This is the complete sentence: You cut out the part "in https://jeff-web-sketch.github.io/ClassicalWarfareAEASite/spartans.html", and then proceeded to ask if I meant the manual or the website. The answer was written right there all along.   I don't mean my historical suggestions (which would be recommended if you want to be more accurate than vanilla anyway), but things that are objectively wrong (in particular, attempts at writing in Greek that you added and weren't even in vanilla). So, if someone says something else, and they actually play, they will still be just wrong

Amazing to see just how quickly renewable energy technology is evolving lately. According to news coverage on aol News, researchers are making significant progress regarding quantum computing applications. What are your thoughts on these advancements? Are you optimistic moving forward? See on https://mota.com

Yes, well again the manual isnt perfect either.  Its ChatGPT trying to summarize everything.   But Ill take a look at it and see if we can clean some of it up.   what do you mean cut out in the link? Again if you looked at the manual, there are sections that very clearly compare CWA vs BASE.  Look at the infantry base tab.  You will notice all melee infantry are 0% different from Base.  All ranged infantry are 100% of base... thus all "citizen" soliders have same HP.  We used different "armor/resitance" packages to set them apart.  Based Sword dps is 10.7 CWA is 9.5 the manual does that math so you dont have to tell you swordsman are about 10.9% less DPS than base game.  In fact pretty much all "CS" is less DPS than base game, besides the pikeman which is actually up 17%, But are not as tanky as base game. You can check cavalry, champs etc and compare those stats to base game. I guess I will look at may 15th and see if i can find what you said.   Again if you say one thing, and someone says something else and they actually play... Ill probably use there terminology for now.  Spiked rollers should be implemented per your suggestion  (I know longer have any conversations between us before may 15th.  If it was in a previous CWA post, remember all my posts got wiped accidently cause they thought i was a spam bot.  If you want to point me in the diretion of this may 15th stuff ill take a look. Thats the best I can do right now)

"Auxiliary" is an English word, meaning "helper" or "helpers", which in Latin are "auxilium" and "auxilia", respectively. The Romans would use the term "auxilia" for non-citizen subject units that would usually preserve strong local cultural traits. Thus, when you say "auxiliary", in English, I'd assume you are going beyond the Latin "auxilia", and generalising a very similar situation (which is actually not that common, mostly for vast civilisations). And that's what you seem to write in the Glossary. The problem is that for "Allies" you also write that they can be "subjects", and since this is strictly not true (are their part of your civilisation, or allies?) it ends overlapping with what "Auxiliary" means. You then decide to use "Allies" for what it seems to be better described as "Auxiliary". "Allies" should be those who are not part of your civilisation, but are your allies.   The "bunch of information" is the manual. That "friendlier eventually would be to somehow briefly state the differences with vanilla" I mean the website, but you literally cut out "in the link". Just to compare what can be compared.   As I've told you many times, just take notes. I see I sent you certain corrections on May 15, and that nothing changed the next day when you said you already corrected them. You are the one that has to check if corrections are properly implemented, to keep repeating the same things that are already written down (as has happened already with other things) is never going to work for me.

There are subscriptions which supposedly do this, but I'm loathe to sign up for yet more subscriptions.