Unit descriptions in battle - what do you think?

**Lord Tomyris** · August 02, 2013, 05:15 AM

Just wondered what people thought of the text that appears when you select a unit in battle? I myself find the text rather generic and unimaginative, when it could be used to increase immersion by the simplest tweaks - adding a little bit of historical background. Consider the following examples:

Levy Slingers
'Even in the hands of levies, slings are dangerous weapons.'

Fair enough, but all this tells me is that slings can kill people, which I assume to be the case anyway seeing as I'm recruiting them for use in battle. Just a tiny bit of flavour text on the soldiers themselves would be nice, e.g:

'Too poor to have any real equipment besides a sling, these Romans can nevertheless prove their worth at range.'

Italian Swordsmen
'Never underestimate an Italian in battle: he will smile even as he guts you.'

This tells us that Italians are able to kill people in battle, and that they might enjoy doing it. Why not tell us something of these soldiers' origins:

'Hardened troops provided by Rome's Italian allies for use in the Republic's wars.'

Legionary Cohort
'Heavy infantry with strong attacks, good armour and exceptional morale.'

Fair enough, but rather uninspiring - this could be any elite unit. Besides, we have their stats anyway, right under the text. Why not something like:

'Professional soldiers drawn from the citizens of Rome, legionaries constitute the heavy infantry of the Roman Army.'

Evocati Cohort
'All legionaries are effective; veterans doubly so.'

So are their stats literally double that of a normal legionary cohort? Are these men just legionaries who have been in service for a longer time, or have they re-enlisted to fight once again? The text doesn't tell us. How about:

'Veterans who have served out their time with honour, proudly enlisted once more to fight for Rome.'

Egyptian Infantry
'Egyptians, trained for close combat, are hardy and loyal in service to a true pharaoh.'

Again, who are these men? Are they just any old mob thrown together? Are they the rank-and-file of the Egyptian army? Why not:

'Drawn from the native warrior class of Egypt, these soldiers provide valuable support for more capable Ptolemaic troops.'

Ptolemaic Cavalry
'A keen lance, under command of keen hand and eye, can do terrible work.'

This could be a description for any cavalry unit. Why not just tweak it ever so slightly:

'Drawn from the Ptolemaic nobility, these lancers can unleash a terrible charge.'

Pikeman
'It should be counted an honour to defend one's home and family with the pike.'

Again, this really tells us nothing. My suggestion:

'Egyptian natives conscripted by their new rulers to fight in the traditional Macedonian fashion, these men are armed with formidable sarissa pikes.'

This probably seems like splitting hairs, I'm aware; and at any rate, it can be easily modded. I just thought it curious that, in a period replete with such variety and colour, the descriptions which pop up everytime you select a unit seem rather bland.

Thoughts?

**Beregond** · August 02, 2013, 05:17 AM

I think there should be extended descriptions, like before.
I'd be disappointed if it wasn't the case

**djxput** · August 02, 2013, 05:18 AM

Well not a game breaker - I were CA I'd use descriptions like you suggested. If you ever make a mod with these descriptions Ill be sure to DL it

**dom385** · August 02, 2013, 05:19 AM

I thought they seemed a bit uninspiring too, hopefully they get a unit card/wiki entry with a more detailed description.

**Wittman** · August 02, 2013, 05:21 AM

I made a thread about this some time ago,if really there are no descriptions like in ALL previous total war game that would be pretty bad and more unnecessary streamlining

**Clock** · August 02, 2013, 05:26 AM

Eh, can't say I care too much. I may read them once but then I'll just forget about them anyway. The alternative examples in the OP aren't really any better. Nor are they any worse. They basically both do the same job either way so...

**Marvzilla** · August 02, 2013, 05:31 AM

Look rather bland. I dont want CA to provide as much info as EB did and does, but it would be a shame if they got rid of the toggleable descriptions all together (huge potential for mods to describe their units at length).

**nomercysniper** · August 02, 2013, 05:59 AM

I actually preferred the originals to your changes, i'm happy with them as you really should know what your units do if there in your army.

**Lord Tomyris** · August 02, 2013, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by nomercysniper

I actually preferred the originals to your changes, i'm happy with them as you really should know what your units do if there in your army.

My point is that, apart from the legionary cohort description, none of the ones I quoted even fulfill that function. Unless Italian soldiers actually do smile even as they gut their enemies!

**Sandraker** · August 02, 2013, 06:04 AM

They aren't exactly the most helpful of descriptions. They're also kind of bland.
EB's descriptions are a bit too long but they tell you exactly what a unit is good for and what it can and can't handle.

Good unit descriptions can give you accurate info about a unit's use in battle and a little history lesson to boot. CA missed out on this opportunity.

**~~PlPs~~** · August 02, 2013, 06:11 AM

Long descriptions sucks (i.e Byzantine soldiers in Broken Crescent mod) but descriptions must tell us their history and how we should use those units.

**torongill** · August 02, 2013, 06:25 AM

The short vanilla descriptions of the units are good, but I sure as hell hope to see real descriptions when the player opens the info card.
It also seems to me that these descriptions are modelled to look like a subordinate explaining to his superior.