Rumours
 This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. |
Contents
Below are some rumors which have been treated as fact by some characters, along with any evidence for or against the rumor.
Combat and Military Command
Bad things happen with units other than infantry set to normal hunt.
Rumor: "Archers are very bad when hunting; often they lose more men than they meet. Please, hunting is for infantry, cavalry, mixed infantry and special forces, not for archers."
Rumor: "Hunting cavalry can be devastating to you if you are infantry or archer"
Rumor: "Hunting large units with high CS will result in high casualties"
Rumor: "If you're going to hunt you should set your unit to normal...if you set it to something else you could have bad results if you encounter the enemy."
Status: Unconfirmed.
Pro: Imagine you and ten of your archers, with their bows, are walking through the streets looking for fled enemies. Suddenly there are 4 soldiers in front of your nose, with swords. Seeing they cannot escape, they will surrender or fight you. If they surrender, okay nice. If they fight you, what will you do, hit them with your bows against their swords? You may win but you will lose men as well. Hunting is just something for melee-forces, not for archers. Van Peteghem 14:28, 4 January 2007 (CET)
Pro: Anecdotal evidence: This happened to me once. While hunting in friendly, rural territory (Lyton, as I recall), my Minas Ithil noble's size 20 archer unit was "ambushed" by a size 8 Norland cavalry unit, whose commander was none other than Ceowfyr. (Yes, the game message actually used the word "ambush".) My archers managed to retreat with 4 killed and 4 wounded (although the game message said something like "8 of your men were killed"), after killing 2 cavalrymen. Thus ended my character's brush with celebrity. :) --GoldPanda 03:07, 12 December 2007 (CET)
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)
Con: Archers usualy carried short swords (or some other small and light melee weapon) with them, they probably were miserable at using them but they wernt defenceless in close combat. And they dont need to aproach theyr prey, they just put a arrow in them from distance... well i admit they are at disadvantage in citys (streets are rather close quarters), but woods, hills, rural lands not so disadvantage.
Con: I've just lost half my unit hunt with infantry, they were mostly volunteers so their training was quite low. Im guessing the training and how well equipped they are has more to do with it than anything.
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: Game logic should prevent performing police work twice during the same turn. However, a bug reportedly exists which allows police work to be done (at least) three times during a single turn.
Con: Round-off errors might give the illusion of increased effectiveness.
Troop Status
Wounded troops healing faster
Rumor: "Resting your wounded troops will let them heal faster and have a reduced chance of dying." Rumor: Staying in one region with wounded men (i.e. not traveling between regions) will heal your men faster than if you were on the move. These are correct. --Tom 08:04, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
Rumor: Digging in lets your wounded heal faster.
This one is not quite true. Digging in does allow the healers to work a little better, though. --Tom 08:04, 24 September 2007 (CEST)
Status: Confirmed (mostly).
Note: Random effects can, however, cover up the effect. If the randomness goes from 3-6 and travelling means -1, you can get better results while travelling than while stationary. (these values are pure fantasy, to illustrate the point)
