BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Helpline => Topic started by: Velax on April 20, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
-
Perdan has an SF centre with decent training and equipment values (60-70%). I recruited a unit of them once, and they were not ranged, did not charge and did considerably fewer hits in melee than an infantry unit of comparable CS. Would this mean they have some esoteric ability that I didn't get the chance to see, or that they're just a crap unit?
-
As far as I know, SF don't have "surprise ranged weapons". If they have a ranged ability, it will say so right at the recruitment center, and their range is as told there. At least, I've never seen that number being wrong.
-
I know. "Ranged" seems to be one of the potential SF abilities, and I mentioned it just to confirm that this unit does not have it.
-
I'm still thinking these 'special abilities' are machinations, but this seems to suggest otherwise. Perhaps they're good against fortifications? In woods? resistant to charges?:) please let us know if you find out!
-
Some SF (there's another thread by the way, old one) may have scaling ability--like a built-in siege engine.
Or, it's possible that the new SF centers don't have special abilities, just the ones that Tom tinkered with years ago.
-
Perdan has an SF centre with decent training and equipment values (60-70%). I recruited a unit of them once, and they were not ranged, did not charge and did considerably fewer hits in melee than an infantry unit of comparable CS. Would this mean they have some esoteric ability that I didn't get the chance to see, or that they're just a crap unit?
Those values aren't actually very good for SF, on average.
SF are not always very effective. We have a number in Astrum that are 70ish weapons, 50ish armor, with 70 training and they are simply not worth recruiting. They can hit hard (if they don't get shot up by archers on the way in) but they are guaranteed to take heavy casualties in the melee thanks to their mediocre armor, and that gets very expensive very quickly when you consider that they attract a lot of attention. And frankly, they don't hit *that* hard. My character Rowan died leading about 70 of them. They used to come in swinging for 1k+ hits in the first round, but in the second round that would typically drop to half of what they inflicted previously.
If you go for SF, look for high equipment ratings and training. That's what makes them so good in the first place. SF with only medium values in these areas are generally overpriced for what you're getting, or at least that is my experience with them. There is no such thing as a 'good deal' when it comes to SF, unless you have time to take a unit with good equipment and only average training and train them up until they're nasty.
-
They used to come in swinging for 1k+ hits in the first round, but in the second round that would typically drop to half of what they inflicted previously.
Is that due to casualties, or do you think they might have had a charge attack?
-
Those values aren't actually very good for SF, on average.
SF are not always very effective. We have a number in Astrum that are 70ish weapons, 50ish armor, with 70 training and they are simply not worth recruiting. They can hit hard (if they don't get shot up by archers on the way in) but they are guaranteed to take heavy casualties in the melee thanks to their mediocre armor, and that gets very expensive very quickly when you consider that they attract a lot of attention. And frankly, they don't hit *that* hard. My character Rowan died leading about 70 of them. They used to come in swinging for 1k+ hits in the first round, but in the second round that would typically drop to half of what they inflicted previously.
If you go for SF, look for high equipment ratings and training. That's what makes them so good in the first place. SF with only medium values in these areas are generally overpriced for what you're getting, or at least that is my experience with them. There is no such thing as a 'good deal' when it comes to SF, unless you have time to take a unit with good equipment and only average training and train them up until they're nasty.
Our days of suffering are over! We have a decent ranged SF RC now 8)
-
My character is keen on recruiting a 5 range SF with ~70% training and equipment quality and cost 98G. On the other hand, another non-ranged SF with 100/80 equipment and probably 85% training, cost about 120G. Which one is worth recruiting?
-
My character is keen on recruiting a 5 range SF with ~70% training and equipment quality and cost 98G. On the other hand, another non-ranged SF with 100/80 equipment and probably 85% training, cost about 120G. Which one is worth recruiting?
WTF?! 100/80 non SF center? Never seen that before. Well 100/80 is probably a better choice in my opinion.
-
He said non-ranged SF, not non-SF.
-
Updates: The 100/80 melee SF have 95% training. They have charge ability and take less casualties (probably due to high armour rating)
-
WTF?! 100/80 non SF center? Never seen that before.
There is also an infantry RC with 90/80 equipment. Another example is of a MI RC with 85/85 rating.
-
He said non-ranged SF, not non-SF.
Ah. Sorry misread it. It is up to your play style really. If you want ranged units, get those ranged SF units but you like fighting up close, then get 100/80.
-
He said non-ranged SF, not non-SF.
Should have used melee word instead of non-ranged.
-
I have an infantry RC with 90/90
-
Has it been confirmed by a dev that all SF's have a special ability?
-
Has it been confirmed by a dev that all SF's have a special ability?
This has neither been confirmed nor denied officially.
-
I'm still thinking these 'special abilities' are machinations, but this seems to suggest otherwise. Perhaps they're good against fortifications? In woods? resistant to charges?:) please let us know if you find out!
Might be something to this. Thalmarkin's Vorian Elite really seem to come into their own against Daimons. My unit of ~35 generates more hits than even larger cavalry units doing a charge, and set to a wedge formation takes fewer hits than infantry units set to box. I don't think my C being a Hero has anything to do with it, as roughly 1/3 of all unit commanders in Thalmarkin are Heroes, many also leading SF (There are two different flavors available, the second kind sorta meh statswise).
They one-shot monsters and stuff too but seem to take more casualties from less hits for whatever reason. Haven't had a chance to field them against other humans, and probably won't for the foreseeable future. They're 95 training and 95/60 equipment.
-
don't know about special.. but my 70 sf (88/70 melee 60 odd training and 40 odd cohesion) did 1.5k dmg to horrors in its 1st round of close combat.. then lost 50 or so troops and dealt 400 odd dmg. lost another 4 then dealt ~200, lost another 6 and legged it
it wasn't charging.. at least it didn't say it is
-
Is it really worth it to keep special abilities hidden? /If/ there are things like siege bonuses, I really doubt anyone would notice. It would be much better strategy-wise to let players know that kind of thing.
-
This has neither been confirmed nor denied officially.
I hate whining, so I'm definitely not going that (I'm whining), but telling the player base more about SF, and RCs in general is a promise that was made that has been put off many months. I can't see any harm that would come from demystifying them, and can see a great deal of fun and strategy that could result. I hope this will stop being put off soon.
-
I hate whining, so I'm definitely not going that (I'm whining), but telling the player base more about SF, and RCs in general is a promise that was made that has been put off many months. I can't see any harm that would come from demystifying them, and can see a great deal of fun and strategy that could result. I hope this will stop being put off soon.
I have pushed for years for more information behind the SF abilities made public, but it's not my decision to make, and I don't have time to refit that battle at the moment. Someone else can make the case to Tom, or I'll do it again some months down the line when I do have time.
-
I have pushed for years for more information behind the SF abilities made public...
That would be awesome :D
-
People dont like figuring things out for themselves anymore....that was the best part of the game, learning by experimenting and making mistakes then not telling anyone else after you figured it out.
-
People dont like figuring things out for themselves anymore....that was the best part of the game, learning by experimenting and making mistakes then not telling anyone else after you figured it out.
There are things which are great not to know, so you can learn them while you play, but if the SF special abilities are so random and specific (and we don't really know if and how much the can be), then it's less something that we will discover IG, and more a random factor. Or would you be able to tell if some SFs give siege bonuses, for example?
-
People dont like figuring things out for themselves anymore....that was the best part of the game, learning by experimenting and making mistakes then not telling anyone else after you figured it out.
I can definitively state that the devs were in agreement that figuring this part of the game out by testing and experimentation is effectively possible. There were (and as far as I know, still are) disagreements on whether to grant OOC knowledge, or change things in the game.
-
Perhaps we could just get a list of possible abilities? Its a lot harder to look for an ability that you don't know of than to look for an ability you know exists. Ex. charge ability, siege, extra defence, and fast at healing. Whether or not those are the actual abilities, I don't know but if we got a list that would be much appreciated just so we know what to look for.
-
I would also like to know what happens to the SF abilities if you recruit from two different SF RCs. Do you get both, neither? I have not tried recruiting from an infantry and range 5, due to lack of oportunity, has anyone else tried it?
-
I would also like to know what happens to the SF abilities if you recruit from two different SF RCs. Do you get both, neither? I have not tried recruiting from an infantry and range 5, due to lack of oportunity, has anyone else tried it?
I believe you lose abilities if you mix two different SF units together. Well at least when you mix ranged and melee you lose the range.
-
If you lose the special ability, then I would REALLY suggest making it imposible to recruit from different SF RCs. Perhaps allowing if they have the same ability, but I think that would require exposing the secret of their ability. Or at the very least labling them somehow: SFa, SFb, SFc. With "a", "b", "c" not standing for anything other than as a way of distinguishing between the types of skills.
-
If you lose the special ability, then I would REALLY suggest making it imposible to recruit from different SF RCs. Perhaps allowing if they have the same ability, but I think that would require exposing the secret of their ability. Or at the very least labling them somehow: SFa, SFb, SFc. With "a", "b", "c" not standing for anything other than as a way of distinguishing between the types of skills.
Please do the research to solidly verify your premises before you start making requests for changes.
-
Please do the research to solidly verify your premises before you start making requests for changes.
It's kind of hard to have well-informed opinions when the game mechanics are intentionally obfuscated
-
It's kind of hard to have well-informed opinions when the game mechanics are intentionally obfuscated
All I ask is that you not make requests for changes when all you have are guesses and vague impressions about the things you're asking to have changed.
-
I said IF.
I have not been able to do much research on the matter. I can start doing that now. I am fine with having to figure out what the ability is. But if a certain function of SF troops is already widely known, I do not feel bad for requesting that information.
Also, I was forced to recruit from a variety of SF RCs already. And if their ability is gone, I do not want to start trying to figure out an ability that no longer exists.
-
There's three possibilities.
One, that your troops retain whatever special ability that the first RC has, similar to archer range.
Two, that you lose the special ability when you recruit from multiple RCs.
Three, that the special abilities stack.
I think the third option is the least likely.
-
Least likely but most AWESOME!
A range 5 charging archer that shoots as it moves and destroys walls!
-
If you see one of those, make sure you save a copy of the report...
-
Least likely but most AWESOME!
A range 5 charging archer that shoots as it moves and destroys walls!
Aka, Fang Fang.
-
Ok, I had some confusions regarding ranged SF. Do they perform poorly at melee combat? Do they have any special ability or range itself is one?
-
Ok, I had some confusions regarding ranged SF. Do they perform poorly at melee combat? Do they have any special ability or range itself is one?
They're not too shabby in melee combat, e.g.
Horrors (3) fire on Berserkerers (4), scoring 4115 hits.
Berserkerers (4) fire on Horrors (1), scoring 512 hits.
Total ranged hits suffered: Attackers: 1211, Defenders: 4115
Horrors (2) fly towards the defenders.
Horrors (1) charge forward.
Close Combat (Defender Line 3):
Horrors (1) score 1782 hits on Berserkerers (4) (7707 before overkill).
Berserkerers (4) score 382 hits on Horrors (1).
-
Ok, I had some confusions regarding ranged SF. Do they perform poorly at melee combat? Do they have any special ability or range itself is one?
Range is not a special ability.
-
How do you know? Some SF apparently have a "charge" like Cavalry. I assume that counts as a special ability. Why would ranged attacks like Archers not count?
-
I would say the extra range (ie range 5) could be the special ability. No non-SF troops have that range.
-
I could imagine ranged SF units to be less affected by wind?
-
Ok, I had some confusions regarding ranged SF. Do they perform poorly at melee combat? Do they have any special ability or range itself is one?
Ranged SF that I have commanded have always performed well in melee.
There's three possibilities.
One, that your troops retain whatever special ability that the first RC has, similar to archer range.
Two, that you lose the special ability when you recruit from multiple RCs.
Three, that the special abilities stack.
I think the third option is the least likely.
I'm not at a machine where I can check this, but doesn't range average out when you recruit from centres with different range characteristics?
-
I'm not at a machine where I can check this, but doesn't range average out when you recruit from centres with different range characteristics?
Sure does.
-
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Unit#Recruiting_a_Unit (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Unit#Recruiting_a_Unit)
Note added.
-
Did a little test and added 3 range-2 SF to my 2-person melee unit (Blah blah horrors are nasty). Range averaged out to 1. Recruited 3 more melee dudes, but kept range 1. I think with an ideal number of recruits available and a full time pool I could fill the rest with the badass melee dudes by just continuously recruiting a number less than the current squad and keep that range up. Not a huge advantage and not something that is possible for me at the moment but it is possible.
Don't think that math would work out for keeping anything higher than Range 1 though while only fielding melee guys. Also unclear on whether or not that's an abuse of mechanics or just a successful use of them.
-
My guess is that the melee combat of your unit will decrease slightly as you add ranged troops. it only seems fair...
-
Did a little test and added 3 range-2 SF to my 2-person melee unit (Blah blah horrors are nasty). Range averaged out to 1. Recruited 3 more melee dudes, but kept range 1. I think with an ideal number of recruits available and a full time pool I could fill the rest with the badass melee dudes by just continuously recruiting a number less than the current squad and keep that range up. Not a huge advantage and not something that is possible for me at the moment but it is possible.
Don't think that math would work out for keeping anything higher than Range 1 though while only fielding melee guys. Also unclear on whether or not that's an abuse of mechanics or just a successful use of them.
This averaging of range is funny, at least I feel that.
Imagine that you recruited 10 melee SF to your 10 men of range 4 SF. Range drops to 2. Now how would you RP that?
-
This averaging of range is funny, at least I feel that.
Imagine that you recruited 10 melee SF to your 10 men of range 4 SF. Range drops to 2. Now how would you RP that?
Sawed-off crossbows. 8)
But seriously, the onus is on you to explain it IC. If you can't justify it in your head best to just leave it alone.
-
Sawed-off crossbows. 8)
Technically, the 10 melee guys don't have any ranged training. The other 10 are capable of firing at 4 range. But somehow all of them are capable of firing upto range 2 in battlefield.
-
The game averages the stats of the old and new units. Tracking each soldier and its armor/weapons/range etc for every unit would probably be a nightmare for Tom & the rest of the team.
-
Technically, the 10 melee guys don't have any ranged training. The other 10 are capable of firing at 4 range. But somehow all of them are capable of firing upto range 2 in battlefield.
Yes it doesn't make sense. The Alternative would be to create a new weapon characteristic for ranged weapons. Then ranged units would have Melee Weapon %/Ranged Weapon %/Armour Percentage. Then when recruiting melee SF and ranged SF obviously the ranged % will drop. However then what happens with recruiting range 3 and range 4 archers? Should the system record how many are ranged 3 and how many are ranged 4 to ensure that only x number fire at the max range? Easier just to do as we are doing and average out the range.
-
eh? if it's xbows.. then how would the ranged be reduced? unless they are aiming too low and shoot at the ground or something..
don't xbow go... pretty much in a straight line (as opposed to bows which goes in a parabola or some such)?
now.. my region does have 2 types of sf...
90 55/55-5
55 85/70
possibilities the next time my men get decimated? hmm.
----
stuff like equipment is obvious.. but what about the other allegedly hidden abilities? it keeps the majority ability and dumps the minority one?
if ranged is not a special ability.. does that mean it gets to keep the range and the special ability?
-
Yes it doesn't make sense. The Alternative would be to create a new weapon characteristic for ranged weapons. Then ranged units would have Melee Weapon %/Ranged Weapon %/Armour Percentage. Then when recruiting melee SF and ranged SF obviously the ranged % will drop. However then what happens with recruiting range 3 and range 4 archers? Should the system record how many are ranged 3 and how many are ranged 4 to ensure that only x number fire at the max range? Easier just to do as we are doing and average out the range.
I think Cren's just asking how you would RP something like that in-game. I don't know, maybe say the new melee guys don't have the training to use the ranged guys' longbows and the unit captain refuses to mix weapons, so gives everyone javelins instead. Or some such.
-
eh? if it's xbows.. then how would the ranged be reduced? unless they are aiming too low and shoot at the ground or something..
When you cut the stock off of a shotgun it becomes less accurate because you can't hold it up to your shoulder to fire. Or, you could but you'd hurt yourself. Same goes with a rifle; you're pretty much resigned to firing it from the hip, which is not nearly as accurate as shoulder-firing and using the sights. It does not reduce the range of the projectiles you are firing but it reduces the effective range by wrecking accuracy.
It was a joke, anyways. I can think of reasons for it but there's no reason to give a comprehensive list since it's up to the person doing it to RP it out.
if ranged is not a special ability.. does that mean it gets to keep the range and the special ability?
Yeah, I wanna know if range in and of itself is counted as a special ability. It really could be, since by all accounts they still bust faces in melee, unlike archers.
-
ah.... but that's got nothing to do with training though.. unless it's some really special training..
-
This averaging of range is funny, at least I feel that.
Imagine that you recruited 10 melee SF to your 10 men of range 4 SF. Range drops to 2. Now how would you RP that?
When you have 10 4-ranged men, their special ability is to magically always have the wind in their back.
When you add melee guys, they shield the wind, and the arrows don't go as far. ;D
-
... you mean they fart out arrows?
-
Sounds painful.
-
... you mean they fart out arrows?
I didn't think of that. Maybe it makes more sense!
-
don't xbow go... pretty much in a straight line (as opposed to bows which goes in a parabola or some such)?
Physics fun fact:
Everything will travel in a parabolic arc so long as there are no other forces acting on it other than gravity. Wind and air resistance will change the parabola, but it is still essentially a parabola.
As to the point of this statement, I have no idea which has a longer range. I think bows did.
-
Physics fun fact:
Everything will travel in a parabolic arc so long as there are no other forces acting on it other than gravity. Wind and air resistance will change the parabola, but it is still essentially a parabola.
As to the point of this statement, I have no idea which has a longer range. I think bows did.
Very true. Bullets also travel in a parabolic arc. The difference is higher velocity generally means a parabolic arc that approaches a "straight line" for a given target distance.
Greater distance can be achieved (to a a point) by increasing the angle of fire and increasing the parabolic arc. Anyone that has played artillery games like Scorched Earth would be familiar with this. I believe this is what fodder was thinking about. On the battlefield bows would fire volleys in high arcs to increase their range, at the cost of not being able to accurately aim at single targets. I am reasonably sure that crossbows would do the same. As the selected target moves closer obviously the angle of fire would be reduced to compensate.
I own a WW2 vintage Lee-Enfield rifle. The Iron sights allow for shots of several miles by firing at a 45 degree angle. Of course with the weapon in that position accurately aiming is impossible but I suppose rifle volley would work just as well as a arrow volley, its just not a efficient use of ammo.
-
Very true. Bullets also travel in a parabolic arc. The difference is higher velocity generally means a parabolic arc that approaches a "straight line" for a given target distance.
Greater distance can be achieved (to a a point) by increasing the angle of fire and increasing the parabolic arc. Anyone that has played artillery games like Scorched Earth would be familiar with this. I believe this is what fodder was thinking about. On the battlefield bows would fire volleys in high arcs to increase their range, at the cost of not being able to accurately aim at single targets. I am reasonably sure that crossbows would do the same. As the selected target moves closer obviously the angle of fire would be reduced to compensate.
To get maximum range, one needs to fire at 45 degree angle. Interesting thing is whether the body is projected at x degree or (90-x) degree, it would strike the ground at the same place.
-
Physics fun fact:
Everything will travel in a parabolic arc so long as there are no other forces acting on it other than gravity. Wind and air resistance will change the parabola, but it is still essentially a parabola.
Whenever a body moves under an acceleration whose direction is different from the direction of initial velocity, the body executes projectile motion. Only exception is when the direction of acceleration vector is opposite that of displacement vector. Also the initial velocity of the projectile should not be very large otherwise wind resistance would not be negligible.
-
The relevance levels in this thread are off the charts!
-
found some stuff about bows and xbows.. (in fact.. a whole bleeding forum about old weapons)
http://netsword.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi
i was thinking xbows were used more close up and goes through armor.. as opposed to bows.. long ranged.. but i don't know. depends on the xbow i guess...
anyway... eh.. any hint about whether ranged sf when mixed with say.. charging sf.... gets to keep both (in certain circumstances)?
-
When you cut the stock off of a shotgun it becomes less accurate because you can't hold it up to your shoulder to fire. Or, you could but you'd hurt yourself. Same goes with a rifle; you're pretty much resigned to firing it from the hip, which is not nearly as accurate as shoulder-firing and using the sights. It does not reduce the range of the projectiles you are firing but it reduces the effective range by wrecking accuracy.
It was a joke, anyways. I can think of reasons for it but there's no reason to give a comprehensive list since it's up to the person doing it to RP it out.
Yeah, I wanna know if range in and of itself is counted as a special ability. It really could be, since by all accounts they still bust faces in melee, unlike archers.
Still trying to figure out why you are talking about cutting the stock off a shotgun, when it's the barrel people cut off in a "sawn-off" shotgun...
-
Greater concealment. Easier to get under your coat when you get rid of that foot long hunk of wood from the end.
Which is usually why you chop off the barrel, too.
-
The ranged SF are not that good in melee as everyone is advertising around. They are quite the same as Archers. For instance, thats a 32 man archer units performance.
Strong winds and gusts are making ranged combat a game of luck.
Elite Rangers (1) fire on Monsters (2), scoring 365 hits.
Elite Rangers (1) score 212 hits on Monsters (2)
Aren't they good?
Edit: They were designated as vanguard and set in box formation.
-
could we see some training and weapons stats? from what I see, that unit probably has full cohesion, high training, and high weaponry. otherwise they would have much less ranged hits with winds that strong.
-
One anecdotal round of combat is mostly useless as evidence of anything.
-
shoot and whack probably doesn't do as well as plain old stand and whack
-
Greater concealment. Easier to get under your coat when you get rid of that foot long hunk of wood from the end.
Which is usually why you chop off the barrel, too.
This, except crossbows don't have barrels or stocks so really dunno why this is being beaten to death.
Edit: They were designated as vanguard and set in box formation.
Box formation turns even the mightiest of lions into mewling kittens. Vanguard does not change combat behavior at all.
Edit: When I get my Range 1 unit into melee again I'll post some averages and see how they stack up with some earlier battles where they didn't have range.
-
This, except crossbows don't have barrels or stocks so really dunno why this is being beaten to death.
Box formation turns even the mightiest of lions into mewling kittens. Vanguard does not change combat behavior at all.
Edit: When I get my Range 1 unit into melee again I'll post some averages and see how they stack up with some earlier battles where they didn't have range.
Crossbows had stocks. Box formation reduces the number of hits, true, but not to the degree you speak of.
-
could we see some training and weapons stats? from what I see, that unit probably has full cohesion, high training, and high weaponry. otherwise they would have much less ranged hits with winds that strong.
Yes, full cohesion, 86% training, 70/60 weapon
-
Can anyone provide a report of ranged SF fighting both in range and melee? If its hella good, then someone is going to dump Elite Rangers
P.S- Also their stats.
-
The ranged SF are not that good in melee as everyone is advertising around. They are quite the same as Archers. For instance, thats a 32 man archer units performance.
Aren't they good?
Edit: They were designated as vanguard and set in box formation.
Considering that Melee SF are at times less then impressive, it is fair to assume that you need a large data set to cancel out some of the random factors in combat.
-
need to look into rounds where there's only melee too...
-
Can anyone provide a report of ranged SF fighting both in range and melee? If its hella good, then someone is going to dump Elite Rangers
P.S- Also their stats.
K, so, this is happening again:
Dead Reckoning
Captain Vilmar (+4)
Type: Special Forces
Range: 2 lines
Strength: 46 men
Training: 84 %
Weapons/Armour: 83% / 64%
Damage: 0 %
Morale: 100 %
Cohesion: 59 %
Combat Strength: 1082
Encounter Setting: attack
Deployment Line: middle
Deployment Formation: wedge
Designation: army
Bumping this because I know they'll be seeing combat in a few days, then I can post the results.
Army is mostly Vorian Elite melee dudes, but I had to recruit them five at a time since that was as fast as the RC would spit them out, so the range stayed at 2. It was not an intentional manipulation of the system this time, but rather a happy accident.
-
So unfortunately only got two rounds to go on, but they look pretty good.
1st round-
Dead Reckoning (14) move closer to get better shots.
Dead Reckoning (14) fire on Horrors (53), scoring 312 hits.
Hey, this round is usually just them taking a stroll towards the enemy anyways so I'll take some bonus hits.
2nd round-
Dead Reckoning (14) fire on Horrors (53), scoring 1031 hits.
Dead Reckoning (14) score 802 hits on Horrors (53).
Nice, I was worried their ranged attacks were always gonna be pretty weak. As far as the mediocre melee hits, they have historically as an all-melee unit hit for around 800 the first round before the numbers start exploding in later rounds.
Sorry I don't have more data, but at least there's some.
-
Too bad you probably won't be able to play around with them anymore. :)
-
Too bad you probably won't be able to play around with them anymore. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0w1W5RGx9Q
-
I remember a battle against Undead where the Elite Rangers (now 47 men) scored 762 hits on second round of combat on a windy day.