Congrats and comments

Superb work guys! I'm extremely impressed with what you've done, as well as the amount of research and time you must have put into all of this. Truly remarkable stuff, and well worth the wait!

I was involved with the RTW community many, many moons ago, but eventually lost interest in the whole affair and dropped out. I must say, your mod has re-kindled my enthusiasm for this game!

After downloading and playing the beta, I have a few thoughts and suggestions for your consideration.

When RTW first came out, there was much grumbling about archery and javelins. Some said they were overpowered - some underpowered. What everyone pretty much agreed on was that something didn't seem quite right about the way it was modelled in RTW. In response to this, I developed a little mod for RTR called the "shield mod" (which later evolved into the "total combat" mod). It was well-received and eventually adapted and combined into RTR. Here's the theory behind it:

As I'm sure you know, RTW rates a unit's defense characteristics on three variables: X/Y/Z, where X=body armor, Y=defensive skill, and Z=shield. The difference between these three variables has everything to do with ranged attack. "X" is always factored into a ranged attack, "Y" never is, and "Z" is only factored in when the unit is attacked from either the front or left flank.

With this in mind, a casual perusal of the "EXPORT_DESCR_UNIT" file will quickly reveal that shields are consistently rated as less valuable than body armor. This, in my opinion, is a terrible mistake.

The shield was the primary piece of protection that a soldier in the classical period could possess. Body armor was always a secondary perk. Note that when the Spartan hoplites realized they needed to be quicker on the field - it was body armor they decided they could live without - not their hoplons.

In fact, the only hand-to-hand units to fight without shields did so because they required two hands to operate their weapon. These units were willing to trade defensive protection for the added offensive impact that the heavier weapon provided, but they were usually considered "crazy" (e.g.: berserkers) by most "sane" troops.

Why is a shield better than body armor? Here are five good reasons:

1) It is maneuverable. You can adjust the protection to meet the threat as needed.

2) In the case of a ranged attack, you can crouch behind the shield protecting most, if not all, of your body (depending on the size of the shield, naturally).

3) It provides a buffer zone. If the shield is pierced, or shattered, the torso remains intact. Not so with body armor. Also, if a shield is seriously damaged, it can be quickly replaced (assuming another is close at hand).

4) In the unfortunate event that you may have to flee or swim, a shield can be easily discarded.

5) It's less expensive and more easily constructed than most body armor.

All of these facts may seem pretty obvious, but unfortunately, none of them seems to be taken into account in the "EXPORT_DESCR_UNIT" file.

The current defensive ratings seem to be somewhat arbitrary. Most units seem to receive an “armor bonus” that falls somewhere between 1 and 14, a “defensive skill” bonus between 5 and 12, and a “shield bonus” of between 1 and 5. In other words, the biggest and best shield that money can buy will only add five points to your defense, whereas the little square piece of armor on the front of an early Roman Hastati adds 7 points!

My recommendation, is that these values should be more standardized, and slanted more in favor of the shield. For instance:

Shields:

3-4 points for a small shield (slingers), 6-8 for medium (hoplons, round barbarian), and 9-10 for large (scutum, full length barbarian shields).

Armor:

2 points for a small helmet. 3 points for a helmet that protects the sides of the head.

2 points for greaves.

2 points for the little square piece of metal that Hastati wear. 4 points for leather, 6 for chain, and 8 for plate/banded.

Defensive Rating:

Base rating should be 2 points across the board. This is as per the original RTW. Bonuses as follows:

6 points if the unit is unarmored. This takes into consideration the unit’s added maneuverability and speed in avoiding blows. Note that this number will not be factored in a ranged attack.

2 point bonus if the unit is highly trained. 4 point bonus if they are elite.

With this system, an early Hastati would have a rating of 5/2/10 (possibly 5/4/10 if you argue they were highly trained), giving a total defensive rating of 17 from the front (15 vs missiles) and only 7 from the rear (5 vs. missiles).

Currently, early Hastati are rated 7/9/3. The overall defense remains basically the same, except that the Hastati benefit from all round armor protection (from the front and rear), and all round protection from missiles, which in reality they don’t possess. I am just using Hastati as an example here, this holds true for any unit.

On the other end of the spectrum, many barbarian units have only a shield for protection. Since the most they can currently hope to derive from this is a measly 5 points, they extremely vulnerable to missile attack - especially considering that many seem to possess some of the largest shields in the game. Upping shield values gives them the protection they deserve from the front, while still leaving them realistically vulnerable from the left flank and rear.

One last point and I’ll bring this ridiculously long post to an end:

I notice that the attack values for javelins and arrows have been reduced. After much play testing with the above armor values, I found that it seemed to work best if archer attack values fell between 5 and 7 (depending on skill of the unit). Javelins and pilum should be higher, (maybe 8-11) and should all have the AP (armor piercing). I noticed this trait was removed from these units (presumable because you felt they were overpowered – they won’t be if you up the shield ratings). The great advantage of javelins and pilum over slings and arrows was their AP ability. If you remove this, then you will render skirmishers obsolete, since archers will be more effective in every respect.

If you made it this far, then thanks for your patience! Whether you adopt these ideas or not, I look forward to your mod with great anticipation!

Best regards,

Macroi

Wow, what a post.

And welcome to the ORG :beam:.

It's not a terrible mistake because shields are uneffected by AP, and giving units high shield values makes AP useless against them, which is completely ahistorical.

Damn it, as soon as I fix my comp I need this mod... badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

It's not a terrible mistake because shields are uneffected by AP, and giving units high shield values makes AP useless against them, which is completely ahistorical.

---

Could you elaborate on this a bit, please? I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here.

Are you saying that upping the value for shields is not a good idea, or including AP for javelins and pilums is not a good idea - or both?

Also, what do you think is ahistorical about it?

AP just ignore half of the armour value and do nothing else, so if shield value is high, unit will have very good protection against AP-weapons, which is ahistorical.

AP weapons should be effective against sheilds. Ever seen what a Falx does to a sheild? In RTW they're not as AP only effects the armor stat, so making sheild values high is problematic.

So tell me if this sums it up. The EB team decided to sacrifice the historical aspect of arrows to the rear of a unit in order to be more historically/realistically accurate in regards to armor crushing weapons. You had to choose between the high armor value that could be crushed by AP against a high shield value that could be flanked and is especially vulnerable to arrows.

I'm not sure of the exact reasoning, but given that units will not automatically position their shields to defend against arrow fire, as they would tend to do in real life depending on the situation, I would prefer being able to model melee weapons better. I'm not sure we have had to compromise, though.

For what it's worth, QM uses an unbelievably complex spreadsheet to test out the various defense and offense "adders". He can play around with, for example, 6 different kinds of torso armor and 4 types of shields (and much, much, more). So when he tells you that EB units have been balanced and tested? Ummmm, well, yeah! :dizzy2:

(I kid you not, it took me a full day - 8 hours in a chair - just to figure out the macro and formula flow from sheet to sheet to sheet to sheet....) :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cybvep

AP just ignore half of the armour value and do nothing else, so if shield value is high, unit will have very good protection against AP-weapons, which is ahistorical.

---

Whoa...what makes you think that is that ahistorical?

Body armor is pressed right up against the body. Obviously, piercing body armor, more often than not, should result in a casualty. That's why the RTW team modelled it the way they did. Given the limited constraints of their model, I think they were right to do so.

But a shield is held out in front of the body. There's a buffer zone between the shield and the man. Just because a shield is pierced (or even destroyed) doesn't mean the man dies. But you're saying that it's more historically accurate if he does die - every single time (these guys only have one hit point, so one hit equals death).

The current system is tremendously unfair towards units that have no armor, and rely solely on a shield for protection. In reality, the large shields that barbarians carried would have afforded excellent protection against missile attacks - but the way it's currently modelled, they're not getting it.

Check this out:

Currently, the armor values for an early Hastati are 7,9,3.

That means that the large shield that he's carrying (which reaches from his chin to below his knees) is only offering him a measly 3 points of protection. Whereas the little 10" metal square that he wears on the front of his chest provides him with 7 points of protection - not just from the front, mind you - but from the rear, and both flanks too! How do you figure that is realistic?

By contrast, a celtic clyddabre has a defense of 1,9,1. So, even though the celt carries a good sized shield, the hastati has FIVE TIMES better protection against missiles when attacked from the front, (10 vs. 2), and SEVEN TIMES better protection from the rear (7 vs. 1).

How do you figure that is historically accurate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebes

So tell me if this sums it up. The EB team decided to sacrifice the historical aspect of arrows to the rear of a unit in order to be more historically/realistically accurate in regards to armor crushing weapons. You had to choose between the high armor value that could be crushed by AP against a high shield value that could be flanked and is especially vulnerable to arrows.

---

No, because after realizing that high shield values caused problems with AP I rebalanced all other values to take that into account.

Instead of looking at the numbers and getting into a tizzy, I ask, does it feel right? If something plays in an odd manner tell me, and I will try to address it, but the numbers I use have generally given me the results I want and I'd much rather address issues where the results are problematic than issues where the number appear problematic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

AP weapons should be effective against sheilds. Ever seen what a Falx does to a sheild? In RTW they're not as AP only effects the armor stat, so making sheild values high is problematic.

---

AP weapons would be effective against shields if you up the attack value of the AP weapons. At the moment your pilums all have values of 4 and 5. If you raise them to 8 or 10 and it will be a non-issue.

Haha - no, I can't say that I have ever seen what a falx does to a shield, but if you want it to be effective against shields, then why give it an AP bonus at all? Why not just raise the overall attack value of the falx?

Doesn't that make more sense than lowering the values of all shields?

No, because then it will chew through lightly armored units. AP weapons were good for smashing men that were heavily incumbered by large shields and heavy armor, men with only small shields and light armor would be better able to deal with them. Raising the attack value of AP weapons would lose that element completely.

From the layman:

Increasing overall attack value is, in itself, unrealistic. This is because many weapons designed to be armor-piercing were actually much less effective against unarmored troops, who could duck out of the way. Attack values also reflect the fighting ability of the soldier, which is often hampered by such armor-piercing weapons as the falx and warhammer, except when facing armored troops, in which case the Falxman/Daegernaught(whatever the hell that name was)/et cetera has an advantage.

Edit: damn it! Damn my slow typing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

Check this out:

Currently, the armor values for an early Hastati are 7,9,3.

That means that the large shield that he's carrying (which reaches from his chin to below his knees) is only offering him a measly 3 points of protection. Whereas the little 10" metal square that he wears on the front of his chest provides him with 7 points of protection - not just from the front, mind you - but from the rear, and both flanks too! How do you figure that is realistic?

By contrast, a celtic clyddabre has a defense of 1,9,1. So, even though the celt carries a good sized shield, the hastati has FIVE TIMES better protection against missiles when attacked from the front, (10 vs. 2), and SEVEN TIMES better protection from the rear (7 vs. 1).

How do you figure that is historically accurate?

---

Sorry, you're looking at this completely wrong. First, shield and armor are handled differently by the system, they can't be equated in terms of pure "points." Second, the hastati do not have "FIVE TIME" better protection. Have you actually done tests with these units? If the hastati had five times better protection, five times more Clyddabre would die during fights.

No discussion about the historical accuracy of numbers will be considered valid. The stats system is put in place to get historical RESULTS, not through the use of "historical numbers."

If the RESULTS on the battlefield are as they should be, that is the important factor. Numbers are only a tool to get there. And if that means we do things completely counter-intuitively so that the battle results come out right, so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

The current system is tremendously unfair towards units that have no armor, and rely solely on a shield for protection. In reality, the large shields that barbarians carried would have afforded excellent protection against missile attacks - but the way it's currently modelled, they're not getting it.

---

This isn't quite true, light armored troops get bonuses, and barbarians get special bonuses as well to make up for the fact they don't wear much armor but should be rather tougher than the system implies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

Currently, the armor values for an early Hastati are 7,9,3.

That means that the large shield that he's carrying (which reaches from his chin to below his knees) is only offering him a measly 3 points of protection. Whereas the little 10" metal square that he wears on the front of his chest provides him with 7 points of protection - not just from the front, mind you - but from the rear, and both flanks too! How do you figure that is realistic?

---

He gets most of his armor from his greaves and helmet, not this pectoral.

4 from the helmet, 2 from the greaves, 1 from the pectoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

By contrast, a celtic clyddabre has a defense of 1,9,1. So, even though the celt carries a good sized shield, the hastati has FIVE TIMES better protection against missiles when attacked from the front, (10 vs. 2), and SEVEN TIMES better protection from the rear (7 vs. 1).

How do you figure that is historically accurate?

---

The Clyddabre is supposed to be extremely vulnerable at range as per Ranika's direction (and the unit description), looks like I did a good job eh? They do seem to have a sheild value lower than what is dictated by the system, I will have to check and see if they were tweaked intentionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

Sorry, you're looking at this completely wrong. First, shield and armor are handled differently by the system, they can't be equated in terms of pure "points." Second, the hastati do not have "FIVE TIME" better protection. Have you actually done tests with these units? If the hastati had five times better protection, five times more Clyddabre would die during fights.

No discussion about the historical accuracy of numbers will be considered valid. The stats system is put in place to get historical RESULTS, not through the use of "historical numbers."

If the RESULTS on the battlefield are as they should be, that is the important factor. Numbers are only a tool to get there. And if that means we do things completely counter-intuitively so that the battle results come out right, so be it.

---

Ok, I just ran the tests. Here are the results:

I put 50 hayasdan ayrndzi netadzik against 81 hastati. I kept the archers in front of the hastati the whole time. Only 7 hastati died before I ran out of arrows.

Then I put the same 50 horse archers against 100 clyddabre. 91 clyddabre died before the remaining 9 turned and fled. I didn't even need to use all my arrows.

Look, don't get me wrong here; I'm not whining, and I'm not trying to give you guys a hard time. On the contrary, I appreciate all the work you guys have put into this mod, and that's why I'm taking the time to try and help you make it better. It's a great mod - I'm just trying to point out some ways in which I think it can be improved. No offense intended.

As I mentioned before:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

The Clyddabre is supposed to be extremely vulnerable at range as per Ranika's direction (and the unit description).

---

[QUOTE=khelvan]...the hastati do not have "FIVE TIME" better protection. Have you actually done tests with these units? If the hastati had five times better protection, five times more Clyddabre would die during fights.

Fair enough, QM. But this is the point I'm addressing by running the test.

Khelvan seems to think that I'm "looking at this all wrong" - but I'm not. He doubts that the Clyddabre would suffer five times the casualties that Hastati would suffer - when in fact they do (far more than that actually, since there is no direct corrolation between having 5x protection and suffereing 5x less casualties as Khelvan proposed).

The hastati suffered less than 10% casualties, while the Clyddabre suffered over 90% (it would easily have been 100% had I chosen to pursue them).

That is a striking disparity since the only real difference between these units is that Hastati have a helmet and a 10" metal protector on their chests, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

No, because then it will chew through lightly armored units. AP weapons were good for smashing men that were heavily incumbered by large shields and heavy armor, men with only small shields and light armor would be better able to deal with them. Raising the attack value of AP weapons would lose that element completely.

---

No, it won't chew through lightly armored units, because the defensive skill rating of lightly armored troops should be higher than that of armored troops. This takes into account their added maneuverability in hand to hand combat. See my original post for details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

From the layman:

Increasing overall attack value is, in itself, unrealistic. This is because many weapons designed to be armor-piercing were actually much less effective against unarmored troops, who could duck out of the way. Attack values also reflect the fighting ability of the soldier, which is often hampered by such armor-piercing weapons as the falx and warhammer, except when facing armored troops, in which case the Falxman/Daegernaught(whatever the hell that name was)/et cetera has an advantage.

Edit: damn it! Damn my slow typing!

---

I understand your concern here, but this won't be an issue if you just follow the formula that I lay out in my first post up top. Troops without armor, or with light armor, should get a bonus to their defensive skill rating (the middle number). Armored troops should have their defensive skill rating lowered to 2 across the board, then they can receive bonuses depending on whether or not they are elite. Tweak the numbers as you like, but to me this is a far more accurate way to model the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

This isn't quite true, light armored troops get bonuses, and barbarians get special bonuses as well to make up for the fact they don't wear much armor but should be rather tougher than the system implies.

---

Yes, I noticed that you are giving several unarmored troops an armor rating. We are both trying to get to the same destination, but we are taking different routes. I really don't think giving unarmored troops a rating for armor is the way to go. You're making a fairly simple situation overly complex IMHO. Now these lightly armored, or unarmored units are going to have what little defense you've awarded them cut in half vs. ap units (including your falxmen).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

He gets most of his armor from his greaves and helmet, not this pectoral.

4 from the helmet, 2 from the greaves, 1 from the pectoral.

---

I like the fact that your assigning armor values based on the equipment, but it seems a bit off to me to award 4 points for a helmet and only 3 for a large shield. If you had to face an archer at fifty paces, which piece of equipment would you rather have: An open faced helm or a full-body shield?

Also, I don't believe hastati wore greaves. The reason they wore that square plate on their chests is because they had to make it themselves. Fashioning greaves was expensive and a bit beyond them, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

The Clyddabre is supposed to be extremely vulnerable at range as per Ranika's direction (and the unit description), looks like I did a good job eh? They do seem to have a sheild value lower than what is dictated by the system, I will have to check and see if they were tweaked intentionally.

---

Understood. I had a feeling they might have "slipped through the cracks" a bit and that you probably intended to give them a 3 instead of the 1. But I still say a 3 (or even a 5) isn't nearly enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

No, it won't chew through lightly armored units, because the defensive skill rating of lightly armored troops should be higher than that of armored troops. This takes into account their added maneuverability in hand to hand combat. See my original post for details.

---

To make that work they'd have to end up with better defense in melee than armored troops. So either way you have a problem. As a side not, light troops already get a small DS bonus and light troops that were noted for being particularly tough in melee get a larger one, but like I say, there is a limit as to how far this can be taken without drastic problems in balancing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

Yes, I noticed that you are giving several unarmored troops an armor rating. We are both trying to get to the same destination, but we are taking different routes. I really don't think giving unarmored troops a rating for armor is the way to go. You're making a fairly simple situation overly complex IMHO. Now these lightly armored, or unarmored units are going to have what little defense you've awarded them cut in half vs. ap units (including your falxmen).

---

Those bonuses are less about melee and more about making them a bit more survivable against ranged weapons. So once again your soultion misses the issue that is being addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

I like the fact that your assigning armor values based on the equipment, but it seems a bit off to me to award 4 points for a helmet and only 3 for a large shield. If you had to face an archer at fifty paces, which piece of equipment would you rather have: An open faced helm or a full-body shield?

---

Point for point a sheild is more defense against missile (frontal ones) than armor. Just try hitting units with large shields and decent armor in the back with arrows, javs, sling stones. It's not a simple point for point relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

Also, I don't believe hastati wore greaves. The reason they wore that square plate on their chests is because they had to make it themselves. Fashioning greaves was expensive and a bit beyond them, if I'm not mistaken.

---

https://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?...hastati7er.gif

He has a greave here, ask the historian who equiped him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

Understood. I had a feeling they might have "slipped through the cracks" a bit and that you probably intended to give them a 3 instead of the 1. But I still say a 3 (or even a 5) isn't nearly enough.

---

And you still miss the entire point about the way shields function, high levels of shield armor cause major problems when it comes to balancing both AP weapons and missiles, your system only exacerbates them.

I know virtually nothing about stats here, but:

-Clyddabre have a relatively small round shield. No helmet. No body armor at all. No other armor period.

-Hastati have a much larger shield. A helmet. A single piece of chest armor. A greave.

Why is it surprising that they are a whole lot more vulnerable to horse archers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

I know virtually nothing about stats here, but:

-Clyddabre have a relatively small round shield. No helmet. No body armor at all. No other armor period.

-Hastati have a much larger shield. A helmet. A single piece of chest armor. A greave.

Why is it surprising that they are a whole lot more vulnerable to horse archers?

---

No one is suggesting they shouldn't be more vulnerable to archers. The question is how much more vulnerable should they be?

This is not complicated stuff and you certainly don't need to be some sort of a statistician to understand these concepts. Trust me, this is no more complicated than 3rd grade math. Just go into the "Data" file in your RTW folder and double-click the file called EXPORT_DESCR_UNIT.TXT. At the top, it explains in detail what all the numbers represent.

The only point of that test was to prove to Khelvan that my premise was accurate. The test simply backs up my earlier statement - nothing more than that.

As anyone who has spent time working with the EDU will tell you, the descriptions and information at the top isn't exactly flawless or complete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

To make that work they'd have to end up with better defense in melee than armored troops. So either way you have a problem.

---

No! :wall: My gosh, this is like pulling teeth... :laugh4:

Really, this would all be so much easier if you would just TRY what I'm saying. Test it for yourself! You're completely missing the boat here, Qwerty. Now for god's sake pay attention...

Currently we have the following:

Early Hastati Defense = 7, 9, 3

Frontal Melee defense rating: 19 vs. normal weapons; 15.5 vs. AP weapons.
Rear Melee defense rating: 16 vs. normal weapons; 12.5 vs. AP weapons.

This is as per your current system. Looking at the above figures, it's easy to see that Hastati are nearly as well protected when attacked from the rear, despite the fact that all of their armor (excepting the helmet) is on the front of their bodies. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?

Now, changing shield values, et al... (as I rather patiently keep suggesting) gives you defensive figures that look something like this:

Early Hastati Defense = 5*, 4**, 9***

*Here I have awarded 2 points for a helmet, 2 points for their little square chest plate, and 1 point for a greave (as per your preference). That gives an armor rating of 5.

**If they were unarmored, they would get a defensive skill rating of 6, but since they have the plate on their chest, a helmet and greave, I knocked this number down to 4. Judgement call.

***9 Points for the shield. Could be 8, could be 10 depending on how good you think the shield is.

What this all adds up to in my system is this:

Frontal Melee defense rating: 18 vs. normal weapons; 15.5 vs. AP weapons.
Rear Melee defense rating: 9 vs. normal weapons; 6.5 vs. AP weapons.

Now compare these figures with your own. As you can see, the Hastati's frontal melee defense remains basically the same as in your system. So, there is no real impact on frontal melee whatsoever. The only real difference now is that Hastati are much more vulnerable when attacked from BEHIND. This is as it should be! :2thumbsup:

______________________________________

Now, lets look at a high-calibre, unarmored unit. Currently:

Barbarian Gaesatae (Gaul) Defense = 5,14,4 with 2 hit points. Therefore:

Frontal Melee defense rating = 23 vs. normal weapons; 20.5 vs. AP weapons.
Rear Melee defensive rating = 19 vs. normal weapons; 16.5 vs. AP weapons.

Sooo, in your system, the Gaesatae actually have superior defense when attacked from BEHIND than the Hastati have when attacked from the FRONT. This, despite the fact that Gaesatae can rely on little more than their ass hairs for protection! :inquisitive:

By contrast, in my system:

Barbarian Gaesatae (Gaul) Defense = 2*,8**,10*** with 2 hit points.

* Helmet. No points for pubic hair. :embarassed:

** This would normally be a 6, but these are elite warriors. You could raise it to 10 perhaps, but that would be pushing it.

*** Nice, big shield.

Which means:

Frontal Melee defense rating = 20 vs. normal weapons; 19 vs. AP weapons.*
Rear Melee defensive rating = 10 vs. normal weapons; 9 vs. AP weapons.**

* Comparable to your figures. Also, your concern that unarmored troops would end up being "overly penalised" vs. AP units is, as you can see, totally unfounded. Unarmored units hold up better than armored units do against AP (e.g. Falx units), which is exactly what you wanted!

** Attacking these guys from behind now makes good sense. :idea2:

So, as you can see (assuming you are still paying attention...), your fear that unarmored troops would "...end up with better defense in melee than armored troops" actually exists in YOUR system, not mine. Wow! How ironic is that?? :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

As a side not, light troops already get a small DS bonus and light troops that were noted for being particularly tough in melee get a larger one, but like I say, there is a limit as to how far this can be taken without drastic problems in balancing.

---

Agreed. And IMHO you have surpassed that limit. For elite unarmored troops, I wouldn't go higher than a DS rating of 8 (and then only for exceptional cases). 10 would really be pushing it. But as you can see, your Gaesatae currently have a DS rating of 14.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Those bonuses are less about melee and more about making them a bit more survivable against ranged weapons.

---

Nevertheless, those bonuses WILL impact melee! And not just from the front, but from the rear...and right flank, too! I'm sorry Qwerty but there's no getting around it; in trying to address your missile problems, you are simply creating more problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Point for point a sheild is more defense against missile (frontal ones) than armor.

---

Not true. When attacked from the front, point for point, the corrolation is precisely equal. The only exception is when the attacking missile has the AP trait. That's how it should be! This is a non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

It's not a simple point for point relationship.

---

YES IT IS! In fact, it is EXACTLY that - a point for point relationship! The only mitigating factors are that the shield points are not counted when the unit is attacked from the left side and rear; the defensive skill is not counted when attacked by ranged units, and the armor is halved when attacked by AP units.

That's it! That's all there is to it. Why are you so determined to make this complicated? This is not rocket science. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

And you still miss the entire point about the way shields function, high levels of shield armor cause major problems when it comes to balancing both AP weapons and missiles, your system only exacerbates them.

---

Ok, I don't want to make this any more of a pissing contest than it already is. If you've been followed along at all, I think you must know by now that I understand perfectly well how shields function.

Qwerty, look: First you claim that high shield values cause problems with AP melee weapons. I think I have clearly proven that's not the case. Then you claim there will be problems with unarmored units being more powerful than armored units. Not only have I shown that you are wrong about that, but I have shown that very issue ironically exists in your own system!

And now you are claiming that my system only "exacerbates problems with AP and missiles". Alright, Qwerty, tell you what. If you are so sure that my system will create a missile and AP crises - then prove it to me. Show me exactly what these problems are. Stop making broad, generalized statements and start giving me specific examples.

To be perfectly honest, Qwerty, I already know EXACTLY what you're going to say, and I already know why you are wrong. The fact is, I'm too darn tired to go into it all right now - and anyway, I want to see if you can be bothered to take the time to reason through this and solve it on your own. I know you're a smart fellow, and I know you can do it if you apply even a minimal effort.

So go ahead, make your case!

You're being at least as pigheaded as I am and I'm not going to debate with you if you're going to be petty and superior.

Now, just to make the situation clear, I am perfectly aware of what you're saying, and I'm trying to tell why I think another approach is better. Do you think I didn't try the obvious, intuitive approach first? We started out with a system very similar to what you're laying out, and over the course of months of testing we altered it bit by bit into what is it now.

You're being incredibly arrogant and I don't appreciate it, nothing you've done proves anything but the fact that you have a superiority complex. Using the Gaesatae as an example of unarmored troops being more well defended in melee than armored ones is just silly, they're obviously a unique situation. Also, using shield rather than defense skill makes them inaccurately vulnerable on their non-shielded side, as well as from the rear. If you drop your attitude maybe we can have a discussion not a pissing contest, but you seem to have the belief that no one else could possibly understand anything as well as you can.

One of the things I've noticed about "QM" is his/her utter stubborness when questioned why things are the way they are. I just don't understand, its a complete refusal to budge even an inch on anything.

QM, you haven't responded to the major points of Macroi's arguement, always falling back to your trusty line: "This system is tried and true, nothing needs to be changed." I'd really like to see a response answer to why your system of armoring the hastati is better than the one he just laid out for instance. But your response comes out to "our system is great because it is" and character attacks. You told Macroi that she/he has a superiority complex, but I see the opposite, he has taken the time to explain everything, while you haven't. Why is your approach better, beyond the very subjective "because we tested it and it feels right"? It doesn't feel right to me at all.

I agree with Macroi, and thus will be editing my mod to match his shield ideas. Once my mod (for 1.5) is complete, I'll edit EB with a similar system because I have my own issues with the EDU text.

Please edit it to your hearts content, it doesn't bother me at all. I'd even suggest you post your changes for download if you feel they're an improvment, I'll certinly give them a test. Just don't confuse disagreement with stubborness. In every case I've been 'stubborn' I simply disagreed, are you stubborn because you persist in disagreeing with me? As I said, I started with a system very much like the one proposed, and then moved away from it over time tweaking things to get the results I was asked to produce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

One of the things I've noticed about "QM" is his/her utter stubborness when questioned why things are the way they are. I just don't understand, its a complete refusal to budge even an inch on anything.

QM, you haven't responded to the major points of Macroi's arguement, always falling back to your trusty line: "This system is tried and true, nothing needs to be changed." I'd really like to see a response answer to why your system of armoring the hastati is better than the one he just laid out for instance. But your response comes out to "our system is great because it is" and character attacks. You told Macroi that she/he has a superiority complex, but I see the opposite, he has taken the time to explain everything, while you haven't. Why is your approach better, beyond the very subjective "because we tested it and it feels right"? It doesn't feel right to me at all.

I agree with Macroi, and thus will be editing my mod to match his shield ideas. Once my mod (for 1.5) is complete, I'll edit EB with a similar system because I have my own issues with the EDU text.

---

Hoorah for fallen851!!

I'm glad to see someone out there is at least following along. :laugh4:

Kudos to you for taking the time to check it out for yourself. That's all I ever asked for...:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Please edit it to your hearts content, it doesn't bother me at all. I'd even suggest you post your changes for download if you feel they're an improvment, I'll certinly give them a test. Just don't confuse disagreement with stubborness. In every case I've been 'stubborn' I simply disagreed, are you stubborn because you persist in disagreeing with me? As I said, I started with a system very much like the one proposed, and then moved away from it over time tweaking things to get the results I was asked to produce.

---

The stubborness I speak of isn't just because you disagree, I don't care one bit if you agree or disagree, I just want to know why you agree or disagree. And that is exactly what you haven't told us, which is upsetting when you attack others. As I said, why is your approach better, why your system of armoring the hastati is better than Macrois for instance?

Enlighten me, I want to know, and this isn't a challenge, I really want to be educated. If I can't learn from you, you can learn from me (or Macroi), and vice versa, so instead of being secretive please share!

Qwerty is one of the least stubborn and hardest working members of EB I've known for a long time now (more than a year of hard ass work). If you guys want to discuss this with him, go ahead, but there's an awful lot coming at him here that isn't exactly being done so in a polite way here, and now accusations that he's attacking others, when he's not. I'd much rather him be working on getting us to 1.5 and the next build out than going through and totally redoing all the stats for this mod at this point also, and that may be just my opinion, but I'll tell you it's what the mod as a whole would rather he be doing also at this point. You two have an issue that you are very concerned about here obviously, but he's not just here working on one thing, so keep that in mind.

I don't know if he's right or not - I really don't care much about stat issues as long as the other members are happy (and they are, btw) - but the way your arguments against the EB system and Q in particular are being framed is childish. Enough with the exclamations, all caps, head-banging-rolly-eyes-squintylook smilies, "I already know EXACTLY what you are going to say" and "utter stubbornness" rudeness, and finally demands that he produce answers to your satisfaction.

Macroi, it is off course very good to know that you enjoy the EB mod and want to make it better, but I think you should watch your tone.

I actually agree with you that, as a general rule, a shield was more use than armour, but R:TW soldiers do not optimally use it (e.g. turn to face threats) so increasing their shield bonus at the cost of armour would make them more vulnerable from the right or rear. One of the things I like about EB is that they removed this exaggareted vulnerability: real soldiers would not keep looking forward when the soldier behind them was being cut down.

Despite this, I do wonder why certain "directional" forms of armour, like the greave and the pectoralis, are not included in the shield bonus.

My two pence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Qwerty is one of the least stubborn and hardest working members of EB I've known for a long time now (more than a year of hard ass work). If you guys want to discuss this with him, go ahead, but there's an awful lot coming at him here that isn't exactly being done so in a polite way here, and now accusations that he's attacking others, when he's not. I'd much rather him be working on getting us to 1.5 and the next build out than going through and totally redoing all the stats for this mod at this point also, and that may be just my opinion, but I'll tell you it's what the mod as a whole would rather he be doing also at this point. You two have an issue that you are very concerned about here obviously, but he's not just here working on one thing, so keep that in mind.

I don't know if he's right or not - I really don't care much about stat issues as long as the other members are happy (and they are, btw) - but the way your arguments against the EB system and Q in particular are being framed is childish. Enough with the exclamations, all caps, head-banging-rolly-eyes-squintylook smilies, "I already know EXACTLY what you are going to say" and "utter stubbornness" rudeness, and finally demands that he produce answers to your satisfaction.

---

What is the deal? Some of you guys need to get off your high horse right now. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter if it includes "exclamations, all caps, head-banging-rolly-eyes-squintylook smilies". If you believe otherwise, your generalizing and that is a logical fallacy. Can't you see that?

Whether or not QM is hardworking or stubborn in other areas of EB and his life is not the dicussion here, right now he is being stubborn. He was stubborn about the discussion of ranged units damage as well. I don't have a problem with QM as a person, I never have a problem with people, I have problems with some of their choices and actions.

Logically Macroi's system makes more sense, or perhaps I'm missing something (which is why I want QM to answer)? But I don't think QM has an answer to Macrois argument because he is can't defeat it logically, and he won't admit he is wrong. He defends himself with defense mechanisms "we tested it, its fine" and "you're acting like you're superior", saving himself from actually addressing the question. Why don't you see this?

Then you guys defend him using defense mechanisms, "well you know he is really busy right now", and "you guys are really taking a negative tone with him", instead of actually asking him "hey QM, why do we do things this way?".

Macroi isn't doing anything wrong, he asked some questions, made some arguements. They were ignored, so where is this going? No where. Instead of actually answering Macroi, you guys just say "we don't care about what you think" nicely sugar coating by saying "you know we tested things and they are fine" and "QM has a lot of other work man, he can't do anything about it".

Gosh my Congressional Representative couldn't have done it better.

This community, not just EB's community, but the entire RTW community puts on an heir of "kindness" and "compassion" to other members, and tries to make it look like they "respect" each other with moderators warning people "bashing" and such, and it is a joke. It defends people who have a lot of posts and a reputation, and berates those use "smilies". I wouldn't be surprised if this post or thread is now censored to defend those same people.

I was nothing but patient with you in regards to missile damage, and if I remember correctly at least half of the people involed in the debate agreed with me rather than you. Once again, just because I won't accept your viewpoint you're resorting to personal attacks. Please refrain from doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Despite this, I do wonder why certain "directional" forms of armour, like the greave and the pectoralis, are not included in the shield bonus.

---

This is a reasonable idea, although a greave protects from both the right and left as well the front of the leg, and of course a pectoral only protects the front. Still it might be a good change, especially for the pectoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Qwerty is one of the least stubborn and hardest working members of EB I've known for a long time now (more than a year of hard ass work).

---

Well, that's good to hear, and I certainly have no reason to doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

If you guys want to discuss this with him, go ahead...

---

We've been trying to do just that, actually. But it's difficult to discuss something intelligently with someone, when they consistently dismisses everything you say as nonsense, and refuse to go into any more detail than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

...but there's an awful lot coming at him here that isn't exactly being done so in a polite way here, and now accusations that he's attacking others, when he's not.

---

Is it possible that you missed his earlier post? I could have easily posted a nasty reply of my own, but I chose to take the high road and let it go. So who is the one being disrespectful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

I'd much rather him be working on getting us to 1.5 and the next build out than going through and totally redoing all the stats for this mod at this point also, and that may be just my opinion, but I'll tell you it's what the mod as a whole would rather he be doing also at this point. You two have an issue that you are very concerned about here obviously, but he's not just here working on one thing, so keep that in mind.

---

I have no doubt that Qwerty is a very busy man, and has much more important things to be doing. Don't we all? But if he's going to take the time out of his day to come on here and dismiss my opinions out of hand, then he should be prepaired to be "called out" in order to back up his views. Is that unreasonable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Enough with the exclamations, all caps, head-banging-rolly-eyes-squintylook smilies, "I already know EXACTLY what you are going to say" and "utter stubbornness" rudeness, and finally demands that he produce answers to your satisfaction.

---

Exclamation points and all caps are merely used for points of emphasis. Smilies are just plain fun. Personally, I like them. They add a light-hearted flavor to conversations which all-too-often get overly serious (case in point).

You'll notice that I used exclamation points and smilies in my reply to Fallen, but no one would suggest that I was being disrespectful to him. Punctuation and smilies are not the issue. Respect is the issue. If Qwerty wants people to respect him, then he should take care to respect other people.

As far as "who said what"; well that's the wonderful thing about message boards - the written record is there in black and white for all to see.

I think I started out very pleasant and complimentary, but in Qwerty's very first post he insinuated that I was "working myself into a tizzy" over the numbers. That probably set us off on the wrong foot to begin with. I suppose it degenerated from there.

Anyway, I'm glad that you've taken the time to come here and vouch for Qwerty's character. I'm willing to take your word for it and move on.

(Edited for spelling. I'm sure there's still a few mistakes...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Macroi, it is off course very good to know that you enjoy the EB mod and want to make it better, but I think you should watch your tone.

I actually agree with you that, as a general rule, a shield was more use than armour, but R:TW soldiers do not optimally use it (e.g. turn to face threats) so increasing their shield bonus at the cost of armour would make them more vulnerable from the right or rear. One of the things I like about EB is that they removed this exaggareted vulnerability: real soldiers would not keep looking forward when the soldier behind them was being cut down.

Despite this, I do wonder why certain "directional" forms of armour, like the greave and the pectoralis, are not included in the shield bonus.

My two pence.

---

Well, hello to a fellow Brit!*

As far as the soldiers "turning to meet the threat", I'm surprised to hear you don't think R:TW handles it well, since I actually thought that was one of the few things the engine handled properly! I'll take a closer look at it later tonight.

I'm sure the troops are less flexible about turning to face attacks when they are in rigid formations (such as phalanx) - perhaps that might play into the issue?

*Your spelling of "armour" and the "two pence" comment gave you away. :laugh4:

Rather than this going off into the realms of angry smilies and relentless sarcasm, how about if those dissatisfied with the number system worked on an alternative system, and then posted it in the EB mods subforum, so that people could try it and see if it worked better than the current system?

Now, the idea of some tweaks (eg counting a pectoral as part of the shield) is quite interesting, largely because it could (maybe) increase realism and could be implemented into (rather than replacing entirely) the current system, to which Qwerty has devoted--it would seem--hundreds or even thousands of hours, and which I find works rather well.

Macroi and Fallen, if you do decide to work up your own system, I'd be interested in testing it at some point. Good luck on that if you do go in that direction, though it sounds like quite a bit of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

Macroi and Fallen, if you do decide to work up your own system, I'd be interested in testing it at some point. Good luck on that if you do go in that direction, though it sounds like quite a bit of work.

---

No doubt about that, it would be a helluva lot of work. That's why I was rather hoping one of you would try it out! :laugh4:

I'll give it a go when my schedule frees up a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

I agree with Macroi, and thus will be editing my mod to match his shield ideas. Once my mod (for 1.5) is complete, I'll edit EB with a similar system because I have my own issues with the EDU text.

---

By the way, Fallen - if you do implement this, there are some things that will need to be altered with regards to missile units.

Maybe I'll start a whole new thread on that subject so we can all have a nice fresh start, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

I was nothing but patient with you in regards to missile damage, and if I remember correctly at least half of the people involed in the debate agreed with me rather than you. Once again, just because I won't accept your viewpoint you're resorting to personal attacks. Please refrain from doing that.

---

You obviously didn't care for my posts, and by referring to them as you just did, that is a personal attack on me, disregarding my comments with the same "What is in my interests in good for EB" rhetoric. I made no personal attacks on you, just questioned your actions of not directly responding to points Macroi raised. You still have not done that or offered any explanation.

Just because "half of the people agree" or whatever, doesn't mean you or I are right or wrong. We all should be reasonable* people and come together and reach a compromise. Macroi reached out, and you responded (not attacking you personally, but your actions) by shutting down any kind of compromise with defense mechanisms (ie "you know we tested it, it's fine"). Then your EB friends come and give us more defense mechanisms ("QM is really busy you know"). In that thread, as well as this one, instead of trying to reach a compromise (since we all want the same thing...), you followed the George W. Bush scheme, whip up as much support you can without giving an inch, and then say "what I did was justified" based on this support. That is not a model for compromise or support, your comments in both threads have had polarizing effects.

The problem is not how many people support who, the problem is whether or not people are willing to be reasonable* and compromise and accept others ideas. If we choose to define it in those terms, we see that you have not supported why you do what you have in the EDU by fact, making you unreasonable. Now perhaps you can support what you do with fact (ie to make this clear a fact is "I did this because of this", while an opinion is "This is fine because of this", in other words report what you did objectively, then defend it subjectively, don't just tell us the subjective part), but you won't tell us.

*Reasonable as defined by something being supported or justified by fact.

Macroi, I'll be posting up my system for balancing in the modding forum in a bit. I don't know why anyone thinks editing the EDU text is a monumental task, I edited the one for my mod and balanced it in the matter of days... despite radical changes, it is far more balanced than what I've seen of EB (particularly elephants and generals). I think this can be attributed to the fact I just don't stop working until it is done, and the fact I playtest over and over again.

This mod is for fun. It's a volunteer thing. We do it for fun and our individual level of interest. That and a lot of hard work make Q a great guy to work in EB. He's a joy to work with and he is reasonable with people who show him respect (which is everyone in EB) and he gets a lot done.

Anyone is free to make further changes to EB as they like and make that available to the public also, but taking a hostile attitude at this point (and it is hostile) is not going to help anything. I don't see why any EB member would feel the need to have to come back and answer the imperatives and demands that are being made here. Actually, if people inside EB were this combative and hostile, no one would pay any attention to them.

Fallen, your defination of "resonable" is obviously contingent upon my agreeing with you. You've made that abundently clear time and time agian. That is what I was saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

Rather than this going off into the realms of angry smilies and relentless sarcasm, how about if those dissatisfied with the number system worked on an alternative system, and then posted it in the EB mods subforum, so that people could try it and see if it worked better than the current system?

---

I suggested this as well. It's fine with me, I'll eve have the mods post it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

Now, the idea of some tweaks (eg counting a pectoral as part of the shield) is quite interesting, largely because it could (maybe) increase realism and could be implemented into (rather than replacing entirely) the current system, to which Qwerty has devoted--it would seem--hundreds or even thousands of hours, and which I find works rather well..

---

I actually think this is a good idea, and will do some testing and talking with the rest of team and see if, and how far, we want to go down this route.

@Macroi: I didn't dismiss your views out of hand, as I have said I agree that your system is intuitive and logical, it looks very much like the system I started with. When I have enough free time to re-run tests and provide you with results I'm happy to do so, but re-running test is probably my absolute last priority (I am a full time University student with hours of academic and extracurricular actives every day, not to mention my commitment to EB which as any active member will tell you eats up an absurd amount of time). I feel like you've dismissed me out of hand far more often that I have with you, I assure that the defense values don't do work entirely as one would assume if they worked in exactly a one to one relationship. I assume the way in which RTW rolls attack v. defense causes this, but they have not give us this formula. Testing makes it's pretty clear that it's a simple roll of Attack Factor v. Total Defense. When I have time to run a large batch of test shifting the position of various defense factors I will post the results, but don’t hold your breath.

:dancinglock: ? This is getting out of hand, and people are getting too angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Fallen, your defination of "resonable" is obviously contingent upon my agreeing with you. You've made that abundently clear time and time agian.

---

QM please correct me if I am wrong.

Ok definition: Reasonable as defined by something being supported or justified by fact. (From the dictionary).

How have you justified or support your EDU text choices to make them reasonable? How you told us facts about them supporting you choices (ie "I did this because of this" or "I did this because when I tested it this way it came out like this")? No.

These are objective statements, meaning you aren't inserting your opinion, you are simply reporting what you did in testing that made you decide.

You have told us opinions ("I think it is fine" or "The testing was good")

"Fine" and "good" are subjective statements, reasonable assessment would not include these.

My definition clearly comes from my dictionary and not whether or not you agree with me. It does not matter (as stated above) whether or not you agree with me, I just want to know why you did things a certain way (also stated above).

Finally, you notice importantly that I admited I was wrong in a previous arguement about overhand-spears, fully putting to the rest the claim I only think people that are reasonable are ones that agree with me. You were reasonable then, you presented me with evidence.

Now present me with evidence that you are being reasonable now? You simply haven't answered many of Macroi's major points. That is a fact, no subjectivity, it is just like saying "John Kerry lost the last presidential election".

Why haven't you answered his points? I can't answer that, only you can. But I assume (this is subjective) that you don't care, despite the fact Macroi was reasonable.

I have in fact answered him, I said "yes this is logical but my testing has led me to move away from a similar system to the one I am using now." Why is this better you ask, I answer, because it provides the results the EB team asked me to provide. I have told you some of the reasons for it; I find defense points from shields to be problematic (because of AP issues) and somewhat erratic (because of the way RTW handles directional armor, soldiers are unable to a) be defended by their neighbor’s shield or to move their shield to defend their exposed side), hence my desire to use other methods. Further, I have said that the stats don't act entirely in the manner that one would predict from reading the information in the EDU, perhaps because of the manner in which the RTW engine applies (for an example of information left out of the EDU description at the top of the .txt, lethality is never mentioned nor is the formula via which RTW applies the stats). I have not had time to re-run dozens of tests to demonstrate this, and I won't anytime soon, feel free to run your own if you'd like. I'm not going to challenge the objective logic of Macroi's argument, because I don't think there is a problem with the logic, the problem is results, which are subjective, and which I have repeatedly tweaked our stats system to provide, as stated before our goal is not to produce a system that has logically flawless numbers, it is to produce a system that gives the subjective results we want. The numbers are a means to an end, that's all. As I have said many times, find me examples where the end result is a problem and I'll do my best to address them, and would be more than happy to try (and adopt if successful) your suggestions in addressing them, but I don't want to waste time throwing out a system gives our team the results it wants (generally, I'm sure there are issues, for example the early triarii need to be nerfed) in favor of going back to a system with more logical numbers and less accurate results.


As a side note about your claims about my "stubborness" as opposed to my claim as to you're inablity to respect my disagreement with you:

"Your" overhand spear argument wasn't yours; you didn’t say it was right, you asked what we thought about the person's argument. I told you I thought it was unlikely given the material and immaterial evidence we have. Other people got involved on issues of the way a spear would be used in the shield wall like formation of the classical phalanx, something that I did not feel was necessary as we don't really know how exactly the classical phalanx worked (it's rather hotly debated) and applies to what an ancient solider logically would or would not do often come up against evidence from our source (both material and immaterial) and I prefer to apply logic within the context of the sources, rather than as an isolated thought experiment. The other times I argued against something you actually declared support for (missile weapons and calavry effectiveness), my disagreement with you on that rendered me, in your eyes, stubborn as well. In the case of calavry my unwillingess to break with the vast majority of military historians and ancient evidence and support your claim that a calavry charge would be effective against the front of a pike formation was stubborn. If that is stubborn in your eyes than I suppose I am, but I do believe I acted in a completely reasonable way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

"Your" overhand spear argument wasn't yours.

---

Ugh. I never said the overhand arguement was mine. I never even used "mine". Read it this time.

"Finally, you notice importantly that I admited I was wrong in a previous arguement about overhand-spears, fully putting to the rest the claim I only think people that are reasonable are ones that agree with me. You were reasonable then, you presented me with evidence."

Furthermore if you return to the initial thread, you'll see I support it intially as an "excellent arguement". Sigh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

As a side note about your claims about my "stubborness" as opposed to my claim as to you're inablity to respect my disagreement with you...

---

I disagree with you because you say this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

yes this is logical but my testing has led me to move away from a similar system to the one I am using now

---

So your testing led you away from a logical point of view to what? An illogical system? Why? What in your testing led you to do this? Was something particularly unbalanced?

Don't even answer those, I don't even care anymore. Obviously I didn't make it clear what a reasonable arguement was, and what subjectivity is. It should be quite clear that good and bad depend on each other, and right now we have one EDU file, yours, so it is both the best and worst EDU file for EB. People may see problems as part of the game when they shouldn't exist, and not say anything about them. Thus I will be creating my own EDU file. The thread with my formulas is located here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61877 You are welcome to comment, but I will not be moving away from a logical system.

There should be logical forumlas which you can defend precisely saying "I did this because of this", and there is in my EDU file. Formulas that aren't logical shouldn't be used, because the game is consistent. I'll be testing missiles tomorrow or Thursday, and the results of what happens vs shields and normal armor.

Your system is uniquely yours, and in your own words, it has "moved away" from logical testing, which will certainly be beyond my understanding. No one will ever win an arguement with irrationality.

Don't blame me for things you say.

It has moved away from numbers that are logical in vacuum to numbers that produced the requested results. That is why, I've made that abundently clear. I lowered the level of shield values because high shield values were providing problematic results...there is nothing illogical about my actions, the system I use just feels less intuitive. I've said this all about 10 times now, you just refuse to accept it.

Thanks to all for the support

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

It has moved away from numbers that are logical in vacuum to numbers that produced the requested results. That is why, I've made that abundently clear. I lowered the level of shield values because high shield values were providing problematic results...there is nothing illogical about my actions, the system I use just feels less intuitive. I've said this all about 10 times now, you just refuse to accept it.

---

Yup, been very happy with Qwerty's stats. It ain't easy balancing all these new units so they all succeed / fail according to their relative strengths to other units. I think he's done a bloody brilliant job imho.

my2bob

I ran a poll, and 95% of respondents replied that a thread titled "Congrats and Comments" would be.....congratulatory. But somehow those statistics don't seem to back up the results playing out here in the thread. How odd.

Since the originator is a fanatic for accuracy, perhaps he could either retitle this one, or start a new one. To be accurate, please title it "Accusations and Insults".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kull

I ran a poll, and 95% of respondents replied that a thread titled "Congrats and Comments" would be.....congratulatory. But somehow those statistics don't seem to back up the results playing out here in the thread. How odd.

Since the originator is a fanatic for accuracy, perhaps he could either retitle this one, or start a new one. To be accurate, please title it "Accusations and Insults".

---

You know, I was thinking this myself!

I think that the first post was well thought out (clearly) and had some useful points. But I think that the responses have fairly reasonably explained that the model proposed by the thread-starter had been explored, and discarded in favour of another approach. This seems fair enough to me.

However, it seems that some people have taken over this thread in an effort to ressurrect old arguments (about spear use or something, or so I gather?).

Perhaps this thread, having diverged from the original post to such a great degree, should be closed and not simply renamed?

fallen851 i was about to write long post but fortunately i dont have to anymore.

Quote:

---

Thus I will be creating my own EDU file.

---

I say You Go Boy.
I wish you best luck, and i can assure you that if your stat system will be better that the one we have we will use it (with your permission offcource).
Loading stats into EB and "feeling" how they work its the only test.
Plain numbers cant substitute this unless you know formula that RTW uses.
You cant just say lower armour value, rise shield value and it will be better.
We just dont know it because we dont know RTW formula.

"Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes" Dunno what this means, but i like to interpret it as "If it ain't broke don't fix it". I love EB, we don't pay for it, so if the maestro's behind don't wanna change it, then why press it? Also what factions can recruit gesticae? (off topic i know, but the topic was getting old)

My two pence also (go British currency)

Wow.

"What Paul says about Peter tells us more about Paul than about Peter."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Wow.

"What Paul says about Peter tells us more about Paul than about Peter."

---

Ditto. The irony if someone creating a long winded detailed thread complaining about numbers systems and armor values to characters on a computer video game calling other people "dorks" or "geeks" is not lost. Especially considering this same person spent a good ammount of time creating his own system for playing his computer game.

Of course then launching off into some long winded diatribe attacking people here with some pretty out of left field insults makes it pretty obvious who the real person he was describing was. Looks to me like he's lived a pretty rough life from what he described. Might be a good idea to seek therapy about it because if it manifests itself here and you lash out like this over a video game, you need to get yourself under control because I doubt it is limited to your encounters over the internet.

I guess to sum it up. To quote a great troll from the Bears forums:

". . . Ah, Macroi, the irony . . ."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroi

*snip! - heaps of rubbish*
I'm not joking here guys. It's not just me. Nobody, NOBODY (and especially no woman) can respect a 22-year-old male virgin.

The sad truth is, you can't even respect yourselves.

---

Wow, I think this deserves this week's "least graceful exit from a flamewar" prize.

We have one of them, right?

Being a keen historian and wargamer (and modder, why not) doesn't preclude a person from having relationships or doing other, possibly physically active, things - that it might in some way is a very strange idea! Nearly as strange as the concept that age inexplicably leads to wisdom, or that men typically develop sexual characteristics in their twenties.

Is this thread done yet?

Macroi, you are welcome to post and discuss things here as long as you do so with maturity.

However, you have shown that you lack that maturity, and your posts have become trollish. Until you grow up, or mature to whatever age you are, you are no longer welcome to post here, and your posts will be deleted, as is my policy with trolls.

My suggestion to you is to actually experience for yourself some of those things that you say others lack; then you will realize that maturity does not come from the experiences, but from how one deals with one's experiences. When you have done that, you will understand for yourself why the words you have written are simply hollow, and transparent as merely an attempt to troll/flame away. I assume, of course, that you actually care to learn something.

Edit: I have removed the trollish post and those that quote it at length. All further posts similar to it in nature will be deleted. Please try to be civil here.