Research: Fixes for bugs in the unit file

[player1]

No. You have cause and effect backwards. Part of the description is pulled from the stat change. If you mod them you will see the bonus description in their stats (I have only modded their mount effects, and now the info is in the description, which I did not touch.) If you delete the mount effects from other units, the description disappears. Part of the description is generated from the stats file. Morale and stamina descriptions should work the same way.

The weapon type is the key. Javelin skirmishers were effective against both types of units. My guess is that some of the merc units were added early (or late) with standard stats and not rechecked with final stats for uniformity.

That is a good point, maybe it's bug after all.

[Kraxis]

To an extent I'm not so willing to make the Illyrians good against the eles and the chariots. I guess it is because the Illyrians are the best skirmishers out there and they are in fact a sort of factional unit for a faction that does not exist.
So there is a small penalty for hiring the best skirmishers. I kind of like that. But of course looking at it rationally they should have the bonusses.

I'm positive the Desert Cav are wrongly too big. The same goes for the pontic pikes. And yes AP is worth the weaker attack and charge (they have better defense). More than a lot of units have more than 4 in armour (which is the threshold for making the AP worthwhile compared to the Nubians) and those that have not are often brittle enough to break at the same time. So I think AP is very much stronger than it was in MTW (maybe because there is no lower limit like there was in MTW and armour can go much farther up this time).
There is no doubt in my mind that I would rather have a unit of Desert Cav than a unit of Nubian Cav when facing a unit of Legionaries, or even a unit of plain normal hoplites. And this is with the smaller size. But of course their cost is wrong for a smaller size, but I have already argued why that might be so.

All in all we can only speculate on how things are supposed to be. Who knows... the devs might have been drunk and thus have made the units as they are intendedly with every little oddity there is.

[drone]

If descr_regions.txt contains the actual resources available to a region, should the export_descr_buildings.txt be modified to limit wardogs and flaming pigs to regions with dogs and pigs? Assuming you haven't already modded them out, of course...

So for stables, cavalry_barracks, hippodrome, and circus_maximus:

recruit "barb wardogs briton"  0  requires factions {  britons, } and resource dogs
recruit "barb wardogs dacian"  0  requires factions { dacia, } and resource dogs
recruit "barb wardogs gaul"  0  requires factions { gauls, } and resource dogs
recruit "barb wardogs german"  0  requires factions { germans, } and resource dogs
recruit "barb wardogs scythian"  0  requires factions { scythia, } and resource dogs
recruit "roman wardogs"  0  requires factions { roman, } and resource dogs

and for hippodrome, and circus_maximus:

recruit "greek incendiary pigs"  0  requires factions { greek_cities, } and resource pigs
recruit "roman pigs"  0  requires factions { roman, } and resource pigs

Would this require

hidden resource dogs
hidden resource pigs

at the top with the sparta line?

I think this is probably in line with what the developers wanted.

If you don't like the v1.2 doggie brigade, you could leave dogs to be buildable, but change the descr_regions file to limit where they could be recruited. Any regions historically known for their wardogs?

[Simetrical]

One thing I want to add about the disputed unit sizes and cost: I am of the opinion that cost and upkeep were determined via some sort of formula based on stats.

I really doubt it. Notice how they changed some of the costs with both the 1.1 and 1.2 patches? I don't think they'd have done that if they had a hard-and-fast costing system. Probably the costs were just eyeballed—there's no reason to think otherwise.

Would this require

hidden resource dogs hidden resource pigs

at the top with the sparta line?

No, because the resources aren't hidden.

Any regions historically known for their wardogs?

War dogs, in the RTW sense, didn't exist. A few were probably brought along with a lot of armies for hunting, guard duty, whatever, but there are no records that anyone's been able to come up with about the use of dogs en masse in battle for any purpose whatsoever. So no, no regions were historically known for their war dogs.

-Simetrical

[Epistolary Richard]

Woof woof snort snort

If descr_regions.txt contains the actual resources available to a region, should the export_descr_buildings.txt be modified to limit wardogs and flaming pigs to regions with dogs and pigs? Assuming you haven't already modded them out, of course...

Yes, I completely forgot about the pigs (having never used them or had them used against me), but yes throw the bacon on the grill as well!

So dogs and pigs should be limited to provinces with the dogs and pigs resources, in the same way as camels and elephants. Now, dogs and pigs are pretty much everywhere anyway, so the impact would be minimal, but this will at least prevent the barbarian nations recruiting wardogs in the middle of deserts.
Where's a pig smiley when you really want one?

AFAIK the dogs & pigs resources serve no purpose at the moment, so I think it must have been the designers' intention to limit recruitment to those provinces.

But as Simetrical says, as they're resources anyway, like camels and elephants, they don't need to be added to the top of export_descr_buildings as far as I'm aware.

Illyrian mercenaries
I think we're settled that their missing mount effects are a bug?

Rogue barb_archer_slave officer
I agree this is a bug and the line should be deleted.

Thracian bodyguards
Kraxis raised this at the beginning:

Thracian normal and upgraded bodyguards are the same. Well they use the same stats... Maybe not a bug, but a very odd feature as all other factions gets upgraded.

... but it's not been commented on. Is this a bug? If it is, what's the fix?


A couple more 'hard' errors to consider:

Skinny Seleucid Legionaries
Seleucid Legionaries only have mass 1 whereas all other legionaries (including Armenian and Numidian) have mass 1.3.

Macedon Royal Pikemen
Only have the spear attribute and not the long_pike attribute as well. Both lower levels of Macedon pikemen (levy and phalanx) have both spear and long_pike attributes.

Invisible mounts
Many infantry units have the following line:

stat_sec_armour  0, 1, flesh

even though the narrative at the top of the export_descr_unit says that these are only for mounts (and indeed that ridden horses are not supposed to have a separate defence).

These units include:
All legionaries (including non-Roman)
Hastati
Principes
Spartans
Chosen Archers
Foresters
Scutarii
Bull Warriors
Merc Cilician Pirates
Merc Spanish Infantry

Back to more judgemental areas:
Pontic Phalanx Pikemen

If it is because of the smaller population for a greek heritage I think we are taking a very wrong road. First of all there lived lots and lots of greek people in the old colonies, often themselves quite large cities. Plenty of population for a phalanx of pikes.

Though we've kind of settled that this is an ill-designed unit that's nevertheless been costed correctly, it's even stranger that the lower level pike unit should be kept at 40, while the elite pike unit, the Bronze Shields - which would presumably be even more specialised manpower - should be 60.

I agree with Red that a costing formula was applied to incorrect stats - leaving us with a 'fair' cost for the unit, despite it not fitting in with the rest. Again, I would suggest we look to include a larger, more expensive, pike unit in a potential 2nd community patch (to mod all those 'left hand doesn't know what right hand is doing issues').

I really doubt it. Notice how they changed some of the costs with both the 1.1 and 1.2 patches? I don't think they'd have done that if they had a hard-and-fast costing system. Probably the costs were just eyeballed—there's no reason to think otherwise.

It wouldn't have been had-and-fast but the simplest way for them to derive the original costing for their units would have been a formula based on attributes. We can already tell from the identical costs for the same unit between different factions that they didn't do any faction balancing (ie, how much that unit is worth to that particular faction).

There will have been some stat changes after the costing formula and some rounding differences and so forth, but my preliminary work on infantry costing is actually looking vaguely promising but that's a conversation for a different thread.

[hrvojej]

Macedon Royal Pikemen
Only have the spear attribute and not the long_pike attribute as well. Both lower levels of Macedon pikemen (levy and phalanx) have both spear and long_pike attributes.

Actually, when you look at them, they are not really pikemen at all. They look like and are more like hoplites - they have shorter spears, larger shields, and a unique soldier model. In short, they are hypaspists, not just run-of-the mill sarissaphoroi, but unfortunatelly had been named "pikemen" which is a bit confusing.

edit:
Speaking of which, do we think we should do something about the mount effect of eastern heavy spearmen (in the text file "east heavy infantry")? They are the only phalanx-capable unit in vanilla that have those. Again, I can see some logic behind it, but it is also fairly obvious that it doesn't fit with the general theme.

[player1]

Well, I'm only for those fixes that are clear that they are errors.

Anythibng that is shady should not be changed (exempt in the mod). Like many of these oditties from last post.



P.S.
About Thracian bodyguard:
Well, maybe CA though that they only need reskinning after Marius.

[player1]

About Rolyal Pikemen:

In their historical description it explicitly says that they carried "shorter hoplite spears". No bug.

[player1]

About invisible mounts:
If they serve no purpose why modify them?
If they do serve some purpose, then since so many units have them, CA intentionaly put it there and thus is hardly a bug.



Skinny Seleucid Legionaries:

Is this even noticable in the game?
If not, why just bother with them at all?

[player1]

Let's see. Post marius legions have 1.3 mass.
Pre-marius hastati and triarii have mass 1, while principes 1.3, although triaii looks heavier.

The points is, that if we start looking all unit masses resonable, there will be lots of disparencies.

Similar to units with no shields have shield bonus problem.

I would leave that to mods, and keep fixes to obvious, easy fixable errors.

[Epistolary Richard]

Actually, when you look at them, they are not really pikemen at all. They look like and are more like hoplites - they have shorter spears, larger shields, and a unique soldier model. In short, they are hypaspists, not just run-of-the mill sarissaphoroi, but unfortunatelly had been named "pikemen" which is a bit confusing.

Yes, that was my wrong presumption. I found the following in the unit description:

The tough royal pikemen carry the shorter hoplite thrusting spear

Invisible mounts

About invisible mounts:
If they serve no purpose why modify them?
If they do serve some purpose, then since so many units have them, CA intentionaly put it there and thus is hardly a bug.

I don't know if they're impacting the game or not, which is why I've raised it as a discrepancy. As for the "there are so many units that have them therefore it must be intentional" argument, you can make the same argument concerning the dogs & pigs and the horse archers.
No dog or pig unit requires the dog or pig resource, so therefore it was never CA's intention to make them require it. However, in that case, what is the purpose of the dogs and pigs resources?
Horse archers, none of them are able to fire on the move anymore, therefore it must have been CA's intention to limit their abilities from v1.1. Several posters have cogently argued that this in fact was the case. Nevertheless, when v1.2 came out it was considered a bug.

Seleucid Legionaries

Let's see. Post marius legions have 1.3 mass.
Pre-marius hastati and triarii have mass 1, while principes 1.3, although triaii looks heavier. The points is, that if we start looking all unit masses resonable, there will be lots of disparencies. Similar to units with no shields have shield bonus problem.

It's not a matter of trying to make the mass reasonable with how the unit 'looks', it's a matter of bringing it into line with near identical units, just as we're doing with the Illyrians and the Sarmatians. If you can convince me that CA intended Seleucid legionaries to be mass 1 when Armenian, Numidian and Roman legionaries are mass 1.3 then I'd be happy to agree with you.

[Kraxis]

Mass is very important as it determines very well who can push who back.
If a unit of Seleucids face off with a Legionary Cohort they will end up losing badly eventhough they have equal stats.
Mass is also important in charges as it determines how long a charge carries on. Of course this is most visible with the cavalry. Why do you think weak cavalry like Militia Cavalry can charge down most light infantry... MASS!
The barb swordsmen have a 1.5 figure of mass which I find totally in common with the tough charger and the strong warriors they are.

[Kraxis]

Don't forget the merc Bastarnae, they are even 'lighter' than the Thracian Mercs (1 compared to 1.2). That can't be right. They should be 1.5 or at least 1.2. This might explain why I have feared sending them against cavalry, as they keep getting beaten up. And they are horrible in pushing through a contested gate.

[Jambo]

Good stuff guys!

Word on the Greek Royal Pikemen - they aren't supposed to be long_pike (official word from the powers that be). :)

[player1]

Invisible mounts

I don't know if they're impacting the game or not, which is why I've raised it as a discrepancy. As for the "there are so many units that have them therefore it must be intentional" argument, you can make the same argument concerning the dogs & pigs and the horse archers.
No dog or pig unit requires the dog or pig resource, so therefore it was never CA's intention to make them require it. However, in that case, what is the purpose of the dogs and pigs resources?

Purpose of the dogs and pigs resources?
Probably a leftover of badly descigned idea.

Seleucid Legionaries

It's not a matter of trying to make the mass reasonable with how the unit 'looks', it's a matter of bringing it into line with near identical units, just as we're doing with the Illyrians and the Sarmatians. If you can convince me that CA intended Seleucid legionaries to be mass 1 when Armenian, Numidian and Roman legionaries are mass 1.3 then I'd be happy to agree with you.

Well, my main probelm with is is if we change this for SelLegions, then when will we stop. We'll start questioning Trarii, then Bastarnae, then some other unit until we're all gone in the happey land of modland.

In this particular case, it's pretty likely that it could be just a typo, but my main case is drawing a line, when other units start to get questioned for the same thing.

[player1]

Delving into meddling with stats that drift into the modding category: cilician pirates and "horde." The horde formation really makes their pila unusable with default stats. It makes their effective range about 10 meters using default projectile ranges and only "large" unit size. Range is set by using the rear of the missile formation to the middle of the enemy unit from what I can tell. With horde and untrained they are spread all over the place. They have no defense to speak of, so they really do need some opportunity to use their pila. They should be switched to "square" and left with their untrained stat. Yes, this would fall into the tinkering category, but I doubt CA intended to make their pila unusable.

Well they are suppsed to be a bunch of disorganized pirates...

[player1]

It's pretty possible that Bull Warriors have low mass to balance out their double hit points, and full 80 man stack.
Just consider what would happen if they had both good mass and 2hps. Nasty!

As far as Triarii, it's pretty possibile that it got 1.0 rating since 1.0 got most spear/hoplite/pike-like units.


Anyway, when I think about it, in case Selucid Legions, it's pretty possibile that it's indeed typo and should be 1.3
Also, the same thing for Bastarnae Mercenaries (to 1.2).

So count me in, in labeling those 2, and only those 2 unit masses as bug.
What convinved me, was that all other similar units had standardized mass size.

[player1]

player1,

If you believe that there is a clearly marked boundary for where something is a fix and where it is a mod, you are mistaken. CA obviously had a system and methodology to much of this, but in some cases they failed to follow it, or made typos, or some things were overlooked or changed at a later date.

Well, I think some things are obvious, while some othert things are less obvious. Change obvius errors in the fix, change less obvious ones, or those that can be changed in mutiple ways, in personal mod.

Your argument on Bull Warriors runs into trouble because several other 2 hit point melee units have masses of 1.2 and 1.3. The others that have 1's are velite gladiators and arcani--both specialty units outside the realm of heavy infantry. Personally, I don't see how a 2 hit point elite melee heavy infantry unit wouldn't be able to have fairly high push capabilities. In fact, it seems backward to me that they can't. Again, this is the same sort of problem as the phalanx mass. But as I said, I'm not saying all of these should be changed in this attempt to fix more obvious errors. I was just illustrating inconsistencies. Should they be changed as a standard practice in other mods to make them more realistic? Yes, I am certain of that.

Of course, no other 2hp units have 80 people in the stacks, usually 40 or even less.
Both 2hp and high stack count means that they could survive enemy push with few loses, while some other 1hp unit would die easily.

[Kraxis]

player1, you forget that the Bull Warriors cost almost as much as the Spartan Hoplites, but are clearly weaker (no phalanx). The Spartans have 1.3 in mass, 2 hitpoints and a full unit of men. Why haven't the Bull Warriors got the mass? The argument falls to the floor.

There is a consistency of heavy infantry having 1.3 in mass for civilized factions and 1.5 for barbs (the Spanish are a bit off as their Scutarii, light infantry, have 1).

And the Cilicians need the square formation as their are close to useless in horde. They are indeed ill disciplined pirates, but most horse archers were ill disciplined and many ofthe cavalry units would be too. But do we say that those should be put in horde? No.
The Cilicians were meant to be able to use their pila as that is about the only saving grace about them. In horde that becomes impossible. Thus they are very overpriced and very much not like they were intended to be.

[player1]

player1, you forget that the Bull Warriors cost almost as much as the Spartan Hoplites, but are clearly weaker (no phalanx). The Spartans have 1.3 in mass, 2 hitpoints and a full unit of men. Why haven't the Bull Warriors got the mass? The argument falls to the floor.

Don't forget that Spartans can only be built on very few places. And Bull Warriors have their javelins too, and are fast moving.

There is a consistency of heavy infantry having 1.3 in mass for civilized factions and 1.5 for barbs (the Spanish are a bit off as their Scutarii, light infantry, have 1).

Well, Scutari have lighter armor then Hastat (1.3) for example. And don't look much different then Iberian Infantry (also mass 1).

Also, it's not all just matter of consistency.
It is a question is something a bug, or maybe deliberate.
Otherwise we'll end up changing all shield and armor values for many units, stack sizes and what else. then we'll get maybe more consitent rules, but it won't be anymore original rules, it would be a MOD.

For Bastarnae Mercenaries, or Selucid Legions it was easy to prove that they are bugs since they are modeled on units which have almost same stats.

Bull Warriors, on the other hand are unique.
They have 2hp, so can survive enemy charges, they have javelins so they can soften up enemies before closing, they are fast and they have full unit stack. I haven't seen other barbarian units with similar set of abilities.

Or maybe CA though that Bull Warriors are just power up of Scutari, so they should have same mass? That's some consistency too. They don't look more "massive" then Scitari.

Intersting to note that exempt "generic" Naked Fanatics, all Spanish Infantry has low mass (1 or less). Also, exempt fanatics, all Spanish Infantry is organized civilized infantry. Could be deliberate.

And the Cilicians need the square formation as their are close to useless in horde. They are indeed ill disciplined pirates, but most horse archers were ill disciplined and many ofthe cavalry units would be too. But do we say that those should be put in horde? No.
The Cilicians were meant to be able to use their pila as that is about the only saving grace about them. In horde that becomes impossible. Thus they are very overpriced and very much not like they were intended to be.

Very subjective matter. Difference between bug and unusual stats (or ill design).

For example, I like them having represented by horde and don't consider that a bug, even if it makes when not fully effective with their pilla.

Changing from horde to square is power up of the unit.
And powering up, is something you do when you try to do balance changes, like when make a mod, not when you just want to fix obvious bugs that don't threaten current balance state of the game.

And it's not like they don't fire their pila. They fire them nicely, and it looks to me that their range is no less then legionary pilla. And horde formation is used to make them vulnerable on defense, chaning it would change "how unit works".


P.S.
Note that I don't have anything against MODs.
I just think that there are many players that want some bugs fixed, but don't want "messing with ruleset" or changing balance state of original game.

We could make community mod later for that...

[Epistolary Richard]

Well, I think we’re making good progress here. Great to see so many issues arising so that this patch will have a real purpose (and the other hand, it’s a bit scary to see so many as well).

So now we’re on our third page let’s just summarise where we’ve got to:
Consensus
1) Seleucids should only be able to build armoured elephants in provinces with the elephant resource.
2) Praetorian cohorts should be limited to post-Marian period.
3) Thracian pikemen should not disappear from their third tier barrack.
4) Remove reference Gaul naked fanatics from farming temples when Gauls are unable to build farming temples.
5) Spain should have the ability to build longshield cavalry in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
6) Spain should have the ability to build onagers in the campaign as they do in custom battles.
7) Horse archers (et al.) should be able to move and fire.
8) Upgraded general units for Scythia and Pontus should be activated by Marian reforms.
9) Spanish family members should wear brown and not blue.
10) Mercenary horse archers should appear in Armenia.
11) Sarmatian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
12) Illyrian mercenaries should have their mount effects.
13) Rebel archer unit should not have a Briton chosen swordsman as officer.
14) Seleucid legionaries should have mass 1.3.
15) Bastarnae mercenaries should have mass 1.2.
If anyone disagrees with any of these, please speak up!

Matters unaddressed/still under discussion
Non-upgraded Thracian bodyguard
Limitation of dog and pig recruitment to provinces with those resources
edit Whether Eastern Heavy Spearmen phalanx should retain mount effects
Effect of invisible mounts? (awaiting testing)
Smaller Desert Cavalry unit - potential modwork
Increase mass of Bull warriors - potential modwork
Increase mass of phalanxes - potential modwork
Cilician pirates changed from horde to square - potential modwork
Any other topics in play?

Dogs & Pigs
There are left over bits of ideas that didn’t quite pan out all over the files, however the narrative is normally pretty good at telling us where a stat or similar is no longer used (eg, food stat), so it’s my strong opinion that these units should require the dog/pig resource in the same way as camels and elephants.

Potential modwork
I’ve identified these items as such because almost everyone who has mentioned them has agreed that, although they look wrong, they border on modding the game rather than fixing the game.
Bull warriors –it’s weird but I agree with both Red Harvest and player1 that it’s not clear for this patch.
Phalanxes – again, unrealistic, but again I agree with RH that it’s not right for this patch.
Cilician pirates – they stick out like a sore thumb in horde, but it’s a VERY obvious issue to be a bug, so I agree with RH and player1 – not for this patch.
On a side note, for modding them, have you considered narrowing the gaps between the soldiers to make a more solid formation? If you reduce the spacing, but maintain the horde formation, you might find them readier to use their pila and be more effective.

*phew*


Edit: Okay... I missed some movements in opinion as I was writing this
Cilician Pirates - absolutely not, for the reasons above

Bull Warriors - Okay, there are five types of heavy infantry with mass 1, two of these (Seleucid Legionaries, Bastarnae Mercenaries) we've agreed should be increased. That leaves the Bullmen in the same league as the Desert Axemen ( ) and the Arcani. The Bullmen are a little incongruous. I note that the Spanish generally use the 1 civilised mass, rather than the barbarian 1.2, and I appreciate that we could get in over our heads here. I also note that, typically, elite infantry are given a small mass boost over their regular brethren.

I think we should remember that we're not the ones who are going to have the final say as to what goes into this patch. If this is to be an 'Org community patch' then it's going to be the Org that makes the final decision as to what goes in and what stays out. There's nothing wrong with discussing an issue and leaving it unresolved. We're going to present them with a list but they are going to read down our discussions and make a judgement based on their own experience.

[hrvojej]

Any other topics in play?

Yea, the mount effects of east heavy infantry, the only phalanx-capable unit that has them. Since they don't retain spears as secondary, I don't see why they should have one, and they have bonus vs. cavalry when they wield the spears anyway.

In other words, if so inclined, in export_desc_unit.txt file under the unit east heavy infantry find the line

mount_effect     horse +4, chariot +4, camel +4

and delete it.


edit:
As a side note, is it going to be possible to make a poll which would allow people to vote for more than one proposed answer? This way, we could make a poll with all presented fixes, put it in the Colosseum for example, and let people vote for every point they agree that should be changed. This way, we could actually make it for the people who would like to have these changes, yet are not confident enough to dabble with the files themselves (let's face it, most of the people who propose the fixes in this thread will not need the patch as such). What does everyone think about this (if it's possible)?

[Epistolary Richard]

Yea, the mount effects of east heavy infantry, the only phalanx-capable unit that has them. Since they don't retain spears as secondary, I don't see why they should have one, and they have bonus vs. cavalry when they wield the spears anyway.

Thanks, I forgot that one. I've edited it in.

[therother]

Thanks for your summaries, Epistolary Richard. They are much appreciated.

As for this mod/fixes argument, my intention in starting this thread was to compile a list of 'fixes' that would be completely uncontroversial - fixing things thing were obviously wrong, e.g. the HA bug and the Praetorian recruitment pre-Marius. IOW, this is to be a must-have patch. Perhaps then we can then think about correcting the more subtle inconsistencies.

[player1]

Yea, the mount effects of east heavy infantry, the only phalanx-capable unit that has them. Since they don't retain spears as secondary, I don't see why they should have one, and they have bonus vs. cavalry when they wield the spears anyway.

In other words, if so inclined, in export_desc_unit.txt file under the unit east heavy infantry find the line

mount_effect     horse +4, chariot +4, camel +4

and delete it.

I may be a little inxeperienced about how some bonuses work, but what exaclty is buggy if they stay as they are?

[Epistolary Richard]

@ therother
How well-formed are your plans for how this patch will finally take shape?
Is this something that will come with the Org's proverbial stamp of approval (not that I'm trying to turn you into the Trivium or anything )?

Because someone is going to have to make a final yea or nay on what goes into this patch - even with apparently cut & dried examples such as horse archers I know that there are two sides to the discussion. And ultimately someone's going to have to decide where the "uncontroversial" line is drawn.

[player1]

I got it.
Is it that heavy east infantry keeps anti-cavalry bonus even when fighting with swords?

If that so, I guess that line should be removed.



In case of community patch, I am for as conservative version as possibile. Only true bug fixes, no oddity fixes, or pure balance fixes. We could always make expanded version later.

[therother]

Because someone is going to have to make a final yea or nay on what goes into this patch.

Well, in terms of the 'patch' that will come out of this thread, it will be my decision I guess, although I'll certainly be taking into account the views of others in the thread. I'll also be happy to host other versions of the 'patch' in the LM webspace and give them equal footing in the Colosseum thread.

[player1]

Incorrect info there, player1. Scutarii are as well armoured as Hastati, and reflect this in the stats (unless my backup file was accidentally altered.) Actually, Iberian infantry are nearly as well armoured as Hastati, but unfortunately their stats don't reflect the graphics, which is a shame since CA really nerfed them.

I think that Scutari have defense of 12, Iberian Inf 8, while Hastai 14.

EDIT: although yes, Scutari armor = Hastati armor.
But also Scutari armor = Bull Wariors armor
And Bull Warrior shield < Scutari shield

Changing Cilicians from horde to square is not a "power up" since it doesn't change the attack/defense. It just makes the unit functional by allowing them to use their pila. Regardless, I don't see that being the test of getting intended stats in use. Some changes to stats are going to effect the strength of units, get over it. There would be no reason to correct errors if they didn't. Don't like the changes, don't use them. If your way of determining what fits or what doesn't is to say, "that might effect them in battle somehow" then you are in the wrong thread. After all, Spain will get its Long Shields, HA's will work right, phalanx pike will remain available when they should, etc.

While I just think that they lose their flavor, if you change their formation.

Horder looks --> cool
Square formation --> just another legion wannabe

It's really a preference issue, not a bug issue.
Especially considering that they do use their two pilas, before attack.

[player1]

Well, in terms of the 'patch' that will come out of this thread, it will be my decision I guess, although I'll certainly be taking into account the views of others in the thread. I'll also be happy to host other versions of the 'patch' in the LM webspace and give them equal footing in the Colosseum thread.

I already compiled my personal "bug-fixer patch" that contains most fixes from traits and unit threads. The reason why I haven't uploaded it somewere is a lack of documentation.