FrisianDude
Archduke
hence why we also need siege weapons! Lob a rock on that turtle-*****.Swadius said:
Hiding Behind a Pavise Shield.
- Thread starter Shik
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Archduke
Blackthorn
Squire
Or, historically, send in the SHI.
Blackthorn
Squire
AWdeV said:
Yep.
SHI: Dismounted knights, usually.
It's in a couple of mods--dunde's The Vision and my PBOD at the very least.Enzo said:
Other than that...who knows what M&B 2 will hold.
It's probably already been mentioned in detial, but in Medieval 2 Total War the crossbowmen would turn their backs while they reloaded to shield themselves, rather than deploy the shield in front of them. You can actually do this in Warband without mods, what with "Shield hit on back!" thing going on... but the AI doesn't take advantage of it.
RedHaze
Recruit
^ I agree.
Doth no one think of the devs? Demanding/Requesting that they make the Rhodoks plant the pavise and enhance the AI's intelligence so they don't screw up or do really retarded things with the new shields would just cause unnecessary work and make them work harder and longer. Do you really want the next game/expansion/mod to come out later for the sake of the realism of a minor issue?
I mean come on guys, plenty of games are unrealistic for the sake of fun (no offence to the devs, but even if they do implement Rhodoks planting the Pavise, the AI might still come up with retarded things to do with the shields).
For example, one person said that the ratio of ranged to melee units in history (of at least Medieval ages) were generally 2:1, but historical games cut back on it to emphasise the hack and slash which the majority of people favor.
Although I do agree that the damage of a crossbow should be a little more, comparing it to a bow. However, I don't think it should be upped so much that it is a 1-shot kill to vital areas (possibly the head if the circumstances etc are right - or it was a top-tier siege crossbow, or something near that), that would remove the challenge. Just get on a horse and gallop around the enemy, firing bolts at them. You could easily take on enemies of around 70 if all you had was a crossbow and 3 bags of bolts.
P.S. To avoid Shik's inevitable "they will just get an arrow/bolt in the ass - and what are they doing, mooning the enemy?" (although the wording may be a bit off), I suggest that they crouch or kneel on one knee, so they still have the protection of their pavise and don't look ridiculous 'mooning' the enemy (although doubtless that will cause some anger with the enemy - who likes to be mooned? - which could have a positive effect, causing them to be a little rash).
Doth no one think of the devs? Demanding/Requesting that they make the Rhodoks plant the pavise and enhance the AI's intelligence so they don't screw up or do really retarded things with the new shields would just cause unnecessary work and make them work harder and longer. Do you really want the next game/expansion/mod to come out later for the sake of the realism of a minor issue?
I mean come on guys, plenty of games are unrealistic for the sake of fun (no offence to the devs, but even if they do implement Rhodoks planting the Pavise, the AI might still come up with retarded things to do with the shields).
For example, one person said that the ratio of ranged to melee units in history (of at least Medieval ages) were generally 2:1, but historical games cut back on it to emphasise the hack and slash which the majority of people favor.
Although I do agree that the damage of a crossbow should be a little more, comparing it to a bow. However, I don't think it should be upped so much that it is a 1-shot kill to vital areas (possibly the head if the circumstances etc are right - or it was a top-tier siege crossbow, or something near that), that would remove the challenge. Just get on a horse and gallop around the enemy, firing bolts at them. You could easily take on enemies of around 70 if all you had was a crossbow and 3 bags of bolts.
P.S. To avoid Shik's inevitable "they will just get an arrow/bolt in the ass - and what are they doing, mooning the enemy?" (although the wording may be a bit off), I suggest that they crouch or kneel on one knee, so they still have the protection of their pavise and don't look ridiculous 'mooning' the enemy (although doubtless that will cause some anger with the enemy - who likes to be mooned? - which could have a positive effect, causing them to be a little rash).
I don't think they would've done that in real life. I might be wrong, but as far as I know pavises were planted in the ground, as having one on your back would have provided very little protection. Bolts or arrows would go through the pavise and stick into your back, wouldn't they?Bluehawk said:
RedHaze
Recruit
^ Why does that matter? This isn't about whether, historically, pavise shields were planted, but really about implementing that in the game.
Personally, as the post above yours says, I think that the AI should merely turn and kneel/crouch to reload, and not plant their pavise shield in the ground. Not only would it be easier to code, but the AI wouldn't **** up annoyingly.
P.S. You are correct, partially. Generally, the bolt or arrow WOULDN'T go through the shield, unless it's a pretty ****ty shield, but you also probably wouldn't want it on your back, just to be safe.
Remember, the same could be said for a shield when equipped. If an arrow could go through it, the archers could target where the arms/hands of the enemy should be, and send an arrow through the shield into their arm/hand. So, since commanders obviously wouldn't want their soldiers getting their arms and/or hands pinned to their shields, it makes sense that the shields would be thick enough that an arrow or bolt wouldn't get through it.
It is possible that pavise shields wouldn't be made as thick, due to them just being planted and not held, usually, but I still think the above ^ is worth noting.
Personally, as the post above yours says, I think that the AI should merely turn and kneel/crouch to reload, and not plant their pavise shield in the ground. Not only would it be easier to code, but the AI wouldn't **** up annoyingly.
P.S. You are correct, partially. Generally, the bolt or arrow WOULDN'T go through the shield, unless it's a pretty ****ty shield, but you also probably wouldn't want it on your back, just to be safe.
Remember, the same could be said for a shield when equipped. If an arrow could go through it, the archers could target where the arms/hands of the enemy should be, and send an arrow through the shield into their arm/hand. So, since commanders obviously wouldn't want their soldiers getting their arms and/or hands pinned to their shields, it makes sense that the shields would be thick enough that an arrow or bolt wouldn't get through it.
It is possible that pavise shields wouldn't be made as thick, due to them just being planted and not held, usually, but I still think the above ^ is worth noting.
I highly doubt an archer could aim for an opponent's arm at the range of a pitched medieval battle. have even higher doubts that they would be aiming directly at their foes as archers fired in volleys, not like snipers on a modern battlefield.
As for shields being thick, a shield thick enough to completely stop an arrow, let alone a bolt, would be far too heavy to move around with.
As for shields being thick, a shield thick enough to completely stop an arrow, let alone a bolt, would be far too heavy to move around with.
Well since the shield already offers disproportionate protection in the world of Calradia, perhaps the Calradians should take advantage of it?
I appreciate your argument though. The "mooning" done in Medieval II was probably just Creative Assembly making a short-cut so they wouldn't have to have characters deploy and remove objects of the battlefield all the time. All the other deployable structures in that game were fixed and couldn't be moved.
I appreciate your argument though. The "mooning" done in Medieval II was probably just Creative Assembly making a short-cut so they wouldn't have to have characters deploy and remove objects of the battlefield all the time. All the other deployable structures in that game were fixed and couldn't be moved.
theelder
Sergeant
yes yes,that might be a good idea,a realistic game is respected by most historician gamers (like me)
but sometime we must sacrifice the reality for a funny game
and how would you implement it in the game? pressing a certain button to drop the shield and then the system will make an object like wall which block ranged damage? and you can press F to pick up the shield again?
but sometime we must sacrifice the reality for a funny game
and how would you implement it in the game? pressing a certain button to drop the shield and then the system will make an object like wall which block ranged damage? and you can press F to pick up the shield again?
Suspicious Fish
Recruit
I totally agree. I usually go with the Rhodoks and this is one of things that would make the crossbowmen more handy and improve the defensive quality of them.
Really it would be good if the rhodoks kept the shields on there back and turned round while reloading while the enemy missile fire hits the shield on the back like in medieval 2 I have no problem with this although I don't agree with the author about the rhodoks beeing week in my mind after the khergits there the best
Fardigt
Recruit
A thing to note historically some crossbowmen had pepole that carried the pavise for them. Although some pavise shields had a hole in in the top area of the shield allowing the crossbowman to fire whilst still being protected from archer fire. Though the shields had sticks as legs infact they had two sticks to stand on being fixed behind the shield so it was not shoved into the ground this might answer the question about if cavalry could knock over pavise shields.
