Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby suryasm » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:10 pm

effataigus wrote:This is getting confusing with all of the different questions in play. I haven't paid enough attention to this topic during my reading of the comic. Here are the questions I've seen in the forum... do we have firm evidence that gives us an answer to any of the following?:

1. Do multiple warlords in the same stack have leadership bonuses that stack for each other?
Speculation in italics... hrm, seems silly, but it would account for all of the warlord stacks we've seen, also how Ansom+Jillian+Vinnie+archons kicked so much dwagon butt. Would have been better to have a full warlord stack in the Caesar/Bat/Dwagon/Stanley fight though, no? Also, begs the question of why this isn't the *only* tactic used.

2. Is there a size limit on stacks?
Random rules regarding max stack size being related to the size of the units involved would account for a lot of observations... why bats, why not heavies....

3a. Does CWL leadership bonus stack with local leadership bonus or is the higher value used?
If these two types of leadership do not stack at all, then it only makes sense to have really low level warlords leading stacks to allow that stack to be ordered about and to level up your warlords.

3b. If it does stack, does CWL's bonus apply twice when the leader of a stack is the CWL?
Seems unlikely that it stacks twice. If it does, then Ansom and units in his stack should have had 28 just from leadership and Wanda, not to mention any stack bonus or base attack... keeping in mind that other units in his stack had 30 total. If it doesn't stack twice, is that just because it's Ansom leading the stack? If this is the case, then it would make more sense to have another warlord leading your CWL's stack.

4. Is stack bonus 1 for 1 until you have 8 units, or are there diminishing returns on that?
Hmm, 8=2^3... wouldn't be surprised if max stack bonus was 3...

5. What is a warlord's base attack? Around how much is this typically?


1. See my previous post on why I feel that such bonuses do stack for each other, at least partially. As to why this is not the favorite tactic, easy: Warlords are EXPENSIVE

2. No size limit mentioned, but benefits (apart from "more meat-shields") max out at 8 units.

3. a) I believe a CWL is automatically in charge of any stack he is part of and his is the primary bonus used. As for other warlords in the stack, see no. 1

3.b) No, it does not apply twice. That, I believe, is fact.

4. No clue.

5. Again, not much clue. It could be as low as regular infantry, but most likely elite infantry. Royals are slightly tougher. Remember, a Warlord's bonus applies to himself, so their base stats need not be high for them to do a lot of damage. This also explains why low-level warlords are easy to kill (remember Wrigley's last act).
suryasm
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:38 am

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby effataigus » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:54 pm

suryasm wrote:1. See my previous post on why I feel that such bonuses do stack for each other, at least partially. As to why this is not the favorite tactic, easy: Warlords are EXPENSIVE


I don't really buy the cost argument. if it's worth it to use them inefficiently, it's worth it to use them efficiently. If they're expensive, all the more reason to protect them with a ton of leadership. Then again, there haven't been that many cases where this tactic has *not* been used when it was available, so maybe it is correct... as wonky as it sounds.
suryasm wrote:3. a) I believe a CWL is automatically in charge of any stack he is part of and his is the primary bonus used. As for other warlords in the stack, see no. 1

3.b) No, it does not apply twice. That, I believe, is fact.

Hmm, with these assumptions, the best way to get a maxed out max stack is to have your CWL in the same hex as your max stack, but not in the same stack... and have his spot in the stack filled out by another high level warlord.

I suppose another possibility is that the CWL universal bonus doesn't stack with other types of leadership, but other types of leadership do stack with one another. That would be weird...
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Dr Pepper » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:04 pm

Avalus wrote:Does anyone else see the Lord of the Rings reference? (King Theoden, being squishesd under his horse an the battle of pellenor-fields und shouting "Eorlingas to me!")


Master's Bane
Snowmane

It's been a long time since i read the books so i don't remember the rest of the poem.

But there have been lots of instances of horse on rider so i'm not sure it's a specific reference.
Read, like there won't be a movie
Game, like the die rolls don't matter
Filk, like everyone is tone deaf anyway

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .4
User avatar
Dr Pepper
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:41 pm
Location: santa maria, ca

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby effataigus » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:08 pm

Hrm, on second thought, it's not necessarily best to pile up warlords even if bonuses stack. If the battle outcome is determined by the ratio of the values of the respective units rather than the difference in strengths.... In this case, the relative worth of having a GIANT UBAR max stack is inherently dubious. Consider the following:

You have two stacks of units with current values of 10. You also have two level 10 warlords.

By splitting warlords you could have two level 20 stacks or, by combining them, you could have one level 30 stack and one level 10 stack.

EDIT... I retract the following on account of it being stooopid. I reconsider this situation a couple of posts down from here after I dropped one of my many idiot balls.

You're going against a stack with units with a value of 5. With a max stack you have a 1/6 chance of losing your max stack and a 1/2 chance of losing your weaker stack... 1/12 chance of losing the war and all of your units, and a 1/6 chance of losing both of your warlords ... with two split stacks you have a 1/4 chance of losing half your units, and a 1/16 chance of losing the war.

Call me conservative, but I prefer the latter! Especially since the split stacks can both move into different hexes without going brainless.
Last edited by effataigus on Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Dr Pepper » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:28 pm

peteratjet wrote:This is wildly off topic, and rather silly. The USA has ~never~ had a socialist government, unless the Presidency of Eugene Debs was somehow erased from history. (Fate-o-mancy?)


Actually, socialism (small s) is just the idea that some things are best down on a large scale, even if the benefits to specific individuals varies. And yes, that includes the roads, however they are funded. Also includes Social Security, food and water inspection, and the allocation of electromagnetic frequencies. Socialism (big s) holds the position that a whole lot of things are best down that way. Conservatism (as understood in the US) holds the position that very little should be done that way-- at least by government, but corporate socialism is another matter. Liberals like me tend to fall somewhere in between.

But the upshot of it is that all governments, other than true kleptocracies, are socialist to some degree. We disagree on where and how much, but that's ok, that's democracy. What we should not do is demonize the word and pretend that it's something evil and alien. It is not, and never has been, ever since Chief Og told Thum the hunter to bring enough meat for the whole tribe and Esh the shaman to have plenty of root extract standing by in case the coughing sickness came around.

Oh yeah, the military is a good example of socialism. You can't tell me which of my tax dollars will be used to pay which american soldier to keep which russian tank of my lawn. Yet not even the most die hard libertarian has ever suggested that we should just keep our dollars and shoot at the tanks ourselves. Or maybe bribe the drivers. So, in fact, when Reagan beefed up the military, he became one of the biggest socialists of all time.
Read, like there won't be a movie
Game, like the die rolls don't matter
Filk, like everyone is tone deaf anyway

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .4
User avatar
Dr Pepper
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:41 pm
Location: santa maria, ca

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Lamech » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:35 pm

suryasm wrote:Also, someone said a smaller, lighter unit is better in a chokepoint. This is silly. In a space with no room for maneuver or fancy footwork, what would you rather have - a 4-foot tall damage dealer, or a 6-foot tall damage dealer with a lot more hits? Because that bridge may be narrow, but plenty wide enough for heavies to engage effectively.
See this is using real world logic were you shouldn't. In Erfworld you can have a 4-ft warlord be just as powerful as a big battle bear. A powerful warlord seems to be on par with a dwagon. And a warlord is a lot smaller than a battle bear or dwagon. The question for a choke point is basically how much fighting power can you cram into the area you can use?
We aren't choosing between big strong units and small weak units. We're choosing between small strong units and big strong units. I think the obvious choice is the one that gets you more units defending the chokepoint.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby effataigus » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:19 pm

effataigus wrote:Hrm, on second thought, it's not necessarily best to pile up warlords even if bonuses stack. If the battle outcome is determined by the ratio of the values of the respective units rather than the difference in strengths.... In this case, the relative worth of having a GIANT UBAR max stack is inherently dubious. Consider the following:

You have two stacks of units with current values of 10. You also have two level 10 warlords.

By splitting warlords you could have two level 20 stacks or, by combining them, you could have one level 30 stack and one level 10 stack.

You're going against a stack with units with a value of 5. With a max stack you have a 1/6 chance of losing your max stack and a 1/2 chance of losing your weaker stack... 1/12 chance of losing the war and all of your units, and a 1/6 chance of losing both of your warlords ... with two split stacks you have a 1/4 chance of losing half your units, and a 1/16 chance of losing the war.

Call me conservative, but I prefer the latter! Especially since the split stacks can both move into different hexes without going brainless.


Whoa... I am dumb... surprised nobody beat me up for this. Clearly, battle outcome isn't determined by THAT formulation of ratios... heh, I gave a 10 v. a 5 even odds of winning a fight. Ok, so lets pretend it's on a lot system instead of a ratio system. Then a 10 v. a 5 would have 15 total lots, and the 5 would have a 1 in 3 chance of winning.

So, redo-ing the math...
1/7 chance of losing the max stack, 1/3 of then losing the minor stack assuming no damage was inflicted on the victorious 5 stack, 1/21 chance of losing everything with the max stack setup.
1/5 chance of losing the two split stacks... 1/25 chance of losing everything... better, but higher chance that you will lose at least one of your stacks.

Sounds like the moral remains that, even if warlord leadership bonuses stack, it would often be wise to spread out warlord bonuses to make for a more even distribution of power... if this were similar to how combat were resolved... and who knows on that account.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby drachefly » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:45 pm

I think the way it works is, CWL bonus is just the hex and side bonus, with the difference between hex and CWL's stack bonus being just the regular warlord bonus. That way you don't get any wonky 'CWL is weakest' results.

IIRC, the figures thrown around are bonus = CWL's full level for eir stack, 1/2 for the hex, and 1/3 or 1/4 for the side.

Based on that, the regular WL bonus is half their level, which seems very reasonable.
Warlord bonuses do not aid other warlords in giving bonuses - it's just a bonus to attack and defense.
Warlords not leading their stack do not give it a bonus.
Warlords are tough units; the stack at the bridge was chosen for density of sheer dangerousness. Mounting tankaroos probably would have done better, but there's no way Ossomer would have realized that.
.
There isn't, as amply demonstrated above, enough to prove this. But it's simple enough and accounts for everything.
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1592
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Squishalot » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:46 pm

@effataigus

Where I think your argument breaks down is that a stack with attack 5 doesn't have a 1/7 chance of beating the stack with attack 30. Otherwise, Ansom would've been toast when he charged the walls at Gobwin Knob, on the balance of probabilities, even if he's attacking 1 v 30 (which he wasn't, he would've only been fighting at around 17-18 or so, in theory).

Like with most games, I believe as the attack difference widens, the probability of winning dramatically increases / (decreases). Someone in D&D with a +4 bonus to their hit roll may have 2x higher chance of winning against someone with a +2 bonus to their hit roll. Someone with +20 bonus to hit doesn't have x10 more chance of winning against someone with +2, they just win, full stop.

Therefore, there's big incentive to roll your leadership group together, if leadership bonuses stacked, because you'd steamroll anyone you'd come up against. But I try to disprove that below.

My thoughts on your questions before:

1. Multiple warlords shouldn't be able to stack leadership bonuses.

Caesar and his team of 9 warlords would have all stacked together for the fight against Stanley. If you read the comments about the post-fight aftermath, they comment that Stanley 'dropped stack', suggesting that despite the multiple battles, they were all considered a single stack. No matter how powerful Stanley is, it doesn't seem reasonable that his leadership + Arkentool bonuses can overpower 9 warlords worth of leadership bonuses, especially when one of them is Transylvito's CWL and heir-designate-by-combat. If we assume that Caesar is *only* a 9 (noting that Jillian is a 9, Vinny ranks somewhere between 6 and 9 above Webinar and below Ansom, and Caesar is more powerful than either of them, so 9 is conservative, and probably should be 10), and the other warlords are only 3s, then the leadership bonuses would be worth 9 + 3x8 = 33, right there and then, plus any base attack and stack bonus. They'd be 40+, easily.

Given that Ansom's thoughts about a stack attack of 30+ being absurd, it's highly unlikely that it's ever been achieved before using conventional strategies. If leadership bonuses stacked, then Ansom would have achieved that merely by being with Tramennis and Ossomer when they were playing around with the Arkenpliers.

I think there's too much evidence against the idea of stacked bonuses. Happy to be proven wrong though.

2. Size limit on stacks - there is an upper size limit (hence comments about getting a 'max stack'), but it's probably limited by the physical size of the units, or at least, the power of the units. You can stack a *lot* of units together in a single stack.

3.a. I would have thought that higher value is used only. If the CWL bonus is +3, then the Level 1 Warlord uses the CWL bonus, not +1+3 = +4. No support for or against in the comic, however. It's interesting though, because Tramennis should be imparting a fairly hefty CWL bonus to all the troops in the atrium, yet Sylvia's henchman is demolishing them without a second thought, even without her leadership bonus. Tramennis's bonus should be roughly equal to Wanda's bonus, which goes back to the original point - people with a significantly higher attack (e.g. hobgobwin heavy) should be capable of wiping the floor with little risk against stacks of units with significantly lower attack (e.g. Jetstone stabbers).

3.b. See above - n/a.

4. Stack bonus of 3 sounds quite plausible. I like that idea!

5. I'm theorising that Ansom's would be somewhere above 5 but below 10. Going on the +3 stack bonus theory, we have: 33 - 10 - 3 - 8 = 12 base attack + arkentool bonus. If we assume arkentool bonus is +2 to +4, then Ansom's base attack would be 8-10 or so.
Squishalot
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby agguru » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:04 pm

Oberon wrote:On bonuses:
Summer Updates wrote:His leadership would add three attack to all units on his side, five to those in his hex, and ten to those in his own stack. His mistress would add one to all Decrypted troops on her side, four to those in her hex, and eight to those in her stack.

And when Ansom, Chief Warlord of Gobwin Knob and a Decrypted unit himself, led a stack of six Decrypted heavies and knights with Wanda Firebaugh, Chief Croakamancer and attuned wielder of the Arkenpliers...

The worst unit in the stack had an attack of thirty.

Ansom himself attacked at thirty-three.

If we can get Ansom's 10 to a 33, we'll probably have a fairly accurate idea of how the system works.
10 - Ansom
08 - Stack bonus
08 - Wanda's bonus to decrypted units in her stack

I'm 7 short... Artifact bonus, maybe? Or are some bonuses cumulative? Does Ansom get the "three attack to all units on his side"? Or does he add his 10 leadership bonus to himself? (I'd be over 33 in that case, so I think not) Or is the "one to all Decrypted troops on her side" additive, or replaced by the 8 bonus for being stacked with Wanda?

Maybe there is a +1 bonus from every other unit in your stack with a max of +7, this would explain the ideal stack size of 8.
agguru
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:11 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Beeskee » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:08 pm

agguru wrote:Maybe there is a +1 bonus from every other unit in your stack with a max of +7, this would explain the ideal stack size of 8.


I think we have a winner. :D
User avatar
Beeskee
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:25 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby effataigus » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:11 pm

@ Squishalot

Agreed re: "Should be better to be bigger than what I was describing."

Heck, Ansom said "in theory he could take the garrison himself" or something similar. That would be crazy-reckless if he had a (2-3)/33 chance of dying with each defender he killed.

Agree re: most, actually, except I'm less confident that Tram has that high of a leadership. I love the dooder, but I detect a bit of a lack of respect from Antium. Not sure if that's relevant, but...

Anyway, the system you describe is very similar to the one that I had been subconsciously assuming. This forum thread has made me wonder though... why do sides keep sticking their warlords together? Does it just keep happening naturally because they are erf people and they want to plan/gossip (as Nozzle and the woman were doing at GK's doorstep, that guy and Antium were doing when they got dookied on, and Tram/Ossomer were doing post negotiation)?

... curious.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby fractal » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:14 pm

Here's another theory that hasn't been explicitly suggested. Perhaps a Warlord's leadership simply applies to all units except for him or herself. Now stacking Ossomer and Trammenis together makes lots of sense, and Archer is happy to stack with Sylvia. Webinar and Dora led together, and Tarfu didn't bother picking up a bow himself when he directed his elves to attack. It doesn't quite explain a stack full of warlords, but there's at least some value to redundancy in combat conditions. Tramennis is still sharing his bonus with Ossomer even when gummed (he still directs Ossomer to ignore his predicament, etc), so that could match the bonus provided by Wanda. It won't also match Sylvia's bonus, however, if she's in the same stack. I guess either she was in a different stack (with Jack?), or else there are diminishing returns from the additional incapacitated noble warlords in Ossomer's stack.

There's no way that multiple warlord leadership bonuses stack at 100%. I'm thinking that Parson already said it doesn't, and if it did, combat math and strategy would be too strange (as has been noted in this thread).
fractal
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:46 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Squishalot » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:26 pm

effataigus wrote:Anyway, the system you describe is very similar to the one that I had been subconsciously assuming. This forum thread has made me wonder though... why do sides keep sticking their warlords together? Does it just keep happening naturally because they are erf people and they want to plan/gossip (as Nozzle and the woman were doing at GK's doorstep, that guy and Antium were doing when they got dookied on, and Tram/Ossomer were doing post negotiation)?

They're strong units in their own right (with estimated base attack values similar to or higher than heavies, especially for Royal or Noble units), and are able to discuss things in a manner that only leaders are able to. The average unit or heavy is a non-thinking thing. Warlords can contribute ideas and suggestions. I believe it's the planning aspect that is important for the most part.

Flip it around another way though, the Transylvito forces stacked warlords together because they're individually strong and can do a lot of damage, especially when augmented by the CWL's bonus.

Oh, now I remember why I thought Caesar was a 10. He makes the comment that he came because he thought Jillian and Vinny needed extra Leadership to deal with Stanley. That wouldn't be necessary if he and Jillian had the same bonuses.
Squishalot
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Beeskee » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:35 pm

We see warlords hang out to chat too. The ones Sizemore attacked didn't even have their weapons on them. They were at the back end of the attack, waiting to get into the garrison. Same for the ones in the atrium just before the crap attack. Inside was supposed to be a safe place, and while one of them was out of position there was supposedly nothing going on so it was just rude rather than a major violation of orders.
User avatar
Beeskee
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:25 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby fractal » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:43 pm

Squishalot wrote:Oh, now I remember why I thought Caesar was a 10. He makes the comment that he came because he thought Jillian and Vinny needed extra Leadership to deal with Stanley. That wouldn't be necessary if he and Jillian had the same bonuses.

Or it could be because he provides his CW bonus to the whole hex, whereas Jillian and Vinnie can only benefit their stacks. That's even more true if the CW hex bonus stacks with individual warlord leadership.

As far as Caesar apparently beating Jillian, if he is stacked with one or more other warlords who are boosting him, that could give him an edge. Now Jillian has Duncan (and Ansom?), so she won't go down that easily again.
fractal
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:46 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Lamech » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:14 pm

Anyway, the system you describe is very similar to the one that I had been subconsciously assuming. This forum thread has made me wonder though... why do sides keep sticking their warlords together? Does it just keep happening naturally because they are erf people and they want to plan/gossip (as Nozzle and the woman were doing at GK's doorstep, that guy and Antium were doing when they got dookied on, and Tram/Ossomer were doing post negotiation)?
Well there are the "out of combat" situations of warlord stacking that happen. Duke Nozzle was planning with the other one. The two ones just now in Jetstone were talking for fun; in fact they shouldn't have been and one was out of place. Then there is sticking a low level with a high level. Its conceivable that a low level will get killed with their low leadership bonus if they wander out on their own, but they need xp so they can be useful, so you might want to stick them with a high level; this might have been the case with Dora and Webinar. It also might be the case that, they just stuck together as "friends" or were together for redundancy. You also want redundancy, you don't want a whole stack of heavies to auto-engage when they really shouldn't because of a lucky arrow shot.

And we don't always see stacks with all the warlords combined. When Translovito stopped Stanley they didn't go in as one stack they were one per warlord. (Which turned out to be a supremely good call when Stanley wiped every bat in Ceaser's stack.) Parson had his three warlords over the lake in three stacks. Ansom was the only warlord in the BfGK dance-scene.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby the_tick_rules » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:37 pm

fractal wrote:
Squishalot wrote:Oh, now I remember why I thought Caesar was a 10. He makes the comment that he came because he thought Jillian and Vinny needed extra Leadership to deal with Stanley. That wouldn't be necessary if he and Jillian had the same bonuses.

Or it could be because he provides his CW bonus to the whole hex, whereas Jillian and Vinnie can only benefit their stacks. That's even more true if the CW hex bonus stacks with individual warlord leadership.

As far as Caesar apparently beating Jillian, if he is stacked with one or more other warlords who are boosting him, that could give him an edge. Now Jillian has Duncan (and Ansom?), so she won't go down that easily again.


It should when Vinny was describing the mountain pass battle he said with a warlord bonus bats are like basic infantry, with the chief in the hex it adds another bonus and they are like advanced infantry. If they didn't add to each other then that statement would fall apart.
I would be a procrastinator, but I keep putting it off.
User avatar
the_tick_rules
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Squishalot » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:54 pm

fractal wrote:Or it could be because he provides his CW bonus to the whole hex, whereas Jillian and Vinnie can only benefit their stacks. That's even more true if the CW hex bonus stacks with individual warlord leadership.

If it stacks, yes, it's potentially a bonus. However, Vinny's comments about the relative power of doombats suggests that they haven't got any significant bonuses from the warlord leadership.

the_tick_rules wrote:It should when Vinny was describing the mountain pass battle he said with a warlord bonus bats are like basic infantry, with the chief in the hex it adds another bonus and they are like advanced infantry. If they didn't add to each other then that statement would fall apart.


See the following as well.

Unled: attack power 0-1.
Led (warlord bonus +3?): 'basic infantry', attack power 3-4
CW in hex (+5? based on +10 for Caesar * 50% being proposed): 'advanced infantry', attack power 5-6 (CWL), or attack power 8-9 (CWL + WL)
CW in stack (+10?): 'almost heavy', attack power 10-11?

Based on the commentary, advanced infantry sound more like 5-6, rather than 8-9. Vinny is almost definitely more than a 5, meaning the bats in his stack would be worth equal or more than Caesar's stack, if the bonuses were added together (5+ WL, +5 CWL hex bonus). Jillian's orlies would be worth even more, since she'd get Caesar's CWL bonus as well, plus her leadership bonus of +9. Still doesn't sound right.

Lamech wrote:When Translovito stopped Stanley they didn't go in as one stack they were one per warlord. (Which turned out to be a supremely good call when Stanley wiped every bat in Ceaser's stack.)

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F115.jpg

Jillian wrote:Dwagons lost leadership. He ditched his stack.


Stanley appears to have been fighting in a single stack. With that in mind, it makes sense that the Transylvito warlords were in a single stack as well, but contradicted by Vinny's comment about the bats "in Caesar's personal stack".

I believe that, in part, it's a discrepancy between how Rob considered stacking mechanics back then, vs. now.
Squishalot
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Book 2 - Text Updates 039

Postby Oberon » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:20 pm

kagato23 wrote:No, see, Ansom's leadership IS his CWL bonus.
I tend to agree. Which means that the mechanic for being CWL is "merely" the ability to spread a part of your normal Leadership bonus across a wider area than a standard warlord can. I put it in quotes because with the right CWL, your bats are like heavies wherever they may fly!
GaryThunder wrote:Warlords are all but explicitly stated to be some of the physically strongest and toughest units on the battlefield, far more so than common infantry or even knights, with the exception of certain heavy units like dwagons or megalogwiffs.
I dunno about that. Fud, as L2 heavy, was able to kill a L1 warlord and his 4 (presumably all L1) infantry after presumably taking some falling damage and presumably some damage from fighting the stack of 10 (presumably all L1) with his very wounded dwagon. Luck and plot can always play in to the numbers of course, but it just doesn't seem likely that a warlord is physically tougher than a heavy hobgobwin. And now I will presumably take a sabbatical from using the word presumably, presumably.
Avalus wrote:Does anyone else see the Lord of the Rings reference? (King Theoden, being squishesd under his horse an the battle of pellenor-fields und shouting "Eorlingas to me!")
Good spot! Although I always thought he yelled "UuuufffgeterOFFaME!
Avalus wrote:Attack seems to consist of:
Baseattack + Equipment bonus* + Stack bonus** + Leadership bonus + Artifact bonus + Terrain Bonus + Caster bonus + [CWL Bonus***]
Plus dance fighting bonus, plus sun-in-their-eyes bonus, plus spell effect (could either be positive, but we've seen no examples, or negative, such as flashed), plus condition bonus (again only negative, such as immobilized by either dwagon breath or dead dwagon body), plus ... There are probably a whole lot more that haven't come into play yet.
effataigus wrote:EDIT... I retract the following on account of it being stooopid. I reconsider this situation a couple of posts down from here after I dropped one of my many idiot balls.
Retract nothing, you've had some good insights. One of the issues facing this deconstruction is that we do not know the odds. Assuming an Attack 1 fighting an Attack one is a 50/50 proposition, there is no way to predict what the exact odds are for an Attack 2 fighting an Attack 1. It could be a 66/34 proposition, or it could be a 75/25 proposition, or it could be a 55/45 proposition. And so the relative value of any given strategy becomes impossible to determine based upon the relative projected Attack values alone.
Squishalot wrote:@effataigus

Where I think your argument breaks down is that a stack with attack 5 doesn't have a 1/7 chance of beating the stack with attack 30. Otherwise, Ansom would've been toast when he charged the walls at Gobwin Knob, on the balance of probabilities, even if he's attacking 1 v 30 (which he wasn't, he would've only been fighting at around 17-18 or so, in theory).
And yet, wasn't it Scarlet who predicted that they would soon see his body falling down? Clearly he was in some kind of danger, or Scarlet has no mind for tactical combat. And I'm not even going to attempt to pose that theory in this forum!
agguru wrote:Maybe there is a +1 bonus from every other unit in your stack with a max of +7, this would explain the ideal stack size of 8.
Nice!
Random thought in response to a buried post: Perhaps a L5 piker who is promoted to warlord doesn't become a L1 warlord. Perhaps he becomes a L5 warlord?
Squishalot wrote:Oh, now I remember why I thought Caesar was a 10. He makes the comment that he came because he thought Jillian and Vinny needed extra Leadership to deal with Stanley. That wouldn't be necessary if he and Jillian had the same bonuses.
Except for the very chewy CWL bonus that spreads further than any simple warlord. In that fight even a L5 Caesar would have been a strong contributor. But with him being set up to "get a shot" at Stanley, I'll go with Caesar being at least the equal of Jillian's 9, and potentially higher given how easily he negated her (admittedly distraught and probably not as effective as her usual attack style) knife swipe at him.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests