Talk:Commander

From ErfWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Demeaning Term?)
 
(4 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 61: Line 61:
:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
:::::So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense. [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
::::Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership.  BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
 +
:::::That's correct. There are two other ways to resolve the issue, though. Your explanation is covered under Resolution #1 already. I just cleaned up the explanations of 1-3 a little. Does that demonstrate #1 is what you were talking about better?--[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 +
::::::It's good, though it doesn't cover all that other stuff. It's succinct. I dunno about the use of the terms 'title' and 'rank.' As far as #2, it depends on Klog 4 being "wrong" while #1 & #4 show clearly that it is unnecessary to assume any mistake was made. So why complicate things? #3 "looks" like my explanations above, but convoluted and dependent on an unnecessary "Leadership 0" value for "commanders"/casters. Who supports these resolutions, and have they read my explanation?
 +
[[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
 +
 +
==Demeaning Term?==
 +
Hey, I was looking at the people who have used the word commander to one another. With the exception of Jaclyn to Jillian, the people speaking to one another have a significant difference in rank. Perhaps 'Commander' is a term for a fellow leader of lower rank than the speaker.
 +
:I don't think it's demeaning - as far as ranks, there may be something to it being used for subordinates... "Warlord" is perhaps more of an honorific, what with the "lord" part - but the play of rank between Casters and Warlords is blurry

Latest revision as of 10:07, 24 September 2009

Putting the opening contents of Speculation + the "Contradiction" section here, so when I go through and change it, I'm not just obliterating someone's ideas, and if they want to argue for them, here they are:

The term Commander is used in two separate ways. All units with Leadership, including Warlords, and Chief Warlords, are periodically called Commander by their associates as a title. The actual rank of Commander indicates that a unit has the Leadership Natural Ability, but no confers no Leadership Bonus to units under its command; whereas, Warlords and Chief Warlords confer a Leadership Bonus to units in their stack and in other cases as well.

[edit] Contradiction in Terminology

Parson states at one point that "any unit with leadership ability is called a Commander or Warlord" and "these units give a bonus to units under their command"Erf-b1-p040aSame-site.PNG.

That contradicts with other statements that "only warlords have Leadership" Erf-b1-p084aSame-site.PNG and that Casters are Commanders tooErf-b1-p084aSame-site.PNG, but with no Leadership ability.

It seems that "Commander" is a more general term - Commanders have an ability to lead other units in combat (not necessarily deriving from Leadership natural ability) while Warlords are Commanders who have Leadership ability and thus give units under their command a Leadership bonus. It should be noted that in some special cases Casters can give a bonus to certain units under their command (known examples are Golems led by a Dirtamancer and uncroaked led by a Croakamancer)Erf-b1-p084aSame-site.PNG.

Therefore, every Warlord is a Commander, but not every Commander is a Warlord.

- Commander I. Heartly Noah June 3 2009

Noah, that thing reads badly. It is also reliant on "Only Warlords have leadership." But you're taking all of the context away. The bit aboout Casters being Commanders comes first. Further, Parson learns over time. We've seen him correct himself without noting mistakes before. "Casters are Commanders and can lead stacks... but [Casters] give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway. Only warlords have Leadership." Is the correct way to rad that paragraph. You're flipping sentences around, and that changes context away from intention.

Commanders must have Leadership. If they don't, then "stacks without a leader are forced to auto-attack" would change to become "stacks without a warlord are forced to auto-attack".

This all resolves very easily with the restored context for "Only Warlords have leadership." That coccurs immediately after the mention that Casters can leda but don't provide a leadership bonus... their Leadership is 0. They have leadership, but it's 0. The Warlords comment means only that Warlords provide a Leadership bonus, but Commanders do not. Look at the paragraph that follows. "Makes sense. Except for certain exceptions. Like say.. the bonus to those golems if they're lead by the Dirtamancer." So, to complete the return of context...

""Casters are Commanders and can lead stacks... but [Casters] give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway. Only warlords have Leadership. Except for certain exceptions. Like the bonus to those golems if they're lead by the Dirtamancer." Parson is only talking about "Only Warlords have a leadership bonus." It's the only explanation that keeps it all in context. It explains the first Klog ont he subject, and resolves this seeming Terminology Conflict. Rob took a short cut on that sentence, that's all. (Honestly, I didn't know anyone had a problem with this.) --Kreistor 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this page is now really confusing, as is this explanation. I didn't even understand some of the resolutions you put up. And you thought my little blurb read badly?
First of all, I think you're muddying things up by confusing or combining the ability to Command a stack, i.e. keep it from auto-attacking, giving orders, etc., which we know all Casters and Warlords can do, with the Natural Ability of Leadership, i.e. the conferring of a Leadership Bonus to the troops in your stack.
Also, you're totally misquoting Klog 10 in that you removed the paragraph break. It makes it look like the exception is to only Warlords having leadership, and it's not. The exception is to it making sense (that casters never lead stacks). Look:
"...Casters are Commanders, and can lead stacks, but they almost never do. Casters are too rare and valuable to risk, and they give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway. Only Warlords have leadership.
Makes sense. Except for certain exceptions. Like, say... the bonus to those Golems if they're led by a Dirtamancer."
I submit that "Casters are Commanders and can lead [command] stacks." I also submit that Warlords are also Commanders and can lead stacks. The only other way to read this is that Casters are Commanders and Warlords are not, but Jillian, a primo warlord, asks to be called Commander, so you can throw that out.
So we know for sure that both Casters and Warlords are Commanders and can lead [command] stacks.
All that's left, then, is to determine whether Casters have the Natural Ability of Leadership, at value 0, which will never improve, or don't.
It seems to me having a value of 0 is pointless. The only reason would be if it were necessary to command a stack; I submit that it is not. Simply being a Commander is enough for that.
Also, there is no indication in the Klog that Casters have Leadership (the Natural Ability/stat), in fact quite the opposite. Only Warlords have leadership, and the exception is not an exception to that statement, but to the statement that it makes sense not to use casters to lead stacks. The bonus to golems and uncroaked is not a Leadership bonus. Parson doesn't use the word Leadership there, so he doesn't contradict the statement that "Only Warlords have Leadership." Since they are unit-specific, it's no stretch to believe they are special, non-leadership bonuses. - Commander I. Heartly Noah June 28 2009 17:16 (UTC)
"and they give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway... Except for certain exceptions." I understand what you're saying... you don't think it's a leadership bonus. But then, a Caster and a Warlord could both lead a stack, and both give different bonuses. Parson hangs around the battle at the Courtyard Breach, but that may be because of the Chief Warlord bonus that can be added to all units in the Hex. I really don't think taht this paragraph would have included "Except for certain exceptions", if he wasn't talking about casters giving a Leadership bonus. That's very, very confusing if true.
But I think you need to re-write Resolution 4. It doesn't actually identify how it resolves the problem. I know where you're trying to get to, but it doesn't connect the final dot. It doesn't identify how it resolves the issue. --Kreistor 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Then please explain to me what's missing, because in my mind, there is no issue, and I'm just explaining why I see it that way.
I don't get what you mean about Parson hanging around; as long as he's in the city, his bonus applies to all units in the city.
As far as both Casters and Warlords being able to lead a stack and offering it different bonuses: Yeah. Exactly. So? A Chief Warlord offers a bonus to his stack that other Warlords don't. (or, alternatively, he offers the same bonus but also offers a lesser bonus to the rest of the hex, depending how you read Vinny's comments) A high-Leadership Warlord offers a better bonus than a low-Leadership one. But what if the low-Leadership one is a better fighter, or has a magic item? Casters can lead stacks but offer no bonuses. But they can cast spells, and might have, say, the Arkenpliers, and in certain special circumstances they offer special bonuses. There will be reasons for and against any Commander leading a stack; the primary one, shared by all, is the ability to give the Units in that stack directions. Everything else (Leadership bonuses, other bonuses, rarity & value of the Commander, status as Heir, combat ability, expendability, etc. etc.) must be considered by the Ruler when making decisions of who leads whom. Why not have multiple choices? Why would it be as simple as "Highest level Warlord with the best stack, etc?" Maybe you want a great Warlord on a weak stack and a crummy on on the Heavy stack, for balance. Maybe you want two Warlords in the same stack.
In the end, I don't understand any of the other resolutions. I get the opening statements, even agree with them, but I don't understand the conclusions. I can see the possibility of me being wrong on Casters having Leadership:0 vs no Leadership (it's a small but important difference, but I could be off). But I don't understand the overall confusion here and I don't understand the other arguments.Commander I. Heartly Noah July 1, 2009
Parson: he must have a reason for putting himself in harms way. We know he's trying to stack bonuses, so it falls to reason that he's in Courtyard to add a bonus. But we know he already adds one to all units in the City...
Hark back to Caesar. Vinnie mentions Caesar turning his own stack into the equivalent of heavies. Unless that came from being merely an extremely high level unit compared to everyone else, adding his full bonus shouldn't be that exceptional. In fact, if he adds 1/2 his bonus to stacks with Warlords providing other bonuses, the stacks with two leadership bonuses should be more powerful than his own. GO ahead and write that out, if you need to. The math behind it might need some examples. Make a stack with a Warlord 6 with a Chief Warlord 10 in the hex. That stack gets leadership bonuses of 6+(10/2) = 11. The Chief Warlord's gets only +10. Chief Warlord stack is weaker. So why is the CW's heavy and the others lighter?
The Chief Warlord must be adding his own bonus twice. We're used to MtG and DnD where similar bonuses don't stack... it's an assumption that a unit can't add its own bonus twice. Now Parson being in the vicinity makes sense and Caesar's is more powerful. arson adds +2 for being in the City, +2 for being in the stack.
Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --Kreistor 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's how it runs. I think you're saying that Parson is using Commander as a title instead of a rank in Klog 4. If so... that's exactly the point of Resolution #1. Is Resolution #4 unique from #1? If so, how? --Kreistor 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean when he's standing at the door at the bottom of the tower? Maybe he needs to see the battle but doesn't want to be all the way at the top of the tower if he needs to fall back with his men? Doesn't want to get separated? I dunno, but he's not stacked with anyone. Even if he was, his bonus is only 2, so even if he added double that on top for the stack he's in (best case scenario: all units get his Leadership bonus and his stack gets double that on top of it as the special bonus), that would only be 6. Whereas with Caesar, let's say he's Leadership: 6, and is adding 3 to all units and 6 (or 9 if he provides both bonuses to his own stack) to his own stack. If the other warlords are mostly 1-3, his stack is better. Or if all the units get 6 from him and his personal gets another 6, or 4 or 8 or some other random "Chief Warlord Stack" bonus, they're still better. And since the doombats are so crappy to begin with, the bonuses might be more important than normal. There may be a special thing going on there. Double Leadership bonuses, maybe?
Okay, this is one of the things I don't get... title vs rank. What do you mean? There aren't official "ranks," there's barely a coherent chain of command - it's Ruler-Chief Warlord-everybody else, based on a series of factors and the Ruler's personal preference. If Warlord is a "rank" above Caster, then the Uncroaked Warlords would outrank Wanda, who is clearly #2, and only is subordinate to Parson when he gives a direct order to her. And then only to the letter of that order.
But let's go with an outside parallel: British Military, 19th-20th century. Okay? There are men who are Knights and Lords in the military- those are titles. In Erfworld, this would be things like Duke Nozzle, Count Vinny, and Prince Ansom. The titles, practically speaking, are worthless - they only indicate the Nobility or Royalty of the Unit, which is inherent anyway (like Jillian is still Royal even though she hides it). So throw that out. Forget it. No titles. Titles bad.
So what's left? "Commander," "Caster," and "Warlord." I'm saying that the term "Commander" is the same as the term "Officer," or "Commissioned Officer," (as opposed to NCOs... which there doesn't seem to be a parallel here, so throw that out). Now under the umbrella of "Officer," or "Commander," are various other ranks... Lieutenant, Major, Colonel... Caster, Warlord. Except that I don't believe Warlords inherently "outrank" Casters. More like a caster would be the Company Quartermaster or Intelligence officer, while a Warlord would be a Company Commander. But you see? Just like a Major and a Lieutenant are both Officers, a Caster and a Warlord are both Commanders... why else would both have been referred to as Commander in the comic?
So that's my base assumption. And from that, when I read Klog #4, I see: Anyone with Leadership (which I take to mean the Leadership Bonus, nothing more or less) is called a "Warlord" or "Commander," which is accurate. When I read #10 and it says only Warlords have Leadership, that is also true - Warlords, who are also called Commanders, have Leadership (bonus) and Casters, who are also called Commanders, do not. They have no Leadership bonus. However, both Warlords and Casters, ie all Commanders, can lead stacks. But since Casters are rare and valuable and offer no Leadership bonus, they generally don't. This makes sense. EXCEPT when certain situations make it reasonable to have a Caster lead a stack, like when they have offer a special bonus to certain troops, and those troops are the majority of your force, and you are short on warlords anyway.
So, I can accept everything he says as true. Warlords are also called Commanders and have leadership. Casters are also Commanders and can lead stacks but usually don't. They have no Leadership. It usually makes sense not to have Casters lead stacks. Sometimes it does make sense. Commander I. Heartly Noah
Wait - I may have figured out what is meant by "conflict of terminology" - tell me if I've got it right. When it says '"Commanders" or "Warlord[s]"' have Leadership, some people take that to mean two different unit types with leadership. So when it then says only Warlords have leadership, some people take that to be a contradiction, re: the status of Commanders and Leadership. BUT I contend that the phrase '"Commander" or "Warlord"' is not naming two unit types, but giving two names to the same unit type. Only Warlords have Leadership, but a Warlord can also be called a Commander. No contradiction. Casters don't have Leadership and can also be called Commander, but that's not in conflict either. .Commander I. Heartly Noah
That's correct. There are two other ways to resolve the issue, though. Your explanation is covered under Resolution #1 already. I just cleaned up the explanations of 1-3 a little. Does that demonstrate #1 is what you were talking about better?--Kreistor 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It's good, though it doesn't cover all that other stuff. It's succinct. I dunno about the use of the terms 'title' and 'rank.' As far as #2, it depends on Klog 4 being "wrong" while #1 & #4 show clearly that it is unnecessary to assume any mistake was made. So why complicate things? #3 "looks" like my explanations above, but convoluted and dependent on an unnecessary "Leadership 0" value for "commanders"/casters. Who supports these resolutions, and have they read my explanation?

Commander I. Heartly Noah

[edit] Demeaning Term?

Hey, I was looking at the people who have used the word commander to one another. With the exception of Jaclyn to Jillian, the people speaking to one another have a significant difference in rank. Perhaps 'Commander' is a term for a fellow leader of lower rank than the speaker.

I don't think it's demeaning - as far as ranks, there may be something to it being used for subordinates... "Warlord" is perhaps more of an honorific, what with the "lord" part - but the play of rank between Casters and Warlords is blurry
Go To:
Personal tools