged only, without making the armor heavier or better in melee combat.
I think a perk that reduces ranged damage by 30 percent would already be a big improvement.

It's probably the most reasonable of alternative suggestions, however it comes with its own set of issues. The damage reduction would need to be ramped up quite high to be effective, and having it active for the whole round entails making shock inf strong against ranged even in situations where they shouldn't be.

Simply giving them weak/small shields is the most effective, and quick solution.

 

[UK-Tranquillity]

It's probably the most reasonable of alternative suggestions, however it comes with its own set of issues. The damage reduction would need to be ramped up quite high to be effective, and having it active for the whole round entails making shock inf strong against ranged even in situations where they shouldn't be.

Simply giving them weak/small shields is the most effective, and quick solution.

Think its pretty clear since my last post that many people agree something should be done. However many of them are against shields for again reasons I mentioned and others mentioned in other posts. Giving them a shield simply gives them more game changing benefits that just protecting them from archers.

The issue I think that should be discussed is the archers being too strong - not the equipment of the two handed classes.
That's my take on it regardless ^^

 

[Brandis.]

clearly they dont need shields! look at the many years of competitive warband where 2h roamed the battlefields of the WNL NC and ECS collecting heads and making puny archers weep

I agree!! One only has to look at my rich tournament history to know what I'm talking about. Yes, that's right, I'm referring to placing 1st in over 200 singleplayer tournaments. I doubt any of these so-called "bannerlord" players could dare attempt such a feat.

They all must be playing the game wrong. After 32 minutes of 'Captain' gameplay, I can safely say that shock units in fact are OP and do not need shields. Thank you.

 

[elcapo29]

I have performed well with shock troops more often than not. They are a great class and I really dont think they need shields.

Edit: speaking for captain mode. Sorry skirmish guys, oh man if only there was some way to pick your gear?

 

[Brandis.]

I have performed well with shock troops more often than not. They are a great class and I really dont think they need shields.

Edit: speaking for captain mode. Sorry skirmish guys, oh man if only there was some way to pick your gear?

We can balance Captain classes by giving them less troops. Most shock units have 16-18 troops right now, which gives us more than enough room to remove some of them and make them balanced if they were given shields. For comparison, some classes only have 6-8 troops in their class.

 

[MetalLordLemmyKillminster]

Shock troops or assault troops are formations created to lead an attack. They are often better trained and equipped than other infantry, and expected to take heavy casualties even in successful operations.
shock tactic or shock attack is the name of an offensive maneuver which attempts to place the enemy under psychological pressure by a rapid and fully committed advance with the aim of causing their combatants to retreat. The acceptance of a higher degree of risk in order to attain a decisive result is intrinsic to shock actions.

So to sum up what i'm saying SHOCK infantry is not meant to survive most attacks and are meant to be used to shock and demoralise you're opponent and to cause confusion among'st their troops till the main bulk of you're forces can engage the now weaker and more confused enemy and wreak massive bloody havok

 

[pygc1]

how about we also give 2h a lance to counter cav?
a horse so they can move around faster?
a bow so they can shoot enemies?
some javs because why not?