When a man starts looking for trouble...

he will find it.

Paying more attention than I should, I have noticed a number of small errors, tears and inconsistencies on units. Is there a brave 3d modeller willing to work with me to fix them, one by one? Keep in mind that this is an aesthetic fix, and could draw time and attention from creating new troops.
Unfortunately, I am not able to get 3d studio max. Otherwise, I would try to fix them myself.

To be honest, I wouldn't want to pull any of the team off what they're doing for what is tedious, unrewarding and repetitive work for very little gain. From what I hear from the modellers, fixing other people's work is just about the least fun task there is.

With the rosters only half-populated, we don't have time to do that right now, it's a later polishing job. So I'm afraid you're just going to have to live with the errors.

I know. That is why I am looking for kind volunteers
I do have an elephants memory when I set my mind to something. Once the all the units are finished, I will be campaigning for the fixes. Damn, why cant I get that program!

Is it alright I start compiling the errors here? Given how responsibly I use my computer, I might lose the pictures I store there.

Be my guest.

OK, lets start with an error in assembly.
I marked it with a black circle. Idk how well you can see it, but one can check via custom battle. Affected units are Thorakiati, Hippeis Longchophoroi, all 4 new lancer units (molossians, lydians, thessalians, kleruchs), possibly others - will edit the post if I find them. The sword guard goes in the wrong way, which means that it isnt possible to draw the sword. Small graphical error, but it bugs me since the goal is to correctly portray history.



Minor inconsistency with the Thorakitai - marked with the smaller circle : Belt end (tongue) should go in a different direction.

Originally Posted by Rad

OK, lets start with an error in assembly.
I marked it with a black circle. Idk how well you can see it, but one can check via custom battle. Affected units are Thorakiati, Hippeis Longchophoroi, all 4 new lancer units (molossians, lydians, thessalians, kleruchs), possibly others - will edit the post if I find them. The sword guard goes in the wrong way, which means that it isnt possible to draw the sword. Small graphical error, but it bugs me since the goal is to correctly portray history.



Minor inconsistency with the Thorakitai - marked with the smaller circle : Belt end (tongue) should go in a different direction.

Error repeated in the new Hellenic shielded lancer unit. Nip it in the bud, folks.

New fashion style in Turkey. Wear your rope belt across the chest.

Anatolian medium cavalry.

I call these the Doubler Horrors
Affected units are the armor upgraded skins for Celtic retainers, foot nobles, mounted nobles and bodyguard. All 3 Celtic factions.





An obvious graphical error on the helmet... and could someone please explain what are those studs doing on the armor?



If someone could make versions that excluded these variations, Id greatly appreaciate it. Better to have less variety than to constantly be irked by it.

Small Indian review.

Definitely one of the most interesting factions, but not without its quirks.

What are your sources for the drivers armor? The huge gaps between the plates make me cringe.



Lancers need a secondary weapon badly. That lance is too long for melee on horseback.



Swordsmen hold their shields incorrectly. Others have reported it a while back.


Indian elephant bodyguard handler sinks into the elephant somewhat. Regular elephant and armored elephant do not have the issue.



Edit: What are your sources for these spears? They look oversized.




Definitely nitpicking about this one, but I cant help it. It is an otherwise great looking unit, the tears (marked) are messing with it. Tear also features on Indian lancers.
.



Please completely replace these javelins (as they look unrealistic)



with these (featured on the same unit, so you already have the models). I think that indian foot javelins and elephant crew could benefit from the same deal.

EB team, please replace the pony mount with the horse_unarmored mount model in the export_descr_unit file. The pony mount model is causing the riders to look improperly seated.

Take a look:

Before, with the pony mount model:

Attachment 335516Attachment 335517Attachment 335518Attachment 335519



After I made the changes, using the horse_unarmored model instead:


Attachment 335521Attachment 335522Attachment 335523


I edited 4 units, but many more are affected by the pony disease lol.

The horse_unarmoured model is a bigger animal than the pony, so that's not going to work.

Also, you need to include references to the unit names in each of these points, otherwise it's extra work for someone trying to ascertain what they're supposed to be looking at.

Hahahaha dude, you are at it again. We talked about this some time ago, the issue is pretty clear. The pony model has an error, the rider doesnt sit where he is supposed to. It is a graphical error. My report has no connection to the size of the horse.

As a temporary fix to the issue, I picked the first model I saw which looked proper and could be applied to a wide number of cultures. It was the *unarmored horse model*.
Whatever its size is, historical or not, using it as a replacement is still a better result than an unnatural looking cavalry unit where the rider completely misses the saddle and sits on the neck of the horse.

I almost always provide unit names. When I do not, I assume that a screenshot is enough to recognise the unit. It is enough for me, having played EB2 for a decent amount of time.
In this case, I do not have to name specific units. All that is needed to find the affected ones is to look for the *pony* mount model in the export_descr_unit. A large number of them have that mount model, and as a result, are bugged, unfortunately. Eastern units, Getic cavalry, the Hellenistic ones in the pictures...

Anyways, I had a talk with Rafkos. He says that the pony model will be fixed. Everybody wins.

And as I said, size is very relevant because just swapping pony for horse_unarmoured isn't a fix. The pony model needs fixing.

A screenshot is not enough identification; I work with the unit stats all the time, but I haven't seen them all. Always including a unit name is a simple thing that aids in someone resolving the problem.

It is a (temporary) fix if it looks more correct than the version with the error. Insisting on using a errored version is the wrong approach in making a game, especially one that has an educational value.

People do not mount horses like this
.


However, it is unimportant now. Read my previous post. Rafkos said that the pony model will be fixed, thereby excluding the need to replace it.

Do you play the game? I spend a lot of time in custom game, getting to know each factions fighting style, testing unit balance, looking for errors etc. I can identify nearly every unit by now. I feel right to assume that people who are directly involved in creating and balancing units should be even more familiar with them.

Originally Posted by Rad

It is a (temporary) fix if it looks more correct than the version with the error. Insisting on using a errored version is the wrong approach in making a game, especially one that has an educational value.

People do not mount horses like this
.


However, it is unimportant now. Read my previous post. Rafkos said that the pony model will be fixed, thereby excluding the need to replace it.

Do you play the game? I spend a lot of time in custom game, getting to know each factions fighting style, testing unit balance, looking for errors etc. I can identify nearly every unit by now. I feel right to assume that people who are directly involved in creating and balancing units should be even more familiar with them.

I thought the greek riders are sitting that way by design. I have read somwhere (I think it was ancient warfare magazine) that ancient greeks mounted ponnies differently than people nowadays who are taking the benefits of saddles.

Beside that I dissagree with you about importance of the horse types, the fact that EBII is trying to use authentic types of horses is IMO one of the most amazing graphical features of the mod and it overweight many times the fact that riders are sitting maybe bit incorectly. To be honest most of the things you have pointed out in this thread I have either never noticed or do not consider as a problem and I am definatelly the person who is zooming on units regularly and enjoying the visual details of battles.

Originally Posted by demagogos nicator

I thought the greek riders are sitting that way by design. I have read somwhere (I think it was ancient warfare magazine) that ancient greeks mounted ponnies differently than people nowadays who are taking the benefits of saddles.

Bro, come on. Reading stuff like this makes me feel sad. Have you ridden a horse just once, at least? There is one place where you sit a horse... It is the center of its spine, where it is the *deepest*, where there is a natural pitting. You *fall* in there naturally, for lack of a better word. You are safest sitting there, with the least chance of falling from the horse.


See the middle of the spine? Cosy, safe, and you dont bother the horses legs


Edit: *Mounting* is the action on getting on a horse. Dunno why they mentioned saddles, but mounting is a bit different if you dont have stirrups. Stirrup give you the benefit of being able to stand on one while getting your other leg across. Stirrups or no stirrups, you sit on the same spot, though

I know Rafkos is fixing it, that's beside the point. My point was that your "fix" isn't a fix, it's a kludge. For the sake of a purely cosmetic benefit, you give all the units with ponies ahistorically oversized mounts.

I test the game. I don't have time to play long stretches with it, my time is spent editing and fixing things. That's why we have an internal playtest team, and people in the wider community feeding back on what's going on.

There are plenty of units who's stats and recruitment I know intimately, but I don't have a clue what they look like in any detail beyond the generalities of their equipment. I don't know what units are on sight, barring that small number I've played with because they feature on the rosters of factions I'm interested in. Even then, I play on low detail and don't zoom in to notice the things you're picking out here. That's why I'm in Game Mechanics, not modelling, at the end of the day, because I don't really care about that level of cosmetic detail. It's more important to me that a unit behaves in the way it's supposed to and is appropriately effective at it's job.

Thus if you want to increase accessibility of these reports, they should always be linked to a unit name.

Purely cosmetic? Youve got to be kidding. It is a fundamental thing, much more important and more evident than variations of the size of the beasts. I didnt even notice that the horses were ponies until I went and saw the mount model name in the export_descr_unit file. What I noticed immediately was that the riders were missing the saddle.

I havent played long stretches in a while now. 5 minute long custom games are just fine for spotting things. In a week, I manage to go through all the factions.



By the way, the only reason I suggested replacing the model with an existing one instead of fixing it straight away was this:

To be honest, I wouldn't want to pull any of the team off what they're doing for what is tedious, unrewarding and repetitive work for very little gain. From what I hear from the modellers, fixing other people's work is just about the least fun task there is.

With the rosters only half-populated, we don't have time to do that right now, it's a later polishing job. So I'm afraid you're just going to have to live with the errors.

If you can't live with those minor flaws, i suggest you to learn modeling and take the matter into your own hands.