Parson's Klog, Page 3

[SteveMB]

It's a place where they fight battles in turns, how realistic do you expect it to be?

Erfword is a giant wargame (albiet an unusually cute one). Stanley didn't need a great military strategist, he needed a great wargamer, and that's exactly what Parson is.

True; much of what Parson needs to know boils down to questions of how the rules of Erfworld either negate or enhance the effectiveness of certain types of military strategy. (For instance, I raised the question earlier of whether the "supply rules" mean that rations stop popping if they no longer control the city; if so, that pretty much makes "insurgency" a complete non-option.)

[EdgarVerona]

@EdgarVerona: must...restrain...self...from...derailing...thread ...!!

You're right, you're right... last time I got into a discussion about anything serious here, I got penalized for inappropriate conversations. It's hard not to talk about important issues... but we're both probably better off without it. Anyways, for the sake of helping to not derail, I'll go edit out my rant from the last posts.

If you want to though, hit me up on PM and we can discuss the matter further. I'm always up for debate... and if you have an opinion that'd make me feel better about OSC, that'd be great! I really was bummed out for days after reading his blog... and I'd like to hear some good news, or just some general debating about it if there's no good news to be had.

[ryos]

True; much of what Parson needs to know boils down to questions of how the rules of Erfworld either negate or enhance the effectiveness of certain types of military strategy. (For instance, I raised the question earlier of whether the "supply rules" mean that rations stop popping if they no longer control the city; if so, that pretty much makes "insurgency" a complete non-option.)

We know that the supply isn't free--Stanly's joke about uncroaked being "cheap to feed" implies there is upkeep to the army, even if its rations pop out of thin air.

I'm interested in how money translates into forces. The marbits found the arkenjewel, and as a result, "could afford an extra squad of axmen." Is that because they somehow bought more forces, or because they could afford the upkeep, or pay, or whatever?

There's an idea for a T-shirt--"I found a giant arkenjewel, and all I got was this squad of axemen...SPUSH!"

[PMDM]

If I was Parson, I would go over what I allready know of the game. I would first look at the situation from a gaming point of view, and then I would start to worry about those broader strategies such as infiltration, and weakpoints. But maybe it's because I want to see stats attributed to the characters.

[Zienth]

A conventional siege didn't work at Stalingrad. It wasn't a conventional siege at all. The Germans never encircled Stalingrad, so the Soviets were able to get supplies and lots of troops into the city. There was also continual close-quarters fighting that resulted in a lot of ground changing hands, sometimes back and forth, but eventually with the Germans gradually taking over most of the city. It was certainly not a conventional siege, with static lines. What worked for the Soviets was attacks from the flanks, outside the city, to encircle the Germans in the city. Only then did it turn into anything like a conventional siege, with the Soviets besieging the trapped German Sixth Army. And that siege certainly worked, but for the people on the outside, which is not Parson's situation. And Parson doesn't have a supply base like the Soviet Union to keep pouring men and material into Gobwin Knob. No, Stalingrad was neither an conventional siege, nor was it similar to Parson's situation (which is, however, looking much like a conventional siege).

As for God Mode, hmmm, dress Parson up in a white, rhinestone-studded, leisure suit, and he'd be most impwessive...

Zienth

[Felius]

Also, just a P.S. about the ones that said the strategies that he makes are bad:
I call your attention for the description of what he says that is the strategy: "We're probably on our own. But if there is a potential ally out there who could ride to our rescue, I wanna find that out."
He is not counting on it, but he doesn't want to cut it out just now.

And to finish, I want to say that possible strategies depends on what kind of resources do you have. If you do have a weapon that can destroy all the strategic coordination of your enemy and make an otherwise impossible victory becomes a easy battle, it IS a valid strategy. If you don't need to destroy your enemy to win, just get that (Item/Hero/City/Creature), by the twelve gods of the south, it is a valid strategy to go for it.

Ender's game was lots of suicide bombing with lots of bombs. Only, not really bombs. More like en masse game exploitation. "I don't really know what this does, but I'm going to apply my remaining forces like a garden hose at the enemy and hope the results go boom."

Most RTS games would scoff at such a tactic. Most real world generals, on the other hand... would not only scoff at the tactic, but ridicule the tactician!

As said, depends of what resources you have in hand. There is no such thing as a perfect tactic, much less one good for every situation.

[Windup]

First post. Yeah, Parson basically just sounds like an idiot. To pile on:

"Superweapon: Worked in WW2 didn't it?"

No. By the time the US was ready to deploy the atomic bomb, Japan's navy had been destroyed and most of it's major cities had been devastated by firebombing. The atom bomb was not some sort of Sunday punch that won the war. The war was already all but won. In terms of the final outcome, it was essentially irrelevant.

[Maerad of Pellinor]

I'm not very good at this whole speculation thing, but I suspect Jillian will have a pretty big part to play in the eventual solution. She might be a turnable officer. Remember that she's a mercenary, and mercs aren't exactly known for their loyalty.

Yeah, but she's also a Royal, and Royals are infamous for their sense of honor even in the most ridiculous situations....Anyone read Lazaro de Tormes?

RE: Modern seiges--In case anyone hasn't noticed, this isn't a modern-day game....Notice Parson uses a chamber pot and there are no electric lights....Okay that sounded bad, sorry You get the point though

RE: Realistic strategies--Again, this comic is very far from serious....So it makes sense that all of Parson's strategies are ridiculous and utterly not applicable to our warfare.

RE: Ender's Game--I think Parson just meant something completely unexpected. The box below the first chart is talking about the subcategories of "Finally...Ender's Game!" so it has just about everything covered....Like Strategos said in two earlier posts....*tries not to be redundant*

Yay Star Wars and Lord of the Rings (well, Hobbit) references!

Oh, and Jamie, feel better!

[EdgarVerona]

I think the Ender's Game reference was appropriate... I mean, he may have not been thinking in terms of the moral of the story, but he was merely extracting strategy from it. After all...

(Ender's Game spoiler... please don't read if you haven't read it and plan to)

Spoiler

Show

Destroying the center of operations for your enemy in one, world-shattering shot is fairly advantageous tactically. Of course, as is revealed in Ender's Game and Speaker of the Dead, it wouldn't be a reccommended course of action, but anyways...

[Blackeagle]

First post. Yeah, Parson basically just sounds like an idiot. To pile on:

"Superweapon: Worked in WW2 didn't it?"

No. By the time the US was ready to deploy the atomic bomb, Japan's navy had been destroyed and most of it's major cities had been devastated by firebombing. The atom bomb was not some sort of Sunday punch that won the war. The war was already all but won. In terms of the final outcome, it was essentially irrelevant.

Ahh, but how do you know that the atomic bomb was the superweapon he was talking about? It could be argued that the real "superweapon" of the second world war was the Allies ability to read German and Japanese radio traffic

[PMDM]

As the bad guys, turning commanders over to the dark side is one of the best shots they have at winning.

[Demented]

Ahh, but how do you know that the atomic bomb was the superweapon he was talking about? It could be argued that the real "superweapon" of the second world war was the Allies ability to read German and Japanese radio traffic

Though that doesn't quite ring with the rest of what Parson says, namely the Ender's game references, the "single brilliant stroke" comment, and the very use of the word 'superweapon'. Parson just doesn't seem like the kind to speak in riddles.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It's kind of an interesting position I am in, because Parson exists in my head and I know that he would leap at the chance to debate these critiques of him. Unfortunately he is in an alternate universe, or an altered state of consciousness, or something even weirder than that, and is unavailable for comment.

However, as author I would like to thank you for directing the criticism at the character and at least leaving me the benefit of the doubt as to my own grasp of military strategy, vs. Parson's.

Would you mind if I asked how your own strategy brainstorming notes would read in Parson's place, though?

How would my mind read:

Death From Above: The Tool has Dragons... Dwagons... whatever those things are... at his command. Does the other side have anything comparable? What is the range of their attack vs the range of whatever the other side has? Can they actually get away with bombing/strafing runs unharmed? Air Superiority FTW!

Resistance Is Futile: Okay, Wanda is a croakamancer, and undead are uncroaked. I guess that means she makes undead... uncroaked... damn this is giving me a headache. I wonder how feasable it would be to have her close enough to start raising both sides' dead in the middle of combat. As Napolean said... the morale is to the physical as three is to one. Having your dead buddy rise up and attack you is pretty demoralizing. Moreso when they realize that sending in troops to get killed is going to give me more troops to fight back with. If I can just get enough opponents dead quick enough, it could start a chain reaction which will blow up the Death Star... erm their forces.

Anything you can do, I can do better: Okay, I know this guy is going to be packing Siege Engines. He's got to if he's going to be able to take a fortified castle. How many siege engines do we have or can make/borrow/steal on short notice? I'll have a range advantage on him due to a height advantage. Also, what kind of munitions can I get? Flaming pots do well against massive hordes. Much moreso than large chunks of marble. Are there any mages who can be an effective siege engine: i.e. Blaster Casters of some sort?

Tunnel of Love: Do we have trap makers and people able to set them? Those tunnels Tool told me about... let's make 'em Deathtrap Dungeon, with lethal traps every five feet. It doesn't matter if we aren't able to use 'em until we disarm them all, live first and worry about using them after we survive. If we don't... then let him spend the next decade or so loosing troops down there. Serves him right.

There is no knowledge that is not power: Okay, Wanda just got done interrogating that prisoner. Let's see what she found out. Do we have troop placements? Travel routes we can set up traps/ambushes to whittle down forces? Weaknesses to exploit? Anything useful?

Never give him an even fight: Ambushes, bombing runs, poison... anything and everything I can use to hit him where he least expects it. If Tool wasn't such a meglomaniac, I'd consider the merit of Guerrella warfare, but considering the local pesantry probably detests him, probably not a viable option. Sniper teams? Do we have archers/casters/who knows who can reliabally shoot a specific someone from the walls? If we hit enough officers or noncoms, they might have enough disruption. If their leader is anything like His Toolship, locating them shouldn't be too difficult. Exploit it.

Golden Beebee: Hell, who am I kidding? I'm seriously out-numbered, out everything'd, and have a Tool for a Master and Commander. I'm gonna need at least a little luck here if I'm going to win. It's not like we're going to have to conserve ammunition. Let's throw everything but the kitchen sink at them and see what happens. While I'm not gonna count on it by any means... the more hits you roll, the more chances you have of rolling that nat 20.

Somehow, I don't think iddqd is going to work here...

[theStorminMormo]

Post mdern deconsturctionism, a valid form of interpretation, states taht anything can be the meaing of any work, if that thing coems to you while experienceing any of the work.

I distinctly remember saying "no thanks". If I want a lesson in post modern deconstructionalism I can go back to college. Where the professors know how to spell.

And yes, getting rescued is a strategy. A really bad one, but possible within the universe we are set with. Or they may have some hidden aid that Parson is unaware of and the Tool is to stupid to use properly. Finalyl, if you dislike Parson, Erfworld, and what people are saying, why do you read it and continue this conversation? Just asking.

A - We're supposed to be talking about military strategies. Take a look at everything else on the list. "Hope we get rescued" doesn't seem just a bit out of place next to "asymmetric warfare" and "siege tactics"? Yes it is *a* strategy, but so is "cross your fingers". Not exactly something I would expect to merit serious strategic consideration in any battle in any universe.

B - I've been undecided about erfworld. I mostly come here for OotS. This is the first Erfworld comic that to me has crossed the line from "could go either way" to "did a 14 year old write this?"

[Demented]

Though, Parson never wrote "asymmetric warfare" or "siege tactics" or "hope we get rescued" or even "cross your fingers". Whew. Talk about out of place: quotes!

[theStorminMormo]

Would you mind if I asked how your own strategy brainstorming notes would read in Parson's place, though?

That's a fair question. To be honest I didn't expect the creator of the comic to show up in the forum, and I'm tempted to go try to edit some of my more virulent critiques. I don't mean to offend you specifically - this comic was just a huge turn off for me that came as quite a blow because I'd held some hope that this could develop into another comic that would engross my interest.

My own brainstorming notes would reflect my education: I'm a systems engineer in the middle of completing my ME degree. And when I say "in the middle" I mean "tomorrow I present my groups final presentation on a HAZMAT security system to representatives of the TSA". So if you seriously want an answer to the question, I'll give you one, but I can guarantee it would not look much like that one.

While I have your ear, however, I have to ask. Is Parson supposed to be an overtly offensive satire of gamers? It's a real question for me. It seems to be the most pathetic story imaginable (and I mean pathetic in the original sense of the word: "hapless, deserving or inciting of pity"). It's a fat slob with no life who seems to only live to avoid life. He has, so far as we can tell, no genuine abilities, desires, or dreams for his own life. Then he's magically transported to a world where all of his useless talents are suddenly useful and the fate of a battle rests on his shoulders.

In other words: the comic itself seems to be a representation of the worst reason that gamers game. I consider myself a gamer, but it's honestly hard to game because of the fact that so many gamers use it the way a heroine addict shoots up. They have little to go for in life, and so they game. Gaming means so much to them that it's hard for a casual gamer to find a comfortable place at the table.

I'm not sure if the comics mimicry of this fantastic escapism is meant as a subtle but biting rebuke of gaming gone too far, or is purely accidental. Is Parson supposed to be a sympathetic or a pathetic character? There are plenty of balanced gamers who are fun to be around and enjoy other aspects of life, but Parson is clearly not one of them.

[theStorminMormo]

Though, Parson never wrote "asymmetric warfare" or "siege tactics" or "hope we get rescued" or even "cross your fingers". Whew. Talk about out of place: quotes!

Fair enough. I was going on memory.

[theStorminMormo]

Sorry Stormin Momo and Spec, I'm gonna have to disagree witih you on this. Stalingrad included a siege, guerilla warfare is an example of assyetric warfare and in the original short story, it was a single brillaint stroke that won the war for for Ender, when he was facing insurmountable odds.

I think asymetric warfare and Stalingrad have been covered. As far Ender's Game goes - your characterization is way off.

Spoiler

Show

1 - Ender had no idea that the battle was real. It was not a deliberate strategy. He did it only to end the game.

2 - Though Ender was brilliant in several other ways, this particular move was not an example of his genius. It was a moral decision to use the MD on a planet - not a strategic one.

Now am I saying we should shower Parson with praise for his amazing grasp of real world strategy and history. No. I'd say he air battles over Britain would probably be a better real world analogy for the type of siege he'd be seeing, but other than that, criticizing Parson because he's not the greatest arm chair general kind of strikes me as a little too much like Mr Pot commenting on the unbecoming hue of Senor Kettle.

No - the main difference is I know my own limitations. I don't know the first thing about leading an army. But I do know enough to spot someone who knows even less than me.

But my objection to the comic is more subtle than that. It's that Parson - the apparent protagonist - just became the perfect example of the worst stereotype of a gamer. If he'd had some actual real-world skill or knowledge that would be one thing - but to stick a character with the emotional and intellectual development of a 14-year old into the storyline seems like a calculated attack on gamers.

[theStorminMormo]

How would my mind read:...

Wow - *that* was actually pretty interesting.

[theStorminMormo]

I thought what he meant by the "Ender's Game Strategy" was Ender's winning tactic in his last game at Battle School. You know the one where he was up against Griffin and Tiger armies and won by ignoring the armies and sending a small group of soldiers to take the gate? The one it imples in the "Fools Mate" Section of the Klog?

I wish that was the case, but I don't think through the Giant's Eye could be characterized as a "single, brilliant stroke that wins the battle" There was no battle. Similar thing for the last battle. It wasn't so much a "single, brilliant stroke" as a subtle plan to play the rules and not the game. Would be really cool though.

I admit, I was just in a very bad mood by the time I got to that point after reading through the previous strategies. If I'd seen it in isolation, I may have tended to those areas, but after the reference to Stalingrad as a conventional siege and "call the cavalry" as a strategy, I was not disposed to be charitable.

Perhaps I was too hasty.

[Scientivore]

The forum rules are worth reading for anyone who hasn't because they're not all intuitively obvious.

[Erk]

I have to say, I think the detractors are reading this the wrong way. Despite the title being Strategery, this is not Parson's dissertation on war history and tactics for his doctoral thesis. It's his personal brainstorming notes for the coming battle. For him to jot down "Call the Cavalry" doesn't make him an idiot, it means he is taking note of things to remember to explore with Stanley.

Also, I do think part of the point is that gamers don't always know very much about the real history behind their games. Most D&D gamers have, at best, a hazy understanding of what the middle ages were like. Most wargamers have, at best, a hazy understanding of modern warfare and the politics behind, say, ww2. That's just the way it is... those who deny it are either deluded, or have had extremely good luck with the gaming groups they hang out with (at least in terms of their education level). Parson has no wikipedia or reference of any kind handy to look up the specifics of Stalingrad, but obviously he associates the name and what he remembers about the battle with the siege situation he is in. Besides that, he is writing for himself, not for pundits on another world ;) I imagine he would be getting cheers instead of complaints if he'd said Minas Tirith instead, but oh well.

I noticed right away that his points became a lot more solid when he started thinking in fictional terms. He seems to know a lot more about Ender's Game than about Stalingrad. I think that's very appropriate. And I do think his argument about a "single, brilliant stroke" was pretty clearly appropriately termed the "Ender's Game" strategy. For all that the theme of Ender's Game was complex, you can't deny that the book was not about a genius tactician defeating enormous odds in a single, brilliant stroke. Both the "Superweapon" and "Fool's Mate" strategies are clearly derived from Ender's Game. Hell, even "Hidden Weakness", given that the Buggers' homeworld and centralisation was their hidden weakness.

[BlueHelmet]

geez, 5 posts in a row. dude.

just some random thoughts:

- superweapon in WWII: well, just in case he meant the atom bombs, it's not that wrong. not that they had been neccessary - far from that - but they really sped up the process. japan surrendered in less than two weeks, as opposed to (possibly) several years of guerilla stuff ... just look at today's so-called wars ...

- "call the cavalry": did someone take that literally? c'mon ... please ... think ...

- hey, I like erfworld. it's funny.

[theStorminMormo]

I imagine he would be getting cheers instead of complaints if he'd said Minas Tirith instead, but oh well.

That, at least, would have been a siege.

I noticed right away that his points became a lot more solid when he started thinking in fictional terms. He seems to know a lot more about Ender's Game than about Stalingrad. I think that's very appropriate. And I do think his argument about a "single, brilliant stroke" was pretty clearly appropriately termed the "Ender's Game" strategy. For all that the theme of Ender's Game was complex, you can't deny that the book was not about a genius tactician defeating enormous odds in a single, brilliant stroke.

Yes, I can argue. Because that's not how it happened again. There was *nothing* about Ender's final decision that was brilliant. His performance in Battle School was. His leadership of the forces were. His leadership in that battle was brilliant. But his actual decision

Spoiler

Show

to use the MD device on a planet was nothing but the desperate act of a child trying to make a torturous game stop. Everyone always forgets a main point: Ender didn't even know the battle was real.

Both the "Superweapon" and "Fool's Mate" strategies are clearly derived from Ender's Game. Hell, even "Hidden Weakness", given that the Buggers' homeworld and centralisation was their hidden weakness.

Look, Ender's Game has a lot of original, groundbreaking stuff in it - but defeating the enemy by getting their leader is *not* one of them!

What really got to me was just the over all tone of the journal entry. It's not the ignorance, but the blissful ignorance of being ignorant that gets to me. It's clear all the military strategy this guy knows comes from a horrible recollection of WW2 and a rather sad reading of Ender's Game. I don't know how else to say it: Parson sounds like a total moron.

I'm not saying I'd fare better if transported to some crazy land of fantasy weirdness. But I think I'd have the presence of mind not to make asinine comments about Stalingrad or start acting as though Ender's Game was an actual handbook of strategy. And, for the record, I didn't need to google Stalingrad to know it was not a siege. It's known for dynamic, bloody, urban combat. E.g. for *not* being a siege.

In any case - it's my main issue no one is responding to. The fact that this whole comic reads as though the "games are for losers" crowd was trying to make the most vindictive depiction of gamer stereotypes imaginable.

I don't consider myself a troll. I'm here because I was undecided about the comic. I'm clearly moving in the "not for me direction". If it keeps up, I'm nog going to keep coming and bothering you guys - and certainly not the author of the comic. If you all like it then clearly he has an audience. Either the comic will turn around (in my eyes) or I'll move on and leave you guys to it. I'm writing this as a quasi-fan, not a troll.

[Green Bean]

Ender's Game and strategic nerdage? Even if Erfworld hadn't won me over like, twenty three comics ago, this would have done it anyways. (after all, my name is based on Ender's Game in a bizarre six degrees of separation kind of way)

[jmsl]

True; much of what Parson needs to know boils down to questions of how the rules of Erfworld either negate or enhance the effectiveness of certain types of military strategy. (For instance, I raised the question earlier of whether the "supply rules" mean that rations stop popping if they no longer control the city; if so, that pretty much makes "insurgency" a complete non-option.)

Judging from the little we know about supplies, Wanda got sushi (presumably a desired dish) and Jillian got, what, gruel or oatmeal? Whatever it was, it was possibly unappealing enough that Wanda decided to offer her food to Jillian. It's therefore possible that the supplies they get relate to their "status", so if the troops were forced to leave the city, they might get "field rations" popping up.

[GreatWyrm]

"Blow up Parson's boop. Good times."

Best line thus-far.

[Pepz]

gah I wish I hadn't read this thread before posting this, took away my joy in this comic by just arguing over how a book is supposed to be interpreted and a couple of the best armchair tacticians I've ever seen. You guys of course know loads more than anyone about this given subject, and (non sarcasticly) anyways more than me.

I actually liked this klog, reading it as someone making a list of his options to actually survive it. Just looking at the problems at every angle to see what the best way of attack is :) which is a good way to think. And since I don't assume he intends to let everybody read this when he finishes it, I don't quite see why he gives all the examples, since he knows exactly what he's said anyways.

O yeah, and I loved the first panel! :)

[InfernalistGame]

Okay, time to weigh in. TheStorminMormo, please observe.

#1: I, again, AM Parson booping Gotti for all intents and purposes, see rants before. Fat, slovenly, lonely antisocial gamers exist, I'm one of them, and comfortable with it. And personally, i LOVE pclips for giving me a hero I can finally booping relate to. Argue book references and strategy if you want, but lay off the man for making a character that's actually not a commercially-whitewashed 'geek for tv'. If you want more observations, observe www.myspace.com/infernalistgamer.

#2: Ender's Game gambit: Ender accidentally won the war. And yes, it was by trying to end a tactical WAR GAME. What is he standing in? A war game. Stop chewing the scenery and see the forest for the trees, if you want to complain that that's the obvious difference, see that it's the most obvious similarity. Otherwise, the fact that every time Ender was put in a situation, and desparate, he came up with something amazing. That's what Parson means, and as someone who also read the books, it's not bad for inspiration. Wouldn't count on it, but hell, it's a game. Plot twists and FMVs happen. At least he's accounting for the possibility.

#3: It's a brainstorming page in a klog, not the final strategy handed to the officers and the Tool. Give the guy a break. At least he's committing something to paper(?) rather than just flying by the seat of his pants, like I do when -I- DM.

#4: Parson's a wargamer, not a general. I learned enough psychiatry playing White Wolf and talking to a shrink to help my ex-wife shake severe alcoholism. Maybe Parson's played enough wargames and read enough Sun Tzu to make due too. He's clearly got talent, and a grasp of the stakes. It's up for us to see what he does from there though, especially hobbled by Stanley's ego and greed.

[Om]

And, for the record, I didn't need to google Stalingrad to know it was not a siege. It's known for dynamic, bloody, urban combat. E.g. for *not* being a siege.

Regardless it is commonly called, even in military histories, the siege of Stalingrad. Probably to tie it in with almost concurrent sieges at Sevastopol and Leningrad. Certainly the German situation following the Soviet counterattack could be regarded as a siege.

Would you mind if I asked how your own strategy brainstorming notes would read in Parson's place, though?

It wasn't directed at me but meh.

Stalingrad an example is out - assuming that there are no reinforcements en route. As a rule Stalingrad represents the "desperate stalling" strategy whereby you pick a spot and defend it to the death in an effort to wear the enemy down until reinforcements arrive.

That doesn't mean that the idea of holing up inside the city isn't sound. If the defences are strong enough then its hunger that is likely to be the greatest foe - not an issue when commanding the undead. A siege would also put Ansom's alliance under considerable strain. The "one road in" would also make logistics a nightmare for the besiegers. Losses due to disease alone would be brutal.

The asymmetrical warfare idea is also flawed, no matter how good it sounds. This essentially relies on the support of the native population and the reluctance of the occupiers to eliminate the latter... an issue when the bulk of your soldiers are undead. There's also the fact that it doesn't translate well into a "lost this keep and its game over" world. Parson would consider it but I'm sure he can see the disadvantages (ie losing the battle and his head)

Edit: It just struck me, Parson is the War Nerd!