• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Return of the shield

The reason most armor disappeared is because it couldn't stop gunfire and thus became a waste of weight. Once adequate materials became available, not too shocking that various types of armor pop back up again.
That's interesting. We introduced shields to battledress troops in our games back in ... um, 1985. Their weapons were mostly mounted on articulated booms, so a shield was easily accommodated. Came in very handy, too.
I wonder if they'll make them in different sizes for a variety of tactical situations?

An IFV/APC could easily carry them...
IIRC, shields lost favor when pikes, halberds, and two-handed swords became the weapions of choice. All demanded two hands to use effectively.

How many hands does it take to operate a M4?

And this thing wil not be light. The IIIA prototype may only be 1-1.5 Kg but the rifle plate will be 4-5 Kg. I have "fought" with a 4 Kg shield and my arm was exhausted very quickly. And it was a "barn door" that didn't have to move much.
That's why you want to give them to battledres troops (see my post above). ;)
Don't the police officers with shields use pistols at most? I think I have seen it used with two hands, depending on officers further back in the stack to return fire,
Most law enforcement agencies and military police (or soldiers acting as riot troops)carrying riot shields usually carry nightsticks or truncheons and do not carry sidearms - after all, if you're deploying riot troops, you're attempting the control a situation without resorting to lethal force. Besides, if the riot shield cordon is broken and some police officers or MP's get taken down and overwhelmed, there is the very real possibility of someone relieving them of their sidearm and using it. If military personnel on the shield line are armed, their sidearms are supposed to be secured to their belt with a lanyard and the holster flap secured, not that it would help if your weapon gets taken and you get shot at point blank range. In a military riot guard formation, if the use of lethal force is a viable option such as an attempt to breach a base gate, the rear ranks will have armed personnel, now usually being armed with M-4's, some with an M-203A1 grenade launcher (for CS gas grenades), and there are tactics for the riot line to open up to allow armed personnel to advance under cover, as well as tactics for armed personnel to fire from within a shield wall. It's not unlike a Roman maniple forming a testudo (a phalanx-like formation with all troops' shields linked together for total cover) and then occasionally opening up holes to allow a Legionnaire (or a few) to toss a pilum as ranged fire.
Yeah. But these are not riot shields. These are 20-30 lb rifle proof "bunker" shields for SWAT. They are only deployed in case of lethal force.

And the Romans normally fought in open order and only adopted the tetsudo when assaulting a fortified position, but I take your point.

But it does not invalidate my point. Shields are useful if you have weapons that can be used with the free hand, like riot batons, swords, or pistols. If your weapon takes two hands, like a pike, halberd, or assault rifle, junk the shield.
Uncle Bob, I fully agree with you on a shield's utility, I was just throwing some more info and ideas related to usage of modern-day shields in response to points brought up concerning rifles and riot guard tactics and deployment. And I know that the Roman testudo analogy wasn't correct, but it was the closest thing I could think of the describe a modern tactic, inaccurate as it is. I wasn't trying to invalidate anything you had said (especially since I concur), and if I gave that impression, I apologize.
I took no offense, and as I said, I approved of your point on the tetsudo.

I just wanted to make our positions clear to someone who didn't read as carefuly as we do. Sorry I came off as defensive.
Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
But it does not invalidate my point. Shields are useful if you have weapons that can be used with the free hand, like riot batons, swords, or pistols. If your weapon takes two hands, like a pike, halberd, or assault rifle, junk the shield.
It will also depend on whether you are thinking in terms of individuals or groups. In the typical use, the body bunker is carried by the lead member of a team. I can see such a shield being used as portable cover. Consider boarding a ship. It involes maneuvering though corridors offering little or no cover while the defenders snipe at you from cover.

A shield or portable bunker could be very useful in such a situation.

It's a tool, one in a large tool box and used where appropriate.
So how does this RL development influence players' attitudes towards Imperial Marines being trained in Cutlass skill? Will this change the minds of any who feel that "swords in space" is a silly idea? For myself, I've never minded the concept even if I didn't use it much in MTU. What say you gentlemen?

Best Regards,

Bob W
Realistically, I think swords would only work in a society where their use was a matter of honour. They are so disadvantaged when compared with guns or long range stunners, that they could only be used effectively by mutual agreement.
I'm thinking something like the Musketeers era, when guns were in use, but only a knave would use them outside of the battlefield. Even on the battlefield, two gentlemen would prefer to test each other's mettle in swordplay.
Perhaps if it were unthinkable to use anything other than a blade during a boarding action or bar room dispute, they could still have a place.
Go read the thread elsewhere here (can't find it right now) about this, Icosa. The best argument for them is a monomolecular edge, backed by powered armor, for slicing through other powered armor.

(Dang, that page takes a long time to load... ... ...)
Looks kinda small for a body bunker, though.