If Giants existed in BC times...

[rdonj]

By being heavy but having very free joint movements?

I'm not suggesting that they actually get a huge defense bonus, for what it's worth, just that it would help them a lot at competing as heavy infantry. But they're not heavy infantry, they're shock infantry with ridiculous hit chances and decent damage, capable of killing light and heavy infantry alike. If you look at them in that light they're fine the way they are. The only thing they lack is a recruitable survivability unit.

[MaxWilson]

Ummm. Defense can come from other sources (shield of gleaming gold has a high parry because it's shiny and makes opponents avert their eyes), so maybe it's encumbering but also so garish that it hurts opponents' eyes?

-Max

[Sombre]

Well shields don't actually give defence (or I guess they might, but not through parry), it's just the misleading way it displays on the unit screen. Actually I think several shields reduce defence.

[Endoperez]

I came up with the effect first, liked it, and now I'm trying to come up with an explanation.

In this case, the armor's increased defense comes from different focus. This only applies on Jomonese, not Japanese, armors, but I imagine the the armor would be designed so it doesn't hinder the usage of the samurai's preferred weapon. Samurai Armor + broadsword/buckler equals defense penalty, but Samurai Armor + katana does not. Other nations' armor isn't as specialized, because some use swords, others use morningstars, some only use spears, they use different shields etc etc.

[vfb]

I guess it's how you thing about the shield affecting defense. I think shields give additional defense equal to the parry value, but on a shield hit, you still get damaged, minus the protection of the shield.

Even though Lead Shields have good protection, their low parry value means that they are rarely hit, so they don't help much in melee. A Shield of the Accursed should eat a whole lot of hits for you because of the high parry.

[Sombre]

Yes but the parry is only added to defence on melee rolls. It doesn't help against earthquakes, when being trampled etc. In fact with a tower shield for example, it gives a malus to your 'real' defence value in these situations. When compared with weapons and armour, which give defence bonus or malus in all situations, the parry value from shields doesn't come across as 'real' defence.

I personally think the way it's displayed just confuses people.

[vfb]

Thanks, I see what you mean now. And it's nice the way the mechanics are implemented, since it makes sense you can't jump out of the elephant's way with that big steel tower shield strapped to your arm!

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Well shields don't actually give defence (or I guess they might, but not through parry), it's just the misleading way it displays on the unit screen. Actually I think several shields reduce defence.

I know, but for our purposes it doesn't matter. The fact that the shield of gleaming gold is better at deflecting *arrows* because it's shiny is actually even weirder than if it boosted defense directly.

-Max

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

I know, but for our purposes it doesn't matter. The fact that the shield of gleaming gold is better at deflecting *arrows* because it's shiny is actually even weirder than if it boosted defense directly.

-Max

Silver Hauberk works the same way. I presume it's so shiny arrows can't see it and go right past.

[Agema]

The defence/parry will reflect that the glare partially blinds the archer or melee unit, I imagine, making them hard to target. Although that does leave a logic gap about why it still works against blind units.