PDA

View Full Version : Everybody Dance-Fight Now! Speculation on Dance-fighting.



BRC
2009-01-29, 11:41 AM
I've been trying to figure out how Dance-fights work in Erfworld. So, here is what we know
A dance-fight occurs before the two stacks actually start killing each other, and whichever side out-dances the other gets a, perhaps significant, bonus while the loser feels lame.

Now, it appears that certain battle gear is better for dance fighting than standard battle gear. This comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0100.html) Provides alot of nifty info on this topic.

Most interesting is Jillians statement "there may be dance-fighting'' means that she didn't know, but the statement "He's got those knights, their rockers" implies that the presence of those Rockers increases the chance of a dance-fight occuring. Therefore, I think that a Dance-fight is initiated by the defender, by whomever does not initiate the attack.

Their logic was as follows, Perhaps the K.I.S.S are famous for their skill in a dance-fight. Therefore, there was a good chance that Stanley was going to respond to their attack by getting Funky. So the Transylvito forces prepped to out-dance Stanley, in vain as it appeared.

Also, if the Attackers could initiate a dance-fight, Wanda couldn't Thriller the RCC forces who, since they can't dance, wouldn't try a dance-fight in the first place, especially not against Wanda's hawtness.
Other Theories
Cloudy with a chance of BATTLE BOOGIE!: Dance Fights occur spontaneously, but can be predicted in some way.
Have Dancers, Will Dance: Dance fights may or may not occur depending on how many dancers are present.
Everybody can Dance: Either side can initiate the dance fight, but there is some penalty for doing so if you don't win.




Also, the Knights are defined as "Rockers", and with sizemore's Metal Golems, it appears that GK has a definite "Rock" theme going. Does this mean that different sides have various Genres they use, or do different styles have other ups and downs. Perhaps Rock gives better attack bonuses, maybe Showtunes gain more bonuses if you have a larger number of dancers.

Limos
2009-01-29, 12:00 PM
I believe that Dance fighting is more like a fighting style. It gives a flat bonus to the dancers, but you have to wear certain gear for it to work.

I don't think they have to out dance one another either. I think the reason they prepped for dance fighting is because they had to cancel out Stanley's dance bonus.

It's possible that Dance fighting uses different stats to determine damage than regular combat.

Imagine if dance fighting bypassed normal defense stats, but could be canceled by Dancing defense stats.

BRC
2009-01-29, 12:04 PM
Except that Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html) Dance-fighting is explicitly referred to as a "Bonus", and normal combat occurs after dance-fighting.

reignofevil
2009-01-29, 12:24 PM
You know...
Its possible that it doesnt NEED to be initiated by either defenders OR attackers. If one side can dance fight and decides to, it will. If the other side cant, or wont, it wont get the bonus is all. Why complicate it?

Ultimatum479
2009-01-29, 01:14 PM
This is gonna be rapetastic.

It looks like dance fights give bonuses to the winning dancers (not to the entire side, as Jillian specifically states that only the knights got the dance-fight bonus, not the dwagons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html)). Better dance-fight gear seems to improve one's chances of winning the dance fight and getting the bonus, but since dance-fight gear isn't proper battle gear, that bonus has to be big enough to compensate for the difference in gear and give a hefty bonus in addition, or else Jillian and Vinnie would've just gone into the battle in full battle gear and not worried about winning the fight. Therefore, dance-fighting is potentially powerful. So why isn't it used more often?

The Knights in Stanley's Service seem to specialize in dance-fighting to the point where Stanley's spent the Shmuckers to give them very good dance-fight gear (either because its bonus to dance-fighting is high or because it doubles as good battle gear, unlike most dance-fight gear). If they're Stanley's elites, then it seems likely that the bonus gained from dance-fighting is related to how well the winners did in the dance-fight; winning by a little gives less of a bonus than winning by a lot, which allows specializing in dance-fighting as the Rockers do to be a viable strategy. (And in fact a very good strategy; the Rockers plus the Dwagons were able to do some pretty decent damage against a completely overwhelming force and, had Stanley not had to fight two very high level warlords in succession, it's likely they would've won.)

So that would explain why it's not used often: dance-fights have to be won by a lot to make up for the weaker gear being used, since the dance-fight bonus is relative to the degree by which the dance-fight is won.

If that's the case, then this is going to be excessively awesome. The Uncroaked, since a master-class Croakamancer like Wanda can lead them so well (and for all we know Maggie is helping out from a safe distance), seem to mimic the dance-fight stats of their leader, though it's likely very much reduced. Wanda's attractiveness and seductive abilities (as demonstrated in her distraction of Stanley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0054.html)) imply that she is, in addition to all of her formidable casting and battle abilities, a good dance-fighter (her upkeep costs must be ridiculously high, as she's easily the most powerful character we know), so she's leading a crapload of now-decent dance-fighters into battle against an unprepared, inferior opponent. She will not only win, but win hardcore. The resulting bonus for her already-uberbuffed army of Uncroaked is going to be disgustingly high.

Sotharsyl
2009-01-29, 01:20 PM
because if we don't speculate we loose half the fun, by the fact that Parson just learnt about it now makes ne think it'a bit more obscure part of the rules the RCC is prety balanced but is very weak especialy without Jilian and Vinny in dance fighting
maybe the dance styles are in a rock paper scysors cycle?

Morak
2009-01-29, 02:10 PM
Except that Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html) Dance-fighting is explicitly referred to as a "Bonus", and normal combat occurs after dance-fighting.

Well right there is part of the bonus. If dance fighting occurs before normal combat. In a battle where only one side can dance fight; wouldn't that side get an extra round of attacks? One for the dance fighting and another for normal.

Ultimatum479
2009-01-29, 02:43 PM
It's obvious from the wording of Jillian's statement that she's referring to a mechanical bonus, not a "bonus" in the vague sense of the term. She's an Erfworlder. Mechanics are a common part of their natural diction.

As for who initiates dance-fighting, why is everyone under the impression that Jillian's group attacked Stanley? They merely blocked The Tool's only way through; it was GK's turn, and Stanley's the one who initiated the attack by deciding that "We're punching through!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0122.html) Here, GK is defending, yet initiating the dance-fight nonetheless. Reignofevil is right: There's no need to complicate the issue. Either side can apparently initiate dance-fighting.

MReav
2009-01-29, 05:54 PM
My theory is that Dance Fighting increases one's combat and defense but reduces their hits (which is represented by armor, which is shed)

Kreistor
2009-01-29, 10:17 PM
Basic units have four stats -- Hits (amount of damage you take), Combat (offensive stat presumably), Defense, and Move. (See Bogroll on Klog 4.)

We know that some things provide bonuses -- Leadership from commanders (inc casters), leadership from Chief Warlords in capital, Leadership from begin stacked with Chief Warlord, stack bonus (caps at 8), and Dance Fighting. There are probably more that I am forgetting.

We do not have any mention of penalties that I am aware of.

The easiest way to use Combat and bonuses is:

Offense = Combat + bonuses

We know that Parson's warlord bonus is 2, from Klog 4 again. That's a pretty simple concept -- one digit to represent Parson's effect. That would, presumably, make Bogroll's Combat 7.

Now, let's look at this breach. Wanda is leading her undead in to defend the breach.

Offense = Combat + Wanda's Commander bonus + Parson's Chief Warlord bonus + Dance fighting bonus + Stack bonus

We know the Chief Warlord bonus stacks from Page 123. Wanda is shown with far more than 8 in formation beyhind her, so the stack bonus will be 8. We don't know Wanda's Commander bonus. So we can't actually come close to the real Offense value, but I doubt those undead are going to match Bogroll's 5 Combat.

In most games, you compare Offense to Defense on a table to determine odds of success, then roll dice. In Erfworld, the dice are swords slicing into your gut, so I'm just not sure how numbers really play into it all.

What I do know is that Parson is now much closer to the fighting than I expected him to be. From Klog 4, we know that Parson provides his leadership bonus to all units in the capital. The only reason to be down with the fighting is if he is providing an additional bonus by being close. I've never seen a game where a bonus from a commander was allowed to be added twice to the same unit, but that's all I can come up with. Unlike Caesar who was out in the outlands during Page 123, when he was providing his full bonus to his own stack only, Parson should be providing his full bonus to all units already.

Anyway, I think it's just a flat out "add" to the offensive (and potentially defensive) value, which just gives you better odds on the Offense vs. Defense table. I highly doubt that clothing affects Combat or Defense at all, and a bonus is just as it claims to be -- a bonus.

Innis Cabal
2009-01-29, 10:45 PM
Its clearly going to be like West Side Story.

SteveMB
2009-01-29, 10:54 PM
What I do know is that Parson is now much closer to the fighting than I expected him to be. From Klog 4, we know that Parson provides his leadership bonus to all units in the capital.

Actually, he says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html) "all units of my capital". That could mean all units affiliated with Gobwin Knob regardless of whether or not they are in Gobwin Knob.


The only reason to be down with the fighting is if he is providing an additional bonus by being close. I've never seen a game where a bonus from a commander was allowed to be added twice to the same unit, but that's all I can come up with. Unlike Caesar who was out in the outlands during Page 123, when he was providing his full bonus to his own stack only, Parson should be providing his full bonus to all units already.

Ansom refers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0068.html) to the forest units losing his "direct bonus" if he leaves them to escape. The "direct" qualifier implies that it's a special bonus for actually being with the units; if so, presumably the same concept applies to Parson.

Limos
2009-01-29, 10:56 PM
It's possible that Dance fighint is a force multiplier, rather than a flat bonus.

Normally they arrange stacks of 8 because that's as high as the stack bonus goes, and by spreading out the stacks they get more combat points overall. So, that would mean that in order for this to be more effective than the usual stacks that would mean that it would have to increase the total bonus more than you would get from stacking them by 8's.

Normal Stacks
8 - Units, 8 - Units, 8 - Units. Each one gets a stack bonus of 8. Which means a total increase in your gross combat bonus of 3(8*8). Which is a gross increase of 192 points.

7 - Units Plus Warlord, 8 - Units, 8 - Units. Again, stack bonus of 8. Except this time the warlord applies a bonus to creatures in it's stack. Which means a gross increase of 3(8*8) +7x. X being the warlord bonus.

Weird Stacks
24 - Units. Each one gets the same stack bonus of 8. Which would be the same exact bonus of 192 points gross.

23 - Units Plus Warlord. Once more, 8 point stack bonus. And this time apply the warlord bonus to all the units in the stack for a gross increase of (8*24) + 23x. Since we know that the basic stack bonus is 192 for both that would mean that the difference is 23x - 7x, which would mean a 16x difference between the two stacks.

Now I take this to mean that the bonus isn't applied to each individual creature, otherwise the stacks of 8 convention wouldn't make any sense. Everyone would just do the math and realize that it's better just to leader giant stacks and put all the modifiers together they can.

What if instead the stack bonus only applied to the squad as a whole.

CombatOfStack = Number of Units * (BaseCombat + AnyBonuses) + StackModifier

So the stack modifier is only added on top of the total Combat rating of the stack and it can't get higher than 8. That would mean that our two stacking systems would need to be different.

valce
2009-01-29, 10:57 PM
IIRC parson mentioned something about combat not being additive...

Probably this means that if you have a very high powered unit it can take down many weaker units without any noticeable loss of power. Wonder what other buffs he's got up his sleeve?

quindraco
2009-01-29, 11:45 PM
IIRC parson mentioned something about combat not being additive...

Probably this means that if you have a very high powered unit it can take down many weaker units without any noticeable loss of power. Wonder what other buffs he's got up his sleeve?

Combat does appear to be additive in the sense that two units behave like two units - so if a stack of two gwiffons attacks a stack of one gwiffon, the two gwiffon stack has double the attacks and health of the one gwiffon stack, with other attributes not stacking (each stack's damage per attack is likely equal).

*Bonuses* seem to be multiplicative; "force-multiplier" seems to have been taken literally by the Titans. Assuming leadership bonuses make units hit harder so I can set up an example, if our gwiffon stack now includes a unit with leadership 9, each gwiffon now hits 9 times harder. If that unit is carrying an artifact with bonus 5, each gwiffon hits 45 (!!!) times harder.

One of the primary ways multiplicative bonuses will differ from additive ones is that 7 + 9 = 8 + 8, but 7 * 9 < 8 * 8. Therefore, you will always get the most bang for your buck, bonus wise, with lots of mediocre bonuses rather than one really good one. Of course, lots of good ones will pwn.

Wraithfighter
2009-01-30, 12:47 AM
All interesting thoughts, but you're ignoring a rather critical element:

It's DANCE fighting.

Or, more accurately, why is it dance fighting? why not, oh, Pizza Fighting? Or Slap Fighting?

What about it makes the Dance part relevant?

This ain't just a table-top game system. It's also a comic strip, and so its gotta be visualized. Like here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0111.html

Could it just be like Banding back in the early versions of Magic: The Gathering? The enemy can't target any particular target because, when they try to, the dance partner swings around and takes part of the blow?

Possibly with some offensive implications, as well. But you can understand the appeal in Wanda's case: Any attempts to damage the super powerful caster in the group gets diverted to random zombie #72.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-30, 01:51 AM
Things we know for sure:

(1) Dance Fighting provides a bonus (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html) which is multiplicative (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0138.html) rather than additive.

(2) Only certain units are capable of Dance Fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0140.html). Likely it is listed under their Special (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html) stat. So far we know Knight-class Infantry (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0084.html), Vampires, and Archons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0111.html) can all Dance Fight.

(3) Costuming (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0100.html) is important (but perhaps not necessary) for Dance Fighting.

Comments
The nature of the Dance Fight bonus
I don't think the "Dance Fight" provokes a special round of combat, though it does appear to trigger some manner of challenge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0123.html). It seems likely that the "Dance Fight" bonus is not fixed, or any unit capable of Dance Fighting would do it all the time. Here I agree with Ultimatum479 that the initial contest before engagement probably determines the size of the bonus.

In fact, I will speculate that part of your "success" on a Dance Fight Contest is determined by the size of your Dance Fight Squad. This explains why Vinny isn't Dance Fighting all the time - alone in Ansom's forces, his bonus would be meager. Alternatively, you cannot use Dance Fighting unless your entire stack is capable of Dance Fighting.

Additionally, you may need a Dance Leader to activate the Dance Fighting Bonus. In all instances of Dance Fighting, the Dance Squad has been lead by a Warlord - this may just be coincidence, but it is something to consider.

On the latest page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0140.html)
I think that "Thriller" is a spell (or ability) available to Master Class Necromancers that grants the Dance Fighting Special ability to all Uncroaked lead by said Necromancer. I'm guessing that Dance Fighting must have some sort of disadvantage or limitation, or Wanda would have used the same ability when challenging Ansom.

If my theory about Stack Size is correct, then it may be that Wanda's "Thriller" spell grants a relatively smaller bonus than, say, Stanley's or Caeser's Dance-Style.

New Question: We have seen several different styles of Dance Fighting. Is this just a result of Side (like unit decorations) or is it more of a rock-paper-scissors style choice? That is to say, Rock beats Square Dance, Square Dance beats Cool, and Cool beats Rock.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-30, 05:01 AM
I'm having doubts about this "multiplicative bonus" thing. I mean, in Vinnie's Transylvito style speech, the ranks are Bats > Infantry > Advanced > Heavy. If each bonus is "X2," then a Heavy would be eight times stronger than a bat and that would make sense. But if Jillian's leadership is 9, and Caesar's is better than that, and you're proposing THOSE are multiplicative, then the bats in Jillian's stack -- if she had a stack of bats -- would be, what, 81 times stronger than your average bat? I don't see that. Obviously a lot of this depends on the numbers involved, but no matter how gently you try to go about it... eventually it breaks down.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-30, 05:16 AM
I'm having doubts about this "multiplicative bonus" thing. I mean, in Vinnie's Transylvito style speech, the ranks are Bats > Infantry > Advanced > Heavy. If each bonus is "X2," then a Heavy would be eight times stronger than a bat and that would make sense. But if Jillian's leadership is 9, and Caesar's is better than that, and you're proposing THOSE are multiplicative, then the bats in Jillian's stack -- if she had a stack of bats -- would be, what, 81 times stronger than your average bat? I don't see that. Obviously a lot of this depends on the numbers involved, but no matter how gently you try to go about it... eventually it breaks down.

I mean, it's pretty much Word of God here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0138.html); "force multipliers" are usually things which, well, multiply the amount of actual force you can project. Tagon (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20080713.html) describes it the best, IMHO.

Plus, you have to remember that it is the relative power of units that matters, not their absolute power. Even if everyone had enough multipliers to make their respective bats over 9000 times stronger than normal, the bats would still be doing approximately the same damage to each other as if they were unenhanced.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-30, 05:26 AM
Plus, you have to remember that it is the relative power of units that matters, not their absolute power. Even if everyone had enough multipliers to make their respective bats over 9000 times stronger than normal, the bats would still be doing approximately the same damage to each other as if they were unenhanced.

Sure, if they're balanced. But do you really see Erfworld as the kind of place where a single Bat with a few warlords' hands up its bum holding off 9000 of its own kind without such bonuses?

As for Tagon, force-multiplier is military jargon, and it is often used for things that do not literally multiply your force quite so dramatically as Tagon puts it. Really the only way out I see is if "force multiplier" refers to multiplying by 1.1 or 1.2, and even then I can see it running into headache down the road. If the smallest bonus is x2, it doesn't work. It just doesn't.

OTOH, how many bats does it take to get to the center of a Dwagon pop?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-30, 05:35 AM
Sure, if they're balanced. But do you really see Erfworld as the kind of place where a single Bat with a few warlords' hands up its bum holding off 9000 of its own kind without such bonuses?

Well sure, but that's a lot of resources pumped into a single squad. Normally, armies need to spread out their bonuses to make sure none of their random squads get chopped up by buffed ones. Remember the power of Warlord-led squads, particularly in being able to disengage and to call shots; since Warlords seem to be the main source of buffs, you're not going to want to have all of them in a single unit.

In Parson's case, he only has one unit left, so he's going to make it as tanky as possible and use hit-and-run tactics to create enough havoc to make Ansom retreat for the turn. In a normal war, the defending Warlord would have rationed out his bonuses to run a protracted siege; once the opposing force breaches the Garrison Walls, it should be all over. Needless to say, Parson's tactics have brought about a different result :smallamused:

SteveD
2009-01-30, 07:05 AM
Actually, he says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html) "all units of my capital". That could mean all units affiliated with Gobwin Knob regardless of whether or not they are in Gobwin Knob.

Ansom refers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0068.html) to the forest units losing his "direct bonus" if he leaves them to escape. The "direct" qualifier implies that it's a special bonus for actually being with the units; if so, presumably the same concept applies to Parson.

Its more likely that the Chief Warlord bonus applies to the hex, and the personal bonus applies to the stack. Saying a chief warlord bonus applies globally just because of the enunciation of word 'of' is a bit of a stretch. :P


Also, the Knights are defined as "Rockers", and with sizemore's Metal Golems, it appears that GK has a definite "Rock" theme going.

Did you just insinuate Michael Jackson is 'Rock'?

Urge to kill rising...

Monsterknuffel
2009-01-30, 07:37 AM
In my oppinion Dance fight is a dodge bonus and a bonus attack or a chance to make an extra attack. (due to their maneuverability)
This bonus, combined with leadership boni and so on gives a nice damage output while having a good chance to just dodge the enemy attacks. Low level zombies doent have many hitpoints. And it doesnt seem that the zombies Wanda is leading are incredibly skilled warriors. (ignoring the now gained Dance Fighting Ability)

Morak
2009-01-30, 07:55 AM
I don't think the "Dance Fight" provokes a special round of combat, though it does appear to trigger some manner of challenge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0123.html).

I agree that a challenge occurs. That is what starts the bonus round of dance fighting.

As you pointed out the challenge is issued here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0123.html).

However it appears to me that the extra round of combat is shown here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html). Notice how only the warloards that participated in issuing the challenge (and the units with them) are the only ones doing the fighting.

It is only after the 'Van der Graaf' that dance fighting ends and the non dancing units start fighting. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0126.html)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-30, 02:45 PM
I agree that a challenge occurs. That is what starts the bonus round of dance fighting.

As you pointed out the challenge is issued here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0123.html).

However it appears to me that the extra round of combat is shown here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html). Notice how only the warloards that participated in issuing the challenge (and the units with them) are the only ones doing the fighting.

It is only after the 'Van der Graaf' that dance fighting ends and the non dancing units start fighting. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0126.html)

That's debateable. To me, it doesn't look like Caeser is doing any Dance Fighting in that panel. Neither is Stanley; his type of Dance Fighting is to play his hammer like a guitar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0123.html). I just seems to me that, if Dance Fighting were an extra round of combat, Parson would have mentioned it rather than referring to Dance Fighting merely as a "bonus."

In a way, I'm Occam Razoring this - we already see the basic form of Erfworld Combat, and I don't see any reason to invent a new permutation of it, rather than just accept that Dance Fight is a bonus, like Parson said.

Decius
2009-01-30, 03:04 PM
Why does everybody think combat happens in rounds? While turns are quite explicit, with people waiting for theirs quite explicitly, nobody has ever uttered the word "round" with respect to combat.

Dance fighting is a style of fighting, just like physical or magical. Compare your dance-fight attack, modified by multipliers, and compare it to your enemies dance-fight defense, modified by multipliers.

Meanwhile, the enemy might well be using his physical attack vs. your physical defense.

The advantage to being prepared for a dance-fight is that you have a significant dance-fight defense value. Otherwise, it becomes a massacre as the dancing undead dance all over you. Then you get animated as undead yourself, and... "Everybody dance-fight now!!"

BRC
2009-01-30, 03:20 PM
I maintain that it's a bonus, For example, look Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html), Jillian refers to "Knights with dance-fight bonuses" Before the two sides had started actually swinging at each other, implying that the Knights won the Dance-Fight. If it was just another type of damage-dealing combat, that wouldn't have happened. Unless we assume that conversation took place ahead of time, and she assumed the Knights would be better dance-fighters.
Also, Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0138.html), Parson says "It's all about force-mulitpliers", and then lists several obvious bonuses, Leadership, terrain, spells, Artifacts, specials, and then Dance-Fighting.
If Dance-fighting is indeed another form of combat, and not a contest to gain a bonus, then it's like parson was saying "Hydrogen, Oxygen, Lithium, Sulfer, and Hamburgers"

Godskook
2009-01-30, 04:18 PM
However it appears to me that the extra round of combat is shown here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html). Notice how only the warloards that participated in issuing the challenge (and the units with them) are the only ones doing the fighting.

It is only after the 'Van der Graaf' that dance fighting ends and the non dancing units start fighting. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0126.html)

Look closer. Red* is leading the charge in panel one, and her and her bats are clearly engaged with a dwagon in panel 3, and is most likely the warlord shown kicking the dwagon in panel 4(although we really only know for sure that its a female in that panel, due to the hair). This all happens before Caesar attacks Stanley.

*Red is the TV female warlord with the red shirt on.

Morak
2009-01-30, 04:53 PM
Then Red is also apart of the Dance fight.

Because if it was not extra combat then explain to me why Vinny and Jillian are sitting out the initial combat chatting while everyone else is fighting?

Remember it is Stanley's turn. He is the one moving into the mountain pass hex. He is the only one allowed to move. The others can only defend the Hex.

This is why when Stanley runs that they do not follow him out of the hex. In fact if you look closely it appears Jillian runs into the Hex boundary here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0127.html). Hence the smoosh.

I also think Dance fighting gives a bonus beyond the extra combat. So I agree that it is also a bonus.

SteveMB
2009-01-30, 05:34 PM
Because if it was not extra combat then explain to me why Vinny and Jillian are sitting out the initial combat chatting while everyone else is fighting?

The conversation between Vinnie and Jillian on that page is in a style that indicates it to be a "voiceover" of a conversation that did not happen in the same time and place as the associated images:


The dialog boxes are square, with no rounding of the corners and no pointers indicating the speaker.

The text is in quotation marks.


Compare to earlier pages with the same device (Jillian's "escape" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0045.html), Sizemore's account of Stanley's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0086.html) history (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html), Jillian's account of Faq's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0091.html) history (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html))

Vinny and Jillian weren't chatting during the battle -- they discussed the plan (which included Jillian hanging back as a last-ditch final chance to stop Stanley if he broke through the main line) prior to the battle.

Godskook
2009-01-30, 06:09 PM
Then Red is also apart of the Dance fight.

Circular logic failure!

Your original argument was essentially 'only dance-fighting characters are shown fighting before Stanley's van de Graff'.

This argument is 'Red must have been dance-fighting because only dance-fighting characters were fighting before Stanley's van de Graff'.

The fact is, Red is not shown dance-fighting, yet does fight before the van de Graff. That means that nothing shown in that comic supports your theory(that dance-fighting stacks get an extra initial round of combat). I'll admit though, that nothing in my argument so far has disproven your theory, just knocked a chunk of evidence away.

Sure, you can suppose that maybe she was part of the dance-fight(making your theory consistent with the comic), but that is your own speculation, and needs to be worded as such, rather than as a definitive fact.


Because if it was not extra combat then explain to me why Vinny and Jillian are sitting out the initial combat chatting while everyone else is fighting?

Huh? Every indication has Vinny going into the heat of it mere feet behind Red.

First, he is dance-fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0123.html)(why would he if he was staying back with Jillian, especially if he's wasting a 'free round'). This places him within a foot of Caesar at the battle-start. Second, here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0125.html) we see Caesar, Mario, Red, and what looks to be Vinny in the first panel. This makes plenty of sense since it appears to be only moments after the rhyming happened in 123. Now, if Vinny moves back at this moment to talk to Jillian, that'd mean he was with her when Stanley van de Graff'ed Caesar. If that were the case, why the hell would he have not engaged Stanley with/before Jillian.? That doesn't make sense. Especially considering he isn't shown again(since 125) until Jillian and Caesar start talking in a page or two.

Miklus
2009-01-30, 08:25 PM
The only question on my mind is: What will Ansom do to counter the "Thriller"?

If he does Vanilla Ice, he deserves to loose the battle for Gobwin Knob...Bigtime! :smallbiggrin:

Kreistor
2009-01-30, 08:53 PM
Okay, let's quote people, when you're referring to something that is said. It helps loads, since you're not relying on memory. And it is very, very important.

Page 125. Parson says, "And it's all about force multipliers. Leadership, terrain, artifacts, specials, spell buffs... dance fighting, for boop's sake. To win you gotta pile bonus on nbonus on bonus."

Leadership and dance fighting are dealt with by Parson as equivalent... they are both called bonuses. So, howeer leadership affects the Offensive value of a unit, dance fighting acts the same. From that quote we know that all bonuses are "force multipliers", so there is nothing special about dance fighting.

Why are they called force multipliers? Because that's a military term. Wikipedia says, "Force multiplication, in military usage, refers to a combination of attributes or advantages which make a given force more effective than another force of comparable size." So, no, an effect does not need to actually double the effect of a unit in order to be a "force multiplier", it only needs to be significantly effective. Many stacked bonuses may result in a unit that is a few times more effective than normal, so that the combined bonuses multiply the strength of a unit, but an individual bonus does not need to achieve that result to fulfill Parson's statement.

For instance, a defensive wall is a force multiplier. That is because without a breach, it takes a lot more attackers to take teh wall than it takes defenders to defend it. At some points in history, one defender was worth 5 attackers. (Sun Tzu tells generals never to lay siege to cities, because it destroyed armies. By 1812, artillery had reduced the effectiveness of walls greatly. The Maginot line, for instance, turned out to be a waste of concrete in WW2. A monument to military ignorance.) So how much of a "multiplier" a wall is depends on the era and technology of the forces involved. Leadership rarely (ie. never) has so severe an effect that a single unit will quintuple in effectiveness. A leader's effect is more greatly felt in the positioning of the units involved, but there are instances where leaders that did enter the fray had immediate effect on the outcome, rallying broken lines, or inspiring greater effort. In game systems, This has to be reduced to a value of some sort, and so it becomes a bonus, regardless of appropriateness of situation.

Now, one thing you have to understand, rarely will a warfare simulator use straight mathematics to determine the outcome. Most systems will take offense and cross reference it with defense on a table, then insert randomness. Let's say we have an attack of 8 and defense of 4. In a game that uses six sided dice to determine the result, you'd roll the die and look at the correct entry on the table. entry might look like [1 = A loses 1/2 D loses 1/2, 2,3,4 = A loses 1/3 D loses 2/3 and retreat (check for morale), 5,6 = D loses all]. So on a low roll, the attack is a stalemate, on a high roll the attacker destroys the entire defending force.. In the middle, the attacker takes fewer losses, and the defender must lose 2/3rds of his force, and the remainder must retreat and maybe break and run, should their morale be low. The initial offense and defensive values become irrelevant to the actual damage dealt, only pushing the results one way or another -- an offensive value may double, but the damage done may not double, only increase. Under a system like this, bonuses become very important, but you can't use mathematics to determine the final result, not just because of the random nature of combat, but because the amount of damage is not directly proportional to the values you start with. Also note that there are two results of combat, damage done and damage taken. imagine a fight that was initially 10% losses to both sides. Now add a bonus that doubles one side's attack and defense. It increases damage done by 3% and decreases that sides damage taken by 3%. Final result, the side with the bonus takes 7% losses and the other side takes 13% losses, almost double. So, thoiough the damage dealt does not double, the damage dealt relative to your losses is nearly double. (This is enough to break most defenders, BTW. Losing 2:1 is a big downer.)

So, please, let's not treat "force multiplier" as some sort of suggestion that the bonuses actually multiply the values of Combat or Defense (Klog 4). It is just a military term that incorporates a huge number of aspects of a battlefield.

Jallorn
2009-01-30, 08:57 PM
I vote safety dance.

Godskook
2009-01-30, 09:26 PM
So, please, let's not treat "force multiplier" as some sort of suggestion that the bonuses actually multiply the values of Combat or Defense (Klog 4). It is just a military term that incorporates a huge number of aspects of a battlefield.

Agreed.

Hell, tactics is a force multiplier. Take Warcraft 2 for instance. Footman/grunts can, in single combat, simultaneously kill each other. The horde player can, with good tactics, use both grunts to kill 3-4 cpu footman by attacking one footman with both grunts at once, making sure to keep the healthier grunt in front. Thus, said player 'multiplied his force' by getting nearly twice the effectiveness out of each grunt.

BRC
2009-01-30, 09:39 PM
Concerning Force Multipliers, Captain Tagon Explains the basic concept (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20080713.html)

Surprise!
2009-01-30, 09:56 PM
(Sun Tzu tells generals never to lay siege to cities, because it destroyed armies. By 1812, artillery had reduced the effectiveness of walls greatly. The Maginot line, for instance, turned out to be a waste of concrete in WW2. A monument to military ignorance.) So how much of a "multiplier" a wall is depends on the era and technology of the forces involved. Leadership rarely (ie. never) has so severe an effect that a single unit will quintuple in effectiveness. A leader's effect is more greatly felt in the positioning of the units involved, but there are instances where leaders that did enter the fray had immediate effect on the outcome, rallying broken lines, or inspiring greater effort. In game systems, This has to be reduced to a value of some sort, and so it becomes a bonus, regardless of appropriateness of situation.




I completely agree with everything you said except this. Historians are often harsh on the Mignot Line, calling it outdated, over priced, and an overall huge boopup. But the Germans definitely feared the line, charging tanks and troops against heavily fortified bunkers connected by tunnels would decimate the war machine. Leaving insuffiant troops to subjecate the mainland of France. Sure bombers could fly over, but their accuracy was dodgy at that point, and they would have to land at some point. The weakness of the line was it was not finished. Be Dutch did not want to be the battlefield in any war, like they were in WW1, so they forbade the French from building a line on their border. So the Nazi's simply ignored neutrality and bybassed the bulk of French forces and fortifications.

Sure maybe they would have been a tad more effective with pivot turrets, or AA nests, but it is no fair to bash it seeing as it never saw any action due to politics.

Imagine this, the line is completed, and the Nazi's strike for Paris as they did. The Nazi army is smaller then the French but is more manueverable and fields more advanced war machines. The french are able to transport men and supplies to the sections of the wall underattack, these convoys pass unmolested through the system of tunnels as the Luftwaffe haphazardly bombs the turret boxs. Though the turrets can't move not every tank will be able to roll in between 'blind spots'. French artiliary fires from behind the line and the Germans are forced into the same kind of war they fought in 1914. I would not suggest that the result would be the same at all, but a demoralized and damaged german war machine would break through the lines and make its way for Paris. While the defenders escape to a nearby tunnel exit with all the supplies they need to harrass the Germans more. As the battle rages on, more troops will arrive from furthur down the line, bringing more supplies and freash faces. The war in France would not be the same lightening strike uber victory it was when he could simply sneak past their defences. And certainly they would be more suseptable to a land based attack from England.

Kreistor
2009-01-30, 11:31 PM
Okay, a number of things to face there. Yes, the Nazi attack bypassed the end of the Maginot line, but no, the Nazis' did not ignore it. In fact, they bombed significant portions of the line. And that is how they would have dealt with it. Massive bombing raids on individual sections of the line until there were many potential breaching spots. That doesn't change with or without AA guns or turrets. The turrets are just targets, and AA to defend against bombers would be on the top of the defences, unprotected, where artillery could be sighted in to eliminate them. Teh Germans had one thing going for them: aripower. Neither the Ffrench or Brits could have handled the Luftwaffe on the border of Germany (where over Britain the German fighters only had a few minutes of fighting time, their bases would have been just as close to the area as the Allied airfields, eliminating that disadvantage.) The defense against this was to actually attack into Germany, which I don't think the French or British were prepared to do, either in amount of force available or politically. Any fixed emplacement is highly suspect in the face of modern artillery and bombs, especially when it can be very easily marked by ground forces (bombing a darkened city at night is really hard, but if the artillery can light it up, targetting is much easier.) There were other defensive lines in WW2 that were better designed, but all were destroyed in much the same way. Once the Germans can enter in several places, the Germans will gain a foothold, and then Blitzkrieg wins again.

Second, the myth of German tank superiority at the beginning of WW2. No, the Germans did not have the best tanks at the beginning of the war. Most think the French tanks were much better, and even one of the British tanks outperformed the German tanks. The advantage lay in how the Germans used their tanks, that is, combined arms, which resulted in what became known as Blitzkreig. All aspects of the German war machine worked together, where in other armies they were separate. Just to back all that up, from Wikipedia:

"Although the early-war Panzer II, III, and IV were clearly inferior to some of their French and Soviet counterparts, this blitzkrieg (‘lightning warfare’) was made possible by several factors: the German military experience in World War I, their excellent training, integrated communications, coordinated use of airpower, and, perhaps most famously, by the combined-arms employment of integrated infantry and armoured forces, the panzer divisions of the Germany Army and Waffen-SS." Reference 4. White, B. T. (1983). TANKS and other Armoured Fighting Vehicles of World War II. New York: Exeter Books. pp. 5. ISBN 0-671-06009-0.

I've seen that backed up in many sources (most notably the program Tanks! which can be seen on History, Discovery, and/or Military channels).

Combined arms was, ironically, a force multiplier.

Surprise!
2009-01-30, 11:52 PM
Okay, a number of things to face there. .



So...did my overwhelming force just get trounced by inferior units with supirior tactics (and excellent air units)?



derp

Morak
2009-02-04, 09:11 AM
The conversation between Vinnie and Jillian on that page is in a style that indicates it to be a "voiceover" of a conversation that did not happen in the same time and place as the associated images:


The dialog boxes are square, with no rounding of the corners and no pointers indicating the speaker.

The text is in quotation marks.


Vinny and Jillian weren't chatting during the battle -- they discussed the plan (which included Jillian hanging back as a last-ditch final chance to stop Stanley if he broke through the main line) prior to the battle.

Wow.. not sure how I missed that. The sequence of the battle makes more sense now.

My assumption that there was an extra round of combat was based on my perception that the conversation was occurring during the battle. And that some turn base games use extra rounds of combat as a bonus.


Axis and Allies - Offshore bombardment / Sub sneak attack
Civ IV - First strike


So unless the upcoming thriller dances shows differently there is no extra combat round of dance fighting like I thought there was.

ObadiahtheSlim
2009-02-04, 11:51 AM
Multipliers probably aren't huge x5 stacked with x6. They are probably along the lines of 1.X or X%. In that sense, the bonuses end up stacking multiplicatively instead of additively but aren't super overpowered. This is a problem in many RPGs and MMOs where multiplicative bonuses, like 1% or 2%, can eventually become overpowered when they are allowed to stack several times.

That's how my cat for druid worked in WoW. I stacked up every single +damage bonus I could find. It stacked with all my other modifiers to critical hits (which was rather high) and to the multipliers on my base attacks. A small +5 damage, which seems rather low to other classes, becomes much much higher when you consider that I am multiplying it by 500%. Suddenly my low damage becomes a force to be reckoned with that was much much higher if I just stacked normal non-stacking bonuses.

Kreistor
2009-02-04, 02:55 PM
Multipliers probably aren't huge x5 stacked with x6. They are probably along the lines of 1.X or X%...

Please reread my #33 in this thread. "Force multiplier" is a military term, and not indicative that the bonuses in this system are mathematical multipliers.