Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by fendrin
Additive bonus are force multipliers.
A unit with a base of 1 that gets a +9 bonus is the equivalent of a 10. A 10 is clearly worth multiple 1s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godskook
As far as force multipliers are concerned, consider Magic the Gathering, specifically this card. I assume Erfworld warlords work similarly. Well, to put it in MtG terms:
Warlord:
-banding*
-creatures banded* with this warlord get +x/+x where x is this warlord's leadership score.
Chief Warlord:
-banding*
-creatures you control** get +y/+y where y is this Warlord's hex bonus
-creatures banded* with this warlord get +x/+x where x is this warlord's leadership score.
*banding in MtG works like Erfworld's stacking mechanic.
**Do we know if chief warlord bonuses apply to just units of their side or all units in their alliance?
At least, thats how I picture the MtG-version of a Erf warworld working.
We have no idea how the combat stats determine combat or how bonuses affects those stats, as the authors haven't given us any real details in that area. We don't know if the bonuses add strength to the unit, multiply existing strength, or something like adding a bonus to the "dice rolls" or some wierd combination...
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lamech
We have no idea how the combat stats determine combat or how bonuses affects those stats, as the authors haven't given us any real details in that area. We don't know if the bonuses add strength to the unit, multiply existing strength, or something like adding a bonus to the "dice rolls" or some wierd combination...
Which is why I didn't say the +9 bonus made the unit worth 10 of of the same kind of unit. However, it's pretty clear that a 10 is worth at least twice as much as a 1. So, regardless of knowing precisely how effective a 10 is compared to a 1, it can be called a multiplicative effect.
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Something tells me what Parson just did is pretty much unheard of in the history of Erf warfare. I'd suspect that Crap Golems, while their explosive properties were known, were mainly used to clear walls or to disrupt front line forces.
And as for Shockamancy, I suspect that the enemy is not going to quite know what happened if everyone close to where Sizemore came up is dead or incapacitated. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if wildly inaccurate intel reports and rumors came up.
Soldier 1: "They had a Dirtamancer, yes. But a Shockamancer came out after them and cast the NSFW spell."
Soldier 2: "No, I tell ya, it was that Hampster guy! Came right outta the ground, alone, blasting left and right! I was there, and when I came to, he was gone!"
Stuff like this is what breaks coalitions; allow enough bad, and yet contradictory, information take root, and there'll be enough discord to kill any unity.
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
As for the MIA Commanders, there would be several good reasons to capture, even if they could not be compelled to serve Parson.
1. They could be released prematurely. If others know of what happened to Jillian, they would be considered "contaminated" and therefore useless, or even imprisoned by the coalition as possible Double Agents, if Ansom has been made paranoid enough. And Maggie could make suggestions to them to act just erratically enough that they are suspected of being under a loyalty spell.
That would burden the coalition by making them suspicious of formerly high-value units.
2. Maggie could plant "suggestions" as to where they're held, causing rescue missions to be set up that are sent into traps.
3. If Sizemore can move fast, this could become a bizarre version of "Whack a Mole" where their supporting troops are constantly seeing their leaders being dragged around, still alive but prisoner. That would cause the coalition to fracture, as their direct followers would not want to follow Ansom into more bad battles while their leaders were being dragged in another direction.
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chupachichis
As for the MIA Commanders, there would be several good reasons to capture, even if they could not be compelled to serve Parson.
3.Good condition warlord corpses for Wanda to uncroak later.
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lamech
We have no idea how the combat stats determine combat or how bonuses affects those stats, as the authors haven't given us any real details in that area. We don't know if the bonuses add strength to the unit, multiply existing strength, or something like adding a bonus to the "dice rolls" or some wierd combination...
Actually, we know more than you think. Enough to create a scale:
1. Doombats.
2. Basic infantry.
3. Advanced infantry.
4. Heavy infantry.
The absolute values between these four ranks can be as whacked as Moh's Hardness, but the conclusions we can draw are the same. Just to drive this point home, just look at that scale: 1-3 are linear, but 4 is weaker than you would expect, which is okay because 5 is more than you would expect. 5-7 is linear, but at a smaller slope than 1-3, and 7-10 suddenly turns exponential.
So we don't know what exactly leadership bonuses do, but at least two of us feel like they seem additive. Let's go ahead and make them additive on the Erf's Hardness scale above. Even if the jump from 1-4 is exponential, we can pretend we're taking the logarithm and consider the bonuses additive anyways. So Warlord bonus is +1a, Chief Warlord bonus is +1b, and in-stack bonus is +1c. We're calling them all +1 even if the actual values are different; it doesn't matter for the demonstration.
Now, apply this to one bat and it is simply additive. Apply it to 100 bats and it is multiplicative, like the Magic the Gathering bonus above. In fact, if all you have is one soldier and a pile of additive bonuses to that soldier, suddenly more soldiers start to look multiplicative in the same way bonuses look multiplicative when all you have are a bunch of soldiers. As I suggested above, power is a function of "area," and area is additive troops x additive bonuses. Even if levels of troop strength is exponential; even if (because of the stack bonus) number of troops is exponential. Even if level of troop strength is logarithmic, even if number of troops is logarithmic! In the extreme example of one curve being exponential and the other curve being logarithmic, there is still an optimal point between the two scales that makes increasing the length and breadth together more attractive than increasing either one individually. It just makes the calculus more exciting. The area will always advance faster than the length of the two sides. THAT is the multiplicative bonus. The rest is semantics.
As long as Ansom relies solely on massive numbers of troops and does not consider bonuses, he is falling behind. Yes, Parson is trying to stack multiple bonuses onto his troops, but through Uncroaking, he is planning to add to his troop numbers as well.
Personally I think troop strength is a logarithmic scale, or at least capped. As Ansom's fight on the walls shows, there's a limit to the number of troops that can attack at once... if all 1000 uncroaked piled into a super stack had a shot at Ansom, he'd be a goner. But certainly more than the one uncroaked the flying Ansom has chosen to engage can attack, so Ansom is attacking a stack as a whole. The first 8 troops in a stack are the steep end of the logarithmic scale, and every troop after that is the gentle end of the curve, up to the cap of the max number of troops that can attack at once, past which more troops only serve to increase the stack's ability to soak losses.
The strength curve per unit? Clueless, totally clueless. Although Parson's excitement at the "multiplicative" nature suggests a power curve or even an exponential curve.
In fact, this alone may explain the preference for multiple stacks. Number of stacks may be a third dimension orthogonal to unit strength and unit count, adding another balancing factor where there is a point that adding a second stack is more powerful than just one huge stack, even if the huge stack would theoretically have a higher length and breadth. Number of stacks would let your strength go up with the cube, whereas the super stack only goes up in strength with the square.
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Oww maths hurt puny brain....
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fjolnir
Oww maths hurt puny brain....
Well, I had a change of heart and decided not to bop anyone on the nose.
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
So basically, Parson is looking at doing things 'Translvito Style'.
Don't write off the bats uncroaked, even if they're the weakest type.
But with a Warlord bonus? Theeeyre more like basic infantry.
Havin' the Chief Warlord in the same hex adds another bonus, so every Uncroaked is more like Advanced Infantry.
Now, Wanda tacks on another bonus, being a Croakamancer, so they'll be almost like Heavies
And we've got flippin' tons of them. Thousands. Every single one that went in and was uncroaked last turn that wasn't killed by Ansom during his mad dash or in the retreat.
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chupachichis
....
3. If Sizemore can move fast, this could become a bizarre version of "Whack a Mole" where their supporting troops are constantly seeing their leaders being dragged around, still alive but prisoner. That would cause the coalition to fracture, as their direct followers would not want to follow Ansom into more bad battles while their leaders were being dragged in another direction.
That would be frikken hilarious! :smallbiggrin:
Edit; on the stack bonus thing, as anyone mentioned that it could possibly be an innate bonus to just having more units in a stack? I didn't read the wall-o-text posts about the calculations and what not so...
Re: Erfworld 139 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ShneekeyTheLost
So basically, Parson is looking at doing things 'Translvito Style'.
Don't write off the bats uncroaked, even if they're the weakest type.
But with a Warlord bonus? Theeeyre more like basic infantry.
Havin' the Chief Warlord in the same hex adds another bonus, so every Uncroaked is more like Advanced Infantry.
Now, Wanda tacks on another bonus, being a Croakamancer, so they'll be almost like Heavies
And we've got flippin' tons of them. Thousands. Every single one that went in and was uncroaked last turn that wasn't killed by Ansom during his mad dash or in the retreat.
Nice...:amused: