Talk:Unit

From ErfWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard: new section)
Line 29: Line 29:
:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --[[User:Kreistor|Kreistor]] 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
:::Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- [[User:Commander I. Heartly Noah|Commander I. Heartly Noah]]
 +
 +
== Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard ==
 +
 +
I was trying add "class" [[Bogroll]] and [[Mung]]'s stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page.  Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --[[User:MisterB777|MisterB777]] 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:23, 12 June 2009

I'm going back and fixing my own mistakes as I go, using my Contribs page, the GITP archive, and Page Histories. Bleh.--BarGamer 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I did it already. --Kreistor 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Contents

Statistics

There ARE more than four statistics. I know some of you want to go back and shange that to four, because of Klog 4, but Klog 10 specifically stats that Loyalty is a stat as well, so that makes at least five, and so Parson's original knowledge was incomplete and unusable. Remember that Parson does not get all of his info at once. He first got told about the basic 4, because the effect of Level is constant. A Unit will show its current stat, not it's original stat, and so that it is L3 with Move 9 doesn't matter... only Move 9 matters. The original unit had Move 6, and 3 levels increased the Move, but that's not important to the man fighting the Unit with Move 9.

Statistics are just numbers with meaning. That makes any number with meaning to a Unit a statistic. Level, Experience, Leadership, etc. are all statistics. --Kreistor 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Leadership

I find the phrase "A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command, if of Warlord level or higher (not Commanders)" unclear and misleading. What is clear is:

  • Warlords and Casters are Commanders (they can lead unit stacks)
  • Units with Leadership abilities (Warlords) confer a bonus to units under their command
  • Not all Commanders have Leadership (Warlords do and Casters do not)

Therefore I changed the phrase to "A Unit with Leadership confers a bonus to units under their command". Clear and concise. -- Muzzafar 07:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For similar reasons, I changed the comment that "units with Leadership" can see stats -- casters don't have Leadership but can see stats.SteveMB 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Other

This is just a small thing, but when vinnie is talking about 'transylvito style' he says the bats in Bagota (Ceseare) stack is as good as advanced infantry. Is this an actual type? Or merely Vinnies nickname for them? Xewleer

Don't know, yet. Advanced may just mean "high level". "Light" and "heavy" are definitely Natural Abilities. --Kreistor 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I suspect that "Leadership" as well as the other bonuses of the system are applied directly to the unit's level statistic, as a sort of "Temporary Level Bump". Sure, if you looked at them their level would still only say 3 (Or whatever), but their effective level could be 10 or even 27, depending on the circumstances. So bonuses on top of bonuses could turn low-level Doombats, a relatively weak unit type, into unstoppable croaking machines. Cjc7988 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unit Points

Is anyone going to protest if I move out the SStatistics section and call it by the proper name -- "Unit Points"? Stanley uses that term a few times. --Kreistor 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Where does he say this? I don't doubt you, but I don't remember ever reading it and I'd like to see the context. Commander I. Heartly Noah
Page 40. Somewhere else, too. --Kreistor 03:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm. Stanley says he can't see his "points" and that Parson doesn't know about "unit points." Parson later mentions "Movement points." So in Parson's example, it's clearly the temporary number he's referencing. In the first example, he probably means the blue box of stats; the second is ambiguous; it could be referring to any measurable quantity. But, unless Stanley meant he couldn't see Parson's movement points or other temporary quantity, it's probably safe to say that "points" or "unit points" mean the main stats that commanders can see. No complaints here.-- Commander I. Heartly Noah

Henchman, Lackey and Bodyguard

I was trying add "class" Bogroll and Mung's stat boxes and realized that we don't really treat garrison classes/honorifics like "Henchman," "Lackey," or "Bodyguard" in the Units page. Are these being considered as not legitimate classes, or does it make sense to add them under speculation? --MisterB777 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Go To:
Personal tools