Difference between revisions of "Rumours"
m (Rumor comments) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
'''Pro:''' | '''Pro:''' | ||
| − | '''Con:''' | + | '''Con:''' I've done hunting with archers 5 or 6 times. I have only lost a man once. I haven't bothered keeping track of any statistics, but it didn't seem to me that my men were finding less enemy troops than any others. --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] 14:08, 12 July 2006 (CEST) |
==Bureaucratic Work and Region Maintenance== | ==Bureaucratic Work and Region Maintenance== | ||
Revision as of 14:08, 12 July 2006
Below are some rumors which have been treated as fact by some characters, along with any evidence for or against the rumor.
Contents
Combat and Military Command
Archers make ineffective hunters
Rumor: "Archers are very bad when hunting, often they loose more men than they meet. Please, hunting is for infantry, cavalry, mixed infantry and special forces, not for archers."
Status: Unconfirmed.
Pro:
Con: I've done hunting with archers 5 or 6 times. I have only lost a man once. I haven't bothered keeping track of any statistics, but it didn't seem to me that my men were finding less enemy troops than any others. --Indirik 14:08, 12 July 2006 (CEST)
Bureaucratic Work and Region Maintenance
Quantity vs. quality
Rumor: "Do Police Work TWICE for 4 hours each. Gives your men break in between. (ooc:more effective than a single 8hours)"
Status: Bug?
Pro:
Con: Round-off errors might give the illusion of increased effectiveness.
