Congrats and comments

[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.

[Macroi]

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.