DivineDragoonKain wrote:Erfworld is more than a game, people. It's an actual, breathing, living world (in context of the story) that just happens to have game-like mechanics replacing a little biology, physics, and laws of nature...
I agree. I think it is more likely that 'natural thinkamancy' is a result of Erfworlders' view of their universe, rather than a real 'mechanic'.
Since there are some stats that Erfworlders can see, and those stats definitely control events, they extrapolate that there must be stats that they don't see as well.
The interesting question is whether any given stat that an Erfworld refers to is just a description, or an actual limiting or enabling force.
Take levels, for example: is a level an indication that the unit's fighting skill has increased, or does the act of gaining a level actually increase their fighting skills?
So you're saying that an almost-Level 9 warlord would have an almost-identical leadership bonus to a low-level 10 warlord? Because the Erfworlders assign numbers to how effectively their warlords multiply the power of their subservient troops, and then call it "Leadership?" Or, maybe a unit who is expecting their Move to increase on their next level (we don't know whether this can happen, but work with me) has been working hard on their sprinting training and now discovers that they can get aaaaalmost to the other edge of the hex they reach, so then when they level it's just a matter of crossing that finish line before Turn ends? Could a unit get really good at one thing, neglecting to train in anything else, and level up only one of their attributes? What if they never killed another unit? That's probably why Bogroll leveled twice, and then died, after killing a high-level unit - all that exercise paid off, instantly, coincidentally, and in a moment that would completely throw us off the trail you've discovered.
No way, man. Levels are levels. Because Erfworld might not be a game... but it's a whole lot like a game.
Book 2 – Text Updates 004 wrote:Tribes have no purse and keep no Schmuckers. When they are in an alliance, their allied side pops rations for them from its treasury. But a feral tribe must hunt or gather or farm or mine.
If they are given Schmuckers, the tribe must convert it all to new or promoted units or popped rations or equipment on the next turn.
For me this raises a lot of questions about the way Shmuckers work. If all of these practices work the same, this you can kill a feral unit, harvest a crop, find a valuable gem or other item, and then convert it into Shmuckers of equivalent value, then turn those Shmuckers into whatever you wanted (natural Moneymancy? Is this explained anywhere?). I wonder whether, while mining yields cash and can be turned into anything, maybe hunting and farming can give you only rations. Or, if you're farming a particularly valuable crop (do they even have different crops? Maybe farms produce only Shmuckers) maybe you get to pick from a wider range of rations than other farmers... or bigger farm units... speculation.
But, moreover, this is a DEEPLY crappy situation for Tribes. If they find a gem, they must spend all of the shmuckers it yields immediately. So, if they find a gem that's worth enough to keep them fed for twenty turns, they would need to pop enough food for their current population and however many other units they could afford - and then have nothing with which to feed those units on the next turn. They would need to find a gem every turn - and, preferrably, not one that was too valuable, or they'd end up with an unsustainable population.
Farmers, likewise, would need to harvest every turn.
Hunters would either need to keep moving or hope to find a hex that pops feral prey every turn.
Without a way to retain resources from one turn to the next, these Tribes are at huge risk of starving to death EVERY TURN, and I am not surprised AT ALL that
Book 2 – Text Updates 004 wrote:A tribe prefers to stay with their allied side for good, if the side allows it.
Just getting to use a purse does wonders for the potential longevity of a Tribe.
As far as the controversy over who made the Gobwins revolt against Saline: we don't know, but I'd be shocked to find that Stanley had the wit to conceal his involvement for this long. I also think signs are pointing strongly toward Charlie's involvement, though I don't get his motivation and those signs could be red herrings.