1h shield is too difficult at the moment

[Vibe]

Well 1H ain't easy mode if you pick some other weapons than Spamitar or Steel Pick. But if you choose to wield those weapons it's easy mode 100%. Hard to block, deal high damage, super fast, those two weapons need serious nerf.

Couldn't agree more here, real men don't take Spammitars or Steel picks!

[Mala]

This also supports Walt's data in that animations finish at exactly the same time. Which both of those do. Now, where the sword is at for that moment of time is a different matter.

Regardless, the animation finishes at the same time -which it should- with 99 speed weapons.

Damn you are right, i guess the animations have biased the outcome of my earlier tests.

Do left-to-right too, because this doesn't show the whole picture.

I could have use the thrust animation, too. But i have choosed a medium speed animation for both, because it seemed to be a bit fairer.

:p everyone knows scimis are easymode. greys for example

Hmm, do i have to remind you of the boulder on the stick and throwing lance phases of HRE?




And yeah, sword and board ist not that difficult as that you are completely helpless, but bit the other classes have it a way more easier ( although i know that the grass is greener on the other side of the lawn).

[Thucydides]

left swing insta headshot. So easy vs newbs.

Swashbuckling with 1 WPF is also the most fun i can have in warband

[Camaris]

Hmm, do i have to remind you of the boulder on the stick and throwing lance phases of HRE?

Way before my time Mala i guess :p
Im Shielder now btw and doing fine atm.

[Warcat]

Couldn't agree more here, real men don't take Spammitars or Steel picks!

Real men (or Tavern Keepers) take torches.

[ArchonAlarion]

Maybe shields are not supposed to get as many kills as two handed weapons?

In warfare shields were defensive utility equipment for the most part. Two handed weapons should be getting the lion's share of kills and shields should protect teammates and defend entry points.

The multiplier system has shifted explicit player goals/gain from the kill count to consecutive team victories.

The "class" system is silly, and not meant for mount and blade. Making the weapons equal in terms of their ability to collect kills will totally distort item functions until they resemble a silly arcade game rather than an interesting simulation of medieval combat, which m&b was always intended to be.

[Vibe]

Maybe shields are not supposed to get as many kills as two handed weapons?

In warfare shields were defensive utility equipment for the most part. Two handed weapons should be getting the lion's share of kills and shields should protect teammates and defend entry points.

The multiplier system has shifted explicit player goals/gain from the kill count to consecutive team victories.

The "class" system is silly, and not meant for mount and blade. Making the weapons equal in terms of their ability to collect kills will totally distort item functions until they resemble a silly arcade game rather than an interesting simulation of medieval combat, which m&b was always intended to be.

Well said.

[Spawny]

Maybe shields are not supposed to get as many kills as two handed weapons?

In warfare shields were defensive utility equipment for the most part. Two handed weapons should be getting the lion's share of kills and shields should protect teammates and defend entry points.

The multiplier system has shifted explicit player goals/gain from the kill count to consecutive team victories.

The "class" system is silly, and not meant for mount and blade. Making the weapons equal in terms of their ability to collect kills will totally distort item functions until they resemble a silly arcade game rather than an interesting simulation of medieval combat, which m&b was always intended to be.

I personally have yet to see a single shield kill anyone. It's usually the weapon held in the other hand that does the killing.
And as far as I know, 2h's weren't used (often) on the battlefield until plate armour took the place of the shield in terms of protection.
Plate armour = no need for a shield = a free hand to wield a bigger weapon with.

[Warcat]

The Scottish had no need for your silly super shields or plate armor, they had paint and William Wallace, nothing more was needed.

[ArchonAlarion]

I personally have yet to see a single shield kill anyone. It's usually the weapon held in the other hand that does the killing.

lol fair enough

And as far as I know, 2h's weren't used (often) on the battlefield until plate armour took the place of the shield in terms of protection.
Plate armour = no need for a shield = a free hand to wield a bigger weapon with.

If there is an army comprised only of shields, then yeah no duh shieldmen will do all the killing. I'm arguing that in the presence of both weapon types, the 2h'ders will end up with the job of killing due to their reach and impact force, whereas shieldmen will act as mobile walls to protect against projectiles, prized for the fact that they can defend a location without having to dodge, backpeddle or constantly engage/disengage enemies to keep themselves and their friends alive.

Two handed weapons (including 2h'd spears) would do much of the killing and they were certainly in use before plate armor; I wish plate armor was actually strong enough in this mod for it to work like that though.

[Bonze]

Michael still too bad at the moment

Upkeep for plate charger is to high ..

[Gorath]

Why oh why is this thread even still going guys?

1h/shield is in a good place currently.
2h/polearms are in a good place currently.
Archery/Xbows/throwing are all in a good place currently.
Cavalry... well that will always be in a good place even if couching was the only thing you could do with it and there was only sumpter horses so meh.

There's still some internal balance issues within each catagory, but compared to each other as a whole cRPG is actually in quite a nice state of balance at the moment.  (Even if there's far too many projectiles in the air to call it mount and blade anymore instead of mount and pew)

[Turkhammer]

Maybe shields are not supposed to get as many kills as two handed weapons?

In warfare shields were defensive utility equipment for the most part. Two handed weapons should be getting the lion's share of kills and shields should protect teammates and defend entry points.

That's not accurate.  The Romans slaughtered hundreds of thousands using their shield and short sword (gladis).  And they did it against axe and sword wielding 2h barbarians.  Shielders should be the equal of 2h, and in this game they are not.

[Turkhammer]

  (Even if there's far too many projectiles in the air to call it mount and blade anymore instead of mount and pew)

That's medieval combat for you.

[ArchonAlarion]

That's not accurate.  The Romans slaughtered hundreds of thousands using their shield and short sword (gladis).  And they did it against axe and sword wielding 2h barbarians.  Shielders should be the equal of 2h, and in this game they are not.

Who will win, a 90 year old woman with a poleaxe or chuck norris with a shield? There are more differences between the roman legion and the barbarian horde than simply the weapons they used, namely tactics and logistics. Shields are not unnecessary. They may in fact be necessary for the 2h'ders/spears to go to work and survive and there may be more of them. However 2h'ders have far more killing potential per capita provided they are in the right situation (i.e. well defended by shieldmen) because they can reach farther and pierce higher tiers of armor easier. As armor protection increased during the middle ages, shields were gradually phased out of warfare (due to both the redundant protection of armor and the limited ability for 1h'd weapons to puncture it). Depending on the average level of armor/weapons technology within a particular server, shields will theoretically do better or worse (if we intend c-rpg to be a realistic simulation).