Quote Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69 View Post
It is important, when applying stats, to adhere to certain standards or rules when applying them, so that even when a discrepancy may arise, one can state that it was based on a set, logical system and is therefore fair and balanced to its players.
If I understand you correctly, it seems you are implying that having a consistent, if rigid, system for assigning stats is overall more important than making units function more accurately through the use of more "interpretive" stat assignment. (Perhaps "creative" would be a better word.) I can see the value in that. But I disagree in personal preference here. If EB2 aims for historical accuracy, but the limitations of the game mechanics make it impossible to represent something likes greaves in an accurate way without resorting to distorted stats, I'm in favor of distorting them. I understand what the stats mean, even if they don't correspond to a literal assesment of the units equipment and abilities.

The shield value protects a unit from both melee and ranged attacks, but it is most effective from the front, less effective from the side, and not at all from the rear. If greaves only cover the front side of a soldier's shins, then for all practical in-game purposes, they're shields. I'm perfectly fine with that. The fact that a soldier wears front-facing greaves does not mean he will be any more likely to survive a blow or arrow aimed at his back. So, from my perspective, saying that greaves should add to a unit's armor rating regardless of their limited protection capacity is asking for a less realistic mod. I thought you were arguing for more realistic mod.

Having said all this, I should mention that I really appreciate your original point about consistency and comparative stats and I have no desire to insult your opinions. I feel silly for debating the appropriate application of greaves. But these are things that must be considered when trying to achieve "historical accuracy" in a game.