Talk:War inside and out

Much of the information at Unit Settings appears to be duplicated here. Was that intentional or should some of this info be merged with Unit Settings? --Calvin November 20:14, 29 July 2006 (CEST)

No it was not intentional,I didn't even know that page had existed.I will instead of cleaning up what is on the other one that is on here I will leave this stuff up here and make a link to that page.There is no problem with that is there? - Corpse Grinder

More people know about and are linked to Unit Settings than War inside and out. Actually, 8 other wiki pages link to Unit Settings compared to only 1 link to War inside and out (apparently a link which you created). The information you've posted here is excellent and helpful, however, it defiantly should be merged with the information available at Unit Settings, Battle and/or Unit Orders. Once that's done, a Delete Request should probably also be submitted (see Meta:Delete Request). Not to discourage you Corpse grinder, just tryin' to keep the wiki clean. --Calvin November 19:06, 31 July 2006 (CEST)

Or just create a link from Unit Orders to this page. Fredrich 02:56, 3 August 2006 (CEST)

And have essentially the same information in multiple places? Duplication is a bad idea. It is confusing to users, requires duplication of effort to update, leads to conflicting information, and it practically guarantees that one of the pages will be left behind and abandoned. It would be much better to merge the information into a single page. Since more pages link to Unit Settings, that would be a better place. And, let's face it, this information is almost all about unit settings. There is much more to waging war than just what unit settings you should use. Perhaps the Waging War page could be expanded to cover more of the facets of waging war in BattleMaster, such as tactics and other things. It could include discussion about why unit settings are important, and what settings would be appropriate in specific situations. But specific details about the unit settings would refer back to the Unit Settings page. --Indirik 15:29, 3 August 2006 (CEST)

That's not a bad idea. If I had enough knowledge and experience with that would write it. Fredrich 20:05, 3 August 2006 (CEST)

This Will have more then just setting,the settings is just the begining of the pageonce I get through that then it will lead into more things then just settings. - Corpse Grinder

I have cleaned it up some and all I am working on more of it, I will be trying to update it weekly if not every other day. -Corpse Grinder

CS/man

I think the section on CS/man values is a little misleading. You are right in that probably only the developers know exactly how the various stats translate into CS, but I have figured this much out: The values for CS/man is logarithmic. The more men you have, the less CS/men you will get. For example, if one TL has 10 men with stats that somehow equate to 250 CS, and another TL has 100 men with the same stats, the 100 man unit will not have 2500 CS. It will probably be more like 1000 CS. I can only speculate as to the logic behind this phenomenon, perhaps something along the lines of overkill, but in any case, preferential values for CS/man depend not only on the unit type (which you covered), but also on the number of men in the unit. The way the article currently reads, a 50 man infantry unit with 500 CS should be dismissed as average because it's not 1000 CS, but I have never seen a 50 man infantry unit with 1000 CS. It would probably be much easier to just estimate preferential values for the various unit stats (e.g. "Training should be at least 50%" or whatever), but even if we were able to accurately calculate CS, which values are good or average (or bad) are all subjective anyway. I suggest that we start the lesson with the maxim "more CS is better", than define the various unit stats that factor into CS (including why and to some degree how), and finally illustrate how to raise (or lower) these stats. But if you really want to supply preferential values for CS/man, I could probably devise a table of values based on both unit type and unit size, which would give a more complete picture. Aeryn Arete 00:59, 31 August 2006 (GMT-5)