'spoitable mechanic...

[Sky_Schemer]

So what, exactly, have we learned now that a big piece of Parson's plan has been revealed? Specifically, what Erfworld mechanics has he exploited?

We know that he's disguising victories as losses, but what exactly makes this work? Does the Erf system mandate that the attackers "lose" if they leave the engagement? Or are the stacks being hit misunderstanding and merely reporting a victory because they can't differentiate between retreat and voluntarily breaking off the engagement? Vinny suggests it's the former.

Would this be different if a warlord were present in the defending stack?

It's all speculation at this point, of course, but hey, we're here to speculate!

[SteveMB]

So what, exactly, have we learned now that a big piece of Parson's plan has been revealed? Specifically, what Erfworld mechanics has he exploited?

He's exploited the timing of unit movement and healing. As long as he can have the dwagons swoop in, destroy Ansom's key units (the siege engines and heavies), and retreat to a protected position, he'll inflict losses without taking any himself -- he just needs to pull dwagons away from the battle zone before they take enough damage to be in danger of getting croaked.

The limits on which units can attack flyers in certain terrain and the fact that Ansom is working in the "fog of war" enables him to arrange that "protected position" near the enemy column by positioning the slower dwagons in six-hex rings around a base hex.

[Spacepup18]

Anyone who has played Ogre Battle 64 knows exactly what is going on. In that game, each unit consisted of a certain number of characters, each with 2-3 attacks, and a certain speed. Those with a higher speed would act before those with a lower speed.

So what I'm thinking is happening is that the dwagons are having their first 'round' of attacks, and then retreating before the stack can fight back.

Or perhaps they are simply staying engaged until the enemy stack is almost destroyed, and then retreating. Retreating is generally considered loosing in most game mechanics, reguardless of casualties or points.

[Ganurath]

I'm reminded of the first mission in Halo 2.

"Malta, what's your status?"
"I don't believe it! They're retreating! We've won!"
BOOM.

As for what mechanics are being exploited, the tenses used by Ansom caught my attention: engagements. Plural. This isn't happening after the hit we saw, that was an example of what Parson has been doing all day. He's not just exploiting their blindness, he's exploiting their inefficient communication system to keep using an effective strategy repeatedly without fear of the enemy adapting.

[Sky_Schemer]

He's exploited the timing of unit movement and healing. As long as he can have the dwagons swoop in, destroy Ansom's key units (the siege engines and heavies), and retreat to a protected position, he'll inflict losses without taking any himself -- he just needs to pull dwagons away from the battle zone before they take enough damage to be in danger of getting croaked.

I think he's also exploiting another movement mechanic: his plan suggests that riding a dwagon does not consume any, or at least any significant, move from the warlords. Hence they can shift between dwagons for the entire turn, and every stack that goes out can have them. He's effectively multiplied his warlords.

[the_tick_rules]

he'll come up with more ideas. His best advantage is he hasn't lived under erfworld rules so to him they're the same as D&D is to us. He can find the loopholes and gray areas. He's like our attorneys lol.

[Jefepato]

We know that he's disguising victories as losses, but what exactly makes this work? Does the Erf system mandate that the attackers "lose" if they leave the engagement? Or are the stacks being hit misunderstanding and merely reporting a victory because they can't differentiate between retreat and voluntarily breaking off the engagement? Vinny suggests it's the former.

I think you're correct. If the attackers retreat, it's officially recorded as a loss for them.

Vinny's tone suggests that nobody on Erfworld has ever quite realized, until just now, that a "win" doesn't mean anything if you lost units (especially crucial units) and didn't croak any of the attackers in return. Someone who lives the rules wouldn't think of that, but a gamer like Parson will of course exploit it to death.

[PlasticSoldier]

I think you're correct. If the attackers retreat, it's officially recorded as a loss for them.

Vinny's tone suggests that nobody on Erfworld has ever quite realized, until just now, that a "win" doesn't mean anything if you lost units (especially crucial units) and didn't croak any of the attackers in return. Someone who lives the rules wouldn't think of that, but a gamer like Parson will of course exploit it to death.

Fortunately in the real world we learned about all that from Pyrrhus.

[Ganurath]

I think you're correct. If the attackers retreat, it's officially recorded as a loss for them.

Vinny's tone suggests that nobody on Erfworld has ever quite realized, until just now, that a "win" doesn't mean anything if you lost units (especially crucial units) and didn't croak any of the attackers in return. Someone who lives the rules wouldn't think of that, but a gamer like Parson will of course exploit it to death.

Judging by the general reaction to the fact that Stanlie is apparently the first Overlord to rise to power by the merit of his abilities rather than by being of 'noble' birth, I doubt the people of Erfworld are used to paradigm shifts of any variety. The fact that out of all the Coalition leaders, only one of them could even consider something was amiss shows how heavily the people of Erfworld depend on the status quo. As Parson said, Erfworld's warfare is polite and... precious. Odds are most of them don't know how to think outside the he- er, box.

[Sky_Schemer]

The fact that out of all the Coalition leaders, only one of them could even consider something was amiss shows how heavily the people of Erfworld depend on the status quo. As Parson said, Erfworld's warfare is polite and... precious. Odds are most of them don't know how to think outside the he- er, box.

Ooohhh I like this thought. I think you're dead-on here: the people of Erfworld have never known anything other than the rules that govern their wars. Everything is about statistics: unit stats, wins, losses, production, etc. Even their battle histories listed what Parson interpreted as "high scores". Now there's a warlord who isn't limited by that paradigm: he's thinking outcomes in effective terms, not in tallies of wins and losses.

Some people have suggested that Stanley will blow a gasket when he sees all those losses, and I agree. Despite how he came to power, he's still a part of the numbers game. Parson and Wanda will get through to him, of course, but it still underscores the fact that Erfworld is not at all prepared for someone like Parson. To him, the rules govern the mechanics of the war, but not the direction.

In effect, that's the biggest exploit of them all. Vinny is beginning to figure this out. The question is, will he be able to make a difference before Ansom's losses spiral out of control?

[kreszantas]

and what makes this even more of a slap to Ansom's face is that he gets no kill based xp from his wins, so the units that remain dont get jack, HoMM is classic for that, I would run in a level 1 or 2 warlord with just a single stacked speed unit into enemy territory, all they would do is use up their spell power on the most dangerous unit in the stack and if they beat the opposing higher powered warlord great I got XP but that was not the intent, in reality it was a setup manuevour for something greater in a couple turns. This is Parson's mind set who cares about the XP as long as I eliminate the really bad stuff on the other side.

[Aquillion]

In effect, that's the biggest exploit of them all. Vinny is beginning to figure this out. The question is, will he be able to make a difference before Ansom's losses spiral out of control?

Don't forget: No lookamancers also means no magic communication (aside from the hat). That limits Ansom's ability to respond even after this turn, despite his increasing knowledge of what's going on.

[SteveMB]

Don't forget: No lookamancers also means no magic communication (aside from the hat).

Magic communication is apparently a function of Thinkamancers. However, if Ansom is stuck paying Charlie's "nominal" fee to send a reply to Sir Webinar's message, he presumably doesn't have any Thinkamancers, either.

[Krellen]

Magic communication is apparently a function of Thinkamancers. However, if Ansom is stuck paying Charlie's "nominal" fee to send a reply to Sir Webinar's message, he presumably doesn't have any Thinkamancers, either.

I would assume a lack of Lookamancers implies a lack in Eyemancers in general - thus no Think-, Look- or Foolamancy for him.

[Freederick]

Parson's tactic resembles the use of castles in medieval warfare. The basic idea is, if your territory has a lot of castles, the enemy cannot simply blitz his way to a decisive confrontation; he has to stop and reduce all castles along his line of march, because if he just ignores them, the garrisons could sortie from the castle, hit his forces in much the same way as Parson's forces hit Ansom's, then retreat back behind walls.

The beauty of Parson's plan, in this context, is that he essentially conjured a castle on the spot (the all-but-unassailable platter formation in forested terrain), and then used it in that manner. Considering the fact that he can move the "castle" all over the board whenever his turn comes, there is very little Ansom can do, other than grit his teeth, accept the losses, and press the assault on GK ASAP. There is a consolation prize for Ansom, though: at least he doesn't have to worry about supply lines being cut, since supplies just pop.

[gatitcz]

First post. Don't kill me if I'm completely off :)

I thought that the exploitable mechanic was that cities produced units. Parson didn't know about fog of war when he dreamed up his new plan (he thought everyone had an eyemancer setup). But he had just found out that if he destroyed Ansom's siege engines, Ansom couldn't simply make new ones while he besieged the Stanley. My take.

[jindra34]

First post. Don't kill me if I'm completely off :)

I thought that the exploitable mechanic was that cities produced units. Parson didn't know about fog of war when he dreamed up his new plan (he thought everyone had an eyemancer setup). But he had just found out that if he destroyed Ansom's siege engines, Ansom couldn't simply make new ones while he besieged the Stanley. My take.

He has known that for a while... its the dwagon platter + warlords deal that is the exploitable mechanic...

[Waldgeist]

There is a consolation prize for Ansom, though: at least he doesn't have to worry about supply lines being cut, since supplies just pop.

But if Parson can manage to hold GK while reducing Ansoms forces as they try again and again to conquer it and meanwhile keep reinforcements away by his guerilla tactic, Ansom is pretty booped. No matter whether he gets food and amunition at the beginning of each turn or not....

[gatitcz]

He has known that for a while... its the dwagon platter + warlords deal that is the exploitable mechanic...

Comic 48

Comic 49

In 48, he first mentions that units are produced by cities.

In 49, he says the words, "'spoitable mechanic."

Then he goes down to the lookamancer with the plan to target siege engines.

[Demented]

Since the game counts it as losses, it's pretty clear that you were never intended to target specific units for hit & run attacks... So it is indeed a "mechanic" he is "exploiting".

Though, it doesn't seem right allowing the player to target specific units and then not giving the player the option of hit & run attacks. If you've got to kill all of them, what does it matter which you kill first?

[gatitcz]

I don't know that allowing stacks with warlords to selectively engage is just about targeting. You've got the logic thing with fliers - warlords can decide to risk themselves or decide to stay out of range. Also, gving the option to engage is not necessarily just about hit and run. It could be a way to avoid drawing other non-allied overlords into a war (that auto-attack could cause problems down the line). But I don't know that the game rules discourage hit and run tactics either - it's just that Parson's tactic is on a different scale because of his units' capabilities.

[Orzel]

It's the basic turtle strategy with archer(or in this case flyer) annoyance. The base range exploit.
Shoot, Retreat, Shoot, Retreat, Shoot, Retreat, Shoot, Retreat, Ambush survivors

Build up your base defense
Build up units that most enemy units can't attack
Destroy attacking enemy units that damage base defense with the above units
Destroy other enemy units with base defenses

Many games have an equivalent.

CCGs have high strength chump blockers that can't die in battle.
RTSs have turrets and planes (or towers and dragons).
TBSs have retreating chump warlords with high damage, fast, ranged, units.
FPSs have close ranged snipers

Parson is pretty much abusing the targeting mechanic. By attacking noncommanded stacks with commanded ones, he can pick and choose to attack seige units instead of the default target. The emeny must attack the default target which few of them can attack at all. Since Ansom's flyiers stink compared to Stanley's and Parson donesn't keep dwagons in fights long enough for Stanley's archery and forest units to kill them, Parson can have his warlords destroy any unit he wants without taking unit losses. He just takes a load of battle losses.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Comic 48

Comic 49

In 48, he first mentions that units are produced by cities.

In 49, he says the words, "'spoitable mechanic."

Then he goes down to the lookamancer with the plan to target siege engines.

That doesn't necessarily mean those two things are the same. It's not as if he hears that units pop in cities and then suddenly says "Spoitable mechanic!" He has to have that dream first. There's lots he's learned in the previous day about the mechanics of Erfworld, just because the last thing we see him talking about is the units popping doesn't mean that's the exploitable mechanic.

[Demented]

CCGs have high strength chump blockers that can't die in battle.
RTSs have turrets and planes (or towers and dragons).
TBSs have retreating chump warlords with high damage, fast, ranged, units.
FPSs have close ranged snipers

CCG? Wuzzat be?

[Surfing HalfOrc]

CCG? Wuzzat be?

Collectable Card Games

Magic: The Gathering
Pokemon
Etc...

[jindra34]

Collectable Card Games

Magic: The Gathering
Pokemon
Etc...

Originally it actually meant customizable card games...

[Pyrian]

Originally it actually meant customizable card games...

No, "customizable card game" post-dates "collectible card game". As far as I know Decipher is the only company that ever used "customizable" commercially, and then only for two products.

[jindra34]

No, "customizable card game" post-dates "collectible card game". As far as I know Decipher is the only company that ever used "customizable" commercially, and then only for two products.

Original Star Wars 1994 i believe used that term. as far as i know collectible started with pokemon.

[Pyrian]

Original Star Wars 1994 i believe used that term.

That, Star Trek, and nothing else.

as far as i know collectible started with pokemon.

Seriously, does Magic: The Gathering not ring a bell or something? Without Richard Garfield's creation blowing the lid off the market, there wouldn't have been a Decipher Star Wars CCG or even Pokemon.

Anyway, apparently "Collectible Card Game" actually dates back to 1904... That's right, over a century ago.

[gatitcz]

That doesn't necessarily mean those two things are the same. It's not as if he hears that units pop in cities and then suddenly says "Spoitable mechanic!" He has to have that dream first. There's lots he's learned in the previous day about the mechanics of Erfworld, just because the last thing we see him talking about is the units popping doesn't mean that's the exploitable mechanic.

True enough. Just mentioning the possibility.