Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 026

[BCCroaker]

I don't think Faq has anything to do with Wanda's current war; there was a teaser in the Magic Kingdom, but no other evidence for them getting involved. Sides seem to fight in local groups - anybodies guess about the proximity of Haffaton to Gobwin's Knob or Faq.

[Lor]

Interesting.

Had to sound out Un-Tommy's shout to get the reference, but yeah, that was good.

So far as the disappearance of all those units, I tend to look at it not so much a limit to bonuses on stack-size, but to the lack of purses. Wanda is given a gem to establish a purse for herself, but all the other stacks couldn't pay their upkeep, so they disbanded.

There was a similar idea in "A Tale from Traz" in the fiction forum.

[Phoenix1]

Oooh, this is an additive bonus. (A stack of 8 units, each with 100 damage, would also have a bonus of +7).

We never even considered this in Erfsims, because in-canon evidence suggests bonuses act as multipliers.

This is an idea that seems fairly common, and I never quite got it, myself. Now, I don't know all the discussion on the subject, so I could be way off base, but here's how it looks to me:

When Parson said the combat system was all about "force multipliers", that didn't really suggest to me that the bonuses themselves were multipliers. I read it more as, if we have someone who can grant a +5 bonus, we can multiply that bonus by applying it to a large number of troops, not that that bonus multiplies the value of each troop it applies to (although, since most troops attack at, what, +2 or +3, an additive bonus can also multiply a troop's stats, in essence).

Now, this doesn't really prohibit multipliers, but the other descriptions of bonuses have always sounded additive. Ansom and Wanda attacking Warchalking especially points it out. The text specifies he and Wanda add to their troops' attacks, and I believe the stats listed fit an additive theme. Ansom attacks at 33. Assuming he doesn't add Leadership to himself (which would explain why he's not so far above "the weakest units in the stack" at 30), and the base is his level, it's 10 Level, +8 Stack, +8 Wanda, leaving +7 for miscellaneous bonuses (personally, I'd go with +2 Royalty Bonus, +5 Artifact Bonus, since Parson's description of the bonuses for Ansom rescuing Jillian over the lake suggests Artifact Bonuses apply to allies in stack/hex/whatever).

If those were multipliers, though, even removing the extra 7, Ansom, a level 10, couldn't have a basic attack score higher than 2. If only the Stack bonus is a multiplier, we're saying Ansom has a maximum base attack score of 3 (3 * 8 for 24, +8 Wanda 32, +1 miscellaneous to get 33). So basically, Ansom's base stats would be about equal to a common soldier, perhaps slightly higher (Royals have higher stats), a bit above Jack, a mage who wouldn't be expected to have good combat stats, and below Bogroll, a Heavy. This does make sense - but only if base stats are entirely level-independent, which I just can't imagine to be the case.

[cheeseaholic]

I always assumed having multiple stacks was for positioning. Assuming units in stacks have to stay near each other (either in distance or in formations) you can get more units attacking from more directions with more stacks, and target more high priority targets such as warlords or siege. Not to mention getting more attacks in if units are limited by formation. A block of men can't surround an enemy easily. This would be especially true for pikers, which seem to be a common unit, as pikes have always worked better in formation in Earth.

As for bonuses, my guess is that it adds an amount depending on the formation. Stacking for stealth might add 1/8th vs 1/4 for stacking for scouting or 1/3 or 1/2 for stacking for combat. And there's other bonuses of course, as is shown by the mere existence of stacking for those different stacking abilities. Not to mention possible penalties (speed on the hex seems a likely one for more numbers).

Of course, at the end of the day we simply don't know and rules speculation is rather pointless if the goal is to try to figure out what the rules actually are.

[boegiboe]

I appreciate Delphie for fighting to the end, instead of fleeing. "I'm so very loyal!" I expected her to scram.

The leadership stacking in a stack of eight, with all others stacking in stacks of eight, is like a king-pawn opening in chess--safe but unimaginative in itself. Wanda knows enough to be dangerous, but she has no finesse. She could have stacked everyone in a single stack and saved them all, had she known how quickly the end would come. But, had she done that, I'm guessing the max stack bonus would have been diluted (not quite following the formulae earlier in the thread). Clearly there were enemy forces in striking distance had she made herself vulnerable.

As for upkeep, uncroaked cost no upkeep: Only Wanda and Funnyface cost upkeep. Had she kept them all operational by having a single stack, she still would've only had to pay for herself and Funnyface.

I think I understand something new about Wanda's shock at Ossomer's turning in the next to last drawn issue. He's in very much the same position she was in; the heir, absorbed by the enemy. And she's wondering whether he carried with him a seed of revenge. Was Ossomer always going to turn? Does this mean Ansom can turn? Has this all been a trick played by Jetstone on her, not to keep the Arkenpliers, but in fact to seize the one who can wield them? These questions must all come to her mind, once she knows her decrypted are not as absolutely hers as her uncroaked.

She never did understand Life, did she?

[Lor]

Pardon the additional post so soon, but I had another pondering.

I wonder if it is her current new status that helps to form the bond between Wanda and Jillian. Jillian poses as a barbarian warlord to get cash for FAQ, where Wanda once traveled that road herself. And indeed, both are the daughter that their fathers (at least at the start) did not want.

And yet another wondering: I wonder if we will be treated to a 'Dorian Grey' moment at the end of this prequel. In the beginning, Wanda looks at mirror-Wanda and longs to be her. In this update, Wanda looks at the mirror and sees only herself -- no other person. I wonder if near the end of the prequel, we'll flash-forward to Wanda with the 'Pliers in her hand, looking at a newly-popped mirror and seeing the relatively innocent woman she was and will have a tinge of regret. A want to be that other woman again.

*shrug*

[boegiboe]

During from we own different wishes. Thoughts tangle about matters sleep, dreaming about blissful remainder. And a little less desirable, the continuous us going for social networking sites. Yes, yes! Scientists realize that Tweets and Facebook or myspace make tougher than bet365 tobacco smoking and drink.

Best bot evar.

[Direcoyote]

We now know what happened when FAQ fell...at least from Jillian's eyes.

Wanda turns and offs Banhammer. Jillian then becomes overlord of FAQ and gets a detailed turn by turn report of the fall of FAQ that she is powerless to prevent. Is it any wonder she hates Stanley so?

[mortissimus]

If I had to guess, Haffaton just reused their tunneling ambush strategy. Move close enough to strike Goodminton in 1 turn, but be sure that they can't see you. Then wait for the uncroaked to die or leave, and strike with complete surprise. I am curious if they worked with air units that were outside the scouting range too, or if they simply had a few hundred ground troops under ground.

Striking from underground can also explain why the casters failed to make it to the portal. Or were they still under orders not to?

[BLANDCorporatio]

During from we own different wishes. Thoughts tangle about matters sleep, dreaming about blissful remainder. And a little less desirable, the continuous us going for social networking sites. Yes, yes! Scientists realize that Tweets and Facebook or myspace make tougher than bet365 tobacco smoking and drink.

Best bot evar.

There's a thread over in "Everything else Erfworld" which I hijacked into collecting examples of spartwork. I'll get that sample to the place asap.

Although, so far the best bot ever probably was Agathaannarumo, with their message to beware of Arnel Milan- Ass Programmer. You Need To Beware!

When Parson said the combat system was all about "force multipliers", that didn't really suggest to me that the bonuses themselves were multipliers. I read it more as, if we have someone who can grant a +5 bonus, we can multiply that bonus by applying it to a large number of troops, not that that bonus multiplies the value of each troop it applies to (although, since most troops attack at, what, +2 or +3, an additive bonus can also multiply a troop's stats, in essence).

What I was responding to, in the passage of mine that you quoted, was a suggestion to have the Stack Bonus a number that is added to the sum of the attack of the units in the stack. So for example, 8 units get +7 bonus. Meaning, if all have 10 attack, the stack's attack, with bonus, is 87.

What you suggest here works a little differently. 8 units, with attack 10 each, would each get +7 attack resulting in the stack having a score of 136.

I'd make a further observation. You speak mostly of Leader bonus, not stack bonus. This matters. If the stack bonus results in a value that depends only on the stack size, not also the units' stats, then strong units are affected by it less; example, if a stack of Pikers with attack 1 has it such that each Piker receives +7 from the stack bonus, that's a huge improvement. If a stack of Dwagons with 20 Attack has each receiving +7, not quite as big an improvement, comparatively speaking. But if stacking increases the efficiency of Pikers by some ratio, you'd expect the same ratio of improvement to happen for Dwagons.

Leader bonus, or the kind of bonus Wanda gives to Uncroaked, is different. It's magic. One can think that the presence of Wanda somehow adds itching powder to the Fellows' weapons, which increases damage by a flat +2 for each and everyone. Heck why not, whatever. So additive Leader bonuses are not unaesthetical.

As a final observation, currently I'm developping yet another version of a ruleset, where the Leader bonus is a hybrid of what you suggest and a level bonus (a level-dependent fraction of leader's stats is added to the units under their command).

[Kreistor]

Rulers can abdicate! Just promote someone else to your position.

No such thing was said... As others have said it is most likely the case that Wanda was promoted to Heir and then became overlord when he father croaked.
The leading reason to believe this is the fact that when she became overlord she did not mention her father. If her father had abdicated his throne that would mean he would be a GK unit and as such Wanda would be able to sense his presence. She could not sense Clay or Fritz, and was able to sense Delphie wounded in the tower; the fact that she did not mention her father would mean that he was gone; she did not even bother to mention him alongside clay and Fritz because she herself probably realized what her new senses meant... her father croaked and as heir she was now overlord.

You're right. I overlooked the "upward feeling" statement. She was promoted to heir and became Overlord when Lord Firebaugh died. No abdication indicated.

On the topic of Wanda's status, I suggest it's possible that Wanda is STILL a barbarian Overlord/Heir. Does anyone have citations to prove Wanda is properly a GK unit?

Every reference to the concept of "Turning". We know Warlords and Casters can change Sides.

But more specifically, Stanley's description of Wanda Turning to GK when he attacked FAQ. Wanda is clearly a full fledged unit of Gobwin Knob.

[oslecamo2_temp]

And that's why we love the text updates. So much juicy intel!

-Casters can become overlords!
-Overlords (and thus their sides) can submit to another side! Ok, tecnically we still didn't saw it, but there's not other option. Wanda is overlord now. Wanda will, at least, become an unit for Faq and later on to GK. Hamster would've certainly noticed if Wanda was her own side.

As a side note, Clay and Delphie seem to have chosen to fight to the death instead of being captured or retreating to the MK.

[crex90]

As a side note, Clay and Delphie seem to have chosen to fight to the death instead of being captured or retreating to the MK.

I don't think they had the option to retreat through the portal -- Wanda had previously explicitly ordered them to stay out of the Magic Kingdom without permission from her, and as she wasn't there to grant such permission and (presumably) their Overlord had more pressing concerns to worry about, they were forced to fight to the death or be captured.

[name lips]

If Wanda ever gets the funds, and returns to Goodminton, she could conquer it (or rebuild it) and restart her side.

She might be a fully-fledged GK unit, but I get the strong feeling that she still qualifies as the only surviving Heir of Goodminton. Would she have to become a barbarian first?

[Kreistor]

As a side note, Clay and Delphie seem to have chosen to fight to the death instead of being captured or retreating to the MK.

I don't think they had the option to retreat through the portal -- Wanda had previously explicitly ordered them to stay out of the Magic Kingdom without permission from her, and as she wasn't there to grant such permission and (presumably) their Overlord had more pressing concerns to worry about, they were forced to fight to the death or be captured.

Lord Firebaugh could have overridden that order, if he wanted. I could see him wanting Delphie to pay for her petulance, but if he could have let Clay save himself, I think he would have.

[cheeseaholic]

Not that it likely matters, but I believe Rwanda's a queen, not an overlord. And the other casters lights went out. They may have turned or gone barbarian l, though I doubt it.

[0beron]

Not that it likely matters, but I believe Rwanda's a queen, not an overlord. And the other casters lights went out. They may have turned or gone barbarian l, though I doubt it.

Actually that point matters A LOT!!!! Wow, none of us noticed that.
Rob has previously been VERY clear that the terms Overlord and King/Queen are distinct and different, so he wouldn't use Overlord on accident. The general term is "Ruler". So the fact that Wanda refers to herself as Overlord tells us something very important about the mechanics of Royalty...
It is almost explicitly stated that Wanda IS in fact Noble, but she was not popped as an Heir.
She was made Heir Designate, and when her father died, despite being Noble, she STILL became an Overlord rather than a Queen. This means that only units POPPED as an Heir become Queen/King.

This makes Don King's decision to pop an Heir make so much more sense. Even though Ceasar is Noble, he won't become a King, thus ending Twansylvito's royal lineage (something Slately would be very upset about)
On the other hand though, this means Jetstone is in a VERY precarious position....because Trem is not a popped Heir...yet Slately's plan is promote him to HD...risking the survival of Jetstone's royal lineage.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Not that it likely matters, but I believe Rwanda's a queen, not an overlord. And the other casters lights went out. They may have turned or gone barbarian l, though I doubt it.

Actually that point matters A LOT!!!! Wow, none of us noticed that.

I certainly hadn't noticed Queen Rwanda before

[0beron]

I certainly hadn't noticed Queen Rwanda before

Haha yeah I was gonna be nice and ignore that (admittedly amusing) typo hahaha

[Kreistor]

When Parson said the combat system was all about "force multipliers", that didn't really suggest to me that the bonuses themselves were multipliers. I read it more as, if we have someone who can grant a +5 bonus, we can multiply that bonus by applying it to a large number of troops, not that that bonus multiplies the value of each troop it applies to (although, since most troops attack at, what, +2 or +3, an additive bonus can also multiply a troop's stats, in essence).

What I was responding to, in the passage of mine that you quoted, was a suggestion to have the Stack Bonus a number that is added to the sum of the attack of the units in the stack. So for example, 8 units get +7 bonus. Meaning, if all have 10 attack, the stack's attack, with bonus, is 87.

What you suggest here works a little differently. 8 units, with attack 10 each, would each get +7 attack resulting in the stack having a score of 136.

I'd make a further observation. You speak mostly of Leader bonus, not stack bonus. This matters. If the stack bonus results in a value that depends only on the stack size, not also the units' stats, then strong units are affected by it less; example, if a stack of Pikers with attack 1 has it such that each Piker receives +7 from the stack bonus, that's a huge improvement. If a stack of Dwagons with 20 Attack has each receiving +7, not quite as big an improvement, comparatively speaking. But if stacking increases the efficiency of Pikers by some ratio, you'd expect the same ratio of improvement to happen for Dwagons.

No, I don't think it can work like that. I mean fundamentally. A "stack" doesn't have Attack and Defense... the Units in the Stack have Attack and Defense. When a Unit fights another, it fights with its own abilities modified, not as a nebulous stack vs. stack comparison. The Unit has it's Attack+ Bonuses vs the enemy's Defense+bonuses, and vice versa. If the fight was stack vs. stack, then the order to "screen" would be unnecessary. It would be the decision of the Commander which units took damage. To Screen, the Unit needs that order, so there is physically something the unit must do, to whit, place itself in the way of an attacker.

Leader bonus, or the kind of bonus Wanda gives to Uncroaked, is different. It's magic.

No, it comes because of a magical relationship between the Caster and particular Units, but the description is that of Leadership, not pseudo-Leadership.

One can think that the presence of Wanda somehow adds itching powder to the Fellows' weapons, which increases damage by a flat +2 for each and everyone. Heck why not, whatever. So additive Leader bonuses are not unaesthetical.

Nt necessarily. It comes because of an innate understanding of the units by the Caster. We can see that innate understanding in Wanda's mental landscape now.

As a final observation, currently I'm developping yet another version of a ruleset, where the Leader bonus is a hybrid of what you suggest and a level bonus (a level-dependent fraction of leader's stats is added to the units under their command).

Remember this from the WotT: "6011856 The relative combat power by level is NOT logarithmic or exponential."

The system is as simple as this: For both units, add Attack to bonuses from various Leadership sources, Dancefight Bonus, and other Bonuses. Add the two Attacks and Divide individual by total to get probability of First Hit. Damage done by weapon type, modified by a function of the Attack and Defense.

Unit 1: Level 1 Uncroaked Light Sword from GK during tBfGK. (USing Bogroll's stats for comparison.) Hits 5, Combat 3, Defense 2. Leadership 8 (Wanda), CHief Warlord Leadership 1 (Parson in Hex, Leadership at 1/2). Artifact Bonus 4 (Hammer in Hex, 1/2 of 8 arbitrarily chosen), Dance Fight 5 (arbitrary), Stack 8

Unit 2, Level 1 Unaroyal Spear. Hits 6, Combat 4, Defense 3 (slightly higher because UNcroaked were mss-uncroaked poorly). Leadership 0. Chief Warlord Leadership 5 (Ansom in Hex, at 1/2)., Artifact Bonus 2 (In Hex, at 1/2, not attuned another 1/2), Stack 8

GK Attack = 3+8+1+4+5+8 = 29
GK Defense = 28
Unaroyal Attack = 4+5+2+8 = 19
Unaroyal Defense = 18

GK probability of attacking first = 29/48 = 60%
Not so powerful; however, there is a major difference in damage. GK is at +11, Unaroyal at -10. For the unled attackers to be so totally brutalized, I think we have to conclude that Leadership and other Bonuses affect both Attack and Defense. If it was excluded, GK would be at +26 and Unaroyal at +16, which wouldn't be as obviously overpowered, as it was intended to be. Perhaps I have undervalued Dancefighting, since the Elf's comment about the suicidal attack was specifically complaining about the Dancefight bonus. Set it at +20 and it's a lot more overwhelming. Anyway, how the difference between Combat and Defense affects the damage dealt is not obvious. A -ve difference still has to be able to deal some damage, since there are rare losses in every situation. We still don't have a probability of Hitting in this, which we know exists thanks to Artemis. (OMG, I just got it. Arte-MISS. No wonder she kept blowing it at critical points.)

If bonuses did not affect Defense, I would expect Bogroll's stats to be more like Combat 5 and Defense 12 (instead of 4), to give him a defense that needs to be overcome by some Leadership or stack bonus.

____

As for the Stacking debate in general, I believe the limitations include a physical proximity problem. Whenever a Warlord is splitting his forces, he has them re-stack. If proximity weren't an issue, they wouldn't need to do this. The easiest way to explain this is if each Stack has one member assigned as a squad leader. If units are too far from the squad leader, they lose the bonus and take a penalty. This would explain why entire armies aren't in a single stack when fighting on a front. If you only need to be close to 7 other members of the stack, regardless of stack size, you could retain the Stack bonus at +8 across the entire front even as losses were suffered. There has to be more to it, because on a frotn line, 16 units could easily be in close proximity to share a +8 bonus and resist losses reducing the bonus with each death.