"Shields vs Missiles" mechanics. Another big dumbization.

[=Vastator=]

Rome I has a very realistic, simple and wonderful for gameplay "shields vs missiles" mechanics.

First of all there is a shields stat value (not in Rome II).

Furthermore, units with shields when hit by missiles on front take less damage than if they'd hit on the back.

Here is an example with Rome I: 2 testudo (now Prom is happy) are taking some salvos of missiles, but one is facing the wrong direction with the back not covered: they get slaughtered. There is also difference between left side (shield covered) and right side for not testudoed units in Rome I.
Basically parts where you see shields are covered, parts that visually aren't are also not "gameplay speaking" covered. Wonderful!




In Rome II it seems this is no more! There isn't' anymore a shield mechanics. Now there is no shield stat value, and they are incorporated in the "armour" stat value. It seems there is no more the difference between back and front, and a unit hit on the back has the same chance to die than if it would hit on the front (so it seems from my quick tests). Now we have this "raising shield" visual mechanics, but it's merely visual, if the unit rise shield on the front, there is no difference if it would be hit from the front or from the back. With the "armor stat" the defense of the unit is equal from every side, unlike in Rome I.
I have done the above test with testudo in Rome II, and no matter if i put the testudo on the wrong or right direction, the number of men dying is the same. This is because there are no more "gameplay" covered sides.

Though i made examples with testudo, this should be the same also for no testudoed units (so shielded units facing on front or on back).

UPDATE:According to a Jack Lusted post on official forums, the direction from where the projectiles come actually matters, so what i said about Rome II on the first post may be partially wrong.
Though the new system seems messy, not intuitive and partially broken; the opposite to the simple and working intuitive system of Rome I.

[Nota']

Maybe its something to do with the upgrading shield mechanic.
Don't really know how you can upgrade a shield, make it lighter? Surely that would just increase attack and mobility instead.

[MANU56BZH]

I play Arveny actually and IA slingers massacre my shield warrior finger in the nose. it's not normal. 1) The shield will be more strong. 2) The shield wall formation will be more strong. 3) The slinger will affect more morale than kill soldiers. It's just a tiny stone so FTW !!! 4) Arrow rang will be increase. 5) Arrow munition will be at 20 shoots (without general or staff ability) OR more arrows/soldiers but less impacting on shield or armored units but very good vs no armored units. 6) IA units recruiting must have 20 or 30 differents script recruiting army stack for each faction, like that we never meet the same army. Exemple IA army with 2/3 of slingers every time. 7) I agree rome testudo is false and useless from vanilla game. 8) Remove all flamming javelin (exepct if javelin units is under siege). 9) Romove all flaming arrow if archer units move on the field (expect under siege) and for all mounted units.

[MANU56BZH]

I play Arveny actually and IA slingers massacre my shield warrior finger in the nose. it's not normal. 1) The shield will be more strong. 2) The shield wall formation will be more strong. 3) The slinger will affect more morale than kill soldiers. It's just a tiny stone so FTW !!! 4) Arrow rang will be increase. 5) Arrow munition will be at 20 shoots (without general or staff ability) OR more arrows/soldiers but less impacting on shield or armored units but very good vs no armored units. 6) IA units recruiting must have 20 or 30 differents script recruiting army stack for each faction, like that we never meet the same army. Exemple IA army with 2/3 of slingers every time. 7) I agree rome testudo is false and useless from vanilla game. 8) Remove all flamming javelin (exepct if javelin units is under siege). 9) Romove all flaming arrow if archer units move on the field (expect under siege) and for all mounted units. sorry my eng.

[Sar1n]

Wait, so there isn't even flanks/rear weakness to missiles? In RTW the system was quite simple and functional: front-armor+shield, left side armor+shield, right side armor only, rear 1/2 armor and no shield. This made management of ranged units and maneuvering worth something. If they removed that, tactics are becoming absolutely useless.

[Fanest]

ugh now that is a serious gameplay issue. i hope they will address it asap

[karamazovmm]

so you are saying to me that shields can't take damage, and that they are an invulnerable wall? oh really?

[rrgg]

so you are saying to me that shields can't take damage, and that they are an invulnerable wall? oh really?

Aside from the few arrows that get in through the gaps, yeah, they should probably be treated that way.

@OP Missiles really need to be reworked, they do not go well with the game's hit-point mechanics. At the moment there is no real way to tell whether your unit is down to 80 men with full hitpoints, or down to 80 men weak enough that they might die from a sudden breeze. If there's any weapon in the game that should be either kill or no kill, it's missiles.

[Sigfried]

exactly what I was thinking on my first battle; I said oh there are guys throwing rocks over there.. well no problem, ill send an unit on testudo formation forth and meanwhile get cavalry there through the forest on the side... to my surprise around 20-30 of my men got killed by the first wave of ROCKS while having all their shields raised.... lol..

[universalmind]

Oh, ffs. This game just keeps getting worse and worse.

[Elitewolf]

Take a unit of skirmishers (preferably low quality ones) and a unit with a big shield (such as roman troops) or a unit without visible armor (such as rorrarii) Attack the unit from the front with the skirmishers. Then attack them from the back. You will notice a large increase in casualties.

You can do this in custom battles or just (as I have) notice it during campaign battles. There is a shield value, just like there was in empire, but it is hidden. It will undoubtedly be discovered when the appropriate tools are made/released to tweak unit stats.

I do wish we could actually see the two different stats (Armor and shield value) since there is a pretty big difference between the effect of armor and shield value.

[Vasa]

So far in my Epirus campaign I haven't had to build any siege equipment. In the time it takes my bodyguard hoplites to torch the gate, enemy towers/archers/peltasts never kill more than 10. If the AI is using slingers or javelins, my losses are usually zero.I remember how overpowered archers were when Shogun 2 launched, but this is overcompensating.

[SkyTrickster]

I can't believe that Rome in 2004 is gameplay wise speaking MORE ADVANCED than Rome 2, released in 2013.. mighty jezus...

[=Vastator=]

@Karamazovmm
I haven't completely understood. But here is how this works in Rome II (so it seems): unit have an internal meter, the more it's high, the more unit are resistant to missiles; and when you hit this unit with missiles, this counter goes down (it simulates the destruction of armour). So, for example, the fisrst volleis will not cause big damage to a unit, but the followings will kill more (but it's a bit odd in some cases, especially when you hit a testudo with light missiles...)

I'm not 100% sure that units don't have preferential sides, but my quick tests and feelings tell so (it is pretty obvious in Rome I).
This maybe because the warscape engine doesn't have this mechanics (and if you look at the past games, such as Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2, you will see that no (or very few) units had shields; so this mechanics was not needed and was not implemented when they build the engine).

What was the internal shield value in Empire?

[Iaius Statius Laurentius]

Uh, it's pretty clear that angle of attack does matter in Rome II...

[Yayattasa]

so you are saying to me that shields can't take damage, and that they are an invulnerable wall? oh really?

And where did you actually read that?

Soldiers died while under the testudo in RTW, even if they were facing their agressors. The thing is they died less often if protected by the testudo.

[krisslanza]

The "shield strength" is a hidden stat in Rome 2 now. I didn't think it existed until I looked at the Shieldmaker/Armourer buildings which grant Level II and Level III shields. Flanks certainly matter, my Velites can barely scratch say, Italian Spearmen on the charge, because their shields will soak up their shots. If they turn around, they get absolutely slaughtered.

The exception to the flanks, in terms of shields, is the pila the Romans throw, it has an armor piercing effect from what I see, and it'll punch through a shield even head on.

[the_mango55]

I like how people take some dubious "I tried this once and here's how it worked" thread as gospel.

I haven't done any tests personally but I've definitely noticed units with raised shields taking far less damage from skirmishers, and I've noticed that slingers don't really do much damage at all anyway. I've almost never had a battle where my slingers get more than 15-20 kills on max unit sizes, if they do it's because they are facing "mob" units or something with no armor or shield.

[PlacidDragon]

...and I've noticed that slingers don't really do much damage at all anyway. I've almost never had a battle where my slingers get more than 15-20 kills on max unit sizes, if they do it's because they are facing "mob" units or something with no armor or shield.

I've playtested most factions now (42 hours played.. and no, i dont have a life...lol). Anywhere i can recruit slingers, im in heaven, especially in siege battles (could say its because of dumb AI, but still..).

They are of relatively limited use in an open battle, where they get two shots off before the lines clash, and your ranged troops become a liability to your own men. In sieges on the other hand, both offensive and defensive, they are absolutely devastating. Their first salvo usually dont kill anyone. Then their second drops 10 guys, and on and on. If you have 4 slinger units, you'll decimate anything in no time at all, killing 30+ men every few seconds. Oathsworn, Royal *this and that*, etc etc.. all fall like flies (not fought the Romans yet with slingers).

Currently in a Carthage campaign, and have fought Rome a couple of times, but its mostly naval battles (but Carthage does not employ slingers from the start, i think they can be researched though).

As to a formations facing that was mentioned in the thread, it absolutely seems to matter. Once a unit retreats (not breaks, just retreats) and present their backs, casualty numbers goes up.

[Alkaline Earth]

I like how people take some dubious "I tried this once and here's how it worked" thread as gospel.

I haven't done any tests personally but I've definitely noticed units with raised shields taking far less damage from skirmishers, and I've noticed that slingers don't really do much damage at all anyway. I've almost never had a battle where my slingers get more than 15-20 kills on max unit sizes, if they do it's because they are facing "mob" units or something with no armor or shield.

Your slingers only get 15-20 kills? How do you use them? I charge with melee units then send peltasts to the right or left flanks and begin the destruction. ofc this means they sometimes get caught in melee (i never use skirmish mode, imo it is broken) but they at least prevent my melee units from getting reared.