Talk:Soldier - Revision history

Soranin: Text replacement - "siniath" to "siniath"

2026-05-10T18:01:10Z

Text replacement - "siniath" to "siniath"

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 10 May 2026
Line 106:		Line 106:

	Going off of the previous topic. I'd like to propose a Archetype article that a lot of the content from this page would be moved to. This would include classifications that aren't really soldier types such as brutes, agiles, etc. It would also allow us to address conflicting topics such as Odyssey and Rebellion using different terms for the same unit type or unit types that are technically mislabeled such as the almogavars or varangians. The main issue is if this is IU terminology used by the animus or not. I propose that we consider the e-manual pages that are technically part of the database (at least in Syndicate which also has a page labelled Archetypes) as IU instructions for how the animus puppeteering and other systems works. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 13:50, April 18, 2020 (UTC)		Going off of the previous topic. I'd like to propose a Archetype article that a lot of the content from this page would be moved to. This would include classifications that aren't really soldier types such as brutes, agiles, etc. It would also allow us to address conflicting topics such as Odyssey and Rebellion using different terms for the same unit type or unit types that are technically mislabeled such as the almogavars or varangians. The main issue is if this is IU terminology used by the animus or not. I propose that we consider the e-manual pages that are technically part of the database (at least in Syndicate which also has a page labelled Archetypes) as IU instructions for how the animus puppeteering and other systems works. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 13:50, April 18, 2020 (UTC)
	:Tbh, the first time I read this, I wasn't sure what you meant (blame busy RL). But now that I can see what you [[User:Lacrossedeamon/Animus Archetype\|meant]], I think this is a good idea. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 13:35, April 19, 2020 (UTC)		:Tbh, the first time I read this, I wasn't sure what you meant (blame busy RL). But now that I can see what you [[User:Lacrossedeamon/Animus Archetype\|meant]], I think this is a good idea. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 13:35, April 19, 2020 (UTC)
	;Source of Animus archetypes		;Source of Animus archetypes
	I'm still quite skeptical of this, both of the need and the benefits. I think that the need might be to have a page that comprises all of the enemy archetypes, but my main concern is whether it would be more forced to treat these archetypes as strictly Animus designations. We need to be clear if, by that, we mean that the source of it is the Animus in and of itself, attributing to the development of these archetypes as a fully autonomous process of the Animus—as though the Animus is sentient—or if people programmed the Animus to have these archetypes, in which case that would be the Templars and Assassins. But if it is the latter case, then it would not be incorrect to say that the Templars and Assassins had these archetypes in mind in the first place. Then we would circle back to what the article currently presents.		I'm still quite skeptical of this, both of the need and the benefits. I think that the need might be to have a page that comprises all of the enemy archetypes, but my main concern is whether it would be more forced to treat these archetypes as strictly Animus designations. We need to be clear if, by that, we mean that the source of it is the Animus in and of itself, attributing to the development of these archetypes as a fully autonomous process of the Animus—as though the Animus is sentient—or if people programmed the Animus to have these archetypes, in which case that would be the Templars and Assassins. But if it is the latter case, then it would not be incorrect to say that the Templars and Assassins had these archetypes in mind in the first place. Then we would circle back to what the article currently presents.
Line 194:		Line 194:
	:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
	::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
	:Not directly related to the subject, but you both have raised it, so I'm going to toss a couple of cents into the discussion. We know that Animus is a program, and it has subprograms (original test program, the "guts of the Animus" and whatever Clay cooked up). We know, for a fact, that there are instances wherein the 'memories' are experienced as first-person, namely Desmond's Journey and [[The Lost Archive]]. However, those memories were abstract and fragmented, unlike anything experienced via 'proper' memories, so their weight on what gameplay mechanics should be consided IU and what OoU is kinda... iffy. (They do, however, bear a passing resemblance to the sole existing piece of an [[Isu]] [[Database: 15. Precursor Memo\|memory]].) [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 17:16, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		:Not directly related to the subject, but you both have raised it, so I'm going to toss a couple of cents into the discussion. We know that Animus is a program, and it has subprograms (original test program, the "guts of the Animus" and whatever Clay cooked up). We know, for a fact, that there are instances wherein the 'memories' are experienced as first-person, namely Desmond's Journey and [[The Lost Archive]]. However, those memories were abstract and fragmented, unlike anything experienced via 'proper' memories, so their weight on what gameplay mechanics should be consided IU and what OoU is kinda... iffy. (They do, however, bear a passing resemblance to the sole existing piece of an [[Isu]] [[Database: 15. Precursor Memo\|memory]].) [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 17:16, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

	== Changes ==		== Changes ==

imported>Sol Pacificus: Sol Pacificus moved page Talk:Soldiers to Talk:Soldier over redirect

2020-06-09T18:40:54Z

Sol Pacificus moved page Talk:Soldiers to Talk:Soldier over redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:40, 9 June 2020
(No difference)

imported>SirDemetrius21: NON-STOPPING GAMER2009 moved page Talk:Soldier to Talk:Soldiers

2020-06-09T18:32:47Z

NON-STOPPING GAMER2009 moved page Talk:Soldier to Talk:Soldiers

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:32, 9 June 2020
(No difference)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Changes */

2020-04-23T12:41:59Z

Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 23 April 2020
Line 199:		Line 199:

	So I think we’d take out the last bit of the intro, most of the meat of the classification section (to remove the non historical designations), the blighters, and maybe the cult. I’d say leave the Levantine Assassins as I’d argue they are a sovereign state with a standing army while the Cult is not.		So I think we’d take out the last bit of the intro, most of the meat of the classification section (to remove the non historical designations), the blighters, and maybe the cult. I’d say leave the Levantine Assassins as I’d argue they are a sovereign state with a standing army while the Cult is not.

	Gear might also need to be more generalized.		Gear might also need to be more generalized.
	[[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:45, April 23, 2020 (UTC)		[[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:45, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Changes */

2020-04-23T12:41:44Z

Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 23 April 2020
Line 198:		Line 198:
	== Changes ==		== Changes ==

	So I think we’d take out the last bit of the intro, most of the meat of the classification section (to remove the non historical designations), the blighters, and maybe the cult. I’d say leave the Levantine Assassins as I’d argue they are a sovereign state with a standing army while the Cult is not. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:45, April 23, 2020 (UTC)		So I think we’d take out the last bit of the intro, most of the meat of the classification section (to remove the non historical designations), the blighters, and maybe the cult. I’d say leave the Levantine Assassins as I’d argue they are a sovereign state with a standing army while the Cult is not.
			Gear might also need to be more generalized.
			[[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:45, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Changes */

2020-04-23T02:45:45Z

Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:45, 23 April 2020
Line 198:		Line 198:
	== Changes ==		== Changes ==

	So I think we’d take out the last bit of the intro, most of the meat of the classification section (to remove the non historical designations), the blighters, and maybe the cult. I’d say leave the Levantine Assassins as I’d argue they are a sovereign state with a standing army while the Cult is not.		So I think we’d take out the last bit of the intro, most of the meat of the classification section (to remove the non historical designations), the blighters, and maybe the cult. I’d say leave the Levantine Assassins as I’d argue they are a sovereign state with a standing army while the Cult is not. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:45, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Changes */ new section

2020-04-23T02:45:31Z

Changes: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:45, 23 April 2020
Line 195:		Line 195:
	::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
	:Not directly related to the subject, but you both have raised it, so I'm going to toss a couple of cents into the discussion. We know that Animus is a program, and it has subprograms (original test program, the "guts of the Animus" and whatever Clay cooked up). We know, for a fact, that there are instances wherein the 'memories' are experienced as first-person, namely Desmond's Journey and [[The Lost Archive]]. However, those memories were abstract and fragmented, unlike anything experienced via 'proper' memories, so their weight on what gameplay mechanics should be consided IU and what OoU is kinda... iffy. (They do, however, bear a passing resemblance to the sole existing piece of an [[Isu]] [[Database: 15. Precursor Memo\|memory]].) [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 17:16, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		:Not directly related to the subject, but you both have raised it, so I'm going to toss a couple of cents into the discussion. We know that Animus is a program, and it has subprograms (original test program, the "guts of the Animus" and whatever Clay cooked up). We know, for a fact, that there are instances wherein the 'memories' are experienced as first-person, namely Desmond's Journey and [[The Lost Archive]]. However, those memories were abstract and fragmented, unlike anything experienced via 'proper' memories, so their weight on what gameplay mechanics should be consided IU and what OoU is kinda... iffy. (They do, however, bear a passing resemblance to the sole existing piece of an [[Isu]] [[Database: 15. Precursor Memo\|memory]].) [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 17:16, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

			== Changes ==

			So I think we’d take out the last bit of the intro, most of the meat of the classification section (to remove the non historical designations), the blighters, and maybe the cult. I’d say leave the Levantine Assassins as I’d argue they are a sovereign state with a standing army while the Cult is not.

imported>Sadelyrate: /* Creation of an Archetype page */

2020-04-21T17:16:22Z

Creation of an Archetype page

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 21 April 2020
Line 194:		Line 194:
	:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
	::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
			:Not directly related to the subject, but you both have raised it, so I'm going to toss a couple of cents into the discussion. We know that Animus is a program, and it has subprograms (original test program, the "guts of the Animus" and whatever Clay cooked up). We know, for a fact, that there are instances wherein the 'memories' are experienced as first-person, namely Desmond's Journey and [[The Lost Archive]]. However, those memories were abstract and fragmented, unlike anything experienced via 'proper' memories, so their weight on what gameplay mechanics should be consided IU and what OoU is kinda... iffy. (They do, however, bear a passing resemblance to the sole existing piece of an [[Isu]] [[Database: 15. Precursor Memo\|memory]].) [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 17:16, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Creation of an Archetype page */

2020-04-21T15:42:42Z

Creation of an Archetype page

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:42, 21 April 2020
Line 190:		Line 190:
	:Of course this goes back to our first point. I think the Animus does render enemies of the same archetype as being the same to user vice the aforementioned variants which would be like subclassifications. I have ideas on why this might be the case but that would just be speculation on my part.		:Of course this goes back to our first point. I think the Animus does render enemies of the same archetype as being the same to user vice the aforementioned variants which would be like subclassifications. I have ideas on why this might be the case but that would just be speculation on my part.

	:Your solution sounds good. Personally I think if we can’t get it to confirm with IU policy we can scrap the idea because I don't want to be the one that sets the OOU precedent outside of BtS sections, franchise entry pages, and staff/actors.		:Your solution sounds good. Personally I think if we can’t get it to confirm with IU policy we can scrap the idea because I don't want to be the one that sets the OOU precedent outside of BtS sections, franchise entry pages, and staff/actors.

	:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
			::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Creation of an Archetype page */

2020-04-21T15:35:28Z

Creation of an Archetype page

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 21 April 2020
Line 174:		Line 174:

	Also let me know if you wish my responses weren't so long. :P [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 21:15, April 20, 2020 (UTC)		Also let me know if you wish my responses weren't so long. :P [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 21:15, April 20, 2020 (UTC)
			:I'm fine with how long your responses are; my only gripe is how much I have to type in response as I hate typing on iPad which is what I use most unfortunately.

			:While I understand your point it seems to be contradicted both by the first game manual which again describes the Animus as projecting video game like controls into the mind of the user and by things like Minerva specifically looking away from Ezio to talk to Desmond. I don't think we know enough about how synchronization works to definitely say it must be experienced first person. While that is the most logical option it is in no way guaranteed. The main issue here is that we disagree on how 1:1 what we see as players is what the animus user sees. And I don’t think that’s ever something that will be answered unless we capture and torture an Ubisoft higher-up.

			:''(b) it is too speculative and forced to treat it as an in-universe fact that these archetypes are classifications by the Templars and/or Assassins.'' I think I misinterpreted this statement which led me to mentioning the Database abs games that specifically use the terms in their UI.

			:And now you misread my statement as I said ''non historical unit designations'' meaning brute, agile, seeker, etc. Naturally I think units like hoplites, jaegers, pikemen, etc should be on the Soldiers page. I am conflicted on how we should talk about units like Almogavars, Varangians, Grenadiers, or any other misrepresented troop both on this page and their own pages.

			:When saying the Odyssey game guide and the game contradicted I was referring to getting the strategos and hoplite swapped which on top of the misspelling of hypaspist I was using to hold it at lower credibility than both the game and Rebellion. Of course the game Odyssey also contradicts the novel by having both sides field strategoi and polemarchs instead Sparta only using polemarchs and Athens using strategoi. Rebellion also only uses polemarchs for Sparta and strategoi for Athens but mainly just uses the term general for both and doesn’t explicitly differentiate between which faction used which.

			:I think in terms of the animus generating something in the simulation it’s okay to use active voice because regardless of whether the input is from a programmer or the animus all on it own, the Animus is actively generating all that is in the simulation. But this is not a major point of contention and on further review think I would prefer passive voice because normally when I write I try to keep the main topic of my paragraph the subject of my sentences rather than try to avoid passive voice.

			:I only used "Variant ..." as a placeholder and wouldn’t be adverse to changing it but if we can use terms from the guide like "predator" it seems to me that we could use "predator variant ...". Same with male and female models for the Stalkers. And I was iffy on including civilian NPC types since the game guides only refer to archetypes when talking about enemy combatants to the point that it excludes allied combatants. However I felt it best to start most inclusive and pare I think down as need be.

			:Of course this goes back to our first point. I think the Animus does render enemies of the same archetype as being the same to user vice the aforementioned variants which would be like subclassifications. I have ideas on why this might be the case but that would just be speculation on my part.

			:Your solution sounds good. Personally I think if we can’t get it to confirm with IU policy we can scrap the idea because I don't want to be the one that sets the OOU precedent outside of BtS sections, franchise entry pages, and staff/actors.

			:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 21 April 2020
Line 194:		Line 194:
	:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		:Now it’s time for me to hibernate for an eon after relatively typing so much. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 15:35, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
	::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)		::Alright, thanks for all the clarifications. Feel free to list some suggestions to revise the "Soldier" page by the way, so I have a clearer idea of where to begin. I know we are removing the Blighters. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:42, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
			:Not directly related to the subject, but you both have raised it, so I'm going to toss a couple of cents into the discussion. We know that Animus is a program, and it has subprograms (original test program, the "guts of the Animus" and whatever Clay cooked up). We know, for a fact, that there are instances wherein the 'memories' are experienced as first-person, namely Desmond's Journey and [[The Lost Archive]]. However, those memories were abstract and fragmented, unlike anything experienced via 'proper' memories, so their weight on what gameplay mechanics should be consided IU and what OoU is kinda... iffy. (They do, however, bear a passing resemblance to the sole existing piece of an [[Isu]] [[Database: 15. Precursor Memo\|memory]].) [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 17:16, April 21, 2020 (UTC)