5 dwagons, 3 warlords....

[Vethyx]

And a partridge in a pear tree…

I don’t know if its really been discussed yet, but since I’m a very big strategy fan (I played Starcraft, Warcraft, and all the C&C games to death) so I wanted to start a thread on Parsons current tactics. I’m providing my own analysis of course but I wanted to know what all of you other strategy minded folk think about this.

So this is what I can see so far.
Part 1, The numbers.
The system Parson has in place for his attacks is actually pretty brilliant. Given that asymmetrical warfare (when one side outnumbers the other by a large amount) is all about efficiency Parson has managed to set up an attack to maximize his damage potential and minimize the effort and losses involved.

Parson has 19 dwagons in his “A” group. This breaks down to 3 stacks of 5 and 1 stack of 4. We already know that stacks have a built in bonus that maxes at 8. So sticking 8 units together in a stack will give you a stack bonus of +8. Now this does not necessarily mean stacks cant be larger, they can probably be any size you want, only units beyond 8 wont add a bonus. Notice however, that Parson has not arrayed his stacks so that they contain 8 dwagons. Why? Because that would be wasteful. Parson needs to have one warlord per stack at least, in order for that stack to be able to selectively target other units and or stacks. Why not have a stack of 9? Because that would waste the bonus that that 1 unit could provide in another stack.

With that in mind, you might be asking yourself ok, so why not 7 dwagons and 1 warlord per stack, that’d be maximized efficiency wouldn’t it? In one way yes… but not totally.

Looking at the numbers, we know that a STACK bonus maxes at 8, this doesn’t take into account the leadership bonus provided by having a warlord in the stack. For example, a stack of 7 dwagons, and 1 Warlord Manpower, would have a stack bonus of +8, and a minimum of +1 leadership bonus. Giving the stack a total of +9. Now if we expand that further, and reduce the number of dwagons in the stack to 5, and add 3 warlords. The stack now has a bonus of +8 for the units, and a minimum of +3 for the Warlords Leadership bonus, giving a total of +11 for each unit in the stack. These numbers are partially theoretical, it’s a given that warlords have a leadership bonus of at least +1, but just how big the bonus given by uncroaked warlords is unknown. So the stacks could even have a leadership bonus of +6 or more…(+2 per warlord)

This is extremely important. In a situation where efficiency rules, giving the maximum amount of strength to each individual unit is very important. Granted 7 dwagons could probably do more damage faster than 5 dwagons could, but setting the attack up the way it has been maximizes the amount of damage each dwagon is doing, and reduces the amount of damage each dwagon is taking. (I’m assuming that bonuses can apply to defense) This means that pound for pound each dwagon is doing more damage and receiving less, and from the looks of it, 5 dwagons is more than enough to take care of a siege stack, with a little collateral on the side.

Part 2. Rotating the stacks.
Parson plans for each stack to cycle out its wounded when it returns to the forest stacks. Its impossible to tell how badly the units are hurt, but if only 2 or 3 dwagons take significant damage per run, fresh dwagons can be cycled in and the amount of attacks possible increases greatly. Currently 19 dwagons form 3 stacks of 5 with 4 dwagons in reserve. This provides the possibility for a minimum of 3 attacks. If 3 dwagons are hurt badly enough to require swapping out per engagement, Parson could launch a total of 5 strikes into the siege, possibly 6, if move and damage are kind.

So, your thoughts?

[SteveMB]

With that in mind, you might be asking yourself ok, so why not 7 dwagons and 1 warlord per stack
For one thing, if the 1 warlord is taken out, the dwagons are then forced to autoattack available targets. Given that they're in a target-rich environment, that means they keep fighting until they're croaked -- a simple exchange of causalties for casualties that Stanley's side can't afford given how badly he's outnumbered.

[Freederick]

So, your thoughts?
I fully agree with Vethyx's analysis. There is, however, an additional reason why 3 warlords is the minimum number:

1. Let's assume a 6-dwagon, 2-warlord stack instead. The stack carries out its attack, and let's say 2 dwagons are hurt enough to be recycled for fresh ones.

2. The wounded dwagons are sent back to the shelter hex, and new dwagons arrive. Now, neither the wounded dwagons nor the replacement ones can make the flyover without a warlord, or else they will engage indiscriminately along the way. So one of the warlords is sent back with the wounded dwagons, to return with the replacements. (The warlord is riding all the way and so not using up his move).

3. Until the replacements arrive, there is only one warlord commanding the remaining unwounded dwagons attacking the column. Now let's say the dice roll the wrong way, the lone warlord is hit and buys the farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bought_the_farm) (that'd be his second, tee hee). Now the fighting dwagons are masterless, and are lost in a senseless melee. :smallfrown:

To prevent this ugliness from happening there must be 2 warlords with the fighting team at all times, as insurance. The third warlord is needed to guide wounded dwagons and replacements on their flights. Hence 3 warlords.

[teratorn]

For one thing, if the 1 warlord is taken out, the dwagons are then forced to autoattack available targets.

Don't forget also that move is as important as the might of the stack. With only one warlord per stack, the compulsion to attack means that the warlord is forced to take all dwagons back with him to get fresh ones, wasting move. So two is the minimum required. If one of them dies, then the attack is over. That way a third one is insurance. Of course one may ask why take him in the initial round, but hey, 5 dwagons are enough to do the job and there's always the bonus.

It's not clear the time limits involved in each turn. A time limit would make a minimum of three warlords required for maximum efficiency. A third one allows for the two remaining warlords to inflict damage while he is going for fresh units.

EDIT: Freederick, this thing could work with two warlords, one of them would have to wait and not attack until the other one comes back.

[Salk]

I like it, this post puts it down nicely. For the fact that one of the warlord would die, well. They are dead already so I guess it would require a bit more than simply getting hit by one arrow now. And the only unit that is able to counter attack is archers at the moment. Not until the column got air cover again is the warlords in any real danger and by then the dragons are already gone and defended by the class B dragons. So to loss a Warlord, the enemy need to kill at least that dragon that the warlord is flying on and perhaps even one more if he is quick enough to change mount. (if that now is possible in combat) :smallsmile:

[teratorn]

Not until the column got air cover again is the warlords in any real danger and by then the dragons are already gone and defended by the class B dragons.

When they go down to attack they are vulnerable. To use fire and gas they need to get close to enemy. Not much it's true, but better no to risk it. A lucky shot and there goes a stack of dwagons.

[Waldgeist]

When they go down to attack they are vulnerable. To use fire and gas they need to get close to enemy. Not much it's true, but better no to risk it. A lucky shot and there goes a stack of dwagons.

Thought about writing something against lucky shots but then remembered how Manpower did at Warchalking... :smallbiggrin:

The question is whether it's possible to actively shoot at the warlord on a dragon or whether the marbits can only point their crossbows in the direction and fire them.

On the other hand: The picture when the dragons are setting that giant torch ablaze shows no marbits on the ground. They might already have been killed by flyby attacks (or fled in terror. Is there some kind of "psychology"?).

And whether by Jami's "lazyness" :smallwink: or because there are to few Marbits with crossbows: There were not many crossbow bolts in the air...

[Confuseamancer]

The question is whether it's possible to actively shoot at the warlord on a dragon or whether the marbits can only point their crossbows in the direction and fire them.

I'd imagine that that sort of selective counterattack falls under the same 'you need a warlord to selectively engage' rule that figures so heavily in Parson's plan. And if that's the case, Parson will surely avoid hitting stacks with warlords so as to keep his own warlords safe.

[SteveMB]

I'd imagine that that sort of selective counterattack falls under the same 'you need a warlord to selectively engage' rule that figures so heavily in Parson's plan. And if that's the case, Parson will surely avoid hitting stacks with warlords so as to keep his own warlords safe.

The "selectively engage" rule means that a stack requires a warlord to have the option of not engaging. Selective targeting within an engagement does seem to be possible to some extent even without a warlord -- a stack of dwagons with nobody riding any of them picked out one target (Jillian) to capture and croaked the rest.

[Vethyx]

The "selectively engage" rule means that a stack requires a warlord to have the option of not engaging. Selective targeting within an engagement does seem to be possible to some extent even without a warlord -- a stack of dwagons with nobody riding any of them picked out one target (Jillian) to capture and croaked the rest.


I wonder about that. Selectively engage can mean alot of things. It could mean that stacks without warlords just go head to head with whatever, and stacks with warlords can choose to engage, as well as selectively target units within enemy stacks. As for the dragon thing, didnt stanley put that stack together with specific orders to capture Jillian? That may have had something to do with that outcome.

[Confuseamancer]

The "selectively engage" rule means that a stack requires a warlord to have the option of not engaging. Selective targeting within an engagement does seem to be possible to some extent even without a warlord -- a stack of dwagons with nobody riding any of them picked out one target (Jillian) to capture and croaked the rest.

Well, the relevant Klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html) suggests there's more to it than choosing to fight or not: "With a Warlord the fight can be directed, or the group can choose not to initiate a fight."

The meaning of "directed" isn't quite clear, but it's presented as distinct from the option of not fighting at all. I took "directed" to mean what Parson's doing to the siege units and heavies - selectively attacking some members of a stack and ignoring others. Which is what you'd need for the marbits to focus on shooting an uncroaked warlord off his dwagon.

In the case of Jillian being taken by the dwagons, the leaderless stack didn't display any selectiveness in *engaging* - all units were attacked. The only flexibility was in how those attacks were ultimately completed. (Although I'll admit it still looks as though the fight was "directed", I think that's how the situation could fit the rules as we know them.)

[Waldgeist]

What I'd like to add (forgot it above... silly me) is that it might not be possible to shoot at single members of a stack but only at the stack. In that big table top game named after the arkenhammer and produced by some workshop for games you can't attack single members of a squad (or even a single hero if he's within a certain range of a squad). So a e.g. heavy weapon can only be taken out by killing all squad members.

Still there are some assassin units which have the special ability to target single members. But that's rare.

I think that shot at Warchalking was more like meant to hit the command stack and by luck a single crossbow bolt hit Manpower...

[chrono]

The meaning of "directed" isn't quite clear, but it's presented as distinct from the option of not fighting at all. I took "directed" to mean what Parson's doing to the siege units and heavies - selectively attacking some members of a stack and ignoring others. Which is what you'd need for the marbits to focus on shooting an uncroaked warlord off his dwagon.

I've always thought this was similar to the Warhammer rules - where in some cases your units were always forced to fight against the closest target (or the one attacking them). From what we've seen so far, the Marbits are doing just that (shoot at a target, don't care if it shrugs it off or has DR enough to not even wince).

The first post is thought out, but I highly doubt that warlord leadership bonuses stack (most often in morale-based bonuses you just take the highest one).

[IncredibleMel]

For the OP:

You are correct on the original assumption, except for one possible problem where you mention that you get the most efficiency out of 5 dwagons with three warlords.

It's based on how units attack and receive on a turn.

Lets assume that a turn runs on multiple segemnts, or attacks, per turns. We have to, as this is the only way Parson can pull off his plan on his turn, as each group of rotated dwagons will have to make attacks in succession.

It's basically based on attack and receive.


Lets assume the erfworld system has a simple give and take. Unit A under Parson attacks, deals damage. Unit B under Ansom attacks and gives damage.

Now, based on the fact that each unit has stats, one can assume that Parson unit is guerrenteed to only take X damage per attack segement, and will deal Y damage per attack segement.

Now, Parson can't control X. But he can control Y, by adding more Dwagons to the stack. If he were to throw in More Dwagons, that means the Y increases, while the X remains constant. Ergo, to make things more efficient based on the damage taken to damage received, he merely has to throw in more Dwagons to the stack. Making each segment of his attacks more devastating.

But, let's assume that my above Theory isn't true. That more units in Parsons stack COULD increase the Y damage, by some unforseen variable. Perhaps by making the stack larger in space, and vulnerable to more attack.

Then it may still be more valuable to have 1 warlord, and 7 dwagons, or possibly 2 warlords and six dwagons, depending on the tradeoff. Does the bonus the warlord give to the stack as a whole outwiegh the natural damage the dwagon he would replace would do?
It becomes simple math.
Is Wardlordx1+Dwagonx7+(7Xwarlord bonus)
Greater than Warlordx2+Dwagonx6+(6x2warlord bonus)
And also greater than Warlordx3+Dwagonx5+(5xwarlord bonus)


Of course, I'll also conceed that Freederick is right on the 2 warlord minimum, to enable intellegent direction. But, never the less, 2 walords may actually be preferrable. Especially as, if you leave one behind, it give the base hex the option of selectively engaging encounters.

Either way, I still give kudos to Parson for having the prescence of mind to use the dwagons that have low move in creating a "fall back" zone to eliminate his casualties.

[xKiv]

(snip, Y=damage done by the stack, X=damage sustained by the stack)
[addendum: I take this to mean X=damage sustained by the stack *after any applicable defensive deductions*]


For the OP:
If he were to throw in More Dwagons, that means the Y increases, while the X remains constant.


Unless having more warlords means better defense, in which case Y increases, but X increases too.

Also, to be on the safe side, we must assume that all damage done to a stack is done to a single dwagon (unless the rules prohibit it).
Therefore, X must not be large enough to kill one dwagon, else we wouldn't just get *wounded* dwagons, we would get *killed* dwagons.

If he can ride all his warlords with all the segments
(all the dwagons must go back eventually, so why not pick up a fresh batch then and shunt it back to the battle with all three warlords at the same time?):
all dwagons will get to strike, therefore, with the same attack bonus, it doesn't matter whether they strike in groups of 5, 6, or 7. (less than 5 and more than 7 is ineffective, for obvious (already mentioned) reasons).

I might have the movement rules wrong (do we have authoritative source?).
I might have the attack/defense rules wrong (and I think we *don't* have authoritative source here).
I might have warlord rules wrong (dtto, we can't presume stacking (and the style of stacking - ie. sum, greatest + number of warlords - 1, number of warlords * sqrt(product of bonuses), ...)/nonstacking).
We don't know whether (or to what extent) attacking uses up movement (of the dwagons, of the defending units, of the warlords)
etc...


Actually, what if the warlord *do* use up some of their movement, even when riding?
Then it would be a matter of
- getting all the warlords to the battle, to get the most of their leadership bonuses
- when its time for first refreshment, send warlord 1 for it
- when its time for second refreshment, send warlord 2
- when its time for third refreshment, send warlord 3
- when its time for fourth refreshment, no warlord has enough movement left to get it, get to the battle and get back to safety - therefore, everyone goes to the designated waiting spot

Hmm, the last point in the plan is "when all dwagons are wounded or all reachable siege is destroyed, ... fall back ...", so the assumption that warlords don't use up movement when riding is safe.

So then again, why 3 warlords in one stack?
Conclusion:
Eighter
1) the stack must attack even when recycling is in progress (to deal as much damage as possible or because of enforced movement consumption) or
2) 3 warlords just give better overall attack-defense combination (with "prevents dwagon death" being ultimate priority) or
3) to give them experience? unlikely, given Parson's knowledge of the world ... or
4) the rules are *far* too different to what we expect
5) One of the Add'l Notes is critical:
- first one is easy - destroy nearest enemies with lowest-range hitters, so that when we destroy far enemies, we still have high-range hitters to actually reach them
- third one is easy too - hit and run, reduce chance of any effective retaliation
- second .. might have to split warlord stack ... maybe that's why? Capability to hit three different targets at the far end of our reach, instead of just two/one?

[Vethyx]

In my original post, I decided to base some of my calculations on parsons actions. There is a definate reason why he chose 5 dwagons, and 3 warlords to make up the stack of 8 units that did the attacking. We dont have all the numbers we need to make a completely accurate calculation, but based on the nature of the game and Parsons apparent prowess in the arena of strategy, tactics, and gaming in general we can make some decent assumptions on to why he's doing it the way he is.

As far as I can figure, he picked 3 warlords for a good reason. 2 gives us enough coverage in case 1 gets croaked. (by this I mean the stack would still be able to be directed if one warlord dies) So why 3?

Parson cant cycle out the wounded dwagons without returning to the 'base hex'. To do so would mean leaveing an underpowered stack with wounded dwagons over enemy territory. (This because all 3 warlords can be seen riding the stack of attacking dwagons) So the theory of useing spare warlords to run dragons to and from the hex doesnt make any sence.

The only reason I can come up with for increaseing the warlords past 2, is that the bonuses that the warlords give (having 3 together) is more advantagious than having and extra dwagon or two in the stack. Granted having less dwagons per attack makes it easier to get off more attacks due to the movement constraints. Though it can also be argued that having a stack with more dwagons would mean they wipe out the oposition faster and could then take less damage, allowing them to move directly to the next target without having to return to the base hex to cycle out wounded.

I believe that Parson's plan is built arround the minimum number of dwagons required to launch the numbers of attacks he needs, and do the ammount of damage he needs, while having the highest possable kill:death ratio. To do this he grabbed the minimum number of dwagons needed to do the damage (5) and added warlords based on the bonuses they give. (This because while archduke ferdinand is before Leeroy in freshness, Leeroy still got picked ahead of him)

[xKiv]

Or its really the Add'l note about maybe having to split the stack.

What if it's a given that they will destroy the same units whether they have one or two warlords in a stack, except at the far end of the column, where one stack could *not* reach everything, but ...

stack reaches point A. 3 dwagons with two warlords reach half the remaining enemies and return to point A
where they take the remaining 2 dwagons (and leave their 3 to the third warlord, so that they don't automatically go off attacking nearest target) and finish off the rest.

The key is that they need 2 warlords for the attacking stack (to protect against 1 warlord being croaked) and 1 warlord for the other stack (to prevent it from wandering).

Except, why not take three stacks of dwagons, one each with one warlord, and switch the dwagons between stacks in the battlefield? Possibly even merging (have one stack with two warlords to attack, one with one warlord in reserve)?

Also, why *exactly* take just 8-sized stacks? I mean, with more dwagons in a stack, they would *still* have the same bonus(es) ...

I am, too, counting on Parson's solution to be (near) optimal in analyzing this situation ... and I believe that the answer *really* is in remaining movement.
That would be: if he went with more dwagons per stack (than 5), he wouldn't be able to cover the whole column with attacks, wasting dwagon power.

He's got 19 A dwagons, 3 of which are used for warlords ... wait, those attack too, right? So the warlord stack will *always* have 8 dwagons ... and the remaining numer of (non-warlord) dwagons in the stack is moot.
Then, having three warlords is just *always* better that having two ... because then Ansom needs to croak more warlords (well, one more) before the stack has to return.
Even if warlord bonuses don't stack.

So, my only remaining question (as seen above) is: why not take even more dwagons into the warlord stack, given that their power will be the same it would be if they were brought as a reinforcement (and fought in an eight-sized stack)?
Eighter it's that they wouldn't be able to cover the whole column with their movement, or it's safer (because bigger stacks could sustain more total damage from the same counterattack), or it would simply be wasting attacks on already croaked units.

And I don't think I have anything smarter to say.

[Salk]

I think you hit the spot.

Five dragons and three warlords in one stack = eight units in one stack.
Then there is a question the possibilities to split stacks in combat, giving to options.

1st option. (not possible to split stacks?)

Hit the column as much as possible, then return to base, change dragons with the warlords (yes all three of them) and go back to do more damage.

This maxes the possible amount of times that they can attack the column with 8units, to a grand total of 4 times. The last attack will only have 4 dragons but 3 warlords and still do damage to selected units by the warlords and ultimatly parson.

2nd option (possible to split stacks?)

Hit the column with one group of five dragons and three warlords (8 total)
Hit as ordered. As Dragons get wounded to a certain amount, withdraw those with one warlord, change to unharmed dragons, join the battle once more.

In this there is a larger damage rate, but the dangers are greater as the attacking stack is weaker by at least 2 which might result in more damage to the remaining dragons. If it works as planed, they can almost turn that section of the column to dust before their end of turn.

They simply keep on hitting everything that stands until they are short of movements or HP and fly back to change. But it will cause the remaining units that fight to get hit more by archers. This keeps the amount of dragons on a regular basis of 3 and 2 warlord. Always changing wounded units will result in almost always being low by at least 2.

[xKiv]

(snip)


In this there is a larger damage rate, but the dangers are greater as the attacking stack is weaker by at least 2 which might result in more damage to the remaining dragons. If it works as planed, they can almost turn that section of the column to dust before their end of turn.

They simply keep on hitting everything that stands until they are short of movements or HP and fly back to change. But it will cause the remaining units that fight to get hit more by archers. This keeps the amount of dragons on a regular basis of 3 and 2 warlord. Always changing wounded units will result in almost always being low by at least 2.

Do we know for *sure* that the weakened stack (while refreshment is en-route) can't just sit there without attacking (and presumably also without being counterattacked)?

[teratorn]

The last 3 or 4 posters are concentrating on damage bonuses and such but the most important variable is move. Parson only has 19 dwagons to use in the attacks and each one of them has finite move.



Hit the column as much as possible, then return to base, change dragons with the warlords (yes all three of them) and go back to do more damage.


You waste move. Parson was very clear, move is the most important thing. In fact he even starts with the dwagons with the least move from the 19. If a dwagon isn't wounded or hasn't reached its move limit do not take him back. From the klog it's also clear you can break stacks.

[Salk]

Yes, that is the idea. It's heavy on moves but it cost you less units.

I would believe what we see now, is that the dragon stack launch their attack on the column at the beginning of the turn. They attack as much as possible and retreat perhaps a move or two away from the column when the dragons is starting to get hurt or low on moves, canceling combat before complete victory. (Thus creating the victory dancing among the Jetstones :smallwink: )

From there they change units, bringing in fresh dragons and attacks again. Thus they perhaps switched two or three dragons, launch a new assault until the dragons that stayed get low on HP or/and moves.
They then disengage, repeat the manner. Get a bunch of new dragons and repeat again. This way they waste as little moves as possible and when the last dragon is getting low on moves and/or HP, it withdraw as well and the dragon returns to safety.

This would be my second alternative. :smallbiggrin:

Edit to add in below

oh, consider that perhaps the dragons are... 10moves away from the column when at the base hex. they need to keep 20 moves to go there and return resulting in a use of 36+ moves for each dragon while at the column. Each move probably is able to result in one attack, but let's say they need to use three, one to disengage, attack, disengage. That still leaves 12+ attacks per dragon. We got 19 Dragons that will attack. It will result in at least 200 hits on that part of the column. :smallamused:

[DCR]

*hackslashsnip* To do this he grabbed the minimum number of dwagons needed to do the damage (5) and added warlords based on the bonuses they give. (This because while archduke ferdinand is before Leeroy in freshness, Leeroy still got picked ahead of him)

<.<
>.>
<.<
Leeroy was there for reasons having nothing to do with stats.
Teh funny > x for all x.
>.>
<.<
this is not the Salutations Jack you're looking for
return to serious strategy discussion
*flees*

[teratorn]

Each move probably is able to result in one attack, but let's say they need to use three, one to disengage, attack, disengage. That still leaves 12+ attacks per dragon. We got 19 Dragons that will attack. It will result in at least 200 hits on that part of the column. :smallamused:

Move is going from one hex to the other. There is no move involved in movement inside the hex because units outside of turn can walk around (Jillian's fight) yet they have zero move. They attack one target, kill siege and heavies, then go to the other, they don't make several engagements within the same stack. What we don't know is if there is a time limit and so warlords have time to wait for fresh dwagons or if they need to keep moving to make sure all resources are used.

The strip even tells us that it's Lady Phat Singh who is moving dwagons in and out of the attacking stack.

[Salk]

I'm imagine this in line with a computer game called age of wonders. there you got one movement point per hex you could move. But if battle started inside this hex by two stacks moving up against each other, they were sent into a much larger detail and the individual units had the ability to move around within that hex.

Now then, I'm thinking that the column is lots of separate stacks of units on a line, rather thick one with lots of them moving side by side. You could split this column into units of 8. Each of these protect perhaps one siege unit. Now, you got dragons to attack these units, warlords to chose what to torch, and lots of movements.

You take your dragon stack, hit the middle of the column where the siege units are, focus the dragons to torch the siege units. Once done you withdraw and the battle ends. Now, your dragons used three movements to go into the threat zone, one to attack, one to withdraw. You used three moves on the overall world hex. Now you switch what units are to hurt to battle, go one step closer again, attack and retreat. 3 moves again. Repeat this as much as you want, as you can hit different stacks, only selected units, ignore the rest and retreat. If you don't have a warlord, you must kill them all before battle ends. If you got one, you can withdraw your units.

This causes the possibility to attack the column and kill whatever single you wish from whatever stack you got within range. You are able to kill at least 200 different selections of units before your moves are over and need to return to base. And this is within a game where one stack is at a max usefulness of 8. Each unit is going to hurt, a lot. (also note, a unit don't have to be a single enemy, it might be a formation of weaker creatures, such as a company of archers or a company of spear men that together count as one unit. Eight such units, with a company in each, would be a rather large force no mater what. probably ranging towards the hundreds at least)

Now then, this is what hurts really bad. One turn, loss 200units. You need how many turns in a city to produce that many units once more? :smallamused:

[teratorn]

Now then, this is what hurts really bad. One turn, loss 200units. You need how many turns in a city to produce that many units once more? :smallamused:

Dwagons don't have much more than 50 move and targets are scattered inside the column. This is still a lot (enough to goback to GB) but they already spent some to get in position and they will need to zigzag from target to target.

I'm not sure the engagement in itself wastes more than the move to enter the hex, but that may be something to consider. We need the rules book!

[Salk]

consider this as a alternative. Each unit got Specific world hex move points. Dragon type A 56+

Within a combat zone, all units get their max world hex move, not counting towards world moves. This is totally unrelated and only shows what speed one unit could move within a combat zone. Once combat ends, they return to their original move within world. One world turn and one combat turn, would thus have two identical amount of moves, but on different scales. This assumes that everything is turned based, including combat.

Now then, Type A dragon got 56+ moves in world hex. If someone attacks "their" hex, a close up in battle appears. The enemy got gummy beasts :smalltongue: thus 44 moves. Within the hex, there is another hex system. The attacking unit get to move first, closing in the target. Probably they won't reach the enemy, resulting in the enemy getting one move before combat.

Apply this to Jillians battle with the dragons. They closed in really close (56+ moves), she sent the Orly's away as distraction (they got closer). The dragons attacks. (without a warlord attacked the closest enemies, thus we get OMGWTFBBQ). Jillian moves (44moves), attacking the single blue dragon. Dragons return (catches up with +56 moves), show her a claw and brings her, a commander. To prison in goblin knob.

This could represent a turn based system.

In this battle, the ground units can't do much if not archers. So the dragons could attack anything but avoids archers as they get to fire if within range. When the battle is on, the speed of the dragons is represented by their +56 moves, but in small scale. this doesn't cost anything as it's already "payed" for by the action to move into the enemies world hex, that represent the dragons moving across that hex. If they battle within it. They still don't move outside the hex, thus they don't spend anything until they retreat and return to their original hex. :smallsmile:

Edit:

Oh, and if they win. They end up on the enemies world hex, but they already payed for that so it won't cost anything more then either.

[xKiv]

(snip)


Oh, and if they win. They end up on the enemies world hex, but they already payed for that so it won't cost anything more then either.

Which may actually help them conserve moves in some situations....

[Salk]

exactly, in either case. It's one boop of a exploit that's going to hurt really bad. I can't imagine really the total devastation by this tactic without any real numbers but in either case. This is one is going to hurt really, really bad.

Edit: for spelling.

[Snaaake]

The strip even tells us that it's Lady Phat Singh who is moving dwagons in and out of the attacking stack.
Good observation: Parsons first attack team has 2 red, 2 green and 1 pink dwagon, with the Lady on the pink, and Manpower & Leroy on red dwagons. Later we see Lady Phat-Singh moving away, now on a red dwagon, with 1 green and the pink dwagon with her. Therefore:



2nd option (possible to split stacks?):
Hit the column with one group of five dragons and three warlords (8 total)
Hit as ordered. As Dragons get wounded to a certain amount, withdraw those with one warlord, change to unharmed dragons, join the battle once more.

However, I don't agree with this (later in the same post from Salk):

They simply keep on hitting everything that stands until they are short of movements or HP and fly back to change. But it will cause the remaining units that fight to get hit more by archers. This keeps the amount of dragons on a regular basis of 3 and 2 warlord. Always changing wounded units will result in almost always being low by at least 2.

Where does it say the dwagons remaining in the column have to keep attacking while reinforcements are being fetched by the Lady with pink hair? As I see it, they can just fly up (out of melee range), wait for the Lady to return, then continue their attack on another stack. This allows for an awesome amount of damage by the dwagons, if attacking doesn't cost any move (don't see why it should, moving into the enemy's hex already does), and for as long as there are fresh dwagons (also you utilise all 19 A dwagons fully).

Assuming of course that Erfworld days are based off the turn system and not vice versa, or that the dwagons fly and fight fast enough that the whole plan is executed by noon (end of Parson's Turn).

[Salk]

:smallsmile:

It was my first "version", got flaws in my thinking of course. :smalltongue:

But I believe I covered that in a later post, as the discussion went on.


You take your dragon stack, hit the middle of the column where the siege units are, focus the dragons to torch the siege units. Once done you withdraw and the battle ends. Now, your dragons used three movements to go into the threat zone, one to attack, one to withdraw. You used three moves on the overall world hex. Now you switch what units are to hurt to battle, go one step closer again, attack and retreat. 3 moves again. Repeat this as much as you want, as you can hit different stacks, only selected units, ignore the rest and retreat. If you don't have a warlord, you must kill them all before battle ends. If you got one, you can withdraw your units.

Edit: This doesn't cover everything as we don't really know the rules. As such I'm only stating a rather easy and nice way when dealing with these move rules. Of course, the cost could simply be one move if you are next to a enemy stack hex, hit and retreat which results that you only tried to move one step closer but got repelled/retreated thus only using one move to try. But that would be even worse on the columns part. :smallsmile:

[DreadArchon]

Move could definitely be needed for combat. Anyone played Galactic Civilizations II? One move used per space moved, as you'd expect. Initiating combat is also one move. But if your enemies have several groups on top of each other, you need to use one point of move for each group that you attack--for example, suppose that parsec A has four fighters in a squad and parsec B has four individual fighters. Parsec A would put up much more of a fight against, say three battleships, but those three battleships would only have to spend one point of move to do it. On the other hand, Parsec B would take four points of movement to clear because the battleships would have to hunt them down individually. Thus, move points are valuable both in getting to combat and in fighting combat in GalCivII; Erfworld might have a similar mechanic.

Or, what if disengaging (as by warlords--amusing that zombies are necessary for intelligent battles and dragons preclude them, isn't it? :smalltongue: ) takes extra move points? That could shake things up.

Even assuming that move points are only relevant for getting to a battle, Parson is limited to attacking creatures who are 28 hexes away by the shortest route (because his weakest link is double that and he needs to be able to get them back to the forest camp hex). We don't know how far 28 hexes is, but if something is getting 56 movement it's likely not very far (even assuming that dwagons are really fast). In GalCivII, it takes a pretty good ship to make it above a move of ten--thus, I'm guessing that Erfworld has much smaller grid spaces.

Still, if it would normally take six stacks of eight squads to drop three warlords and a few dwagons, I'd imagine that hit-and-run tactics are highly effective. Pulling out dwagons after going through, say, three squads per stack, and assuming that hits are spread evenly amongst dwagons and commanders (like in Warhammer 40,000, where you can only hit unit commanders first if you manage to roll enough hits to strike every single person in the unit at least once), one flight of dwagons could go up, cherry-pick targets from ten to twelve stacks, come back to the guarded camp, and send its commanders off with the next flight of dwagons. With three squads of five and one squad of four, and still estimating three squads of siege units per stack (other squads are guards and soldiers), you could take out 40+ stacks of siege units without losses! Now, let's say you need to split a few squads to reach that many targets: Your squads will be individually weaker, so you'll have to gank fewer stacks to be safe, but, again, safety is almost assured if it would normally take 6 stacks to handle one good squad. So maybe you'd only be able to deprive 30-35 stacks of their siege engines. "Only." :smallcool:

Edit: And then, to wrap things up, Ansom can't counterattack effectively because (1) he he can only use forest units or flyers and (2) the dwagons that can be attacked are at full health, making assault by a partial force rough at best.

Also, we don't know why the class B dwagons are slower. It could be because they're cheap, but maybe it's a balance issue enforced because they're especially tough, making things even worse from Ansom's counterattack perspective!

[Salk]

mm, this is the nice part of it all. A quick estimation of your numbers gives us. 40 Stacks x 8 units each = 320 units. I find it hard to believe they even got that many siege units and bears. Thus he should do some attack of opportunity just to get as much damage as possible on the column. Perhaps also what is shown with the dragon eating Marbits, they took a few close combat units on the way simply cause they could.

[SmartAlec]

Also, we don't know why the class B dwagons are slower. It could be because they're cheap, but maybe it's a balance issue enforced because they're especially tough, making things even worse from Ansom's counterattack perspective!

I thought it was because the B-dwagons are the dwagons that started their turn elsewhere (including the 3 dwagons that ferried the three warlords from Gobwin Knob), and so have used up part of their movement to reach the A-dwagons, who began their turn at the right spot.

Parson was hoping to move them at night so that all dwagons were at the right spot at the beginning of the turn, but he wasn't allowed.

[SteveMB]

Edit: And then, to wrap things up, Ansom can't counterattack effectively because (1) he he can only use forest units or flyers and (2) the dwagons that can be attacked are at full health, making assault by a partial force rough at best.
And (3) he has to find them first.

[EvilElitest]

And a partridge in a pear tree…

I don’t know if its really been discussed yet, but since I’m a very big strategy fan (I played Starcraft, Warcraft, and all the C&C games to death) so I wanted to start a thread on Parsons current tactics. I’m providing my own analysis of course but I wanted to know what all of you other strategy minded folk think about this.

So this is what I can see so far.
Part 1, The numbers.
The system Parson has in place for his attacks is actually pretty brilliant. Given that asymmetrical warfare (when one side outnumbers the other by a large amount) is all about efficiency Parson has managed to set up an attack to maximize his damage potential and minimize the effort and losses involved.

Parson has 19 dwagons in his “A” group. This breaks down to 3 stacks of 5 and 1 stack of 4. We already know that stacks have a built in bonus that maxes at 8. So sticking 8 units together in a stack will give you a stack bonus of +8. Now this does not necessarily mean stacks cant be larger, they can probably be any size you want, only units beyond 8 wont add a bonus. Notice however, that Parson has not arrayed his stacks so that they contain 8 dwagons. Why? Because that would be wasteful. Parson needs to have one warlord per stack at least, in order for that stack to be able to selectively target other units and or stacks. Why not have a stack of 9? Because that would waste the bonus that that 1 unit could provide in another stack.

With that in mind, you might be asking yourself ok, so why not 7 dwagons and 1 warlord per stack, that’d be maximized efficiency wouldn’t it? In one way yes… but not totally.

Looking at the numbers, we know that a STACK bonus maxes at 8, this doesn’t take into account the leadership bonus provided by having a warlord in the stack. For example, a stack of 7 dwagons, and 1 Warlord Manpower, would have a stack bonus of +8, and a minimum of +1 leadership bonus. Giving the stack a total of +9. Now if we expand that further, and reduce the number of dwagons in the stack to 5, and add 3 warlords. The stack now has a bonus of +8 for the units, and a minimum of +3 for the Warlords Leadership bonus, giving a total of +11 for each unit in the stack. These numbers are partially theoretical, it’s a given that warlords have a leadership bonus of at least +1, but just how big the bonus given by uncroaked warlords is unknown. So the stacks could even have a leadership bonus of +6 or more…(+2 per warlord)

This is extremely important. In a situation where efficiency rules, giving the maximum amount of strength to each individual unit is very important. Granted 7 dwagons could probably do more damage faster than 5 dwagons could, but setting the attack up the way it has been maximizes the amount of damage each dwagon is doing, and reduces the amount of damage each dwagon is taking. (I’m assuming that bonuses can apply to defense) This means that pound for pound each dwagon is doing more damage and receiving less, and from the looks of it, 5 dwagons is more than enough to take care of a siege stack, with a little collateral on the side.

Part 2. Rotating the stacks.
Parson plans for each stack to cycle out its wounded when it returns to the forest stacks. Its impossible to tell how badly the units are hurt, but if only 2 or 3 dwagons take significant damage per run, fresh dwagons can be cycled in and the amount of attacks possible increases greatly. Currently 19 dwagons form 3 stacks of 5 with 4 dwagons in reserve. This provides the possibility for a minimum of 3 attacks. If 3 dwagons are hurt badly enough to require swapping out per engagement, Parson could launch a total of 5 strikes into the siege, possibly 6, if move and damage are kind.

So, your thoughts?


So Parson is basiclly using gurrilla warfare, while his fights are offically losses, he just attacks and does lots of dwagon damage and then flees, with little or not losses
Pretty smart, how would one counter it
from,
EE

[JazzManJim]

So Parson is basiclly using gurrilla warfare, while his fights are offically losses, he just attacks and does lots of dwagon damage and then flees, with little or not losses
Pretty smart, how would one counter it
from,
EE

Split the column into several smaller columns. Give the other side lots of targets to hit which forces them into hitting a smaller column with their full force or dividing their forces themselves. You minimize the amount of damage that can be done, spreads out the "high value" targets, and doesn't slow your column down nearly as much.

If you keep your columns relatively short, you've basically turned the "shape" of the ground units you need to protect with air a square instead of a long line. You can cover that with air far more efficiently. You also have the opportunity to deal the other side a heck of a blow if they decide to split their air units up to attack each smaller column. You sacrifice a certain amount of damage to the others and concentrate your air on obliterating one segment of their air.

[Thrawn183]

My take on the strategy is as follows:
The warlords fly in with 5 dragons and attack. They choose who they attack (at least in terms of hexes) because of the presence of warlords. Because the world is turn based, they don't have to worry about fighting any units other than the ones attacked (yet, getting back to this later). We don't know if a single unit is injured at a time during the attack or all simultaneously. I'm assuming, solely from the way combat is drawn, that all units are injured simultaneously.

Retreating with the injured dragons is a piece of cake, because enemy units can only respond to an attack, they can't initiate anything when its not their turn. Parson just keeps attacking with each dragon until its almost dead, then retreats it to where it will be fully healed the next turn. The key here is the circular group of stacks. They'll be able to defend all of the wounded dragons (something like 19 of them?) until they are able to heal. That is the part of the plan that is truly brilliant. Negating the opponents counterrattack, not the plan of attack itself.

[loserthree]

Warlords can fight. They have stats. Jillian is the one who killed the Blue Dwagon, not the peepy gwiffon.

5 dwagons + 3 Warlords = 8 units

max stack bonus

(of course, I could be wrong)

[Salk]

Warlords can fight. They have stats. Jillian is the one who killed the Blue Dwagon, not the peepy gwiffon.

5 dwagons + 3 Warlords = 8 units

max stack bonus

(of course, I could be wrong)

Nah, You are correct. Even warlords got to count as units as long as they are able to battle, specially if you are able to put more than one in your stack. :smallsmile:

[Freerefill]

I'm no strategist and much that's been said in this thread I've only barely followed, but allow me to add my two cents.

Parsons Klog page #6 didn't specify that the A Dwagons were being split into 3 stacks of 5 and one stack of 4. It just said "Stacks of 5." Assuming what was already said about the stack bonuses maxing out at 8, that puts all three warlords in the battle at the same time. I think it's assumed that the remaining 14 A Dwagons are so far removed (I think the same would have to go for the B Dwagons) that they will not attack indiscriminantly. I think the battle would go something along the lines of:

1: 5 healthy Dwagons with 3 warlords enter the column, start doing their business.

2: "Time" passes. This is an important step.

3: Some Dwagons get injured. One warlord takes the injured out and comes back with fresh ones. What the remaining two do in the meantime..? Do they back off and wait till the stack is maxed out on bonus again? That would be likely, but it doesn't specify.

4: Time passes. Again, important step.

5: Goto 3.

So what's the deal with time passing? Well, if one warlord is CONSTANTLY (emphasized for emphasis) flying back and forth cycling in fresh Dwagons, that warlord is not applying any bonus to the attacking stack; that warlord is simply not there enough to have their bonus count worth a damn. If that warlord had to make so many trips, it would be more efficient to increase the stack size to 6 Dwagons, since there would only be 2 warlords at any given time for a stack bonus of 8. So, assuming the Dwagons are tough and can take a few hits, thereby making the time that the third warlord spends outside of battle a moot point, and assuming Occhams Razor (because I'm too lazy to assume it's more complicated), on average, the stack remains as 5 Dwagons and 3 warlords.

As for movement, I think the attacking Dwagons don't ever leave the column. I think they just go right from siege tower to siege tower. That would certainly reduce their movement cost and make the whole thing a health issue.

As for the "warlord-less stacks attack indiscriminantly," I think it all has to do with the Eyemancers. Parson set it up so that he gives Ansom a "puppet show," which pissed off Tool, which means this was not the case before, which leads me to believe that the Eyemancers can give commands to a stack without a warlord but not directly control them, like say, give a command at the beginning of the turn but not during the turn.

[Scientivore]

2: "Time" passes. This is an important step.

Not really. In TBS games of the sort that Erfworld resembles, Move is purely a measure of distance, not of time. The healthy dwagons won't waste anything by hovering there, waiting for the injured dwagons to be swapped out for fresh ones. There might be a sort of overall turn clock (as in chess); we don't know yet.


As for movement, I think the attacking Dwagons don't ever leave the column. I think they just go right from siege tower to siege tower. That would certainly reduce their movement cost and make the whole thing a health issue.

That's a good point. It will help them out a lot if they can "retreat" within a hex (just stop fighting) without actually having to leave it. I don't think that the answer to whether that can be done has been shown or said yet.

However, simultaneously continuing the attack while swapping out wounded dwagons would short the attack stack more than just the warlord -- it would also short them by the number of dwagons being swapped. They would have to keep an excess of dwagons with the attack stack some of the time to keep it from ever going below minimum power during an attack and that would waste their Move.

[SmartAlec]

If attacks in Erfworld focussed on one unit until it was dead, and then focussed on another unit (a fairly sensible way to fight dwagons, and it definitely sounds like the kind of thing that Erfworld would do), then they'd only have to cycle out one dwagon at a time.