PDA

View Full Version : In the end, who cares?



HamsterOfTheGod
2009-04-09, 11:48 PM
The battle of Gobwin Knob is over with thousands of casualties on both sides and GK itself destroyed but who cares?

To Charlie it was a heavy opportunity loss and a loss of "resources".

To Jetstone, it was a heavy loss of troops and the downfall of the coalition.

To Cesar and Transylvito, its a win.

To Vinnie and Jillian, it was a heavy personal loss.

To Wanda, Sizemore, Maggie and even Bogroll it was a fulfillment of duty.

To Stanley...well we don't know what Stanley will think yet but his quest will surely go on.

To Parson?

Was it simply the fulfillment of the compulosry service effected by the Perfect Warlord spell. Was he simply a tool?

Or does he care what happens next to Stanley, to Wanda, Sizemore and Maggie, to Erf?

And to the the readers...

Enlong
2009-04-10, 12:19 AM
... it was AWESOME.

harami2000
2009-04-10, 01:02 AM
... it was AWESOME.
(Seconded, of course... :smallsmile:)

LurkerInPlayground
2009-04-10, 03:00 AM
As near as I can tell, Parson basically blew up the pie simply because he couldn't stand to be a passive agent in this world. And partly because he craved the challenge.

I think we're all seeing the result of nerd-rage.

BLANDCorporatio
2009-04-10, 05:19 AM
I think we're all seeing the result of nerd-rage.

Oh, the eruption was indeed beautiful.

I just hope I (and all the others here who thought so) would have the moral courage to still say so if an eruption destroys everything I cared for.

Cracklord
2009-04-11, 10:49 PM
Not me.
Stanley's probably pissed though.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-04-14, 11:58 AM
As near as I can tell, Parson basically blew up the pie simply because he couldn't stand to be a passive agent in this world. And partly because he craved the challenge.

I think we're all seeing the result of nerd-rage.I'm interested in learning more about the summoning spell and its level of compulsion over Parson, as well as the mechanics of Duty and Loyalty.

I don't agree that the authors merely portrayed "nerd rage." Given the scenario, Parson simply chose the only possible way to salvage any kind of win as well as to deny the enemy a win. That's not "nerd rage", it's smart table top gaming.

We also see Parson as being pretty level headed throughout, despite the fairy tale environment he was thrust into. His outbursts of anger were both few and brief, followed immediately by more strategery (sic) and calculation. He never sulked, or balked at his role. He was calm and rational even up to the point where he had to personally kill for the first time ("Learn by doing") and when he was facing certain (save for the Portal use reversal) death.

greywords
2009-04-14, 02:55 PM
I don't agree that the authors merely portrayed "nerd rage." Given the scenario, Parson simply chose the only possible way to salvage any kind of win as well as to deny the enemy a win. That's not "nerd rage", it's smart table top gaming.

I think this is spot on, though I would classify it as stalemate rather than a win. Even if Stanley can dig up the arkenpliers he's still without a capital city to speak of at this point.

tKircher
2009-04-14, 03:38 PM
Parson made the right choice. It was an unwinnable situation, and the city was already reduced to rubble ("This is a level 1 city now"), so it's not like the bad guys would be losing anything, but it would destroy Jetstone.

To my mind, it was a rather surpringly positive outcome. Instead of losing, they won the war by losing a battle. A bit of a pyrrhic victory, but it still stands.

So now, Stanley is free to rebuild a kingdom on Jillian's old one, recover the pliers (he can most certainly find them, since he's attuned to the hammer), and raise a new army.

Never thought I'd root for the bad guys, but hey.

Strengfellow
2009-04-14, 06:55 PM
As tK suggests winning a war by losing a battle is how I see it, just like America lost the Veitnam war after winning every battle.

Whole different senario true, however the parallel stands.

Pyrrhus of Epyrus defeated a Roman force at the cost of the better part of his army. Hence the quote 'Another such victory over the Romans, and we are undone'.

Parson, however, wrested victory, of a sort, from the jaws of defeat.

In his annihilation of the allied forces Parson did far more than Pyrrhus could have ever hoped.

For the loss of one Polis, Parson destroyed Jetstones ability to wage war.

Had Pyrrhus been able to pull off such a 'mancy inspired victory, Rome would not have ruled the whole of the Med at it's peak.

What Parson has done, is to leave his side with the ONLY extant heavy mob that we have yet seen (Dwagons).

A city that, even though it is a bubbling crater, is a valed source of gems and a Titanic artifact, the recovery of which is in no way beyond a fully untangled Sizemores' ability.

Not to mention the fact that he has added himself to the 'mancer mob.

Parson has, in fact, put his side in a better position than the one he found it in.

What Stanley croaks enroute to the next city, Wanda un-croaks.

Sizemore undermines the walls and then uses Golems to break said walls.

And the slain rise.

All in all the Ultimate Warlord is just that.

ishnar
2009-04-14, 09:14 PM
In his annihilation of the allied forces Parson did far more than Pyrrhus could have ever hoped.

Phyrrhus was concerned about the losses not the winnings.




For the loss of one Polis, Parson destroyed Jetstones ability to wage war. I think you're jumping to conclusions about Jetstone's ability to wage war. Their unit generators are untouched. Considering that the one polis was the only polis, you apparently missed the point of phyrric victories being bad.




Had Pyrrhus been able to pull off such a 'mancy inspired victory, Rome would not have ruled the whole of the Med at it's peak.

If phyrrus had been able wipe out the entire roman army at 99.9% casualties, he would be utterly appalled at the price. If Pyrrhus had killed the entire Roman legeons, Rome would have drafted more legions and sent them to visit.




What Parson has done, is to leave his side with the ONLY extant heavy mob that we have yet seen (Dwagons).

I don't see how you leap to the conclusions that there there were no heavy mobs left defending home base.



Parson has, in fact, put his side in a better position than the one he found it in.

Generating units takes time, rebuilding a city takes time. In the meantime, a whole lot of cities already have complete infrastructure and are churning out units while it will be a while before Stanley can start generating anything significant, in the meantime, they are more vulnerable than ever before.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-04-14, 09:15 PM
As tK suggests winning a war by losing a battle is how I see it, just like America lost the Veitnam war after winning every battle.

Whole different senario true, however the parallel stands.

...

For the loss of one Polis, Parson destroyed Jetstones ability to wage war.

...

What Parson has done, is to leave his side with the ONLY extant heavy mob that we have yet seen (Dwagons).

All in all the Ultimate Warlord is just that.

Just that? Has not the war changed Parson for the better? Has not Parson changed Erf for the better?

tKircher
2009-04-15, 01:13 AM
I think you're jumping to conclusions about Jetstone's ability to wage war.

Jetstone is disbanded, with it's individual nations no longer directly allied. Jetstone's individual unit generation is meaningless, since they've been irreparably damaged.


Generating units takes time, rebuilding a city takes time. In the meantime, a whole lot of cities already have complete infrastructure and are churning out units while it will be a while before Stanley can start generating anything significant, in the meantime, they are more vulnerable than ever before.

Actually, only Jillian has any idea where Stanley is. She won't be able to raise or coerce any armies, and Stanley has a master-class Foolamancer who was capable of convincing the world that Faq didn't exist.

It's entirely within Stanley's power to rebuild over time.

Aquillion
2009-04-15, 01:54 AM
As near as I can tell, Parson basically blew up the pie simply because he couldn't stand to be a passive agent in this world. And partly because he craved the challenge.

I think we're all seeing the result of nerd-rage.Parson did not want to blow up the volcano. He tried to order the casters to leave without doing it and couldn't, remember? He was compelled to do everything he could think of by the spell that summoned him, but if he had been free to do as he wanted, he would have just ordered everyone through the portal and that would have been that.

ishnar
2009-04-15, 03:41 PM
Jetstone is disbanded, with it's individual nations no longer directly allied. Jetstone's individual unit generation is meaningless, since they've been irreparably damaged.

No damage done to the coalition is irreparable when new units, even another Ansom can be popped ready to go. So the alliance is disbanded; Jetstone, the nation lives on.



Actually, only Jillian has any idea where Stanley is. She won't be able to raise or coerce any armies, and Stanley has a master-class Foolamancer who was capable of convincing the world that Faq didn't exist.

It's entirely within Stanley's power to rebuild over time. I'm not saying it is not, however, a few nations might want the new virgin territory of the most defensible location on the planet. Even if Efdup has no economic value, it is apparently a strategic value.

ishnar
2009-04-15, 04:00 PM
Parson did not want to blow up the volcano. He tried to order the casters to leave without doing it and couldn't, remember? He was compelled to do everything he could think of by the spell that summoned him, but if he had been free to do as he wanted, he would have just ordered everyone through the portal and that would have been that.

I think a major plot device is this so called compulsion. Parson has experienced compulsion, so it is real in some aspects, but I don't think it is as ubiquitous as he is being told.

Wanda rationalized that Parson did not order them away due to duty, but it's not as if Parson actually tried to order them and then bit his tongue. It seems more likely that Parson simply didn't feel right giving that kind of order, but because she can't conceive that Parson actually cares about them, the only rational explanation she can conceive is that duty wouldn't let him give the order. Maggie also said that Duty would compel him to use any gambit that might work, but Parson again didn't force the issue.

In essence, Parson may be caught in a mental box that is made out of cardboard not steel. Parson is allowing himself to believe that duty is controlling his thoughts not just his body--that he has no free will. But when Stanley told a bad Joke, Parson's body laughed even though Parson didn't think the joke was funny. So I think duty is a physical compulsion, not a mental one.

I agree that Parson DID NOT want to unleash the Volcano or put his friends in a mind link that might kill them. But Maggies warning that duty "MIGHT require that he at least attempt it" - emphasis added. Does show that Parson was not so against it that he was willing to risk whatever consequences duty might impose on him.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-04-18, 04:58 PM
So in the end Sizemore still cares and the Hippiemancer. That's good enough for me for now.

Nu
2009-04-18, 06:44 PM
Jetstone is disbanded, with it's individual nations no longer directly allied. Jetstone's individual unit generation is meaningless, since they've been irreparably damaged.


You're confusing the Royal Crown Coalition with Jetstone. Jetstone was only one nation taking part in the Royal Crown Coalition. Further, I doubt Jetstone sent ALL of its forces to Gobwin Knob, even if they did send their Chief Warlord.

Godskook
2009-04-18, 06:52 PM
They didn't send Ansom. Ansom is the one who organized this. Its why his forces were an exceedingly large portion of the force, especially if you believe as I do that the Marbits were semi-Jetstone troops(like goblins for Stanley).

Kreistor
2009-04-18, 07:12 PM
They didn't send Ansom. Ansom is the one who organized this. Its why his forces were an exceedingly large portion of the force, especially if you believe as I do that the Marbits were semi-Jetstone troops(like goblins for Stanley).

Yes, they sent him. Ansom is not a Ruler, only Chief Warlord, and so can only obey orders. If his Ruler did not want him there, he wouldn't be there.

Nu
2009-04-18, 07:13 PM
They didn't send Ansom. Ansom is the one who organized this. Its why his forces were an exceedingly large portion of the force, especially if you believe as I do that the Marbits were semi-Jetstone troops(like goblins for Stanley).

That's a bit more ambiguous...if we assume that Ansom is bound to the leader of Jetstone like they assume a Chief Warlord should be, then Ansom can't actually act unless he does at least have the approval of the leader of Jetstone. Ansom may have organized this, but it's safe to say that he had the approval of his superior(s) as well.

Drakron
2009-04-18, 09:06 PM
Maybe but its really pointless to argue, none of the Coalition suffered any real loses as units can just be popped, it might take a while but its not as if Stanley is in any way able to present any viable threat to their cities.

There are no unrecoverable losses from the Coalition, even Ansom can be replaced, the same cannot be said about Stanley that just lost his last City and so is unable to produce any new units or generate upkeep for the surviving units.

If this was C&C and I was GDI ... this would be I lost my entire attack force composed of Orcas, Mammoths, APCs, the commando unit and various infantry but my base remains intact and NOD lost all of their base structures and what is left are some Venom and some rocket units.

I can build more, NOD cannot ... I win.

zz_tophat
2009-04-19, 08:08 AM
Maybe but its really pointless to argue, none of the Coalition suffered any real loses as units can just be popped, it might take a while but its not as if Stanley is in any way able to present any viable threat to their cities.

There are no unrecoverable losses from the Coalition, even Ansom can be replaced, the same cannot be said about Stanley that just lost his last City and so is unable to produce any new units or generate upkeep for the surviving units.

If this was C&C and I was GDI ... this would be I lost my entire attack force composed of Orcas, Mammoths, APCs, the commando unit and various infantry but my base remains intact and NOD lost all of their base structures and what is left are some Venom and some rocket units.

I can build more, NOD cannot ... I win.


This is not a RTS world it's turn based and even in the faster moving turn based games it takes time to get things done, who knows how many turns it took the coalition to reach GK. Judging from the number of turns that have taken place over the course of this comic there were many more taken before it started.

Then there is the fact that it's been said that resources are finite in this world (GK was mined out), so it can be said that those losses were irreplaceable because of that. Moreover the warlords that were lost appear to be unique. unique not necessarily in stats but in personality and their ability to plan and supervise (Ansom was a huge loss, no one else thought of a clever dance fight solution).

Perhaps more important than the loss of units is the loss of the unit's experience and levels, all replacement are going to be level 1.

There is then the fact that there is more to this world than just a single battle. It's already been shown that strategy is just as important tactics and politics factor in as well. In C&C you don't have to explain to your war factory why it has to make more hoverMRLS despite that fact it lost a ton for little gain, it's just going to reply: "I'm not made of tiberium" (hmm... actually it kinda is).

Ansom appears to have been the driving force behind the coalition's vendetta against his toolship, he's dead.

The coalition has also been dissolved and there is no doubt some animosity between the former members. No one got any spoils, so the unit losses aside the various sides are going to be pissed about that. Jetstone will be lucky if the former members even take thinkograms (is there a thinkomancy call block feature in erfworld?).

You would be well placed in a C&C games to finish the last of your enemy but for the fact that most of your base is no longer talking to you, you have no more units to do it with, don't have a good explanation as to why the resources should be spent to do so, the last enemies are going to be rally hard to find and the person that most wanted Stanly croaked is himself croaked.

Aquillion
2009-04-19, 02:27 PM
Maybe but its really pointless to argue, none of the Coalition suffered any real loses as units can just be popped, it might take a while but its not as if Stanley is in any way able to present any viable threat to their cities.

There are no unrecoverable losses from the Coalition, even Ansom can be replaced, the same cannot be said about Stanley that just lost his last City and so is unable to produce any new units or generate upkeep for the surviving units.

If this was C&C and I was GDI ... this would be I lost my entire attack force composed of Orcas, Mammoths, APCs, the commando unit and various infantry but my base remains intact and NOD lost all of their base structures and what is left are some Venom and some rocket units.

I can build more, NOD cannot ... I win.I'm not sure I agree. Gobwin Knob was a nice defensible city, but it wasn't Stanley's real power base -- his real power base is the Arkenhammer. As long as he has that, he can tame dwagons.

Of course, we don't know what the money or upkeep requirements involved really are...

Drakron
2009-04-19, 04:53 PM
I used C&C because its a good enough example for what happened since even if its a RTS the basic mechanics are the same of most strategy games.

In the end Stanley have no base, no means to produce units (or even retain his units) since he holds no cities and so its no longer a threat, the Coalition on the other hand lost units ... not towns and can replace its losses and yes, they did lose resources as they will need to replace their lost units but they are nowhere near the same situation as Stanley, the one that taken worst was CharlesComm that lost many (if not most) Archons, Jetstone also lost a lot with Ansom but their production abilities are intact.

I see some are overlooking some of basic motions ... lets see.

The Arkenhammer is a nice artifact but it cannot poop units, it can tame dwagons but that means turning existing units for his wielder side, the dwagons have to be pooped on their own and still there is upkeep problem, without it they are disbanded the next turn so it does not matter much if you tame 1000 dwagons just to lose then in the next turn, you cannot invade anyone with that.

Another thing is warlords being unique ... yes, they are unique but they can be replaced, the mechanics for then are the same, they are pooped but require a lot of resources for it (same with casters) so its just a question of production (and gamble, it seems they never be sure of exactly what is going to pooped).

Also that resources are finite ... sorry, I see no indication of that being true or not, in wargames you have some resources that are finite and others that are infinity, a mine can produce x amount gems each turn until it runs out of gem but a City can produce x amount of money per turn and that will never run out ... also some systems do allow resources that were exhausted to replenishing over time (wood for example) and there are many variants.

Godskook
2009-04-19, 05:34 PM
@Drakron, you're thinking of C&C in terms of a single battlefield, roughly the size of a smaller city. Erfworld is being played on a map that is probably thousands of times larger, with most of the added space being places to hide. Resources are finite or limited, so large empires maintained over time are at a disadvantage to upstarts in finances because the upstarts haven't had long years worth of bills to worry about. Stanley lost a lot of pawns in tBfGK, but he only lost one significant piece, and that was misty. He still has 4 casters(rare enough to be worth the risk of loyalty problems), Parson, and the Arken Hammer. In theory, he might also have the pliers before too long.

Essentially, we're now in a 'commando' mission. If you've played C&C, you know what I'm talking about. Its that one mission that invariably shows up in every game that proves that one 'hero' unit can wipe the floor with just about anything else. The one commodity in these missions in places to hide, and as I said above, Erfworld has far more of those than C&C ever had. So yeah, if Stanley's smart(read: Listens to Parson), he'd rule erf.

Lamech
2009-04-19, 06:09 PM
In the end Stanley have no base, no means to produce units (or even retain his units) since he holds no cities and so its no longer a threat, the Coalition on the other hand lost units ... not towns and can replace its losses and yes, they did lose resources as they will need to replace their lost units but they are nowhere near the same situation as Stanley, the one that taken worst was CharlesComm that lost many (if not most) Archons, Jetstone also lost a lot with Ansom but their production abilities are intact. He has Parson, and his mathamancy gauntlet. That can produce plenty of shmuckers by simple mercenary work. He has a master class croakamancer, who is good at other forms of magic. She can certainly produce gold. He has a master-class dirtamancer who can be hired for useful tasks. He has presumably the gobwin side, who don't need cities so he should be able to mooch of them. We don't know if the dwagons need upkeep, and I'm guessing they don't. More improtantly the second the caldra cools off he can start to build on GK's ruins, and Jack can drop an active volcano viel on it. And when he gets the pliers? What do you know another arkentool. Even better if he/Wanda can attune to it.

Jetstone quite possibly just lost the main part of it forces, and all of its allies. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets carved up. Stanley lost his forces, and his city, but he is fully capable of rebuilding everything, and probably even come out on top, if he attunes to the pliers.

Drakron
2009-04-21, 01:50 PM
Well its pretty irrelevant now with page 142.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-04-21, 08:08 PM
Yes, they sent him. Ansom is not a Ruler, only Chief Warlord, and so can only obey orders. If his Ruler did not want him there, he wouldn't be there.
Nobody said the ruler didn't want him there. If the king objected to Ansom's war, he could have ordered him to stop. But that doesn't mean it was the king's idea, or that the king cares enough to commit even more troops after all the troops he's sent (including his own son) have been croaked.

Kreistor
2009-04-21, 08:25 PM
I was replying to this: "They didn't send Ansom."

That tries to tell us that Ansom sent himself, that there was no "they" in charge of him.

So what's your problem with me again? You beleive the King sent him. Is the King not a "they"?

Bogardan_Mage
2009-04-24, 12:09 AM
I was replying to this: "They didn't send Ansom."

That tries to tell us that Ansom sent himself, that there was no "they" in charge of him.

So what's your problem with me again? You beleive the King sent him. Is the King not a "they"?
There's a big difference between "Sent Ansom" and "Didn't veto Ansom's decision to go". Is there a canonical reference to the king sending Ansom? If not, I see no reason to assume that the king "sent" him except by the most ludicrously pedantic definitions.

Leewei
2009-04-24, 12:34 AM
Parson didn't exactly have free will in this endeavor. He knew enough about strategy to realize that the goal was rendering the enemy incapable or unwilling to conquer Gobwin Knob. With this in mind, natural Thinkamancy compelled him to do everything he considered even remotely possible towards this end.

Parson was capable of imagining some pretty horrible options, as are we all. He wasn't capable of discarding the Uncroakatoa option, however, due to his duty. Please keep this in mind when judging his actions.

Kreistor
2009-04-24, 02:17 AM
There's a big difference between "Sent Ansom" and "Didn't veto Ansom's decision to go". Is there a canonical reference to the king sending Ansom? If not, I see no reason to assume that the king "sent" him except by the most ludicrously pedantic definitions.

Uhm, yeah, you go think that a military officer of any nation at any time could arbitrarily take his army out to make wwar without permission of his nation's political leaders.

Look, to get to that point, you have to make so many assumptions about Ansom's King that you're making him even more ineffectual a leader than Stanley. Oh, I can't deny that it's possible, but it's just so far off the edge of possibility that I'm not even bothering anymore. Oh, we're Jetstone, the kinder, gentler homicidal maniacs that don't care a whit that we're turning our Chief Warlord into a Julius Caesar and throwing our troops away on a raving loonie's personal grudge...

If you don't get that...

The Ruler of Jetstone has to have 100% trust in his Chief Warlord's decisions. We've seen Ansom's rants... would you let a man that rants like that make any decisions with your troops? You're saying this king did, so he's completely uncaring of his own men's lives, too.

Ansom was attacking Stanley based on the killing of just a few Jetstone units. So he's going after Stanley without provocation, according to Vinnie.

The Ruler of Jetstone is permitting his Chief Warlord to go out and gain huge glory and recognition without getting recognition for claiming the adventure as the Ruler's choice. That is an Usurper-making decision. That's how Caesar became Dictator.

I really don't think you've truly thought through the implications of your claim.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-04-24, 03:31 AM
Uhm, yeah, you go think that a military officer of any nation at any time could arbitrarily take his army out to make wwar without permission of his nation's political leaders.
Arg! Did I say without permission? No, in fact I think I made it pretty damned clear it was with permission. But with permission doesn't mean the king sent him. Look:

Ansom: Hey dad, can I take a bunch of units and go croak this low life commoner who dared to presume the rank of... da, I mean, this evil overlord bent on world domination?
King: Sure, son, why not?

Do you honestly think that constitutes "sending" him?


Look, to get to that point, you have to make so many assumptions about Ansom's King that you're making him even more ineffectual a leader than Stanley. Oh, I can't deny that it's possible, but it's just so far off the edge of possibility that I'm not even bothering anymore. Oh, we're Jetstone, the kinder, gentler homicidal maniacs that don't care a whit that we're turning our Chief Warlord into a Julius Caesar and throwing our troops away on a raving loonie's personal grudge...
It's not just a personal grudge. He did manage to convince Vinnie in spite of his raving lunacy. So there must be some logical reason to oppose Stanley. That doesn't mean it was the king's idea.


The Ruler of Jetstone has to have 100% trust in his Chief Warlord's decisions. We've seen Ansom's rants... would you let a man that rants like that make any decisions with your troops? You're saying this king did, so he's completely uncaring of his own men's lives, too.
I'm not just saying it, it's canon. Ansom was chief warlord. He was out in the field. Did you see Ansom directing all orders through the king? No, he was making all the decisions for his troops. Yeah, I'm sure Jetstone would never enter into a political position exactly like the one they entered into...


Ansom was attacking Stanley based on the killing of just a few Jetstone units. So he's going after Stanley without provocation, according to Vinnie.

The Ruler of Jetstone is permitting his Chief Warlord to go out and gain huge glory and recognition without getting recognition for claiming the adventure as the Ruler's choice. That is an Usurper-making decision. That's how Caesar became Dictator.
They're father and son, ruling a parody-perfect fairytale kingdom. I'm sure usurpers are the last thing from the king's mind.


I really don't think you've truly thought through the implications of your claim.
I really don't think this was what I was arguing to begin with. I was arguing against your assertion that either the king had the idea and sent him all by himself, or the king opposed Ansom's actions. No middle ground.

Kreistor
2009-04-24, 10:59 AM
BM, I never said the King had the idea. Given Ansom's personal hatred, he probably did have the original idea. But you don't give someone with personal beliefs like that free reign to take troops whereever he wants, any time he wants, especially when it is going to involve political agreements with other countries. You very carefully weigh the pros and cons, and then either let him do it, with a selection of troops that you feel you can afford to invest in the venture, or you don't let him go. But you do not sit back and let him take what he wants to satisfy his personal desires.

Ansom is a good general. There have been good generals in the past. And not all of them have great ideas about where to send troops to attack. In WW2, had Patton been given such freedom, he would have attacked the Soviets after Germany was done. Point is: being a good general does not mean you make your own political decisions. Now, yes, someday, Ansom would have had to make those decisions. He did make his case. But I don't doubt that the Ruler is watching him very carefully to ensure that his motivations were truly as advertised, if he truly cares for his own people. Ansom is in a period where he must be observed and tested, in order to correct whatever can be changed about the Heir that will make those political decisions some day.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-04-24, 04:40 PM
Uhm, yeah, you go think that a military officer of any nation at any time could arbitrarily take his army out to make wwar without permission of his nation's political leaders.The funny thing about this is that you're dead serious. And yet so ignorant, in the sense of the word which means that you just don't know, not as a pejorative. And at the same time that you are displaying such vast ignorance, you're implying that the person you are responding to is ignorant for holding the historically correct position. Quite amusing.

I suggest that you start your education with the Roman general Sulla, and carry on from there. There are a great many historical examples of exactly what you dismiss with your "Um, yeah, you go think that." Don't mind me, I'll just go over here and think that.

FoolishOwl
2009-04-24, 05:16 PM
Ansom: Hey dad, can I take a bunch of units and go croak this low life commoner who dared to presume the rank of... da, I mean, this evil overlord bent on world domination?
King: Sure, son, why not?

Do you honestly think that constitutes "sending" him?

Yes.

It does seem likely that this campaign against Stanley was, ultimately, Ansom's idea, but at this point in the story, we have no reason to believe that Ansom and the King of Jetstone were not in complete agreement. Given the massive expenditure of resources by Jetstone, the reasonable assumption is that Ansom had the full backing of his King.

SteveMB
2009-04-24, 06:01 PM
"Royal empires split off sometimes into new sides." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0088.html) It's quite possible that the process looks very much like a real-world rebellion, or perhaps a coup attempt that ends with the ruler alive but the would-be usurper in control of some of the cities.

That said, given the lack of reference to any political issues between Ansom and King Slately back home, I presume that the latter gave at his approval to the enterprise. (I daresay he regrets that, now.)

Kreistor
2009-04-24, 07:26 PM
I suggest that you start your education with the Roman general Sulla, and carry on from there. There are a great many historical examples of exactly what you dismiss with your "Um, yeah, you go think that." Don't mind me, I'll just go over here and think that.


Wikipedia:
First march on Rome

As consul, Sulla prepared to depart once more for the East, to fight the first Mithridatic War, by the appointment of the Senate.

Appears he was sent by the Senate, and didn't march out on his own. Next.

tribble
2009-04-24, 07:43 PM
Appears he was sent by the Senate, and didn't march out on his own. Next.

:facepalm: he was appointed by the senate to the Executive office of rome to do as he saw fit, not "sent by the senate to fight a war".

Kreistor
2009-04-24, 07:50 PM
Heheh, tribble you spoiled it... That was designed to force BJBB to actually do some reference work, something I've never actually seen him do. My point is: make a point, not some nebulous command that other people read what you think they should.

Declined. Have a nice day.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-04-25, 07:04 AM
BM, I never said the King had the idea. Given Ansom's personal hatred, he probably did have the original idea. But you don't give someone with personal beliefs like that free reign to take troops whereever he wants, any time he wants, especially when it is going to involve political agreements with other countries. You very carefully weigh the pros and cons, and then either let him do it, with a selection of troops that you feel you can afford to invest in the venture, or you don't let him go. But you do not sit back and let him take what he wants to satisfy his personal desires.
That is packing an awful lot of meaning into a single word that someone else said. You can't really expect me to believe all of that went through your head before you made your (relatively short) post, let alone that you seriously believed it all went through the head of the person you responded to. The intent is pretty damned clear, regardless of your needlessly pedantic definition of "Sent". Ansom had the idea. Ansom set it up. Ansom did everything. The king just rubber stamped it. That is the point, that is the only point.


Yes.
Then you are being ridiculous.

Kreistor
2009-04-25, 09:53 AM
That is packing an awful lot of meaning into a single word that someone else said. You can't really expect me to believe all of that went through your head before you made your (relatively short) post, let alone that you seriously believed it all went through the head of the person you responded to. The intent is pretty damned clear, regardless of your needlessly pedantic definition of "Sent". Ansom had the idea. Ansom set it up. Ansom did everything. The king just rubber stamped it. That is the point, that is the only point.

Or I had already thought about it before he posted.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-04-25, 11:54 AM
Did the King of Jetstone "send" Ansom? Well, it depends on your definition of "sent". I have the feeling that people are looking at the exact same data, using the exact same patterns of thought, and lighting the matches of a flame war because they assumed they shared a common definition of "send".

In the end, who cares?

T-O-E
2009-04-25, 12:23 PM
I don't see why the king of Jetstone wouldn't. If Parson hadn't been summoned, Stanley's forces would have been easily defeated and then they'd get their hands on the toughest defensible position in Erfworld.

dr pepper
2009-04-25, 05:11 PM
Agreed with Bogardan. The king of Jetstone trusts his heir. Said heir says he wants to go after Stanley, whose declared quest and successful conquests make him a potential threat. And oh btw, adds Ansom, this "Lord" Stanley is also challenging the social order. The king may or may not feel as strongly about this, but he agrees with the first part so he approves. Maybe even says go with the Titans. As far as i'm concerned, that counts as sending.

Otoh, if we see Kreister's Chief Warlord out in the field, we'll know that it was a more explicit and directed form of sending.

Kreistor
2009-04-25, 07:18 PM
Agreed with Bogardan. The king of Jetstone trusts his heir. Said heir says he wants to go after Stanley, whose declared quest and successful conquests make him a potential threat. And oh btw, adds Ansom, this "Lord" Stanley is also challenging the social order. The king may or may not feel as strongly about this, but he agrees with the first part so he approves. Maybe even says go with the Titans. As far as i'm concerned, that counts as sending.

*shrugs* That's what I said happened. He got permission.

I'm arguing against:
'There's a big difference between "Sent Ansom" and "Didn't veto Ansom's decision to go".'

If you want to go somewhere, ask permission, and get it, you are being sent. If you go without seeking approval, you're not being sent.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-04-25, 08:46 PM
Or I had already thought about it before he posted.
Who died and made you arbiter of definitions? You hadn't even posted in this thread before then. What does it matter what you had thought of before he posted, when it's his meaning that's in question here?


*shrugs* That's what I said happened. He got permission.

I'm arguing against:
'There's a big difference between "Sent Ansom" and "Didn't veto Ansom's decision to go".'

If you want to go somewhere, ask permission, and get it, you are being sent. If you go without seeking approval, you're not being sent.
That is not what was meant and you know it.

Kreistor
2009-04-26, 01:17 AM
Nevermind.

only1doug
2009-04-26, 03:58 PM
I used C&C because its a good enough example for what happened since even if its a RTS the basic mechanics are the same of most strategy games.

In the end Stanley have no base, no means to produce units (or even retain his units) since he holds no cities and so its no longer a threat, the Coalition on the other hand lost units ... not towns and can replace its losses and yes, they did lose resources as they will need to replace their lost units but they are nowhere near the same situation as Stanley, the one that taken worst was CharlesComm that lost many (if not most) Archons, Jetstone also lost a lot with Ansom but their production abilities are intact.


In reference to your C&C terms:

View Wanda as a Barracks, capable of creating new troops and all casters as engineers capable of capturing enemy buildings and converting them to your side.

Game over? not hardly, sometimes you can lose your base but still win by capturing your enemies production infrastructure and using it against them.

Aquillion
2009-04-26, 05:37 PM
In the end Stanley have no base, no means to produce units (or even retain his units) since he holds no cities and so its no longer a threat, the Coalition on the other hand lost units ... not towns and can replace its losses and yes, they did lose resources as they will need to replace their lost units but they are nowhere near the same situation as Stanley, the one that taken worst was CharlesComm that lost many (if not most) Archons, Jetstone also lost a lot with Ansom but their production abilities are intact.They have a city. It's in ruins, but it's been specifically stated that you can claim ruins and build on them. They have huge amounts of money and a master Dirtamancer with which to build.

And both Wanda and Sizemore can produce units; Sizemore can also mine wealth. That's not even counting the fact that the Arkenhammer (assuming Stanley gets back and doesn't flip his lid, get ganked, or whatever) and likely the Arkenpliers can produce units, too.

Dahan
2009-04-26, 08:50 PM
I think this battle was pivotal enough to make a lot of people care.

Stanley's forces have gone from facing certain annilation to having a fighting chance to survive. They have defeated the immediate threat to their city, discovered new riches to redevelop, and have even gained a new artifact.

Jetstone has not only lost its favored heir and warlord, but nearly four thousand of its own units. Its possible they may be attacked by former allies who blame them for the loss, or simply feel that the time is right to invade. In games like Civilization, Master of Orion II, and Stars - you sometimes eliminate other nations just so you have enough resources to defend yourself down the line. I would not be surprised if Ansom was planning to take the city for his own kingdom, and attack any former allies who violently disagreed with that outcome.

The battle is not over. The column was long, with some units not expected to arrive for several turns. While some may turn away, or fight with former allies once the alliance was broken, some may attempt to retake the now relatively undefended city shortly. Zamussels and Charlescomm have personal reasons to still attempt to take the city, and Transylvito could still be persuaded to fight.

Oslecamo
2009-04-27, 05:41 AM
And both Wanda and Sizemore can produce units; Sizemore can also mine wealth. That's not even counting the fact that the Arkenhammer (assuming Stanley gets back and doesn't flip his lid, get ganked, or whatever) and likely the Arkenpliers can produce units, too.

Actually, from all that we've seen, units aparenly just pop in from the cities when paid for, just like in most games. Pay the price, wait for some time, and presto, no need for naughty actions or child caring.

My theory is that mancers allow you to produce units faster and whitout cost. So you can have a dirtmancer crancking up golems all turns whitout spending a single dime.

Mancers however seem to need raw materials to worck with. Like crap golems need crap, and croackmancers need bodies. I don't think the pliers can produce uncroackeds out of thin air.

Dahan: If there were still units wich hadn't arrived at the city(wich I doubt, since even the siege towers were there), then would they really charge head on inside the base of the guy who just blasted a whole army in front of them with one single trap? I don't think so. They don't know how many forces are left in the city, nor if there are any imba traps left. This is the kind of situation where you retreat to lick your wounds and pray that nothing worst happens.

Killer Angel
2009-04-27, 06:11 AM
:facepalm: he was appointed by the senate to the Executive office of rome to do as he saw fit, not "sent by the senate to fight a war".

mmm...
I wouldn't go into parallelism with real history. There is no "rebellion" in Erfworld, it's simply not possible for a roman general erf warlord to betray his king.
Not only for duty, but for another reason:
Advisor: "hey King! our warlord is leading troops whitout permission"
King: "really? ok, stop to pay his upkeep".
Warlord: "disband..."

If I'm not wrong, as far as we know, the only units who can betray, are the Heirs to the throne.
Ansom (as an heir) can certainly lead troops without orders or permission of his King, but certainly the other Kings won't join a coalition with him (the coalition is with Jetstone).
So, we can say that Ansom was send by his king or, at least, the king approved this mission.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-04-27, 11:08 AM
Appears he was sent by the Senate, and didn't march out on his own. Next.It's that whole "marching on Rome, taking the city, purging his political rivals" thing that applies here. That was entirely Sulla's own idea, after his political rival had been given authority over him and he was not a happy camper about it. Unless you're going to suggest that he was just following orders? I sure hope not.

My point is: make a point, not some nebulous command that other people read what you think they should.

Declined. Have a nice day.Not necessarily what I think you should read. I provided just one single example within the vast wealth of examples of a situation you have dismissed as being a preposterous statement by another poster in these forums. A dismissal which shows a great lack of knowledge on your part.

There is a point at which a person can be helped by others, and a point at which they need to help themselves. You have expressed such a vast ignorance on the subject you've decided to set yourself up as an authority on that I judge you to be in the latter camp. I can not help you other than by providing you the basis for your own study. If you want to learn something, that's great. If you choose to remain ignorant, that's fine by me as well. But aren't you the one who often trumpets that people need to learn that you "do your homework"? You are! Do you, or do you not? You really can't have it both ways.

Kreistor
2009-04-27, 12:35 PM
Not necessarily what I think you should read. I provided just one single example within the vast wealth of examples of a situation you have dismissed as being a preposterous statement by another poster in these forums. A dismissal which shows a great lack of knowledge on your part.

No, you didn't provide an example. You provided the name of a man with some 40+ years of leading troops and an empire. What you were asking was for me to read his entire career, and then guess which of his manifold landmark achievements you were referring to. And, I think you'll find you should have done that. You see, if you control the information I know, i can't really use it against you. But you didn't, instead making me learn about Sulla myself. Sulla, it seems, doesn't agree with your conclusion. He didn't like the fact he was given absolute control of an army...


It's that whole "marching on Rome, taking the city, purging his political rivals" thing that applies here. That was entirely Sulla's own idea, after his political rival had been given authority over him and he was not a happy camper about it. Unless you're going to suggest that he was just following orders? I sure hope not.

And hey, it worked out so well that they did again with Julius Caesar. And look how well that turned out. Say buh-bye to the Republic and hello to Permanent Dicatatorship. You can get lucky 1000 times, but if you don't choose correctly once, you're done.

But you know, Sulla did some great things -- he lead some big wars, put down some ambitious enemies, and he even got to be Dictator before Julius. But he had one major failure in his lifetime, and had he succeeded, he may have built an even stronger Empire. He tried to reform the Oath that the soldiers gave the army. Sulla wanted them to swear allegiance to the Senate: he failed, so they continued to swear allegiance to their General.

Whoops, did I write that properly?


Even though Sulla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla)'s laws concerning qualification for admittance to the Senate, reform of the legal system and regulations of governorships, among others, remained on Rome's statutes long into the Principate, some of his legislation was repealed less than a decade after his death. The veto power of the tribunes and their legislating authority were soon reinstated, ironically during the consulships of Pompey and Crassus. However, Sulla failed to frame a settlement whereby the army remained loyal to the Senate rather than to generals such as himself. That he tried shows he was well aware of the danger. He did pass laws to limit the actions of generals in their provinces (laws that remained in effect well into the imperial period), however, they did not prevent determined generals such as Pompey and Julius Caesar from using their armies for personal ambition or against the Senate. This highlighted the weakness of the Senate in the late republican period and its inability to control its most ambitious members.

Guess I did. Sulla wanted to ensure what he had done couldn't happen again by making the army loyal to the state, not the general. The lynchpin of your argument is that it's good to put a good man in free reign of an army, and here's a good man doing what he could to try to prevent it from ever happening again, denying that his own example was nothing more than luck on the part of the Senate.

Here is the fundamental difference between Sulla and Ansom: Ansom's troops had Loyalty to their Overlord. Sulla's troops had loyalty to Sulla, not the Senate. Sulla knew that his situation could result in an ambitious man assaulting Rome for personal glory, instead of to remove ambitious rivals. Yes, Sulla was good man for Rome once he had been given the dictatorship, but to get there he had to oust a legally elected Marius the Younger, which was a coup d'etat. That's another difference: Sulla turned his armies against the leaders that gave them to him: that isn't something they really wanted, don't you think? Oh, they lucked out in the end, but Julius Caesar laughed at Sulla for giving up the Dictatorship.

Anyway, the point is: Sulla knew that was the wrong way to do things. You don't let armies be loyal to their officers over their nation. They won't second guess orders to, say, attack their government.

So, no, doing what has been suggested in this thread, giving a general a command without political guidance over what to do with it is a Very Bad Thing (tm). Oh, it might work out once in a while, but those other instances? Well, they're suicidal. Just ask Marius the Younger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Marius_the_Younger) how well it turned out for him.

Oslecamo
2009-04-27, 01:30 PM
And hey, it worked out so well that they did again with Julius Caesar. And look how well that turned out. Say buh-bye to the Republic and hello to Permanent Dicatatorship.


Actually this isn't true. Caesar build a lot of power around him, but he never become an imperator. He left the senate with power. He even let the senate kill him when they showed they pretty much hated him despite his best efforts to help Rome.

The dicators came after his death. The government was already corrupt before Caesar rose in power. And he rose in power because they wanted his head for doing an excellent job expanding the emperium. They really didn't left him much of a choice.

The same thing hapened when Atila the Hun apeared. A roman general finally managed to stop Atila from going and curb stomping Rome, and the government rewarded him by stabbing him in the back when he returned.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-04-27, 06:14 PM
No, you didn't provide an example. You provided the name of a man with some 40+ years of leading troops and an empire. What you were asking was for me to read his entire career, and then guess which of his manifold landmark achievements you were referring to. And, I think you'll find you should have done that. You see, if you control the information I know, i can't really use it against you. But you didn't, instead making me learn about Sulla myself.My task here is done.
Sulla, it seems, doesn't agree with your conclusion. He didn't like the fact he was given absolute control of an army...Oooorrrr, maybe not. Now you are seriously going to drop into your tin foil helmet ramblings about how debate is done by controlling information? As if I would have had one iota of control over your initiative to read more for yourself? Seriously? I almost regret having goaded you into learning something, especially when you demonstrate such poor reading comprehension. Where the heck did you pull "Sulla didn't like the fact he was given absolute control of an army" from? It must have been the part where, when Sulla was told that he was being replaced as head of his army, he decided that he'd rather march it home and just see about that, right? Do those two things even appear to be equivalent attitudes to you?

But do keep reading. Eventually something will sink in, no matter how long it might take.
The lynchpin of your argument is that it's good to put a good man in free reign of an army, and here's a good man doing what he could to try to prevent it from ever happening again, denying that his own example was nothing more than luck on the part of the Senate.No, Kreistor. You and I are not having the same conversation at all. If you think we are discussing Sulla, you are quite mistaken.

The "lynchpin" of my "argument" is that before you put on airs and kick someone around for being correct that it might, just might, be a good idea to know a fact or two. But who am I kidding? If you knew those few facts you would, one would hope, never have chided someone else for posing accurate information.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-04-27, 06:53 PM
If your argument, in the logical sense, consists of so much hot air (no matter how justified your attack on an ignorant target is), I find it difficult to respect your post. It doesn't really contain any content, after all. Kreistor at least had a Wikipedia citation.

Kreistor
2009-04-27, 08:36 PM
Actually this isn't true. Caesar build a lot of power around him, but he never become an imperator. He left the senate with power. He even let the senate kill him when they showed they pretty much hated him despite his best efforts to help Rome.

Heh... I wasn't exact enough for you. Fine...


Sulla is generally seen to have provided the example that led Caesar to cross the Rubicon, and also provided the inspiration for Caesar's eventual Dictatorship. Cicero comments that Pompey once said "If Sulla could, why can't I?". Sulla's example proved that it could be done, and therefore inspired others to attempt it; he has been seen as another step in the Republic's fall.

Same difference. Nitpicking details that don't matter.


The same thing hapened when Atila the Hun apeared. A roman general finally managed to stop Atila from going and curb stomping Rome, and the government rewarded him by stabbing him in the back when he returned.

I read a SF novel that mentioned that. In the novel, the character was aware of what can happen to successful Generals of jealous rulers. His solution? when the war was over... he merely took his army on to another war and thrashed someone else. And someone else again... and so on for the series. And I'll stop there on the off chance you'll stumble onto it. I forget, but I think it was a series by:

Alan Dean Foster. The General, I think.

Decius
2009-04-27, 08:40 PM
So much missing the point here...

First, only the people currently in Gobwin Knob know the status of Gobwin Knob. Everyone else knows only that the entire last army that attacked it died instantly, shortly after the general leading it had fallen.

As to whether Ansom was 'sent', or organized a multinational coalition on his own initiative, I conclude that he was sent. A conversation along the lines of
"Sir, I request permission to organize a multinational coalition of allies, which I will have the authority to make and dissolve without further instructions, to hunt down Stanley because he isn't royal"
"Very well"
DOES count as being sent.

If, OTOH, Ansom doesn't need permission to create or dissolve alliances, or to spend the amount of money needed to hire Charlie, or any of the other things he has done, he must be the de facto ruler of Jetstone.

Unless you are postulating that he was running the war on his free time and out of his own pocket. That WOULD explain why he couldn't afford spell security from the archons...

BillyJimBoBob
2009-04-28, 10:39 AM
Kreistor at least had a Wikipedia citation.Nope, this is all Kreistor had:
Uhm, yeah, you go think that a military officer of any nation at any time could arbitrarily take his army out to make wwar without permission of his nation's political leaders.