Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

Bullets go through shields.  So no, I don't think shields should stop bullets.  The prevalence of shield use in warfare is in direct contrast to the use of firearms.  AKA better guns means less shields, until shields left the battlefield entirely.

Instead, shields should block melee attacks (punches, syringes, knifes, nightsticks, torches, pitchforks, melee stuff), and sufficient skill should allow the liberal to execute a shield bash.

[brainfreez]

i think the shields were made out of buletproof material ...

[Neonivek]

So no, I don't think shields should stop bullets.  The prevalence of shield use in warfare is in direct contrast to the use of firearms

Have you ever compared civilian and police grade weapons and armor to swat and military?

Did you know that Burst fire guns is actually a modern invention? They are actually a modification of full auto guns to be incapable of going full auto (if I am correct).

Anyhow the reason they don't use shields in warfare isn't that they don't work, they have those right now, it is that they are not condusive to combat and military opperations. They are big, heavy, and often require two hands to use... and even then you tend to need to use lower calibur of weapons (actually that isn't exactly true, there are some shields that are made to be able to be place down on the ground... but they are more like portable cover)

[EuchreJack]

Hm, in that case, shields as a whole new weapon type that stops bullets (playing off your comment that they are two-handed, and thus one can't use both a shield and another weapon) would be awesome and could be implemented without opening the can of worms that is dual-wielding.  Presumably, the shield bash attack would be weak intially, but eventually evolve into a steamroller-type attack with sufficient skill and strength.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I'm going to write some stuff which is probably mostly true but represents a game designer's understanding, not expert knowledge.

SWAT teams may storm a building with armor on their arms and legs, a person in front with a shield, and helmets with face masks. Soldiers in the field will usually have none of this equipment. The difference is not a matter of the military being cheap, especially for the US Army, which spends exorbitant amounts of money on training and equipment, and would gladly invest more if it were of benefit. The problem is that the military has conditions to deal with that make the equipment less useful. The general answer for "why doesn't the military use more personal armor", including personal ballistic shields, is always some combination of:

1. It is too hot, heavy, and/or bulky,
2. It doesn't reliably stop the threats they expect to face.

Either of these can be solved, but only by trading off heavily against the other. The more gear soldiers wear, the more quickly they tire out in the field, so if they aren't expecting combat, they'll usually only wear armor sufficient to cover their vital organs. If they are expecting combat, they'll have more coverage, but still won't wear armor for their arms, legs, or face, even though such armor exists.

SWAT teams can do things differently. They have the luxury of having short, relatively predictable missions. They are in friendly territory, and can expect only a single hotspot of action. Unlike the military, they expect to be attacked primarily with shotguns and handguns. Shotguns increase the value of face coverage and full-body shields, and both shotguns and handguns can be stopped with relatively lightweight armor. SWAT teams also dictate the pace and timing of their engagements, and they are unlikely to be flanked, thereby increasing the value of the directional cover a shield provides. In addition, their targets are usually a handful of isolated self-interested criminals, who lack ideological convictions; SWAT teams therefore benefit disproportionately from the sheer dehumanizing shock factor of storming a building with face masks and a shield. Criminals usually don't want to be martyrs.

The military, on the other hand, needs mobility and flexibility, and faces threats that are hard to stop with lightweight armor. Infantry training foregoes carrying shields in favor of using vehicles and environment for cover. Assaulting buildings is more dangerous, but they can sometimes use explosives to nullify this problem, and other times they hand off the job to specialized teams with specialized equipment. Finally, modern military campaigns, especially for the US, often involve the threat of civilians being alienated and becoming hostile. Under these circumstances, a human face to the troops is likely to protect them from more harm than an imposing shield will, or a face mask that makes them look like a faceless stormtrooper.

As for an in-game implementation, I think any system for ballistic shields in LCS should respect the main tactical use of them -- one squad member providing cover for others behind.

[Neonivek]

Either of these can be solved, but only by trading off heavily against the other. The more gear soldiers wear, the more quickly they tire out in the field, so if they aren't expecting combat, they'll usually only wear armor sufficient to cover their vital organs. If they are expecting combat, they'll have more coverage, but still won't wear armor for their arms, legs, or face, even though such armor exists.

Oddly enough while most weapons have been getting lighter... Machine guns, the kind you need to brace on something or a tripod, have actually been getting significantly heavier. Mind you probably because of the advent of mass mechanisation.

Mind you even the highest class of armor, which is interestingly enough in this game, has trouble dealing with high calibur military weapons (The steriotypical sniper rifle can pierce it quite consistantly)