[Battle Physics] There's some weird mass stuff going on

[torongill]

I'm using the Improved Javelin Skirmishing submod, which gives everyone longer range and the Akontistai formation, but Euzonoi still seem not to want to throw their missiles. In sieges they're not skirmishers at all, becuase they won't throw them. Even in field battles they tend to still have ammunition when everyone else has long expended theirs. I've taken to treating them as weak melee infantry, because they refuse to be missile troops.

Well, they are as a matter of fact light infantry. They are intermediate between the psiloi(just plain skirmishers with a clutch of javelins and maybe a small shield) and the thureophoroi.

The system considers them "upgraded skirmishers" and by default they don't start their battles with skirmish mode on.

[QuintusSertorius]

Well, they are as a matter of fact light infantry. They are intermediate between the psiloi(just plain skirmishers with a clutch of javelins and maybe a small shield) and the thureophoroi.

The system considers them "upgraded skirmishers" and by default they don't start their battles with skirmish mode on.

I don't use skirmish mode, but they're not very good at either role, to be honest. They don't want to throw their javelins, and they aren't even much good against levy archers, javelineers or other genuine psiloi in melee. I think they're a candidate for stat tweaking when the team get round to it, because in their current configuration they're not very useful. They do look cool, though.

[WAD81]

Happy I could help!

1) You must edit: javelin range, formation, and soldier only. Soldier is tricky and depends on the secondary weapon that the unit uses. Euzonoi for javelin/ sword. uisusparos_kingetoi for javelin/overhand spear

2)Sertorius, this will help you:

soldier Euzonoi, 64, 0, 1.1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, free_upkeep_unit, can_withdraw,
move_speed_mod 0.91
formation 1, 1, 2.79, 2.99, 2, square
stat_health 1, 6
stat_pri 9, 2, javelin, 80, 4, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1
stat_pri_attr thrown

[QuintusSertorius]

Happy I could help!

1) You must edit: javelin range, formation, and soldier only. Soldier is tricky and depends on the secondary weapon that the unit uses. Euzonoi for javelin/ sword. uisusparos_kingetoi for javelin/overhand spear

2)Sertorius, this will help you:

soldier Euzonoi, 64, 0, 1.1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, free_upkeep_unit, can_withdraw,
move_speed_mod 0.91
formation 1, 1, 2.79, 2.99, 2, square
stat_health 1, 6
stat_pri 9, 2, javelin, 80, 4, thrown, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 0, 1
stat_pri_attr thrown

I'll give it a try, thanks.

[k/t]

I see that unit has 6 secondary HPs. The received wisdom is that those count only up to 3 for non-elephants.

You can also change the animation in BMDB.

[Ferdiad]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forum...nt-Compilation

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forum...nt-Compilation

thanks! relaying it over, to be looked at.

[Ferdiad]

Could you elaborate on the differences between RC and EB II system as you see it if you have the time?

[WAD81]

^sry for mistake. 3+3+4. 10

[WAD81]

Machairophoroi without cuirass: 2 for helmet, 1 for leather boots, 1 tunic. 4
Machairophoroi with cuirass: 2 for helmet, 1 for leather boots, 4 for cuirass. 7
Hypaspistai: 3 for helmet with cheeks, 3 for grieves, 3 for cuirass. 10?

[k/t]

When you've fiddled with the stats as much as I have, you can tell quite a bit just from the numbers. After all this time, all I see is blonde, brunette, red-head.

If you're expecting me to somehow know that the team stopped using EDU-matic, you're expecting too much. How am I supposed to know what the stats were 6 months ago?

8 ranks would give a higher charge value if the people in the back pushed the people in the front into the enemy. That sounds like it would get the guys in the front killed in no time.

It's not "irrelevent", it's "irrelevant". If you're going to bold something, at least spell it right. Especially when this website helpfully underlines misspellings.

And it's not irrelevant. I looked at post 15, from which the fact that the unit is a cavalry unit is missing. Now that I re-read the first posts, yeah, it is a cavalry unit. And yeah, the mass is 5 something. So you should be questioning the EB team's knowledge of the EDU, not mine.

"I am looking at the stat list for armors right now (which are also applied in the EDU), I can positively say you are exaggerating--to say the least."

I am not exaggerating, because I didn't say that. I was quoting someone else, as evidenced by the quotation marks around the sentence. And what I said about the stats in BC is absolutely true. Go look at them.

Nobody is saying this game is garbage and should be abandoned, the way you're making it sound. Everyone knows it's an early release, and everyone is very excited to finally play it after a long wait. People are just giving their opinions on the game. Yeah, I didn't play it, so what? Everyone else did, and they have problems with the system. What are you going to tell them? If they don't like it, they can play something else?

Also, it was my understanding the game was made from 0. The units and the map weren't ported. You seem to know things we don't.

The guide to RR and the latest guide to RC are here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Update/page46

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

Machairophoroi without cuirass: 2 for helmet, 1 for leather boots, 1 tunic. 4
Machairophoroi with cuirass: 2 for helmet, 1 for leather boots, 4 for cuirass. 7
Hypaspistai: 3 for helmet with cheeks, 3 for grieves, 3 for cuirass. 10?

I'm afraid you have the method totally wrong--but not a bad stab (it doesn't help that you assume the raw numbers are integers; what I provided were the final numbers, rounded to nearest integer and implemented in the game--see below).

I will take advantage of this to answer a question posed here earlier:

Could you elaborate on the differences between RC and EB II system as you see it if you have the time?

the differences are as follows (at least a few--not all have been implemented):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-the stat heat never has negative values here (it does in RC): desert people simply aren't penalized for it: however, they do get a combat bonus in the stat_ground (and the penalties are 3, 2, 1, 0, as you go south for stat_heat)
-and more like the original EDU_matic (and EB I), armor is assigned by a combination of armor rating and coverage importance (and don't worry, legs are more important now than they used to be: please distinguish between "prioritizing the head and torso" and "neglecting the legs"; the latter has not been done). This is why WAD81 cannot replicate the results obtained for these units directly.
-while missile attacks are broadly similar, there is no direct distinction within the EDU between skirmisher and missile units with regards to attack: other methods are used (descr_projectile and the other modifiers come to mind)
-mass is not directly based on the equipment--not in the way RC does it (btw, not yet implemented in the official release, or in the trunk). instead it is more related to tactical role
-unit radii are actually a little tighter in EB's system (though unit cohesion clearly needs work).
-attack for melee weapons is more subtractive (since the base attacks are higher), and rely on the battle_config to further affect this. (btw: the story of the hoplites attacking the Nizagan has caught the attention of the statter back in the Org: he suspects it is due to battl_config settings being sub-optimal: Moros has released a fix for this, though whether it works for this situation he needs input on. Did this happen with the original settings, or with Moros' settings?

That's just a few of the differences. And having seen the RC, parts of it are likely to be integrated into the current design--it is very good indeed. it helps there are many similarities already, like thus (again, at least a few--same caveats):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-cavalry masses are similar
-most missiles are similar in attack (details differ though)
-like the RC, armor values are based on the energy required to defeat the armor. How it is implemented though is where it differs.
-a non-too dissimilar attitude towards unit type and role (though it has not been fully implemented).
-fatigue is similarly treated: units have less endurance for sure. There are some details that differ, but you'll know when the read-me is released--if it is.
-the equipment a soldier wears affects stat heat, as it does in RC (consequently, most desert units are between 1-3 in terms of stat_heat). the method may differ though, as it is based on carrying loads (so a soldier carying 25 kg of gear to battle will be penalized 2.5, plus his background penalty and class penalty: the sum is then rounded to the nearest integer.
-stat ground is based on unit class as well as region of origin, though the penalties and rewards differ--and are much starker.

bear in mind that in all this, there may be a divergent attitude in what is considered "realistic". this accounts for example, the morale system in place v. RC. I suspect it will fail to satisfy all, but that is fine, and the statter is considering more than one EDU version, with a default standard in place first.

anyways:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you're expecting me to somehow know that the team stopped using EDU-matic, you're expecting too much. How am I supposed to know what the stats were 6 months ago?

I don't expect that, neither does the statter. it was simply pointed out for your edification.

It's not "irrelevent", it's "irrelevant". If you're going to bold something, at least spell it right. Especially when this website helpfully underlines misspellings.

Thanks, but I must point out it is disabled on my browser at the time (different PC), and in the haste of typing it was not caught. will correct it.

And it's not irrelevant. I looked at post 15, from which the fact that the unit is a cavalry unit is missing. Now that I re-read the first posts, yeah, it is a cavalry unit. And yeah, the mass is 5 something. So you should be questioning the EB team's knowledge of the EDU, not mine.

you do realize that proves the point: had you read it, you would have known that from the beginning, and you wouldn't get a reply about it, would you? believe me, the guy working the EDU knows how the EDU works in this regard. The fact that you are indeed as knowledgeable as you claim to be make this assessment all the harsher: his opinion is that you should have been reading it carefully from the get-go, and your advice in all likely-hood would be all the more useful (plus what I mentioned). As it is, he is only now starting to take you seriously.

and Also: he is finding much merit with RC, though full implementation is another matter. (and for reading it, he has many here to thank: we have more than a half-dozen links sent to us).

As to these being in the EDU: it is an artifact from the time when the EDU did use the EDU_matic: it would generate these masses automatically. why it is still there? remember that the new stat system, as mentioned before, has to be implemented by hand for the time being, so that part won't necessarily be changed, if it has no effect (and in fact one of the first things he did was to change descr_mounts, knowing that). this is especially as the guy has relatively little time for this anyways due to RL concerns. That is why the implementation is incomplete: lack of time, and teething problems add up fast.

having said that: it will be cleaned up anyways, so as to avoid unnecessary confusion. That is a promise.

as to the hoplites: perhaps, but that's why it is being tested: if it works, great. if it fails, there is a second idea that is in the works. bear in mind this will be implemented with the intended mass system (as yet unimplemented).

I am not exaggerating, because I didn't say that. I was quoting someone else, as evidenced by the quotation marks around the sentence. And what I said about the stats in BC is absolutely true. Go look at them.

true, you quoted someone, But then said that it reminded you of BC--How do you think that will sound to the lead statter? well I'll tell you: to him and me, it looks like you are agreeing with the guy and making a judgement on the stats, without looking at them yourself.

And why are you asking me to read them? I already agree with you, and the statter agrees with you regarding BC, and knows much about it from first hand experience. Just to be clear for all here, the values I provided were from EB II, not BC.

On top of that, you actually looking at the EDU would be supremely useful to us, as your insight would be even more helpful. As it is, you not reading carefully what was actually there makes you look in a bad light to the lead statter.

and yes, I agree with your assessment regarding RC (while we're at it, the statter working on it is tickled by it): others have already sent links to the notes, and they are being read at this time--I am too. don't worry--the EB team is working to make it better, and in fact will be integrating elements of it to the EDU.

Nobody is saying this game is garbage and should be abandoned, the way you're making it sound. Everyone knows it's an early release, and everyone is very excited to finally play it after a long wait. People are just giving their opinions on the game. Yeah, I didn't play it, so what? Everyone else did, and they have problems with the system. What are you going to tell them? If they don't like it, they can play something else?

of course not, and that was never the intention of this message: I think it is universally understood that, just because the stat system is seriously flawed, it does not mean the game is garbage, and in fact neither myself nor the statter thinks you guys are saying that. doesn't mean neither of us has to like the current system. However, if they find problems in it, they are unsatisfied. it is just that: it is neither good nor bad in and of itself.

in fact, He thinks that is good when people tear the system to shreds and offer fixes, because it means it brings him one step closer to a better solution, and he does have high standards, as I do. It also means they care about the game. consequently, people's inputs are being put to good use, and acknowledged positively--even yours are. you can ask the others Yourself. a few have even been put forward for inclusion in the credits.

his problem with you, is simply that you didn't even bother reading what was posted carefully--let alone seeing the EDU itself. He feels had you done so (and I know this is being repeated), you would be of much greater use--more use than the others. Plus there's the whole not looking like you're talking out of your behind: we both don't look kindly on that.

So to answer your rhetorical question: of course no one is suggesting that people should go and play something else. The statter takes any comment on the matter very seriously, and acts on it immediately (or rather, as soon as he can). He wants people to experience realistic, yet satisfying combat.

aside from that, I know what I know, because I know the statter well (EDIT: and work on EB II as well). And with what you've just been told, you pretty much know the main things going on behind the scenes. I'd recommend reading his comments on the Org for more.

[k/t]

What is this "trunk" you keep mentioning? A laboratory version of the game?

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-0-files/page4

Post 70 of this thread includes a whole bunch of new animations, including a shortened javelin-throwing animation which might be of use to you. It was made by Point Blank, and it's free to use.

Moneybags14 has made a spreadsheet that allows you to plug in categories and variables and it spits out the final stats.

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

What is this "trunk" you keep mentioning? A laboratory version of the game?

simply put, but correct: it's the place we store our files and update them, to test, edit, and add to, in order to work on EB II. it's there so as to allow rapid dissemination of updates between all members, as well as to expedite joint efforts.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-0-files/page4

Post 70 of this thread includes a whole bunch of new animations, including a shortened javelin-throwing animation which might be of use to you. It was made by Point Blank, and it's free to use.

Now you're talking! This is excellent! I'll have it implemented for testing, and if it is as good as all here say, it will be implemented.

EDIT: you have more than put up, and met the challenge. you have my greatest thanks! I'd rep you again, but the stupid thing won't let me do it. the statter's starting to like you really well.

and the skeletons for the horse are most inspired as well. now the horses look the right size, instead of what we got. these and the javelineers will be pushed through hopefully, and I think it will do much good.

Moneybags14 has made a spreadsheet that allows you to plug in categories and variables and it spits out the final stats

.

even better!

as long as it is largely additive rather than multiplicative, it's a done deal. You're making the transition from RTW to M2TW modding a lot easier for myself and the statter. many thanks!

[k/t]

Well, I am very helpful and lovable. We just got started the wrong way.

There should be different animations for cut & thrust swords and slashing swords in the pack. If you look at the recommended animations for each weapon in the RC guide, you'll see them listed. There's also a two-handed spear animation that PB hacked out of the pike animation. Also, giving units the Aggressive animation makes them push forward in combat, which was used in SS for anti-pike units. And most weapons have Fast, normal and Slow versions of their animations, although I think some of those were in Vanilla.

[torongill]

Well, I am very helpful and lovable. We just got started the wrong way.
Also, giving units the Aggressive animation makes them push forward in combat, which was used in SS for anti-pike units.

You should've called your mod not "Real Combat" but "Real Deal"

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

Well, I am very helpful and lovable. We just got started the wrong way.

that we have. But glad things are working out

I did find one "bug" with the javelineers: the javelins when launching have this weird 1/3 to half second delay between when the guys do the throw animation and when the javelins go flying. Any suggestions?

There should be different animations for cut & thrust swords and slashing swords in the pack. If you look at the recommended animations for each weapon in the RC guide, you'll see them listed. There's also a two-handed spear animation that PB hacked out of the pike animation. Also, giving units the Aggressive animation makes them push forward in combat, which was used in SS for anti-pike units. And most weapons have Fast, normal and Slow versions of their animations, although I think some of those were in Vanilla.

will take a look at them: if the horses and javelins work as well, then the others have a great chance.

the pilum (or rather) prec animations already work well, so they'll be kept (and they look nice anyways). This gives us two javelin animations that are good, and can form the basis for more work on the subject:

1-a stationary one (from RC)
2-a running one (i.e. prec one, from EB--Tux made it: he also discovered the 1 missile is good for precs thing. yeah, I'm just as shocked.).

I'm increasingly persuaded that the running one should be used for the akontistai and units with few javelins (e.g. legionaries), whereas the stationary one goes to units that are prec, but have more than two javelins (in this case, machairophoroi as they should be). the main concern is that in running, the akontistai will literally run into the enemy, so for now, stationary for them.

what I would really like is if the units engaged in missile duels first, then closed in, but at the same time give the AI the presence of mind to switch to melee if charged during such a duel (this being an issue when giving soldiers more than one round and the prec attribute simultaneously). I'm going to see if you have something in the material about this, and if good, I'll forward this to GRANTO: he'll know what to do.

btw, since you asked about this: no, the guy with the cuirass is not an 8....not anymore anyways (also, the cuirass by itself is 5.11 unpadded--a five rounded down; a linothorax is 3.25; you add those with other armor items. if WAD is reading this, I think he should be getting the message by now):

what had happened was that the hypaspists had originally been assumed to wear their cuirasses without an underarmor (a thoracomachus). That resulted in the number 8 for overall armor. This will be changed, not because the guy complained or the armor calculation system is defective, but because it was recently discovered when reading about armor that there was likely some underarmor under the cuirass*. this will bump up the armor considerably-- to 11. the reason plate armor here is so weak without the under-armor is that the material is ~1mm thick bronze/very mild steel, and without padding cannot stop the blunt trauma as well as with padding. similarly mail is pretty weak (simulating its weaknesses as best as possible) as it is in the system on its own: but when worn with padding (luckil for Gauls and Romans, this is perfectly historical for the time), it is much better, though not quite as good as plate armor.

These skirmishers are going through animation, but not throwing anything (maybe one here or there). Still seems like the skirmisher issue persists. They got even closer later but still threw very slowly; you'd see a few javelins in the air here and there but it takes forever to use up their ammo.

I feel they should be going through their ammo very quickly with big, complete volleys. The infantry who also carry missiles don't have this issue in behavior.

you pretty much figured out the other problem we have (OK, had): now they can shoot (which is a step ahead I guess), but they still shoot slow, seeing that their animations are slow. I only implemented the RC animations after the patch was committed. it's got a couple funny moments (see above), but it works: as mentioned, I watched in horror as they cut a unit of Carthaginian citizens to shreds, and hope to give you all the same satisfying (and disturbing) feeling--obviously with better historical accuracy

managed to make it so that the javelins are not too effective against large shielded opponents, but more effective from flanks and rear, and am in the process of implementing a differentiation for skirmishers and non-skirmishers, based on the formers use of the ankyle. Not yet a strategist fixed the velocities; r/t's RC work fixed the animations; just need to fix the attack (to be honest, I find now that animations have been fixed that the original javelin stat (as well as RC) might be too high historically).

as to the cohesion: that's one thing we're trying to fix. I'm "happy" to say the EDU is not the main issue, but it certainly doesn't help (especially as they're largely relics). and yeah, I hate the R2TW-esque nature of things. Having said that: it is a step above what it used to be when work started on the new system 6 months ago. at least some units are working right....

the method being implemented at the time ranges mass from 0.8 to 1.3, with some outliers--for infantry at least. Perhaps this will help with the cohesion issue? I notice that the Libyans (you are right) have a mass similar (rather, slightly less) to the proposed one for hoplites (who currently don't have it, and in fact have too little mass).

*Roman Military dress, by Graham Sumner.

also:

I'm glad the team is looking at RC, despite what seemed like an initially defiant and irrational stance against it, for some reason. Even if it doesn't result in a direct adaptation of the mechanics, their getting the feel for what makes that combat system so good might lead to the implementation of their own stats that are comparable. And assuming an actual direct RC adaptation for EB2 does happen in the form of a submod, all the better. Options are always appreciated.

personally I never had an issue with it (didn't even know of it till it was brought up). in fact I started posting here precisely because of interest in the system: if people are saying something good, then it's at least worth a try: I take an open mind to new ideas so long as they're good. And if you read what I said, the problem wasn't with what he said about his system, or the philosophy of it, or any of that....it is as Kull said. We have now gotten off on a better footing, and the results have been amazing.

there won't be a direct merger of one into the other,though some elements may be borrowed (so far, just the animations/skeletons); further, similarities are enough that it may be hard to tell where what came from where. we have other ideas--ones based on prior experience in RTW, which we'll first try to implement here: there can be as many as four or five options for the same weapon--depending on what is needed. the statter doesn't even tell his fellow modders everything, since work on the stat system is also going on for my mod. (which is for RTW-AlX). It's hoped two versions will be released for use elsewhere: one for RTW/BI/ALEX, and one for M2TW.

having said that: if anyone feels like implementing RC as a submod, I'm more than happy to support it and give my endorsement to it; same at the Org with the statter.

[QuintusSertorius]

One thing I noticed yesterday that bothered me a little. It was a siege, but in the lane outside the square. My Thureophoroi were held to a standstill in melee with Akontistai. They did eventually rout the lighter unit, but they were losing the scrap, which doesn't seem right to me. I would have thought that with their better armour, better weapons and greater skill they would have fared better.

you pretty much figured out the other problem we have (OK, had): now they can shoot (which is a step ahead I guess), but they still shoot slow, seeing that their animations are slow. I only implemented the RC animations after the patch was committed. it's got a couple funny moments (see above), but it works: as mentioned, I watched in horror as they cut a unit of Carthaginian citizens to shreds, and hope to give you all the same satisfying (and disturbing) feeling--obviously with better historical accuracy

managed to make it so that the javelins are not too effective against large shielded opponents, but more effective from flanks and rear, and am in the process of implementing a differentiation for skirmishers and non-skirmishers, based on the formers use of the ankyle. Not yet a strategist fixed the velocities; r/t's RC work fixed the animations; just need to fix the attack (to be honest, I find now that animations have been fixed that the original javelin stat (as well as RC) might be too high historically).

Are these just EDU changes? Or more fundamental (ie non-savegame compatible) stuff? I like my javelineers, but Euzonoi are extremely frustrating at the moment, it's hit or miss whether they actually fire anything.

as to the cohesion: that's one thing we're trying to fix. I'm "happy" to say the EDU is not the main issue, but it certainly doesn't help (especially as they're largely relics). and yeah, I hate the R2TW-esque nature of things. Having said that: it is a step above what it used to be when work started on the new system 6 months ago. at least some units are working right....

the method being implemented at the time ranges mass from 0.8 to 1.3, with some outliers--for infantry at least. Perhaps this will help with the cohesion issue? I notice that the Libyans (you are right) have a mass similar (rather, slightly less) to the proposed one for hoplites (who currently don't have it, and in fact have too little mass).

I wonder if phalangitai need higher mass as well? In both 2.0 and 2.01 I've noticed other units pushing right into their formation, to the point of turning them concave, which seems wrong. Last time I saw it was Sabellian Hastati fighting from the front and slowly pushing into them.

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

One thing I noticed yesterday that bothered me a little. It was a siege, but in the lane outside the square. My Thureophoroi were held to a standstill in melee with Akontistai. They did eventually rout the lighter unit, but they were losing the scrap, which doesn't seem right to me. I would have thought that with their better armour, better weapons and greater skill they would have fared better.

aye, indeed. the problem comes down to mass (it's the number near unit radius where the soldier section is in a given unit ID. the latest version of the EDU has fixed this (mostly by implementing what was planned), and is now committed to the trunk. Another component is the lack of flanking possibility, being in a lane.

Are these just EDU changes? Or more fundamental (ie non-savegame compatible) stuff? I like my javelineers, but Euzonoi are extremely frustrating at the moment, it's hit or miss whether they actually fire anything.

should be save-game compatible, but not EDU: the skeletons are the problem. the EDU gives them both the same range at this time, so that's not an issue. the new animations will go a long way to help--it'll come with the next patch.

I wonder if phalangitai need higher mass as well? In both 2.0 and 2.01 I've noticed other units pushing right into their formation, to the point of turning them concave, which seems wrong. Last time I saw it was Sabellian Hastati fighting from the front and slowly pushing into them.

they do--among other things. there's currently an experiment to give them at least a mass of 2. might need some attack nerfing if so, but it will do the trick.

EDIT

I'm asking very politely here so that no-one feels offended (I have become paranoic with you guys):

you said something wrong, and were called out--precisely as I said at the end I tend to do, and with the same directness as I always do.

-you may want to look into desc_projectile file:
prec_jevelins, with their long-range have the accuracy of 0.08
javelins, with their short-range have the accuracy of 0.2, which is horribly low

It seems a bit weird and maybe needs tweaking.
My suggestion: buff the accuracy in d_p for javelins, and lower their attack value in EDU, which will make them less effective against armour.

that should have been fixed by now (the latest version has an accuracy of 0.1: that is x4 the accuracy). you have the 2.01 patch, right? if not, we have a problem--not with you though: the release notes were supposed to refer to this change. Also, a new attack is being considered, and is in the experimental stages. it was implemented yesterday.

I have noted your concern with the iberi Scutari, and it is valid, but it must be said it was due to the way they held their spears (the rule is that under hand is weaker), but this can always be revised with new information. they did get a slight buff due precisely to their ability, and more are planned. a new version of the EDU was committed today, and it will likely prove the immediate ancestor of the next version to come out. it will differ quite a bit in many ways--mostly because more of the planned stuff was now implemented. A lot of free time opened up to allow it.

speaking of Scutarii: I think if you like playing with Iberian factions, you'll like some of the changes recently added to the trunk: morale and mass rules favor their light infantry better than other light infantry. more are planned, related to their abilities at ambushes and the like.

[Dooz]

I'm glad the team is looking at RC, despite what seemed like an initially defiant and irrational stance against it, for some reason. Even if it doesn't result in a direct adaptation of the mechanics, their getting the feel for what makes that combat system so good might lead to the implementation of their own stats that are comparable. And assuming an actual direct RC adaptation for EB2 does happen in the form of a submod, all the better. Options are always appreciated.