Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

  1. #1

    Default Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    First, let's review how battles of the Hellenistic Age historically played out. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of these, since I'll be basing the battle mechanic changes off of these.

    1. Very, VERY few casualties during the infantry clash. We can estimate between 5%-10%. Translated to EBII terms, this means your average unit of 160 men will suffer around between 10-20 casualties during this phase
    2. Much more significant, but NOT crushing, casualties during the rout phase. When one infantry line breaks and is pursued by the enemy, they suffer badly, but are NOT slaughtered to the point of losing 90%. Instead, they lose around 30-50% of their numbers
    3. Cavalry engagements tend to be swift and decisive, with the losing side usually escaping off the battlefield while pursued by the victors
    4. The losing general tends to survive, either by leaving the battlefield early to chase down the enemy or attack their camp, by fighting around the battlefield over the course of the battle but ordering an organized retreat after defeat, or fleeing ignomiously.
    5. Flanking or encirclement causes all but the most elite units to lose cohesion, panic, and suffer heavy casualties by the aggressors.
    6. Frontal charges did NOT flatten most infantry, much less prepared spearmen. Only heavy cataphracts were ever recorded to smash into dense infantry formations (Battle of Carrhae).
    7. The unexpected death of the general almost always causes panic in his forces and cause them to flee.

    Now, how accurately does EBII and the M2TW game engine emulate these?

    1. EBII does indeed buff infantry units' defenses relative to their offenses to decrease the casualty rate, but from my experience, they still suffer quite a few casualties during the infantry clash. My lesser units tend to lose 25-40% of their numbers, while higher quality ones still suffer between 10-20%.
    2. Since the player actually has the option to continue the battle after routing the enemy army, they can unleash their cavalry and completely annihilate 80-99% of the enemy army. The battlefield is large enough to give the player plenty of time to run each individual unit down. Even player armies with only 2-3 cavalry units can still achieve a 90% enemy casualty rate through smart prioritization of fleeing enemies.
    3. EBII accomplishes this rather nicely through having all cavalry units have much lower morale. For example, while the average professional infantry unit has morale of 5 or 6, for cavalry it varies between 3 and 5. Skirmisher cavalry tend to have awful morale of 1 or 2, which makes it very easy to chase them away from the battlefield. Cavalry engagement thus are decided much earlier than infantry ones.
    4. This is a huge problem with not just EBII, but Total War battles in general. The AI does a terrible job of ensuring its general's survival, often charging him into enemy lines. While buffing AI generals' HP helps increase their longevity, it ultimately turns the battle into a waiting game: how long do you have to wait before the enemy's general is cut down by the heavy spearmen stabbing him from every direction? In addition, due to the general's naturally high unit morale, and further bonuses awarded by the Command and Confidence stats, the general never flees until he has been completely surrounded and his bodyguard reduced to 3 or 4 guys. By then it's too late and he dies anyways.
    5. This behavior is hard to achieve because of a general's Confidence stat, and to a lesser extent the Command stat. Confidence awards a general's unit a constant morale bonus, and is removed only when he dies. It will persistent even if he has left the battlefield. Command buffs nearby units' morale, and does not work beyond a certain range. It obviously dissapates if the general dies or leaves the battlefield. The problem is that most AI generals have decent Command and Confidence stats, high enough to make almost every infantry unit on the battlefield highly durable. His infantry would fight even when surrounded, persist even after suffering a massive casualty rate when charged from behind, and resolutely fight on even when exhausted and at half strength. This makes most tactical maneuvers like flanking, surrounding, and charges pointless, and forces the player to prioritize killing the enemy general, which exacerbates point #4 even more.
    6. EBII has IMO a rather concerning mass issue with its infantry units. Mass is an obscure but very important stat that governs how few casualties an infantry unit takes from cavalry charges. Low mass allows cavalry to knock over multiple rows of infantry like bowling pins, even if the charge is executed incorrectly. High mass allows an infantry unit to take much fewer casualties from charges. The problem though lies on the cavalry side. The best cavalry in EBII (cataphracts, heavy lancers like Hetairoi and Khuveshangan) have such massive charges that they can inflict 30% casualties on high-mass infantry units even from the front, and even when the infantry is prepared. Only the heaviest cataphracts should be able to do this, and even then only when the infantry is in an awkward deployment (the testudo Romans at Carrhae). Much less light lancers like Xystophoroi flattening Thureophoroi from the front.
    7. EBII does this a little too well. This is related to problem #4 where the battle plan revolves around killing the enemy general. You can't even instill a house rule to prevent yourself from doing this, because the AI will just suicide its general anyway

    The solutions I am proposing sound drastic, and at the time of writing are still untested, but hopefully they make sense and/or work in campaign mode battles.

    1. Buff defense skill by 33%. This can be done quickly using RegEx on the EDU. This helps reduce melee casualties during the infantry clash in field battles without making siege battles too grindy.
    2. There is no forceful way of doing this through mods, but instead the player can set the following House Rules to prevent them from slaughtering 90% of the enemy after a rout
    - Before victory is achieved, the player is allowed to chase down the enemy all they want
    - After victory is achieved, the player is not allowed to chase the enemy beyond a box centered on where the infantry clash took place. The size of this box is 25% of the battlefield. So imagine a quarter-sized box on the battlefield, and use that.
    - Just don't use more than 3 non-general cavalry units for western factions and 5 for eastern factions. For nomadic factions, go off.
    3. This doesn't really need a fix, but if you want cavalry engagements to be even more decisive, use a RegEx script to decrease the morale of all cavalry units by 1. Cavalry units with 1 morale should not be changed.
    4. Increase the AI general's HP by 50%. Decrease the unit size of all bodyguard units by 50%. Standardize the morale of all general's bodyguard cavalry units at 4, but make them all disciplined. Infantry bodyguards are unaffected. This makes the actual general much harder to take down, and by making his bodyguard outnumbered and himself rather faint-hearted, he would be much harder to chase down. He will much more likely flee than fight to the death.
    5. Give ALL non-impetuous units, cavalry and infantry alike, "low" discipline. This will make them much more reactive to flanking. Elite units however will persevere through their base morale alone, but lesser units will flee. In addition, give all heavily armored or notorious cavalry units "frighten_foot" to make cavalry the terrifying and decisive flanking force they were historically. So not just cataphracts, but also heavy lancers like Hetairoi, elites of society like Gallic Noble Cavalry and Khuveshangan, and infamous ones like Volcae Headhunters. By doing this, cavalry units can rout even troops being buffed by their generals.
    6. It's much easier to nerf cavalry charges given how standardized cavalry stats are compared to infantry mass. Cavalry spear stats are categorized into the following numbers:

    Cataphracts: 15 attack, 30 charge (Armenian Cataphracts)
    Heavy Lancers: 10 attack, 28 charge (Iranian Noble Cavalry)
    Medium Lancers: 10 attack, 21 charge (Hetairoi)
    Medium Spears: 8 attack, 11 charge (Iranian Medium Cavalry)
    Hippeis: 8 attack, 21 charge (Hippeis)
    Gallic Spear/Shield: 6 attack, 15 charge (Gallic Noble Cavalry)
    Lance/Shield: 4 attack, 17 charge (Bastarnae Cavalry)
    Weak Lance/Shield: 4 attack, 15 charge (Indian Lancers)
    Javelin: 5 attack, 3 charge (Hellenistic Late Skirmisher Cavalry)
    Simulated Lance: 9 attack, 14 charge (Alan Riders)

    The revised numbers could be:

    Cataphracts: 15 attack, 15 charge
    Heavy Lancers: 10 attack, 14 charge
    Medium Lancers: 10 attack, 10 charge
    Medium Spears: 8 attack, 5 charge
    Hippeis: 8 attack, 10 charge
    Gallic Spear/Shield: 6 attack, 7 charge
    Lance/Shield: 4 attack, 8 charge
    Weak Lance/Shield: 4 attack, 7 charge
    Javelin: 5 attack, 3 charge (unchanged)
    Simulated Lance: 9 attack, 7 charge

    Yes, this would also make them weaker when charging enemy infantry from behind, but their new "fighten_foot" attribute could account for that by routing the enemy instead. The real fix is that not even cataphracts can completely decimate infantry from the front.

    7. Go into export_descr_character_traits and there should be a hidden trait that governs Confidence and Command buffs for winning battles. You know how you win battles with a general, and he doesn't gain any new traits, but his Confidence or Command increases anyway? That's the hidden trait we're trying to locate. The Command buffs should remain unchanged, but the Confidence buff, which is a global morale boost, should be completely removed. This will prevent units from becoming unbreakable even when the general is not present, which allows for meaningful offensive maneuvers.

    So, the proposed changes are, in summary:
    1. Buff defense skill of all infantry
    2. Don't use too much cavalry, and impose a limit on yourself on how far you can chase fleeing units
    3. Optionally decrease the morale of all cavalry by 1
    4/7. Increase the general's hp and resilience to morale shocks, but nerf his Confidence, cavalry bodyguard size, and morale
    5. Make all units vulnerable to morale shocks, unless they are impetuous idiots. To intensify this behavior, give all heavy or infamous cavalry the frighten_foot attribute.
    6. Heavily nerf cavalry charges across the board

    I will try to cook up some RegEx scripts to make changing values easier, and test this, in due time.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2021

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    This is an excellent post. Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of people prioritizing realism in battles to a degree that they are willing to make them what most would say boring, annoying or predictable. This holds true for lots of games; and people who would rather enjoy the gameplay as something challenging, exciting or in this case, what matches their perception of how combat worked out have a hard time imagining what makes other people pursue a more realistic version.
    There really is a spectrum, and we can say with a fair amount of confidence that the vast majority of this mod’s users are already located at the “immersion” end of it, as opposed to the “arcade”. And it is great to see that some are even more dedicated to trying to achieve an as accurate representation of this age as possible, and that indeed includes reforming battles.
    However, there are some inherent problems stemming from the engine or the very fact that this is a game, and I can’t see how they could be overcome. For example, cavalry. Any kind of cavalry, maybe except for light horse archers is already extremely effective when it charges from the rear, and that is exactly because of the vulnerability of almost all units to morale shocks. Making this factor even larger would mean that every charge from the rear will result in chain routs. We don’t know how effective this tactic was in antiquity, but we do know two things: it either wasn’t something that inevitably destroyed infantry, or it was not so easy to execute flanking manouvers as it is in the mod. The truth I think is a combination of the two, but since we cannot make flanking the enemy harder, altering the melee capabilities of all but the heaviest of cavalry seems in order. It is highly unlikely afterall, that light cavalry used to smash into the backs of heavy infantry.
    The other problem is routing. When people discuss the casualty rates in ancient battles, it tends to come down to claiming that during the fighting phase, casualties were low, 5-15% at most, while during the rout, casualties could be much higher. The problem lies in thinking that chasing down the routing enemy means a one-sided massacre. That is not so. It is true, that if one side managed to break the other’s morale, it tipically ended in victory for the former. However, fleeing soldiers didn’t simply let themselves cut down by their enemy; they usually fought hard. The battle of Towton ended in the slaughter of the Lancastrians by the victorious Yorkists. Yet the injuries the bodies of the fallen soldiers show indicate that even during this phase of the battle, heavy fighting occured. Most injuries were to the front of the skull, meaning that the Lancastrians faced their opponents. But things like this cannot be modelled for obvious reasons.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    I did more or less in my personal submod what shoebopp says in this thread. If i might help you, here are a few suggestions if you want to modify the game according to your tastes:

    - Reduce the mass of cavalry in the descr_mount file. The lower the mass, the less impactful cavalry is when charging. No need to decrease the cavalry charge attack if you do this.

    - Give all units +2 armor. This works wonders in the sense that soldiers are less easily killed when fighting frontally or charged by heavy cav, but still take heavy casualties when flanked or surrounded. This also means that armor piercing weapons become more important.

    - Increase all phalangites attack and defense but give them a slower attack, this will fix phalanxes in the sense that they are more effective when autoresolving ( with very low stats like in vanilla, they tend to count a very weak in auto resolve ), more effective in the battlefield.

    - Give all cavalry a bonus against cavalry, this way horsemen kill each other more quickly and lower their morale if you like so they flee rather than withstanding stoically the oncoming slaughter.

    - Increase all armor piercing weapons attack by something like +2. This way they become excellent flankers and they kill fast like they are supposed to do. Reduce their defense and increase their attack even further if you like, so they become even more specialized troops that need to be employed carefully.

    - Since super heavy cavalry is supposed to be very tanky, give something like +4 armor to cataphracts and similar units, and increase their cost. This way they are truly fearsome opponents like they are supposed to be, but also very expensive to recruit and mantain.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    Shoebopp...all the stuff you are saying, wasn't that the stated features of the earliest iterations of EB2? I remembered people complaining in ye olde days that cavalry were worth as much as a wet fart, even when charging infantry from the rear. Thing is even with the current state of EB2 I don't remember frontal charges being that effective, unless you were frontal charging skirmisher type infantry. For the routing problem, an even more direct solution can be presented by stating to all players to forever ban minimaps in battle. Their ability to slaughter whole armies while they flee will be greatly nerfed. For the general's bodyguard, only people like z3n can make a solution that doesn't involve unrealistically minimizing the abilities of some of the toughest units across all rosters...that is by making better AI. For the sarissas...hahahah randy_cat and others probably know how strongly I campaigned in trying to improve their abysmal state. If they can but copy how Divide and Conquers did theirs while probably lowering their attack speed, and increasing their base attack and defense (for autoresolve, randy_cat really pointed that point out), while turning guard mode OFF (my pet peeve) we might have working pikemen.

    On the history side of things...Shoebopp I just have to say that one must note that most of the history we are perusing regarding the use of cavalry was written by both Roman and Greek authors, neither of which were cultures largely competent with cavalry while, on the other hand, possessing of some of the toughest infantry. We barely have any complete military history with the same level of detail regarding the nomadic tribes and their interminable struggles, yet the effect these horselords had on settled peoples with largely infantry based armies was always devastating. So, though I largely agree with most of your proposed changes, I would suggest to only increase defensive attributes and ESPECIALLY mass on some infantry - those of proven discipline or those mimicking or are of Greek or Roman tradition, while keeping the rest as they are. The horsemen should be nerfed...but not to the extreme you suggest and more on mass and less on lessen the impact of their charges while allowing them to keep their prowess in hand-to-hand combat against infantry and each other. You forget the sheer advantage horsemen have in height, mass, momentum, and agility (with well-trained mounts) as well as the extra weapons they have as seen in their mounts' hooves and teeth. Then the extra but unseen damage of simply having horses ride over prone infantry. Cavalry was not as devastating in their charges, but they were not THAT bad against infantry (as those skirt wearing southern Greeks and Romans would believe), and not ALL infantry were so disciplined as to render cavalry AS A WHOLE as useless.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    randy_cat, thank you for those insightful suggestions! Your idea to modify descr_mount especially is a livesaver. I think I'll nerf mount mass across the board. Even then, the massive charge bonuses for heavier cavalry should still be deadly.

    Pooploop and Ampe211, I agree that in extreme cases, gameplay fun should be prioritized over historical accuracy. If the battle style I'm going for reduces fun (plus, I don't even know if my idea of Hellensitic-era battles are realistic in the first place), then it's probably not a good idea. I'll only address the over-centralization of battles around the AI general dying from now on. As for your assertion that only notably disciplined infantry should resist cavalry charges, it's hard to pull off since EBII testers found that a mass of 1.2 is the highest possible mass a non-phalangite unit can have without ruining the pike wall's impenetrability. We could increase mass across the board, but IMO it's much easier to use randy_cat's descr_mount solution and just nerf mount mass.

    Given everyone's feedback, I'll only enact and test the following changes:

    Reduce mount mass across the board in descr_mount (prevent cavalry steamrolling)
    Give notable heavy cavalry the frighten_foot attribute (increase effectiveness of heavy cavalry flanking)
    Give all cavalry a bonus against other cavalry (increase speed and decisiveness of cavalry engagements)
    Make all units either impetuous or low discipline. (increase overall effectiveness of flanking)
    Buff AI general HP, and nerf all bodyguard morale (reduces chance of AI general dying, and increases chance of fleeing from battle)

    This should mostly preserve how EBII battles are ATM, except now battles aren't centralized on the enemy general dying - you could actually accomplish things without focusing entirely on murdering him. All these changes should be in EDU, character traits, and descr_mount only, and easily accomplished by simple RegEx. To test these, I'll fight a campaign battle that everyone has probably fought before as Pergamon - vs the Bithynian relief force when besieging Nikaia

  6. #6

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    I would love to test this out, I agree with just about everything you said, the only thing that might be a problem is 1 morale cav AI may never fight? if they are so easily scared, but i do think the Horse warriors are far to brave and even skirmish cav fights longer than they should, (looking specifically at greek skirmisher cav who seem to fight until half of them are dead) Also would love if that AI general change does indeed work and make em flee instead of always dying.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    Battle reports:

    VS the Pergamon campaign's Bithynian relief force:
    Enemy infantry were routing far too quickly. In fact, this was the first time I've seen AI enemy infantry rout during the line clash before their general dies. This could be caused by the following two changes: frighten_foot on heavy cavalry (I had a single unit of Thessalian Cavalry with me), and low discipline. The Thessalian Cavalry was a walking brute and enemy infantry units around it kept routing. This was exacerbated by the new standardized low discipline, which meant morale shocks kept piling up on top of each other before the unit could recover. I wanted morale shocks to be more noticeable, but this is too much.

    Verdict: restrict the frighten_foot attribute to its original users.

    VS the Bithynian garrison force that got pushed outside the settlement after the relief battle:
    This one was just sad. Every enemy unit that the Thessalian Cavalry touched routed instantly. Even the general's Hyperaspitai unit someone dipped to Steady :| when the Thessalians drew near.

    Verdict: restrict the frighten_foot attribute to its original users, and never look back.

    Not all was failure though. The enemy general, which was in a Xystophoroi unit, actually managed to rout before he died. However, even though he was still alive and thus his Confidence was still in effect, his units were routing like crazy within 3 minutes of the infantry line engaging. Again, this might be due to the frighten_foot Thessalians.

    The next battle is against the Galatian relief force at Ankyra. This one is infamous for having a chariot bodyguard unit that gets its general killed in seconds. I'll impose a house rule to not target it with my archers. Anyways, for this battle, I hope that while the lack of frighten_foot cavalry prevents my Thessalians from being as overpowering as cataphracts, the low discipline across the board would make routing enemy units before their general dies possible.

    Edit: it's also possible that low discipline makes a unit more vulnerable to charges. I've modified descr_mount to set every mount type at a measly 1.5 mass (vanilla crappy skirmisher cavalry have a mass of 2.5!), yet in the Bithynian relief battle, the Boii Noble Cavalry inflicted about 15% casualties on my Cretan Infantry with a frontal charge. Probably lower than in vanilla, but still quite high given the massive mass nerf
    Last edited by Shoebopp; May 18, 2022 at 04:23 PM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    I've also buffed all infantry units of mass between 0.95 and 1.2 by 0.05. Basically, all passable line infantry now have at least a mass of 1

  9. #9

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    Battle report:

    VS AI Pontos's starting army:
    I got sidetracked and had to destroy this army which was on the borders of Bithynia. This one was sad. The enemy infantry acted bipolar: they were Steady during the infantry clash, and instantly routed upon being smashed on the sides. Since I did everything to keep other morale factors high, the low discipline is to blame. I now replaced all units with normal discipline. This should allow units to recover morale much more quickly. I know that levy troops with normal discipline might seem off, but their base morale and combat effectiveness are so low that they rout just as quickly as before anyway

  10. #10

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    VS Kappodacia's (Mazaka) roving stack:

    This time I increased the morale of every unit by 1 using a quick RegEx command, and reverted all discipline back to low. The result was a really fun and engaging battle

    My left flank was heavily assaulted by the Kappodacian right led by their general. Because their general was in close proximity, no Kappodacian unit on the right flank ever went below Steady . The Kappodacian left attacking my right, however, kept fluctuating between Steady and Wavering, since they were outnumbered and far away from the enemy general. This is the high morale/low discipline coming into effect. I shifted my cavalry to the right flank and routed the Kappodacian left. This is where things got interesting.

    Due to the higher morale, and the fact that the Kappodacian left still had plenty of troops per unit, they regrouped some distance away. I moved my right flank forward to separate the Kappodacian left from their right, then charged my cavalry through the resulting gap. Basically, I reenacted Charonea. However, the battle was not won instantly thanks to the higher morale. My right flank cavalry had to hammer and anvil the Kappodacian center twice to break them. The Kappodacian right, however, stayed firm due to the presence of their general. The general himself, however, became Wavering after losing "only" half his unit. He ended up fleeing to his retreated left, which caused the Kappodacian right flank to collapse.

    The Kappodacian left and the general made one final stand, and they held out surprisingly well. However, once the rest of my troops arrived, they were able to crush the remaining resistance. Key points from this battle:

    - Thanks to the buffed HP, the general survived getting clobbered by my Galatian Raiders long enough to flee, but because he fled early with most of his bodyguard still intact, he was able to regroup and unintentionally rally the retreated left flank.
    - The left flank routed early due to the nerfed global morale buff of Confidence, and their distance from the general, but because they still had most of their troops left, they regrouped. I still gained some tactical value though by separating this retreated flank from their counterparts on the right.
    - The right flank and center held out very well due to the existing Command morale buff, and the overall higher base morale. However, because of their low discipline, repeated attacks were able to wear down their facade before they could recover, and they crumbled under the mounting stress.
    - The general survived until the final moments of the battle in the Kappodacian left's last stand

    This was the most fun I ever had in a battle. The AI behaved interestingly - first, it simulated being pushed back without breaking when its left flank routed but regrouped. Next, while troops are generally more durable, concentrated attacks WILL break them even while the general is still alive. However, if you don't run them down, they'll regroup! Finally, the battle is no longer centered around killing the enemy general, because he'll pussy out and run away before you could do so! If that happens, then while his local Command morale buff disappears, his global Confidence morale buff stays for the rest of the battle! Furthermore because of this, enemy units don't fight like fanatics only to cower in fear the microsecond their general dies. Instead, they act... human. They fight resolutely when the general is nearby, but not to the death. They break under heavy pressure, but don't completely lose the will to fight. And most importantly the AI general now has a simulated sense of preservation through its massively buffed HP and cowardly nature.

    Some other things to note was that my frontlines suffered only around 20% casualties despite being entirely comprised of Galatian Raiders and Hellenistic Medium Infantry (Hemithorakitai Peltophoroi). In vanilla EBII, they have low or average morale, and pitiful mass, and suffer 30% casualties instantly from frontal charges by any decent cavalry. However, with a slew of modifications, they resisted the Kappodacian Iranian Medium Cavalry, Anatolian Medium Cavalry, and the Iranian Heavy Cavalry bodyguards quite well. In addition, because the minimum cavalry morale is now 2, skirmisher cavalry have a much higher chance of not instantly breaking when you charge them with your heavy cavalry. You actually have to break them now.

    Here's the list of final changes:
    - Remove the Confidence bonus from the Veteran traitline
    - All mount mass in descr_mounts.txt nerfed to 1.5
    - Charge bonuses heavily nerfed for charges at or above 21, and cavalry spears nerfed for all attacks at or above 12
    - Mass of all infantry units with prior masses of between 0.95 and 1.15 increased by 0.5
    - All morale increased by 1
    - All discipline set to low
    - All cavalry bodyguard units morale set to 4
    - The AIGeneral trait and RebelAIGeneral trait award much more HP

    I'll post the modding instructions sometime later

  11. #11

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    Submod please....Hahahahah. Hopefully will be paired with improvements to pike units. As a side note has anyone ever noticed the Getai Light Phalanx?. It seems descriptors whatever when you hover your cursor on it - so meaning hardy, can hide, bla bla bla, all of those are not there.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    Sounds most encouraging Shoebopp! This will surely lead to a unique battlemap experience. +1 rep
    To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
    - Sun Tzu

  13. #13
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Virginia, USA

    Default Re: Some possible ways of making battles more realistic

    Just chiming in to say this is a really interesting concept and provides a fresh perspective on how to play the game differently, so +1 rep to you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts