Unit descriptions

**Anakuj** · 01-04-2008, 21:40

Dear EB Team!

I would like to thank You again your amazing work! And now I would like to apologize to You, and to the RTR Team too. Yesterday I got the RTR 7 TIC Mod - this one is a perfect example of the "long wait, many promise, shiny externals and 300MB+ "Extras"

(I don't lie. Interviews, loading screens... Sigh.) - contrarily there is a map with 16 provinces and 4 Factions (+ Rebels), with app. 30 units. But there is one advantage: their Unit Descriptions is sooo long! I imagine it in your quality, ... uhh, I have to look for a new pant

! It would be so cool to read your historians' knowledge in the "long form" about the units in your Mod! I know, If I don't like RTR, I simply don't have to play with it. It is true. Finally I hope that you consider my suggestion. Yes or no, I will remain your reverential follower.

**paullus** · 01-04-2008, 21:51

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

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

**MarcusAureliusAntoninus** · 01-04-2008, 23:15

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

**Chris A. T.** · 01-05-2008, 00:23

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

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

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

**Frostwulf** · 01-06-2008, 05:57

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

**Anakuj** · 01-06-2008, 10:32

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

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

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

**Redmeth** · 01-06-2008, 11:28

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

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

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

**Geoffrey S** · 01-06-2008, 12:03

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

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

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

**Spoofa** · 01-06-2008, 06:04

Originally Posted by Chris A. T.

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

**abou** · 01-06-2008, 06:41

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

**paullus** · 01-06-2008, 07:32

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

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