This is about gameplay, not realism. You can't make a game, go to a player and say "lol if you pick this class you're gonna die but that's ok because that's how it happened in history XD".
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
This is about gameplay, not realism. You can't make a game, go to a player and say "lol if you pick this class you're gonna die but that's ok because that's how it happened in history XD".
I would not like to go straight into the discussion and I understand that the title of the topic is "to equip the infantry shock with a shield".
but I want to give 2 suggestions:
The first is inherent in the topic, the second still engages in the discussion.
let's talk about PERK, shields and equipment.
The perks are currently divided into 2 groups of 3 each.
Basic equipment: two-handed weapon
First perk group:
-round shield
-armor
-javelin / pike (depends on the faction)
Second perk group:
-2 handed mode little shield (2-h shield)
-franceska / javelin (depends on the faction)
-2 handed weapon
what is 2 handed mode little shield.
If we divided the vertical hurtboxes (therefore from head to toe excluding the arms) into 5 parts, we would divide them into:
1) head and neck
2) upper part of the bust.
3) lower part of the bust.
4) thigh (femur)
5) leg (fibula and tibia)
The small shield that I mentioned a few days ago and is similar to that shown by a user showing the image of those Greek soldiers.
When it stops at the top (mouse in the up direction and RMB), the hurtbox numbers 1 and 2 are covered
When it gets stuck at the bottom (mouse down and RMB), the hurtbox number 3 and 4 are covered
this shield should allow you to stay in two-handed mode.
This shield weighs very little, does not change hand-to-hand combat since the block must be made directional in the 4 directions.
It simply protects multiple hurtboxes against bullets.
It doesn't provide great protection, let's say it's "better than nothing"
clearly it is deliberately not very effective because it must not guarantee maximum protection and must not weigh much.
In reality, it would be enough to introduce a small shield with these properties and touch up the perks slightly as done above.
it would be more convenient to give a less "restrictive" perk assignment system and balance it by replacing the various equipment that make up the perks themselves.
For example, for a class with established equipment, you could give a rose of 15 perks / equipment from which to choose 3.
defensive: round shield, tower shiled, 2-h shield, armor
projectiles and throwing weapons: stones, throwing darts, javelins, francescka, arrows and darts for crossbows of various types.
ranged weapons: crossbows, bows
two-handed weapons: two-handed sword, two-handed ax, two-handed hammer, two-handed glaive, pike etc.
one-handed weapons: sword, spear, ax, hammer etc ...
mixed weapons: bastard sword.
Clearly these 15 perks per class do not include equipment that would be inappropriate for that class.
For example, the shock infantry will not have the tower shield available in the range of perks available and will not have bows and crossbows with their ammunition.
but I want to give 2 suggestions:
The first is inherent in the topic, the second still engages in the discussion.
let's talk about PERK, shields and equipment.
The perks are currently divided into 2 groups of 3 each.
Basic equipment: two-handed weapon
First perk group:
-round shield
-armor
-javelin / pike (depends on the faction)
Second perk group:
-2 handed mode little shield (2-h shield)
-franceska / javelin (depends on the faction)
-2 handed weapon
what is 2 handed mode little shield.
If we divided the vertical hurtboxes (therefore from head to toe excluding the arms) into 5 parts, we would divide them into:
1) head and neck
2) upper part of the bust.
3) lower part of the bust.
4) thigh (femur)
5) leg (fibula and tibia)
The small shield that I mentioned a few days ago and is similar to that shown by a user showing the image of those Greek soldiers.
When it stops at the top (mouse in the up direction and RMB), the hurtbox numbers 1 and 2 are covered
When it gets stuck at the bottom (mouse down and RMB), the hurtbox number 3 and 4 are covered
this shield should allow you to stay in two-handed mode.
This shield weighs very little, does not change hand-to-hand combat since the block must be made directional in the 4 directions.
It simply protects multiple hurtboxes against bullets.
It doesn't provide great protection, let's say it's "better than nothing"
clearly it is deliberately not very effective because it must not guarantee maximum protection and must not weigh much.
In reality, it would be enough to introduce a small shield with these properties and touch up the perks slightly as done above.
it would be more convenient to give a less "restrictive" perk assignment system and balance it by replacing the various equipment that make up the perks themselves.
For example, for a class with established equipment, you could give a rose of 15 perks / equipment from which to choose 3.
defensive: round shield, tower shiled, 2-h shield, armor
projectiles and throwing weapons: stones, throwing darts, javelins, francescka, arrows and darts for crossbows of various types.
ranged weapons: crossbows, bows
two-handed weapons: two-handed sword, two-handed ax, two-handed hammer, two-handed glaive, pike etc.
one-handed weapons: sword, spear, ax, hammer etc ...
mixed weapons: bastard sword.
Clearly these 15 perks per class do not include equipment that would be inappropriate for that class.
For example, the shock infantry will not have the tower shield available in the range of perks available and will not have bows and crossbows with their ammunition.
I'd perfer a ranged nerf then shock with shields... but failing that I don't see how a small shield perk would hurt the game. It would slow them down (and reduce their combat effectiveness) for protection against ranged. Seems like a fair trade off.
Without getting embroiled in the debate, I'll just mention that if shock infantry DO get shields in all modes (not just skirmish), then there needs to be a "use shields" toggle order. Those of you who have equipped their units with bastard swords or used shielded Savages probably know what I'm talking about. Left to their own devices units with bastard weapons will always use their shields in combat. Which is a problem, if your units are supposed to be hacking through enemy lines with high damage two-handed weapons and instead get bogged down with shields and weaker 1-handed and bastard weapons.
Come to think of it, that kind of order should probably be available anyway, but giving two-handed units shields mandates it.
Come to think of it, that kind of order should probably be available anyway, but giving two-handed units shields mandates it.
While I agree that a command to toggle shield usage is needed in captain mode (for bastard swords), I believe the existing shieldwall command would force the troops to use their shields, as it does with sharpshooters. Switching out of the shieldwall should make the troops pull out their 2h weapons again.
I only bring this up in case the lack of a proper toggle-shield command would cause TW to delay giving shock inf shields.
A shock infantry class with a shield would just be a normal infantry class. I don't think I get the point.
Unless you want them to also keep their high damage output. But you can't justify giving the shock infantry all the damage benefits of using a 2H weapon while also allowing them to have a shield. That would be unfair.
Unless you want them to also keep their high damage output. But you can't justify giving the shock infantry all the damage benefits of using a 2H weapon while also allowing them to have a shield. That would be unfair.
Read the OP.
No one is asking for shock infantry to get shields in captain mode. You are 100% correct that it would be retarded there. We are discussing about Skirmish mode where no one gets close to anyone without a shield to prevent the hail of missles killing you. Shock Infantry is barely picked and when it is they have to slink around the outskirts of the map trying to sneak up on people.
Why would you ever use a 1h and a shield when you are good at fighting then? Shielded infantry do less damage and they move slower than shock troops. What you are suggesting would quite literally turn other infantries into an useless pick for anyone who can manually block well enough. Even as it is right now, most secondary perk picks on shock troops are throwing weapons or nigh-useless 1h weapons, giving them a shield would make that the natural pick for anyone who knows how the game works.
To counter your point about not having any defenses against couched lances, 4/5 of the shock infantries in the game can get the longest polearms in the game.
There's also no point in arguing that you have low armor when shock troops are cheaper than heavy infantries, the archers you want to kill have even less armor than you do most of the time and you have a weapon that can shred through any armored opponents you face.
Personally I really like this game decision as it stops people from ramboing everyone regardless of which troop they pick and forces them to work together or think before engaging opponents.
To counter your point about not having any defenses against couched lances, 4/5 of the shock infantries in the game can get the longest polearms in the game.
There's also no point in arguing that you have low armor when shock troops are cheaper than heavy infantries, the archers you want to kill have even less armor than you do most of the time and you have a weapon that can shred through any armored opponents you face.
Personally I really like this game decision as it stops people from ramboing everyone regardless of which troop they pick and forces them to work together or think before engaging opponents.
You'd switch to the shield to survive archer fire, it's kind of the point of the whole thread.
No. Fighting with a 2h brings its disadvantages, as explained in the OP:
Also one change doesn't exclude others. If these classes prove to be problematic once they have acceptable survivability, they can be tweaked further. Saying that they could potentially become too strong does not justify keeping them as useless classes that can't get to the fight in the first place, but I doubt that would happen considering how vulnerable they would be once in a fight despite their damage potential, because of the mentioned disadvantages.
So? That's just how the class system works. Even when there was only 1 perk slot you could find plenty of useless perks, but ever since they introduced the 2nd perk slot it's full of them across every single class. You just can't have 6 perk choices and make them all equally interesting and competing with each other, there will always be a meta build.
Good luck switching to your polearm to stop cav from hitting you in the middle of a groupfight, with a shield you could simply turn and block it. Also that doesn't make much sense, as I said above, one change doesn't exclude others. If having a shield, and a polearm becomes problematic, the perks can simply be arranged so that picking a shield will sacrifice the polearm.
The point about armour is that giving them a shield won't put them on equal grounds with heavy infantry, and as I mentioned, one change does not exclude others. Saying that archers have less armor most of the time is just wrong, nobody picks light archers until that's all they can afford. Weapons that can shred through any armored opponents are largely useless if they don't get to be used in the first place.
It stops people from using these classes at all. Truly a great decision.
What I meant was why would you ever pick a 1h troop when you could pick a 2h troop with better damage value as both of them would have shields and be able to charge archers?
This is only a big problem for beginners and even there they can likely attack spam and maneuver themselves to a decent enough K/D ratio thanks to their speed and weapon range.
But this is false, they can easily run away and group up with their allies using their superior mobility instead of fighting a group all alone. In a group fight with allies they can stick to the sidelines and face one enemy at a time instead of running straight into the middle to get massacred.
That's where the pike comes into play, allowing you to counter cavalry as well.
Even shielded infantry are at a high risk of that, and they don't have the mobility to dodge arrows that come from any side their shield isn't on.
Yes, it wouldn't put them on equal grounds with heavy infantry, because heavy infantry cost more than shock troops. Being able to take a shield also means that your 120 gold cost shock troop can suddenly counter the only unit directly meant to counter them - heavy archers that cost over 160 gold.
You'd be dead from being charged to the ground at that point anyways. Maybe giving them a tiny buckler or something could be tested for that purpose. But giving them actual shields would mean that they have the mobility and the defense to completely shut down solo archers.
Shock troops are meant to counter other infantry, and while they are nowhere near beginner friendly, they do the job fine at higher skill levels. And don't forget, they are still one of the cheapest troop types in the game.
Implying 'charging archers' will always be simple and possible. Archers can kite, crossfire, infantry and cavalry can prevent you from reaching them. The shield would be small and weak, easy to break and shoot around of and its only purpose would be granting you a minimum defense to reach the fight without being instantly shot. You also wouldn't always want to pick a 2h because it's not necessarily better in a melee, as already mentioned.
It's undeniably more difficult, and having to pay attention to block the attacks of 3 or 4 opponents in front and around of you, is certainly above beginner level. Similarly, I could say that dying to attack spam would only be a problem for beginners, hardly an effective tactic (especially once changes to combat are made). Speed would be impacted by the weight of the shield, and weapon range can be an advantage as much as a disadvantage with allies around you. Also, as I said, one change does not exclude more changes, speed should definitely be tweaked regardless.
So they'd be leaving their teammates to die outnumbered, great. As for speed, read above.
Already addressed here:
They are at risk sure, but not nearly as high of having no shield at all. If you know where the archers are you can turn to block their arrows in time, without mentioning that they could still hit your shield unintentionally.
It wouldn't put them on equal grounds because they are better, other than costing more. It would be difficult to counter archers, as explained above, but it should still be possible. Should this class just be useless because it costs less?
They don't do the job fine whatsoever, /especially/ at higher skill levels where players are more experienced and coordinated and these classes don't have a chance to even reach the fight. You keep saying that they're cheap, and I keep telling you that one change doesn't exclude others. If they prove to be too effective for their cost, that can be changed, however if they remain as they are now they will never have a place in competitive matches.
@Gab
I'll shut up now as I am no master of MP, but I'd just like to tell you to read the parts of my post you didn't quote and reread what I said about group fights. I just want to say that the only proper way to counter enemies coordinating and fighting together is to coordinate and fight together yourself. You can reach the fight as a shock troop by hiding behind a friendly shield infantry, having your archer allies pin down the enemy archers etc.
Shock infantry are terrible as lone wolves, but excel with cooperation. They are intended as a flanking unit after all.
I'll shut up now as I am no master of MP, but I'd just like to tell you to read the parts of my post you didn't quote and reread what I said about group fights. I just want to say that the only proper way to counter enemies coordinating and fighting together is to coordinate and fight together yourself. You can reach the fight as a shock troop by hiding behind a friendly shield infantry, having your archer allies pin down the enemy archers etc.
Shock infantry are terrible as lone wolves, but excel with cooperation. They are intended as a flanking unit after all.
If I didn't quote something it's because I've already addressed it. I'd say that sounds good and all on paper but in reality it doesn't happen, if you spend half a round sneaking through the map you'll be leaving your team in a 5v6 and even then you can likely find yourself pinned down. Hiding behind another player's shield doesn't work, it's easy to shoot around (especially if archers are crossfiring). If simply saying "coordinate more" worked you'd be seeing 2h used in Warband competitive, fact is that 9/10 times they just get shot across the map, and unless you give them even the bare minimum to protect themselves and at least get into a fight, they won't be picked in any serious match.
Every post in this thread that came before mine is irrelevant.
From atop my high horse, I hereby proclaim that Shock Infantry should be removed from the game as a concept, and be merged with other infantry classes.
Giving Shock Infantry access to shields would diminish their identity as a glass cannon type of class, and would make them too similar to other infantry classes.
Not giving Shock Infantry access to shields puts them at such a massive disadvantage that they're useless in an even mildly competitive context.
Alternatively, get rid of the class system and solve any and all issues relating to it.
Onwards now, my trusty steed. Let us find another topic to be smug in.
From atop my high horse, I hereby proclaim that Shock Infantry should be removed from the game as a concept, and be merged with other infantry classes.
Giving Shock Infantry access to shields would diminish their identity as a glass cannon type of class, and would make them too similar to other infantry classes.
Not giving Shock Infantry access to shields puts them at such a massive disadvantage that they're useless in an even mildly competitive context.
Alternatively, get rid of the class system and solve any and all issues relating to it.
Onwards now, my trusty steed. Let us find another topic to be smug in.
Last edited:
