Age of Strategy Forums

Despite being slower than and unranged to skirmishers they deal the same damage to archers. I feel as they are anti-archer they should have .34 bonus to deal 8 dmg to take down archers in 2 turns if they can even reach them.

I personally think it is ok as it is now

I still find them underused. They rely on techs to become competent, but even then there are much more investments that can do the same only better.

Well, actually.. yeah. Or just overall raise their damage by 1 or 2.

Which unit can do the same? I don't have much experience - I mainly see stats. And from what i know:

Shielders are best 2 turn unit trainable in TC to be put in first slot. What's more - their potential counters - cavalry and anti-infantry footmen (celts, macemen) are easily dealt with other 2-turn units. Only high turn-cost units fare better than shielders in this position.
Shielders juts aren't specialized anti-archer units, while skirmishers are anti-archer, but really weak against any melee unit which shielder can at least survive.

Let's factor speed into the equation.

These examples may work more better with AI or unbalanced pvp skill setup.
Swordsman comparison:
If a swordsman or its upgrades reaches an archer, it will be able to pursue and hit until death or blocked off by another unit. However if a shielder reached the archer, he won't be able to chase after it because of their difference in speed. (It's typically harder for shielders to get in range vs swordsmen due to speed)

If you were to send shielders to the enemy you'd be attacking at 2/3rd the possible speed meaning your enemy has 1/3rd more time to prepare counter.

Skirmisher comparison:
Skirmishers can always stay 2 tile or more away from a tyical melee target's walk range. If the target unit walks continously towards the skirmisher he can be defeated without hp loss.

With range, speed and bonuses, skirmishers can threaten even horse archers or longbow without archery techs if they walk into attack range to hit skirmishers. They can also hit archers or other units behind obstacles whereas shielders cannot.

So I do believe swordsmen and skirmishers can do about the same, only better.

It's true.
But swordsman can stall 1 archer only 3 turns, while staying in TC. 2 archers take TC in second turn.
Shielder can stall 4 archers indefinitely. Just as skirmisher.
On the other hand skirmisher dies from 1 light cavalry attack or 1 swordsman with 1 pikeman or 2 swordsman's.
Shielder can survive 2 light cavalry attacks, the same 2 turns 1 swordsman with 1 pikeman can be stalled. It can stall swordsman for 4 turns.
Just to remind - swordsman dies from 2nd light cavalry attack. Sword + pike combination also kills him in the 2nd turn. Another swordsman kills him in the third.

In my view shielder poor speed is a countermeasure against rushing on TC and exactly dealing with archers (destroying the need of skirmishers).

And one more thing - adding them bonus vs archers would indicate shield knight should also get it (as he is also shielded unit).
I don't know if it's justified.

Endru is actually speaking sense, shielder are not really meant to be offensive but defensive units. Basically like a living wall. Good in early to mid game defences. And adding shield knight a bonues vs archers it not really neccesary

One more thing - If he's too weak I would rather add him ATTACK_FULL_COUNTER.

When they're first added I thought they were more like Roman soldiers than the Romans themselves.

What I mean is that, even though they are supposed to be anti archer/good defender. Plus they can ezly be outflanked by cavalry making them look more like the Legionaries.

To summarize, theyre perfect for their role.
I know stats/advantage is what is being discussed here. Just want to share my thoughts.

The thing is: shield knights already have 25% - 40% bonus against foot archers. And why should they not? All mounteds have bonus against archer expt for horse archers.

Shielders deal 2 less dmg than swordsman, I simply want them to deal swordsman damage to only foot_archers so that they can down them in 2 turns.

Yeah... I see your point puss, this wouldn't change too much but would be a nice addition, agree with you. I hopefully wont change my decision again.