Re: Screenies!
 

Regarding the head to body ratio, it should be weighted 1:4 to make the 17 & 12 = 13. Hoever, with rounding anything from 1:3 to 1:9 works so...

Re: Screenies!
 

If it weren't for cursed luck I'd have no luck at all, doom, gloom, and Agon-y on me!

Sorry, I apologize, I didn't mean it, it was my evil twin.

Re: Screenies!
 

Trust me, shields are extremely important, lightly armoured troops without them can get decimated by archers.

Re: Screenies!
 

Also, as I said, even a Buckler makes a huge difference. Just try Bandar Log or Patala, and try Bandar Warriors against Bandar Archers, or the Vanara Chakram Throwers against mace-and-buckler wielding Vanara. I think the latter are Vanara Warriors, but I'm not sure.

Re: Screenies!
 

So let me see if I have the shields correct. Say that unit A has 10 defense (not including the shield), and 12 with the shield.

Unit B attacks unit A and has 5 attack and rolls a 6 (for 11). That might miss, except that instead it goes to a normal attack + the shield defense. So, if unit A had 8 protection, they would as if they had 10?

But, if unit B rolled an 8 they would score a 13 and bypass the shield, thereby striking at onle 8 protection?

Do shields still give protection (or is it just this defense system now)?

Re: Screenies!
 

Close, but per Endoperez's description above, if the parry makes the difference then the entire protection of the shield is added. So 15 protection, not just 2.

So shields are less useful in melee but better against missiles. Which, considering the likely importance of sacred troops who mostly don't have shields, makes combined arms more attractive.

If there's really no interesting differences between EA & MA Pangaea, then how about something revealing how Barbarian Kings now has a chance?

Re: Screenies!
 

Guys, there are two pretty apparent reasons why this mechanic was added when you think of the implications. #1 It means that, regardless of their defend or parry value, shields no longer provide any bonus whatsoever against Armor Penetrating attacks; in fact, most shields will be a handicap. This is a good thing. #2 It means that Armor Piercing attacks are not quite as lethal against a shield wielding opponent. I think this is also a good thing.

There are probably more implications, but so far, I really like it. I bet flails versus shields has been altered too. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that flails simply don't allow the parry bonus, thus negating the parry, too.

Just to go ahead and clarify things, I think we should use the term "shield hit(s)" for when someone's defense roll successfully lands in that parry zone. Ie. When someone parries with a shield, they take a shield hit, which is an attack that must beat Protection + Protection, Shield. Example: Using the unit above, when he takes a normal hit (to the body) he has protection 12. When he takes a shield hit, he has protection 27. For now, I'm going to assume missile weapons also have to beat this protection. In a way it makes sense, but it also sounds like missile troops will be pretty useless against shielded enemies.

@Endo
It seems like there could be other items/weapons that will add parry bonuses as well. Have you seen anything like this? Would these same weapons then also have a "Protection, Parry" or does it just use the weapon's attack bonus for this?

=$=

Re: Screenies!
 

Shields work nice in game. They feel different, their presence is felt (most notably when under archer fire) but they aren't overpowered.

Re: Screenies!
 

I hope all missile projectiles in the game were slightly increased in effectivity, or else this new shield protection functionality will only mean a nerf across the board for every projectile in the game. Well, all things will be worked out through patches, eventually.

=$=

Re: Screenies!
 

Against AP attacks the shield still has 15/2= 7.5 protection. That's seriously useful. It's against armor negating attacks that shields are a handicap.

Also, from v2.88: "* Flail and morningstar new mechanic (+2 att vs shields)"