|
|
|
 |

December 8th, 2006, 08:09 PM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 790
Thanks: 7
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
Re: Missile vs Shield
I agree with Endoperez, its strange to see a battle where 100 bowman can't hit a single commander with a parry 9 shield.
There should be something like in the melee defense roll: A multiple attack penalty.
I'm fine when a magic shield blocks 99% of a single bow attack. But if 20-30 arrows hits the position in a single combat turn there should be a penality. The defender just can't block everything with his shield.
Maybe the -2 multiple attack penalty (from melee battle) should work fine here. Every attack after the first gives -2 to the defender die roll.
|

December 8th, 2006, 08:46 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,198
Thanks: 90
Thanked 32 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: Missile vs Shield
Is this really the case? The longbowmen of MA Man are awesome, a 100 longbowmen can easily inflict huge casualtys on any opposition, especially when wind guided/flaming arrows. Upto turn 40 in two Mp's and noone's managed to deal with my longbowmen yet and they have fought dozen's of battles vs MA Ermor, MA Arco, MA Argatha, MA Marignon and MA Machaka.
Judging by actual battles fought and won, not noticed any force standing upto them better than any other, shields or no shields...
|

December 8th, 2006, 11:03 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: California
Posts: 159
Thanks: 5
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Missile vs Shield
It could be that parried arrows hit the shield rather than the ground. Re Corwin's report, almost all the arrows will get parried but a few percent should manage to pierce shield + armor with good damage rolls. Likewise Meglobob's longbowmen will often pierce armor+shield even when parried.
I was recently playing EA Arcosephale and I'd also say archers do better than a straightup intepretation of the shield rules. Cardaces have parry 4 shields and should be fairly tough to archers but mine were having a lot of trouble.
|

December 10th, 2006, 01:39 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,445
Thanks: 85
Thanked 79 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: Missile vs Shield
I'm playing early age Ermor now, which has loads of tower shields, and I agree, while they do seem to shrug off more arrows than any other nation, I regularly suffer some damage from archers, and possibly more damage from short range attacks like sticks and stones. I suspect there may be another factor at hand. One thing to keep in mind though, is the random element-with 100 arrows each having a base 1% chance to hit, that's 1 arrow hitting, but the random rolls in this game add a whole other element there. I don't know from the above formula whether or not there's randomness involved in calculating whether a striking arrow actually penetrates and hits, but I'd bet on it, and also on range having an effect.
__________________
You've sailed off the edge of the map--here there be badgers!
|

December 10th, 2006, 11:42 AM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eastern Finland
Posts: 7,110
Thanks: 145
Thanked 153 Times in 101 Posts
|
|
Re: Missile vs Shield
Quote:
HoneyBadger said:
I'm playing early age Ermor now, which has loads of tower shields, and I agree, while they do seem to shrug off more arrows than any other nation, I regularly suffer some damage from archers, and possibly more damage from short range attacks like sticks and stones. I suspect there may be another factor at hand. One thing to keep in mind though, is the random element-with 100 arrows each having a base 1% chance to hit, that's 1 arrow hitting, but the random rolls in this game add a whole other element there. I don't know from the above formula whether or not there's randomness involved in calculating whether a striking arrow actually penetrates and hits, but I'd bet on it, and also on range having an effect.
|
I used the table that takes the randomness of rolls into account.
I just did the math and didn't test it; it's nice to hear that this isn't as severe as the math would suggest.
|

December 10th, 2006, 08:22 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 404
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Missile vs Shield
Did a little test with tower shields (parry 7, def -2). It's nowhere near 3% that the formula says, closer to 14% (not very exact test).
Perhaps the correct formula uses (Parry - defence penalty) in stead? That gives 11% to hit a 0-fatigue tower shield unit. A small manual error wouldn't be strange.
|

December 11th, 2006, 06:33 AM
|
 |
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toulouse, FRANCE
Posts: 436
Thanks: 150
Thanked 21 Times in 13 Posts
|
|
Re: Missile vs Shield
Or maybe that a shield parry doesn't negate the attack but add to protection, as in melee. It would explain why low armored troops can still get some damage from arrows even whith tower shields.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|