Unit descriptions

[Anakuj]

Dear EB Team!

I would like to thank You again your amazing work! And now I would like to apologize to You, and to the RTR Team too. Yesterday I got the RTR 7 TIC Mod - this one is a perfect example of the "long wait, many promise, shiny externals and 300MB+ "Extras" :inquisitive: (I don't lie. Interviews, loading screens... Sigh.) - contrarily there is a map with 16 provinces and 4 Factions (+ Rebels), with app. 30 units. But there is one advantage: their Unit Descriptions is sooo long! I imagine it in your quality, ... uhh, I have to look for a new pant :oops:! It would be so cool to read your historians' knowledge in the "long form" about the units in your Mod! I know, If I don't like RTR, I simply don't have to play with it. It is true. Finally I hope that you consider my suggestion. Yes or no, I will remain your reverential follower.

[paullus]

I haven't played RTR7 TIC, but I generally thought many of our descriptions push the boundaries of useful length. Some of our descriptions are several paragraphs long, and while I think its great to give some useful information, as I understand it, the longer descriptions cause some slowdown for the game. Now, if we only had 30-40 units, perhaps we could do lengthy descriptions. As it is, with more than 10x that number, we just can't do that, and to the extent we come close to it, we're also slowing the game a bit.

That said, I do remember one unit description of theirs that I'd read a few months ago, and it seemed really well done. I think it was for the sacred band. I don't remember it being that much longer than ours, but perhaps they've beefed things up for the release.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Check out some of the EB eastern units. A few of those have very lengthy descriptions.

[Chris A. T.]

A bit off topic, but while the subject is in the air.. :juggle2:

Some descriptions don't match the in-game stats and models of the corresponding units; f.ex. the description of prodromoi (successor medium cavalry) includes the line "Their spears, shields, and linen armor give them some staying power, but they should not be used to in protracted melee for any great amount of time." (bold's on me, never mind the "to in" part).

My question: Are things like these something you would like us (the fans) to bring up on the forum? I perfectly well understand that you can't give a unit more than two weapons, but apart from that?

[Frostwulf]

I have thought of this idea as well but maybe put it in a thread based on the faction, then sticky it. I also think along with the unit description you could put where the information came from. For instance for the German heavy cavalry you could put down:
Caesar-"Gallic War" and for modern references see Goldsworthy-"Caesar/Life of a Colossus", Spiedel-"Riding for Caesar",Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse".
I think this would help players in understanding the units and how they functioned. This would give good references for people interested in learning of the period and for the specific factions and units.

[Spoofa]

A bit off topic, but while the subject is in the air.. :juggle2:

Some descriptions don't match the in-game stats and models of the corresponding units; f.ex. the description of prodromoi (successor medium cavalry) includes the line "Their spears, shields, and linen armor give them some staying power, but they should not be used to in protracted melee for any great amount of time." (bold's on me, never mind the "to in" part).

My question: Are things like these something you would like us (the fans) to bring up on the forum? I perfectly well understand that you can't give a unit more than two weapons, but apart from that?


Exactly.


Velites description says they have a short sword, but they have daggers?

if its a short sword shouldn't they get some attack boni to show that its better then just a dagger that akontistai use?

[abou]

Indeed, some of EB's descriptions tend to be a bit long. There has been some effort to revise them for corrections and clarifications, but it hasn't been a priority. Once winter break is over for most of the team that should hopefully change.

[paullus]

I'd say the prodromoi one was just a brain fart sort of error, you're used to writing armor, shield, helmet and then you screw up. Just a guess, I didn't write that one, but I could see myself making that sort of mistake.

Similarly, the "to in" also looks like a brain fart: someone was writing "should not be used to break enemy formations in protracted melee" or something and then transitioned to "should not be used in protracted melee" but didn't transition until after writing the "to." I hate it when that happens, but it happens. I'd say those sort of things are worth pointing out, or better yet, worth submitting an original version and a corrected version side by side, and you can probably have your corrected version slid into EB.

[Anakuj]

I also think along with the unit description you could put where the information came from. For instance for the German heavy cavalry you could put down:
Caesar-"Gallic War" and for modern references see Goldsworthy-"Caesar/Life of a Colossus", Spiedel-"Riding for Caesar",Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse".
I think this would help players in understanding the units and how they functioned. This would give good references for people interested in learning of the period and for the specific factions and units.

I mean exactly the same, but about Carthage. They are in the centre of the Mediterranean, but I noticed that some of their units have lesser descriptions than the barely-known Germans.

[Redmeth]

I have thought of this idea as well but maybe put it in a thread based on the faction, then sticky it. I also think along with the unit description you could put where the information came from. For instance for the German heavy cavalry you could put down:
Caesar-"Gallic War" and for modern references see Goldsworthy-"Caesar/Life of a Colossus", Spiedel-"Riding for Caesar",Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse".
I think this would help players in understanding the units and how they functioned. This would give good references for people interested in learning of the period and for the specific factions and units.

I disagree at most references to ancient writers would work but for me it would somehow break the immersion to see modern bibliography in a unit description. That's why there's the EB bibliography thread right? Of course these decision are not up to me but that's just how I feel...

[Geoffrey S]

What I would like to see is paragraphs split a bit more; at times (at least on the EB site) it's one rather long block of text, particularly considering the narrow width of the unit cards. It'd make things more attractive to the eye.

As for bibliographical information, though I'd find it fascinating and to some degree must echo Frostwulf's request I also think they'd be out of place inside the game itself. What I would suggest is a document accompanying EB containing a very comprehensive list of works used, akin to that on these forums, though I think it'd be a bit much to do so for individual units since when it comes to depiction a lot must have been found in inaccessible archeological papers.

Though to be honest, if someone's interested in the subject matter only a brief summary of materials is really necessary; other material can quite easily be tracked through references in footnotes and the like, or careful searching in (university) libraries.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I'd like to see the practical thing in the unit stats too. (I can't use the RV alongside, low end computer here.) Primary and secondary weapon, AP or not, should be used in guard more or not, things like that, which don't show up on the unit card. ~:)
.

[Chris A. T.]

I'd say the prodromoi one was just a brain fart sort of error, you're used to writing armor, shield, helmet and then you screw up. Just a guess, I didn't write that one, but I could see myself making that sort of mistake.

Similarly, the "to in" also looks like a brain fart: someone was writing "should not be used to break enemy formations in protracted melee" or something and then transitioned to "should not be used in protracted melee" but didn't transition until after writing the "to." I hate it when that happens, but it happens. I'd say those sort of things are worth pointing out, or better yet, worth submitting an original version and a corrected version side by side, and you can probably have your corrected version slid into EB.

Sounds like a good idea, I might just do that..

[Geoffrey S]

One thing I'm wondering is if there'll be some kind of standardized format for unit descriptions for EB2? Not necessarily in content, but some tend to follow the vanilla format of "This unit is such-and-such" followed by "Historically, ...", while others have some "Hail strategos", whilst still others read like some essay.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well they do, brokend down by culture-group or rather author that is:
-Eastern ones are often essay-like;
-The rest is Rough Desc with Historical background;
-The latest descriptions (of the latest Greek/Hellenistic units) are "Hail stratege" which in itself is just a form of Vanilla-style.

>_>

<_<

And no description should ever read "Hail Strategos"! Else I'd better be off again to my soap-box in which I keep my blunt axe. (If you found one such mischievous strategos, please do post below.)

[antisocialmunky]

Freaking Iranian Cavalry.

[beatoangelico]

seriosly, has anyone ever read the entire Indo-Iranian Cavalry description? ~:eek: It's without doubt a great description with lots of details and reserach, but the space where it's confined it's way too small to support such a wall of text.

[konny]

Some descriptions are repeated with every similar unit. For example the general information about the Roman army. Those things can be stored in the description of the barracks, for example, with a hint to it in the units' description.

When more space is needed some of the general informations in unit descriptions can be checked if they are realy needed, for example:


Their armaments consist of several javelins and a sword. This panoply makes them light and mobile, but still able to engage in melee after their javelins have been thrown. They are a versatile unit but one must remember that their primary arms are javelins, and they are not equipped to stand toe to toe with heavier infantry. Their role is one of speed, harassment, and critical flanking maneuvers.

Peltastai.

Informations on their arms&armours are provided by the unit card and the tactical use to find out is up to the player (I use them as infantry of the line, until I can afford better units).

[keravnos]

seriosly, has anyone ever read the entire Indo-Iranian Cavalry description? ~:eek: It's without doubt a great description with lots of details and reserach, but the space where it's confined it's way too small to support such a wall of text.

Why don't you call them the "Kamboja"? That is their name.

[pezhetairoi]

Odds ten to one the eastern descriptions were written by Persian Kataphract. XD

[beatoangelico]

Why don't you call them the "Kamboja"? That is their name.

I admit I have difficult times at remind the real name of much of the eastern units :laugh4:

[bovi]

And no description should ever read "Hail Strategos"! Else I'd better be off again to my soap-box in which I keep my blunt axe. (If you found one such mischievous strategos, please do post below.)
You could do a simple search in EU.txt yourself too, if you're worried about it :beam:.

[CirdanDharix]

I think I must have read all the descriptions in EB by now, and yes, some are seriously long. The description of the Kamboja Asvaka Ksatriya reads like a brief (or perhaps not so brief) history of the Kamboja people :smash:

[Tellos Athenaios]

You could do a simple search in EU.txt yourself too, if you're worried about it :beam:.

I did already, before EB 1.0 was out. :wink:

That's why I'd like to see the occasions where it still occurs:
1) I can go get my axe, and chase some other EB member
2) I know where to check (there are seriously many Strategos hits in EU, but only a few of them fit the prerequisites for the axe)

[bovi]

Ah, I see.

[Geoffrey S]

Well, no need to worry. It was merely a poor showing of my rusty Greek, nothing I actually saw in a unit description!

[antisocialmunky]

seriosly, has anyone ever read the entire Indo-Iranian Cavalry description? ~:eek: It's without doubt a great description with lots of details and reserach, but the space where it's confined it's way too small to support such a wall of text.

Its not a description its a dissertation.:dizzy2:

[Anakuj]

It is good to hear that Kamboja cavalry has a very detailed description, and a greek ones have a good vanilla feeling... When I got EB, I took a look at Carthage, because this one was my most ~ "unloved" faction in the RTW Game and in its modifications. And I fall in love with it in EB. I have never played any other factions - expect Hayasdan for a few turns. After a month of playing, I had to fight with lusitanians, Romans, Ptolemaics and Seleucids and I noticed that the poor, single Eastern Axemen has longer description than my two elite Sacred units together!
And this is the whole description of my Liby-Phoenician cavalry: Shofet! These are the finest sons of Phoenician noblemen and the prettiest of the local Libyan girls. They were brought up far better than bastards deserve, and now serve as fine cavalry. They are extremely well disciplined, since they are naught but the best regular soldiers Kart-Hadast has to offer. Armored in fine scale and linen, they can last long in a melee after charging home with their lances. A fine helmet augments this protection, as do boots copied from the Makedonians.
It is no offence. I just would like to know more about "my" people/faction. It doesn't matter for me, that the description is a qoute from an ancient source, or an essay of a Team member, or there is little brain fart(s) in it, or is it vanilla-like or not. I just would like to know a little bit more about them in your high quality.

[Maeran]

Informations on their arms&armours are provided by the unit card and the tactical use to find out is up to the player (I use them as infantry of the line, until I can afford better units).

I agree with Konny on the Roman army information, where quite a lot of information is repeated in bulk for all the faction's core units. Some space would be saved, although I don't know how much that would improve download or playing performance.

But I like the information on tactics where it is. It is immediate and appropriate to the unit as you look at it, which is good when you meet something unfamiliar from the other side of the EB word.

[Geoffrey S]

It is good to hear that Kamboja cavalry has a very detailed description, and a greek ones have a good vanilla feeling... When I got EB, I took a look at Carthage, because this one was my most ~ "unloved" faction in the RTW Game and in its modifications. And I fall in love with it in EB. I have never played any other factions - expect Hayasdan for a few turns. After a month of playing, I had to fight with lusitanians, Romans, Ptolemaics and Seleucids and I noticed that the poor, single Eastern Axemen has longer description than my two elite Sacred units together!
Hate to admit it, but going through the unit descriptions on the EB site left me with a similar feeling.

[anubis88]

Hate to admit it, but going through the unit descriptions on the EB site left me with a similar feeling.
I must agree. I'm having a serious debate with a college of my father who happens to be an history doctor, about Carthage and he was fascinated by how much i knew about their army. He said that if i knew any more he would employ me as hi assistant:laugh4:

so EB writers, start writing longer descriptions about Carthage!:beam:

P.S. don't take the demand part seriously:sweatdrop: